Search results

Says the one who resorts to an appeal to the stone by calling my argument "junk junk junk" without even bothering to try to refute it. All you need to do to understand it is apply your mind a bit, Omni. This is called begging the question and going off topic, Omni. It A) in the case of "God...

That's option 2. You said 1. Are you now changing your answer? Irrelevant. Until you realize that it means that your unitarian version of God makes Him completely arbitrary. So you don't really have any good answer here. The phrasing is similar to the original question asked of Euthyphro...

"Jew" can refer to the entirety of Israel, as a synecdoche. Ergo, there's nothing wrong with calling Moses a Jew, though I would agree that Hebrew would be a better term. Consider also the history of Israel as a whole, with the whole Babylonian captivity.

So it's a standard greater than Himself? Then He's not God, is He? That standard, whatever it is, is.

Stamping your foot and demanding it to be so does not qualify as an argument. "The Epistle to the Hebrews" was written to *gasp* the Hebrews! Shocking, isn't it? As far as I'm aware, neither you nor I are Hebrews...

How do you answer this then, unitarian: 1) Is something (like humility) good because God recognizes it as good? Or, 2) Is something good because God commands that it is good (as Socrates put it, because God loves it)?

Using this kind of reasoning, New Amsterdam isn't actually New York, despite New York's official founding date being that of New Amsterdam's, which eventually became New York. Do you see the problem yet?

This is an appeal to popularity. Just because something is popular doesn't make it right/correct. Hence it being a fallacy.

Sure! https://store.kgov.com/ecclesiastes-and-song-of-songs-mp3-cd-or-mp3-download/

That was directed at Israel, which had a corporate relationship with Christ. But for discussion, sure. It's kind of hard to have a discussion with only one person... ... But I'm sure you knew all that already :)

Is not about the Body of Christ, and thus, everything after this is moot.

This is called begging the question. It's a logical fallacy for a reason. The only time the word "remission" is used in scripture, it's used in the Gospels (in which Jesus says He is come only for the lost sheep of the House of Israel), twice by Peter both times in Acts, and the author of...

Saying it doesn't make it so, Hoping! Make the argument!

Again, "hope" today means something slightly different than "hope" in Paul's time. You're stuck on today's meaning. This is called a Historian's Fallacy. You seem to have ignored literally everything I said about this. From a user named "Hoping," that's rather ironic... Just saying.

14 years. Not 17. Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. - Galatians 2:1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians2:1&version=NKJV

False, if one is in the Body of Christ. People can be called by what they do. People who lie, liars; people who steal, theives; people who murder, murderers; etc. People who sin: Sinners. People who are saved: Christians. If we're dead to the law, the law has no hold on us. We're like the...

I believe I can answer this: The word Paul used for "hope" here is a bit different in meaning than the "hope" we use today. By that I mean that while it's translated as "hope" correctly, it has a different definition than the kind of hope we have and use today. We use the word "hope" to...

Right back atcha!

No, it doesn't.

Saying it doesn't make it so. We've been over this before, B57. It ended with you ignoring what I was saying.