EXACTLY.

However, I don't beleive there is ANY way you can say that Israel as a nation today is repentant. Since nation-wide obedience / repentance was the ONLY way they were to be allowed to possess the land (Jeremiah 7 & 14) , and since they are NOT repentant today, the current efforts to force their way (see below) into Israel WITHOUT repentance are usurping the authority of God, and in disobedience to Him.




Right again. AT least partially.

In EVERY case, both in originally taking possession of the land (the walls falling at Jericho) , and in re-taking possession of the land UPON REPENTANCE (Nehemiah) , God MIRACULOUSLY gave them the land. NEVER did they take it BY FORCE - or by military might. Their current actions are COMPLETELY without Scriptural precedent. And are contrary to the workings of God.

(Note: In this particular thread, I will ONLY discuss this Scripturally. Opinions are UNWANTED. Gimme chapter and verse, my friends)

Can't quote scripture, but interestly enough this point of view is shared by a couple of ultra religious hasidic sects that do not support the secular state of Israel. They believe only devine intervention can create or recreate the state. One such sect is the Satmir and there are a few others that are split on the subject.

Well, that wouldn't be a big surprise, since we'd BOTH be reading from same source - the Jewish Torah. (which us Christians refer to as the Old Testament)

That said, I ****DO NOT**** repeat DO NOT think secular Israel should be prohibited from attempting to establish a Jewish state in the "Holy Land."

My main objection is with "Christians" who attempt to use the Bible as support for secular Israel doing what its doing. BOTH the Old testament and the New Testament make it clear that a secular jewish state taken via military force is NOT a mandate of Scripture. The Chrsitians who attempt to do this have a GROSS misunderstanding of Scripture.

And THAT is my beef in all this.

Post from garandman -

No, [b]garandman[/b], what would be the big surprise is someone passing off the 'Jewish Torah' as what we Christians refer to as the Old Testament.

[b]Nonsense.[/b] The Jewish Torah is 'the Law', the first five books of what we Christians refer to as the Old Testament. We Christians refer to the Jewish Torah as the 'Books of Moses' if we do not simply call it 'the first five books of the Old Testament.

The entirety of the Hebrew Bible, which contains the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nevi'im), and the Writings (Ketuvim) is what we Christians refer to as the 'Old Testament.'

Simple, right?

That's mighty Christian of you![:D]

How strange! My own personal objection is with 'Christians' who attempt to contort the Bible and distort clear meanings of words and phrases in a way that would totally ignore the Hand of God in the affairs of Man, and stand the plain meaning of Scripture on its head! And most particularly in this area of the world.

Sez you! There are quite a vast number of real Biblical scholars (unlike you and me) who would say that there is no such agreement.

How God proposes to bring about something on this earth is simply not within our limited human understanding.

He didn't make 'monsters' to terrorize Israel when it drifted away from Him in Old Testament times, He used foreign armies to chastise Israel. He may use foreign armies again. He nay use Israeli armies.

Who knows the Mind of God?

Surely you will agree with me on this - however the Lord decides to deal with Israel and with His church in the last days are two matters upon which a great many people, some smart, some not so smart, may disagree.

So for you to make the following statement:

...is wildly misleading, judgmental, arrogant, and, unworthy, IMHO, of further argument!

So we've heard, [b][i]ad nauseam[/i][/b]!

The present day rabbis look for a Kingdom of Heaven on earth that I would simply not recognize. You offer one that is just as unrecognizable as theirs.

Theirs would be a mockery of everything Christ taught on earth, while yours would be a Gentile Country Club, where Jews need not apply, and would also be a mockery of what Jesus taught us about His Kingdom, IMHO.

Both are equally reprehensible, IMHO.

You need to get used to the term 'IMHO', for it is, after all, your very humble opinion that you are expressing and not one that has been adopted by Christianity, or supported by the Scripture, without dispute.

Eric The(Humble,WhoDaresNotSpeakAsGod)Hun[>]:)]

you know, you say stuff like this over and over, but REFUSE to discuss the pertinent Scriptures that you imply I'm distorting.

I've offered OVER AND OVER to have that discussion. You  have ALWAYS declined.

As such, I regard these comments by you as "planetary talk" by you. (i.e. talking our "Uranus")

[}:D]


EricTheHun, King of talking out Uranus.

