Search results

In other words, you're saying: [That some pagan philosophical constructs exist does not mean that God being omniscient is from the pagans.] Is that correct? Because it's flatly false. The argument presented is that Augustine brought the idea that deities are omniscient into Christianity FROM...

Or, Jesus was telling the truth that "you will not be able to travel through all the cities of Israel before My return", etc, but then circumstances changed (Israel rejected Her Messiah) and so God couldn't give them right away the land He had promised them.

It's not meaningless. The idea that God is omniscient having pagan origins is a valid observation of history. It affects one's entire theology, and thus, ignoring it's origin has a drastic impact on why one believes what he or she believes.

Land promises to Israel are not "not of this world."

Or, He was telling the truth, but circumstances changed, and so He couldn't yet give Israel the Kingdom He had promised them.

Christ became sin for us. I agree, He never transgressed the law, but he was still numbered as one. The requirements were given in the passage I quoted: “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,beginning from the baptism of...

Sure! Hebrews: The full title of Hebrews is "The Epistle to the Hebrews". James: James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: Greetings. - James 1:1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James1:1&version=NKJV Peter's...

Scripture makes it explicitly clear: “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”And they...

You can't honestly say that if you haven't read it. Your appeal to the stone is a logical fallacy. Refresh my memory. No, not the same thing. It's a red herring because it's going off topic. A rabbit trail. Says the one who refuses to back up her arguments.

Which means you don't have a case either, with your "to the jews" vs "to the gentiles," which, by the way, is inherently part of my position. I'm well aware that "ho" is "the." The problem with your claim is that, regardless of which it's supposed to be, to or of, or even without either of...

Now you're actively avoiding the question. Why does me asking you if God creating for the first time qualify as an event cause you to squirm so much? Answer the question: Was God creating, itself, an event? Meaningless gibberish until you can answer my question. Self-contradictory...

Now read the rest of it. And that would be, what, exactly? You didn't bother to provide any scripture. No. What he's saying is that the idea that God (or, in the case of the pagan Greeks, their gods) has omniscience has it's origins in pagan philosophy. Big difference. It is a fact of...

Nope. "... I have been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, just as Peter of the circumcision." Two different gospels, Paul was entrusted with one, and Peter with the other. Saying it doesn't make it so. The Jews are a relatively small group compared to the rest of the world...

That's not what I asked. Please answer the question I asked: Was God creating an event in and of itself?

You said: So I asked: First, answer this: Was God creating an event in and of itself?

Now you're not making any sense. You're not very consistent, are you?

Only if you disallow any other reasoning besides the origin of their names... In reality, however, there are several places where it is made explicitly clear whom the letters are addressed to, aside from Galatians 2:7-9.

Neither were the Twelve. All thirteen, however, were taught directly by Christ, the Twelve in person, and Paul through revelation.

You don't see the problem? Or are you claiming that God creating wasn't an event in and of itself?