Search results

What did I "accredit" to man and NOT God?? I said that the NT came THROUGH His Church. God is the Author.

WRONG. Jesus called His opponents a "Brood of vipers" (Matt. 12:34) and "Blind guides" (Matt. 23:24). However - not ONCE did our Lord deny the truth as many times as YOU and others have on this thread . . .

You are absolutely correct in your first comment above in RED - because it is His CHURCH that He left to educate the world about Him (Matt. 28:19-20) and NOT a Book. That came later - through His Church. As to your 2nd comment in RED - remember what Peter wrote regarding Scripture, because it...

I was Baptized in Christ. He said that THIS is how a person is born again (John 3:5).

And you ONLY have Him in your life as long as you cooperate with His grace . . . Matt. 7:19-23, Matt. 10:22, Matt. 24:13, Matt. 25:31–46, John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:22, 1 Cor. 4:4, 1 Cor. 9:27, 1 Cor. 10:12, 1 Tim. 4:1, 1 Tim. 4:16, 2 Tim. 2:12, Heb. 3:6, Heb. 3:12-14, Heb 6:4-6, Heb. 10:26-27, 2...

Uh-huh. And ALL of this has nothing to do with the conversation. But I understand why you feel the need to dodge the topic . . .

What's "schocking" is that you ALL seem to have the very SAME argument against the evidence regarding Epignosis. Unfortunbately, "That's not true" just isn't a valid argument . . .

Ahhhh, so you finanlly read the evidence and you can't respond. Got it . . .

Once again, I said "technically", eternity only applies to God. Everlasating is not sternal becaused it has a starting point - God doesn't. As for the rest - EVERY verse that speaks of our everlasting/eternal life has conditions. "IF" we trust Him, "IF" we obey Him, "IF" we walk in the Spirit...

And by this dishonest response - it is blindingly clear that you didn't acutally READ the evidence because your answers smack of a lazy student who forgot to do his book report - and watched the MOVIE instead. Let me know when you're ready to have an intelligent conversation . . .

And if you want to get technical - "eternal" only applies to God. Everlasting life in what you mean - and it's everlasting, contingent on YOUR cooperation.

WRONG. HEARING the truth is NOT the same as fully experiencing it through a relationship with Christ. THAT is Epignosis.

First of all - I said "Relational" - not "Rational". so the main point of your argument goes right OUT the window . . . Secondly, a full, experiential and relational kowledge similar to a married husband and wife doesn't meant that I know every single thought in her head. Likewise - Epignosis...

And, as I have repeatedly shown - you'd be WRONG about that. There is NO single English translation of the original lanuages that is completely accusrate - not ONE. Transliterations are sometimes used when there is no identical translation. If you knew the FIRST thing about languages - you...

Epignosis is "Full, experiential and relational knowledge". This is not unlike the kowledge betewwen a husband and wife. They are as truly married as a person with Epignossis of Christ is truly converted.

As for the entire first part of your whiny rant - again, you're simply changing the subject because you're losing the debate. Stick to the topic . . . Regarding your arrogantly asinine claim above in RED - there is not a SINGLE English translation of the Bible that does NOT have linguistic...

Please provide the SAME types of scholarly evidence for YOUR claim that I provided for mine. I want to see quotes and excerpts from scholarly linguistic sources like the ones I provided. THEN, we can have an intelligent conversation - instead of just a barrage of simplistic denials . . .

And that's my entire point with you. THEY (the scholars) DO agree with the Bible. It's YOU who doesn't. You are a living, breathing example of who Peter was talking about: 2 Pet. 3:15-16 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you...

My point is that whereas the Gospel message is easily understandable - for those who have been taught correctly - the words of Scripture aren't necessarily easy to understand for the "common man", as Peter points out (2 Pet. 3:16). Those who are completely discounting terms like "Epignosis"...

And didn't Peter warn his readers that Paul's letters were difficult to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction like they do the OTHER Scriptures (2 Pet. 3:16)??