Atwood

Is there a connection with the belief that the Church is Israel? Does presbyterian covenant theology lead to being anti-Israel and anti-semitic? What do such theologians make of the return of physical-Israel to the land?

Agenda to end the state of Israel is futile.

Nance may be correct. "after being discovered on the tarmac at the Maui airport " I don't think anyone saw the lad get in the wheel well or get out of it. You would think there would be security cameras showing everything all the time.

Are the roads of the iceberg easy to traverse without gridlock?

I must say that it is beyond me how one would think that Peter was unconverted in Mat 16. How we treat others depends on the others, the situation, and above all, the leading of the Spirit. We recall how the Lord Jesus treated the Pharisees, like Woe to you, scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites. And we recall how he treated others in different situations; how He said, "Come unto me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and you shall find rest to your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. Of course we are to love neighbor as self. "Who is wise and understanding among you? let him show by his good life his works in meekness of wisdom. " "Moreover he must have good testimony from them that are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." Wisdom requires praying and trusting the Lord for wisdom. Now for $64,000, tell me how I can remember to do that before I shoot from the hip?

Hum, sounds interesting. Would you mind mailing me a wad so I can study it for myself? I prefer to do my own research on this.

It was posted: "everyone of the 10 commandments are still listed some where in the new testament" Well, some of what we call "NT" is under the Law, as the Law did not end until the cross; nor was there a Church until Acts 2. For $64,000 show me one verse where the Church is told to obey the Sabbath commandment (one of the 10); scripture after Acts 2.

When you read commandments, you must consider to whom they are given. Noah was told to build an ark; the Church was not told that. Israel was told to sacrifice animals; the Church was not told that. Israel was given Laws (in the Law of Moses). To the Church were written letters! This is called dispensational interpretation; the principle that while all scripture is for us, not all scripture is TO us. There are over-riding, superior commandments valid for all men in all ages. Also, God's commands are hierarchical; superior commands trump lesser commands. Love God and love neighbor are the 2 superior commands to all others. These 2 commands are in the Old Testament. The Law of Moses was not over man until God gave it at Mt Sinai around 1500 BC. This law was in force during the ministry on earth by the Lord Jesus; He obeyed that law perfectly and enjoined its obedience by Israel when He was on earth. The Law did not end until the cross, where He nailed the commandments. Moreover, when the Lord Jesus was here, the imminent Kingdom of God was proclaimed: Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand. The Lord Jesus gave special commandments in force during His ministry -- see Matthew 10. Few if any Christians follow those rules today. The Lord Jesus began a new work with a new group to whom He also has given special instructions: that group is the Church. He said future tense, "I will build My Church." The Church began in Acts 2 with a new work of the Holy Spirit: baptism of the Holy Spirit. Today in the Church, all believers are indwelt with the Holy Spirit and to be filled and led by the Holy Spirit. That scripture of primary importance to the Church is the epistles (letters) which the Lord Jesus gave us through his apostles and prophets (Revelation is a letter to the Church also.) In Acts after Acts 2:1, there are things addressed to the Church. Thus the answer is rather simple: the commands to obey are those given to you, not to Noah or to Israel, except where those commands are part of God's non-dispensational, continuous will for all men or all believers. If you have not trusted Christ as your Savior, then scripture given to the Church is not directly given to you either! Your task is to trust Christ as Savior and become a member of the Body of Christ, His Church. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.

I suppose that one aspect of getting old is a blessing for the Christian, namely that time moves faster as one ages. Thus the last 10 years of one's life will not take nearly as long as the first 10 years did.

Of course our theology is that that of the "Force" of Star Wars, with its dark side. Our God is light.

It was posted: "That is a possible that cars will be crashing everywhere.That is why the rapture could be one of the greatest disasters this side of the tribulation.We will be gone in;1/100th of a second.We will not care about our car or anything that is in it including credit cards or those precious iphones or lap tops.We will be in heaven.All those earthly possessions will be left behind for the scavangers and I am sure there will be plenty.If all of the pilots are Christian on the plane the whole plane would probably go down but I highly doubt that." Of course the crashing is possible, yet speculative. Who knows? You might put a sign in your car: "Ride at your own risk; I'm leaving at the Rapture."

