SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Too bad you don't really believe this, or believe the Bible accordingly.
ECT Evolution
- Thread starter jsanford108
- Start date
Too bad you don't really believe this, or believe the Bible accordingly.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Better get back to your 2 goat symbols, STP.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Which one took away the sins?
At some point you might actually lay the whole thing out to him/them, as to both aspects.
Your too often contining to expect them to know where you are supposedly coming from, and or seeming to expect them to agree with you just because you say otherwise, makes you come off seemingly arrogant and or incompetent.
Lay the two things out to them, every so often.
Rom. 5:8
Prov. 27:17
Acts 17:11,12
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I'm on his ignore list, as you are.
Hasn't stopped either of us from posting to him.
Why?
Because I am not addressing his points to him alone.
Rom. 5:8
Prov. 27:17
Acts 17:11,12
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
OK.
There is not much to lay out.
There were two goats. One died for the sins. The other carried the sins into the wilderness.
"Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world" does not mean that JTB knew Christ was going to die.
True on what JTB may or may not have known, per 1 Peter 1, for example...
But you are not actually proving it one way or the other.
As a result, your assertion ends up left at the mercy of another's conclusion "Well that is what you claim..."
1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
The thing needs to be laid out proven, not simply asserted and then smirked at in response; when disagreed with.
Where is your evidence of what John may or may not have understood by his own "Behold, the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world" John 1:29?
Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Rom. 5:8
Prov. 27:17
Acts 17:11,12
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I will apply the Danohianic Principle in the future.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Having shown 0 interest in evolution or catastrophism until this week, you are now here to pollute another thread. Normal to you is abuse.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Did anyone follow the ICR 8 part treatment on progressivism because it was usually about Hugh Ross. He's made quite a mess of things, including translating things. He was puzzling about the flood because there is so much about that that is more demonstrable about that than certain parts of creation when it comes to countering. I can't see what he has gained.
Not good enough. You should be ready, instant in season.
You and STP need to quit ruining IP's attempt at a little attention for himself.
Now where were we; oh yeah The Danoh Heanic Show - This week's special guests: The Trump Quartet with their new hit distortion of reality "We Don't Own That!"
:chuckle:
You still haven't studied Trump out
Interplanner
Well-known member
As usual, you 3 have a huge problem staying on topic. That probably explains why you think you see what is in the NT when it is not there. While you could be discussing actual questions about the material, you think the i.net is the place to sort out your place in life. Bad idea.
shopkinslpskids
New member
The Bible clearly states that God created animals and humans separately. I don't believe in evolution. 6 days.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
You see that, STP: looks like IP does not really have us both on ignore - now how's that for the discerning enablement of the Danoanic Principle to ferret out what's really what :chuckle:
Rom. 5:8
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Yes, this is a mite curious.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Even more clearly: all natural scientific laws are just about irrelevant to how He created. The same as when he fed 5000. Other than creating oceans before creatures to swim in them, there are no natural laws on display. This is what Lewis meant by capital N Nature in "Science and Religion." Something other than Nature was doing it, making it.