Shema Yisrael

[Pierac]

I only wished I could impress on everyone how important research is. Why do you believe what you believe. You believe because men before you formulated these beliefs. You will never know what they believed until you read their works yourself, not what others say about them.

Like I said regarding Augustine for example. He is one of the Fathers of the early Church. How did he come about some of his beliefs? Here, read his own words...

AUGUSTINE: CONFESSIONS
Book 7 CHAPTER IX
13. And first of all, willing to show me how thou dost "resist the proud, but give grace to the humble,"[184] and how mercifully thou hast made known to men the way of humility in that thy Word "was made flesh and dwelt among men,"[185] thou didst procure for me, through one inflated with the most monstrous pride, certain books of the Platonists, translated from Greek into Latin.[186] And therein I found, not indeed in the same words, but to the selfsame effect, enforced by many and various reasons that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made." That which was made by him is "life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shined in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." Furthermore, I read that the soul of man, though it "bears witness to the light," yet itself "is not the light; but the Word of God, being God, is that true light that lights every man who comes into the world." And further, that "he was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not."[187] But that "he came unto his own, and his own received him not. And as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believed on his name"[188]--this I did not find there.

14. Similarly, I read there that God the Word was born "not of flesh nor of blood, nor of the will of man, nor the will of the flesh, but of God."[189] But, that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us"[190]--I found this nowhere there. And I discovered in those books, expressed in many and various ways, that "the Son was in the form of God and thought it not robbery to be equal in God,"[191] for he was naturally of the same substance. But, that "he emptied himself and took upon himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him" from the dead, "and given him a name above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"[192]--this those books have not. I read further in them that before all times and beyond all times, thy only Son remaineth unchangeably coeternal with thee, and that of his fullness all souls receive that they may be blessed, and that by participation in that wisdom which abides in them, they are renewed that they may be wise. But, that "in due time, Christ died for the ungodly" and that thou "sparedst not thy only Son, but deliveredst him up for us all"[193]--this is not there. "For thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes"[194]; that they "that labor and are heavy laden" might "come unto him and he might refresh them" because he is "meek and lowly in heart."[195] "The meek will he guide in judgment; and the meek will he teach his way; beholding our lowliness and our trouble and forgiving all our sins."[196] But those who strut in the high boots of what they deem to be superior knowledge will not hear Him who says, "Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest for your souls."[197] Thus, though they know God, yet they do not glorify him as God, nor are they thankful. Therefore, they "become vain in their imaginations; their foolish heart is darkened, and professing themselves to be wise they become fools."[198]

Book 7 CHAPTER XIX
25. But I thought otherwise. I saw in our Lord Christ only a man of eminent wisdom to whom no other man could be compared--especially because he was miraculously born of a virgin--sent to set us an example of despising worldly things for the attainment of immortality, and thus exhibiting his divine care for us. Because of this, I held that he had merited his great authority as leader. But concerning the mystery contained in "the Word was made flesh," I could not even form a notion. From what I learned from what has been handed down to us in the books about him--that he ate, drank, slept, walked, rejoiced in spirit, was sad, and discoursed with his fellows--I realized that his flesh alone was not bound unto thy Word, but also that there was a bond with the human soul and body. Everyone knows this who knows the unchangeableness of thy Word, and this I knew by now, as far as I was able, and I had no doubts at all about it. For at one time to move the limbs by an act of will, at another time not; at one time to feel some emotion, at another time not; at one time to speak intelligibly through verbal signs, at another, not--these are all properties of a soul and mind subject to change. And if these things were falsely written about him, all the rest would risk the imputation of falsehood, and there would remain in those books no saving faith for the human race.

Therefore, because they were written truthfully, I acknowledged a perfect man to be in Christ--not the body of a man only, nor, in the body, an animal soul without a rational one as well, but a true man. And this man I held to be superior to all others, not only because he was a form of the Truth, but also because of the great excellence and perfection of his human nature, due to his participation in wisdom.

Alypius, on the other hand, supposed the Catholics to believe that God was so clothed with flesh that besides God and the flesh there was no soul in Christ, and he did not think that a human mind was ascribed to him.[218] And because he was fully persuaded that the actions recorded of him could not have been performed except by a living rational creature, he moved the more slowly toward Christian faith.[219] But when he later learned that this was the error of the Apollinarian heretics, he rejoiced in the Catholic faith and accepted it. For myself, I must confess that it was even later that I learned how in the sentence, "The Word was made flesh," the Catholic truth can be distinguished from the falsehood of Photinus. For the refutation of heretics[220] makes the tenets of thy Church and sound doctrine to stand out boldly. "For there must also be heresies [factions] that those who are approved may be made manifest among the weak."[221]

