Comments on: Jews, Jerusalem, the USA and its Territory

By: Scotty

Scotty — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:22:13 +0000

I’m disappointing that this was never dealt with.

I tried and Paul C had thoughts on Satan bound too!

I read the jolly blogger piece and didn’t agree…..my point in #261

By: Neil

Neil — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:27:43 +0000

I would more accurately characterize the Rollins stuff as passionate, relentless, frustrated, and uncharacteristically hostile.

By: Rick Frueh

Rick Frueh — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:25:28 +0000

I have made many substantive comments on this thread, however I reserve the right to interject a “beating a dead horse” observation once in a while. I believe your “hostile” observation is most specifically concerning the view of redemption, especially as it concerns Peter Rollins.

I would more accurately characterize it as passionate, relentless, and sometimes frustrated.

By: Neil

Neil — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:10:30 +0000

No, Rick, “never dealt with” mean… well, never dealt with… never acknowledged, never dismissed, never rebutted… maybe even never read. I don’t care if Paul C. agrees with the Jolly Blogger or not… but Paul C. has continually accused others of twisting Scripture, being blind to the obvious, and having dishonest motives – none of these advance a discussion.

I, for one, have made several comments on the unentrenchment of my eschatological leanings. And I am not into eschatological evangelism either.

That said, I fail to see the point on dropping into a discussion every now and then just to repeat you opinion that you do not like these kinds of discussions.

On a more general note – as of the last few threads you demeanor has becoming uncharacteristically hostile.

By: Rick Frueh

Rick Frueh — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:46:29 +0000

“never dealt with” – the act of interpreting Scripture differently than I do.

I find the entrenchment concerning eschatology to be tedious and unseemly. I am not into eschatological evangelism. Jesus is coming back – prepare. (Frueh’s exhaustive eschatology)

By: Neil

Neil — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:36:45 +0000

I'm disappointing that this was never dealt with.

By: Neil

Neil — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:29:22 +0000

Again, I don’t care that you might have it wrong (none of us have it all right), but the fact that you insist on twisting scripture here is more than a little concerning.

“Scripture twisting” – the act of interpreting a passage differently than I do.

By: Neil

Neil — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:27:38 +0000

Chris L and Phil are taking us into Mormon-land with the leaps of logic that are required here. – Pau C>

Seriously, what’s the point in going there.

By: Rick Frueh

Rick Frueh — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:59:43 +0000

Anyone who challenges the Left Behind doctrine will be Left Behind.

By: Paul C

Paul C — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:57:38 +0000

Again, Chris L, you attempt to nicely package my argument as Left Behind theology when I’ve never read the book or seen the movies. I would probably disagree with as much as LB theology as you do. But we’ll leave that for another day.

As I’ve said (for the 3rd time now) I do believe certain aspects of Matt 24 were fulfilled. But the remainder has yet to be in my view. Considering that ch 24 & 25 are one long discourse I don’t think that’s hard to believe.

Anyways, we can leave it alone for now. As you say, it will all pan out in the end.