dmiller

Geneis 9:2,3 -- 2.) "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand they are delivered." 3.) "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."

Yep. Back in the mid 70's it was common (in our area). But -- not so much so in the 80's. Guess they were too busy doing other things then.

Sky -- I agree with that. I, for one, believe in the different time periods ("dispensations"), yet I am not willing to toss out (say) the gospels as irrelevant, just because we now have the Epistles of Paul. It is, after all, one big book! ;)-->

well -- I think He was perfect, yet I also believe He was a man, human, and prone to a thinking pattern just like us. Yes -- Adam did make a huge mistake, but his mistake was a sin. To say that Jesus may have made mistakes, does not mean that He sinned.

I got out before twiII, but man!! do these phrases sound familiar!! :D-->

Mark S. --- thanks! :)-->

Job did the same thing for his sons and daughters. Look what happened to him!

I agree with MJ. And how about the account in Mark 8:22-25, where he healed the blind man with His spit? Vpw put the spin on it that Jesus "worked" with the man to get his (the blind man's) "believing" up to snuff, but could it be that Jesus was instead "working" the rev to get it right?? --> If He didn't get it right the first time, that would be a mistake, yet still not a sin.

Danny -- am very happy for you!! :)--> Looks like you're going to get that "tall glass" after all! ;)-->

:D--> :D--> :D-->

Song -- would that be in a "locked down" thread?

What are we bidding on? --> :D-->

Right. Must've been the believing that got him that oxygen tank to provide for the "no evidence of smoking" in his lung tissues. -->

:D--> :D--> :D--> (anyone we know?)

Hmmmm. Signing that little green card??

Here is the link for the Fall Creek Falls site. It is currently 71 degrees there. 21 degrees higher than here in Mn. :(-->

Hey there Roy. I'd say stick around. Spend time on other sites (I've done a lot of that lately), but why cut ties to this site?? Lotsa good folk here, and though discussion flows pretty freely, not everyone listens to others all the time -- same as on other sites. Dan is right about the up's and down's. They happen. Hope you decide to stay. :)-->

When I was young, I lacked for nothing. My Dad saw to that, and he worked hard to make sure I had all I needed. I sometimes did things wrong, and I was chastised for my actions. Sometimes "penance" was required, sometimes not -- but either way, I was forgiven and life went on. We were by no means rich, but because of my father's diligence to see his son grow up as best as possible, I felt like we were rich. There is nothing he would not have done to see me become all that I could be. That is my earthly father, and I for one see no difference between his actions, and those of a Heavanly Father, who has done, and is doing the same for all of us today. Now -- What is Christianity?? A "common definition" is needed here. Suppose you asked a Pharisee "What is Torah"? they would have given you an entirely different answer than what Jesus did. Pharisees knew the letter of the law, Jesus knew the heart of it all. The Pharisees saw what was written, but had no idea as to the concept behind it all. Jesus also knew what was written, but He saw the underlying factors that made it so. Christianity is no different. While I personally believe in the bible, God, & Jesus Christ, I also believe that there are many out there in other "religions" that espouse beliefs (and act accordingly) that are in keeping with what is truely meant by the bible and it's teachings. Just because they are "out-side" the pail as far as "denominational beliefs' go, doesn't mean they are not a Christian at heart. So -- as I said -- we need a common definition of "Christian". Is it someone who espouses belief in Christ only, or someone who sees the heart of things, rather than just the "letter" of them?? Since I believe the bible to be true -- I see the ultimate sacrifice as being one of closure, and not a horrendous thing like has been postulated here. How many sacrifices in the OT were ever raised to life eternal?????? None. Issac was symbolically raised from the dead, but that was nothing compared to what Jesus went through. None of the animals ever sacrificed in the OT were ever raised from the dead. And, for that matter, none of them ever made a choice to go to the "altar" either. Call God "barbaric" all you want for allowing His Son to go through what he did (I could have done the same with my earthly father - for what he let me go through), but you are missing the point if you see what God had Jesus go through --- if you don't see the finality of the blessings and glory that Jesus got as a result of His actions! Ever been homeless?? Sleeping bag on your back and no place to lay down? Ever been in a soup kitchen, bowl in hand and they ran out of food? Welcome to life without Jesus Christ, an example of ruthless actions, ordained by a higher power. You've got needs, and nowhere to go to get them met. Blame whomever you want, say what you will, but the fact is -- deliverance is available, and speculating about all the why's and wherefore's won't fill that bowl. God is, and God does. He sees hearts, and not labels. Same as the folks in the soup kitchens -- if they've got food, your bowl is filled. God never runs out of food, especially after the Bread of Life became our main course. And it was not just a decision by God to see His first-begotten tortured and slain, it was a mutual decision -- because of what was to follow. End of sermon.

