[papertyger]

I’ll give your explanation more weight when you produce better credentials than D.A. Carson, who subscribes to the feminine gender theory.

Personally, I don’t know how the Lord’s intent could be any clearer. Such extravagant rationalizations would never even occur to people were it not for the Protestant aversion to the Papacy.

Furthermore, no one reading the text without the Protestant indoctrination would EVER reach such a strained and convoluted conclusion so there’s not quite enough Scriptura to support that Sola.

[Quix]

Personally, I don’t know how the Lord’s intent could be any clearer. Such extravagant off the wall RC political power-mongering magicsterical rationalizations would never even occur to people were it not for the RC addiction to the Papacy; fantasized dogma; fantasized constructions on Scripture; fantasized history; Rubber dictionaries; . . .

[enat]

“I’ll give your explanation more weight when you produce better credentials than D.A. Carson, who subscribes to the feminine gender theory.”

I am not familiar with Carson’s work on this subject but if mine agrees with his I am elated.

“Such extravagant rationalizations would never even occur to people were it not for the Protestant aversion to the Papacy.”

My study has nothing to do with an “aversion to the Papacy”, in fact the “Papacy” does not bother me. What I do care about is an accurate exegesis of the scriptures within their historical context.