One Died For All

[Clare73]

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.

Nothing can demonstrate Jesus does not mean what he says in Lk 11:48-51.

 

[JAL]

Nothing can demonstrate Jesus does not mean what he says In Lk 11:48-51.

Wow. What a profound statement. Jesus means what He says. I'm impressed by your argument.

 

[Clare73]

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

Did Paul establish the precedent?
.

 

[Clare73]

Wow. What a profound statement. Jesus means what He says. I'm impressed by your argument.

Thanks, simplicity can be profound, can't trump what Jesus says in Lk 11:48-51.
.

 

[JAL]

Did Paul establish the precedent?
.

You'd have a case if ANYONE established a precedent for your reading.

 

[JAL]

Thanks, thought you would be, can't trump what Jesus says in Lk 11:48-51.
.

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".

 

[Clare73]

Did Paul establish the precedent?

Did someone establish the precedent for Paul?

You'd have a case if ANYONE established a precedent for your reading.

So it's just personal opinion about Paul.
.

 

[Clare73]

No need to trump it. I've trumped your reading of it

You haven't shown my "reading" of Lk 11:48 to be not what Jesus said.

 

[JAL]

You haven't shown my "reading" of Lk 11:48 to be not what Jesus said.

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're free to embrace insanity but don't pretend that it's convincing.

 

[Clare73]

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?

Same ole, same ole. . .

Lk 11:48 has been shown several times to be not contradictory with Eze 18:14-17, or Ex 20:5.
.

 

[Clare73]

Nope, still no linguistic precedent established for your reading of 1Cor 15:22.

Falls somewhat short of a Biblical demonstration of incorrect reading of 1Co 15:22.

Assertion without (Biblical) demonstration is assertion without (Biblical) merit.
.

 

[St. Helens]

ADMIN HAT ON

ADMIN HAT OFF​