Search results

And @glorydaz too!

1) This is begging the question, a logical fallacy. 2) The fallacy is exposed when you read 1 Peter 1:1-2, which CANNOT be talking about the Body of Christ, and which, when read, CLEARLY is talking about the people of the law, the chosen nation, the laws of which nation required the sprinkling...

Thank you for conceding the point. If the New Covenant were not put on hold, then you might have a point. But it was, so most of what you said is moot. "Blindness in part has happened to Israel." It will be reinstated when "the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." (Romans 11:25)

It's one of my favorite figures of speech, and it's one that most people use daily without really realizing it.

Jeremiah 31:31-34: 31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt...

Prophetic yes. And yes, there were literal souls under the altar. "Woodenly literal" is at the opposite end of "figurative." Prison? I believe Matthew 28 is relevant here. It was completely necessary. That's all that needs to be said. AND BECAUSE IT WAS NECESSARY, therefore, there was...

I think you have me confused with another poster.

Missing the point I'm trying to make.

He came as a baby in a manger, willingly. Maybe you ought to reread the four gospels. Everything Jesus did had a purpose, especially what he said to the religious leaders. You missed the important bit: He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is...

Isn't that called a bribe? Appeal to authority. "Experts in a field [who] know a bit more than I do" can be wrong too, you know. Special pleading won't help you. Which doesn't align with the evidence... It's not assuming when the record of history shows them to be acting in the best...

Because you say so? We? You have a mouse in your pocket or something? "Begged to be spared"? Not quite. He asked if there was any other way (there wasn't) but if there wasn't, He was willing to go to the cross. He wasn't. I think you need to read Isaiah 53. A God who goes willingly...

Indeed. Love must be freely given. If it isn't free, it isn't love. I always think of God's reconciliation this way: Man tore down the bridge between God and man. (Man sins.) God rebuilt that bridge. (Christ died on the cross.) Man now has the opportunity to cross that bridge. (Man must...

Because some pain is worth much love. Because He is the God who provides. By Him going to the cross, He provided a way for those who love Him to be with Him.

To provide salvation by dying on the cross? I'll let Jesus' words and actions answer that question: He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.” . . . Again, a...

I will point out that Paul calls the law (which is what the twelve were preaching to the Jews) a curse. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” ), - Galatians 3:13...

Ah, not so much oof then.

Oof

Jesus was referring to the Mosaic law. Yes, if you keep the two great commandments, you will fulfil the law of Moses, but you must still keep the law if you do.

Just the greatest commandments? No. He would have kept the ENTIRE Law. Else He would have been a hypocrite when He said: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one...

See https://theologyonline.com/threads/is-the-king-james-bible-the-only-inspired-scripture-on-earth-today-battle-royale-xiv.30393/ and https://kgov.com/kjo for that. This isn't the thread for that discussion.