No, but I find it to be demonstrably accurate. Again, if you believe otherwise please show how / why.
-
-
Required for what?
-
Not relevant, the Bible clearly states that circumcision is both required and not required (multiple times in different parts). This is simply and observably a contradiction and it's but one of literally hundreds.
-
K. Well you clearly have no biblical knowledge...I’ll make it easier for you. Where does the Bible ever claim a non-Hebrew is required to have a circumcision?
-
I studied the Bible. Your question regarding 'non-Hebrew' is not relevant. Read, Genesis 17:7-19 / Leviticus 12:3 / Acts 16:3 then look at the directly opposing statements in Galatians 5:2 / Colossians 2:10-11..... BTW: Hebrew is referenced in Acts 16:3 only.
-
No you haven’t. Please show where the Bible requires gentiles to be circumcised.
-
The fact that you say I haven't studied the Bible is purely an assumption about me and therefore irrelevant. I've already addressed your tweet above. Please read it again, also explain how the above Biblical references are not a blatantly direct contradiction. I bet you can't.
-
It’s funny, the first time I saw this site I went through every single one. I like these two because they highlight the error in all of them. Either taking the text literally (just like the Pharisees in image one) or lacking even a basic understanding of Christianity(image2)pic.twitter.com/iSgcsTzVAM
-
That neither proves nor disproves anything, doesn't further your point and furthermore drifts from the argument that the Bible is self-contradictory. So, can you or can't you explain how the passages I cited above do not contradict each other?
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.