Pastor Dave

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Pastor Dave

  • Rank
    Disciple of the Way
  • Birthday 08/20/1962

Helpful Information

  • Gender
  • Marital Status
  • Location
    Southern Illinois

Friendly Details

  • MBTI
  • Interests
    Family, Biblical Studies, Woodworking, Organic Gardening, Shooting, Edged Weapons, Astronomy, Nature, History, Healing Herbs,........
  • Pets / Animals
    1 dog, chickens,rabbit
  • Grateful For
    My beautiful wife, our great children and their spouses, our fantastic grandchildren, our great grandchildren to come, our animals, ........
  • Doctrine /Affiliation

Other Details

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

3,609 profile views
  1. Pastor Dave

    Season’s Greetings

    Merry Christmas And Happy New year
  2. Pastor Dave

    Prayers Please

    Prayers for Bernadette.
  3. Good post DoctorIssachar. I've always disliked the term apologetics for the very reason you pointed out in your opening paragraph. It makes it sound like we are apologizing for our faith. While those of us who are familiar with apologetics know this is not true some people who are not familiar with the term may initially believe that to be the case. I am unfamiliar with the book by Geisler you referenced so I would enjoy hearing more from you about the subject. Particularly what you have gathered from your studies of apologetics.
  4. Yeah, AAG could get pretty brutal from time to time.
  5. I didn't know you went that far back. I don't remember madmerlin33 from then but I do remember dave and dA. I used to argue with those two as much as you and Jonathan used to argue with Dan. LOL
  6. Pastor Dave

    One covenant, or two?

    Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you on this. My wife and I were on vacation when I made that last post and I haven't been online much. I'm just starting to catch up with my usual internet activities. This is only my opinion so take it for what it is worth. Yes, I agree that Moses laws were meant for the Hebrews. Noahide law was for the rest of us. I will also agree with him that Jesus gave only those two commandments, with the statement that in those two are the whole of the law. I have to disagree with him about the Old Testament being strictly being about Hebrew covenant. The Ademic covenant and the Noahide covenant apply to all of mankind. The Abrahamic covenant, which was originally for his descendants (the Hebrews) has been opened to Christians through the New Testament. I also have to disagree with him about the New Testament being strictly a covenant for the nation's. In Romans 1:16, Paul (the apostle to the gentiles), said first to the Jew, then to the Greek. It isn't well known but until the council of Nicea the majority of Christian leaders were Jews. It was after Rome took Christianity that Jews became unwelcome in the religion. ( I'm glad to see that is changing among some Christian groups.) However, I do agree with him that Jesus may have intended for there to be a welcoming of the gentiles into the family of YHWH.
  7. Pastor Dave

    One covenant, or two?

    On some points I think he is right, however, there are more than two covenants described in The Bible. Certainly the nations were never under Moses law. From my readings however they were under the Noahide laws. Noahide law only had seven commandments. Six of which are very similar to those contained in the ten commandments of Moses. The seventh was a prohibition of eating the flesh of an animal that was still alive.
  8. Pastor Dave

    One covenant, or two?

    The pharisees and sadducees were different sects within Judaism. Both held seats within the Sanhedrin. The Sadducees gave authority only to the written word of God. The Pharisees however gave as much authority to oral tradition as they did to the written word. The Sadducees rejected a belief in the resurrection of the dead while the Pharisees did believe in resurrection. The Sadducees believed that the soul perished at death. The pharisees did believe in an afterlife and appropriate rewars or punishments of the individual. Sadducees did not believe in a spiritual realm where as the Pharisees taught of Angels and Demons in an unseen spiritual world. The chief priests and the high priest were Sadducees. The Sadducees also held the majority of seats in the Sanhedrin. They were usually wealthy, while the Pharisees were more representative of the common man. The Sadducees controlled the temple in Jerusalem and the Pharisees generally control the Synagogues. The Sadducees pretty much ceased to exist after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. The Pharisees went on to compile the Mishnah, Which laid the ground work for Modern day rabbinic Judaism.
  9. Pastor Dave

    Somebody likes my post but it doesn’t say who

    Good point, I agree, right on...
  10. Pastor Dave

    history and faith

    I can appreciate your experiences. In particular the calming vs the yelling preacher. If your experiences with spiritual leaders have not been good then I can understand your reluctance to trust them. But does that really apply to most people?
  11. Pastor Dave

    history and faith

    Hmmmm, Yes! We are in agreement here. I have no problem with the way scientists word their findings as speculation. It is when that speculation becomes seen, no longer as speculation, but rather as fact is where I draw the line. These are the places where I try to see other possibilities. It was possible that someone with a third set of possibilities might have jumped in to the conversation. I have purposely avoided any use of religion in this discussion. I have not brought any Holy book into the conversation. This does not have to be about religion. As a side note on that thought; Why is it that we can have such confidence in a man who has devoted his life to finding the answers in science about scientific things, yet for some reason, some think we should not trust spiritual leaders who have devoted their live to studying spiritual things about spiritual matters?
  12. Pastor Dave

    history and faith

    Who was it that said "Evolutionary theories deal with things we cannot (currently) directly observe." Ah ha, the old double standard. It's ok for you to say it, but if I do I seem to have committed some wrong. Just remember when you point a finger at me you have three pointing back at yourself. Where exactly have I mocked any scientist? I have not mocked any scientist. I have merely tried to show where the average person has misunderstood what the scientists have actually said. The scientist says this is possible. Not that it the only possibility. Just that it is a possibility. The textbook writers then change that, ever so slightly, and it becomes this is likely. The teacher reads this and tells the student that this is probably how it happened. The student then goes about proclaiming this is how it happened. It's like the old telephone game. Slight changes as the story is passed on. Nor have I said that an intelligent force directing the development of life on Earth is the only possibility. Just that it is a possibility.