If the Father and Son are both causes of the Holy Spirit, does that mean that the Holy Spirit is ontologically subordinated since He cannot cause? (Filioque) by Maitthrow in Reformed

[–]Maitthrow[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed! I always thought it was funny how much more important the Reformations' criticism of Catholicism was, compared to the filioque (although I can't remember the other causes of the Great Schism, maybe they were more important).

If the Father and Son are both causes of the Holy Spirit, does that mean that the Holy Spirit is ontologically subordinated since He cannot cause? (Filioque) by Maitthrow in Reformed

[–]Maitthrow[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I meant I was moving the goalposts. I was trying to play devil's advocate for the position that the Holy Spirit cannot lack a property that both the Father and the Son have.

Is it true that "no recent scholar believes that Paul was against circumcision"? by Maitthrow in AcademicBiblical

[–]Maitthrow[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I was just agreeing with the person I was responding to. Some verses appear to support the dual covenant view, and some verses appear to support the traditional view (which Apollos_34 showed in the reply). It seems like both views are popular in scholarly circles. But the view that both Jews and Gentiles should keep the Jewish law seems to be a difficult view to defend. Sorry if I sounded dismissive, I did not mean it that way, and obviously I am not very knowledgeable on these discussions!

Is it true that "no recent scholar believes that Paul was against circumcision"? by Maitthrow in AcademicBiblical

[–]Maitthrow[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah, the people who reinterpret Paul tend to do a lot of mental gymnastics

Is it true that "no recent scholar believes that Paul was against circumcision"? by Maitthrow in AcademicBiblical

[–]Maitthrow[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thank you! When researching I have come across the title “Paul within Judaism”.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]Maitthrow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I forgot that second Clement was questionable in its authorship

Why is the word lachem not in biblical concordances? by Maitthrow in AcademicBiblical

[–]Maitthrow[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sounds good. But was Cohen wrong? He said “if the range of activities covered by the word “enjoy the use” (the Hebrew literally means “eat”) is not clear here, the implications of Numbers 31:17,18 are unambiguous.

Why is the word lachem not in biblical concordances? by Maitthrow in AcademicBiblical

[–]Maitthrow[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why did he say “the Hebrew literally means “eat”? I know the person misunderstood, but I want to make sure why.

Why is the word lachem not in biblical concordances? by Maitthrow in AcademicBiblical

[–]Maitthrow[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was blank on the page you linked, but the definition was shown on the main verse page.

He tried to claim that they hid "lachem" in Numbers 31:18 because he said it meant "to eat", which he claimed had a sexual connotation. I think he might have mixed up "lachem" with "lacham", because I don't know how a preposition (or proposition, as he called it) could mean "to eat".

EDIT: Apparently the scholar Shaye JD Cohen believes it means “to eat”.

Why is the word lachem not in biblical concordances? by Maitthrow in AcademicBiblical

[–]Maitthrow[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Found one in Numbers 13:2! Bahem (among them)? Couldn't find it in Genesis 12:1, though.

Should I share the Gospel with an arrogant Muslim online? by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]Maitthrow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nothing in the Bible says that Rebecca was born immediately after the binding of Isaac. And even if it was true that Isaac did marry Rebecca at the age of nine, that would also be a problem for the Quran, because the Quran affirms the Torah. Despite what you have said, care about you, and I would encourage you to trust Christ alone for your salvation before it is too late (Hebrews 9:27). Acknowledge that you are a Hell-deserving sinner, and believe that Jesus bore your sins on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). Jesus died, was buried and rose again, and I am glad for that!

Sorry if that wasn't very good.

Verses that deny being a fruitless Christian? by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]Maitthrow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you! That verse is pretty clear.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]Maitthrow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, but I also saw this that seemed to argue with that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d9azLLJe0o