Here I summarize seven atonement theories.

[civic]

Where YOU debunk PSA? What you have done is going online and using Internet sources-selectively-in the HOPE of debunking PSA-you need to read Isaiah 53 again and again-preferably in Hebrew.
There are currently 7 theories on Atonement-and you have yet to answer me as to WHAT theory you hold brother.

We need to tread carefully-this is holy ground.

I don’t hold to any single theory.

My paper is my work and I cite sources when I used them in that paper.

 

[Johann]

I don’t hold to any single theory.

My paper is my work and I cite sources when I used them in that paper.

Which again confirms what I have said-selective online Internet sources AGAINST PSA-not all your scholastic work brother.

Are you using ancient rabbinical writings confirming PSA?

I don't take the Church Fathers as authoritative.

Personally, I am still reading William Craig book on the Atonement and give it an A+ as he have left no stone unturned and have read the rabbinical writings..

 

[Clay]

I have just shown your error from Isaiah 53-how can you say this is a "fallacy?"
J.

Go ahead and debate him, No copy and paste no videos. That should be extremely interesting.

 

[civic]

Which again confirms what I have said-selective online Internet sources AGAINST PSA-not all your scholastic work brother.

Are you using ancient rabbinical writings confirming PSA?

I don't take the Church Fathers as authoritative.

Personally, I am still reading William Craig book on the Atonement and give it an A+ as he have left no stone unturned and have read the rabbinical writings..

I quoted the sources from Judaism that rejects Is 53 as messianic. You seem to quote those sources when it’s convenient.

 

[Dizerner]

I have just shown your error from Isaiah 53-how can you say this is a "fallacy?"
J.

You know.

The amazing thing is Isaiah 53 is literally all you need.

And there's so much more...

 

[Azriel]

Which again confirms what I have said-selective online Internet sources AGAINST PSA-not all your scholastic work brother.

Are you using ancient rabbinical writings confirming PSA?

I don't take the Church Fathers as authoritative.

Personally, I am still reading William Craig book on the Atonement and give it an A+ as he have left no stone unturned and have read the rabbinical writings..

With all that reading and understanding under your belt you shouldn't have a problem debating him.

 

[Dizerner]

I quoted the sources from Judaism that rejects Is 53 as messianic. You seem to quote those sources when it’s convenient.

So scrounging around in the cast off religion of Judaism to interpret the single most important Messianic text isn't "convenient"?

I asked you for one Christian commentator—ANYWHERE in ALL OF TIME—who rejects Isaiah 53 being about Christ.

ONE!!!

 

[civic]

You know.

The amazing thing is Isaiah 53 is literally all you need.

And there's so much more...

No all you need you mean . One verse on their trumps all 66 books of the Bible . It’s called eisegesis . Readings one’s theology into the text . A text without the context is a pretext for a proof text . You are proof texting .

You both continue to make my points for me. Thanks !

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

So scrounging around in the cast off religion of Judaism to interpret the single most important Messianic text isn't "convenient"?

I asked you for one Christian commentator—ANYWHERE in ALL OF TIME—who rejects Isaiah 53 being about Christ.

ONE!!!

Another fallacy - the single most messianic text . Nice try there are 100’s of messianic texts in the OT.

A purely an opinion and at best is entirely unprovable.

 

[Dizerner]

No all you need you mean . One verse on their trumps all 66 books of the Bible . It’s called eisegesis . Readings one’s theology into the text . A text without the context is a pretext for a proof text . You are proof texting .

Sounds like an automated message.

One verse is indeed enough to establish a truth.

Let alone a whole chapter.

 

[civic]

Sounds like an automated message.

One verse is indeed enough to establish a truth.

Let alone a whole chapter.

Nope it’s called eisegesis and poor hermeneutics.

 

[Dizerner]

Another fallacy - the single most messianic text . Nice try there are 100’s of messianic texts in the OT.

A purely subjective opinion at best.

So that's ZERO.

Civic is the FIRST Christian in ALL OF HISTORY that God has given the SPECIAL AMAZING REVELATION to that Isaiah 53 is NOT about Christ.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid I guess.

 

[Dizerner]

Nope it’s called eisegesis and poor hermeneutics.

Your idea of these words is "make the Bible say what I want."

You don't even understand them.

 

[civic]

So that's ZERO.

Civic is the FIRST Christian in ALL OF HISTORY that God has given the SPECIAL AMAZING REVELATION to that Isaiah 53 is NOT about Christ.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid I guess.

Nice try I said Judaism denies it’s messianic . More twisting what I said. That’s a poor apologetic. Talk about misrepresenting someone.

 

[Clifford]

No all you need you mean . One verse on their trumps all 66 books of the Bible . It’s called eisegesis . Readings one’s theology into the text . A text without the context is a pretext for a proof text . You are proof texting .

You both continue to make my points for me. Thanks !

hope this helps !!!

Don't you just love it when that happens. Talk about Clueless.

 

[civic]

Your idea of these words is "make the Bible say what I want."

You don't even understand them.

That’s PSA . The doctrine doesn’t understand the Tri-Unity of God.

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

Don't you just love it when that happens. Talk about Clueless.

Some will get edit in defending their beliefs and instead of attacking their arguments they attack the poster and make it personal. That’s called the fallacy known as the ad hominem attack.

Edited comment

 

[Johann]

With all that reading and understanding under your belt you shouldn't have a problem debating him.

Already have done so-see my content.
Thanks
J.

 

[Johann]

Some will get edited in defending their beliefs and instead of attacking their arguments they attack the poster and make it personal. That’s called the fallacy known as the ad hominem attack.

Who is getting edited here? And who is making an ad hominem attack?
You haven't answer my questions and is it considered as ad hominem when I say your thesis is not your own work?
Shalom
J.

Edited quoted post.

 

[civic]

Who is getting emotional here? And who is making an ad hominem attack?
You haven't answer my questions and is it considered as ad hominem when I say your thesis is not your own work?
Shalom
J.

It it my work , my paper that I wrote citing sources.

By your criteria every book you own and cite was not the author’s work.