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.
The exegetical steps are as follows.
1. God promises Abraham that all the nations of the earth will be blessed (now that's a big one).
2. God promises Cyrus that every knee will bow and every tongue confess (another biggie, but played down by trad western theology - despite being reiterated twice by St Paul).
3. God sends in the Last Adam to reveal that He was never against us, and as representative of mankind whatever falls in Adam is raised up in Christ (that's the lifetime guarantee, sealed in holy blood - better than the folding stuff to Jews).
4. God actually does deliver in Kingdom come by resurrecting the dead in the final judgment, where the last enemy (death) will be defeated (leaving life remaining) and all things made new.
5. Rejoicing in plowshares and the riches of His Grace.
There's your Omega Plan lifecycle rollout: manufacture, supply, test, warranty, recall and repair. Good as gold, all in all. More than conquerors. All glory to the one true living God.
Now there's your reason to look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.
IDK. Ages can be of differing lengths. But each has a beginning and end. For example, the ice age and the bronze age are both ages. Does my sentence claim that both are of the same length? (nope)Sorry. Where do you get that. If one is for one age, so is the other. Changing meaning within the same sentence making one mean "one" period of time and the other a "different" number of periods of time is not in the text.
Enos or monocleno would be used as a clarifier of one or "single" if there were a difference.
That's is because you haven't got the hermeneutics right. Too much eisegesis. This strawman was addressed back in #1510 when we were young and optimistic:
Strawman: Universalists think that all roads lead to God
This is to confuse universalism (the view that God will one day save all people through Christ) with pluralism (the view that there are many paths to God and that Jesus is simply one of them). But Christian universalists deny pluralism. They insist that salvation is found only through the atoning work of Christ. Without Jesus nobody would be redeemed.
Now there is a disagreement between Christians, not only Universalists, about whether you need to have explicit faith in Jesus to be saved. Some Christians, called exclusivists, say Yes and others, called inclusivists, say No. So, for inclusivists you can be saved even if, for instance, you have never heard the gospel. Inclusivists would say that if someone responds in love and faith to the truncated divine revelation that they have received then God can unite them to Christ.
But we need to be careful not to confuse the discussion between exclusivists and inclusivists with the issue of universalism. Many people make that mistake. The former debate concerns how people can experience the salvation won by Christ while the latter concerns how many people will be saved. Two different questions.
By contrast that sounds like the only reason for repentance is to receive a get into heaven card - which seems to be the case with a lot of Christians. One thing I note about that is all the repentance that took place in the Old Testament, even though there's not a single mention of punishment of the soul in the afterlife in the OT that I know of
The posturing made your statement incomprehensible to me. But I didn't want to assume it was an insult. It might not have been.It's neither. It's just a descriptive statement that applies to all of us.
But then again, Skeptic that I am, you can feel free to question it and show me how wrong I am.
But, that's ok. I know that when you try to hit a target with a blind-fold on, speaking outside of your own field, you probably are going to miss the mark
The posturing made your statement incomprehensible to me. But I didn't want to assume it was an insult. It might not have been.
Hermeneutics, as @Lazarus Short has already explained to you, simply means "interpretaion". That's something that's outside no-one's field. It's something we all do day in and day out in every area of our lives and it's nothing special. Unless you're claiming expertise in a specific field? If so, in what area? Please be specific...
There, now was that so hard to speak in plain English? (layman's terms)And no, my previous statement wasn't an insult. It was a matter of fact, with the implication being that since we ALL interpret what we read or hear in the interactions of human communication, then it can be said that we all either do our interpreting well or we don't do it well.
The posturing made your statement incomprehensible to me. But I didn't want to assume it was an insult. It might not have been.
There, now was that so hard to speak in plain English? (layman's terms)
But aren't you holding interpretation to some "learned" academic standard (Herman Nudists) from which you alone draw the "right" answer to the questions you drill us with?
You can cast a long shadow, but it's still only a shadow. We all know the source is smaller.
There's a refusal to put the cookies on the lower shelf. And then we are criticized for "hiding" behind the term "layman's terms". (sigh)I'm just as confused as you are.
I'm just as confused as you are.
Like two ships that pass in the night.You may have to reiterate what you've said here and put it in laymen's terms for me, Steven. Because, I'm not quite getting the gist of what you're saying.
I'd rather err on the side of caution and say that even though it seems like you're imputing some kind of 'Gnostic crap' to my position, I'm wholly misinterpreting what you're say to me.
So, if you would be so kind, just clarify for me what you're intending to say.
Doesn't "Gnostic" mean knowledge? And isn't that what you are championing here? I didn't say "Gnostic" to you, but... if the shoe fits... you're Cinderella. - lol... it seems like you're imputing some kind of 'Gnostic crap' to my position...
There's a refusal to put the cookies on the lower shelf. And then we are criticized for "hiding" behind the term "layman's terms". (sigh)
See my post #1749 above.What do you consider to be an act of "placing the cookies on the lower shelf"? ...
As for being an expert on Hermeneutics and Exegesis, I ain't
Well... maybe should cut me some slack then. Sounds like I'm in good company. - lolBut, y'know, as fate has it, one of my favorite Christian philosophers has written an essay that seems to lean in your favor (not that I'm glad he does).
There's a refusal to put the cookies on the lower shelf. And then we are criticized for "hiding" behind the term "layman's terms". (sigh)
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?