Search results

Off-topic. That's not the question. The question is whether homosexuality is an affront to God, a sin, thus whether the two are compatible and whether a Christian should be permitted to continue walking in it or be told to repent. Not really the question. Oops! That's before faith in Christ...

I've had one Jesuit start trying to argue that I'm "overplaying" the "wife" dynamic of Eve--that before they fell God never intended them to have sex--when that was the very reason for which she was made (for them to multiply). LOL! Really! He knew the implications of the Biblical doctrine of...

Beyond that, it appears the Scripture actually supports the Church as "New Eve"--the result being the falsification of the Roman Catholic "infallibility" doctrine.

Their Catechism teaches Mary is the New Eve. Two examples : 511 The Virgin Mary "cooperated through free faith and obedience in human salvation" (LG 56). She uttered her yes "in the name of all human nature" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Sth III, 30, 1). By her obedience she became the new Eve, mother...

bump for @theefaith

Also, the Roman Catholics try to claim Mary is "Spouse of the Spirit". Sorry, if she were the "New Eve" that would make the Spirit the "New Adam". Oops! That position's already taken! That's Christ! lol

Jesus is the fulfillment of the "Adam" type (as taught in Romans 5 and elsewhere), so the New Eve must be the Church which is "Christ's body" and "Christ's Bride", just as Eve was Adam's body and bride. Not coincidentally, 2 Corinthians 11:3 explicitly teaches the Church corresponds to Eve. Ipso...

No, I want to reason, not just be told "I'm right".

You're* Sorry that's begging the question. Fair point. I'm not "Bible alone" but "Scripture is Supreme".

You're not here to "discuss" anything, you're here to emptily and baselessly pontificate, so stop pretending you have anything to reason about regarding the OP. Go away.

There's a reason Paul had so much more understanding than his teachers. Psalms 119:99 I have more understanding than all my teachers, for your testimonies are my meditation. Scripture! Again, your response without having first read is your folly and shame Proverbs 18:13.

1. Oops! It looks like you responded before reading. Proverbs 18:13. 2. "Scripture" referred to in 2 Timothy 3 was determined by Ezra and the men of the Great Assembly--it had nothing to do with "the church" (any church--let alone Rome). 3. As stated in the OP you seemed not to have read, I...

1. This is a discussion forum for discussing the Bible and you are finding fault with studying to understand Scripture. All right, I'm not sure what you want me to say. I really want to understand what's being said, but you apparently couldn't be bothered--you are free to leave the conversation...

Please clarify how this is a response to the OP. Are you saying Paul did not mean to condemn homosexuality in the passage mentioned?

Please clarify how this is a response to the OP. Are you agreeing or disagreeing or what?

Paul's "tradition" would not, I don't think, have been understood as we understand "tradition" (ie, in the phrase "steeped in tradition"); my point was precisely that--that we cannot afford to casually or haphazardly define the term, and that we find contexts in Scripture for substantively...

I hope the OP was enriching.

All of these things are easy to say (as anything may be merely emptily asserted); I hope I have provided reasonable and Scriptural bases for rejecting baseless (ie, not Scriptural) "tradition".

(Posted in debate as well.) I have doubts about the definition (redefinition) of what Paul termed "tradition" as put forth by these groups. Premises : 1. Scripture was paramount to Paul's doctrine, and it should be to ours as well. To which authorities did Paul appeal when establishing...

1 Corinthians 5 says a man in the church has his father's wife (water intimate with her) and the Corinthian Church was boasting (itself a sin) about his sin.