Jump to content

Serving

Senior Member
  • Posts

    934
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Serving last won the day on February 10 2016

Serving had the most liked content!

Reputation

905 Good

4 Followers

About Serving

  • Birthday 10/14/1969

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Western Australia
  • Interests
    striving to be a faithful and loyal servant, watching world developments & enjoy keeping up to date with creation science news.

Recent Profile Visitors

3,002 profile views
  1. Daniel 9:24-27 – 24 “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. 25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” I think I've thought about this enough to give a credible reason as to why the blue highlighted scripture above was added to the prophecy & why I still do not see it as part of the 70 weeks nor as a link to justify using it in concert with v27 as a duality explaining a future event still yet to come (anti-Christ interpretations etc) .. otherwise known as, a duality. Imagine if you will that no significant & undeniable historical event was mentioned within the prophecy we are speaking of as to signify beyond all doubt to any person who reads the prophecy, believer or non believer, past or present, that .. Messiah had come? And how, without such a historical event could one be 100% sure the 70 weeks had completed without that timestamp of destruction? Imagine how easily the 70 weeks could be manipulated by the enemy without said timestamp? That is why I believe it was inserted into the prophecy .. not as part of the 70 weeks, but as an undeniable timestamp against those who would seek to conceal Messiah in the pages of history, as simple as that. Now lets say for arguments sake that we all agreed on that. And since we agreed, for visual aid .. we just temporarily removed the blue highlights for teaching purposes. Now look how the prophecy reads : Daniel 9:24-27 – 24 “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. 25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” See how much clearer the prophecy becomes? How seamlessly the narrative flows together without that timestamp distracting us? See how it becomes clear that the passages are speaking of Messiah and not a blend of Messiah and of some anti-Christ figure as many have introduced over the years? The funny thing is though, if you are aware of the Jewish writings or have listened to rabbi's speaking about past debates amongst their finest and all others in between you will find that none of them doubted that v26 & v27 were speaking of Messiah, the very people to whom the prophecy was given and were counting down & awaiting for it's fulfillment to come, they all somehow understood and agreed that v26 & v27 spoke of Messiah. It was the many Christian's who came later, who put themselves in positions of authority and were deciphering the prophecy by looking backwards in time instead of looking forwards in time as it was meant to be read, who came up with these different interpretations. And what justified them in doing this? That blue highlighted scripture is what .. that timestamp .. those scriptures were the justification for the many interpretations that have come about within Christian writings, and only recently too .. historically speaking .. all the confusion and divisions amongst us within this prophecy all center around that timestamp. But, but without that timestamp ironically, that confusion/division melts away as we saw. Interesting no? Nevertheless, the rules of duality dictate that any added scripture within a prophecy that is not fulfilled (the blue highlighted parts) can not extend beyond what those unfulfilled scriptures declare as long as they are clearly defined in their conclusion .. and those blue bits are more than definitive because they declare the words "end" within them .. that the events in blue end as stated when X,Y & Z occur .. you can NOT add future events/prophecy when it clearly stated itself that those blue bits were a sign of conclusion .. not a sign of future events for us today, but a conclusion for events that indeed ended exactly as written they would end .. the destruction of 70ad. That is, again, the destruction of the city and temple is clear as day in the blue highlights and no justification for adding any other future events/prophecies using those scriptures beyond said destruction can be justified because said events are given in such language as to be a definitive conclusion to an event that is historically verifiable & not some open ended declaration with no defining end to guide us .. which only leads to division through the many interpretations such an act would cause & has caused. Ask yourself this .. you know what you do behind closed doors .. but all these who came up with all these divided interpretations .. divided being key .. how do you know what they do behind closed doors? So why such faith in men who could be charlatans for all you know? Why not trust your own eyes and your own understanding of scriptures? All you need do is read the N.T to understand v24 .. Ezra & Nehemiah to understand v25, and the N.T again to understand v26 & v27. How hard can that be? You don't need historians or scholars or any other person/institution to understand the prophecy if you just read the