Search results

Okay, I can go with a potential misunderstanding. Let's talk it out. Think it through, as it were. The phrase "spiritual truths" is pretty broad. What spiritual truths are you talking about? Romans 1 makes it painfully clear that spiritual truths such as God's existence and right and wrong are...

You have a choice, Idolater. In fact, that is the first of Luther's 95 theses! "Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said "Repent", willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance." - Martin Luther No, it's entirely correct. Have you ever bothered to read the 95 Theses that...

Well, that's stupidity. First of all, God becoming a man isn't anything close to being "the deeper understanding of the word of God". On the contrary, its the prima facia teaching of the New Testament and the core teaching of the entire Christian faith. I mean, you couldn't get any more...

This is EXACTLY correct. You should, however, be careful not to be a hypocrite. It's insulting in the extreme that you would equate his cultish manner of handling scripture with Protestantism. That displays a level of ignorance about the Reformation and what it was about that puts you in a...

Why do you keep saying this? That isn't true at all! The incarnation isn't difficult to understand whatsoever. Are there aspects of God's nature that we don't understand? Of course! But the idea that Jesus is God incarnate, isn't one of them. The first chapter of John isn't hard to follow at...

You're a liar, Dartman! The best argument against your doctrine is that fact that you are incapable of debating it honestly. What are you even doing here? What possible benefit could you think you're deriving from this? WHY will you not respond to the things presented against your doctrine...

Perhaps indirectly. While he gets credit, in one way or the other, for all the evil in the cosmos, my bet is that Satan doesn't even know that Dartman exists.

There isn't anything mystical about Dartman's understand or lack thereof. He chooses to "misunderstand" and ignore the truth that has been clearly shown to him in this very thread and probably dozens of times before.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Dartman. Language is language. The meaning of a word does not change dramatically because a philosopher used it as apposed to a banker or a black smith. Words can be used in special ways by various people but that special use would have to be explained somehow...

Yes, Dartman, it does too! Everyone has access to Strong's Concordance. Use your head for something besides a hat rack and think for a change. The word kosmos has meant the created order since at least Plato's time and first used by the philosopher Pythagoras for the order of the universe...

Only in your mind. Do you understand what the following sentence means?.... SAYING IT DOESN'T MAKE IT SO! No, that's your doctrine, not the scripture. Liar. I and others here have already established that in fact it does say so more than once and in more than one way. Pretending like you've...

Which no one denies and thus does not argue your case. Which no one denies and thus does not argue your case. Which no one denies and thus does not argue your case. Which no one denies and thus does not argue your case. Including this was a lie - an intentional lie - on your part because the...

You can know that a man is pushing a cult when his doctrine makes it impossible to simply read something and understand what it says. When everything EVERYTHING become some sort of figure of speech that cannot be understood until AFTER your doctrine is "corrected", you know you've heard the...

Nice! I had forgotten about that verse! John's writings are just amazing on this topic. "The glory I had with you before the world was". "pro ho kosmos einai". Literally, "Before the universe existed". I wonder which Dartman will choose? Will he move along and pretend that you didn't quote...

Just one more in the seemingly endless line of worthless trolls that don't know how to have a rational discussion, who aren't interested in actual debate, and couldn't respond to a substantive argument against their doctrine if their life depended on it (which it does). How completely boring.

You miss the point. Probably my fault. Jesus, the Man, is subject to the Father. No one denies that. The fact that the Logos, the second person of the Trinity, became a man (and remains a man to this day, by the way) isn't affected by the fact that Jesus submitted Himself to the Father. In...

No, it is "reason". The word does have a sphere of meaning that is nuanced by the context in which it is used but its meaning is all but identical to the English word "reason". Much more than that! That, in fact, is such a shallow thing to say that it's very nearly meaningless. Fools use words...

Like I said, why bother reading the bible in the first place. You're willing, not only to ignore what it says but when it directly contradicts your doctrine to a point that it cannot be denied in any rational manner, you simply find an excuse to cut it out of the bible. Why bother with all this...

Kettles and pots! Which is true. He was also the Creator and was with God in the beginning and was God. So says the Apostle John. ...than God the Father. He is a separate person, even more so in His human condition. Now who's reading into the scripture? There's no way that you don't know...

Logos does not mean "words". It means "reason" and, in the Greek context in which John was using it, it was referring to the intelligence that created and sustains existence. Regardless of the meaning of the word "logos", John explicitly states that he is talking about God, the Creator of...