What do you think condemned is?
Assignment to the second resurrection.
What do you think condemned is?
At this point in the various threads, andcy wins the grand prize as the most incompetent of the various posters.
He, of all other posters, has got to have the highest consistency in reading his own notions into the various passages.
Even other Pentecostal/Emotion Based Faith posters on TOL get more passages right (when they do) then he does.
I've met some really dumb so called Bible based Pentecostals, but this guy really takes the cake.
Of course, being that he; like some others also do (at times, in their case) goes by his reading into a thing; he will conclude I am mad at him, or some other natural man based wisdom of men.
Sheesh - andyc not the obvious - at the very least go get yourself some rigourous training in Bible study principles.
If for no other reason than out of a debt of gratitude to He who died for your sins, and rose again for your justification (if - hopefully - you even have this much right).
:doh:
Assignment to the second resurrection.
It wasn't a trial. It was a test.
Nonsense.
The accusers were not intending to kill this woman, they were simply trying to see if Jesus would undermine the law.
If the woman was caught in the act, she wouldn't have a leg to stand on, which is why this situation was obviously a setup.
Either Jesus would uphold the law by condemning the woman what she's done, or, as the accusers figured, he would desire to forgive this woman, and by doing so be undermining the law. The accusers would then have something to use against him.
Born under the law to redeem those under the law. Not keep them under the law.
It's still not fulfilled. The law still stands for those who reject Jesus.
I have serious doubts that the whole account of the woman caught in adultery is even true.
It is not so that accusers would fall under conviction of their own sin, but instead would knash with their teeth.
The account sounds like something the RCC would come up with.
In any case, Jesus was not a judge of the law, even though the law condemned adultery, and the witnesses gave no testimony.
How convenient to support the RCC confessional.
LA
Could you explain your beliefs about it better than that?
I can hardly believe that you are teaching others to doubt the Holy Bible.
Sure, those not in the first resurrection will be in the second resurrection.
You say those NOT in the first will be in the second? Could you give me the scripture reference?
I understand what they were saying. Turns out it's the same thing.Translated:I, WickedStiff, don't agree with this 2 pieces of good news, or more in the bible, doctrine, since I am clueless as to what the term "gospel" means. And I will just listen to Professor Judas/Demas says, and I'll be just fine.
Please teach us....
What is to doubt about it?
Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.
So what happens after the thousand years?
Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.
What does it mean if you're wrong?How convenient to support the RCC confessional.
What does it mean if you're wrong?
I think I know what you are saying. You said they are judged at the second resurrection...but aren't they judged now if they are not saved now? How do you get they are not judged now?
No one can be judged until after they literally or figuratively die.
We are not judged for salvation, that is a gift from God. We are judged for reward.
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
I have serious doubts that the whole account of the woman caught in adultery is even true.
It is not so that accusers would fall under conviction of their own sin, but instead would knash with their teeth.
The account sounds like something the RCC would come up with.
In any case, Jesus was not a judge of the law, even though the law condemned adultery, and the witnesses gave no testimony.
How convenient to support the RCC confessional.
LA