[:D]

Makes a nice title, but then, you've earned it.

[:D]

Sorry, garandman, I just wanted to make certain that I corrected you on your glaring mistake in referring to the Jewish Torah as what 'we Christians refer to as the Old Testament.'

While you may or may not be shedding light on our common religion with your posts, you most certainly should not be sowing error!

There is simply nothing to discuss. Your views on interpreting Scripture are so foreign to my own, and to most folks I know, that it would be pointless for us to discuss anything regarding these matters.

It would be sadly unfulfilling for us both, IMHO!

I had always harbored this view, before we had discussed Christianity, but after having read your exposition on the simple quotes from Jeremiah, Chapter 12, my views were confirmed!

Not so, but when I asked you a very simple questions that any two Christians should have been able to agree upon, you went into such a strange and incomprehensible reply, that I knew that any discussions between us would be fruitless.

If you and I cannot agree on these major points, why would I need to discuss with you anything further?

Our last thread was totally unenlightening and most likely bored the dickens out of the Board!

I know it did me!

Yes, that indeed is part and parcel of the [b]garandman[/b] that I have come to know over these past months.

The sort of manner in which one who desires to discuss Christianity would most likely never deign to use, but which you resort to constantly!

In closing, I will be around to correct your mishandling of common and well known matters of Christianity, such as mistaking the Torah for the Old Testament!

But to discuss issues of Christianity, we would need a common ground, and that, we will never have!

One would naturally think our common faith would suffice, but after reading your comments on other threads, I think not.

Eric The(Stunned)Hun[>]:)]

Know and LOVE, you meant to say!!!!

[:D]

Post from garandman -

Maybe in the next world, [b]garandman[/b].

Eric The(Immovable)Hun[>]:)]

Garandman you need some discernment.  You know very little about the book you rely on for the eternal survival of your soul.

Genesis 17:7 God said, "I will establish my covenant...

Genesis 17:8 God gave the decendants of Abraham the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession.

The passage in Jerimiah is for the repentance of a single generation of individual Jews not the Nation of Israel forever.  He whom he loves he chasens.

If you are a Christian (and that is not for me to judge) you are grafted in (Romans 11:15-18) the position before God formerly held by Israel.  However, if you think that the natural branches are cut off for good you are mistaken.  The Great Tribulation (Jacob's trouble) will be the final repentance of the remant of Israel (The apple of God's eye Zechariah 2:8).  Do not be wise in your own conceit.

If you understand nothing about the relationship between Israel and God, your spiritual walk with Him will be hampered as it is a picture of the walk of an individual with God.  I hope you repent of your hatred before the judgement.  I don't envy the scolding your are headed for!  Planerench out.

Sounds rather judgmental. Eric thinks Christians shouldn't BE judgmental. 3 "Hail Eric's" for you. [:D]



I know of those passages.

But think about this -

If God's promise of possession of the land was for an "everlasting" possession (which by definition would INCLUDE from the time of the giving of the Covenant right up until today, WHAT CAN YOU SAY ABOUT THE TIME FROM 70 A.D. TIL 1948, as well as the Babylonian  and other captivity?

Two possibilities arise:

1. Either God was unfaithful to his own Covenant, as their was a break in their possession of the land, and it was NOT an everlasting Covenant (Scripture indicates otherwise)

2. Their possession was conditional upon their obedience. In short, teh Covenant was BOTH everlasting AND Conditional.

Restated, the way history has played out PROVES the Covenant was ALWAYS conditional.




You have a Scriptural text for that??? No, you don't. PURE opinion on your part. Careful now, cuz if you start researching, you'll ALSO find in Kings I beleive, teh SAME type of CONDITIONAL ELEMENT for possession of the land.




I agree with the majority of that. But you left off that God wants to make Jew and Gentile ONE in Christ, and that the "tree" were Gentiles were grafted into was IN ADDITION TO saved Jews, NOT a replacement of anything.




Are you guys even CAPABLE of discussing this topic WITHOUT accusing any dissenting voice of "hate?" (My experience is that its ALWAYS your trump card - your STRONGEST "argument" - your last resort ) Has God given you special insight to my heart???

