Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Nothing can demonstrate Jesus does not mean what he says in Lk 11:48-51.I've refuted your self-contradictory reading of that passage too many times to bother repeating myself. By now it's pretty clear that you mostly indulge in the pretense of a demonstration.
Wow. What a profound statement. Jesus means what He says. I'm impressed by your argument.Nothing can demonstrate Jesus does not mean what he says In Lk 11:48-51.
Please. The word IN is regularly used to denote location/immersion. All we need is one clear example. We have probably thousands.
That's not the issue. It is YOU, as the exegete, who must comply with preestablished precedent
Thanks, simplicity can be profound, can't trump what Jesus says in Lk 11:48-51.Wow. What a profound statement. Jesus means what He says. I'm impressed by your argument.
You'd have a case if ANYONE established a precedent for your reading.Did Paul establish the precedent?
.
No need to trump it. I've trumped your reading of it multiple times now. The problem here is that you keep equating your (self-contradictory) interpretations with the written Word, such is the "substance" of your "demonstrations".Thanks, thought you would be, can't trump what Jesus says in Lk 11:48-51.
.
Did someone establish the precedent for Paul?Clare73 said:Did Paul establish the precedent?
So it's just personal opinion about Paul.KAL said:You'd have a case if ANYONE established a precedent for your reading.
Nobody can prove anything 100% - I can't even prove that you exist. What I CAN do is ask you to avoid insane exegesis. In that vein, I simply asked you, "Why should we accept your reading of Luke 11:48, given that your reading appears to be in flat contradiction to Ezekiel 18, when I propose at least two alternatives that DON'T contradict?"You haven't shown my "reading" of Lk 11:48 to be not what Jesus said.
Same ole, same ole. . .Nobody can prove anything 100% - I can't even prove that you exist. What I CAN do is ask you to avoid insane exegesis. In that vein, I simply asked you, "Why should we accept
your reading of Luke 11:48, given that your reading appears to be in flat contradiction to Ezekiel 18, when I propose at least two alternatives that DON'T contradict?
Falls somewhat short of a Biblical demonstration of incorrect reading of 1Co 15:22.Nope, still no linguistic precedent established for your reading of 1Cor 15:22.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?