The_Patriot21

Well, the way I read it, Jesus is not encouraging his followers to take up arms and take over the world. So let me get that out of the way, Jesus was not a war mongerer, nor did he encourage the use of violence. but on the same note, the swords in that passage, I believe were lieral swords. Now, you can certainly apply them to standing for the armor of God-but they were literal swords. Jesus knew Peter was carrying a sword, Jesus told him to. Peter, also used that sword, to defend Jesus when the priests came from him. (luke 22:49-51) Now, the fact that Peter had this sword, after Jesus told the disciples to get a sword, means that Jesus was indeed, speaking of literal swords, and not spiritual swords. It also shows that Jesus, was not against swords or other weapons. Thats point 2. Point 3, when Peter cut off the servants ear, Jesus did not rebuke Peter for having the sword, that would be foolish since He had just told Peter to have it, but rebuked him for his use of the sword, it was His will to be captured. Now, each gospel tells it a wee bit different, I like the one in matthew 26:52 where Jesus says Put your sword back in its place. For all who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. Many take this as a sign that Jesus doesn't want us to own weapons or use them. But, the thing theyre overlooking is two things, first, Jesus told Peter to buy that sword, and 2, Jesus never told Peter to get rid of it, but to put it in its place. And the putting it in its place, is where Im getting at. Jesus knew that sword wasn't evil. Jesus also knew that he who lives by it, dies by it, but He wasn't referring to the weapon, but the heart. There is a difference between a man who lives by the sword-and someone who owns it. A man who lives by it, is a violent man, who seeks violence, who uses that sword to hurt other people, to kill, to maim. A serial killer, for instance, is someone who lives by the sword, he is violent at heart, and wants to hurt others. The kid who shot up newtown, and the one who shot up that theatre in aurora, were violent at heart, and seeked to hurt others, they lived by the sword. Now, is it possible to own a sword, and not be a violent man. Yes. Is it possible, to use violence, and not be a violent man, and live by the sword. Again, the answer is yes. Ecclesiastes 3:1 says there is a time and a place for everything, and I do mean everything. Now, Im going to throw something out here, and thats the law. Now don't twist my words, we are no longer bound by the law, don't get me wrong, however, the law is not to be ignored, because the law of the OT defines what sin is (Romans 7:7) It tells us what is sin, and what is not sin, were not bound by the law, we don't have to sacrifice for our sins, because Jesus was the perfect sacrifice and we are covered in His blood, but we know what is sin from it. And according to the law, owning a weapon is not a sin. Killing someone who enters your home in self defense, is again, not a sin. There is nothing in the law, nor in the New testament, that says a sword, (which was the "gun" of the time") is sinful, or that christians shouldn't own one. I would also say, that the sword Jesus is speaking of in luke, that the disciples took with them into the garden, is not the same sword as is mentioned in ephesians about the armor of God. the sword in ephesians is speaking of a spiritual sword, while the one in luke a literal sword.

After reading the letters, I don't hold that licona was, at least, intentionally, questioning the inerrency of the Bible, from my understanding, he fully believes in the inerrency of the Bible. However, with that being said, I think his interpretation of the passage in question, is indeed wrong, and do hold to Geislers, that scripture does indeed refer to a literal event that happened at that time. I come to that from reading the scripture, and not just the 2 verses mentioned but the preceding verses and following verse. Matthew 27:50-54 (KJV) 0 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; 52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. 54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. theres nothing in the context, that suggests this is a future event, it ties the event to immediatly following the veil of the temple being torn, and verse 54 says that those that were with Jesus being crucified, saw all of these things happening-the earth quake, the veil being torn, the rocks being rent, and the bodys of the saints rising, they "feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God" To suggest the rising of the saints to be a future event, doesn't fit with the context, this passage of the book is not prophetic in nature and theres nothing to suggest that any one of those events were future events. To just take one, and say this is a allegory to a end times thing, is to take it out of context in my opinion. So my opinion is licona, is wrong, but hes not, at least, intentionally, challenging the Bibles inerrency. I think hes a real, honest, Bible believing Christian, who happens to be wrong about something-which Im sure we all are in error about some things. And this isn't even a core issue, I don't think-Hes not challenging who Christ is or what He did for us.