"Judge not, that ye be not judged." Matt 7

Post from garandman -

What you should be asking yourself is how come all of these 'guys' are accusing you of 'hate'?

No, but you have.

Yep, that's what He said.

But you, Planerench, me, and everyone [u]will[/u] be judged one day, of that you can be certain.

Eric The(Call'EmLikeISee'Em!)Hun[>]:)]

G-Man we must read different Bibles...
The Hebrews, the tribes of Judah and Israel ...the Jews...
Are the decendants of Abraham..the promise was to Abraham it was because of his righteousness that the promise is kept by God to the descendants...
AS for force of arms...King Saul followed by David comes to mind...not only did they gain their kingdoms but maintained them by force of arms...
Miracle?...when David smote Goliath was that a miracle..or Davids practiced arm fighting off lions and jackels for years in the hills guarding sheep...was God with David...most certainly the bible says so...
Force of arms itself can be a miracle in fact God works through man after all who is it that determines who wins and who loses a battle? God in my book..and works His will through man...so what kind of miracle would persuade you...
From my point of view you do the very thing you accuse others of doing (dont we all?) it seems (to me)that your scriptural discernment follows from your dislike of Israel as a nation and Jews as people..you make the case fit the crime and use a crowbar to get there..Your interpretation mandates that Jews are not the legitimate heirs of Gods promise to Abraham..therefore we should not support Israel against its enemies (who are ours as well) and since they killed our kids on the Liberty...we should have destroyed them as well ..Its not too late we still can..or we can stand by and let the muslims do it...but then the muslims are killing our kids as well...
Pesonally I dont get where you are coming from man...it makes no sense to me from either a scriptural position, political or even a pragmatic one..
I further believe as Christians it is incumbant upon us to Stand By Israel
for if we do...I believe God will bring Israel to the point He wants them to be.
God will use the US as a Christian nation to bring Israel back to Him....Leadership by example..

Since when did the United States become a Christian nation?

Take your pick - 1492, 1607, 1621, 1776, 1789, 1791, there are so many good choices here.

Now, the better thing to ask, [b]jz02[/b], is when did we cease to be a Christian nation?
 
1962? 1966? 1973? This questions have many good possible answers, as well.

I'll let you pick your favorite!

Eric The(Sad)Hun[>]:)]

Garandman, the Bible is broken into very different pieces according to the period of time dealt with.  Adam did not make ammends with God by trusting in Christ.  Christ did not save Noah, Abraham or those during the great tribulation.

The rejection of the Messiah was a pause in God's dealing with Israel.  During the church age Jews salvation is through faith.  This is a temporary situation.

Crack the book dude.

Galatians 3: 29 -

And IF you are Chrit's, THEN are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Meaning, of you are NOT Christ's, you are NOT Abraham's seed.

Romans 2: 28 - 29

For he is NOT a Jew, outwardly, in teh flesh. But he IS a Jew, inwardly, in teh Spirit, whose praise comes NOT from man, but from God.



THAT, RIGHT THERE, is the Bible I read. Plain as day, clear as crystal.

divdoc -

You OFTEN talk of teh Bible, but seldom quote its passages. As such, you are handicapping yourself, arguing from a weaker position.

Oh really??

John 8: 56 - Abraham rejoiced to see my day (Christ speaking)

Galatians 3: 8,16 -

And teh Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen (Gentiles) thru faith, preached the GOSPEL to Abraham, saying "In thee, shall ALL nations be blessed."

To Abraham and his seed were the promises made. God said not "to seeds" meaning many, but to "One seed" namely Chrsit.

Luke 24: 25 - 27

O fools and you unwilling to beleive what teh prophets have spoken, Ought NOT Christ to have SUFFERED (on the cross) and then be glorified?? ANd beginning at Moses and ALL the prohets, he explained to them, from ALL the Scriptures(namely, the old testament) things concerning himself and his death on the cross (the Old Testament writers foretold of the cross)


Romans 5: 14 -

Adam was the very figure of Christ which was to come



Seems Scripture is VERY clear that ALL men looked to Christ.

Acts 4: 12 -

Neither is there salvation by anyone other than Christ. For there is no other name, under heaven, given to man, who is the only means of salvation.(whether now, or to eternity past)

Galatians 2: 16 -

For by teh keeping of the law NO MAN shall be justified before God.





