Search results

And again, Paul's context is Christ Jesus's preeminence over all creation, which slams the door on the idea that Jesus is at part of God's creation. Even with the mangling of John 1 in the NWT, it still affirms that Jesus was not created, but that He was with God in the beginning, and that all...

Not "produced me," but rather "possessed me at the beginning of His work, the first of His acts of old." To translate קָנָה (qānâ) as "produced me" is a horrible mistranslation, and this is just one of the great many examples of the intentional attempts to re-engineer God's inerrant and...

Oh, my. Nope. Wisdom and understanding are being poetically personified in Proverbs 8, Keiw. And, clearly the personification of this very desirable thing is as a woman. This is clearly evident at the opening of the chapter: "Does not wisdom call? Does not understanding raise her voice...

Right back at you, AJ... every word. Well, now that would be contrary to Jesus's own mandate, His commission ~ which of course He couldn't issue with any real credibility if He were just a mere man and not God in the flesh ~ wouldn't it? Yes, quite contrary... Grace and peace to you.

Kermos doesn't believe, Keith, that Jesus was merely "referring to God's name," but, rather, he is stating ~ correctly ~ that Jesus was assigning that Name ~ "I AM" ~ to Himself, stating incontrovertibly that "I AM" is His name, as well as acknowledging certain characteristics about Himself that...

In English, user 'for' can quite validly and indisputably mean "in order to get" or "because of," but not both at the same time. You and Truther and others have... chosen the wrong one. It's a simple misunderstanding, but a misunderstanding it is, on your part. Now, as for a "problem,"...

Truther, I think it would be a revelation of sorts) for you if in Acts 2:38, you substituted ~ and no, you would not be changing the meaning or the thrust of the text one iota ~ the phrase "because of" for the word "for." The word 'for' there does not mean "in order to get," but rather "in...

Yes, I was referring to Philippians 2 previously. Yes, I know the Watchtower twisting of Philippians 2:5-11 very, very well. All the misunderstandings: ...Christ's not counting equality with God a thing to be grasped, which means not that He "didn't have it" or that He "couldn't get it," as...

Nope. We are the circumcision, as I said. And the effectual baptism that leads to repentance and belief is that of water and the Spirit. Well, again by water and the Spirit… not by H2O and man. :) See, nobody “opposes it,” Truther. That’s what’s so ridiculous about all this…stuff… you’re...

Oh... yes, He is, and yes, He has... :) "Firstborn," in Paul's context, is regarding preeminence, and not merely "born before anyone else" ~ the very same context in which David is made firstborn, though he was actually the last born in his family (after all his brothers). And as you know...

Hm... Truther, you... Well, I'll just offer this: Regarding circumcision, Truther, according to Paul in Philippians 3:3, we ~ we who are in Christ, who worship by the Spirit of God, and thus are the true people of God (Jew and Gentile believers) ~ are the circumcision. We ~ together, as one...

Circumcision was not about the kids, Truther. Neither is baptism in the case of infants, but rather the parents and their faith in God and His promise to work through them as parents and at the time of His choosing to give the child new birth in the Spirit, thereby placing the child in Christ...

There is no capitalization in the original Greek (Koine) of the New Testament, and there is no definite article. The NWT is a heretical translation in many places, re-engineered to fit a preconceived set of beliefs. Grace and peace to you, Keiw.

The general resurrection is a certainty, but some are resurrected to eternal life, and some to judgment. The resurrection is universal, but salvation and eternal life is not. Grace and peace to you, MatthewG.

In the sense that it is sufficient for all, yes. But in the sense that it is efficacious for all, no. In the latter, only for God's elect is it efficacious. Grace and peace.

No, with all due respect, AJ, you don't. Kermos has stated it as clearly as possible. I encourage you to read his (her?) recent posts. The only thing I would add is... well, first: Christ Jesus Himself bears it out very clearly in John 14. Well, actually, I was referring to the concept...

Nope. He is the great I AM, become man. Grace and peace to you.

Well, as many times as you want to engage in an exercise of futility, I guess. :) And, hey, AJ, you can hear that in the way it's actually meant... or the other, opposing way, which you are apparently so prone to do. All through John's gospel we see these unequivocal statements. Elsewhere...

Oh my.

Oh my.