Search results

Does it seem like we will move back to "no animals on the menu" eventually? Even though God seems to like the sweet savor of roasting meat?

I wasn't talking about the belief. More the fact (see thread title). Good news is good, according to the angels announcing Christ's birth at least, even if you don't go to Bethlehem to see for yourself. But those who went had their faith confirmed.

Jesus took great issue with some of the churches that didn't deal with the Jezebel-type issues. Sure. Mormons, too. It's good for churches to go on record against immorality and perversity.

There's only one way to have eternal life, and that's through the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Whatever law you think is going to save you, that's the one the DBR is good news about.

That doesn't mean they weren't eventually treated as if they were fellow heirs with Jesus, along with Jews. Right!

I think harpazo means "caught up", which is certainly appropriate. But my point was that we have a word/phrase for rapture in the Greek. It's translated joy unspeakable. It's translated exceeding joy. It's what we expect at the coming of our Lord Jesus.

And don't you think that will be "Transport; ecstasy; violence of a pleasing passion; extreme joy or pleasure", as rapture is defined? We don't often use the Greek words from the bible, since most of us don't speak Greek. Rapture certainly fits the emotional side of Christ's coming for us.

Yes, but what did he mean by that? If in Christ there is no Jewish or Gentile, and if James was writing to those who were in Christ, then Gentiles and Jews were both potential audiences--no reason to treat them any different. And it would follow that the Gentiles (ex-Gentiles, if you will)...

I think I do understand, but it is inconsistent with scripture. (Surely you can understand MY position here.)

Yes, of course. He was writing to Corinth, talking about the church in Corinth. Apollos had been there after Paul. The discussion was about who the people should be loyal to, and Paul was quick to point out that it should be Jesus, not Paul or Apollos. You do know, that the Corinthians first...

No. Galatians 6:2 KJV — Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. Not to mention: Romans 2:14 KJV — For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Are you saying you cannot convince us of your point until we are already convinced of your point? You sound like a Calvinist.

Are you listening to yourself? You just did the exact thing you complained about in my post. Of course he taught grace and truth. But grace and truth didn't originate with Paul, and never could...remember how much grace he showed to the Christians before his conversion? Paul even rejects the...

This is a rather humorous side discussion in a thread about the scope of omniscience, don't you think?

True, but if context says they are God's words to a select group of people, and not to any others, then it's worth quibbling about, perhaps. And quibbling is good if it helps us determine who needs to learn from James' words. I just can't see that James' words are not applicable to any...

But if one gets mercy, something he doesn't deserve, then by your definition, he gets grace. While your distinction is true, it is not something that needs to be argued about, since dispensation of mercy is, by definition, grace--no matter the context.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Can you reiterate?

There are certainly funny ways of saying things, and mockery isn't without its place, but I don't understand why it's funny to say Jesus was living out grace.

I'm curious, @JudgeRightly. Why is that funny to you?

Yes. It means that if faith doesn't change how you act, it's dead.