Search results

Judging from certain contextual clues, I think you may have accidentally replied to my post while meaning to reply to @Avajs. ...then, again, @Clete, maybe you did it deliberately, hoping perhaps to bait me into playing "devil's advocate" on behalf of @Avajs. But, observing through his posts...

Evidence leads to concluding, not to presupposing. Rationally-thinking person: "The evidence leads me to conclude that X is true." VS @Avajs: "The evidence leads me to presuppose that X is true." Your perpetual inability and failure to grasp elementary things like that is an advertisement...

By saying that, you once again show that you don't even understand the nature of evidence nor the nature of presupposing. The pre- part of "presuppose" stands for the idea of priority, or before-ness. Why don't you look at the word, "presuppose", and think to ask yourself: "Suppose before what?"

Would you need evidence to presuppose something? Avajs: "First, give me evidence for XYZ, and then I'll gladly presuppose XYZ." In other words, Avajs be like:

Would you need evidence to presuppose something? Avajs: "First, give me evidence for XYZ, and then I'll gladly presuppose XYZ." In other words, Avajs be like:

Are you part of the "we" who "ran into some problems"?🤓

So, then, you agree that the Trinity is, in fact, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit? I did not say you "refuse to address John 1", weasel. Rather, I asked you: So far, you have refused to deal with those facts. Is Jesus the Word? Yes or No? (John 1:14) Is the Word God? Yes...

By your word, "God", are you referring to the Father? Yes or No? If No, then to whom are you referring by it? If Yes, then this is what you've just handed us: How many times in one sentence do you need to repeat the obvious, Trinitarian truth that Jesus is not the Father?

Interesting choice: use of an image of a skull and crossbones to represent being a Romanist.

The question is, To what (if anything) are you even referring by your word, "Apostolicity"? Judas was an Apostle. He betrayed Christ and hanged himself. Are betraying Christ and hanging oneself examples of "Apostolicity"? What you don't seem to have is Scripturality. That reminds me of "Come...

So, then, is Matthew 5:8 false?Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.It's your "cannot" versus Scripture's "shall". (And, don't imagine the fact of a difference of Greek words behind the respective instances of "see" in this verse and in John 1:18 is going to help you out of...

By your word, "God", are you referring to the Father? Yes or No? If No, then to whom are you referring by it? Whom are you saying Jesus is not, if you are not saying Jesus is not the Father? If Yes, then you are merely affirming an essential tenet of Trinitarianism: "Jesus is not [the...

You asserted that already, but you never proved it. You just disappeared and laid low for a little while and have now come back hoping everyone has meanwhile forgotten that you never proved it. Because even you know you have no hope of proving it. Because it's false and manifestly contradicted...

That's no problem, nowadays. In a lot of cases, you can easily download a sermon both in PDF and in MP3 formats. For more details, see the internet.

Well, if you're not going to read a syllable, at least read half a syllable, seeing as he went to the trouble of emphasizing, in bold type, the first half of his word, "be": 🤣

Can you maybe figure out how to make your posts to not look like ransom notes?

Here is some New Testament:Matthew 1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren...Did nobody, before the NT was penned, know that Abraham begat Isaac?

Of the (v. 1) "many [who] have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us" -- the "they" of verse 2 -- perhaps some were apostles. Luke doesn't give the names of which persons he is referring to, here. It is truth. It is truths...