Rainbow crosswalks?

Everything I have written was written to YOU, I have never had a single conversation with your designated thinker and I know for a fact that that you intentionally misrepresent what others say to try and give your Leftist ideas credibility.

I stand by every word I have written and you have proved yet again that you know absolutely nothing about the subjects that you spew dogmatic opinions about; if you would simply read the book instead of relying on the university of Google it would go a long ways toward pulling your foot out of your mouth.

You answered nothing, you did expose your absolute ignorance regarding the scriptures though.

Please show me where I have ever claimed that God could not use anyone or anything as a “conduit” if he chooses.

You just keep digging.

You answered nothing, I quoted scripture directly, yet you gave no response.

Denial is not an explanation. Break this pattern of yours, make an effort, or quit picking arguments you have no intention of actually making.

Not chooses, chose. He is the Conduit, there is no one else on Earth.

Would you care to cite a scripture reference where God declares that he is limited to this or is this just a “metaphysical assumption” on your part? :smile:

1 Like

He only appointed one man to this position. No one else was ever given that role. Thus it belongs only to him, and his direct successors.

If you call that wrong, that’s your assumption.

I do not debate the scriptures with anyone who refuses to read them, if you would like to read the Bible then discuss what you have read I would be happy to indulge you. Short of that I will simply call foul on the obvious heresies.

You didn’t read this one; you didn’t know about the council, about Paul taking down circumcision, or his own stated reinterpretation of the Old Testament as figurative work.

It’s mentioned right there in Galatians and 1 Corinthians, so the only thing you can say, if you were to address it, is that you were mistaken.

That’s why you’re avoiding here. You can’t admit mistakes. Admitting a mistake is an offering of trust, and you never do so in your language.

If you ever decide to read the Bible and would like to discuss it I would be happy to, if you decide to never read the Bible and instead just “look stuff up” and trust others to tell you what it means then I am okay with that too; your decision can neither harm nor help anyone but yourself.

You made a claim scripture refuted. If you can’t answer for that, then you admit you didn’t know what you were talking about.

My impression now is that you may have known something, 10, 15 years ago. But today? You’re too complacent and out of practice.

If you are comfortable with your impressions I have no problem with that.

You’ve shown only talk, no knowledge. That’s a fact.

I quote scripture, you didn’t even describe how what I said was wrong. Not one word did you use to explain.

That seems convenient RET, and it means your own words now apply to you.

You ignored my question, you ignored my challenge. You’ve taken a shortcut here by resting on your laurels, and only offering a denial. And you only offered the denial after I pointed out that you ignored it.

I always ignore your misdirection attempts and I have been very clear that I will not engage anyone in a Bible debate who refuses to read the Bible.

I would be happy to mock your hearsay opinions on any other subject and I frequently do, but short of identifying clear heresy when someone who claims Christianity declares it I will not waste my time or yours pretending that anyone who refuses to read the Bible can learn anything about the Bible or bring any insight or valuable perspective on the contents of the Bible.

1 Like

You said Paul never changed how the Bible was interpreted.

You said no objections were raised to Mosaic law practices by Gentiles.

I gave evidence of both; you didn’t respond. You ignored it, and when I pointed that out, you denied it.

No explanation.

Except I pointed directly to where in the Bible this appears. So, not hearsay. By definition.

You can either explain why you interpret those passages differently, or you can rescind your objection.

Or you can continue to ignore the challenge, and be precisely what you described.

I usually would say “you are intentionally trying to decieve” right now but since in this case I know for a fact that you have never read the Bible I expect you may actually think those sections “answer my challeges”.

Which is precisely why I don’t debate scripture with those who refuse to read the Bible.

You said this:

The Council in Acts 15. They did this. Galatians 5; Paul did this.

You gave no answer. Why did you ignore the challenge RET? Why can’t you explain?

Apparently I’ve read Acts 15 and Galatians 5, and you haven’t.

The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers. Read what it says RET. Seems pretty clear to me that gentiles were complaining about circumcision.

In Galatians 5, Paul is reacting to similar complaints.

There is nothing in Acts 15 that indicates gentiles were complaining about Jewish customs.

There is nothing in Acts 15 that indicates Paul redefined anything in the Mosaic covenant or removed anything from from the Mosaic covenant.

There is nothing in Galatians 5 that indicates any Gentile was complaining about Jewish customs.

There is nothing in Galatians 5 that indicates Paul redefined any part of the Mosaic convenant or removed anything from the Mosaic covenant.

If you had ever bothered to read the Bible you would know why, or at least be able to learn why; instead you are inserting your own assumptions upon individual scriptures.

Which is what everyone who refuses to read the Bible does.

But I will amend my refusal in this way, admit that you are an Atheist and I will debate the details with you gladly; but as long as you claim that you are a believer who refuses to read the Bible I will engage no further than to call out heresy when you declare it.

“Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”

Acts 15:1

“We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you [Gentiles], troubling your minds by what they said.”

Acts 15:24

Circumcision was the specific demand Hebrews were making of Gentiles, saying they wouldn’t be saved unless they did so. As Paul states in the letter, the Gentiles were complaining about this to him and Barnabas.

So Paul and Barnabas convened on the matter, and later laid it straight to the Gentiles, telling them precisely what they had to follow, and to ignore the rest they were told.

He removed circumcision (so did Peter here). It’s right there in the text.

I’ve quoted the bible directly, so you need to explain what you’re doing RET.

If not a complaint about circumcision, what do you think the story is even about? What do you think the letter The Council wrote was addressing?

Nothing in those texts declares the Gentiles were complaining to Paul and nothing in those texts alters anything in any covenant in the Bible.