Different uses of the same word. You know that "muse" can mean a thoughtful state or, on a completely different note, a source of inspiration? In the same way, you can use fear in different ways. The Christian idea of "fearing" God is not trembling in anticipation of the next great terrible catyclysm.
As a note on the scribes: the idea is that the
inspired word of God is not reliant upon scribes but upon the Holy Spirit. Now of course you do not believe in the Holy Spirit but that is the thought process behind a Christian's reasoning. Also, the context of that passage is that the Scribes
reject the Word of the Lord. By writing contrary to the World of the Lord they falsify the Word. That is no different than a heretic preaching contrary to the Gospel of Jesus. Does tha heretics error make the original gospel forfeit? I would think not.
or
Again you seem to have trouble wrapping your head around the concept of a just God. This makes sense. The Christian God is a very difficult One to accept. This is only His justice at work, repaying those evil to Him. It does not make for any break of logic.
I believe you are making the fundamentalist mistake of interpreting everything literally. Even THEN, it can still be fulfilled and already has been; Jesus' kingdom (the kingdom of Heaven) is at hand. He is risen. He is king. You can't see Him, but that doesn't negate his existance. As for the "throne of David", well first of all, that could mean many thing,s but secondly, if we take it literally, at Jesus' second coming He would than assume the "Throne of David".
Coming into His kingdom refers to His resurrection, not his
second coming. We are getting into areas here where, doctrinally, a lot of Christians disagree, but still, I think most can agree He was referring to His Resurrection.
Come on. Seriously. You have better arguments than
this.
Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree here. I think a lot of internet "sources" are untrustworhty at best. Yes, obviously proof is needed but if it is an assertion he makes, one has to prove his assertion is wrong. Well, I suppose one doesn't HAVE to, one doesn't HAVE to argue at all, lol. But to further the discussion it would seem useful. I don't think his evidence was wrong. I know we do find many of the things he has reffered to in land areas. I also know that a lot of the Earth that is now land used to be underwater. I also know that the problem is not that science hasn't "proved" a flood. I need no proof. As long as science has not proven there never was a flood, I'm fine. And science will never prove that, I believe.
Argument debunked? How can one debunk the argument that there *might* have formerly been area of land now exposed, underwater? Maybe we are just not talking about the same things...
Well seeing as this is a Faith based religion, no scientific evidence has to be offered to prove its truth. It can't. science doesn't DO that. If the burden of proof is on someone, it is the other half who has to prove unequivically. that the believer's idea of events
could not have happened.
Anyway, unfortunately, if posts are going to be this long all the time I won't be able to post much, but hopefully I can contribute my two cents here and there. If I missed something, I apologize. Don't have time like I used to.
Cheers everyone.