scriptures for yourself because the bible explains itself if we are just willing to put in the time instead of waiting for others to do it for us .. because you never know who the charlatans are, but we all know who we ourselves as individuals are. Look at the historians on this subject for example, all of them certified and "credible" historians too .. YET one group says the 70 weeks started/ended in X .. another group say no, it was Y, another says you are both wrong because it is clearly Z !! HOW can you learn by learning from these men of whom you know nothing of when they are behind closed doors? Look how many charlatans have been exposed over the years of whom millions of Christians have followed and of whose doctrines many still preach today .. it's concerning. I know what I do behind closed doors, this is why I always go with my own understanding .. I know who I am, but all those others I do not know, nor do I need to .. all I need is sincerity and a hunger for knowing His ways & implementing them into my life as faithfully as one is able, and for those who do as such, He promised that He would teach, as long as we followed Him sincerely and not for ulterior motive/personal gain. So that is where I stand and why, not that I am anybody of importance, but I am somebody who is sincere in motive .. but how could any of you know if I am a not instead a charlatan? You can't .. so why do you do it with others? Why trust others with what should be your own interpretations? It makes no sense to me .. I'd much rather debate your doctrine makers than debate those who adopt their doctrines to be perfectly honest .. it's harder to convince a follower of a doctrine than the maker of one ironically .. and that's just the way it is unfortunately. So from here I am signing out of this debate .. there are just too many interpretations that I am sure will keep coming for to make any sort of headway .. and I don't have the patience anymore to debate all and every doctrine this debate will bring to the fore. Cheers every & all I interacted with .. God bless.
  2. Hi Charlie, The parts I highlighted above .. I agree with you, that was fulfilled. My point had to do with the possible duality present in the prophecy because the event above happened, and to my reckoning, it happened outside of the 70 weeks prophecy .. So that hints, to me, at it being added information for reasons of a way point instead of a duality. A way point that helps understand other related prophecies within historical context overall. All I am saying that there is still a possibility of a duality. I do lean towards it as a mere waypoint, I'm just admitting that yes, there could be more to it is all. Cheers.
  3. Hi Douggg, I'll get back to you because I must log off .. things to do .. but I will get back to your point. Cheers.
  4. G'day Central Europe, I'm just replying to your post again to say thanks. Thanks for being non combative also .. it makes it far more enjoyable to come back to a debate free of negative vibes .. so thank you too AdHoc. I'm going to be fully open now and admit something about Daniel 9's 70 weeks. I've been hoping to nail down what I am about to admit before bringing it up, but I think I ought to let you know so you can see where I am truly at with the prophecy .. no holding back anymore .. This : Daniel 9:24-27 – 24 “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. 25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” Everything in red I believe is completed within the 70 weeks. Blue is obviously future from the end of the 70 weeks from my perspective, so why is it there? And green I can explain within the scope of the red side or the blue side's argument .. it can fit with both point of views. So the rule of thumb with scripture containing unfulfilled information within a prophecy is this, it's either just added in for insight for those looking back on history .. or .. or there is a duality taking place. Usually .. and this hurts to admit .. usually it means a duality is taking place .. I'd wager 90% of the time it means duality is present. And to be honest, I can see how a duality using those blue scriptures and leading in to the final verse below it (v27) can have a credible case when saying it is also linked to the false prophet, the man of sin and of the tribulation period .. how it can indeed be a case of duality. I can see that, it's just that I'm not sure if it is valid .. though credible .. I'm still undecided. So having said that, I can not deny that those blue scriptures above are outside the scope of the 70 weeks and still can't answer to myself if it is indeed a duality or just added information. And every time I try deciphering it to get to the bottom of it .. I find myself trapped in a argument loop with myself which floods my brain with scriptures and I become paralyzed and overwhelmed. I just can't resolve it. Obviously God has not permitted me the answer for a reason .. perhaps I have a bit more overcoming to achieve in my personal life before I can get closure on this frustrating prophecy. Perhaps another thorn in my side needs plucking up by the roots first before the answer gets revealed to me.. hmmm, more than likely. So now you know my overall stance. That's my honest take .. and that's what you get for being civil to me AdHoc .. full open disclosure. Cheers AdHoc.
