Search results

There are no "Apocryphal" books in the complete Christian Bible. Your Bible has been circumcised of seven books that are supposed to be there, and were removed for strictly partisan reasons. The Apostles contributed to the Bible in writing, and they approved the entire canon of the Bible, and...

Matthew 1:21 right at the beginning. "thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." Not from the Romans, not from "their oppressors." From their sins. How's He going to do that? The cross.

Is this authoritative, standard, canonical Mid-Acts Dispensationalism? iow IF there's a problem in this book, does that mean there is logically necessarily a problem with MAD? Or are you just going to say, "Well Bob Enyart [of happy memory] was wrong on this or that point." I don't want to...

No. You just said, "Saddam abused the human rights of his [own] people." Saddam set events in motion. Saddam. Saddam. Saddam. The Iraqi people tolerate corruption in high places. As I said, the only time America has been able to thwart what an entire polity holds as tolerable is to occupy...

Correct. That wasn't the hard part. And yet they still didn't learn as a people, as a polity, to reject corruption in high places. Guns is turning to God. When someone's hurting you we hurt them. That's love. It's also justice. It's very unique don't you think, that the same instrument is...

There's a lot of Scriptural evidence which supports and corroborates and comports with MAD, which is why I say it's not unreasonable to be MAD, but MAD is not proven or demonstrated anywhere in the Bible, and meanwhile there does appear, to many people, to be proof against MAD in the Bible, iow...

The Holy Spirit made Gentile "elders of the Church" in Ephesus "overseers, to shepherd the Church of God." Acts 20

I can't make a case for MAD from Scripture, that's true. Got me there.

Republicans do not believe the "climate crisis" is an "emergency situation," so if Republicans get elected then it will end. And that only happens through voting Republican. So vote Republican.

Vote Republican.

Of course not :)

Polls close. That's when you know which one counts. I lost you after "the Republican wins" since that's all I've been trying to accomplish.

You either vote yourself directly, or you vote by proxy by abstaining. Not both. If your proxy vote is the proportion of the total vote, and the Democrat wins, then your proxy vote helped elect the Democrat. If you instead of abstaining voted Republican, then you did your part. They were...

No, it isn't. No it's not. I responded to a post by @steko which set out a number of clear propositions about what Mid-Acts Dispensationalism believes. It was one of the clearest explanations of this theology that I've seen, on TOL or anywhere else. (I did investigate Grace Ambassadors...

Can you clarify? idk. Could be what happened to King Saul is not what the New Testament is talking about, and what is happening to us, under the New Covenant. Could very well be. Good point about Paul. That's fine with me. OK. OK. Synonymous with attributes. Near-synonymous with...

Close enough. When you abstain from voting you in effect are giving your vote to the actual voters, you are implicitly entrusting them with your vote. A proxy. So if a Democrat wins your state and you didn't vote, you contributed to that election result by proxy, meaning that you gave half...

ME! No. The winning party gets the half vote. The loser ... loses. That's why it's half a vote. If instead you vote Republican, the Republicans get the full vote. So vote Republican.

There are bishops, like Timothy and Titus. As far as the Bible's concerned there is one office of bishop (1st Timothy 3:1), and we can track that office throughout extra-Biblical history going all the way back to the first century. Plain.

I think it turned out OK. ;)

OK. I had to conjecture, since you only posted the link without comment. :)