Its simple really. If God is the creator of everything, then he is also the sheer definition of morally good. By definition, He is good. So if He says it, it is morally good. To say that good morals are good morals outside of God-is in essence, taking away from Gods sovereignty. Something has to define good and evil-period, if its not God, then its something else. If its something else, Then God is just another God who echoes these morals-if God is the source of them, then He truly is omnipotent and omni-powerful.

If you read the article udx, the person even tried applying for other jobs which she was fully qualified for, outside her market, and couldnt find one. Welcome to our current job market.

and people wonder why Im so against nuclear power. Its nowhere near as safe as people make it out to be. Sure, they don't fail often-but when they do, they cause much worse damage, and long term damage. When a coal mine goes up in smoke you may lose a few workers, but you dont have babies being born with birth defects hundreds of miles away.

my question is, how do they know it belongs to said person?

that might not be a bad thing ember. . .

Does it? I must have missed them. I'll read through them when I get a chance.

I haven't decided yet. It does seem to be a broad definition.

the best source I can find between the two is here http://sbctoday.com/2011/12/01/the-geisler-licona-controversypart-1-what-is-this-all-about/ I haven't been able to find the actual letters the two interchanged betwween each other yet, however.

I dont care if he had done it for 15 years. shoulda found a different way of handling it. I dont think it was misrepresented at all.

wanna be danny ocean after the gold maybe?

While Im not sure I agre with liconas stand on this scripture (I actually like Geislers better) I don't think he was questioning the inerrency of the scripture, at least not intentionally. With that being said, I have not read the book, and the articles Im reading only sorta touch on the subject, and I will admit I have read a lot of Geislers stuff and am just a wee bit biased for him.

http://youtu.be/N0vQPKlplO8

Very true. Its to bad our congress isnt as smart as this 15 year old girl.

I think, we always look around us, and see everything happening so fast, but in reality, its not. 30 years from now we will look back, and say hey, I was wrong there, there wasn't that much going on on the big picture. Its all about perspective-if were looking through our own little corner of the puzzle, were overwhelmed-but if were looking at the entire puzzle, then its like, huh, guess that wasn't as big of a deal as I thought it was.

What are you doing Dave?

eh alienwares are extremely overrated, and overpriced. Though, onelight brings up a good point, if you really want a higher performing laptop it may serve you well to save your money for a higher end model.

the cities XL series is not a very high performance games, a core2 duo and ATI 3870 will run them full graphics, and that laptop far exceeds the performance of both the core 2 duo and the 3870. As far as laptops go, thats a very solid laptop-1.9 ghz quad core, is very good for a laptop, the a10 is a better CPU, but that A8 is just fine, 6 gigs of ram which is plenty, and the 7640G graphics card is a very good mobile card. You shouldn't have any problems with that laptop and those games. Toshiba customer service is a wee bit lacking (actually in my experience extremely lacking to nonexistent) but they do make a good laptop, just getting anything fixed if something does go wrong, might be a headache.

It depends. What kind of games do you plan on playing? And what kind of laptop is it? can you provide a link? when it comes to performance, especially with gaming, you should look at more then just the CPU and the ram-video card is important to, and in fact, with most laptops, the biggest problem with gaming. Most laptops use integrated video cards which is a real hinderance when it comes to gaming, especially if your into high end gaming.

hey, if it brings people in, and gets them to Christ, then Im all for it. Its thinking outside the box. And if you read the entire article, they never said zombies were real-they were using them as what do call it, allegory? I would have loved to listen to those services.

I think if the jew is a willing participant and it helps people learn about jews in a positive manner, then Im all for it.

SOS does not actually stand for anything. It was created in the days of morsecode, as a simple, easy to remember distress call-the morse code for mayday, was long, and hard to remember, and only those fluent in morse code could remember it, so they made SOS the standard distress call in morse code, and taught the entire crew on a ship what it was, it was simple, easy to remember, and easy to recognize over a radio frequency, and in all languages. It was not chosen because it meant anything-it was chosen because of its ease of transmission and the distinctive sound which is easily recognized in all languages. (. . . --- . . .) People did not invent "save our souls" or "save our ship" until sometime after SOS was made.

on the same note, if I ever get a extra 6v battery from somewhere I might dissect it just for kicks and giggles. but I dont see me every buying one, just to destroy it lol.

yes it happens. yes its absurd. but its also nothing new.