Search results

Which, requires one to read that into the text. It can not be seen in the pshat reading. Further, does an "inheritor" return the "inheritance"? 1Co 15:24b when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father Yet, it remains, that some of the Spirit that was upon Moses, was "taken"...

Thanks for your reply. I am familiar with the "Trinity", it was what I was introduced to first. Nor, do I consider Jesus as a mere "angel". In Colossians 1:15, Jesus is the "firstborn" of all creation. The first brought forth, of all creation. Tehillim 110:1 ne'um YHVH la-'adoni shev...

Not in my opinion. There were several "ideas" that were floating around. The trinity doctrine gained traction IMO due to secular and "other" influence(s). However, to disagree, became verbotten. To have in one's possession any writings that were contrary, also became verbotten. Such were...

Khalomot tovim.

Like you said, "you" believe such. Thus it is those such as yourself who define me as being an "outsider". Doesn't really matter what I claim, for you have already decided.

See my reply in the Co-Redemptrix thread.

Or even history: Celsus v. Origen, Eusebius, Augustine, and on down to Scrivener, Ehrman and Nestle just to name a few. Just look at the controversies even today with regard to the TR v. WH.

No, I do not believe Jesus is "God". According to your last sentence above, you have already concluded that I am not. And according to the definition that you hold, I must not be. Brief and basic: Co- Redemptrix

@tigger 2 : Just wanted to let you know you are appreciated.

We perhaps have different backgrounds. I spent very little time in mainstream "Christianity". However, I spent many a long a year amoung those of the "cults". Not what most think of either such as SDA, LDS, JW, etc.. I don't even consider such as those as "cults". Unless we wish to define...

So you "sow" in a segregated manner. Could that not be reckoned as "partiality"? And yes, I am merely playing the DA. Not accusing you. IOW: Don't go unto the Samarians? But only the lost of "Israel" as perceived.

Thus, you attribute them as righteous. Which according to Jesus, were not those he came to call. Rom 2:13 for not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be declared righteous: And again, for one filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb ...

Yet, when there is no law, sin is not imputed. Therefore perhaps Caleb did not need to change his mind. But then we fall back to the flood. Without some form of "law", what justifies the annihilation of all but 8. And even then, it is clear, that there was a distinction between the clean and...

Just as it is written that there are none righteous, it is also written there are none that seek. So now what, since it is written there are none that seek, and in so that Scripture may not be broken, there must be none that seek. Again, that is one of the problems of anything that is all...

Not my nor your thread title. I am merely here off toe-pic as is usual for me. So now the title of a thread makes them equal? According to the OP, we are called to do likewise. So was it truly speaking of Mary alone, or of the "Bride" as a whole? Jam 5:19 Brethren, if any among you may go...

Nothing to be sorry about. IOW: Was Mary crucified? Did she shed her blood for the people so to speak.

And that there are none that seek. Christ is unique, as he is the very Son of YHVH. Who existed from before the foundation of the world. Can any other lay claim to that? Also see Matthew 21:33-41. Yet, is Christ truly unique? You mentioned "mythology" a while back. How many "fables" are...

No it doesn't, just as with Caleb. However, if one changes their mind, and therefore the actions follow, what shall be the result? Moses is recorded as the most humble [meek] of men in his day. Yet Moses tasted "death", and did not enter the "Promised Land" for his actions at Meribah...

I am not going to try and convince you. We are both mature and have our respective beliefs. There is no need for either of us to try to convince one another, nor is it likely that either of us would change. However to briefly answer you, since you took the time to write: Galatians also...

How is that "biased"? Are not both Catholics and Protestants followers of "Christ" and therefore "Christians" according to their "understandings"? According to some that I have encountered, neither Catholics nor Protestants should be considered as "Christians" according to their "perceptions"...