Well, it is recommended that one study the scripture on the Rapture to know about it. I expect that one day Christians will be going about their business, maybe some in God's grace will be looking up and longing for His appearing, but then suddenly they hear the most exquisite trumpet music ever. The trumpet shall sound! I realize that Handel's Messiah will be a poor representation, but I can't help but think of that cantata with its section: "The Trumpet Shall Sound" -- in its beauty.

no

You present new questions: "I have a new question. If Christianity and Jesus Christ are the only way to the Father, then why is the upbringing of Jesus based on Jewish and Judaism roots and not Christian roots." How do you know what the roots of his upbringing are? He was raised under the Law of Moses which was in force during His ife; He fulfilled the law and nailed it to the cross. You speak of "Judaism." It was the Law of Moses. What do you mean by "Judaism"? The term does not occur in the OT (Tanach) to my knowledge. If you mean the religion of the Talmud; the Talmud came much later. As to the Traditions of the Fathers, He rejected those and followed the Law of Moses. If you mean "Talmudic Judaism," there is no evidence that the Lord Jesus was rooted in that. You ask: "If Judaism is wrong and Christianity is right, then why is God's promised land based on the wrong religion when discussing salvation. " Again, you continue with "Judaism." Talmudic Judaism is a new religion; not that of Moses. Talmudic Judaism is the relgion of those who reject the Lord Jesus as Messiah. You may read the Talmud to see how foreign it is to the Tanach (OT). Actually your sentence which combines the promised and with salvation, makes no sense to me. The promised land is based on God's promises to Israel under the Abrahamic and Palestinian Covenants. This has little to do with the Church or with salvation from sin, though both are based on Christ's sacrifice for sin. "I have a new question. If Christianity and Jesus Christ are the only way to the Father, then why is the upbringing of Jesus based on Jewish and Judaism roots and not Christian roots. If Judaism is wrong and Christianity is right, then why is God's promised land based on the wrong religion when discussing salvation. Like why does Judaism exist if the religion doesn't point you to the Father? Why does Judaism exist kinda thing? If Christianity and salvation is based on having a relationship with Jesus then why does Judaism exist? You ask "Like why does Judaism exist if the religion doesn't point you to the Father? Why does Judaism exist kinda thing?" The fact that some religion exists does not prove that it points you to the Father. The religion of satan exists, but doesn't point you to the Father. Modern Judaism is a religion of those who have rejected God and His Word. It does not point to God at all. Why does Judaism exist? satan has many varieties of religion; thus Judaism is just one of them. "You are of your father the Devil," thus spoke the Lord Jesus. Nobody is practicing the Religion of Moses. It is impossible with no Temple. And neither should anyone follow that religion since it ended at the cross. The Jewish nation is another matter; it has not ended and has a future in the Bible.

Agree or disagree? I it would be foolish to disagree with God's word! It would make a good project as one reads thru the Bible each year, to mark the passages on money, finances, economics and the like.

