Search results

@blackSand, Leviticus 19:20 ‘Whoever lies carnally with a woman who is betrothed to a man as a concubine, and who has not at all been redeemed nor given her freedom, for this there shall be scourging; but they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. 21 And he shall bring his...

I agree but it really does matter just what you mean by the word "sin". Leviticus chapter 4 (and several other similar passages) do talk about blood sacrifices being made to atone for unintentional (i.e. amoral) sins. All such blood sacrifice was symbolic of Christ's coming death at Calvary...

Alright, it seems the dispensationalism tack has basically run its course. Let's do as Arial asks and just see whether this amillennialism idea can hold water on its own merits. Is it internally consistent? The answer to that question is definitely, "No, it isn't!" and one of the best ways I...

You are such a hypocrite!

Because there is no correlation. "Sin" can be used in more than one way. Moral infractions require intent but the law of Moses wasn't just about moral right and wrong, it was about civil justice and the societal rule of law. Thus, any infraction of the law was dealt with by the law so that you...

Nearly complete nonsense! The bible talks at length about unintentional breaking of the law (i.e. "sins") but the notion that sacrifices to remove guilt being a man made idea is laughably idiotic! Leviticus 6:1 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2 “If a person sins and commits a trespass...

The whole thread is still here for the whole world to read, Arial! Right back at ya! Hypocrite! This was an INTENTIONAL LIE!!! Right back at ya! Hypocrite! It's all right here for us to read, Arial! I quote YOUR OWN WORDS and then respond directly to them. I am not the only one on TOL...

That's the stupidest accusation that I think anyone has ever leveled at me! If you want to be isolated? Just decide to become an Mid-Acts Dispensational Open Theist. If you slung 10,000 cats in all the Christian book stores that exist in your whole city, you'd never once get within ten miles...

Every post have been in direct response to your own words, Arial. Saying it doesn't make it so. No one is angry other than you. We are simply pointing out errors in the ideas you say you want to discuss. It seems you only want to discuss it with people who agree with it. You're only arguing...

No is preventing her from doing so, least of all me! Why can't you (and she) just let me present my views?

"Helps" not "help". And I never call people names because I disagree with them but because they have demonstrated character traits that are in keeping with the names I choose to call them. People who are stupid, irrational, heretical or whatever SHOULD be embarrassed by their behavior. Such...

If it is your intention not to discuss dispensationalism then why do you keep posting things that are clearly intended to spark debate about exactly that? Let's take what YOU said in YOUR thread point by point... "Revelation has been utterly forgotten..." This is just completely and utterly...

What he's claiming is that Jesus' blood was spilled for all the little small sins that people don't commit intentionally. If you sin on purpose, all that's needed is repentance and you're good! The blood is for all the stuff you can't repent of because you don't do it intentionally. At least...

Tambora knows her argument is rediculous. That's why she's stopped responding and started simply repeating herself over and over again as though we haven't said anything.

No, no, no! Paul's converts were well aware of who Peter, James and John were and they would have understood who their audience was. It would only have been an issue if any of them (or men from them (Gal. 2) came and tried to teach them to follow that other gospel. No, of course, I don't...

By you own admission is it a thread about idealism, which I dispute and for good reasons which I have presented. It has nothing to do with me other than I am participating here on TheologyOnline.com which is a debate forum, not your personal blog site. You can present any idea you want to...

Never suggested otherwise. Sheesh, you people are thin skinned! That isn't true at all! Who told you this?! The rhetorical power of questions is as old as literature! There's even a word for answering a question with a question. It's called "maieutics". It's associated with the Socratic method...

If you CAN'T find it in history? Maybe you could provide a link to your thread.

Who is it here who's being hostile again? Sheesh! I've read Galatians so many times that I have literally lost count - along with the whole rest of the bible, by the way. And it isn't merely that Paul went to the Gentiles, it's that he had to tell the Twelve what gospel he was preaching! He...

@blackSand You are a lunatic. I do not discuss Christian doctrine with non-christian weirdos. It's not like you were responding to anything I said anyway. Just another in a long line of waste of time buffoons. Good bye.