If John were being forthright he would truthfully say his discovery of â€śerrorsâ€ť of premillennialism and dispensationalism came at the hands of men he read or heard not from some â€śrevelationâ€ť that suddenly hit as he was reading his Bible.
B. McCausland wrote: 1. Not interested in your scenarios, US, which are only strawmen at best, but in the Word, which after having been presented has been laid to rest with you. 2. Erraticly over extrapolating some approximate facts, US, but regretfully distorting and misconstructing truth from them 3. Coming a little closer to a real faction of the entire picture Fare well, US, take a rest and God bless you, and yours
Thanks for your kind wishes and I pray the same for you.
Please tell Adriel to take heart, the NHS should be able to see him in a couple of months at the earliest.
Jim got his â€śfactsâ€ť discombobulated once again.
In 1971, only about 32 percent of all Americans enjoyed air conditioning in their homes. By 2001, 76 percent of poor people had air conditioning. In 1971, only 43 percent of Americans owned a color television; in 2001, 97 percent of poor people owned at least one. In 1971, 1 percent of American homes had a microwave oven; in 2001, 73 percent of poor people had one. Forty-six percent of poor households own their homes. Only about 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. The average poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities. Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. Seventy-eight percent of the poor have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception; and one-third have an automatic dishwasher.
Note neither John, Adriel or BMac answered my scenarios. So it might be safe to assume that if John was painting and had a glass full of turpentine to clean his brushes and Adriel came in and picked up the glass because he was thirsty that John wouldnâ€™t stop him because thereâ€™s no example of that being done in the New Testament and BMac wouldnâ€™t warm him because itâ€™s just a stupid American thing.
Adriel there are several examples where a mass shooting was stopped by an armed citizen. The leftest press in America doesnâ€™t cover it. We obviously would have taken any necessary to stop any mass shooting
Not straw grasping John just applying Scripture correctly
You come across two young teenage thugs beating up on an elderly lady to rob her.Â Â Do you say, I am sorry maâ€™am I cannot find any example in the New Testament where a Christian helped defend someone who was been beaten and robbed, carry on boys.Â Â Â
You at setting where you are eating and many people start getting sickÂ Â The chef says donâ€™t eat this because it has botulism.Â Â Someone unawares sits down to have the food but you donâ€™t say anything because there are no New Testament examples of Christians stopping someone from consuming food that causes sickness.
A flood has washed out a bridge but you donâ€™t attempt to warn a car driving onto it because there are no examples of Christians in the New Testament stopping someone about to drive into danger.
John I gave you Biblical warrant.Â Â Defending one against bodily harm is doing good for them. (Galatians 6:10).
Biblical principles are found in the Scripture which includes both the Old and New Testament.
II Samuel 21
Moreover the Philistines had yet war again with Israel; and David went down, and his servants with him, and fought against the Philistines: and David waxed faint. 16 And Ishbibenob, which was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being girded with a new sword, thought to have slain David. 17 But Abishai the son of Zeruiah succoured him, and smote the Philistine, and killed him.
Every known instance of what we do is NOT detailed in Scripture.Â Â Where is your Biblical warrant for enjoying a cup of tea, driving a car, taking a shower, using electricity, listening to a sermon in mp3 format from somewhere you have never been?Â Â Are you thus saying that if a child about to enter a busy street that you donâ€™t make an attempt to save their life, because there is no â€śBiblical warrantâ€ť to do that?
John UK wrote: Ahem, a couple of things here bro. 1. It was "the authorities" who protected Paul. He was in their custody. It was NOT Paul defending himself, nor did he ask his Christian friends to defend him. I can hardly believe you are using this text as a proof text. Yet you are angry with me, who has a just argument, and why is that? You will have to work that through with the Lord Jesus. 2. You are jumping, jumping, away from your proof text, knowing it to be no proof text (the tongue-in-cheek technique) and now are jumping into another argument, hoping that it might fare better (clutching at straws technique). Brother, I am convinced you are fully aware of the futility of your argument, but you fear the Yee Ha preachers and other members who will laugh at you, and force you to leave their circle.
Brother John, we will give you your thinking on Paul.
Not clutching at straws, don't care what other preachers think, basing my thinking on Biblical principles of my God given responsibilities from the verses cited in my last post.
If you don't see that it is not my problem. God bless.
