Search results

I don't claim to understand their walk--I'm too concerned about my own realities, and haven't looked into it, and admit it is puzzling to me--but it is good to see we're reading the words similarly, as just what they are, as just the plain on-its-face reality.

Though things have improved, since I've been working at it for a long time, I find it nearly impossible to keep things on topic in my threads for extended periods of time. People just itch to derail the conversation, scrawl their irrelevant religious graffiti on my threads.

So I guess we were already in agreement, and I misunderstood your position. I also see it as a shift in the standing of the men of the past (together with those of the present partakers of the New Covenant) from merely just to perfect.

Nice interacting.

Especially because it was their spirits that were "made perfect"... not their number... plus, their number wasn't "completed" by the addition of the believers back then, because many tens of millions would come later (including believers today). Anyway, thanks for giving the observation an ear.

And you wouldn't suspect that the word "perfected" refers to the way it is used elsewhere in Hebrews--ie, they were just, but were only perfected by the blood of the New Covenant, the blood of the Lamb, which had, back then (when Hebrews had been written), "just now" ("without us") been shed?

It's obvious that it is right that you say Christians can be carnal or spiritual (Paul talks about that in 1 Corinthians), and I am not in a position to "correct" others, but I wouldn't want to leave you saying slightly inaccurate (not necessarily destructive) things (if they really are...

Something that is a bit troubling, in the sense that it indicates a requirement of even more carefulness in interpreting 1 John, is that John seems to be writing some of those things specifically against Gnosticism, so when you try to apply them in any and every context, the statements don't...

The early church refuted OSAS for hundreds of years where it was only taught among gnostics. Why didn't anyone in the early church recognize OSAS if that was what Scripture and the Apostles taught?

If I believed in something that the early church spent hundreds of years refuting, like the Gnostic heresy of OSAS, I would not be incurious--I'd look at Scripture to figure out why the Church fought it, and see if they were right, and change my beliefs to fit with Scripture if it turned out...

When you mentioned women needing circumcision, because I was suspecting that bro.tan (who says Christians must follow the Torah and be physically circumcised) was African, and because it sounded like you were siding with him in that conversation I was involved in with him, it immediately brought...

I guess it hurts that you are being denied your desire to be above someone by correcting them. You were either incapable of understanding, or else could have but did not understand , or else did understand but pretended not to understand the context of the conversation you involved yourself in...

You chose to ignore the context of the conversation to find fault where there was no fault. Take your own advice.

Not that just anything the early church did or did not practice (especially later accretions--eg, Orthodoxy's icon veneration is brought into practice within the first few hundred years) is automatically the gold standard; but, when you add these facts to the innumerable Scriptural refutations...

According to this documentary, OSAS originated with the Gnostics, was constantly being refuted by the early church, and was unknown in the Church until the 5th century when Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, a former Gnostic, brought it into the church. 00:01:36 "Believers in OSAS invariably take the...

Well, the documentary does cover Scriptural arguments against OSAS, but it also speaks of the beliefs of the early church--how it was not until the 5th century that anyone believed in OSAS, and the guy who brought it into the Church was Augustine, who used to be a Gnostic, and the Gnostics...

00:01:36 "Believers in OSAS invariably take the high ground historically as though they're defending the historic faith. This is incredibly dishonest. That's because before Augustine's novel teachings in the early 5th century, absolutely no one in the early church believed in once saved always...

So what? Peter kept thinking only Jews could be saved, and sticking to the dietary law, not understanding the New Covenant, until God gave him that vision, and he ate with Gentiles, for which thing the Jewish Christians found fault with him. He didn't defend himself, saying, "No, guys, I kept...

John 15 1“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He [a]prunes it so that it may bear more fruit. 3You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4Remain in Me...

(I know this isn't the topic, it is tangential.) I think this was because Peter always boasted of his great love for God (in contrast to how John always had himself as being loved by God, not having the focal point be his love for God), and, now, after having denied the Lord those three times...