Search results

I'm asking you. You say Jesus "could not" sin. Jesus said He could call on twelve legions of angels to deliver Him (Matthew 26:53), in direct violation of the Father's will (Luke 22:42). Jesus says He could, you say He couldn't. So who should we believe?

Only if you haven't been following the argument in these three threads. Jesus is able to do things God does not do.

Not at all. Jesus changed His mind. Human beings do that. It's not intrinsically a sin.

Matthew 26:53, two questions (#41), yes or no? Feel free to capitalize your answers.

Caps lock doesn't add any weight to your opinion, and you didn't answer my question about Matthew 26:53. Jesus is fully God but He was delivered over to death (Romans 4:25). Jesus said, "I am the life" (John 14:6) but He died. Clearly His deity did not prevent the full experience and full...

Jesus Christ DID not ever sin, that's declared in Scripture. "Could not" is your unsupported opinion. Could Jesus have asked His Father to send twelve legions of angels and deliver Him from arrest and crucifixion (Matthew 26:53), yes or no? Did Jesus do so, yes or no?

It's not heretical to believe Jesus could have sinned but chose not to. If it was impossible for Him to sin, Satan is a first-class moron spending nearly six solid weeks trying to get Him to do so in the desert. There is little doubt that the devil knows whether someone is susceptible to...

Rather, it was a change in how the Word is with us (Matthew 1:23, John 1:14). Of course the Word was God, nobody here believes otherwise. But you said He was always "the Son" in eternity past and did not change, offering no biblical support for those claims. You also do not address the three...

Scriptural arguments persuade better than opinions in colors and caps.

John chapter 1 says the Word was God. It also says the Word "became" flesh. How is that not a change? Death, resurrection - that's not change? God did not give the eternal Word for our salvation, He gave His uniquely begotten Son (John 1:14, John 3:16). If the second person of the Trinity was...

Different book, as is the one in Revelation 3:5 and Revelation 13:8. There are multiple books (Daniel 7:10, Revelation 20:13).

I am not interested in Metzger's opinions as a theologian, in the same way that I didn't check the spiritual beliefs of the doctor who screwed the titanium plate into my broken wrist. If you want to cite someone with more experience and greater skill in textual criticism who draws a different...

I commend 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 to your attention as it illuminates Exodus 32:33 - Paul indicates that the judgment of physical death is the issue there rather than salvation.

Greek scholars "care what Metzger says," and so does anyone else who is seriously engaged in the art and science of textual criticism. Who do you think helped compile the list of manuscript witnesses you quoted above? If you own a copy of Nestle-Aland, check the flyleaf. If you trust your own...

Not correct. Jesus told His brothers He was NOT going up to the feast (v8). Then He went up to the feast (v10). That's exactly what the Greek text says.

But you do?

Christ laying down His life "a ransom for all" does not mean that all have accepted it. Look at the parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22. The groom's father says “See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding...

No argument there. Not sure how it pertains to the discussion, but it's always something to praise God for.

Only God's people were under the law; that's the context of Hebrews 10. There is no covenant between God and unbelievers to be found in Scripture. Your view that Hebrews 10:29 speaks of the unsaved fails at the next verse: "The Lord shall judge His people." The unsaved are not God's people...

God cannot die. Ooops.