Search results

2. No, you have not shown a twofold process, you have only shown a twofold interpretation which is only half of what is written. And you have not reconciled all of what is written, because your interpretation does not work with all of scripture, so you accuse me of doing the very thing you are...

That is cool...but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about any flesh inheriting the kingdom of God, and biblically none does.

If your "intellectually implausible" position paints you as never having "inhaled" or as "half pregnant", you will indeed suffer no high and even stillbirth.

You are saying the words but not fully understanding. "Flaming fire" is God...who's times of vengeance began with the times of the gentiles. Also, Jesus did say that He would send "another", but the scriptures go on to clarify that "Christ in you"...is not "another", but specifically "Christ"...

And that is where you depart from the gospel of Christ, whom did not commit His "PHYSICAL" body to the Father, but only His spirit. That "PHYSICAL" part...you have added or believed from the false teachings of men, for it is not in the scriptures.

While that may be a good mechanical understanding of the life of man and beast in the world of flesh and blood, it is all a vapor, vanity, except for the breath of God, which is spirit.

One must be able to reconcile that "No one has seen God", with all seeing God in the Judgement. Biblically, this only occurs by two means: either by seeing Jesus, or in death. Which is to say, seeing God is either life or death. In the case of Enoch, God is the god of the living, but he saw Him...

Where I do concur with and appreciate most of your comment, perhaps this is a good place to address the biblical precedence of quoting scripture: Unlike many of the would be scholastic manifestos that are presented to make the case of this or that interpretation of the scriptures, and those...

Thank you for the clarification. I wholeheartedly agree!

Again, while I do indeed recall these things...you yourself apparently do not recall that all men came into being at God's word, even those before what you have quoted occurred in its time, but rather from the beginning. Your argument is as void as all that was not was void before He spoke it...

2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with...

One need look no further than to God, whom is spirit to know what the future is for those that are His and are born of His spirit: it is spirit, just as He is spirit. To say otherwise, one would have to call God a liar or one who contradicts Himself. But that is just from lack of understanding...

If you don't believe Paul had any right to suggest such a thing, that the very idea is shameful...you'll have to ask him. Meanwhile, are you asking the rest of us not to believe Paul had a reason to state it so? I for one believe he had a reason.

I might also ask you if you are one of those who claim that Christ has not resurrected? The answer is the same for all who are in Christ, and only different for those who do not believe all that He said, that do not receive and let Him in when He knocks, but wait for what He did not promise and...

Impressive - thank you! But rather than address my objections, of which there are some, I will just state what ought to be obvious: In order to be "rightly divided", the word of truth must certainly be divisible by some means. In other words, there is something about it that can be divided...

2 Timothy 2:15 "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." I might just come right out and say what is meant, but perhaps we could hear what others say. What say you?

That can be said in 3 verses: 1 Corinthians 15:36 "Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies." John 3:7 "Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’" Romans 6:6 "knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away...

It's not that what you quote is not true--it is. But the problem is that you cannot reconcile those verses with those that would appear to say otherwise; and as a result, you preach another gospel than that of the bible--because you do not agree with the other verses, nor can you explain them.

That is not what the whole of the scriptures say. Which means you are just pitting one word from God against another. You're just making things worse.

No. "That which is born of the spirit is spirit." He who has been born again of the spirit of God "has passed from death to life" everlasting (past tense). How many things must I quote? The day of redemption is not a day when Christ comes to glorify the flesh, but a day that He comes, "that...