Posted on 06/02/2010 12:05:35 PM PDT by i88schwartz
1Thessalonians 5:21
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Actually, as a Child I learned about GOD from my neighbors as they were Jehovah Witnesses...My mother did not teach me about GOD...I use to read the book called *Paradise Lost* with them when I was 8 or 9 yrs old...
Now mind you, I do not adhere to the beliefs of JW’s but I did hold on to the good I did learn...I guess that is how I look at the Gnostics...:)
(Test everything and hold on to what is good)
Indeed. Thanks for the ping!
I’ll be honest - I only gave your link the briefest of perusals. I’m familiar with what Dr Reagan teaches and I don’t agree with a good chunk of it. I used to be a premilennial pretribulational dispensationalist...but further study - while at the same time throwing out all I had been taught and allowing the word to speak for itself - caused me to reject all but the premilennial aspect of things. I am no longer a dispensationalist, nor do I hold to a pretribulational rapture position.
I am of the post-tribulationalist (or pre-wrath, but I think it happens at the end of the 70th week) persuasion, and with regard to dispensationalism, I believe that scripture teaches very clearly that there is one body, that being Israel, into which we are grafted. There is no separation between her and the church, nor are we spared from the trials (commonly mistaken for God’s wrath, imo) which may soon come upon the earth. There is one ekklesia, and it began in the wilderness with Moses. God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and His grace applies to all throughout history in the same way.
I simply posed the question because I would like scriptural proof of said pretribulational rapture. For myself, when it came right down to it, I could not find it within.
Thanks for the link to the Nag Hammadi scrolls. Now I can see where your terms and account originated. The account strikes me as a hybrid between the Edith Hamilton’s compilation of Greek mythology titled “Metamorphosis” and the Book of Genesis.
Maybe the better question is why people think we should “love” Israel? Allies are made out of sovereign convenience and common interests (which can change), not love. If anything, this country has suffered tremendously due to it’s “love” of Israel. I’m not saying that’s good or bad, kind or evil, just the way it is. How exactly has our “love” of Israel benefitted us?
I know the answer and you know the answer, but no one will mention the elephant in the living room.
After I gave you several, what you called "non sequitur" answers, I then gave up and asked you to go ahead and enlighten the rest of us, giving the answer you said you knew. Your reply was:
No, the question to which you refer was “Why should we love Israel”. As for the second elephant in the living room question “Why some do people offer Israel their unconditional love” has pretty much been answered throughout this thread.
And you accuse me of non sequiturs?
So here is your chance, Bob J. Go ahead and give us the answer which seems to illude all of us. And (please!) put it in your own words -- none of this, "It's been answered throughout this thread," because that really is a non sequitur answer if there ever was one.
I once heard someone say: "Pre-Trib? Mid-Trib? Post-Trib? Well, I'm Pan-Trib, because it will all pan out in the end!"
Sure it will, just be ready for whatever happens.
Well, it would be nice to know definitively; but I guess that will only happen after the fact. So many biblical scholars, so many competing opinions....
Could you please give us the specifics as to how we have suffered "tremendously"?
There's a great deal of truth in that, but the fact is that there are European peoples for whom the Left supports the idea of an ethnostate: the Celts, the Basques, French Quebecois, white Mexican Castilians (where did the Left ever get the idea that Spanish is an "indigenous American" language?), etc.
The left only loves themselves. They use everyone and everything around them as a tool to get their way. Israel and the Muzzies are the tools de jour for them. If the Muzzies ever took over the left would hate them because they would impose religion on the left. They are simply selfish, stupid children.
Bob didn’t say Israel had the upper hand. He said they had their hands full. Reading comprehension: 0.47%.
He said they had their hands full.
You're a laugh-a-mintue, too ... LOL ...
Yep! It sure looks like Islam and their world-wide jihad "has their hands full" with that little red speck there ... :-)
It must be that "Israel jihad' against us that we've got our hands full with, in this country, too ... eh?
They’re anti-semitic.
Mostly Muslims and dictators of the world hate them.
For some strange reason there are self loathing Jews in America who keep voting Democrat which also then puts Israel at risk.
They worship the one true God, not the false god of islam or the Obama god.
Seems to me they got all they can handle being the frontline against Israel jihad.
I believe he was referring to Israel having all it can handle with the surrounding Islamic states.
Their dark master hated Israel first.
I believe he was referring to Israel having all it can handle with the surrounding Islamic states.
I don't think so ... :-) Take a look again ...
The comment being responded to by Bob J ...
“If you are smart you support Israel because they are on the frontline against the worldwide Jihad.”
Bob J's response to that comment ...
Really? Worldwide, huh? Seems to me they got all they can handle being the frontline against Israel jihad.
BUT, if Bob J would care to "clarify" and correct that understanding (listed above), I would be glad to listen ... :-)
I understand ST...
I just don’t think all Gnostics were liars or being cultish, maybe some were......
I am sure many were.....
I just found some of what the Gnostics wrote in the Holy Bible not a contradiction....
But let me ask you this...
Jesus spent alot of time speaking with Mary of Magdala
He told her as wel,l much about the Kingdom of GOD..Why wasn’t what he told her in the Canon?
Why wasn’t what he told her in the Canon?
The canon of Scripture is something that is "determined" by God, Himself, since it's His Word. Thus, the answer to that is simply ... it was not something that God wanted in His Word.
"People" themselves don't "make a writing" to be the "canon of Scripture" -- they can only "recognize" what God has already "determined Himself" -- to be scripture.
All the canon of Scripture that we have was immediately recognized to be Scripture, by those who received it, at the time it was written and given to the people (i.e., the "people of God"). While there may have been "some" who questioned a book here or there, in terms of their own "recognition" of whether it was Scripture, by and large, all the books of the Bible were immediately received and recognized as Scripture.
Others (the ones we've come to know as rejected, and we can see why when we read them) -- have never come to be recognized as Scripture, at a later time, after having been rejected by the majority of those to whom it was directed to.
Take a look at ...
AND... you'll note that we have this in reference to Scripture ... and it shows the "purpose" of God's Word/Scriptures. It's for (1) doctrine, (2) reproof, (3) correction, (4) instruction in righteousness -- so "that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
2 Timothy Chapter 3 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
AND..., also, Scripture is all about Jesus, the Messiah of Israel and the salvation that He has provided for the world.
If something is not in Scripture, it's because God has not chosen it to be in Scripture and thus -- it was not for (1) doctrine, it was not for (2) reproof, and it was not for (3) correction and it was not for (4) instruction in righteousness -- and it did not make any contribution to this ... "that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Remember, Scripture is not either complete knowledge about all aspects of a subject, or exhaustive knowledge about it -- it is "sufficient knowledge" for the purpose that God intends to accomplish in His Word.
And what "is said" in His Word (on any subject), even though it does not "exhaust the subject" it is inerrant, infallible and authoritative in all that it says, speaks about, speaks on, addresses, comments about, or teaches or instructs or educates about.
Another way to put it -- is -- nothing else is needed for the purposes that God intends, than ... the Word of God, itself (plus, of course, God's own actions in the Holy Spirit, working personally in people's lives, and the new creation that God makes every one to be who has chosen His Son as their personal savior).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.