  5. Hi AdHoc, I fixed my reply to you bro .. This has to do with this : Seeing we have differences at the very beginning of our understanding of the above, I thought I'd show you my interpretation of it so you know how I interpret the 7o sevens .. Key > The blue highlights are to do with the 7 weeks (the rebuilding period).. the green concerns the 62 weeks unto Messiah the Prince, and the orange being the assumed last week, the 70th week at this stage .. reasons why coming up. === Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. === Now this word : "unto" .. "unto the Messiah the Prince" I see as saying count up to Messiah the Prince, up to Messiah's arrival, up to the start of His ministry .. so that at the end of 62 weeks (+7 weeks) Messiah will appear. So the 62 week (+7) count stops when Messiah appears .. hence "unto" Messiah the Prince. This would also explain why the 70th week, or the 1 week was not mentioned at the very start wasn't mentioned yet because the 62 week count stopped at His arrival .. that is, 7 weeks + 62 weeks had passed and Messiah only just appears in the text. So by that method alone, anything coming after the 62 (+ 7) weeks means it must be talking about the 70th week right? Now look at what comes next in v26 below .. the signifier word being "after" === 26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. === So there it is .. it says after the 62 weeks Messiah is cut off .. after 69 weeks in total to be precise. Which means that it has to be talking about the last week, the 70th week in orange because after 62 (+7) weeks comes week #70. Which also means that v27 below must also be talking about the last week because it carries on from the verse before it which takes place after the 62 weeks as mentioned .. 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” And that's about it AdHoc .. I hope the colourful format I tried out isn't too off-putting and got my point across? Cheers Ad.
  6. Hey if anybody read my reply to AdHoc, I apologize for deleting it, it was very sloppy and I want to rewrite it so it's more understandable .. I should have proof read it properly .. very sloppy indeed on my behalf. Sorry guys.
  7. Hey AdHoc, I just deleted my reply because it was very sloppy and I want to redo it so it is clearer .. I should have proof read before posting .. sorry bro .. I will repost my reply tonight or tomorrow. regards.
  8. Hi AdHoc, Firstly, I'd like to point out that there were two camps in Jesus' day out of "thy people" .. those who accepted Him of "thy people" and those who rejected Him, who would become over time "Not My people" (over time because Jesus was still pleading with the rebels right up till 70ad). Yet Hosea reveals to us that even amongst that "not My people" group, they will one day be called "My people" again, correct .. but that event is still future even today for those under the "not My people" camp. Secondly, I'd like to point out that Jesus was indeed of "thy people" when made flesh .. besides the lineage provided in Matthew etc, here are a couple of other examples : Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. John 4:9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. Seeing that Jesus was made flesh, born of a woman into the tribe of David being a Jew .. doesn't that in itself show that Jesus was indeed of "thy people" ? Of course it does. Therefore, who amongst "thy people" carried on with the sacrifices and abominations right up until 70ad? Well, those called "not My people" carried on with those abominations & sacrifices .. the ones who rejected Jesus. But those of "thy people" who accepted Christ did no such thing. Hence, the requirements were indeed met by not only our Lord when in the flesh, but those of "thy people" & "thy city" who accepted Him. Again, the others considered "not My people" who rejected Christ are those who carried on with those abominations & practices. Thirdly, I'd like to highlight the fact that when God anointed our Lord as you mentioned .. you made a slight boo boo .. you see, God the Father is not of "thy people" .. the requirements required one of "thy people" to anoint the Lord, not for God Himself to anoint Him, but one of "thy people" was to anoint Him .. and did. This is why our Lord made such a big deal of it .. it was a pivotal event whereby her name was to be memorialized for ever to be tied to that anointing given to Him, given by one of "thy people" at that. If we consider the requirements that God laid out in Daniel 9, and consider that they were made for a people under a very strict law .. and how the Apostle even admitted that no man could keep all of that law : Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? Then what other man on earth besides the Lord Himself could accomplish such a thing as per laid out in the requirements of which we speak? What man/people group by itself is able to bring in everlasting righteousness for example? That would take something more than a mere man could achieve, especially a man under the law .. indeed, only a perfect man from amongst "thy people" could achieve that, someone to stand in the breach as it were .. we all know who could and did do that though .. our Lord Jesus the Christ. I am only giving brief answers too .. we could get even deeper but that would take a lot of scriptures and much eye strain to achieve, Lol, but my goal is not to convince, but just to give another perspective. After all, none of this affects our salvation, so I am not overly combative nor feel the need to prove my case .. I merely pose a counter argument is all. Cheers AdHoc.
