Paul wrote those words two thousand years ago. The Gospel had been preached unto the ends of the earth within the lifetime of the apostles.

Tell me, which apostle went to Australia? Or when, according to historical record, did the Gospel message reach the Australian shores?

Considering the passage in its context, is it not apparent that Paul has in view not all the races of the earth, but only the Israelites?

How curious:

(1) Apparently the SA editor found reason to remove the posting; he doesn't remove postings without good reason. Why not ask him if he considered the comment lewd? Write him at [email protected].

(2) Two postings apiece from you, and between them not a word in defense of the notion that James of Jerusalem is an apostle!

The term APOSTOLOS sometimes is applied to men outside the twelve, in the sense of one who acts in the role of a leader. But not everyone to whom the term APOSTOLOS is applied is equal in rank.

Apostles were appointed personally by Christ Jesus. James of Jerusalem received no such appointment, but Paul did.

James the brother of John was an apostle. But James the brother of John was slain by Herod, Acts 12:2. This is the James to whom the Lord appeared following the resurrection, I Corinthians 15:7.

I am glad that you made that lewd remark in the presence of many witnesses, for the remark evidences your character and your inner nature.

Matthew 15:18-20 - But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: these are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Let's look at a specific, such as the book of James. What factor, other than tradition, leads you to believe that the book of James belongs in the Canon of Scripture?

After all, James is no apostle -- he is not one of the twelve. And even John MacArthur on a recent broadcast indicated that the half-brother of Jesus remained in unbelief, even after the resurrection. In the Scripture, James always is the enemy of Paul and of the Gospel.

Most commentators remark that the book of James contains no teaching which distinctly is Christian, and that no objective reader would conclude the book to be a Christian document, were it not for the mention of Jesus Christ in James 1:1 and 2:1.

James contradicts both Moses and Paul regarding the justification of Abraham by faith alone. Are we to reject the teaching of Moses and Paul (who completely are in agreement) in order to accommodate the teaching of James?

Much of the bizarre behaviour regarding sponsorship of legislation and voting patterns seen in members of Congress and many of the perverse judicial rulings appear to be due to blackmail of government officials.

The fact that documents have physical association with other documents through a printer's binding does not make them all of the same nature. The original King James Bible contained the Apocrypha.

Five forgeries commonly are bound into the English Bible, namely,

1) the book of Esther, which makes no mention of God and no criticism of the Jew

2) the book of James, who is no apostle

3) the book of Revelation, which was not written by John the apostle

4) the book of 2 Peter, which shares a common source with the book of Jude

To respond to your request would be to cast pearls before a swine and to give that which is holy to a dog, Matthew 7:6. Your intent obviously is malicious, both with respect to me and with respect to others who may benefit from accurate and faithful teaching of the Scripture. You obviously have no love of the truth.

There is no "rapture", secret or otherwise.

But the forgers who penned the book of Revelation desire the Christian to believe that the return of Jesus is for the purpose of setting up an earthly kingdom.

Of course, Christians who are anticipating implementation of an kingdom with an earthly throne are ignorant of the fact that the kingdom already has been implemented with a heavenly throne, and that there isn't going to be an earthly throne, ever.

It helps tremendously to check the definitions of Greek words used in these passages; the KJV reading typically conveys a false impression.

And consider also the context. If all the Jews are going to be saved, why is Paul distressed to the point of being willing to lay down his life to save them?

But please go back to Old Covenant scripture, especially the prophets (and especially Hosea) to see the prophecies of the reunification of Israel. And remember that the Assyrians carried off essentially all of Israel except for the tiny remnant which found refuge in Jerusalem in the days of Hezekiah.

The "lost tribes" are still in existence, known today as the "Gentiles" (from the Latin GENTILIS, which is equivalent to the Greek ETHNOS, meaning "tribes" or "nations").

In Romans 9, Paul says that the Jews generally refuse entry into the New Covenant, but this is because true Israel (Israel in the eyes of God) is comprised of the seed of promise (those justified by faith) rather than the physical seed (the unjustified).