What Ancient Text Uses the Greek word proginōskō ("Foreknow" or "foreknowledge) to imply intimate relationship (as opposed to objective knowledge; that is, knowledge that something will happen)? I mean a text where the context demands an "intimate relationship" interpretation. The Bible relates election to foreknowledge. One POV is that God knew in advance who would believe and thus chose them upon knowledge of their belief (e.g., Theissen's [moderately Calvinist] Systematic Theology). A standard Calvinist reply is that "knowledge" is a figurative term for intimacy, as in marriage or as in Amos where Israel alone was "known" by God. The standard Greek lexicon BDAG even includes the meaning "choose beforehand," though BDAG gives no examples of such usage outside Romans 8 and 11. Such an interpretation seems wrong, as it involves a tautology, "choosing according to choosing." BAGD also includes "—Know from time past,"citing Acts 26:5 and Josephus' (War) Bell. 6, 8). Basing a definition of a Greek word upon a Hebrew word in Amos is not good proof. Moreover, attempting to define a compound word (fore-know) from a meaning of the single root (know) is also dubious. Given that "know" has figurative meanings, that does not prove that a compound word which has the root "know" in it, shares those meanings. Take the word "understand." Can one really define that word based upon what "stand" means? I would like someone to bring forth an example of where FOREknow (proginōskō) by context must mean anything other than objective knowledge in prior time. Bible Quotes Below: 22 You men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, … him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay: 1Pet. 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion…according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace 9 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren: 30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. 2 God did not cast off his people which he foreknew. …I have left for myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal. you were redeemed, … with precious blood, as of a lamb without spot, even the blood of Christ: 20 who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of the times for your sake, ------------ BTW, I do not pose this as a rhetorical question intended to put down the POV that foreknowledge means entering an intimate relationship with in eternity past by the Lord with His elect. I adopted that POV myself from an excellent Bible teacher years ago. However, I have become aware that said teacher's reference to Amos really does not prove the case.

3 BC? Are you familiar with the arguments for 1 AD as the date of Christ's birth?

It was posted, " all believers in other faiths." How do you know that there are "other faiths," and not one faith in the Lord Jesus, and the rest varieties of unbelief?

"before Herod died in the spring of 4 B.C." Of course we know that Herod did not die before Christ was born. So, the standard concept seems to have been that the calendar is off and that 4BC (on our erroneous calendar) is a hard-date for Herod's death. However, I have read that Herod did not die in 4 BC and that Christ was born AD 1. So, I recommend familiarizing oneself with that argument, namely to the effect that the calendar is not wrong on Christ's birth.

Salvation is so frequently offered in scripture merely for believing or having faith in the Lord Jesus, that one cannot escape the truth that there is but one and only one requirement which a man must fulfill in order to receive salvation, namely, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved -- just believe. Nevertheless, the object of faith must be correct. It is not just "believe," but believe in the Son of God. Can a man be saved by believing in someone other than the real Jesus? Obviously we don't have a perfect understanding of Him -- He is dressed in a robe that reaches to the feet, covering quite a lot in Revelation 1. But the real Lord Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, fully God and fully man; He Who died on the cross and rose from the dead. That is the only Jesus who saves. So, our understanding of our Savior must be essentially correct. The gospel is not, "Believe on Michael the Archangel and you will be saved."

JohnDB quoted a of very good scripture passages, though the King James translators were "outside scripture," writing in English, a language not in the actual Bible. Then John says this: "You add to or take away from scripture when you interpret from outside." John, thanks for the great scripture, but I did not see any statement about "interpreting from outside." Now if we obey your rule of interpretation, "Do not intepret from outside," since that statement is not a Bible quote, we would be interpreting from outside; for you yourself are an outside-the-scripture. The interpreter is by nature outside. Do you deny the spiritual gift of teaching? Where does scripture say "interpret from outside"? The word private does not mean "outside." I take it to mean that one does not interpret scripture out of context. Of course one important principle of interpretation is "analogy of the faith," God does not contradict Himself, and using scripture to interpret scripture is an important principle, which in no way negates considering historical context.

I have to wonder why entities that want security attach their computers to the internet?

Newspaper exegesis is precarious. History must be littered with the vain attempts to read the current tea leaves and then conclude that these tea-leaves are leading to eschatological prophecy fulfillments (with the obvious conclusion that the tea-leaf-readings were bogus). When 10 nations got joined in the European Common Market, how many went on about how this could fulfill the 10 nation union under the Beast, ignoring how Daniel 2's image has 2 legs -- we may suppose 5 toes on each leg? Still, it is interesting to think about how current movements might issue in eschatological fulfillments. I note the charts identifying nation-words in the Biblical prophecies. But I don't see the proof. I ask, "How does the chart-maker know that Tyre = X" ? (etc.). Thanks for calling attention to these passages.

Welcome. The topic is important.

Have you heard of "Newspaper Exegesis"? It could be humorous to view the programs of a multitude of TV sensationalists who went on and on about the year 2000 during 1999.