Search results

Have you rebuked me? You accused me of being offended, to which I deny, but that isn't a rebuke. Nor is it wrong to be offended. So what would you like me to give serious thought to? I called you on hypocrisy. And.... silence on that. I actually think your paragraph was quite cogent. I agree...

But as it relates to this discussion... both the righteous and the wicked were in the same place (divided yet the same place nonetheless). They were in the place of the dead... i.e. hades. They were awaiting resurrection. So not "two abodes" but 1 abode (hades) divided. Thus Saul could be with...

Very kind of you. I don't think people know or realize how much of their theology has been influenced by new-platonic thought. I didn't either... for a while. So when you point it out, you attack their deeply held (yet wildly assumed) world view. And it usually doesn't end well.

Doesn't this passage actually prove that Saul could be with Samuel and still not be in heaven but endure torment? Just like Lazarus could be with Abraham and in torment? The point is, they thought in terms of life and death as well as hades/sheol the place of the dead.

I tried to avoid this, but now I have to. I am not a neo-platonic thinker. Neither were the writers of Scripture. For Saul to be w/ the dead Samuel is not to be in either heaven or hell but rather with the dead and awaiting the resurrection from the dead. So I don't find the significance you...

Wow... just wow. What prevents one form accepting a rebuke? Pride? Immaturity? You decide. PS: if you read just a little of the link I gave, J. D. did not find a big church. He took on a church of 300 and it grew to 10,000. He did his PhD at SEBTS, so I know he worked hard. And he has...

No since it is said of all the kings.

No... b/c that is a question that the Bible doesn't care to answer. And I don't believe it is a question we are to focus upon too much. Solomon was a type of Jesus as well as having a very important place in salvation history (HUGE really). But that is the point of Solomon, to connect him to...

Sounds like you are the one offended when people make something out of your moniker. So there's that... And I don't see any indication that I'm offended. I'm seriously calling you out on the 2 fold hypocrisy here: (1) you don't respect some yet your name assumes respect & (2) the Bible tells us...

"Significant portion" as in importance or length? B/c I don't think he wrote all that much, if anything. Many proverbs he spoke. But who wrote them down and then later compiled and arranged them? Not Solomon. And I don't think he wrote Ecclesiastes. But even if he did, would that still be...

Who said I was offended? This is a facepalm, SMH situation. And I was noting your hypocrisy of respect when you won't respect these youngins but you go by the title "reverend". I'm not an offended millennial. I am an annoyed man noting someone looking down on someone for their age. Hey, I...

Roll my eyes... Well then, don't put your faith in these "young guys" but rather the Lord of these young guys. And I'm sure they care little about your respect, "reverend".

I thought it was good. I urged my wife to read it, if that is any kind of gauge of my endorsement.

Good luck with that one for Evan####

So was Barth!

If we use the illustration of meat and bones, Barth would be a mastodon. Not many other theologians have the meat that he has. Not many here have the chops to chew on him either. I don't claim to be.

Even R. C. Sprouls uses and quotes him! Baby and the bathwater, bro.

Clean slate fresh thread. How about that?

So let's narrow our discussion to Rev 20 Ok... well the fact that I endorsed it would imply that it is stating what I believe. So read it if you want to know the view that I espouse. This is a disingenuous statement. You assume a definition when you assert your 3 resurrections view. The word...

Different word used. What are you chuckling about?