Proud of their church?The Corinthians are proud of their church, yet have that man among them, this is what Paul is addressing, in my sincere opinion.
You've referred to Romans but the letter is to the Corinthians which is in Greece, so I can't be sure if their behavior isn't differentiated without jumping back and forth between the cities.Proud of their church?
No, they're living in open sin, and are even boasting about sin.
How many different ways does he have to show it?
Even their boasting of sin is more sin, as I've noted (Ro 1).
Just saying Paul condemns those who "heartily approve" of things God denounces--that's what the Corinthians were doing.You've referred to Romans but the letter is to the Corinthians which is in Greece, so I'm can be sure if their behavior isn't differentiated without jumping back and forth between the cities.
Don't act like that's the only salient point.You've referred to Romans but the letter is to the Corinthians which is in Greece, so I can't be sure if their behavior isn't differentiated without jumping back and forth between the cities.
I'm not acting like anything. It is unclear to me that their boasting has anything to do with the man's behavior, that can only be an assumption. What says that they weren't boasting about being 'unleavened' when indeed, there was leaven among them.Just saying Paul condemns those who "heartily approve" of things God denounces--that's what the Corinthians were doing.
You're ignoring (intentionally?) the fact that they were "carnal", they hadn't made progress. Paul was surprised and disheartened about it. What impedes spiritual progress? Sin: "let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us."I'm not acting like anything. It is unclear to me that their boasting has anything to do with the man's behavior, that can only be an assumption. What says that they weren't boasting about being 'unleavened' when indeed, there was leaven among them.
ok, and you 'diagnose' me as intentionally ignorant without even considering the validity of my position, and this conversation has become unhealthy for me to continue in. As long as you look good, and I look like an idiot, no worries.You're ignoring (intentionally?) the fact that they were "carnal", they hadn't made progress. What impedes spiritual progress? Sin. "Let us cast off the weight and the sin that so easily impedes us and run". It was a sinful church.
He follows that rebuke of them up with a warning to them: "Don't you know the unrighteous will not inherit God's Kingdom?" In other words, they were UNRIGHTEOUS.You're ignoring (intentionally?) the fact that they were "carnal", they hadn't made progress. Paul was surprised and disheartened about it. What impedes spiritual progress? Sin: "let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us."
It was a sinful church.
He rebukes them for there not even being one wise man among them who could settle disputes, and so they brought the Name of the Lord into disrepute (1 Co 6).
I'm asking if you're "intentionally" leaving vital information out that could disprove your point.ok, and you 'diagnose' me as intentionally ignorant without even considering the validity of my position, and this conversation has become unhealthy for me to continue in. As long as you look good, and I look like an idiot, no worries.
You speak as if you know my every thought and intention. Who's acting now?I'm asking if you're intentionally leaving vital information out that could disprove your point.
It's not about you being an "idiot".
I'm saying I was finding it hard to believe you were being honest.
You so badly want to ignore the facts proving they were sinful.
Why?
It stands to reason that you don't want Paul to tell saints to repent--that's essentially how I take "purge out the old leaven for you are unleavened".
ASKING : I suspect but don't know.You speak as if you know my every thought and intention. Who's acting now?
Just as an aside, is that avatar pavlova?You speak as if you know my every thought and intention. Who's acting now?
Just as an aside, is that avatar pavlova?
Roulade is easy! You will do it!indeed it is. I'm currently attempting to master it and working my way up to a roulade.
If you can find a recipe for Monte Carlo (it's in some Le Cordon Bleu Pastry books), try it.indeed it is. I'm currently attempting to master it and working my way up to a roulade.
Roulade is easy! You will do it!
What problem are you having with pavlova? Keeping it from getting too much color?
Yeah, I had a co-worker who'd worked in his parents' bakery since he was 13 (he I think was in his 30s at the time I met him)--he said to make white baked meringues, at the end of the day, when they would turn their ovens off, they would slip the meringues in, and keep the oven door slightly ajar and let the meringues dry out overnight.I made it perfectly once, but I've had a time repeating the results. I encountered browning the last time and the sticky rubber shell the time before that. This time, it's crispy with only a little browning. I think it has to do with getting familiar with the workings of a convection oven because it came out just right in my standard oven.
Noted it. Thanks. I'll look it up sometime next I feel more adventurous, and have stable meringue legs of course.If you can find a recipe for Monte Carlo (it's in some Le Cordon Bleu Pastry books), try it.
The combination is amazing.
Chocolate dacquoise center, doused/fused with the jellied apricot-cinnamon-lemon compote, surrounded with a Creme d'Amande (egg yolk, almond flour, lemon zest, butter, sugar), then crumbled baked meringue on the outside, and topped with cherries and I think a slight dusting of cocoa.
To make it easier on myself, I just made a macaron version but using the same profile. LOL
The flavors are so perfect together.