Unless you plan on actually responding to my questions, or speaking to me, please don't evoke my name again. There are no holes in my argument because my argument is consistent with scripture while YOURS IS NOT
.
Delusional at best.
You have to choose which passages to accept and which ones to reject in order to craft scripture that fits your argument.
I accept all the passages of the gospels (except the obviously interpolated like John 8:1-11). Yours relies on some wacky interpretations like saying Matthew 10:1 defines how Jesus came for the Jews alone. Basically you say "2 + 2 = 5 so HA!".
That's what your entire reasoning absolutely depend on and that's why your argument is ultimately a failure.
May God show you which of our reasoning is a failure.
I have poked MANY holes in your argument (so has Pegg),
May God show you whether you've poked any holes.
but you have a problem answering such questions.
I have answered them, you just refuse to accept my answers and brush them off.
Your tactic has been to answer a question with another irrelevant question, but not actually to provide a true answer.
May God show you whether my answer is "True" and "irrelevant".
I've already defeated your nonsensical argument by pointing out your hypocrisies (quoting Jesus when it's convenient, and ignoring him when it's not), and by citing scriptures that invalidate your entire line of reasoning.
May God show you whether you've defeated my argument and whether it's "nonsensical".
Again, unless you can provide an answer for why a Gentile must follow a law that was never given to him (something you've gone out of your way to avoid answering),
Because they choose to be a graft to the Tree of Israel.
or why Christ said that anyone who believed would be saved (something that you outright reject),
Because Believe means to obey and follow.
or why he told his disciples to make disciples of all nations (something that destroys your argument with regard to Mosaic laws being a requirement for salvation),
Because becoming a disciple means obeying the same thing.
or the point that Pegg brings up which is the contradiction of how people could have been considered "righteous" before without the law
,
Righteousness as a definition obviously changed afterward to become the full version.
but now they can only be considered righteous with the law, you'll NEVER "win" the debate you are trying to win at all costs.
May God show you directly which one of us has won the debate.
Acts 10 alone invalidates your entire argument. Of course, you ignore Acts 10 because it's inconsistent with your worldview, and that's fine. But that's the only argument you can use (disbelief) because scripture itself proves you wrong.
I've been over Acts 10 over and over again, it's merely an invitation to allow gentiles into the church, it specifically says its a metaphor. Numerous groups, even many anti-nomian churches agree with this.
You said: "Jesus only came for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel. His death included." But I've already demonstrated why this is false. Matthew 10:1 TELLS US in what manner Jesus came only for the Jews.
Matthew 10:1 says no such thing. Your tactic is to pull up any verse, interpret it in any way you want, with or without precedent, and then claim victory and brush off any actually contextually consistent arguments.
Matthew 10: 5-8
5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.
I can't tell what's worse, your interpretation skills or your ability to irritate with refusal to debate.
Jesus came to administer only to the Jews. That is provide God's word, and heal the sick. But I've shown you that Jesus will still accept Gentiles who prove themselves faithful even thought that's not why he came (Matthew 15:22-27). But you only accept HALF of what Jesus says because your argument is hypocritical.
You have shown nothing but your propensity to jump into a rabbit hole of fringe interpretation and to pronounce victory.
These passages make it clear that the reason he came had nothing to do with the reasons he died (salvation). So you've conflated two entirely different issues. The reason he died was for ALL MANKIND (minus those who don't accept him - JEWS), thus invalidating your nonsense about him only dying for the Jews.
Your verses don't indicate that all mankind doesn't have to "believe" in what he taught.
Matthew 28:18-20
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
And again, all disciples have to follow the same thing the original disciples followed.
John 1:11-13
11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
Again, believing in his name equates to believing in what he taught. What do you think "believe in one's name" means?
So much for him dying ONLY for the Jews. Looks like he actually died for anyone who received him (of which most Jews did not).
Your verses indicate no exception to what I said. To receive him, one must actually LISTEN TO HIS TEACHINGS.
Why do you keep refusing my offer to ask God to arbitrate for us? I have absolutely no fear of invoking Him to settle this unresolvable issue of you repeating your assertions and refusing to accept plain-reading interpretations and assertions that do in fact poke holes in your argument, apparently you do.
Are you too scared? I think so. That speaks volumes about how confident you are in your position, yet you have no problem telling me in gloves-off terms what you think of it.
