Search results

FYI: I have taken (i.e. am taking) everyone off of ignore for the purpose of this thread. Yes, it absolutely does damage both! To reject Paul’s apostleship is to reject the very means by which Christ is currently ministering to the world. Paul is not just another disciple. He is the apostle to...

The canonical order of New Testament books is evidence. Even without that though, your statement is flatly and demonstrably false. It confuses the systematic articulation of a view with the presence of the underlying doctrine. Just because the label “Acts 9 Dispensationalism” didn’t exist...

You're a lunatic. Is this really what you got from my post? I very simply cannot fathom living my life with this level of INTENTIONAL intellectual dishonesty! Of course it is and you know it. No! It is actually just the precise opposite of question begging. It would have to be a premise...

Maybe He (God) doesn't care who wrote it. Maybe everyone knew who wrote it when it was new and the authorship just got lost over the centuries and the book's existence in scripture is sufficient by itself without any need to know who wrote it. In other words, just because we don't know who the...

He commonly says things that would score superficial points with the crowd in a public debate. I think that's his whole motive, except that I think he actually believes that this is how one actually establishes the truth of a position. It's argument from sound bytes. Sounds like a good name for...

There are many this is true of but most of the people I've known who believe Hebrews to have been written by Paul simply see no reason to think otherwise. They have no clue at all that his gospel was different and it would sound weird to them if anyone where to suggest it. The result is a...

Predictable. Why should I? Are you the only one who gets to ignore the other's points? Seems to me that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Yes, you can make any verse you come across say anything you like. Go ahead. Tell me how Acts 13:46 means that Paul didn't turn to the...

That's right, ignore the plain reading of the passage and move right along believing whatever the hell you desire to believe.

The problem here is not just one of language but of theology. The post above tries to sound deep, but it lacks clarity, coherence, and biblical grounding. It reads like someone trying to piece together doctrinal truths from poetic impressions rather than from sound reasoning and Scripture. John...

Okay, so only five books into my list, I've gotten bogged down at book five, which I finally finished today. It was all I could do to get through "Orthodoxy" even via the audio book format. I have therefore revamped the list with a new criteria in mind. The fact is that I'm not that strong of a...

I think Luke is an excellent candidate for the authorship of Hebrews! It would fit both stylistically and doctrinally.

This misses the point. Once again, I think you knew this when you wrote it. The point isn't that the Jews ceased to exist or that Paul never preached to a Jew. That is so obviously not the case that no rational person would ever suggest it, which is why I think you knew you were obfuscating...

So, I'd say there are a few issues with what you've said here. Some of this may have to do with semantics. Meaning that your intent may have been somewhat different than what the words you used managed to communicate. With that in mind... First, the Spirit did not act as “Jesus’ father.”...

So I wrote what was going to be a post that establishes the fact that Paul is not the author of Hebrews but it sort bounced all over the place and was difficult even for me to follow - and I wrote it! I'm short on time and so I just fed what I had written into Chat GPT and after discussing it...

If so, then they aren't actually contradictions. Okay. This conclusion does not follow from its premise. And it ignores the fact that Paul's ministry wasn't to Hebrews and that the doctrines taught in Hebrews are at odds with "Paul's doctrinal position", as you put it. Further, it isn't...

Saying it doesn't make it so. Contradictions are false, Derf.

The whole thread is still here for the entire world to read, including post 27 which flatly proves your position false and which was entirely ignored by you. I didn't read anything else you wrote. You're a waste of time.

I don't care. Words I like, stupidity is the problem. Your posts are a good argument for leaving the formulation of doctrine to men. You've been repeatedly shown that it doesn't tie together at all. It was He who became Jesus (i.e. not God the Father) that created everything in those first...

We can do a lot more than merely speculate. We do still have the book of Hebrews that can be read and understood. We also have the whole rest of scripture to compare it to. By this alone we can know without any doubt at all that Paul is not the author of the book of Hebrews. If it could be...

Could he somehow be referring to when Jesus performed miracles or picked wheat on the Sabbath? Otherwise, his comments along this line just make no sense WHATSOEVER!!!