In Romans 11, Paul says that, even as the Gentiles were made partakers of the New Covenant, the Jews likewise can be made partakers, but only if they do not remain in unbelief.

The key to the passage is the understanding that the term "natural branch" refers to one having covenantal relationship under the Old Covenant, namely, the Jew. But the Old Covenant was dissolved with the death of Christ, and the "natural branches" which refused to enter the New Covenant are said to be "broken off".

It is through the grafting in of the Gentile that all ISRAEL shall be saved. Note carefully that Paul does not say "all the JEWS shall be saved".

The grafting in of the Gentile results in the salvation of all Israel, in the sense that every tribe is represented. This is because the Gentile is nothing other than the descendants of the so-called "lost" tribes of Israel -- the tribes which were taken away captive by Assyria circa 721 B.C. These "lost" tribes comprised over eighty percent of the population of the divided nation.

Thus, the animosity between Jew and Gentile is a family squabble which is entirely within the descendants of the physical line Abraham-Isaac-Jacob. The Gentiles, like the Jews, are Israelites of the flesh.

The article on the book of Revelation found in the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica presents, objectively and in detail, the evidence from which one must judge whether the book of Revelation indeed is canonical.

God doesn't give direct, verbal instruction concerning the matter. Rather, through his spirit he gives insight to men having the requisite scholastic qualifications to study the Greek manuscripts.

Of the numerous indications that the book of Revelation is a forgery, none is as damning as the linguistic style of the book, which is an elaborate and literary style far removed from the simple Koine Greek seen in the Gospel account of the apostle John and in the epistles of John. Only the book of Revelation and the book of James exhibit this high literary style; both are forgeries.

What has praeterism to do with this thread?

And if praeterists support Ross, of what significance is that?

Praeterists undoubtedly eat breakfast. Are you advocating that we not eat breakfast, simply because someone with whom we disagree does eat breakfast?

Is it not curious that no other book carries such a warning? But the warning is nothing other than voodoo, intended to prevent scrutiny of the origins of the book.

You need to "prove all things", in accordance with the command of the Scripture.

I suggest that you start by reading the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on the book of Revelation.

Then read what the most respected and scholarly commentaries have to say about the book.

That which is spiritual cannot be replicated by that which is physical. No photograph or written description of a person can replicate that person.

Even so, no set of written rules can replicate the Law of God. At best, the Decalogue is an imperfect representation of the Law. The Talmud is a manual for exploiting loopholes in the representation.

Jesus did not destroy the eternal, unchanging Law of God, but his death did dissolve the Old Covenant -- and with it, the national status of Israel and the Law of Moses.

The Christian who lives fully in accordance with principle "You are to love the Lord your God with all your heart, and your are to love your neighbour as yourself" is keeping the Law of God. He is not bound by the letter of the Law of Moses.

Matthew 22:35-40, Mark 12:28-34, Luke 10:25-28, Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14.

The unregenerate Jew may return to favour with God only through faith in Christ Jesus under the New Covenant:

Romans 11:23 - And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

Otherwise, the unregenerate Jew has no future.

The notion of an eventual mass conversion of the Jew is nothing but Jewish myth. It is designed to make the Christian think that the unregenerate Jew is the "chosen" of God.

But, with dissolution of the Old Covenant and inauguration of the New, it is only those who are "in Christ" -- now and for ever more -- who constitute the "chosen" of God.

mike -

The decalogue is the basis of the (now-defunct) Old Covenant (aka "Law of Moses"), which was a marriage contract between the Lord and the (now-defunct) physical nation Israel.

The Law of God, of which the decalogue is but a representation, is eternal and unchanging.

Israel was bound to the letter of the Law of Moses. But under the New Covenant, the Christian is free from the letter; his duty is to keep the spirit of law, Romans 7:6. With benefit of the indwelling Spirit of God, such obedience is possible.