Search results

Wow... I love Star Wars as much as the next guy (nerd?). But the allusions have got to go. Speaking of allusions, would it not seem most likely that the origin or source for "coming on the clouds" is from Daniel 7:13, "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there...

Any school worth its salt does not spoon feed interpretations to the students. At best, they should teach them how to think critically and interpret independently from indoctrination. That said, I am a grad of Piedmont. But I have shed much of their indoctrination. However, you can't judge...

This is why propositional theology (and thus systematic) will always have shortcomings. Adam and Eve in narrative makes more sense (narratival and biblical theology). What is the story about? How does this protology relate and affect the redemptive-historical narrative as well as a...

I came across it on google when I saw James White post a pic of Ankerberg w/ the Caner brothers on facebook. I searched to see of he did a show w/ them recently. This thread came up. Honestly, I didn't even check the dates of when this thread was started. I'm still not sure Ankerberg has...

"millions of viewers" Ankerberg? Isn't that a stretch of the truth? Maybe I'm wrong.

Think it is a great idea!

How about none of the above... there were too many Christian cliches that a non believer would not understand or have a wrong understanding about. "Born-again" is the one that stuck out most. I'd rather id myself as a follower or even disciple of Jesus.

The NET bible would by my seminary study bible of choice. It is not theological but exegetical. It would help you in your greek and hebrew classes. And the profs I have in sem (SEBTS) use their GNT and BHS (but I'm not taking theology classes only bib stud classes so that might vary)...

Not sure if it has been recommended, but if you want study notes that are helpful but also give insight into the mind of the translators, then I'd recommend the NET study bible. It is probably the best exegetically helpful study bible on the market. It is not a theological study bible such as...

Post some examples maybe

So when you said, "The Quelle denies the inspiration of the Word of God and places inspiration all on a single document closely associated with Gnosticism." you were not referring to the document but the hypothesis? I just want to make sure I understood you b/c it sounds like you were referring...

That was put gently. I would have said "not remotely" in regards to the completely fallacious claim "'dictation theory'... is the only way to have verbal inspiration."

Maybe, but I think the full import of what Peter is stating is a gospel explanation not a defense of Christianity. I don't think these 2 sides of the same coin here. I believe one is an outgrowth of the other.

Ok... let me ask then... First did you say this? Second did you mean it? Third if I have misunderstood please explain. It sure seems like you think Q is "closely assocated" w/ gnosticism. Then you later associated it w/ gnostic writings such as gnostic gospels. Is this correct?

Perhaps... but I don't think Peter had in mind the modern state of apologetics today either. And as the title indicates, the emphasis is an evangelistic one rather than an apologetic one. I would like to see the apologist do what he does w/out this verse. I don't think this verse requires...

You still made no links of Q w/ gnosticism. Fact is, if Q is legit (not saying it is), then you are saying significant portions of Matthew and Luke are Gnostic. Do you really understand what you are saying?

That's just it... it wasn't a defense. It was simply a gospel presentation. It is not about biblical or nobiblical whatever. It is about apologists abusing this verse to make is say something that it does not.

Long and short of it, I see many people defending their own apologetics ministry based on this verse. And I don't see this verse being a basis for defending the faith but rather simply expressing vocally one's faith after it has been expressed visually w/ good works and persecution. This verse...

You can't debate with someone like this. You can't even have a rational dialogue. You are the quintessential example of the mental in fundamental (although I like to poke da fun at you as well).

Actually, you made the wild assertions and offered no proof. The onus is on you to verify your claims. The gnosticism thing was the wildest, IMO. But the denial of inspiration is also false. I'd like to see you back up your statements too.