Search results

No, you don't. Clearly, you don't.

You just responded to something I had addressed several pages ago, and you claim you're not lagging? Riiiiiight...

So it doesn't mean exactly what it says, woodenly literally?

That's what it means, LN, whether it says it explicitly or not. You missed the semicolon. It's a new part of the sentence.

@Leatherneck did the entire city of Jerusalem, all Judea, and the whole literal region around the Jordan river come out to John as he was baptizing people? Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him - Matthew 3:5...

And then it says, "Therefore you sons of Jacob are not consumed." “Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,” Says the Lord of...

It means exactly what it says within the context that it says it. It doesn't mean what you want it to say.

Saying it doesn't make it so. No, you haven't.

That's nice. What he said he teaches from the Bible. I don't agree with everything he says either, but here he's dead-on correct, and he shows logically how your position cannot be true. The article completely destroys your position. And I'm not exaggerating when I say that.

You apparently don't know the meaning of the word "context." The context of something cannot be itself. "if you yank a verse out of context it is nothing more than a pretext." LN: immediately does just that. Do you see the problem yet? I've addressed Malachi 3:6 already. It has nothing to...

No one is saying that quoting scripture is a logical fallacy. We're saying that you are begging the question, because you are, in fact, begging the question. And Clete has addressed those verses multiple times in this thread, and not once did you even recognize it.

Again, no one said the Father died. Wrong. Which do not mean "immutable." Wrong. He "declares" the end from the beginning. Not "knows." Wrong.

Jesus the Son was separated from the Father. No. We're not saying the Father died. We're saying the Son died.

After an action on their part? No. John Piper disagrees: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/is-faith-meritorious

Jesus died both physically (He was separated from His physical body) and spiritually (He was separated from the Father as per Matthew 27:46). You seem to think that we're arguing that death means something other than separation. So please, if you would, define what you mean by "die," and if...

So they should be put to death?

So what should the punishment be for them?

Because slaughtering tens of millions of innocent babies in the womb isn't enough.

Continuing from my previous post: In other words, there's nothing wrong with experimenting with definitions to see what is most consistent, for truth is consistent with itself. As you fully admit, there are very few, if any, inconsistencies in our position if death means separation. In my...

The problem is that even with this, you're not being consistent with your definition of death. Death = separation God said that if man eats of the fruit, he will die. Adam ate of the fruit. And OUR POSITION is consistent with scripture: Adam died to God the moment he ate of the fruit. Thus...