Search results

Well, leaving the doctrinal and hermaneutical difficulties of this theory to the side, I don't think this theory can be made to work in any case. The ages in Genesis 5 and 11 (e.g., Adam 130, Seth 105, etc.) are irregular numbers. That is to say that they don't follow any regular pattern where...

You understand that doing what you claim to have done here is against your own doctrine, right? I genuinely cannot fathom how it is possible for a person to be so internally conflicted that such a flagrant contradiction can exist within their mind while being so invisible to them that they are...

Does it really go that hard against your grain to simply trust God's word? Have you ever tried just simply reading the bible and taking it to mean what it seems to be saying? Just read the book of Romans or Galatians and see if the plain meaning of the words on the page square with your...

(y) Where are you meeting these "other Christians"? Sitting is a church pew doesn't make you a Christian any more than sitting in a garage makes you a car. Regardless, the vast majority of Christians believe what they are taught to believe, as is true of most everyone else, for that matter...

Looking for reasons to not take the bible to mean what it says is generally a bad policy. It leads to very bad doctrine all over place. What you can do with Genesis, you can do with Matthew. My advice is to stick with what God's word says unless and until you have a reason that COMPELS you to...

The Witness of the Stars by E.W. Bullinger

Are you suggesting that the ages given for the patriarchs are more or less legends and that they weren't actually their ages but veiled references to lunar cycles?

Do you mean to suggest that the I Cor. 9 passage teaches that Paul was winning Jews in such a way that such converts remained under the law? Surely not! The men who received the Holy Spirit via Paul's ministry did so years after the Jerusalem council. How could such an episode fit. What would...

Virtually any framework at all other than a Mid-Acts framework will have biblical proof for water baptism all over the place. I said it multiple times throughout this thread that I do not actually disagree with your doctrine on this issue. Because I was making the arguments that I've heard all...

Alright, your AI experiment is a perfect opportunity that should allow us to land this plane. I think at this point it should be pretty clear why debates about water baptism never actually get resolved. The problem isn’t that the verses are unclear, and it isn’t that one side is being...

I have got to go to Israel one of these days! I agree, the tomb would have needed to be opened in order to prove that Jesus wasn't still in there.

You don't need to read minds. Baptism was an extremely well known thing. There hadn't ever been any sort of baptism that wasn't associated with water before and so it's just normal that if he had meant something other than the regular sort of baptism that he would have indicated it. In this...

No it isn't! Everyone knew what baptism was and knew it involved water. If Paul had meant something else, he would have said so. No water baptism was entirely knew and no one would have just intuitively understood him to be talking about something other than normal water baptism. Symbolically...

There is no evidence that they were anything else. They received the Holy Spirit via Paul laying hands on them. That and the fact that this occurs years after the Jerusalem council (long after Israel was cut off and the previous dispensation had ended) is proof positive that these men were...

Saying it doesn't make it so. Romans 6:4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Saying it doesn't make it so.

The thing that is unusual about it is that no one would read it that way unless they had an reason to do so that was not communicated by the text itself. Yeah, well that's the case for this passage but you read "no water" into other passages that challenge your doctrine on other grounds. It's...

You know as well as I do that there's a difference. Quoting a passage and just letting the naked verse mean what it seems to say is different than reading it to mean "no water" or whatever is needed because of your doctrine are not the same. Yes it does. That's the natural reading of the text...

No sir! I am purely and only and explicitly QUOTING the verse! It says what it says! You have to interpret it to say something that agrees with your doctrine. Further, and perhaps more importantly, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you're right! Why is my question begging less valid...

I see! The bridge too far comment was, in my mind, in reference to those who might take my previous comments and use them to make the argument that they were saved. :cool:

That's your doctrine talking. Do you remember when I said something about how it seems like almost all of the arguments supporting your side of this debate are question begging? I wasn't kidding. I've noticed it for years. Claims do not an argument make. You need them to be assumptions...