Nicholas ✝️🇻🇦

"Posterity shall serve him; men shall tell of the Lord to the coming generation, and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn, that he has wrought it."

[Nicholas ✝️🇻🇦 @Nicho42503]

@theoscholastica 1. Benedict XVI
2. John Paul II
3. John XXIII

4. Francis.

5. Paul VI

PVI over Francis was questionable. Above JPII is schizo.

[Nicholas ✝️🇻🇦 @Nicho42503]

@Other_Sheep_ Did Joseph Smith repent of his preaching polygamy and various instances of midwestern taqiyya?

[Nicholas ✝️🇻🇦 @Nicho42503]

@m966021 Of course, from this conclusion itself, via contraposition, you can conclude ~P.

[Nicholas ✝️🇻🇦 @Nicho42503]

@m966021 Assuming “Morality doesn’t exist” = “it is not the case that morality is objective,” and assuming that the disjunction is exclusive.

P->Q, Q->R, R->S, ~S, (P v ~Q) & ~(P& ~Q)
|- ~Q

Also valid, and sound if the premises are all true, which is the actual debate.

[Nicholas ✝️🇻🇦 @Nicho42503]

@Brilliand__ @m966021 It doesn’t need that as a premise, it follows from premise 3 via the contrapositive law. The issue with the original is that it included contradictory premises, which made it automatically unsound. This one doesn’t, making it sound (if the premises are true, which I don’t grant).

[Nicholas ✝️🇻🇦 @Nicho42503]

@PAHoyeck Assuming “atheism” = “it is not the case that there is a God,” the argument is valid by the contrapositive law.

Your argument is:

P, P->Q, ~Q |- ~P

Although technically valid, the premises are inconsistent (leading to a contradiction) meaning it is unsound.

[Nicholas ✝️🇻🇦 @Nicho42503]

@TNTJohn1717 You’re appealing to the thing in question.

[Nicholas ✝️🇻🇦 @Nicho42503]

@corsaren The human nature of the Second Person is not an intrinsic property.

[Nicholas ✝️🇻🇦 @Nicho42503]

@smfoushee @MrCasey62 You actually haven’t. You just asserted your view and haven’t provided any textual evidence that refutes a sacramental view. The grammar actually supports my view, which is why I continue to ask:

Do you think the New Covenant is an antitype of the Old Covenant or not?

[Nicholas ✝️🇻🇦 @Nicho42503]

@smfoushee @MrCasey62 I get that you say that but you can’t contend with the passage itself. You’ve pretty much shown you’re incapable of refuting the sacramental aspect.

Do you think the New Covenant is an antitype of the Old Covenant?

[Nicholas ✝️🇻🇦 @Nicho42503]

@smfoushee @MrCasey62 You continue to play word games and haven’t engaged with the baptismal connection to salvation by water tying us to the resurrection by which we are a new creation.

Is the New Covenant an antitype of the Old?

[Nicholas ✝️🇻🇦 @Nicho42503]

@ChristandGuitar This seems inconsequential. If JP hadn’t conceded that pray only means ask, it wouldn’t be enough to prove his position and would be compatible with our position. If he held that it only meant communication with God, Alex could just say “does petition make you more comfortable?”

[Nicholas ✝️🇻🇦 @Nicho42503]

@smfoushee @MrCasey62 Avoiding the question AND playing word games now. We’re speaking of baptism concerning salvation. In this context you believe it is a sign of salvation, that it does not save in and of itself.

Is the New Covenant an antitype of the Old?

[Nicholas ✝️🇻🇦 @Nicho42503]

@smfoushee @MrCasey62 It’s the same topic. It concerns your interpretation of Baptism as merely symbolic; you argued it couldn’t be as it was an antitype.

8 is the number after completion (7), i.e. a new creation. This proves my point; Baptism unites us to the resurrection, making us new.

No answer?

[Nicholas ✝️🇻🇦 @Nicho42503]

@smfoushee @MrCasey62 None of that addresses the fact that Peter explicitly says 8 persons were saved by water, and that baptism, which corresponds to these waters, now saves us, linking it to the resurrection.

Now the question you’re desperately ignoring: is the New Covenant the antitype of the old?

[Nicholas ✝️🇻🇦 @Nicho42503]

@LoganMPierce1 @asophiething She has already received revelation allowing women to have multiple husbands. This was revealed to her in a dream where she read the hieroglyphs on the wall. It will take some time to be translated.

[Kein Data 🇺🇸🦅 @keindata]

@JackMoCoalition @asophiething Except Smith did restart & his book has been edited https://t.co/V8YVZSYRqZ

[Nicholas ✝️🇻🇦 @Nicho42503]

@smfoushee @MrCasey62 False dichotomy. Peter clearly says 8 were saved by the waters of the flood, & that Baptism is the fulfillment & perfection of this type. God operates in the material world through matter. You’re jumping through hoops to deny this.

Is the New Covenant the antitype of the Old?

[Nicholas ✝️🇻🇦 @Nicho42503]

@smfoushee @MrCasey62 Whatever word you want to use (going against the enormous majority of all translators) it says the Baptism itself is this pledge/appeal, and either way, he says Baptism now saves us as Noah was saved by the waters of the flood.

Is the New Covenant the antitype of the Old?