Coolhand

Absolutely! I was taking Hebrew from a Messianic Rabbi for a while; he absolutley believes in an after life; with Jesus. http://www.kehilatariel.org/wordpress/

These would lead you to believe that the "olam haba" does have a connotation of at least heaven in the eternal sense: 29 Yeshua answered them, Yes! I tell you that everyone who has left house, wife, brothers, parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 will receive many times as much in the ‛olam hazeh, and in the ‛olam haba eternal life. David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament : A Translation of the New Testament That Expresses Its Jewishness, 1st ed. (Jerusalem, Israel; Clarksville, Md., USA: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1989), Lk 18:29-30. 28 Kefa began saying to him, Look, we have left everything and followed you. 29 Yeshua said, Yes! I tell you that there is no one who has left house, brothers, sisters, mother, father, children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the Good News, 30 who will not receive a hundred times over, now, in the ‛olam hazeh, homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and lands with persecutions! and in the ‛olam haba, eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first! David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament : A Translation of the New Testament That Expresses Its Jewishness, 1st ed. (Jerusalem, Israel; Clarksville, Md., USA: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1989), Mk 10:28-31. 30 Those who are not with me are against me, and those who do not gather with me are scattering. 31 Because of this, I tell you that people will be forgiven any sin and blasphemy, but blaspheming the Ruach HaKodesh will not be forgiven. 32 One can say something against the Son of Man and be forgiven; but whoever keeps on speaking against the Ruach HaKodesh will never be forgiven, neither in the ‛olam hazeh nor in the ‛olam haba. David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament : A Translation of the New Testament That Expresses Its Jewishness, 1st ed. (Jerusalem, Israel; Clarksville, Md., USA: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1989), Mt 12:30-32.

Would this be Jewish enough: ˓olam hazeh … ˓olam haba, “this world … the world to come.” These concepts are part of rabbinic Judaism. The latter can mean either the Millennial Age (Revelation 19–20; see 1 Th 4:15b–17N) or the Eternal Age following Judgment Day (Revelation 21–22). David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary : A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament, electronic ed. (Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1996, c1992), Mt 12:31. About the Author David H. Stern was born in Los Angeles in 1935, the great-grandson of two of the city’s first twenty Jews. He earned a Ph.D. in economics at Princeton University and was a professor at UCLA, mountain-climber, co-author of a book on surfing and owner of health-food stores. In 1972 he came to faith in Yeshua the Messiah, after which he received a Master of Divinity degree at Fuller Theological Seminary and did graduate work at the University of Judaism. He was married in 1976 to Martha Frankel, also a Messianic Jew, and together they served one year on the staff of Jews for Jesus. Dr. Stern taught Fuller Theological Seminary’s first course in “Judaism and Christianity,” organized Messianic Jewish conferences and leaders’ meetings, and served as an officer of the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America. In 1979 the Stern family made aliyah (immigrated to Israel). They are now living in Jerusalem with their two children and are active in Israel’s Messianic Jewish community. This commentary is a companion volume to Dr. Stern’s Jewish New Testament, which is his translation of the New Testament from the original first-century Greek into enjoyable modern English in a manner that brings out its essential Jewishness by its use of Hebrew names and Jewish terminology and by its correction of antisemitic renderings found in other translations. The Jewish New Testament Commentary discusses, verse by verse, Jewish issues raised in the New Testament—questions Jews have about Yeshua, the New Testament and Christianity; questions Christians have about Judaism and the Jewish roots of their faith; and questions Messianic Jews have about their own identity and role. The Jewish New Testament and the Jewish New Testament Commentary are available singly in hard or soft cover or as a boxed hardcover matched set. The Jewish New Testament is also available on 16 audio cassettes. Dr. Stern is also author of Messianic Jewish Manifesto, which outlines the destiny, identity, history, theology and program of today’s Messianic Jewish movement, and of Restoring the Jewishness of the Gospel: A Message for Christians, an abridgement of the “Manifesto” meant for those unaccustomed to thinking of the Gospel as Jewish. Finally, scheduled for publication in 1998 is the Complete Jewish Bible, a new version of the Tanakh (“Old Testament”) bound together with the Jewish New Testament. David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary : A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament, electronic ed. (Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1996, c1992), Re 21:27.

