Search results

No, that describes the bible, not the book that Bob wrote about the bible. No. Nonsense. The only authoritative anything that ANY Christian has is the bible itself. Just as your Pope's have not been infallible, Bob was not infallible. A major differences being that Bob never claimed to be...

It says that they are are NOT saved apart from gentiles as another church with another gospel. AND YOU KNOW IT! Who are you trying to convince here with this? It makes no sense! There is no longer any Jew or Gentile except as a matter of genetics or nationality. When it comes to getting saved...

Lie. Intentional lie! Tambora KNOWS for a fact that this idiotic claim is flatly false. Those of you engaging her need to ask yourselves what her motives are. LIE! Stupidity! This claim cannot possibly make sense even to Tambora! LOL! Another Gog/Magog invasion?! What can that possibly...

Nice! I did not know that verse existed. I will be remembering that one. Iron sharpening iron.

Call it what you like, as if it makes any difference. Discussion, like debate, requires that both parties respond with substance to what the other has said rather than routinely ignoring any response and simply repeating your position as though nothing was said to counter it.d You're a liar...

Nope. It is Luke's BOOK - not sentence. As I've said repeatedly, there isn't any need to guess. The text of Acts itself tells you what's happening.

b57 isn't here to debate things or to even have conversations, he's here to state his doctrine, not to defend it, to state it. He will, therefore, almost certainly not respond to this post, or any other post for that matter. I, on the other hand, desire to crush the Calvinist Cult into powder...

I never suggested that it did! The problem is that you're on a debate forum. NO ONE but you gives a damn about what you can show up here and claim to be true. Any idiot can do that. It's boring. No, it isn't, Tambora. Not in dispute - therefore - not relevant to the point. We can talk about...

Great argument! It wasn't a slur. Ignorance is common, even expected. It's stupidity that can't be fixed. Saying it doesn't make it so, Tambora. As stated this claim isn't even relevant. Were you attempting to imply some kind of argument here? In other words.... How do you know that this is...

Everything after the mid-Acts period has to be confusing for those who believe that the church age started with "You are Peter..." in Matthew 16. By the way, when pressed, nearly everyone who isn't Mid-Acts believes that the so called "church age" began during Christ's ministry, not Acts 2. The...

Okay. No argument there. My point was simply to say that AFTER the resurrection and AFTER Pentecost (a Jewish holiday), the nation officially rejected Christ as their Messiah after several undeniable miracles and Stephen's arguments from scripture and that, therefore, your rebuttal about them...

Well, I was talking about the early Acts period, which, obviously, is after the death and resurrection and the point at which the Fig Tree had been "fertilized" by the giving of the Holy Spirit (see Luke 13:6-9). The official rejection of Christ as their risen Messiah didn't happen until about a...

Had Israel not rejected their Messiah, God would have sent Jesus back and given Israel her Kingdom, just as Peter preached in Acts 3. Acts 3:18 But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore and be...

This gave me a chuckle. Not because it's stupid or anything like that but because once you see it, the teaching isn't just taught somewhere in the bible, its everywhere! It's so pervasive that it seems to be on every page! And I'm not exaggerating! You're quite right, by the way! There's lots...

Well, yeah, it really is. I've been a Mid-Acts Dispensationalists for decades and nothing you said comes within a mile of touching a thing I believe about anything. It's just a regurgitation of your doctrine stated within the context of a discussion about something that almost seems to be...

The above post is simply ridiculous. It's just a bunch of nonsensical rationalizing to preserve your own doctrine. It doesn't even read as though it were in response to anything dispensationalists teach! You are either totally ignorant of what you're talking about or you're just being dishonest...

Permanent ignore list.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Psychlo. Think it through. Imagine a scenario where someone gets killed by someone else. While I'm sure that someone might be able to concoct a hypotheitical scenario where everything is identical except for the motive but that wouldn't ever happen in real life...

Yes, I think so. I've been talking about reason per se, whereas you've been talking about the use of it - or lack thereof. My point is simply that people, as rational creatures, CAN correctly use reason if they choose to do so.

I get your point but its a bad example. James was teaching law to believing Jews who were under the law and "zealous for the law". Acts 21:18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which...