Search results

You may have done so already, but would you post a link, (again if it applies)? Thank you. -Lon

I 'am' is a state of existence that encompasses 'will be.' Not between John 8:58 however. Again the two aren't comparable in grammatical structure. Not in this case. "I am," conveys the same meaning. "I am the guy you are asking about," or "I am he," are understood by "I am" as well...

How is this a response to that gospel being for Jews alone? Acts 3:17 “Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. 18 But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer. 19 Repent, then, and...

Here is a fairly full discussion of meaning and pronunciation. Note that the fullest consensus is 1) YHWH with a,e pronunciation as most likely upon scholastic understanding and 'am/to be' given as "or" is the meaning but that the state of being is difficult to pin down in English. It means...

No, you and Dr. Sadler made a leap. The gospel for the Kingdom was strictly for Jews and gentiles had to convert. Don't bother posting a UB quote, when it clearly contradicts the Bible. You might as well be a Mormon with such special pleading. The real problem was flesh. Flesh interprets...

It wouldn't matter when both statements are identical AND the Name God gave Moses. Hebrew did have a few ways to distinguish, but it was a language where most nouns had multiple applications. It means that His name stood for 'am' a state of being/existence in all its forms. As I said...

"Will be" is fine. "Am" is the state of being expressed. Because your interest was Unitarian/Trinitarian, twice removed, your thread wouldn't have garnered a lot of attention other than someone specifically interested in a name study. It cannot be argued as far as I know Greek. Both the...

I've enough Hebrew for that conversation. The problem with the theory is that there are plenty of orthodox Jewish commentaries preserved that disagree. Jesus would have been aware of them and while He did correct the Sadducees, this one, which would be pretty important never came up. All...

Loving doesn't mean ignoring sin, Caino! Of COURSE I block it out! "You will surely not die, God isn't a heavenly accountant" were all said in the Garden, Caino. Er, which good news. You are picky and choosy about what you want and don't want from the Jews. I'm not a Jew. Neither are you...

Give me one that is well-read and knows grammar rules. They normally believe the gifts are not extent for today. Southern Baptists do have a good number of Charismatic churches, however. Makes sense. You've come across some in the Unitarian churches who you disagree with too, I'm sure...

Yes, I have. This part? No, but it is no different from everything everything everything I've ALREADY read. Which is so 'current events' away from the ancient culture and so preachy you have to know it is Dr. Sadler. You cannot born-again yourself. God makes one born-again. He is the only...

Meh, we mean two entirely different things. You are simply talking about 'enlightenment' where man remains the same and in the same hole with the fallen. Nope, let's prove it: You vilify yourself all on your own. Why else come to a Christian forum? Some odd misplaced hope? I have little...

No, I've a few degrees... Your ups are down, and your downs are up. Its topsy turvy where good is 'bad' (Jesus' precious blood) and bad is good (you don't need anything for your sin issue, it doesn't exist and nothing is needed to wash it away). Old wine in old wineskins Caino.

There is no such thing as 'salvation from anything' in the UB. It isn't 'salvation' just a bit of supposed (not really) 'enlightenment.' Like I told , it is a book of platitudes. I literally wouldn't have to know any of it if I were a 'good urantian.' There literally is no need for the...

What matters if is it is demonstrably viable. You are always free to believe what you want UNLESS you are in a body, the Body of Christ, then you have to demonstrate that the position is viable. It is a 'hope' not an inevitability. At the very least, I've given you reason for pause. I can't...

This isn't 'discussion' it is simply YOU plaguerizing/reprinting the UB with very little comment. I think "I" have said more of my own words in the few pages I've participated than you have in the whole of 543 pages of wasted bandwidth. TOL was never supposed to be that. I didn't create it...

No. The Law (any law) is present to warn against its infraction 'after' the one who needs it is already transgressing it. "Through one man, sin came to the world..." Dr. Sadler is contradicting himself but at least you and I know the UB is wrong (again). No it is not. False simply means...

It makes sense, you make grammatical mistakes with your John 17 assumption as well. He would have said rather "the glory You had for me before..." if He had wanted that assumption. The question: Do you WANT a theology built off of assumptions? Are the truths of God VERY important...

I'm Jealous for God and ANYTHING that attacks Him. Your book isn't remotely worthy of anything from anybody AND doesn't demand that kind of devotion from its own text anyway. It isn't as well-thought-out as you imagine and is the work of amateurs. Said every Samaritan, LDS, and Urantian...

Er, attacks, like Don Quixote attacking the windmills of his mind. Destroy? In your little head BUT attacking God IS what Satan does. You cannot have it both ways. Thus, you are not for us, but against us by your own admission. You yourself just said you are attacking, Caino. Of course I...