Search results

There are so many death knells to his folly.

Being forgiven of your sins (as Peter says) is one and the same with being justified (as Paul says), because Paul defines "the righteousness of faith" (that results in justification) as BEING FORGIVEN (Ro 4:6-8). Romans 4 5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the...

For thousands of years, men have devoted their entire lives to studying Scripture, attempting to answer its difficult questions, differing with others on its meaning and debating one another on its meaning, but you say "it's simple"! I'm not interested in speaking with a person who is so foolish...

I don't even understand how it could be hyper-Pauline to deny what Paul writes--mocking the idea that a man's wife is his own body, because they two become one flesh... anyway!

You can "say" what you like, and I will "say" what I like--the dogma of IC relies in part upon her having been as Eve, thus she was to have been sinless, just as Eve, yet she obeyed instead of disobeying--nice discussing with you.

Right, but if the Bible were simple, you ought not to have been confused at all--that's the point. Anyway, I'm not going to argue with a woman, because you are the weaker vessels (mentally), so you will never admit the truth of your folly (claiming the Bible is simple).

No, it was not a "tradition"--Jesus had taught His disciples very well not to fear the traditions of the elders, describing them as "vain worship", "doctrines of men", whereby they broke God's Law, so Peter would not, now, say "The traditions of the elders say it is unlawful for Jews to eat with...

@Doug Are you a "Black Hebrew Israelite"?

Think of what you are saying : Jesus says "Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it", speaking of Peter, making Peter a member of the Church, yet you want to define Peter as a member of the bride, because he is of the remnant of Israel, but...

OK 1. My recent response to Doug, which you responded to, was about my disagreement with him on his view that Peter and Paul preached different Gospels, and that the result was Peter's audience became "the remnant of Israel", whereas Paul's audience became "the body of Christ"--I hold that all...

Are you saying you agree with Doug?

That's not what you said here... ...but, yeah, sure, what ever you say. Yeah, other people had to rack their brains, and pray about it, and then you thanked them. It was easy for you, because all you did was receive the resolution to your confusion about a concept that you claimed was "simple"...

I was discussing Doug's claim that Peter preached one Gospel, but Paul another Gospel. I don't accept that claim.

Yet you admitted you were puzzled by the verse from Romans, which I helped clear up. You're inconsistent.

The Vatican website, in Pope Pius IX's Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus, discusses the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, highlighting that Mary was preserved free from original sin. Ineffabilis Deus describes Mary as being "preserved free from all stain of original sin" from the moment...

Yeah, to me, the Bible is already complicated enough, impossible, so, I try not to add to it or remove from it.

By "too much" I mean definitively stating "Mary is a type". I do not position myself that way. You may feel comfortable with making such pronouncements, but I am not. It is not, on the other hand, "too much" for the Apostle to refer to the Law as containing types and shadows, nor for me to...

LOL

No, "in the context", he's just being "hyperbolic"!

Anything beyond "yes, yes", or "no, no" is of the evil one--a vow that you will do this or that, that, by your word, it is a certainty, as sure as the Sun will rise in the morning, that the thing will occur, falls under "beyond 'yes, yes' or 'no, no'". When people ask, "Well, do you disagree...