Search results

You are lost, holding your doctrine to such a idol, you completely miss it being of secondary importance. Not once did I ever say what you wrote above. The challenge is dealing with other who do NOT live by your little & irrelevant doctrines - irrelevant to those who do not share them.

You are missing the point for that is not my argument at all. Not once did I mention emotion. Refer to Rom 14:1,13; Jam 4:11-12; & John 13:35 for clarification on what my argument is.

Then it is an act of injustice, to accept a unflawed life for a flawed life. Honestly, the necessity or practicality of the sacrifice being unflawed, is asserted but goes against Scripture. Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins. Ecclesiastes 7:20

What is nonsense is the impossibility of God dying. If Jesus were God, who raised him from the dead? The 'life for life' standard necessary means the sacrifice must be made by one who can die. This being cannot be God because Scripture tells us God does not change. Death is the ultimate change.

Sadly, I disagree. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. Denying the claim has no burden. (Don't use semantics to pretend denying the claim is making a claim for such a twist is a negative claim, negating the positive claim). I hold the one valid reason to reject Christ...

Amazing how frequently this transparent tactic is embraced by the lost, the walking dead.

You are lost. Enemies of God deliberately set a standard of proof designed to fail the chosen people. Obviously, you have little trust in your fellow man. In Evidence To Be Seen, I delve into standards of proof. In short, let's use the legal civil standard of more likely than not. And let's...

It seems absurd in our culture. In the culture of the Apostles, they had a strong oral tradition. Most people learn of their testimony orally today, just as it was then. Clearly, it was an after-thought, of secondary importance to put it in writing. Again, I realize that seems absurd in our...

I'm afraid you are missing the point. This thread goes to show what an idol people have made of their doctrine. What is this doctrine in comparison to the most and 2nd most important commandments that Jesus gave? Sure, I like to debate doctrine in an on-line forum but in practice, I seldom do...

Agreed but in practice, it often seems like: In Essentials, Don’t submit or compromise. In non-essentials, Dismiss others doctrines. In all things, don’t give in to temptation to consider anything valid about other doctrines. <sigh> We miss the mark.

Wow! Your ramblings are so obtuse and circumspect, it is not possible to deliberately retort what you are saying.

Contradicts your one true church mantra.

I missed your intent? Try using words to explicitly state your intent. I have been told for decades that I don’t understand the trinity. Wrong. I reject the trinity. We know God is a warrior for he is the LORD of Heavens Armies, the LORD of hosts. And I noticed you ignore the point of God...

N No. The text begins yesterday and today. Not sure why you are going beyond the recent past beyond to support your doctrine.

Paul also said he will be all things to all people to save some. The world has many gods; sex, money and science. Except since Darwin, science has been led by Cristians for centuries. Praise God it is returning to its natural alignment with God. See Psalm 19.

The opposite. When someone marries, they are united 'forever' beginning that day - and ending on their last day.

That is certainly how trinitarians want the text to be interpreted but certainly not the only valid interpretation. Given the context that Hebrews was written after the resurrection, Jesus was certainly unchanged from the writing of Hebrews. However, to suppose that means for all times past is...

Understood. Tough call if not for the context. Sure, yesterday is the past but not indicative of all time past.

No. There is only logic. When the text says from today until the last, it does not mean before today. For doctrinal reasons, you are reading into the text to begin before yesterday.

Nothing you wrote is relevant to the topic. You are intent on abusing the term Apostles to mean what you want it to mean in a desperate attempt to pretend the 11th century denomination of yours was authorized by Jesus.