That is interesting Pete, but it does not answer the question asked regarding how that verse should be interpreted. Can you summarize?

How is this Scripture in Daniel to be understood?

Earlier in this discussion I posted a Scripture from Daniel: 12 “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wisea will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Da 12:1-3. Explain how this is not from Judaism in regard to your claim.

Speaking of liberal Christianity, here is a paper I wrote in 2008 for a Contemporary Theology class. I researched Friedrich Schleiermacher. Whenever we have a project or writing assignment I always like to find someone or something that I think I disagree with or know nothing about; which I think is the point of education. I was correct by the professor in regard to some of my comments regarding Friedrich Schleiermacher, specifically I took that stance that he was corrupting the gospel as I understood it, when in fact he was living out the gospel as he know it. I was looking at it like my way was the only right way, when each person is doing what appears to be the right way for them. This is an important bridge to cross in my opinion. The paper is titled: KEEPING CHRISTIANITY CHRISTIAN BY ENSURING THE REDEMPTIVE ELEMENT REMAINS INTACT Friedrich Schleiermacher was addressed by several prestigious titles, such as the “father of modern theology,” and also the “father of classic liberalism.” Schleiermacher referred to himself as the “midwife of a New Christianity.” He lived in the period of mo- dernity known as the Enlightenment era. In this era, man was optimistic in the powers of human reasoning and believed that he was on his way to solving all of the problems of the world. Schleiermacher took on the challenge of showing the relevancy of Christian belief to a period of intellectualism that rejected myth and superstition. Unfortunately, because Christianity could not be empirically tested or rationally described, it was class-ified as myth. Schleiermacher approached Christianity from a modern perspective and “none strove so valiantly to reconstruct Christian belief to make it compatible with the spirit of his age.” Not only did his era struggle with orthodoxy, Friedrich himself struggled with orthodoxy, specifically the substitutionary doctrine of atonement. His skepticism of orthodoxy and the skepticism of the times resulted in the emergence of a new brand of theology. In this new theology, the freedom of the individual to criticize and reconstruct traditional beliefs in light of modern knowledge was emphasized. The individual needed to have the autonomy to decide for him or herself the points of their theology. Friedrich Schleiermacher presented Christianity to the modern thinkers of his time attempting to make it credible to them. In doing this he redefined many of the traditionally held beliefs of orthodox Christianity. However, in redefining Christian theo-logy to conform to modern thought, Friedrich Schleiermacher altered the gospel and robbed it of its transforming power by teaching that God is responsible for evil, by his rejection of miracles, and his denial of the power of prayer. In all theologies and philosophies there is a problem of evil. Evil has been attributed to angry and wrathful gods, self infliction, and random consequence. Schleiermacher is no different and he has his own explanation of evil. According to Schleiermacher, evil is being self-conscious instead of being God-conscious. When we deny our total depend- ence on God we are self-conscious. This self-consciousness (evil) is sent by God at the moment of election in each individual person. Evil is the tool used by God used to create the God-consciousness in a person. This happens to every person at sometime in their life. Schleiermacher argued that “evil exists as a consequence of absolute dependence [on God] and is ordained by God.” To Schleiermacher evil came from God because there was no literal Satan. He stated, “The idea of the Devil, as developed among us is so unstable that we cannot expect anyone to be convinced of its truth.” In Schleiermacher’s theology there existed no devil that attacked the people of the world. This was only myth that has been created and handed down through church tradition. Along with the Devil being mythological, he also asserted that the concept of an eternal damnation was also mythological or at best figurative. Schleiermacher proved himself to be a Universalist by saying, “Through the power of redemption there will one day be a restoration of all souls.” The Biblical concept of evil is a little different than Schleiermacher’s version. We can see in Genesis 6:5 where “the people on earth were very wicked, that all the imagin-ings of their hearts were always of evil only” (CJB). Then in verse six it says God’s heart was “grieved with man” (CJB) because of the evil of man. In the New Testament, 1 Peter 3:11 we are exhorted to “turn from evil and do good” (CJB). If Schleiermacher is right, then we are supposed to turn from God’s way of