Search results

I've already shown that all the mentions of a New Covenant in the Gospels and Paul's letters refer back to the covenant God made with Israel in Jeremiah 31:31. Now I'm aware that verse 6 uses the words "Better Covenant" but it'd be hard to construe that it is something other the 2 "New Covenant"...

Of course. In none of my posts do I claim to be commenting on the entire Bible. Does that really say that the country is IN heaven? Might it not be saying that the New Jerusalem will be coming down from heaven (as per Rev 21:2), and is thus heavenly in nature? The word "heavenly" in v 16 is in...

You are assuming we are living in the New Covenant that was promised in Isaiah 31:31. If you'd read the whole of Jeremiah 31 (and other prophets talking about the same thing) it ought to be glaringly obvious that none of that has come to pass, thus the New Covenant is future. There is nowhere...

I don't think I used the EFC in any way, let alone dishonorably God clearly promised Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob a land that could be seen with their eyes, where there would fruit tree, houses, jobs, animals, etc. How does saying those promises were fulfilled by the church in a heavenly kingdom...

I understand the Christ is reigning in heaven now. But that does not preclude his future reign over the earthly land God promised Abraham. Issac, and Jacob. Without me saying at this point that the 1,000 years are literal or figurative, I do understand why amils must take it as figurative. The...

You're right about the importance of what 1,000 means. I think I'm going to spend some time researching what "1,000" meant in the Ancient Near East. I'm going to study its meaning, not just in the Bible, but in the Ancient Near East. I think it'd be more neutral and it's usage in the Bible is...

As I said, I was being facetious about Jesus being in grave for 3,000 days (or years, whatever, facetious is facetious). I guess I failed to make my point with you. And yes, I too see the importance of context. I just looked at the Greek word for "year." G2094 ἔτος etos (e'-tos) n. a year...

Fair enough. In a moment. A question you didn't answer. But for the record, I was being facetious. The Greek word for hour is: G5610 ὥρα hora (hō'-ra) n. an “hour.” {literally or figuratively} Maybe it was somebody else, but I did mention context. It would be reasonable to say the in the case...

Have you ever done an in-depth study of the different words used for time in the scriptures? Assuming you have, how can you tell when a period of time is literal or figurative? Or are they all literal or are they all figurative?

Context. If that is blank check to say any length of time is not really what it says, then who's to stop me from saying Jesus will be in the grave, not for three literal days, but for 3,000 years? Since 2,000 years have gone by since Jesus died, we have another 1,000 years to go before he rises...

History is history. If it discredits someone, so be it. I know. That's why I included it. Nonetheless it does say, "His purpose was to recover Plato for Platonism, and then Platonism for Christianity" which is exactly what I've been saying. Why couldn't it be you who is building a slanted...

I dare say WPM would have better spent his time studying the scriptures. But to each his own. Could you be more specific? What have I said that contradicts the scriptures? But if I have, would you think I'm the only one who has done so? Does everybody here but me have the absolute truth?

"Origen believes that Platonism contains truths present in the biblical account about reality. His purpose was to recover Plato for Platonism, and then Platonism for Christianity." The Greek Philosophy, Knowledge and Faith "The mix of Jewish theology and Greek philosophy led to a syncretic mix...

Thanks to some of the information you supplied I did edit the OP to more accord with history. I included Barnabas, and the other ECFs you mentioned in the post. The history in that post is still quick and dirty, but maybe now a little less quick and dirty.

Sounds reasonable! I think the scriptures say that. Assuming we take that part literally. :csm

That is very true. I said somewhere in this thread that all of us are going to find out where we held doctrinal error in this life. After all, we see through a dark glass. Paul never held back when he sought to correct wrong doctrine. In fact throughout the scriptures there was always a man who...

I don't know about leading to eternal death, but it's certainly not going to win any points with God at the Bema. BTW, you must be proud of your grandchildren. Nice looking group!

Read the OP. Thanks to WPM's post, though not a real challenge to my basic thesis, I clarified it nonetheless. And remember, I did say in the OP that I gave a quick and dirty overview. In any case, does it really matter who began using allegory in order to harmonize Plato with Moses?

Paul said that there were some in the church who were claiming that the resurrection is past, overthrowing the faith of some believers. That may well have been at least the seed of replacement doctrine. I also understand that some leaders in the early church were infatuated with Greek...