  9. Hi Rollin, This is what I see from my own study .. The time frame allotted upon both the people & the holy city : “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city The requirements within the commandment God set forth : to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. If we just concentrate on the requirements above for now, discarding the 70 weeks for now, and find that the requirements were all met .. then all the number crunching & details thereafter in verses 25,26 & 27 become secondary simply because the requirements were met .. and if met, then the 70 weeks allotment was indeed fulfilled after all. God did say that the 70 weeks were determined upon them .. that is, God set 70 weeks for to fulfill all the requirements that He laid out above .. meaning, God pre-determined how long it would take for said requirements to be fulfilled. ONLY if one or any of those requirements were not met could one justify a supposed unfulfilled week to become a future week .. prophetically speaking. The requirements are not beholden to the details in v's 25-27 Rollin simply because the details are the explanation as to how the requirements were fulfilled. So the only question we really need ask is whether all the requirements were met or not. And if they were .. then no missing week can be justified and moved forward in time and added to things it ought not be added to I put the below evidence together quickly, so hopefully it suffices for now : to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. finish the transgression : Isaiah 59:20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD. end of sins : 1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. reconciliation for iniquity : Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. Romans 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. bring in everlasting righteousness : Psalms 119:142 Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth. Hebrews 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, seal up the vision and prophecy : Isaiah 8:16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. Isaiah 9:2 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. 2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: anoint the most Holy : Mark 14:1-9 1 After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death. 2 But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar of the people. 3 And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head. 4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made? 5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her. 6 And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me. 7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always. 8 She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying. 9 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her. We see that everything was indeed fulfilled Rollin, wouldn't that mean that the 70 weeks were fulfilled too? God did say it would take 70 weeks to fulfil after all and behold, they were indeed fulfilled. The problem with the missing week in my opinion is nothing more that a problem of interpretation. Though I didn't entertain verses 25-27, I am willing to address any of them that you would like addressed if unsatisfied with the above .. Cheers.
  10. Hi Marilyn, Long time no speak huh. When AFlameOfFire and I were chatting I didn't get the chance to tell you that I actually understood what "Better resurrection" meant before you posted this post before Flame and I were even finished chatting, Lol, you were very quick on the draw, I'll give you that. Instead, I was musing over some other points to consider relating to "Better resurrection" that never occurred to me before is all .. Even though I don't agree with everything you posted, overall, I agree with your general description of better resurrection minus a small few hiccups therein. I still thank you for going to the effort of posting this though. After all, none of us agree on everything right? I do want to say this though .. when I read Rev 12, I perceive that Satan was kicked out of heaven either when Christ was crucified or when Christ ascended, between that narrow window anyways .. I'm still 50/50 on the actual timing though, have been for years. So thanks again Marilyn, cheers.