making us aware of Him so that we can do right! There are several ways evil is used in the bible. The examples I have used are referring to evil as in wickedness, which is what Schleiermacher is said God used as a tool, and of this evil God was the author. God can use anything He wants as a tool, but God calls us to shun evil and fear Him. This is how we become aware of God. The Biblical concept of Satan also differs from what Schleiermacher argued. Schleiermacher denied the existence of Satan, the Devil. In the Old Testament “saw-’TAN” means adversary. Satan is introduced to us in the book of Job, which is believed to be the oldest book in the Old Testament. He is introduced in poetry as a destroyer and as one who is undoubtedly working against mankind. In Luke 10:18 Jesus said he saw Satan falling like lightning from heaven. Schleiermacher believed that the Bible texts had became legendary over time. This could have been due to Greek texts that existed at his time. His access would have been to only late dated texts such as Textus Receptus of 1550 and 1624, and Griesbach of 1805. We now have access to Greek texts of the Gospels that date in the 200’s (third century). These resources can eliminate the doubts earlier theologians may have had concerning the evolving of the text over time. The “instability” of the idea of believing in a being who is the Devil is removed due to the fact that we have reliable text evidence that Jesus Christ said he saw Satan falling from heaven. Since we have reliable Scripture references that say there is a Devil, and that he comes to “steal, kill, and destroy” (John 10:10), it is no longer logical to attribute evil as a work of God. Schleiermacher’s concept of hell being figurative can also be refuted by the same argument for reliable Greek texts that date back with in one hundred years of the actual events. Jesus also spoke of hell as being a real place: Matt.10:28, Mark 9:43-47, Luke 12:5 to mention a few. By attributing evil to God’s authorship Schleiermacher brought an element of confusion to the gospel. This confusion also could be a stumbling block to those who have suffered disaster from approaching a God that would bring disaster upon them. By his denial of the existence of the Devil he removed any ability those who follow his teaching would ever have to fight this enemy who according to 1 Pet. 5:8 says, “Stalks about like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (CJB). By His denial of the Scriptures that describe a literal hell he has doomed his followers to this fate. He robbed the gospel of its ability to help people fight their enemy, also to be aware of and stay out of a living burning hell. And he did this in the name of keeping Christianity relevant to the times. Friedrich Schleiermacher rejected the miracles that were presented in the Bible. He argues that although miracles could constitute proof, “It is never asserted that faith sprang from the proof, but from the preaching,” and that “Faith has been produced without miracles, and also miracles have failed to produce it [faith].” He says the only real proof for Gods existence is in the feeling of religion. He argues that “the explanation of miracles should be deferred until we have a more exact knowledge of both the fact in question and the laws of nature.” When asked about believers in his day that needed a healing or a miracle his response was, “The sick should seek external support,” seeking the Lord for a miracle of healing would only be asking for God’s divine will to be altered. If it is God’s divine will for us to be sick we should not seek release, as this would display an overpowering self consciousness, which to him would be sin. It would be interesting see how much money his followers spent on doctor visits just to be out of the will of God. The only miracles he believed we should be interested in are the Jewish prophecies concerning Christ. He did not believe we should have any interest in the Prophesies of Christ or His apostles. Again Schleiermacher was going against the plain reading of Scripture. Jesus had a habit of healing all who were where he was preaching: Matt. 4:23-24, Matt. 8:16, and Matt. 9:35 to name a few. He then sent his disciples out to do the same: Matt.10:1, Mark 16:18, and Luke 10:9. Then, in the book of Acts, the miracles continued and the Apostles asked specifically for God to, “take note of their threats; and enable your slaves to speak your message with boldness! Stretch out your hand to heal and to do signs and miracles through the name of your holy servant Yeshua!" (Acts 4:29-30 CJB). Jesus and the apostles were using miracles and healing as an evangelistic tool! Schleiermacher, by his rejection of miracles and teaching others to reject them, substituted rationalist thought as his means to draw people to Jesus. This is in direct con- flict with the way Jesus and His apostles worked. John the apostle in the Gospel of John says that he recorded what he did so that people might believe (John 20:31). John recorded seven miracles