Search results

...except, your "precept upon precept" is just "0+0+0 = 0" LOL You have said nothing because you have nothing to say.

You, but of course, are missing the point : the nation God would get for Himself in order to answer in kind to His peoples' unfaithfulness would be non-Jewish.

To your low-resolution mind it doesn't--to everyone else, including Paul, we see a different story : Deuteronomy 32:21 They have made me jealous with what is no god; they have provoked me to anger with their idols. So I will make them jealous with those who are no people; I will provoke them to...

No manuscript evidence for that ignorant view, thousands of manuscripts to evince by view--but we know you go by feelings not facts.

He says they're "foolish" because they don't have Torah--"[Torah] will be your wisdom".

By your metric, Paul didn't either : I'm in good company.

Yeah, they drove God to jealousy by getting themselves another god... He is responding in kind, driving them to jealousy by getting Himself another people.

Better question (which you've been confronted with many times already but always cowered and never answered) : did Paul not tell people to call on the Name of "Iesous"?

"Everyone and their momma" knows about the Hebrew language version of His Name--it's still novel to you, so you think it's fun to play with it.

Deuteronomy 32 21They have made me jealous with what is no god; they have provoked me to anger with their idols. So I will make them jealous with those who are no people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. 1 John 5 10... whoever does not believe God has made Him out to be a...

Jude lived by Enoch's prophecies--this you're determined to treat lightly. Paul may've lived by authoritative extra-Biblical traditions--this you find unremarkable. "Men who held to views I'd consider anti-Scriptural (eg, Mariolatry) told me so!" Sounds good. Keep on following those errant men.

Again, that wasn't the measuring rod used to determine Scripture--though I showed already that it did preach the Gospel. Well, it's a link--you can follow the link, too. Enoch was a prophet. You want to ignore that to substantiate your ad hoc, arbitrary, baseless standard by which you think to...

Yeah, the Hebrew was written in Hebrew, but the Septuagint never was--it was always a translation. Like I said, you don't think.

LOL! Which Scripture said "the LXX was originally written in Hebrew"? That's like saying the King James Bible was originally written in Hebrew Aramaic and Greek--no, it was always a translation.

Again, the LXX was never in Hebrew.

So, like so many before you, you reject God's Word Deuteronomy 32:21 in order to preserve your empty tradition. All right.

@Curtis It is an elevated... perhaps, one could say, as a bread dough which has had yeast worked into it... position they suppose they are in.

I think it makes people "feel" (again, "feelings" not "facts") "special"--they "know" something they (wrongly) think others don't know, and so they think they can stand in judgment of others, who are not "special", because they don't have the "special" knowledge, and when they consider this...

Ohh.. I think you were somehow thinking that I'd rejected 3 Enoch "out of hand", "unthinkingly"... no, again, as stated, the reason I rejected it was because as I held to Scripture I found it conflicted with Scripture.

Let's not lose the forest for the trees : this woman is not a Jewess, the Jews were not Black.