John UK wrote: Well Christopher, I can post up for your perusal plenty of NT examples of blood spilt or at the very least the churches attacked, members beaten, falsely charged and imprisoned, beheadings, stoning to death, and all the rest of it. And not one peep of any church member fighting for their survival with any weapon. Are you thinking that these battles were just not recorded in scripture? Or would you agree with me that there were no such battles?
Read Acts 23:16-35 John, anyone attempting to attack this church member/leader would have been put to death and the protection given was strictly self-defense purposes. And yes he was being tried for his faith.
You can skip Jim's link and read what the author of the amendment wrote (from article)
The 14th Amendment was actually designed to make citizens of the former slaves freed by the 13th Amendment in 1865, and thus guarantee that they would enjoy all the rights of American citizenship. The phrase â€śand subject to the jurisdiction thereofâ€ť has, of course, been ignored by those promoting the concept of open borders. Clearly, the framers of the 14th Amendment intended that only children â€śborn subject to the jurisdiction thereofâ€ť that is, the jurisdiction of the United States, are considered natural-born citizens. This would, by the clear wording of the amendment, not include the children of illegal aliens or â€śbirth tourists,â€ť because they are still under the jurisdiction of foreign governments.
Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, an author of the 14th Amendment, said during the discussions over the effects of the amendment, â€śThis will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners.â€ť
In other words, those who are born in the United States â€śunder the jurisdiction thereofâ€ť would only include those whose parents are American citizens themselves, or those whose parents have placed themselves under U.S. jurisdiction â€” legal residents
John UK wrote: Bro US, thank you for taking the time to share with me the simple fact that you justify the actions found in the article from Nehemiah 4. This is very helpful info and I will bear it in mind. Regarding Luke 22:36-38, when you read it in context, you will discover that the scripture reveals only two swords were required for the purpose. And the purpose was? Self-defense? As in, future self-defense for the apostles and disciples as they went on their missionary journeys? Brother, read the passage prayerfully, and you will come to a better way of understanding it. Ask the Lord Jesus to help you, and he will indeed. I don't need to say anything except to point you to Jesus himself, and get you to ask of him. They are HIS words, and HE knows what he meant by them. So read the words in context, and then ask him what he meant.
Thanks for your kind response. Self correction houses in walled cities were mentioned in the Pentateuch in reference to the year of Jubilee.
Sorry, average reader, but I don't think your comment adds to the discussion. Obviously things are not seen eye to eye but the brethren on both sides are stating their understanding of what the Scriptures teach.
John UK the example in Nehemiah 4 was one of preparation by Nehemiah and the Jewish people for self-defense. (Why do you think they were building the wall?). In many cases they were building the part of the wall that encompassed their home. You canâ€™t say that Nehemiah didnâ€™t pray and trust God. You canâ€™t say he was being a vigilante. You also cannot say that it was part of the law of God for the Old Testament saints because his actions were not covered in the Septuagint. (The first reference to town walls is in Joshua about Rahabâ€™s house in Jericho) It is a Biblical principle, how you apply it is up to you. You name scenarios that have nothing to do with simple self-defense and act like we are trying to start WW3. Our Lord said, a quote yâ€™all seem to conveniently leave out,
Luke 22:36Â Â Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
We can go back to the days were Christians were persecuted by Catholics (and even Reformers) and you will find that they took up for their own defense. Please donâ€™t waste your time bringing up scenarios, I am talking about the one mentioned in this article, period.
John UK wrote: Well thanks a million brother. You furnish me with a Bible text with no explanation, Nehemiah 4.
This response and the one from 8/20/19 2:12 PM show me you don't care what I think about Nehemiah 4. You have an agenda you are trying to push that I have told you several times is not the same page as what I am talking about. I am not responding to something I am not saying, you have said that you won't either.
John UK wrote: Well thanks a million brother. You furnish me with a Bible text with no explanation, Nehemiah 4. I try to understand what it is you are trying to say by it, and all you can do is repeat ad infinitum, "No, that's not it!" Nehemiah 4:17 KJV (17)Â They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon. Let me just say that whatever the situation, we in the UK are not permitted to do that. So what are you suggesting in posting Nehemiah 4? Several things are at stake here: 1. The USA Christians can behave differently from Christians in other countries? 2. The Bible can be interpreted differently in different countries? 3. Culture must be taken into account, and there is no such thing as a "Christian way of life"? 4. Church may or may not be separate from state? 5. Dominionism may or may not be viable? 6. Romans 13 may or may not be rejected as God's plan for the new covenant age?