that Jesus performed, and seven statements referring to I AM (ego humee). These were miracles! Yet the claim that Schleiermacher made is that miracles are not how people come to faith in Jesus. Schleiermacher’s theology robbed people of the power of the gospel by stopping them from ever asking God for the big things, the things that would make all the difference. Now we come to Schleiermacher’s denial of the power of prayer. He appeared to have developed this concept due to his reformed background. He said about prayer,“Pra-yer is asking for the fulfillment or refusal of divine plan. Here he made the claim that if we pray for something, we are attempting to alter God’s sovereign plan for our lives. According to him, if it is in God’s plan for it to happen it will happen. If what we are praying for is not in God’s divine plane for us it will not happen. His point is that prayer in this sense avails nothing. But prayer could be sinful because it could express a self-consciousness (which would be sin) instead of a God-consciousness. According to Schl- eiermacher prayer in the Name of Jesus is our reflecting on Christ’s kingly activity. With this, Schleiermacher reduced praying in the name of Jesus to a mere reflection on His works. Schleiermacher goes on to say that the “keys of the Kingdom of God” in Matt.16:19 refer only to the order of the Church and the persons in whom the conscious-ness of God flows. According to the Bible, we are to “pray continually” (1 Thess.5:17), (Luke 18:1-8). We are told to “ask,” (Matt.7:7), (John 14:13), (John 16:23). The position Schleierma-cher took is a confusing one. It is God’s will for us to pray and to seek Him. It is God’s plan for us to pray within His will and for us to see Him work in our lives. If we pray for things to happen differently we do so because God told us to do so! God wants us to be stubborn about praying! God told us to abide in Him and ask what we desire so that the Father would be glorified (John 14:13). According to Schleiermacher’s theology it would be sinful to ask God to do something because of the self-conscious display. According to the Bible we glorify God when we abide in Him God for things in the name of Jesus. What a contrast! According to the plain reading of Matt.16:19 the keys to the Kingdom of God is the foundation that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This is the name with the power. Here we see how the theology of Schleiermacher robbed his followers of praying in the mighty name of Jesus and glorifying God. In closing, what we have seen in this essay is the damage done by Friedrich Schleiermacher’s theology that stripped the power out of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The amount of cutting and editing of the Gospel by Schleiermacher is frightening. Schleiermacher robbed Christianity of his time the ability to know who the enemy was, therefore he also removed any chance of combating this enemy. Schleiermacher attributed the work of the Devil to God and at the same time he denied the real enemy even existed. He told his followers there is no burning hell that waits for the wicked and assured them that all will be saved in the end. He robbed Christianity of its best proof of all, the proof God Himself provides: prophecy and miracles. He removed from Christianity the weaponry given by God to combat the evil brought on by our enemy. That is the arsenal of prayer. The Christianity of Schleiermacher was just another philosophical system designed to appeal to the broadest number of people in a one size fits all program. BIBLIOGRAPHY Aland, Barbara , Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlos M. Martini, and Bruce Metzger, The Greek New Testament, Germany: C.H. Beck, 2001. Berry, George Ricker, Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003. Christian, C.W. ed. Bob E. Patterson, Makers if the Modern Theological Mind, Waco:World Books, 1979. Clements, Keith, Friedrich Schleiermacher: Pioneer of Modern Theology, San Francisco:Collins, 1987. Enns, Paul P., the Moody Handbook of Theology, Chicago: Moody Press, 1997. Gonzalez, Justo L., the Story of Christianity Volume 2: The Reformation to the Present Day, San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1985. Grenz, Stanley J., and Roger E. Olson, 20th Century Theology: God & the World in a Transitional Age, Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1992. Hodge, Charles: Systematic Theology. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc.,1997. Niebuhr, Richard R., Schleiermacher on Christ and Religion: A New Introduction, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1964. Ryrie, Charles Caldwell, A Survey of Bible Doctrine, Chicago: Moody Press, 1995. Schleiermacher, Friedrich, Edited by H.R Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart, The Christian Faith, T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1928. Schleiermacher, Friedrich, Translated by Jon Oman, On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers, Harper and Brothers, New York, 1958.

