Search results

1. Again, He called them "sick"--in our case, you'd be calling Jesus "sick" for recognizing sodomy as a "sickness". 2. I already explained why: Lk 15 shows His practice is to call sinners to repentance, and, after they recognize their moral errors, and return home to God, Christ rejoices over...

Yeah, but I'm arguing it was also a "mistake" in the previous case! :jest:

You're arguing that Sodomites are not "sick" at all, aren't you!? Do you not see the difference? Christ said they were in need of repentance, they were "sick", and the "sinners" He ate with had already recognized their "sickness", and were returning home to God, according to the parable of...

In Lk 15, Jesus justifies partying with those labeled "sinners" by the Pharisees by explaining they had realized their errors, and returned home (they had repented), and He wasn't justifying their sin, but celebrating their repentance, whereas the SAME Jesus rules that the one who says he is a...

Yup, I'm sinning when I believe God, according to you. Galatians 6 6The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him. 7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. 8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from...

Is the Church supposed to, as Jesus did, reach out to all sorts of penitent sinners? Yes. Is the Church instructed to "purge the evil man from among you"--if someone says he is a brother, but lives in sin, to have nothing to do with him, not even eat? Yes. Both are true. We do not throw...

You didn't die a few hours after being saved. Everyone has their own circumstances. He did what good he could. He denounced the robber being crucified nearby him, and acknowledged Christ publicly (in John, we read whoever acknowledged Christ publicly was thrown out of the synagogue, so many who...

He was asked whether he agreed with the words in Galatians 6. Galatians 6 6The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him. 7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. 8For the one who sows to his own flesh...

The words of passages like Galatians 6:6-10--words you want to reject, but then cite other passages, like Matthew 7, that teach the very same thing--unequivocally state that eternal life is a harvest reaped in due time by those who sow to the Spirit by doing good deeds. I already answered this...

had to look that one up

So, you DO affirm that men are repaid eternal life in due season in return for doing good works?

I wonder if Lion's Mane mushrooms might help your "disorganized" thoughts. Sulforaphane is anti inflammatory for the brain. Cruciferous veggies "have" it--a chemical they have is metabolized by an enzyme they have when the two combine when bites are taken of the veggies, so, since cooking kills...

Yeah, Paul says things that seem paradoxical--eg, "I was abundant in labors above them all--yet, not I, but the grace with me."--but there is no paradox I can detect on the issue we're discussing here. My view doesn't suffer from this non-existent "paradox" you insist on seeing.

If I'm "overemphasizing" the word "under", what is it supposed to look like to "properly emphasize" the word--and aren't you actually "underemphasizing" the word "under"?

Yeah, Paul writes stuff hard to understand, but he doesn't write gibberish. It is intelligible and explicable.

This is only a "complication" that exists for your view, bc you're importing a word ("condemned") that isn't there--it is not a problem in my view. Paul is teaching the Jewish believers how to serve God by God's new way, which is grace and faith--I addressed this in my previous post.

You're assuming and asserting Paul means "the Law of Moses", then questioning whether he means "the Law of Moses" lol Idk what to tell you

I meant: the only alternative would be to arbitrarily change the definition of "under" (from "condemned" to "___? ___") mid sentence. Are you actually saying you don't see the problem with that? The word has to mean the same thing both times it's used, as is the grammatical norm with every...

Well, what's the alternative reading? You do realize the definition of the word "under" isn't unknown, right? There is a word for "condemned" in Greek, and that's not the word used there--the Greek word used there means "under the jurisdiction of". What you're doing is kind of like pretending...

Actually, you offered an alternative view, and I addressed that.