Raf

[Title] to get to you is that all right? [Title], crept in your room Woke you from your sleep to make love to you Is that all right? [Title]

Are we going to ignore how bleeping awful Legends has gotten?

Hook Gwyneth Paltrow (a pre-fame cameo, but it counts) Shakespeare in Love

my mistake. no monitor in flash finale. just an obvious crisis setup

I had to escape, the city was sticky and cruel Maybe I should have called you first But I was dying to get to you I was dreaming while I drove The long straight road ahead Uh-huh, Yeah Could taste your sweet kisses, your arms open wide This fever for you was just burning me up inside ... What in this world keeps us from falling apart? No matter where I go I hear the beating of our one heart I think about you when the night is cold and dark Uh-huh, yeah No one can move me the way that you do Nothing erases this feeling between me and you... Three artists: One original, two remakes, all iconic performers. The first remake was released after its performer was dead. You'd be forgiven for thinking his was the original, but it was not.

I haven't started SHIELD yet and don't know if I want to. I think I'm just going to wait for Netflix or the new Disney service for that. I skipped to the finales of all the shows except Flash, and (sad to say) I do not feel like I missed anything. Legends has entered and passed the "Superman: Quest for Peace" phase in terms of quality. I did enjoy the Monitor's cameos, though. Looking forward to Crisis and the end of Arrow. Flash was okay. Not great. But the only show where I actually care about each character.

This conversation about age becomes different in less than three months. Anywhoo... Lyrics: I had to escape. The city was sticky and cruel. Maybe I should have called you first, but I was dying to get to you.

This is not an honest reflection of what I posted and will not be entertained.

Jessica Alba Awake Hayden Christensen

A distinction, yes. A dispensational distinction? No. One instruction is pre crucifixion. The other is post resurrection. You don't need to inject anything to draw that scriptural distinction. Jesus explicitly told the 12, post resurrection, to preach to the Gentiles. They didn't. Paul wasn't uniquely sent to the Gentiles by Jesus. They were ALL sent to the Gentiles. Paul is the only one who took it to heart. Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom. So did the 12. So did Paul. Their audiences and timing were different. Their instructions were different. But the gospel was the same. Nobody reads Matthew 10 and follows it with Matthew 28 and then "gives up in confusion." People are smart enough to see the difference between pre crucifixion and post resurrection without resorting to the unbiblical position that the GOSPEL changed. You've employed a straw man argument with points 1 and 2 and falsely present 3 as the only logical alternative. Your premises are false and your conclusion is falsely presented as the only viable alternative.

The challenge in approaching scripture honestly is allowing the documents to speak for themselves rather than forcing them into some imaginary framework that raises more questions than it answers. Dispensationalism raises more questions than it answers. Requiring Paul's gospel to be different from the gospel of the 12 requires you to redefine the gospel, scripturally, and ignore the plain language of scripture. If you assume that the mission of Paul was distinct from the mission given to the 12 then you have to force Jesus to say things other than what the Bible says he said. The unbeliever has an alternate explanation, but it is not relevant to what scripture teaches. According to the Bible, Jesus, after his resurrection, gave the 12 instructions they did not follow. When Paul, despite originally preaching to Israel, recognized the scripture in Isaiah as authority to go to the Gentiles, he did so. And when he did, Jesus was able to reveal to Paul even more than he had before to the 12. That is what the Bible says. It is not an interpretation. It is a recitation. Acts repeatedly says Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom. So did the 12. Differences in their approach can be accounted for in the difference in their audience, but the destination, Biblically, remains the same: the gospel of the kingdom. The same gospel Jesus preached pre-crucifixion, the same gospel the 12 preached post resurrection, the same gospel Paul preached through the very last verse of Acts. Now, the skeptical view on this is not the same, but I've been holding that back. I do not need to rely on unbelief as a preconceived notion. Unbelief is a conclusion, not a preconception. The Bible teaches what it teaches, regardless of whether anyone believes it. It doesn't teach ultradispensationalism unless you decide beforehand that it does, and then you have to to ignore multiple scriptures to maintain your position. The skeptic's view of Paul is indeed different from the Bible's, but the Bible's is not the ultradispensationalist''s.

Time is on My Side Rolling Stones

didn't we JUST do this one?

But the directive to the 12 changed and you're acting like it never did. It makes zero sense for Jesus to change the audience of the gospel, which he explicitly did, without changing anything that accommodated its expansion (which he implicitly did: he was with them 40 days) makes no sense. To suggest he was talking during those 40 days about something other than what they needed to know to accomplish what he just ordered them to do strains credibility. You can accuse me of taking the scripture out of context all you want, but you can't do it honestly. You asked a specific question with a specific scriptural answer. Seems your problem is not with ME, but with the Bible's answer to your question.