That's funny, JUST by looking at this thread.

Yer telling ME to crack the book, and I am the ONLY one in this thread who has even quoted Scripture.

YOu keep giving me your OPINION, I keep quoting Scripture.

Plainwretch,
we need some scripture quoting dude !  [:D]

5subslr5,

Just let me point out one thing.  You ARE NOT an AGNOSTIC.  An agnostic is someone who believes that the existence of god is not known and probably unknowable.

Since you have a "deep belief in God" you cannot in any way be an agnostic.

Look it up in the dictionary.

When agnostic is used for non-religious topics, it means one is non-commital or undogmatic.

Take it from an actual agnostic.

T. Stick,
I know this is sort of unbelievable but I've never checked the dictionary definition.

I am not a Gnostic nor a believer in Gnosticism therefore I am an agnostic.  Probably the meaning of agnostic has changed over the centuries but the above was the original intent of the word.

Simply I have a deep belief in God but not the divinity of any of the prophets nor do I believe in any organized religion.

Take a week to read The Book of Mormon.
Lebrew

Post from garandman -

Quoting scripture is one thing, [b]garandman[/b], having a clue about what it means is quite another.

C'mon, let's hear your exposition of Jeremiah, Chapter 12, again; it was highly amusing, and quite off the chart.

But to no useful purpose, since you haven't a clue as to what it means!

You know who I sound like now, [b]garandman[/b]?

[b]You![/b] [:D]

Since you seem to have no qualms about telling a fellow Christian just how stupid and idiotic his view of the Scriptures might be, then, with all of the truth I can muster, I must tell you that I have simply never heard you say anything that made me think you really understood the Scriptures to any degree!

Now isn't that pretty rude and crude for me to say what I've just said? Don't you think that I was unjust in what I said?

Well, my brother, that's what we've been hearing from you ever since you first opened your mouth about the scriptures on this Board!

And it's gotten real, real old.

Eric The(BlondLeadingTheBlond)Hun[>]:)]

Alright people !!

Did God promise the land we know as Israel to both Jews and the Palestinians  ?  Did the Bible promise this land to the Jews and did the Qur'an promise this same land to the Palestinians ?

Post from 5subslr5 -

Quoted:



Huh??

Sorry friend, I haven't the slightest idea where that came from. I'll attempt to answer by speculating that he was showing neither; that he was just trying to do his job as he saw it.

Since I lost both of my parents to cancer, I have some inkling of how that must feel, but for the life of me I can't relate your question to what we've been discussing here.

God made an eternal, conditional covenant with Israel that they would possess the land.

As long as they met the conditions (obedience and submission to God) they would eternally possess the land.

How that plays out today gets a bit more detailed. E-mail me if you want the details.

From my reading of the Bible, ANY Palestinian that claims he has Scriptural right to the land is nutz.

Can't help you with the Q'ran.

Well, for not understanding the question, you gave EXACTLY the right answer. Actually, a more correct answer than I would have given my own question.

In presenting the truths I give here, and in quoting the Scriptures I quote, I beleive I am "just trying to do [my] job as [I beleive God commands me to.]"

The majority of Americans that founded this nations were not only Christians but Protestants to boot..at least they claimed to be...and I think their writings demonstrate that ..of Course Franklin and Jefferson are most quoted for these professed their doubts...yet Jefferson as president not only held services and bible studies in the Congress...he mandated federal funds for missionarys and...in his education policies insisted that schools teach not only the ten commandments but Christian morality as well....but that is neither here nor there anymore..

Even the devil can cite scripture...and to cite a verse here and there of selected scripture to carefully script and bolster any arguement doesnt prove the worth or validity of a point..

Yesterday and your suggestion I read the books of Numbers and Dueteronomy..the Hebrews took their land almost exclusively by force of arms..there were no supernatural miracles...only Gods hand working in conjuntion with them...miracle enough in my book...

The U.S. many liberals argue took land the way the Hebrews did...instead of Canaanites and Moabites and Philisitines we took it from those who were in possession of it at the time...

Has the US repented as you would have Israel...what is food for the goose is also food for the gander..given your back turning on Israel would you have the US suffer the same fate?.....

