I sure you believe that about yourself.
Again, I believe the entire Bible, from Moses to John.
Do you also champion Inerrancy?
No, except in the original manuscripts. What does that have to do with anything in this thread?
I'd rather Believe in the ENTIRE Teaching of Jesus. He is, after all, the Messiah.
Of the Jews under the New Covenant. Are you a Jew under the New Covenant? What tribe are you from?
Note that you've not addressed the verses I posted, so... you obviously can't or you would.
I did. You ignored it.
I'm lying about you saying that there is no Justice of God?
Well, you've obviously gone off the edge into some kind of delusion, so I'll just let it go.
You keep ignoring what I've said.
I said, I'm willing to concede the point, if you can just simply call "the Justice of God" "justice" from here on out.
Then again, .... If their ideas of Justice (or right and wrong) came from the Sin of Adam, how can you trust them?
It didn't come from "the Sin of Adam."
It came from God!
GOD is the one who wrote the law on men's hearts, not Adam!
NO. THE LAW WAS GIVEN BY GOD.
Are ALL of their ideas of Justice correct?
Of course not!
But again, even a broken clock is right twice a day!
Would that include you stoning a gay person?
God is the one who commanded that people convicted of homosexuality should be stoned, not men.
What of the ideas of Justice held by the gay community?
What about them?
Are those correct as well?
Only if it aligns with what God says.
Do you really see a difference between what I said and what you posted here?
There IS a difference. The Bible says so.
Your mere opinion has no weight.
Jesus established His eternal kingdom in the hearts of all those who submitted to Him as their Lord.
No, He didn't.
His eternal Kingdom is yet future, and will be in a PHYSICAL LOCATION ON EARTH, specifically in the land of Israel.
I know, as you are always referring to Jews only by nation and not by their religion.
Whether it is Judaism or Christianity.
Judaism has nothing to do with this discussion.
Here, let me see if I can clarify this for you.
The Old Covenant was made between God and Israel (the nation).
The New Covenant was made between the same two parties as the old one, between God and Israel.
Israel rejected her Messiah (Acts 7), and so God cut off unbelieving Israel, and turned to work with the Gentiles directly, instead of going through Israel. However, the New Covenant stayed in effect for at least a while, probably years. At some point, God took away access to Him through the New Covenant, and put it on hold until He's done working with the Gentiles.
The dispensation of the grace of God began with Paul. It continues to this day.
The New Covenant makes the distinction between Jew and Gentile, and only Jews and Proselyte Gentiles may enter into that covenant with God.
The dispensation of grace, however, makes NO distinction between Jew and Gentile, for all are one body.
You keep thinking that I'm talking about Jews in the Body of Christ, when I'm not, but rather, I'm talking about Jews under the New Covenant, not members (Jew or Gentile) of the Body of Christ.
I see only one, with joint Israelite and Gentile believers submitted to one God and one Lord Jesus Christ.
Again, in the Body of Christ, there is no difference, no distinction to be made, between Jew and Gentile.
You're making a distinction where there is none.
I'm not usually not talking about the Body of Christ when I talk about the Jews, because I'm making the distinction as the New Covenant does.
Take off the blinders for a moment, so that you can get the big picture.
Christianity didn't exist before Jesus established it.
Duh. The problem is that you think Jesus established Christianity long before He actually did.
Is there anything to be gained by knowing who wrote Hebrews?
As Clete pointed out, there would be a significant problem with the Bible if it was revealed that Paul was the author.
"It would be heavy, insurmountable, evidence that the New Testament was self-contradictory and therefore false."
It won't change a single word of the epistle.
But it WOULD invalidate much of the New Testament, as Clete said, because it would be contradictory to what Paul said elsewhere.
It's not "in the way that [I Idolater] think that the Catechism is authoritative," the Catechism is authoritative by any measure of that word. It is authoritative Catholicism.
. . .
I'm not looking for authoritative Bob Enyart though, I'm looking for authoritative MAD, and so if you can tell me that Enyart's book contains authoritative MAD, then it is worth reading. I'm not saying the whole thing must contain nothing but all the positive propositions concerning MAD, but that there are authoritative MAD tenets in the book, and please inform me which ones are the authoritative MAD and which ones are more just Enyart's opinion, however learned they may be.
. . .
"['The Plot'] is second only to the Bible itself [in authority]"
This indicates to me that "The Plot" at least contains authoritative MAD, but your refusal to commit to "The Plot" containing authoritative MAD contrariwise indicates to me that that's not the case. Can you tell me which is it? is "The Plot" authoritative MAD or not? I'm looking for the authoritative narrative or teaching or deposit of doctrine for MAD.
. . .
All I want to know is if "The Plot" contains authoritative MAD tenets or doctrines or teachings. Is "The Plot" the authoritative MAD narrative, as I'm saying the Catechism contains the authoritative Catholic narrative.
. . .
All I need to know whether "The Plot" is worth reading is to know that it is authoritative MAD teaching. If it is, then it's worth reading, and if it's not, then it's not. I want to know, what is MAD. Can "The Plot" tell me the authoritative, definitive MAD narrative?
. . .
Look, I'm not going to argue about this anymore.
I and several other people have given glowing recommendations to you to just read the book.
Either read it or don't.
That's the only way you're going to find out what it says.
btw I'm saying the same about the Catechism that you say about "The Plot," except that the Catechism, because it includes Apostolic Oral Tradition as well as Scriptures, is equal with the Bible in authority.
No, nothing men have written is equal with the Bible in authority. Not even the Plot.
Begging the question that they're shut.
Says the blind man.
There can't be two covenants at the same time.
One eclipsed the other.
Because you say so?
Yes, the Old Covenant was done away with, and then the New Covenant was brought in.
But the New Covenant existed simultaneously with the "Covenant" of Grace.
Where are the believing Jews and Gentiles to be remove to?
Why do you keep making the distinction?
In the Body of Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile.
The BODY OF CHRIST will be caught up into Heaven.
By "divide", I only see the division inherent in MAD.
That's because you don't divide at all. You just mash everything together and hope it sticks.
Two churches instead of just one founded on the "rock" that Jesus is the Son of God.
Why can't there be two churches founded on the same Rock?
