Search results

No, Jesus was not to be the first King but the last. I'm saying that its plainly obvious to everyone who's done something other than listen to sound bite theology from their pastor's pulpit that God had a king in mind for Israel all the time and that the Messiah would be the last King of the...

There is no congress in the system we are advocating. Laws are not to be made, they are to be discovered and then enforced by the governing official. God has laid out a complete legal justice system in the bible complete with the role that a king would play in that system. There isn't any way...

All true. What's your point?

Neither do I. No one here is in support of putting anyone in a position of absolute power. Have you been reading anything we've suggested you read? No, of course your haven't because you're a lazy waste of everyone's time. In the biblical system that we are advocating the king would have no...

Not at the time or in the manner that they did so but as has been pointed out to you many times already, it is clear that God had it in mind for Israel not only to have a kingdom with a king but for the Messiah to eventual sit on that throne.

I refer you again to my previous post.... All systems will have flaws, yes, but the system being discussed here wasn't proposed lightly. Israel didn't really demand much of a move. It was not a fundamental change in the form of government, it was merely the installation of a king to preside...

I suspect because it took more faith than they could muster to accept God as their King. I'm sure they felt like having an invisible God as the King was like not having a king at all and they wanted a king that they could see with their own eyes like everyone else around them had. That's pretty...

Why can't it be right? Logical Necessity 1 That state of things which obliges something to be as it is because no alternative is logically possible. Further, it doesn't lock the real God into anything anyway because the real God doesn't actually know the entire future! That's the whole point...

Yes, and then that argument was rebutted by more than one of us who not only explained that it would only apply in the context of a nation that God had offered to rule as King over and provided ample resources to other more substantial rebuttals to your interpretation that come with scores of...

Everyone can have an opinion. The difference is whether that opinion can be established by scripture AND sound reason. This is a debate forum not a personal opinion forum. Please, please try to apply yourself toward making actual logical arguments. It will be much more enjoyable both for you and...

Exactly my position! There seems no good reason to leave the selection entirely up to a purely random selection where every male in the country is on equally likely to be selected as the king of an overtly Christian nation.

Take your time. I totally get it.

Only true for the nation that God has offered to reign over. Here's a copy of a post I made earlier in the thread that addresses this point.... All systems will have flaws, yes, but the system being discussed here wasn't proposed lightly. Israel didn't really demand much of a move. It was not a...

That much is not in dispute but that isn't really what I asked. The question was rhetorical. We are talking about how to set up a government system in the most ideal way possible and the dispute is primarily about how to select the first king. My contention is that the biblical system of...

Aren't both things true? It is true that Christ's righteousness was not a result of His obedience to the law but, being found as a man under the law, His obedience to the law was required and had He failed to submit Himself to the law and obey its commandments, He would have disqualified...

Try this as a response to your position... T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge] If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past] It is...

Exactly! That's just exactly the whole entire point! Plato, Augustine, Luther and Calvin all said that God is immutable, not the bible. And they meant exactly that, by the way. The doctrine of immutability goes way way beyond a belief that God's character (i.e. The traits related to His...

How is that in any way responsive to what was said to you? What does that have to do with the fact the BECOMING a man (or anything else for that matter) is antithetical to the notion that God is immutable?

Quite well indeed! Any better and I couldn't stand it!

Saying it doesn't make it so, marke and it is not MY definition of immutable, it is THE definition of the term. That's what it means, Marke. I'm not making this up as I go! immutable (ĭ-myoo͞′tə-bəl) adjective Not subject or susceptible to change. Not mutable; not capable or susceptible of...