Deut 8:9 If you do forget the Lord your God and walk after other gods, serve and worship them. I testify against you this day you shall perish because you would not be obediant unto the voice of God....

If this condemns Israel in your vision of reality..does it not also condemn the US?

I cannot see the validity of your declaring the modern day Israelis or Jews of the world as not being the descendants of Abraham Isaac and Jacob

...yes I believe that all to whom the Lord does not call to repentance are toast...that included me you them everyone...nor would I claim that He wont call out muslims..he already has..or satanists...according to the bible all manner of mankind will sit at the table with Abraham..however even in the secular world...the muslims are out for our blood...

Israel is still our true ally in the middle east..
In my opinon...as these debates on the subject are just that ...and as Solomon once declared them -vanity...

So what are you saying?? Am I of the devil??? Is THAT you position???? A verse here and there? In this thread ALONE I've given over a dozen scriptures, BOTH OT AND NT, INCLUDING Christ's interpretations of the law and the prophets.

Instead of inferring that I'm Satanic, why don;t you address and exegete the Scriptures I've given??? HMMMMMMMM??????




The US is under the same moral standards that Israel is.

I DEFY you to show where I've indicated otherwise. JUST as I DEFY you to document your FALSE claims that I (1) accusaed Israel of murder in the USS Liberty incident, and (2) advocate the destruction of Israel. (claims made in another thread)

So, boiled down, your postion is to call me Satanic, and to make  false claims about me. Claims you CANNOT substantiate. LOL!!!! Come on, you can do better than that!!!! [:D]

I on the other hand have in the past now in the present and will in the future accuse Israel of MURDER of 34 US Navy sailors, AMERICA's citizens, regarding the USS Liberty.  To the government of Israel, a United States Navy sailor's life was worth exactly a lousy $100,000 as that is the amount paid by the government of Israel for each sailor they slaughtered.  A wounded U.S. sailor was worth $10,000.  Of course Israel billed the United States taxpayer for every nickel they paid.  In a terribly perverse way, the United States paid Israel to kill its' own sailors.  Today, Israel continues to bill the U.S. taxpayer to kill Palestinians.

Further Israel stands accused by their own citizens of executing Egyptian POW's in and around El Arish.  (The Israelis were using UHF comm's during the El Arish massacre and were afraid the Liberty had recorded these conversations.  In fact, the Liberty 'had' recorded these conversations as had a Ferret spy plane in the air just off the coast.)

In the world community of nations Israel stands as a rogue nation and with complete justification.

For all you Israel Firsters, you support those who have wantonly slaughtered American sailors.

I know, I know, just a few sailors and a long time ago.  Who cares?
I care.

Actually, mine is a technical distinction. Israel was guilty of an act of war against the United States. As such, personally I don't find the charge of murder applicable.

Premeditation is NOT enuf. ALL wars contain premeditation.

It was state sponsored killing, via their armed forces, against another nations armed forces. Which as best I can tell is NOT murder, but an act of war.

Unfortunately, the US said "Thank you very much" and then proceeded to muzzle the sailors on the USS Liberty.

Hey - its your thread, but with the Israel firsters, I'd prefer to keep my discussion with them Scriptural. Scriptural discussions are concrete, and the debaters cannot hide (that's why they REFUSE to debate me verse by verse, word by word of each verse. When you debate the USS Liberty, there is LOTS of wiggle room.

Galatians Chapter 5 :15 But if ye bite, and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another...

I don't know about biting, devouring or consuming but I do know the United States should have blown half the Israeli military to their just reward - to HELL !!

You 'Israel Firsters" support a government and country that kills American sailors and massacres POW's.

You folks must be very proud of the scum you support.

Like inferring someone is Satanic??? [}:D]

I been called LOTS of things, but that was a first. [:D] Definite resume builder in certain "circles."  [}:D] (Come on, I'm trying to make a joke here!!!!! Yukk it up!!!)

I'm just trying to engage in Scriptural debate, on a topic the interpretation of which WILL change ones behaviour.

Scripturally, that is called "admonition" and / or "exhortation" and is something I am commanded to do. And other Christians are commanded to appreciate.

But many who name the name of Christ REFUSE to engage in a verse by verse, word by word debate with me. On Scriptures which I've presented repeatedly, which ARE on the thread authors topic.

