Search results

Remember that the thread is about whether Paul wrote Hebrews. The assumption that Paul needs to be excluded from the 12 apostles is partly based on the idea that he never wrote anything to the Jews. But if you then use that "fact" to say he didn't write anything (like Hebrews) to the Jews, the...

Circular. That's the question, whether Paul mentioned Melchizedek (when he wrote Hebrews) Not "simply", but it clearly was used so. Your comprisal of the "agreement" is so loose as to allow anything you say it to be, so it's merely a tool to help you win arguments. If you don't agree, please...

Thank you, that's a valid correction. The order of Melchizedek superseded the Levitical priesthood, and was recognized by Abraham prior to his own circumcision. Paul applies Abraham's pre-circumcision belief in God's promises to the church's state of grace without the law: "and it was counted...

Such a distinction makes the agreement of little substance. If Paul says he won't go to the Jews, and then he goes to the Jews, what is the agreement about? I agree there is probably evidence that he didn't write Hebrews, but to use the fact that he didn't elsewhere write to the Jews as...

Because he's writing those other epistles to Gentiles. He wouldn't want to refer to their high priests as a comparison, would he? In some, it's only used in the salutations. If the first page was ripped off, as I suggested, that term could have gotten lost. But he's also making the case for...

The apostle to the Gentiles was constantly trying to convert Jews, so he might write a letter to the Hebrews, explaining what the Lord Jesus taught him about the types of Christ given in the Old Testament. It could be that the salutation was stripped off the book, either by Paul or the carrier...

Not according to @beloved57. Those that were elected to be saved from the foundation of the world didn't need it.

Which could mean, since no qualifyer is provided (as opposed to your everlasting life qualifier), that the only thing Jesus made were things in Joseph's wood shop. But that's ridiculous, we both agree, and so is the qualifier that only serves to limit Jesus' creative work to fit your...

What? You had a contentious relationship with someone here?

Uh...I think it was to the people who didn't need it.

If the earth existed before the Son, then it wasn't made by Him, yet John tells us everything that was made was made by Him. How do you reconcile that? Yet that's not the kind of light described in Gen 1. It was light that could be blocked, so it can't be Jesus. So you're saying you are so...

And He was in the beginning with God, and He was God. [Jhn 1:1-3 KJV] 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. Was water made...

Take it literally that the Son wasn't with the Father before the world began? Take it literally that there were waters before the one who created the waters was created? Genesis 1:2-3 (KJV) 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit...

So you would advocate for the symbolical view of Gen 1, right?

Genesis 1:4 (KJV) And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Which leads to an allegorical understanding of Gen 1, since the omnipresent light is then separated from darkness.

This was a good episode. I remember other Christians, before most states changed the definition of marriage, arguing the same "functional" reasoning as Walsh was doing, or the traditional reasoning, to little avail--because the functional reason fails with senior citizens who want to marry, and...

Because a single creature can't evolve into another creature. Evolution, as a theory, requires creatures to have offspring that are different from the original, even if only slightly, which then also have offspring that are slightly different than the 2nd creature, etc., etc. Each of those...

But we don't fix that problem by making new problems.

Yes, but if we didn't have examples of Lepidoptera and frogs living today, one would be hard pressed to determine from the fossil record that they were the same kind of creature (caterpillar/moth or tadpole/frog). But even still, finding a tadpole and a frog in fossilized forms would not mean...