Understanding whether Jesus had the
ability to be tempted in the flesh or not is NOT a test that will be given at
heaven’s gate. iz From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Who says this is not an esstential? You?
DM? And what are these "essentials/" None of
you fundies ever get around to answering that question. Do you all
think this goes unnoticed? Lance, what you fail to ?apprehend? is
that if DM and JT are truly seeking Truth (which they are), then eventually they
will reach agreement. The nice thing is that they are not disagreeing on
anything of essential-to-being-saved issues. izzy From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir At last we've been presented with the opportunity to
demonstrate this 'He will lead you into all truth' thingy is misunderstood by
those who have most often cited it (Judy, David). Both are faithful servants of the Lord, both have 'studied
to show themselves approved', both are 'berean' in their approach....HOWEVER
ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WEASEL OUT IN THE END SANS A SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION!
One is more committed to belief than reality. |
- RE: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter' ShieldsFamily
- Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter' knpraise
- Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter' Charles Perry Locke
- Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter' Dave
- Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter' David Miller
- Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter' David Miller
- Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter' Judith H Taylor