I don’t hold to any single theory.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.
Which again confirms what I have said-selective online Internet sources AGAINST PSA-not all your scholastic work brother.I don’t hold to any single theory.
My paper is my work and I cite sources when I used them in that paper.
Go ahead and debate him, No copy and paste no videos. That should be extremely interesting.I have just shown your error from Isaiah 53-how can you say this is a "fallacy?"
J.
I quoted the sources from Judaism that rejects Is 53 as messianic. You seem to quote those sources when it’s convenient.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 have just shown your error from Isaiah 53-how can you say this is a "fallacy?"
J.
With all that reading and understanding under your belt you shouldn't have a problem debating him.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..
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 .
Another fallacy - the single most messianic text . Nice try there are 100’s of messianic texts in the OT.
Nope it’s called eisegesis and poor hermeneutics.
Nice try I said Judaism denies it’s messianic . More twisting what I said. That’s a poor apologetic. Talk about misrepresenting someone.
Don't you just love it when that happens. Talk about Clueless.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 !!!
That’s PSA . The doctrine doesn’t understand the Tri-Unity of God.
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.
Who is getting edited here? And who is making an ad hominem attack?
It it my work , my paper that I wrote citing sources.
