Search results

Yes, I don't understand how this disagrees with "the form of Judaism Jesus addresses in Rev 2:9, 3:9, is what Jesus calls 'satan', together with all religion that is outside the Gospel"--how you began by disagreeing with what I'd written. I have to go to dialysis now and I don't have my phone...

Jesus indicted the form of "Judaism" they practiced--the "Judaism" He is addressing in Revelation 2:9, 3:9--as false. If it is false "Judaism", then it is a lie. Is a lie, breaking God's commands, of God, or is it of satan? Matthew 15 Then some Pharisees and scribes *came to Jesus from...

To prevent us from going off the tracks, hyped with the base instinct of hatred, having, ostensibly, been given a green light for it, a clear target and outlet, we should notice that Jesus DOES NOT only identify the Judaism of that synagogue (Rv 2:9, 3:9) as "satan" (Dt 32:21 "they chose another...

Oddly, he asserts only those (Jew and Gentile) who believed "Peter's Gospel" enter the "remnant of Israel Church", and, again, to him, this "remnant of Israel Church" is, ostensibly, not one and the same as "the body of Christ Church", which is entered by hearing and believing "Paul's Gospel"...

This has already happened countless times, but it has always led to a dead end; I no longer concern myself with it, I leave it up to God.

You've decided, in my view, not to address the argument--that is fine. I accept that. Have a good day.

You have something to offer, for sure, but it is obscured in ignorance. You don't know your way around Scripture, and I only follow Scripture, which you dishonor by denying the Word. It's fine, you are helpful, just not to me, because I only follow Scripture, with which you are still...

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.