Search results

I was repeating your argument in my own words. Thank you for conceding the point. Wrong. Jesus said: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. - Matthew 5:17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew5:17&version=NKJV...

No. That's begging the question. Who said anything about human rules? I didn't. Again: If He is a unitarian God, he CANNOT meet His own just standard of "two or three witnesses to establish a matter," because if God is singular in nature, then he is only one witness. You keep ignoring the...

To answer Derf's question: It's not a matter of "either A or B when presented both." Only one option is available at a time. Either you choose option A before option A was taken away temporarily and option B was made available, or you choose option B after option A is no longer available.

What if I told you scripture says that 1) the time of Christ's return can be hastened, and 2) that the Time of Jacob's Trouble doesn't have to be exactly seven years long, but can be shortened?

Again, SO WHAT? Just because God is the Creator doesn't make Him just. I have no idea what you just said... Begging the question and scripture says otherwise, and there are other threads for that discussion. Suffice it to say that God shows Himself throughout scripture to be able to learn...

@glorydaz if I might answer this for you... @Hoping Our response to this is the same as Paul's: What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into...

Nope. You've got a false dichotomy in your head here. EITHER everything meant for the Jews must not be taught to Christians OR everything meant for the Jews MUST be taught to Christians. There's a third option: Some things in the Bible are specifically for the Jews, and some things are...

Saying it doesn't make it so, and repeating it won't make it become so. So what?

I gave you it already. Here it is again: Arbitrary - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. Just - based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. The question I asked previously challenges you to think about WHY He is just, and not just...

Another appeal to the stone. Saying it doesn't make it so. And I have presented the argument to the contrary. What does us not being God have to do with it? The question is about God's relationship with what is good, not man's. But you just said God is arbitrary. God cannot be both...

Had we just done this to begin with, we wouldn't be in the predicament we're in today.

Nope. That's not what it means to rightly divide. Yes. And? That's specifically within the Body of Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile. That's what Paul is talking about. But you seem to have missed the thrust of the argument. There's a difference between what Paul taught and what...

I'm not going to argue with you on your inability to spell. I claim what, exactly, isn't? I have made the argument. You ignored it. If you would like to read my argument, it is in post #486. Arbitrary - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. Just - based...

Saying it doesn't make it so. "God arbitrarily determines what is good" is what that means, Omni. The God of the Bible is not arbitrary. You do not serve the God of the Bible. 1) It's "all-knowing." 2) Saying it doesn't make it so! MAKE THE ARGUMENT OR REFUTE MINE!

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)?