Search results

Yeah, if a Gentile JOINS Israel, the Torah says "there shall be one Law for the native born and the sojourner", so there wouldn't be an issue with Peter going to one of THEIR homes, but Cornelius WASN'T one of them, which was exactly why the Jews who went with Peter were ASTONISHED that...

Not at all. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God, and there is only one faith, so there is only one message to put faith in. The "not at all" belongs to your unsubstantiable claim about there being more than one Gospel. You have many challenges to overcome to prove your claim, and you have...

Meaning, how ever you want to view it is how you are going to view it--anyone who wants to discuss how it affects the claim to infallibility can discuss it with me.

This passage goes into detail on how Abraham is father of many nations (Gentiles). Romans 4: 9Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 10How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or...

Either way--how ever it does or does not affect "Catholicism"--the entire idea of Mary as New Eve is an error.

Nope, she is stubbornly refusing to admit a very basic truth, which is unadulterated dishonesty, which demonstrates her commitment to dodging truth in all cases, so I'm not going to argue with a donkey.

When Peter says Christ was raised to sit on David's throne, he's just talking about how Jesus is the Messiah LOL not differing with Paul. Both Paul and Peter identify Christ is the Messiah--and that's good, since Apostle John says if you deny that fact you are antichrist. Both Paul and Peter...

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.