Brando: Someones opinion about the greek from what they gathered from a strong's concordance offers little "truth" as you would like to call it. My issue with the greek is that I don't need it, as said before, and as I will probably have to say again.

As stated numerous times now, the burden of proof lies on you to prove that Christ drank fermented wine, not on me. The need of evidence to show that it is fermented wine that Christ drank is on you, not on me. Once again, you have failed miserably. Once again you have lied about not responding if my exegesis remained the same.

Brando: Your quote: "I won’t continue going back and forth with you when you show a lack of concern for biblical exegesis"

Since you have already lied, by posting again when I have restated the same exegesis of Scripture, I feel there is no sense in continuing with you (Rom. 3:4), beyond the fact that you would fall under Romans 16:17-18 and Titus 3:9-10.

As far as an arguement to not drinking wine, I have given those already to John. You have the same flawed outlook of the Bible as those that specifically want a specific verse against smoking pot and doing cocaine. The wonderful truth about the Bible is that it will allow someone to break their neck on it if they so choose to wrest the scriptures to their distruction.

And on Jesus drinking wine, you still didn't give a verse of where that is found in the Bible. Not to mention that one can not prove that the miracle at the feast was fermented wine or new wine. Still yet, the burden of proof falls on you, and you once again failed.

"So with that said brother, I hope that you can at least acknowledge the scriptures I’ve put forth and deal with them. I won’t continue going back and forth with you when you show a lack of concern for biblical exegesis"

For Hab. 2, I am quite aware of who the verse is speaking of and I never stated it was Christ. I said would CHrist be guilty of it (the same charge that is being given to the addressed offender). For Lev. 10, first, GOD'S word doesn't say BEFORE, it says WHEN, just to clear up your mistake. Furthermore, if such an action would make a priest after Aaron defiled, like I stated before, why woulnd't it make Christ defiled? For Christ is certainly Holy, Harmless, and Undefiled.

Unsaved Palestinians are my brothers? You are a fool.

Your quote: "And you apparently are ignorant of the fact that it is at the yet-future Resurrection from the dead that spiritual birth takes place. No one, other than Christ Jesus, has of yet been born again, other than in the sense of promise."

You foolish Bible rejectors are so easy to refute because you base everything on your opinion and nothing on the Bible.

Here, try reading the Bible for a change.
1 Peter 1:22-23 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: BEING BORN AGAIN, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

BTW, the whole hypocrite thing does nothing, I know I am a hypocrite, along with every other born again Christian I have ever known.

On legalism: I never stated it wasn't an issue. I just wanted a chpater and verse for saying it was the NUMBER ONE problem for Christianity. Which, by the way, you failed to supply. Suprise.

BTW, I am not justified by the law. I hold dear to Gal. 2:8-9.

John. We can continue this as long as you like, yet I doubt either one of us will move an inch.

Brandon: Learn to read English. Romans says drink not drunken. Since we have never debated, you should know I don't give a care what the greek says, I have a perfect preserved English Bible, which you should try reading sometime. Tell me Brando, where does it say Jesus drank fermented wine? Was Jesus also guilty of Hab. 2:15 in regards to the feast? Or Le. 10:9-11?

Johnny: That's great that you have memorized parts of the KJV, and I have no doubt as to the healing power, now, use it.

"Legalism is the number one threat to the church and always will be."
... Really? Chapter and verse? The #1 threat?

Alright, on all the other junk stated:
On the life statement, 1)I am saved by THE LIFE Jesus Christ. 2)ANother Gospel would be something contrary to 1 Cor. 15:1-4 3)Of course works dont save you 4)I am commanded to judge

I take the challenge given in Deut. and I will continue to say abortionists, along with all those that are in compliance and in support of, including the: mothers, families, proponents, and you, are either 1) guilty of murder or 2) accomplices and supporters.

I will take my position of being judged by the righteous God any day of the week, any moment of the day. You don't have to use foolish scare tactics with me boy. I know the Lord, and even though he slay me I still will trust him.

"Even as the God-given spirit of life cannot remain in the body once injury or disease renders the body no longer viable, so also the spirit of life cannot be imparted to a foetus until the foetus reaches the point of viability."

Chapter and verse? You don't have any.
How about the opposite? Try 1 Samuel 25:36-38 to counter your own foolish thoughts.

How do you even know the "breath of life" is oxygen? How do you not know that it is something that God imparts, and not only oxygen?

On your quote:
"And consider Romans 9:11. It is possible to be alive and be unable to sin? If so, at what point does one become able to sin?"

Since you like Adam, how long was he alive, as well as Eve, before they sinned?

And when one becomes "born" again, is there not some limited moment there where you do not sin even in the flesh, though it may be for a moment?

Also, in regards to the article, the question does have to do with the the wuestion of if the baby is a human being or not. If it is human, it is murder, if it isn't, then it is not murder.

Before we go, I must address your salvation. Are you saved expositor? And when I say saved, I mean, DO YOU KNOW YO UARE GOING TO HEAVEN WHEN YOU DIE?