Right, according to your interpretation, which is not very impressive if it is the same method you use on the Bible.

Why is it so hard for you guys to deal with what we state (let alone what God states)? If your position is going to be in any bit tenable you are going to have to learn how not to try to convince ME of what I believe. What YOU want me to believe and what I SAY I believe are two different things. But of course, it is much easier for you to make something up and argue against it then it is to face the devastating truth.

Sadly, this is the same approach you take to God's Holy Word.

....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Wake me up when you find some substance.

"Surely you don't expect me to take you seriously when you make statements like these:"

Like I said, your boundless hermeneutic does not allow you to accept simple declarative statements from Scripture. Context to you is a waste of time. Its much easier for you to funnel the Scriptures through your predefined presupositions.

Hey if you want to show me from the immediate context where I am wrong, you know that you are always more than welcomed. But if I know you well, you much rather, forget about the context, stay in the shadow of the nebulous where you can jump from Scripture to Scripture using one perverted interpretation to justify another never even considering whether any of those interpretations state what you wish them to state.

"But, Yamil, we have been discussing when the Son's reign as King
B E G I N S, not when it ends."

Well, I did state it if you care to read carefully. I said that it starts after the reign of the fourth beast.

The question is not whether Jesus Christ reigns or not. Jesus has always reigned, that is the prerogative of deity. What you object to is a physical reign. You act as if this has never happened before. Have you read the O.T?
_______________________________________

The scriptural bankruptcy of the Calvinist is best demonstrated when they cannot refute the pertinent objections made they forget about it and try to tell us what we believe. It's much easier to argue against a ghost then the Weapon of Mass Instruction.

And since Calvinists have none of the answers but all of the questions, I guess I will humor the questions set before me briefly.

1. F
2. T
3. F
4. F
5. F
6. F
7. F
8. F
9. F

"Yamil, which is it?"

Not really. It has been done and it does not work with this freak. The only thing I can do is to muse myself by glorifying her ridiculousness with ridicule. It makes for good therapy and wonderful amusement.
_______________________________________

"There are ways to answer those kind of posts without stereotypical and biological innuendoes."

Yes, but it is certainly not as entertaining.
_______________________________________
"Somehow I don't see Christ treating women like that."

He would not tell them that they are acting by the emotional havoc that occurs during the time of the month? I guess he would also not address men's aptness to sensual impurity.

Must be a matter of perspective.
_________________________________________
"Yamil's comments were crude, juvenile and unchristisn but you have the duty to ignore them (him, if need be) as I have learned to do."

"Christ's reign as king began when He sat down of the right hand of God and continues till death is swallowed up in victory."

Interesting. Is he trying to state that Christ, God in the flesh, did not reign before his ascension? And if not, then what was the difference in his kingship ministry before and after the ascension?

Now speaking of his earthly literal reigh, I have read all the verses proposed by Lurker and none of them state that his reign began after he sat down on the right hand of God. Go ahead, read it for yourself.

The irony in the versus that he quotes, and I love it when this happens (it happens often by the way), is that each of the passages quoted does nothing more than disprove the statement he made above!

On the first passage it states: "Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God."---- A Future event!

On the next passage it states: "And when all things shall be subdued unto him."--- Another future event!

And Hebres 2:8 is speaking of man not Christ!--- Another demonstration of Lurker's boundless hermeneutic.

So I doubt it says much about Murray when he states: "This is what I have been trying to get into JD's impervious head for some time now!"

"As I said; absurd literalism blinds and your posts are a testament to that fact. But it is noteworthy that you didn't give answer to this: You wrote..."

Is'nt it funny how Lurker can throwout such accusations without ever trying to prove it. I mean such a thing as "absurd literalism" can apply to anyone here. What makes a literal interpretation of the Word of God absurd? Of course he does not dare to explain it.

For example, I have accused Lurke of having what I called a boundless hermeneutic. But I have demonstrated why his hermeneutic is so.

1. He breaks the golden rule of an honest exegesis by constantly, and outright refusing, to consider the immediate context of passages. He much rather isolate it so that he may be able to explain it through his presuposition.

2. He completely ignores the grammatical structure of sentences. Even when it is presented to him, he much rather make a mockery of it by forcing it to state something that would literally be impossible to probe grammatically.

3. He replaces simple definitions for ones fabricated solely by and for his theological systems. These definitions do not exist anywhere but they are fabricated to conveniently prop up his erroneous theology.

Yes, yes, yes, yes. And women like yourself make it all the more easier.

Unfortunately for you, my wife loves me very much. I will be going home shortly where she would have a lovely lunch set for me. We will both probably be laughing about your most recent comments. LOL

"Should we remind you of the way men are made?"

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Some more Calvinistic presuposition that (1) would take a miracle to get them to prove it; and (2) they would not be able to prove it if their lives depended on it.