Search results

True. But there is no shortages of documents recently discovered (in the last 75 years of so) from the first few centuries AD from which modern historians can learn.

Kind of an odd question, but here goes: It's a simile, a figure of speech in which two essentially unlike things are compared, often in a phrase introduced by like or as, as in. I think the message was the Asahel was a faster runner than the average guy, but certainly not as fast as a gazelle...

Maybe block my posts? All you have to do is click on my image and then click on "ignore."

Allegory, metaphors, hyperbole, and many other types of figures of speech are absolutely found in the scriptures. The thing many don't understand about figures of speech is that they are used in as precise a manner as literal speech. It's true that some speakers/writers misuse them or mix them...

So the ECFs do say that Origin was one of the first to use the allegorical method? If you already knew that why are you asking me to prove it? I admit I have no evidence that supports my claims? Could you quote me on that?

Good point. We must read read the account literally (considering figures of speech, etc) and from that literal reading we can learn the application(s). But when one begins to analogize Jonah without using accepted grammatical guidelines, one can say it means whatever strikes their fancy. Maybe...

Since you are the one arguing against those points, it ought to be you giving me reason that they are wrong. Besides I have a feeling that I could quote numerous historians (I'd leave out any premil historians) and you'd still not believe. Luke 16:31, And he said unto him, If they hear not...

Prove that!

OK. That's fine if you rely on RCC historians for history while ignoring all others, Christian and secular alike. Find me just one RCC historian that would say Origin was not one of the first to use the allegorical method to interpret scripture. Then I'll sit up and take notice, and we can fact...

I found the ECFs. I've studied them to some degree, enough to get the gist. I just never heard them called ECFs. What's with this constant insistence on your part that I remove my post? Have I asked you to remove what I obviously consider error? No! I allow you the freedom of airing your views...

I found the ECFs on staycatholic.com. Now I know what you mean. Everybody that has ever lived has good points and bad points. When someone is writing about someone else they will either emphasize to some degree or another the good points or the bad points. It all depends on the writer's point...

Yeah, you're right. Historians don't know what they are talking about. I should just listen to WPM. I mean, what does Jeremiah or Paul know about God's plan? They're both deceived because they didn't read and believe the ECFs. They're nothing but a couple of cop outs! Seriously? BTW, this idea...

Did you notice that after very recently apologizing to me for personal attacks, your are now accusing me of being gullible, deceived, blinkered (whatever that is), and unable to think for myself? It doesn't bother me, but it does tend to make me give less credence to your posts. But it's not...

I think that's a pretty good big picture. That's the way I see it anyway. But I also know there are sects within sects within sects...!

I don't blame you for not taking my word on all of that. But it wouldn't be very hard for you to verify if you want. All of it's well accepted among church history scholars. It's pretty much all over the internet. But, if you have evidence that any of it is wrong, I'd be glad to look it over...

No problem. I understand. Thanks.

So you spew such vitriol at me and I'm supposed to read the rest of your post? I don't think so!

Col 1:26, [Even] the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: "Now" was not when Jesus spoke at the last supper. "Now" came several years later. Eph 3:3, How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in...

I would have to agree. It is a bunch of baloney to suggest I thought there was two covenants. Such an idea could only have come from inferring something that really wasn't there. Kind of like inferring there is such a thing as a spiritual Israel when there is no such thing in the actual...

There was no covenant made at Calvary. Calvary was the beginning of the fulfillment of the covenant that was made several hundred years before, the New Covenant which God made with Israel in Jeremiah.