Search results

You mean to say you don’t know the pre-incarnate Jesus is the God of the OT? That the Second Person in the Godhead was not at Sinai, at Manoah’s house, in Genesis 1:1?

Try reading the passage with your eyes open: “…crucify the Son of God afresh…”

Wrong - the only laws that pertained only to Israel we’re the Mosaic laws of ceremonies and sacrifices which pointed to Jesus. It was, is, and always will be wrong to break the Ten Commandments - they existed long before Israel. Salvation has always been based upon whether we accept Jesus in...

How do you feel about PAUL mentioning it? He does so in Hebrews 6:4-6 KJV.

Have you seen the divorce rate in the church?

I see you can’t point to anything wrong with the line of reasoning that proves my conclusion - you just can’t accept the conclusion, which is fine. My job is not to convince OSAS believers of their error - just to present the evidence and pray the Holy Spirit is allowed entrance into a OSAS...

Don’t our works show whether we know Jesus or not? Look, without first accepting Jesus, it’s IMPOSSIBLE to perform good works (Romans 8:7 KJV) so the reward of eternal life must be dependent on whether we accept Him or not.

He needs Christ and when he finds Him, he’ll limit his criticism to (hopefully) only false doctrine.

Don't come in here and unjustly criticize the good job of our moderators. CB mods are nothing like the control freak satan worshippers over at FB.

No. Disobedience ain't the reason any will be lost. Our choice to withhold/revoke surrender of our hearts to God is why people are lost. Disobedience is merely the outward evidence of that inward, shameful spiritual choice, just as obedience is merely the outward evidence of our inward choice to...

There's no comparison to Christianity Board and Facebook. None. CB allows the free exchange of ideas, however objectionable, and does not kowtow to crybabies who don't like their opinions challenged (and overthrown, which is why they whine) -- in contrast to FB which censors indiscriminately...

Please point to the first place where the following statements cease to line up with Scripture, OK? I'm not talking about hair-spitting, I'm talking about substantive objections: 1. The "agape" of God is demonstrated by happily keeping His commandments (1 John 5:3 KJV). 2. The Wicked can't...

You continue to stubbornly insist the wicked can partake of God's "agape" love --- though I've instructed you time and time again as to why that's not possible: the Bible says the Saints demonstrate "agape" by happily keeping God's commandments (1 John 5:3 KJV) the Wicked can't keep God's...

That doesn't make sense. The "many" of Matthew 24:12 KJV who are going to hell once possessed "agape", which only the saints can possess, right or wrong?

Yes, but not all repent...and many sit in church thinking they're in a "relaaaaaaaationship" with Jesus when in reality, their true affections are toward the devil. "Ye shall know them by their fruits".

Jesus is the "I AM" of the OT - it was Jesus Who told Moses He was to be called "I AM THAT I AM".

Wrong. Romans 4:11 KJV might help.

It's got nothing to do with "convenience" and everything to do with "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little." I incorporate all those texts which speak of a coming period of total emptiness on this planet, while you stubbornly ignore them. You mean the 1,000 years...

Any text without the context is a pretext, and your post is one entire pretext, friend: Paul's use of "I am" in Acts 26:29 was contextually a reference to "example". He desired all Christians to follow his example of how mortal man ought worship his Creator. However... Jesus' use of "I AM"...

So, you agree that the saved can be lost, as evidenced by these "many" saints who once had fire-hot agape, but allowed iniquity to turn it within them cold and dead?