  11. I was originally speaking about one thing, but something occurred to me when in the process of answering you earlier of which I never considered before. This is part of it, not what I realized tonight, but connected to it .. you probably won't agree, that's okay .. but you asked for a bone thrown your way after all .. these are just my thoughts laid out .. my opinion .. I could be wrong. Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Which Spirit? Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. More specific still : Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Spirit of Christ was not in the world .. ever (hear me out to understand what I mean) .. until Pentecost .. that Holy living essence sent to dwell & grow within the saints. The Holy Spirit sent forth to gaff with our souls that James spoke of .. that living essence of Christ's Spirit sent to grow within all who believe and teaches us the gospel of Christ and more. For convenience sake, lets call this Spirit of Christ sent into the world at Pentecost, Holy Spirit version 2.0 Version 2.0 being infused with, lets say, the gospel of Christ .. just imagine that only H/S version 2.0 is used to raise us right .. O.T version 1.0 needs to be upgraded within those of old for whom it dwelt within during O.T times, so H/S 2.0 is needed for Romans 8:9 & 11 to take effect. Meaning, those seeking a better resurrection which we were chatting about, who never had the Spirit of His Son in them .. must first go through Ezekiel 37, whose raised up mortal bodies enter the Millennial Kingdom for to not only receive the Spirit of His Son in them as we hopefully all have, but to learn His doctrine too .. because again, they have Holy Spirit version 1.0, so to speak .. and again, 1.0 did not have the gospel of His Son infused within "it" .. this is why they are all brought back in the flesh and not in the spirit like Christ's saints are at the 2nd coming. Again, see Ezekiel 37, the whole chapter .. a few mysteries in there to be found. And all of that led me to something that didn't occur to me before tonight .. something that that prophecy was not talking about. And I need to think about this new realization a bit more .. it directly ties in with "Better resurrection" and questions I never thought of before. Again, with what I said above .. you might agree, you might not. Either way, this has been very fruitful for me .. thanks Flame.
  12. Oh, Marilyn posted for you .. All good, after the effort Marilyn put in I'll just leave you with it. Have a good one.
  13. Hahaha, No no, like me, you like to work things out yourself, so far be it from me to ruin your fun .. you probably got an answer anyway .. maybe, maybe not? Tell you what, if you can be bothered, doesn't faze me either way btw .. did you already ask yourself that question? Which resurrection he's speaking of? Just curious.
  14. Flame, Besides seeking the examples you queried above, this word : "Better" has implications right? So keeping that in mind, would I be wrong in assuming that your line of questioning really has to do with determining which "Resurrection" is being spoken of here, or am I mistaken?
  15. Hi AdHoc, I read what you said carefully and I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. I won't debate anything you declared because your reply wasn't given in that spirit of debate but was your musings and advice rolled into one. Cheers for the advice at the end, advice I too have given many times over the years, so I hear you. I hope I don't come across as un-teachable nor am judged in that light it's just that um, err, how can I say this .. um, before coming to worthy I did 7 solid years of debating on the most popular forum of it's day, over 400 000 members alone .. debating "normies" like us, debating pastors, authors, many scholars and a professor or two, multiple thousands of interactions covering every subject you can think of and shown and been told that I am quite capable and do in fact understand scriptures quite well, to the point where I was rarely directly challenged by anyone near the end of my association with said site, even those who really really didn't like me .. my "enemies" were all at peace with me, even though they vehemently disagreed with me on certain stances, but not all stance just some .. And would even privately message me asking not to go on their posts and challenge them because people were turning to my interpretation on a matter as though it were some grave insult to them or some popularity contest I was ruining for them or something like that. I say this to show I'm not self deluded nor have visions of grandeur, not that you said anything of the sort of course, just covering bases .. but simply because others, over time, never accused that about me, over time being the key point of course .. it's just that I do have a good grasp of scripture is all and could see the merit of the argument I now support when I first scrutinized it for myself .. meaning, I NEVER debate anything blindly. But those 7 years were my "service years" so to speak, I was like Paul .. a bulldog .. I now practice a different approach and take a far far more laid back approach and rarely post these days unless it's something I feel inspired to debate or discuss. I really truly don't say this to boast, okay, okay, maybe 10 % of a boast though it's not MY knowledge it's God who provides so any boast would be hollow if it were a self centered boast, Lol, but I can assure you AdHoc, that the times I have been shown to be wrong in the past, I have instantly admitted my error/corrected my mistake and all without hesitation. I don't worry about my honor simply because it's not about me, God will decide if I get shamed or justified or anything in-between. And thanks bro for your compliment, I don't always live up to it though, sometimes the old soldier comes out and I can say the wrong thing or react the wrong way that could come across as a bit nasty/unfriendly/un Christ-like .. I call it battle fatigue, Lol. God bless.
×
×
  • Create New...