Nice Pete. This following quote is from that link: For many liberal Christians, social justice is a central concern, and the transformation of society, rather than that of the individual, is more typically stressed. Equality for racial minorities, women, homosexuals, and the economically disadvantaged is seen as an essential part of the Gospel message. A concern for the environment, and other typically liberal social issues, also find a great deal of support among liberal Christians. .....is how I have viewed liberal Christianity in regard to comparing and contrasting with fundamental Christianity. After studying the great liberal Christian theologians and philosophers of religion this quote above was the conclusion that I had drawn. This difference can be summed up by saying the the liberals view of God more transcendent, where the fundamentalist view in more immanent. Personally, I think universalism is a flawed doctrine, but I think you can find evidence for it in Scripture, specifically in Paul's writings.

Thank you Hex. With this as what I would call the "basis" of Christianity, I would say it is then up to the individual to determine the direction and intensity of his or her commitment, action, and theology from there. But that would be the starting point. Would you agree?

Has it occured to you that there are non-Christians and anit-Christians that have "works" or "deeds" that are at least as kind and decent, and in many cases exceed the deeds of Christians? This question is coming from the knowledge deeds are no indicator to Chrstianity or non-Christianity. Plain and simple.

Example: Sam and Dave are sitting at the bus stop. Sam is reading a New Testament. Dave says, "Oh are you a Christian?" Sam says, "I don't know, what is a Christian?" Dave says, "______________________." What I am asking is what your version of Dave's answer would be. This isn't hard. Do you guys not know what it is?

Did you notice this: This article has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page. Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since March 2009. Its neutrality or factuality may be compromised by weasel words. Tagged since March 2009. As much as you many dislike it Pete, recruiting is not a means of getting saved or staying saved. Salvation is attained through faith in the the shed blood of Jesus Christ; that is it. That (according to this fundamentalist) is the one defining attribute; period end. Im not asking you to justify anyting either. What makes you a Christian? Is what I am asking. Yeah, so. I am trying to find out what liberals and fundemanlists have in common, and so far I get that that is an illegal question. Why can't you guys stop accusing me of asking you to justify yourselves and just tell me why you consider yourselves Christian? Is it that you don't know? Or don't want to say? What is it? Oh, so liberal Christians are perfect? They make no mistakes? I know many non-Christians that are very loving. What about them?

In my opinion, if God did not have and display power over nature and other spiritual forces then he would be a liar and we would be through. Christ's philosophies are echoed through the centuries. Many people have discovered the things he taught on thier own, many of which are just common sense. I'm not sure what Mary has to do with that. I'm sure what you mean by dogma. I know what dogma is, but Christianity as I know it is based on an event rather than a dogma. There is dogma that us used to explain aspects of it, but the dogma is not the point.

I'm not asking you or anybody to justify anything.

1Chris•tian \ˈkris-chən, ˈkrish-\ noun [Latin christianus, adjective & noun, from Greek christianos, from Christos] (1526) 1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ 1 b (1) : disciple 2 (2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961 2 : the hero in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress 2Christian adjective (1553) 1 a : of or relating to Christianity 〈Christian scriptures〉 b : based on or conforming with Christianity 〈Christian ethics〉 2 a : of or relating to a Christian 〈Christian responsibilities〉 b : professing Christianity 〈a Christian affirmation〉 3 : commendably decent or generous 〈has a very Christian concern for others〉 — Chris•tian•ly adjective or adverb Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition Christian, a term that, although eventually the accepted name for the followers of Jesus the Christ, occurs only three times in the nt (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16). According to Acts 11:26, it was in Antioch of Syria that the term was first used, but it appears that the Greek word was derived from a Latin original. Some have argued that the designation was at first a term of derision; others, that it simply denoted a group loyal to ‘Christ’ (Christos in Greek). Although certainty is not possible, the term was likely coined by non-Christians. Whatever the origin, ‘Christian’ is the term that was increasingly applied to Jesus’ followers in the late first and early second centuries. J.M.E. Paul J. Achtemeier, Publishers Harper & Row and Society of Biblical Literature, Harper's Bible Dictionary, Includes Index., 1st ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 163. Christian — the name given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch. The names by which the disciples were known among themselves were “brethren,” “the faithful,” “elect,” “saints,” “believers.” But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name “Christian” came into use, and was universally accepted. This name occurs but three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16). M.G. Easton, Easton's Bible Dictionary (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996, c1897).

