Search results

As noted, the subject is irrelevant. Please try to keep on track--you are very pumped, energized, ready to boast, clashing your cymbal, about your Church, but WHAT EVER Church, the point is it isn't Mary that is the New Eve. Stay on track, please.

You haven't begun to study--do not offer me any counsel.

Convenient. I detect inconsistency between what I perceive the Bible teaches and what you teach : You say : "the remnant of Israel Church" is entered by Jews and Gentiles when they hear "Peter's Gospel", which differs from "Paul's Gospel of Grace" whereby people enter "the body of Christ...

LOL! Nope, Peter and Paul preached the same Gospel, thus Paul was able to call Peter out for not walking according to THE (one) truth of THE (one) Gospel--they both agreed about the same regulations they were held to walk according to, thus Peter was able to humbly receive the correction Paul...

Why did Paul teach the remnant of Israel was being preserved by the Gospel of Grace, which you correctly identify Paul as teaching, whereas you claim people don't enter the remnant of Israel through the Gospel of Grace?

Nope, heirs with Christ.

Yeah, but if there really is a "remnant of Israel Church", and it is not entered into through Paul's Gospel of Grace (rather, those who believe "Paul's Gospel of Grace" enter into the "body of Christ Church", not "remnant of Israel Church"), why does Paul say "even so, today, God is preserving a...

Demonstrate how I have erred in either my premises or conclusions--raising unrelated verses or opinions isn't substantively falsifying either my premises or conclusions. Break the argument--face it head on. Show how my conclusion does not, of necessity, follow from the premises, or how the...

Show that my argument is false. Show how what I said does not follow from the evidence. Sharing your views does not disprove my views--attack my arguments directly, showing how they are inconsistent with Scripture, and how, ultimately, the argument is incoherent.

That would be an entirely different issue--it has no bearing on my argument, the topic of this thread.

Be back later!

Well, as I said, Paul does not in any way argue anything akin to what you've been concluding; my point was merely that there is a difference between explicit and implicit which you are either not appreciating or not showing appreciation for.

You have addressed the tiny portion of the argument that you felt comfortable with addressing, but, no, you haven't addressed the argument in total, from start to finish.

Yeah, you haven't addressed the argument, and you're not going to, because you know you have no answer. Your position is completely indefensible. I have to do some good deeds now--it's how God saves me (at least we can agree on that point). LOL! Me doing good IS God justifying me (Judges 7:2+...

LOL I don't think you know what the word "explicit" means--here, you would have be arguing that Paul "implicitly" (not "explicitly") identifies Mary as the New Eve (of course, he doesn't argue that at all). Just imagine if Paul had compared Mary to the Church in 2 Co 11:3--it would be an...

Let me show you an example of what I am looking for : "This is false because x, y and z." "This is false because x, y and z." "This is false because x, y and z." "This is false, because x, y and z."

Quote my argument, then, step by step, show how it is wrong.

No, it doesn't matter, because the argument is that the Church would be the only valid candidate for being New Eve--if you wanted to argue, after that is established, what the definition of "the Church" is, that would be another argument altogether.

You can deal with my entire argument when you please--quote the argument, then address what is being said.

At this point, I don't know it would matter which Church, just that it is the Church--ie, the Church Christ said He would build, and which the gates of hell would not prevail against.