Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, that's a historic reference, not biblical.
And seems to be a reference to James, the brother of Jesus, the Apostle and head of the Jerusalem church. (not to James the lesser)
Hopefully Tonto knew how to duck and weave.
Neither is 'Major is majorly wrong,' but there's overwhelming support for the inference.
Correct. But all will eventually 'give it up' for Christ. All critters above, on and under the earth will sing his praises.
If God doesn't judge the modern world, He will have to apologise to Chorazin and Bethsaida. They will wail and gnash teeth in shame and regret, as they start on the road to repentance.
Those Pearly Gates are always open so that the nations and kings of the earth can come and go in peace, as long as they first wash their robes in the laver, the blood of the Lamb, the Lake of Fire. Get that fuller's soap to scrub out the scarlet stains from the wool, refine away the dross and stubble with the fire assay, and look in contempt at the wormy sludge of the fleshy corpse of the old man.
Swing and a miss, Major. How much enthusiasm can the King expect in support of his justice policies from the hopelessly condemned? What about the right of appeal, the bail, the suspended and non-custodial sentence? Where are the nuances in your medieval vision of the divine right?
Jesus breaks into the strong man's house to steal his goods.
Jesus has the keys to death and hell.
Jesus comes to give life and free from prison.
Jesus forgives and is meek and lowly of heart.
Jesus is God's right arm.
Jesus is Salvation.
Jesus is not only the alpha, but also...the omega.
See the Son, see the Father.
These are fundamental principles. How could such a great teacher in all of Israel not know these things? Ah, but you must be born again. Are you born again, Major?
Why would God destroy someone for acknowledging their need for Jesus? God's going to say "sorry too late"?
Right.
I don't subscribe to the pre-existence of souls, but thought it was a part of some Jewish theology. I have always believed in the soul being created at conception, but haven't really studied the other views on that.
After the people are forced to take this mark, an angel flies around telling people not to worship the beast. Do they listen? Are they able to repent?
Neither one is eternal. Only God is eternal.If Heaven is eternal.....why do you "Think" that hell will not be?
Actually, the belief is much older than that. It appeared in the Talmud and the Apocrypha.Agreed.
The preexistence of souls is Mormonism.
When I read your post I had this somewhat humorous mental image of everyone bowing the knee to Jesus in heaven and there we were next to the kneeling camels. - lolSo the 'Got knees?' ad could use a picture of a camel, perhaps?
Nope, changing the word order is simply to highlight the two possible understandings of how "in Adam" function in the sentence.So in order for it to be properly comprehended, it has to be reworded?
What do you mean "Biblically unrelated?" None of the texts you've used make the point you are making, nor does your point necessarily follow. John 5:58 does not imply that because Jesus existed before Abraham, belonging to Abraham is the same as belonging to Christ. And before you try to argue the specious "all of creation" nonsense, the Bible is clear that God has created for Himself a people to be a special possession which is generally called a "remnant." So there's no reason from John 5:58 to draw that anyone would have understood "in Adam" and "in Christ" to refer to the same group, and the context of the passage with its emphasis on the Corinthian's belief not being in vain gives a contrasting usage which requires the two groups be distinct from one another.It's not my contention, but rather a contention that I'm exploring. How are the texts I'm using unrelated or out of context when they're all about Adam and Jesus? So far you're just making claims and accusations, rather than using the Bible to refute what I've come up with so far. I don't mean by using counter text, but rather demonstrating how and why the text I'm using is Biblically unrelated.
No, the arguments presented tend to fall in two lines: 1)context and 2)grammar. Because context and grammar is how we answer the question: but what does the text say?Arguments over grammar are really the only defense of ECT we have heard.
I find it logical to believe in a mixture of UR and CI. Instead of > 90% of people annihilated, perhaps only 1%. World population now is almost 8 billion. One percent is almost 80 million of the people living today. This is a very large number and is more than what pure UR aims for, but it may be realistic. A lot of people are really evil. Only God knowsWhat Billy Graham said below was described as inclusivism:
"I think there's the Body of Christ, which comes from all the Christian groups around the world. Or outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ".
And before you try to argue the specious "all of creation" nonsense, the Bible is clear that God has created for Himself a people to be a special possession which is generally called a "remnant."
Does Paul include all of them? Romans 11 has to be understood in the context of the rest of Paul's letter to the Romans and earlier he said this:But the "remnant" does not mean a minority who are saved. This is merely your definition of it and Paul shows us in Romans 11 that it is incorrect.
In Romans 11:7. He writes, “What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened” (or blinded). He then asks, “Have they (the non-remnant who were hardened/ blinded) stumbled so as to fall?” And his answer was: “By no means!” (11:11).
He then spoke of their full inclusion: “Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!” (11:12).
He explains the reason for the remnant. God blinded the eyes and hardened the hearts of the unbelieving Jews as the means by which all of Israel might be saved (Romans 11:25-26)—all of Israel including those who were blinded and hardened (the non-remnant). Though the unbelieving Jews had become in some sense “enemies of God” (11:28), they nonetheless became “disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy” (11:31).
The remnant actually has universalist implications, the exact opposite of what you say: “For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all” (11:32). So thanks for bringing the point up.
Nope, changing the word order is simply to highlight the two possible understandings of how "in Adam" function in the sentence.
What do you mean "Biblically unrelated?" None of the texts you've used make the point you are making, nor does your point necessarily follow. John 5:58 does not imply that because Jesus existed before Abraham, belonging to Abraham is the same as belonging to Christ. And before you try to argue the specious "all of creation" nonsense, the Bible is clear that God has created for Himself a people to be a special possession which is generally called a "remnant." So there's no reason from John 5:58 to draw that anyone would have understood "in Adam" and "in Christ" to refer to the same group, and the context of the passage with its emphasis on the Corinthian's belief not being in vain gives a contrasting usage which requires the two groups be distinct from one another.
Yes, and it is the headship of Jesus that is in mind as the first fruits. 1 Cor 15 is perfectly understandable without reading it in a universalist bent, and only by bringing that to the text does the UR reading stand since the comparison is one of contrast meaning if the groups are the same the central point is rendered moot.Paul makes it clear Jesus is Adam's replacement he undid what Adam caused. If there was only "all in Adam" and "all in Christ" that would be one thing. But there's more to it than that than that as you know.
Do you read the Bible????
FACT: No one knows the day he will die.
If Heaven is eternal.....why do you "Think" that hell will not be?
Yes, and it is the headship of Jesus that is in mind as the first fruits. 1 Cor 15 is perfectly understandable without reading it in a universalist bent, and only by bringing that to the text does the UR reading stand since the comparison is one of contrast meaning if the groups are the same the central point is rendered moot.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?