Cheryl Schatz

Very good thoughts pinklight!

Mike has given what he “thinks” is a law that doesn’t have a second witness. It was a good try, however it does have a second witness in the context because Paul repeats the sin and says it in a slightly different way in the same context. Did anyone pick up that the “law” that Mike points to as not having a second witness was indeed repeated?

I have asked many people this same question – to show me one law in the scripture that is without repetition, without a second witness and no one yet has been able to give me even one such law and that includes Mike. I do very much appreciate that Mike tried. Many give up without even trying.