The 'mystery' of the coming of the 'prince' [Ezekiel 34:24] (heb. nasi) as distinguished from the 'king and judge' (heb.melek) [Ezekiel 37:22], should not be overlooked.
We know that throughout the Prophets the 'Church age' is hidden. The first and second comings of Christ are conflated, so as...
If you were following the leading of the Holy Spirit, l would have more confidence in your claim to know the mind of God, but your rejection of Pentecost as a genuine outpouring of the Holy Spirit makes such knowledge an impossibility. So, your interpretation of scripture is, more than likely, a...
The study of history is based on many different forms of evidence, and the most informative evidence is not archaeological but documentary. In the case of the NT, the record is based on numerous testimonies, and there is no good reason to disbelieve these testimonies.
'Subjective evidence'...
After his baptism, Jesus stood up in the synagogue at Nazareth and read a passage from the book of lsaiah. He read from lsaiah 61:1,2:
In Luke 4:18,19 it says, 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the...
The new covenant is a covenant of faith, or trust; and the object of that trust is not a set of laws, but a person who was resurrected from the dead.
And as much as you might like to question the received Greek text of the NT, it exists and has undergone a thorough analysis. And l, for one, see...
The 'three shepherds' of Ezekiel 11:8 appear to have nothing to do with the shepherding of the Church. In two independent commentaries, l see that the interpretation given to the 'three shepherds' is, 'the civil authorities, the priests, and the prophets'.
The complaint made by Zechariah is...
Logic only works when the premises are accepted as true.
The starting point when considering the logic of Jesus' sacrifice must be an acknowledgement of sin and death.
Saving a man who returns to sin and death is a short term blessing at best.
Jesus was not offering eternal life in a prison...
Mainstream Christian theology argues that Jesus is fully man and fully God.
Jesus sacrificed his own life as a man, in doing the will of his Father. The soul of Jesus was perfectly aligned with the Holy Spirit that rested upon him.
If you do not accept any of the four Gospels as a truthful testimony of Jesus, then what right have you to quote Jesus (Yeshua) as authoritative on any issue?
It would be far more honest to ground yourself on the words of the Tanakh alone.
Jesus, referring to himself as the Son of man, says, 'For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them'. [ Luke 9:56]
He also said, to Zacchaeus, 'This day is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
For the Son of man is come to seek and to...
Science has neither proved, nor disproved, the biblical flood.
What's interesting is that the genealogy of Noah, Genesis 10, tells us that he had a son, Ham (who lived through the flood), who begat Cush, who begat Nimrod. So, two generations after the flood Nimrod was king over Babel...
What a very mixed up theology you have!
I could understand you better if you said that you rejected Jesus, but to accept Jesus and reject the church, his body, is a nonsense.
Let me be clear in my own mind. Do you accept all four Gospels as reliable testimony to Jesus Christ?
The Hebrew canon is a integral part of the Christian scriptures, like it or not! Jesus said, 'scripture cannot be broken' and there is little doubt that he included in that statement both the words of the Hebrew prophets, as well as his own words as found in the NT.
One only has to do a study...
I'm not a 'religionist' but I'm interested to know how science finds all holy books to be in error.
This would suggest that everything found in holy books is open to scientific enquiry.
Is that what you believe?
I agree that no religion has a monopoly of truth, but l want to add that Jesus Christ is a person and not a religion.
Jesus made a quite extraordinary claim when he said, 'l am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.' [John 14:6]
Jesus did not say, 'no man...
If no time and space existed prior to the 'singularity', then it is reasonable to suggest that the most plausible 'first cause' is God. The alternative is to suggest the something came from nothing, and philosophically that is untenable.
So, to me, there is a very logical case to be made for...