Looking forward to your answer, and am headed to The Think Tank to see what they have to say about it also!

Your definition of dispensationalism makes sense. My question (and an honest one) is -- Can't covenant theology be called "dispensationalism" also, since God is dispensing different things, at different times, and to different groups of people? God still gets the glory for having done what He has done, and man's magnifying the historical periods doesn't enter into the picture. It is God who did it, and in His own time and choosing.

Hey Sky -- did I actually read the word uffda in your earlier post??? What part of the Northland are you from??

Evan -- is this available for purchase somewhere?? --> I tried to find it at Amazon, as well as Barnes and Noble, and drew a blank on both sites. I couldn't do an advanced search, since I don't know the author. Is it one of several volumes, or a book unto itself? It sounds interesting, and worth looking at.

Def -- I agree that disagreement can be healthy, but I'm not entirely convinced that it was healthy between Paul and James. Putting aside all Paul's epistles and the book of James (for the moment), I see in the book of Acts that the "contention" they had was over a major issue, and that being circumcision. In Acts 15:1, some from Judaea, (Bullinger has a note "as though from headquarters") taught that salvation was contingent upon circumcision alone -- thus negating the work of Christ. Paul obviously took issue with that. He was circumcised, yet his salvation came to him on the road to Damascus, not before, and he knew it. So -- to him this teaching of salvation by works was totally erroneous. In "The Two Ways Of The First Century Church" by David Anderson, a compelling arguement is made that James was the "leader" of those who were proponents of circumcision. It is evident that he was at least very influential with them, as he (James) had the "last word" at the big meeting in Jerusalem, there in Acts 15:13-21. Now -- Raf made some great points about faith vs. works/ works vs. faith/ and "how can you know one without the other" (acting as some sort of barometer), indicating the prescence of the other entity being claimed? I think it is all a matter of heart. Without trying to step on anyone's "theological toes" here, I feel that salvation is by faith alone, and thus -- Paul is the more correct of the two. HOWEVER -- if one has that salvation by faith, works will emenate from the heart. And when James says in 2:17 "Faith without works is dead, being alone" --he is right also. You get your salvation by faith, but if no works are forth-coming from you and your heart, then it is (for all practical purposes) "dead" within you. Thinking of the widow woman in Mark 12:42 who tossed in all she had, vs. those who (selectively) cast in from their abundance, to me is an apt analogy to the circumcision vs. non-circumcision perspective found in Acts, as related to works. She gave from the heart. They did it because they were expected to. Many early 1st century Christians gave willingly. Others did what they were told. That they had to be circumcised, or no salvation for them. Perhaps some of those who got circumcised did so willingly, but I'm willing to bet most did not. That would make that a work of the flesh (no pun intended), rather than one of the heart. So I think this was more than just "healthy disagreement" between James and Paul. Am I right about all of this?? I don't know, but these are my speculations on this subject. The only thing I am absolutely confident of is --- we will all find out the truth some day, when all will be revealed.

I agree with GSGeorge. Being raised Catholic also, dispensation (to me) was more or less a "free pass" that allowed one to "get out" of doing something that was normally required.

How true. Just shows to go ya how much "love in manifestation, in the renewed mind, blah blah blah -- they really had. I see this as no more than "revolutionaries with a lost cause". (ie -- power comes from the barrel of a gun) Wonder if the podium they stood behind had bullet-proofing on it as well? -->