Search results

This makes no sense whatsoever! Do you think that he was converted against his will? Do you think that he was converted in spite of the verdict of his mind? He saw the risen Lord that he had been persecuting and so repented. How is it that you think that was some how done in opposition to the...

What on planet Earth could you possibly be talking about?

I explained it as clear as day as did at least one other person and his response is "Nope. Don't get it." He's an idiot.

On the contrary, Gary. It's called discernment. If you were actually stupid enough not to get such a childishly simple point, you wouldn't be able to use the keyboard to type your posts. You're just being stubbornly idiotic and doing so on purpose.

You're such a fool.

No discernment can happen by anyone, spiritual or otherwise, without the use of sound reason. You cannot read I Corinthians 2:14 nor have any idea what its talking about without the use of sound reason. You cannot undermine the use of the mind without the use of the mind. You are well and truly...

Liar

YEAH! No kidding, fool! That's precisely the reason I keep saying it to everyone! MAKE AN ARGUMENT! The difference is that I don't present my position as a matter of personal opinion. I make arguments that I support with sound reason and with scripture. I do not ever blow off a substantive...

Gary, I keep trying with you and keep finding myself literally dumbfounded. No one ever said anything about you having a lazy way of understanding anything and haven't said a single syllable to you that would make anyone believe that I was even slightly alluding to dispensationalism, of all...

Why do you do this? I know you understand the point. You're lazy with the words you use. You say such openly self-contradictory thing as a person's actions demonstrate that justification does not rely on one actions because you don't think as you type. Even if the point you're trying to make is...

You should pay closer attention to the words you use.

Totally on a side note.... The two crucified on either side of Christ were not merely thieves. The King James uses the term "malefactors". The New King James uses "criminals" as do several other translations. As cruel and unjust as they were, not even the Romans crucified mere thieves.

That isn't how sound reason works. No, it would not have! THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE LAW TO PROSECUTE THE KING! That's a pretty easy statement to falsify if it isn't true. Just explain to us how the king would have been brought to trial and duly convicted and punished. The entire...

I'm trying really hard to give you the benefit of the doubt here. This is reminiscent of the sort of "judge not" attitudes Christians had back in the 70s, 80s and 90s. We, as a group, have come a long way down the road from this sort of thinking. Most Christians today understand that Jesus...

Unresponsive. The law, which David was king under, had (has) no provision for even bringing the king to court to convict him of a crime, never mind executing him for it. The king, under the Mosaic Law, answered to God, the Law Giver, not to any judge or court. This worked because God was...

Neither do I. That has nothing to do with it. Irrelevant. You literally don't know what you're talking about. People who are not believers very much should fear judgment. Condemnation is the ministry of the law, even to this day. Some are biblical, most are not. You actually do believe...

Care to explain what point you're making?

God is not a respecter of persons! God had the relationship He had with David because David readily admitted his failures and repented of them. Had he not done so, God would have replaced David just as He replaced Sol. Just where do you go to church, anyway?

Who cares? Refute them, if you can. That would be interesting. Your personal opinions bore me. Jesus not only had the authority to do so but paying careful attention will reveal that He did so in accordance with the law. Conviction under the law required the testimony of two or three...

Nor could he have been! There is no provision in the law for prosecuting the king. This point has been made more than once already.