Search results

There would be no new members. It isn't even rightly referred to as a committee because that term implies not only a permanence but an actual body that wouldn't exist. What I'm thinking of would work more like the way a petition works now. Any judge could start such a petition but no charges...

Well, saying it doesn't make it so, glorydaz. You know, Kingdom believers not only confessed with their mouths but had to put their faith in a man named Jesus Christ. They also believed that Jesus was the Son of God and that He was the Messiah, that He was the Lamb of God who was slain for...

I stand by my list as it currently exists for the reasons given dozens of times now.

Why? How so? No, the committee only exists long enough to bring charges and select a judge for the trial. The point being that any such objection can be overcome with the sort of reasons that you've been defending the system as proposed. That reason being that the existence of such a...

Okay, so this is clearly all you've got which is entirely unconvincing for reasons already explained and totally unresponsive to the multiple arguments presented against this whole wacky idea. I'm done with it.

Major progress! :cool: Well, this is the claim but I've not seen the proof. It seems at least plausible to me that a system could be put into place where a king could be impeached. If it were sufficiently difficult to initiate and carry out then it couldn't serve as a means to basically...

It does for everyone other than the king himself. Even with that flaw, its far superior to the joke of a legal system we have in this country where anyone with enough political pull doesn't have to pay any attention to the law whatsoever. The king is the system we are discussing would not be...

The brevity of this response should not be taken as my having blown off any of what you said. Since we are mostly in agreement, I'm just trying to be efficient and focus on the point of disagreement.... The flaw in your position is the contradictory nature of conceding the following two...

That's right because it is plainly obvious that the passage in question is being said to Paul's audience, which is the Body of Christ, which you have now conceded, and there isn't any indication that he's trying to tell them that this is how someone from Israel gets saved under the previous...

I've pointed out that exact thing multiple times. I can't figure out where the disconnect is.

SAYING IT DOES MAKE IT SO!!! Even if you repeat it over and over again! Glorydaz wants you to believe that saying that you believe something verbally amounts to legalism and that the reason its fine that Paul said such a thing as "with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" is because he...

No, I quoted the first sentence as a way of referrencing the whole. The confusion there is understandable. My fault. I have never denied it! Being talked ABOUT is NOT the same as being spoken TO! How much more completely obvious of a point can that be? THEY ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE POINT...

This is false. There would be no ideas to throw out if this were the case. Ever heard of an hypothesis or maybe you've come across the use of the term "theory"? No it isn't! There's political science, economics, mathematics, psychology, etc. None of those and probably several others that I...

The fact that those verses in Romans 10 are in the first person while the whole time the Jews are mentioned in the third person means that Paul cannot be talking to the Jews and yet you IGNORE that point entirely and simply flip it to somehow mean the opposite. I don't know if you're just being...

On the contrary, I do not dispute that Paul is talking ABOUT the Jews. No, glorydaz! Read it for yourself. Paul is referencing Israel in the third person, throughout those chapters. He's talking TO his audience ABOUT Israel. So when we read Romans 10:9-10 and it's NOT in the third person then...

The best thing about Bob's lists is that they aren't going to be what one would typically expect from an overtly Christian website. Typically, what you get from Christian websites is really sort of half-baked, severely dumbed down and sort of hokey presentations that are intended for members of...

The problem is that saying it doesn't make it so, glorydaz! Paul was speaking of Israel in the third person. That single point alone is sufficient to prove that Israel was NOT Paul's audience. Being spoken about is just not the same as being spoken to. The rest of what you said is a collection...

RSR's 2013 List of Evidence Against the Big Bang

Yes, you were. Repeating your position does nothing to establish it, glorydaz. I at least understand now the line of thinking that produces this idea that Paul was teaching the Jews but it doesn't fit with the rest of Romans. Like I pointed out in a previous post, Romans 9 comes right after...

Paul was a Jew and he was the charter member! Of course! No one suggested otherwise. The whole point of saying such a thing is that it's the same God, the same Jesus, the same death, burial and resurrection of the same Lamb of God (i.e. the same sacrifice for sin). The vast majority of...