Not only do I meet Scriptural mandates, more importantly, I meet the Code of Conduct here at AR15.com.

[:D]

Post from 5subslr5 -

Yes, that is true [b]SubDude[/b], but simply not for the reasons that you believe it should. The 'world community' cares little about the lives of 34 US personnel, it has its own reasons for hating Israel.

Am I one of those 'Israel Firsters' you are talking about, [b]SubDude[/b]? I need you to tell me, because I don't think that Israel did what you and Mr. Bamford accuse it of doing - wantonly slaughtering US sailors, Egyptian POWs, or anyone else for that matter!

So am I beyond the pale on this one? Am I an Israeli Firster, in your humble opinion?

Well, I care as well.

But falsely accusing Israel of purposefully killing them does these men no service at all.

And as it so clearly appears, you will no more be persuaded that the attack was mistaken, than I will be convinced that it was intentional.

There is no evidence that could ever change your mind, and I have yet to see any evidence that could change mine.

And since my mind is apparently the only one that can possibly be changed in this matter, it should be the duty of Bamford, you, and whoever else believes that Israel was in the process of murdering captured Egyptian POWs in the Sinai, to simply take spade in hand and go over the village of Al Arish, to search for the bodies of those slaughtered POWs!

If they can find King Tutankhamen 3,300 years after his death, surely you and the Bamford-Arab Team of Anti-Israeli Archeologists could find the bodies of the 5-30-60-300-500-1000 murdered Egyptiam POWs after less than 35 years!

Great balls of fire, Louweezy, Time's a Wastin!

Eric The(Patient)Hun[>]:)]

Post from garandman -

Sorry, [b]garandman[/b], but I've tried the verse by verse, word by word routine with you and it was thoroughly uninspiring.

So please refrain from continuing to offer to do interpretive battle with those of us who are not on the same level of understanding as you must think you are.

I lost interest in debating anything important to Christianity with you when you came up with the idea of 'TRULY saved.'

It seems par for the course with someone who uses the phrase 'God made an eternal, conditional covenant with Israel that they would possess the land.'

If this Covenant is 'eternal' it is [u]not[/u] conditional.

If the Covenant is 'conditional' it is [u]not[/u] eternal.

How pointless to continue....

Eric The(Eternal,Conditional)Hun[>]:)]

E. T.,
in the past you've posted this argument but this time I will respond. Tutankhamen was buried in a known archeological site.  Finding ancient remains in a known burial place does not equate to finding remains somewhere in a featureless desert.
-----------------------------------------------

I do want to note for the record that I support the right of Israel to exist and to exist in relative peace.  Relative peace is all any of us can reasonably expect.  I support the fine citizens of Israel most of whom want peace.

I also support the people of Palestine who want to free themselves from the jack-booted occupation of the Israeli military.  I support a country for the Palestinians as do the majority of Israeli citizens.

I do not support the government of Israel as I don't support those who wage war on my American sailors nor do I support those who execute POW's.

Israel is a rogue, a pariah in the world community of nations.  

Not one, NOT ONE country other than the U.S. supports the scum that comprises the Israeli government.

And the worst is yet to come.  In the wings waits, for you 'Israeli Firsters', Benny-the-Net.  If there is one PM of Israel capable of atrocities that will finally cause the U.S. to blanche it is Benny-the-Net.  Of course thousands of Palestinians and Israelis must (and will) die for this to come to pass.  

Post from 5subslr5 -

'A known burial place'? It was speculated by some Egyptologists that the tomb of King Tut may have been somewhere in the Valley of the Kings.

The Valley of the Kings is quite large and consists of both a West and an East Valley.

I defy anyone to say that finding any one tomb in either of those valleys is easy.

On the other hand, Al Arish is quite small and the exact locations of all crucial sites are quite well known.

Further, we have something that Mr. Carter never had in looking for King Tut's tomb...eyewitnesses!

Yep, folks who might be questioned about where they were and what they saw.

So where's the outcry? Where are all those Egyptian mothers wanting the bodies of their sons, slain by the infidel Jews, back for decent Islamic burials?

They don't exist, [b]SubDude[/b], they simply don't exist!