Acts 3 is not a reference to the gospel. Acts 13 does not say Jesus ordered the 12 to speak to Israel first. It is literally talking about Paul and Barnabas. You literally said the opposite. They said they needed to speak to the Jews first. Why? It wasn't because that was Jesus' command. Jesus' command was disciple all nations. Why did they speak to Israel first? Because that's what the 12 actually did. Paul is not here saying JESUS told him to go to Israel first. Biblically, Paul could say he was obliged to go to Israel first, but it does not appear he can say that was the Lord's instruction. Rather, he is quoting Isaiah 49:6, which has nothing to do with a different gospel being preached to Israel than to the Gentiles. Rather, even in Isaiah, it is the same grace of God that He extends to Israel that he promises to extend to the Gentiles as well. Paul and Barnabas are not proclaiming ultradispensationalism here. They are not proclaiming a new instruction. They felt is necessary to go to the Jews first because that's what every Christian before them has done. But unlike every Christian before them, they were determined to go to the Gentiles too, as Christ instructed at least three times between the resurrection and the ascension, which anyone without wax in his ears can tell just from reading the gospels and acts as long as they don't force their preconceived theology into the text.

The above quote is cited to establish that I am not tiring of the stupid argument that's being presented because I am atheist -- faithful Christians likewise find themselves unable to deal with the stubborn silliness of ultradispensationalists. If you would like me to refute the stupidity of ultradispensationalism from a skeptical atheistic perspective say the word. Until now I have been content to show that faithful Christians think it's stupid.

still haven't demonstrated that Jesus didn't tell the 12 to preach to the gentiles (because he did) or that Paul preached a gospel different from the 12 (because he didn't). There were differences between what Paul taught and what the 12 taught, but according to the Bible those differences were not the gospel. You asked a specific question It was answered according to the Bible and ever since you have been twisting the Bible to conform to your preconception rather than just admit your preconception was incorrect. Feel free to continue in your stubborn refusal to admit the Bible specifically says what you claim it dies not. I think I've embarrassed you enough.

1. We're in Questioning Faith. Might as well confine it to one thread. 2. If you want to break off a piece, feel free

Without going into too much detail, Satan is the Biblical enemy. And what does he represent? Evil? Lies? Sure. But what else? Questions. What was Eve's first mistake? Questions. Considering a view other than the one dictated to her. Curiosity is the enemy of religion. Resistance is the enemy of nationalism. Defiance is the enemy of the slaveholder. To be clear: I do not worship Satan. He is as imaginary as the God who put the tree of knowledge in the same garden as the man and woman whose consumption of its fruit would lead to eons of unnecessary suffering. Satan is religion's way of telling the skeptical theirs are not questions but unholy influences. I worship neither your imaginary friend nor your imaginary enemy.

Actually, my point in bringing that up was to note that the vast majority of Christians believe hyperdispensationalism is inaccurate and ungodly. You have to question the legitimacy of an interpretational framework that eluded all Christianity from 70 AD until the 1800s. Dispensationalism, and especially hyperdispensationalism, cannot be supported Biblically unless you bend over backwards to force the Bible to say things it just doesn't say. Things like "Jesus never told the 12 to go to the Gentiles" when he did exactly that. Regardless, I find it interesting that you don't post O'Hair's analysis or his findings. Just his namecalling. It's the kind of behavior I would expect from someone who lacked confidence in his position and so wants to cut the other side down with insults. Surely you have a better argument than a long dead namecaller whose position has been rejected by mainstream Christianity.

Not all Christians accept hyperdispensationalism, and it's really a pity that you have to go against the Bible's clear teaching, denying that Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom as noted numerous times in Acts, to force the Bible to conform to your preconceived notion. Hyperdispensationalism holds that there is a new adminstration/dispensation that begins in the middle of Acts. The Bible doesn't support this. Paul, according to Acts, preaches the gospel of the kingdom, the precise gospel that the 12 taught. In any event, Mr. O'Hair's namecalling does not validate his exegesis. In fact, it seems a pretty desperate attempt to call attention away from the weakness of his position. Over and over again, I am trying to return to the issues we are discussing. Over and over again, you are taking shots at me and not at the points I'm raising. I trust this is the last time I will have to tell you to keep our conversation about the topic and not about the posters.

just "DeBarge" the solo careers, such as they were, followed.

You guys definitely have the right feeling. I could see all these songs on a party mixtape. Does Leroy know this song? Sho'nuf! When it feels like the world is on your shoulders And all of the madness has got you going crazy It's time to get out, step out into the street Where all of the action is right there at your feet I know a place where we can dance the whole night away underneath electric stars Just come with me and we can chase the blues right away You'll be doing fine once the music starts.... Oh!

O'Hair was a hyperdispensationalist. Wierwille said many bitter, nasty things about people who disagreed with him. And people who disagreed with him said many nasty, bitter things about Wierwille. Accuracy is not determined by the quality of a researcher's name-calling acumen