Recent content by Jipsah

Tim Johnson

Is not.

Anglican.

Fairly boring flag,IMO. That's been the view of pretty much every date-setting ninnie for past 70 years or so. It becomes less likely with the passsage of time. That's the NOTB du jour. Yeah, that, and the Social Security number, and the Covid vaccone, and bar codes, ad nauseum. A chip's...

And here's one I've mentioned but not really followed up: why would almighty all-knowing God need to do a centuries-long "investigation" to determine who's to be saved and who isn't? From a sola scriptura standpoint: Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding...

As long as we're talking about SS, here's one for you to chomp on: there is no decree or commandment in the New Testament for Christians to keep Sunday as a religious day of meeting, It is also true that, while all the other 9 Commandments are enjoined in the New Testament, the commandment...

Well, maybe not. Where in Scripture did the years 457 BC and 1844 AD come from? I don't see them in Scripture anywhere. Put your sola scriptura to work on that one and get back to me. Show me where those dates exist in Scripture. Your word search results? Gimme the evidence of where those...

I only said it about 50 times. Blue smoke and mirrors.

That's what I thought. It doesn't. It came from some bloke who needed to try and justify, if only in his own mind, having made a wholly bogus Second Coming prediction, and being quite justly hoorawed by his neighbors for it. So he did the SDA thing, he declared a victory, and invented an...

Then why is He investigating, and poring over books? Hint: Nobody home there. Fairly transparent version of "prove it ain't". Burden's on you, matey. You want folks to believe a contention, support it.

Not difficult for me at all. IJ is a made-up doctrine of the sort commonly contrived by failed date setters. Your lot believes it because you need to believe those failed date setters. They're your burden, not mine. We (Anglo)Catholics are content to point at them and laugh.

And some of us, having no doctrinal ax to grind, actually pay attention what's being said. Well you know, you may be right. I'll just waiting for your legions of unbiased objective readers to rally to your support. Quote, Bob. You seem to be putting lots of words in lots of mouths here...

Quote, please. In context, please. The unbiased objective reader may not be that easy to gull. I'd say so.

Nah, he nailed it. Clumsy redirection there. Five yards and loss of down. Then what need has our Lord to investigate anything? The concept is ridiculous. God is omnipotent or He isn't. Pick one asnd run with it. Then the investigation is for...? And just out of curiousity, isn't it...

Or, in this case, a lot of malarkey "supported" by an infinitesimal amount of Scripture. When we start supporting doctrines with individual words extracted with tweezers from a chapter of Scripture which has little or nothing to do with the doctrine it suposedly confirms, that looks an awful...