What affords one the basis to claim that they are a Christian? The claim itself?

lol.......hardly. "Fundies" believe that they are saved through faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ; period end. Has it occured to you that there a many denominations that are considered fundamentalist? What makes a "Christian" a Christian Pete?

No Pete, this is necessary to show that in fact what we are dealing with here is a double standard. Changing the subject....... I watch Spong's video and Rev Scotty's video: The thing i like about the liberal Christian mind set is the reaching out and crossing the boundaries to draw people together; I am really into that. I was a little disappointed at the way Spong tried to paint some of his Christian brothers and sisters as tribal religionsts. I will agree that there are some simular elements, but the focus from the fundmentalists has been on thier relatiosnhip with God AT THE EXPENSE of the relationships of those who do not believe how they do. I agree with Spong here and I think that we can do better. I realize that he grew up in the Bible Belt, which he points out is the "13" or the "confederate states." I also grew up there and it almost seems like were talking abotu two differnt places. Of course, he has a few years on me, and we lived in two different states, but no doubt we are both from the "glorious confederacy" as my Jr High history teacher called. What appears to be absent from the two videos (Spong, and Scotty) are how the liberal Christians approach thier relationship with God. We see that it takes more consideration of the human relationships (which I note as something for fundamentalist should learn from the liberals in regard to), but how do the liberal Christians disciple new beleivers? Or is that something that they do not consider?

I don't know, you would have to interview each one to find out, unless you have found a spokesperson to represent all of them that will comment on that. Antisematizm still exists however, so Im not sure what your point is. Here is another one of those sentances. I don't know if you are asking me something or telling me something. What did God do in this circumstance? What specifically? You can get back to slamming the notion of an all powerfull God in a minute. What specifically are you claiming about why your God is a spiritual force that did nothing to stop the slaughter of 6 million Jews? In your opinion: Nazi Germany was more powerful that the agape love God that you talk about; true or false.

So your God is a spiritual force that did nothing to stop the slaughter of 6 million Jews? Why would you even ackowledge such a God? What makes this force a God? His lack of action? How does this force exhibit agape love? How are we to observe the exhibition of this agape love? Did your God love these Jews with agape love during their destruction? How is that shown? The good for you Pete, is that you have the luxury as a liberal Christian to interpret those questions however you want, like say as rhetorical questions. Which is good for you, because those are some hard questions. lol......elaborate on something I need clarification on?

My arguement is that it is the liberal Christian that uses parts of the Bible and leaves out others; but then accuses the fundamentalists of doing the exact thing he is doing. My argument is based from using the whole Bible, which means understand each book indiviually, but also in light of the entire revelation of Scripture, in answering each question. I'm sure you know what you meant by that last sentance, but I have no clue...lol.

Not only did "my God" let him, but "yours did too." We have already heard from a couple of fundamantalists in regard to why the fundamentalist God allowed this to happen, what have you got Pete? Why would the liberal God allow this Pete? Thanks for your thoughts brother! I'll join you in that coffee.

Then why would you argue with me about this? If you are correct, we can all determine the meaning for ourselves, and it can say something completely different to each of us, and we can all be correct, ineffect: 1+1= W (W meaning what ever you want it to mean). According you what you just said, it would also be correct for me to assign the value and meaning to the text that the writer assigned. By the way, man authored the Scripture by the inspiration of God. You claim that I argue that you must approach the Scrpture my way. But in doing so, you are arguing that we must all approach the Scripture your way. Is your way better or something? Did you mean what you just wrote, or am I free to make it mean what I want it to say?

Amen brother! Right on! Me too.

Who determines the meaning of the text Pete, is it: (a) the author; or (b) the reader?