Search results

yes, to chapter 8 ....and the first verse in chapter 8 is a direct conclusion and follow on from chapter7 :)

Romans 5 gives the contextual picture....in particular verses 15-19......check it out

and so this is the process you invert every truth...... it matters not whether it is doctrine or the rationale of debate......you turn white to black and then miserably attempt to persuade others it is white. I guess this is also the process the RCC uses to justify her opulence. No wonder this...

lol....well that is funny because instead of exposing others you expose yourself BOL. :)

@BreadOfLife ......On another point, the moniker you have given yourself; it is by any standard considerably presumptuous....but I doubt that has even crossed your mind ....a mere mortal choosing to call himself BreadOfLife......a title only Jesus is qualified for and worthy of.

Your reply does the very thing I have pointed out. It confirms and does not excuse. Your condescension further reinforces my point.

Conviction is not condemnation. We condemn ourselves when we distance ourselves from the Salvation freely given. Salvation is always there....it has never gone away. It is us who have gone away. Recognising the order/priority and trusting it gives hope. Confusing the order/priority inevitably...

What does it mean "there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus"..... It means Jesus does not condemn. John 3:17 'For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved'.

The evidence manifested by those in darkness who justify and love their darkness is blame. Blame is the indicator followed by misrepresentation. It has always been the case right from the beginning of the conflict in the Universe. Blame is the child of the accuser. It becomes the foundation of...

You see, in your mind you conclude a. & b. yet in objective reality this is far from the truth......and herein is evidence (for which you are always asking) of the darkness within which you operate.

I s'pose in this context your logic is akin to calling rape forced love and thereby justifying it in your own view! Hmmmmm.....smoke and mirrors, sleight of hand and redefining the obvious/transparent/plain is the practice of 'business as usual' in any oppressive system.

Your volley of accusations betray you. They reveal a certain spirit I have no interest in.

Peter didn't start anything. Peter readily denied Jesus at his trial and was shame faced. Jesus reinstated Peter (assured him that his shame would not rule his reality) after the resurrection by labouring 'do you love me more than these' three times (understand the significance) It was Jesus...

you can play with your interpretation and understanding in an attempt to avoid intent however, you are the one who looks foolish as you engage your fancy footwork. Has it not occurred to you that it is the secular world which names the period during which the Popes reigned as 'the dark ages'...

it's not stupid at all but speaks directly to your attempt to justify the history of popes by maligning those opposed to him. a comparison is no derailment!

lol....and I thought you thought you were informed BOL. Soooooo, here is a fact for the man of facts you have missed :) RCC = Roman Catholic Church :) :)

so you see yourself as a herald of indisputable truth?

lol....you want me to be annoyed BOL? Nahhhhh, that's just your projection. Denial doesn't care for evidence so why present it? I've seen how you deal with evidence; you scrap it!

oh dear.....error in others does not justify error in oneself......and regards the strength of numbers and the time period the RCC has been around, there are other movements (eg Islam, Hinduism etc) which likewise can quote time and numbers......does this justify them?

just as I expected; blame the opposition with one's own crimes or ridicule them in a primitive attempt to take the heat off oneself. BOL, it's the oldest trick in the book....even Adam tried it when he got busted!