Except in the minds of Bamford and his 'minions.'

I've come to love that word, 'minions.'

Eric The(MinionMaster)Hun[>]:)]

I'll respond to this, as its EASILY disprovable.

IF the Covenant to Israel was for possession of dirt in the Middle East eternally, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN GOD DESTROYS THIS EARTH, as foretold in Revelation???

Gee, I guess God didn't really mean ETERNAL possession of that dirt over there, did He????

NO, He did not.

And what of the times of Nehemiah, and the Babylonian captivity, and from AD70 to 1948? Times when they LOST possession of the land DUE TO disobedience, where obedience was a condition of the covanant?? Doesn't "eternal" ALSO cover those times??

YES, it does.

Therefore, given how history has played out, and how they have LOST possession of the land due to breaking the Covenant in their disbedience, and given the Scriptures I've cited before in Jeremiah (and also the Book of Kings, I belive) we come to understand that the Covenant was eternal, IF they met the conditions of obediece. Since God CANNOT lie, He MUST have meant a conditional covenant, since there is NO WAY you can say israel has had possession of the land eternally, as their HAVE been breaks in their posession of teh land, and the land will be destroyed when God destroys the earth as foretold in Revealtion.

Eternal. Conditional.

Presently being in disobedience to God, and trying to regain the land by force makes their present efforts UNSCRIPTURAL.

And in point of fact, there are literally MILLIONS of eternal, conditional covenants in effect TODAY. Yer a lawyer - think about it.

[}:D]

Once again, [b]garandman[/b], sez [u]you[/u]!

That's simply your opinion, not some divine revelation you've been given!

Sorry. That's just the way it is.

Eric The(Fundamental)Hun[>]:)]

NO, its a reading of the Covenant, and a reading of Israels history.

Israels history interprets the Covenant for us.

Sorry, [b]garandman[/b], I read it differently.

That's all. Nothing to get alarmed about.

Cause guess what? It means nothing insofar as your own salvation is concerned.

And [u]we[/u] don't even agree on that!

And by 'we', I mean all Christians, but I also mean you and me, as well.

So [u]must[/u] adult believers be baptized by immersion in order to enter Heaven? Yes or no?

See! We don't even agree on this simple matter!

Eric The(Baptist)Hun[>]:)]

Well, to close, lemme just mention what I meant by "truly saved."

I meant those have received Jesus Christ as their saviour, COMPARED TO those who think they get saved by being a good person, or saying sufficient hail mary's, etc etc. As Scripture says "Not all that say 'Lord, Lord' shall enter into heaven."

With hindsight, I see now you may have thought I was making a distinction re: batism by immersion being necessary for salvation in using the phrase "truly saved.".

Please beleive me that was NOT my intent. Looking at it now, you may have thought I was questioning your salvation, hinting that since you don't agree with my understanding on the supposed necesity of immersion for salvation, then you aren't saved.


NOTHING could be further from the truth. But I can see how that would have been offenseive to you. Please accept my apologies if in any way my words caused you to think that.

Deal??

Sorry, again, [b]garandman[/b], but I am much too church of Christ to believe that anyone can enter into Heaven during this age without being baptized as an [u]adult[/u].

And by baptism, I mean full immersion baprism and not some sprinkling or affusion.

But, that's just my interpretation of the relevant Scripture.

Don't go by anything I say, just what He says.

Eric The(Baptized)Hun[>]:)]

I'm not trying to discuss or dispute that with you. I just want to make sure you know that my "truly saved" comment was IN NO WAY meant to be derogatory toward those who hold to your understanding of "the relevant scriptures."

And ESPECIALLY not meant to be derogatory toward you personally.

If you understand that and beleive me, I'm happy.

The way that I read It god brought Moses and the multitude to the brink of the promised land ,but said you can see it but cannot go over yet.

So Moses died with-out seeing in this life his role,and all things come to pass in due time I think it was in the fourtys before this came to pass.

 If this country were like the middle east texas would have suceeded,then been militarily brought back in just as about the time the spannish took back Cali,New Mex.    Then the south would have seen the weakness ,and started printing there own money again.

 What a mess all this division could cause!

 Do you think other world powers would be over here again,trying to straighten out our revolutions again?

 Bob   [8D]