I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying, Jim Lincoln; when you say that the Sermon on the Mount is, 'addressed to the Jews'. Is that to say that the only persons to whom a command or admonition applies, are those who are in attendance? Am I to pay no heed to said sermon, unless it is reinforced elsewhere? Ditto with the Epistle of James. Again, I'm sure that I just don't understand your post, as no one else seems to have any problem with it.
Seeing one error, often reveals others to us. I merely have a question (if I'm not too late). Where is there any Scriptural support for what is known today as a 'millenium'? Sorry, two. Do we honestly believe that the return of the Jews to Palestine, and the subsequent history of it, is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy?
Gotta go with you; Five Points Fuzzy Logic John from San Jose
There is not a shred of Scripture to support the 'end time scenario' of Dispensationalism. If everyone just read the Bible and what it says in the plainest language, that it interprets for itself; and stay away from interpretations that are 'outside', it becomes so clear. The Bible tells us what all of these terms and their meanings are. We, for some reason, ignore them all, and come up with our own definitions. We have been told what the 'Kingdom of God' is; what 'a thousand years' is; what the 'first resurrection' is; the return of Christ; and on and on. Let's answer their questions. Not to mention, it's so much more beautiful a scenario. A 'thousand years' is not a 'thousand years'. Just as God does not 'own the cattle' on merely 'a thousand hills'. Whew! This is the hyperbole that I have spoken of on other posts. We are not changing a thing. People need to see these things in other portions of Scripture. When all 'believers' are in, that will be the 'all Israel'.
Sure, sure. I'll bet that if we could jettison 123,739 people off the planet each winter; the earth would spin a little faster, and we could get to spring a little bit sooner.
These people just plain have a time/brain imbalance. This is pointed at the article; not to you, John from San Jose.
I am at a complete loss. Can anyone tell me what ethical basis any of these people are coming from? What are they making these decisions according to? Is there anything like; 'We know that such and such is good and right and true, therefore...'
I'm trying to get to the bedrock of all of this, and for the life of me, I can't figure out where their starting point is.
At any rate, basically it comes down to; 'they are not all Israel, that are of Israel; neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children';
There have always been unbelieving Jews, in the majority.
And why would you expunge 'Romans' from the Bible, simply because a 'myth' had been born from it?
Mike from New York, I understand the admonition of Peter, my friend; but this has nothing to do with an apology. To even say that you can 'prove' God, is to deny His own self-disclosure in His word; provided this is the God that they're talking about.
Right on with your last two statements, Old School Presbyterian.
I can only pray that these two deluded young men, who so sorely lack in the knowledge of the God of the Bible, are facing two atheists who lack that same knowledge. Otherwise, they will get a public trouncing. To believe for moment that you can prove our God through debate and argumentation, is to deny His self-disclosure.
Gotta go with you there, Old School Presbyterian. This is only worthy of pity; not response. To believe that, 'If I can't perceive something, it cannot exist', is lamentable to the uttermost, and intelligent to the 'utterleast'.
When are these people going to realize that the biggest problem they confront is; they have no common ground. Somebody needs to trade in their apples for oranges. Sadly, this distinguishing characteristic of the controversy, is so pervasive, so overarching, that it's like standing inside the footprint of the large animal you are tracking. It's so large, you can't see it.
Would this be; God, the puff of smoke; or God, who sits on the back of the turtle that upholds the earth; or maybe 'generic' God; you know, the one that everybody knows and loves? You cannot prove 'that' God exists, without knowing 'what' God you are contending for; nor prove a God that doesn't exist. Unless these men are able to open the eyes of the blind, they are vastly overstepping their capacities. 'The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ', in its most absolute and Biblical sense.
I have no idea why any animal would want the same treatment as a human. In this country, you can be fined five thousand dollars for breaking an eagle's egg, or go to jail for abusing your dog; but there is no civil or criminal penalty for murdering an unborn child. Now that I think about it; on the news, when someone is arrested for the ill-treatment of animals, they try to hide their faces; but I've never seen anyone doing the same, after having an abortion.
5/12/07 4:21 PM
