Search results

Such thinking is wholly outside the point of this thread. They are wrong and I explained why. Their point IF biological descent was required is conceded. Yet, I deny that IF for the reasons already cited.

The more we engage, the more difficult communication is proving itself to be. You keep twisting things to some kind of rigid legalism. If your point was about the Messiah, that you only were referring to the Messiah ancestry, then fine. However, I took your sentence to mean none of David's...

I once shared with my boss 5 reasons why I filed for divorce. After the 1st reason, he stopped my continuing enumeration. One only needs one valid reason to support a conclusion. He is right. My 1st reason was valid and I was over-thinking it. With all due respect, Mr E, conceding is no kind of...

???

<sigh> There is no need to explain again what failed to convince the first time. Repeating yourself is not edifying. Sadly, you are COMPLETELY ignoring my point (on the grounds that the Jews would). Ignoring an argument does not invalidate it. I know the story of Abraham and Sara comes BEFORE...

Sorry but it is not his thoughts but his word, ‘Joseph’ rather than ‘Mary’ that determines the conclusion to have confidence. Rather, it is all apologists who have to do better than that. Who talks like that?

And again, this is false. Luke’s genealogy is through Joseph’s line. The statement that ‘Many believe that Luke is saying that Yahshua was the grandson of (H)Eli or (E)Heli through Mary’ is true; many believe this false statement. Luke 3:23 is Jesus, the son of Joseph and continues through...

That’s not true. Both accounts are through Joseph. In Matthew 1 V16 16 Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary.

I get it. Works in the Biblical sense. Work in the common use of the word. Not the same.

True but irrelevant. The point hinges on work - action on our part - needed. A gift of $1 billion that we did earn still needs to be cashed for us to get the benefit of. In other words, we have to accept the gift. Trusting Jesus. Accepting Jesus. These are action words, which is our work...

No one said anything about earning salvation. We have to do the work of working out our own salvation.

Right. I'm talking about work in the general sense. Action we need to undertake for our own salvation. Why else does Timothy say to work out your own salvation? This is why. We got work to do - even thought it is not works in the Biblical sense.

Are you able to recognize the contradictions you keep making. Except for the work we have to do - trust Jesus - there is no work on our part to be saved. This is just a complicated way of saying there is work on our part; we must do the work of trusting another to be lord of our lives. I wonder...

That the work I am talking about.

And I am talking about work (not works) - in the general sense that is needed and which invalidates universalism.

Friend, I am embracing all criticism against our lord and find them wanting. My apology is to show how the Jewish perspective does not hold up to Scriptural scrutiny. If you have a better way to address REASON #1, let’s have it.

If this were true, Sara and Abraham never would have come up with the idea to circumvent the legitimate line through Sara.

<sigh> Fraud affects everything that flows from it. This is a basic legal concept. Yet, Scripture is so open to considering children legitimate heirs to the parents even from fraudulent unions, it makes the claim that children from legitimate unions, which Jesus was, all the more of an...

Wow! What you wrote after shows how lost in the weeds are. To the end of your sentence, you need to add ‘from a certain point of view.’ Otherwise, you are locked into the same legalism the Jews are. The point is Sara thought her plan of an illegitimate child would work. Abraham also must...

Again, IF no work is required by anybody, then universalism must be correct doctrine. Stop contradicting yourself and you’ll find your evangelism much more effective.