Search results

It's not just for women: "But now, brethren" (vs 6)... 1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for...

Jesus never sinned because He was obedient to the Law of our Father. Mankind sins because we all were born "according to our kind" (Genesis 1:11)--"the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so." Interestingly--as metaphors...

Not from the beginning, but shortly thereafter, beginning with the false teachers Peter said would bring in "destructive heresies." The heresies were: that Jesus would NOT return "soon", "quickly" and that all "must shortly take place", which they did against what He actually said would be.

Sorry, but you put a line through the second "sin' when it is actually in the original manuscripts and should read: "21 He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

It sounds like we are actually on the same page. But what I said was pretty clear: Jesus was correct, the apostles were correct, but false teachers were not--and yet what those false teachers taught has been the basis for theology ever since. Meaning, Jesus and the apostles spoke of His return...

"Knew" in the scriptures is often--since the beginning (Genesis 4:1)--means went into, or intercourse. So, you can believe that the verse means something else...but as the Last Adam...it is not likely applicable. In which case, the meaning would rather be that Jesus never entered into sin. For...

That is just your interpretation--that is not what it says. In the verse above I have enlarged in red the part that seems to be eluding you. Also, remember that "to be" (in blue) is not in the original manuscripts...indicating that when "He" (God) made Jesus, He made Him sin. But I will look at...

My apologies...just a typo.

We both quoted the same verse, me for one reason, you for another--neither of which was amiss. You were wrong about that. You simply weren't tracking with the point I was making, apparently because you came in the middle of the discussion without knowing all that had been said.

You wouldn't--couldn't--know, yet here you are making accusations ("You shall know them by their fruit").

There is discernment and then there is discernment. Yours is obviously that of interpretation (what you think is correct). And yes, He gives them over to their unbelief and strong delusion. But a lifeline was foretold, and you have rejected it. So be it.

Again, by your own understanding or the teachings of men, you only assume "the same manner" is in the flesh, physically as that man who walked among men during those times. But what "manner" of event was it actually--worldly, fleshly...or spiritual? Again, it simply never occurred to you that...

Like I said, we need to back up. Obviously you are not ready to even consider the greater truth of God that I have laid out. I was hopeful, but that was more advanced than I should have even mentioned. :( pryw

So...it says "may be"--but you say, "will" be (condemned). As long as you are making such assumptions...you really should not be making any claims whatsoever.

The passage does not say they would never be saved, but rather that when the truth was presented, they were not then saved because they did not receive it The just put it off out of rejection. Again, you simply did not see that possibility. Where the text does indeed offer two distinct...

Those two sentences make an oxymoron. First--again--who told you His second coming is "future?" As for observation--"it will be observed" is not what Jesus said--not biblical. You are obviously not reconciling all scripture. As for 2 Peter 3:10-12-- That does not describe a observable event...

I drew you a picture--not vague, but so detailed I had to make sure you did not take it personal. And this is your response--after expecting that "I" should be more "straightforward? I was so straightforward, I was in your face asking you a personal question--while trying to be kind. Would you...

One point at a time then. Why? Because you have missed an elementary point that can only be addressed at a more base level.

If you are going to call a quote a "misquote" then quote the same verse the same, perhaps you should explain what you think is amiss when the words are the same.

"The New Testament writers teachings" are not incorrect or even the issue. The matter is rather one of early interpretation. In other words, the four Gospels and Revelation were correct in quoting Jesus as saying such things as, "Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this...