Book 7 CHAPTER XX26. By having thus read the books of the Platonists, and having been taught by them to search for the incorporeal Truth, I saw how thy invisible things are understood through the things that are made. And, even when I was thrown back, I still sensed what it was that the dullness of my soul would not allow me to contemplate. I was assured that thou wast, and wast infinite, though not diffused in finite space or infinity; that thou truly art, who art ever the same, varying neither in part nor motion; and that all things are from thee, as is proved by this sure cause alone: that they exist.
Of all this I was convinced, yet I was too weak to enjoy thee. I chattered away as if I were an expert; but if I had not sought thy Way in Christ our Saviour, my knowledge would have turned out to be not instruction but destruction.[222] For now full of what was in fact my punishment, I had begun to desire to seem wise. I did not mourn my ignorance, but rather was puffed up with knowledge. For where was that love which builds upon the foundation of humility, which is Jesus Christ?[223] Or, when would these books teach me this? I now believe that it was thy pleasure that I should fall upon these books before I studied thy Scriptures, that it might be impressed on my memory how I was affected by them; and then afterward, when I was subdued by thy Scriptures and when my wounds were touched by thy healing fingers, I might discern and distinguish what a difference there is between presumption and confession--between those who saw where they were to go even if they did not see the way, and the Way which leads, not only to the observing, but also the inhabiting of the blessed country. For had I first been molded in thy Holy Scriptures, and if thou hadst grown sweet to me through my familiar use of them, and if then I had afterward fallen on those volumes, they might have pushed me off the solid ground of godliness--or if I had stood firm in that wholesome disposition which I had there acquired, I might have thought that wisdom could be attained by the study of those [Platonist] books alone.

Book 8 CHAPTER II
3. I went, therefore, to Simplicianus, the spiritual father of Ambrose (then a bishop), whom Ambrose truly loved as a father. I recounted to him all the mazes of my wanderings, but when I mentioned to him that I had read certain books of the Platonists which Victorinus--formerly professor of rhetoric at Rome, who died a Christian, as I had been told--had translated into Latin, Simplicianus congratulated me that I had not fallen upon the writings of other philosophers, which were full of fallacies and deceit, "after the beggarly elements of this world,"[240] whereas in the Platonists, at every turn, the pathway led to belief in God and his Word.

Do we have any idea how much this man influenced the Church today? Yet he writes "in the Platonists, at every turn, the pathway led to belief in God and his Word."

Jesus was a Jew, Hebraic, not a Greek Hellenistic. These are two different worlds. Platonist did not teach the kingdom of God!

Do you know the beliefs of the early Church Fathers that built your particular denomination, or only what others have told you they believed?

Take the narrow road, but it will take many more hours.

Paul

[RND]

Your posts are simply too long. If you want more people to read them try being slightly shorter.

"Brevity is the soul of wit." - Shakespeare's Hamlet, 1603

[darinhouston]

I think what RND is trying to say is that I'm not sure you needed to post that entire excerpt to get your point across -- I read it quickly, but sufficient to get your point and most around here would agree with you that Augustine derived much of his doctrine from the platonists and other greek influences. That is one reason many of us believe him to have been so flawed in his doctrine and am saddened by the influence he has had in many respects to the Christian orthodoxy.

That said, I'm not sure what your point is in connection with this thread.

You mention we should do research -- I think it's fair most of us here have done and continue to do our fair share of research. However, I should point out that one duty of research (if you care to influence others by it) is to condense and "use" the research and not merely paste it.

As a teaching point, I suspect all you would have needed to do in this case (unless challenged of course by someone defending Augustine) would be to make the assertion that Augustine, throughout his Confessions, repeatedly made reference and appeal to the Platonists.

Just a tip...

[Jill]

.

[Pierac]

Hi RND and Darinhouston,

Yes, I understand about the long post. I try to keep them to a 3 min read. However, it’s not always possible. Remember this is research, as I’m presenting data. I would like for it to be tested since it is way out side of most orthodox views.

I invite you to read, and point out errors or mistakes, but if it’s too long then I understand. I will just have to wait for the individual who has the time to share their ideas on the subject and has no problems reading my research. I’m not here to preach, but to be tested.

Paul

[Pierac]

I've been reading your extensive submissions, and though some what lengthy, have been very enlightening that a Roman Catholic CAN break his way loose into his own pesonal pursuit of truth.

Amen Sister,

Twas not easy to explain to my family at the time.

Jesus Christ being His son from the beginning.

Now back to your comments about "from the beginning" God has no beginning, so what does it mean for Jesus to be from the beginning?

Allow me to share more research...

Jewish "Ideal" Preexistence

In the English language, and certainly the way young people speak, we often speak about something that happened in the past as though it is happening in the present. For instance, a witness to a bank robbery might say, "And here I am standing in line minding my own business, when bursting through the door comes as a hooded bank robber. He tells us all to get on the floor. He waves his gun around and threatens us. Then he goes up to the teller and yells, 'Give me the money!'" We understand the events described occurred in the past, even though the narrative is in the present. Speaking of past events in the present is a peculiarity of the English language.

Most languages have peculiarities. The Hebrew mind and language has a peculiarity that English speakers are not accustomed to. They do the opposite of what I have just described. They often use the past tense or the present tense to speak of events yet future. The reason is that the Jews believed that whatever was determined in the mind of God existed before it came to be in history. God is the God who calls the things which do not exist as (already) existing (Rom. 4:17). God promised Abraham that He would give him the promised land and that he would be the father of many descendents. So sure is the fulfillment that sometimes the predictive language is in the past tense, as though it were already accomplished: "To your descendents I "have given" this land" (Gen 15:18). It came to be a common feature of Hebrew thinking that whatever God had decreed already preexisted (in plan and purpose) before it materialized on earth. "When the Jews wished to designate something as predestined, he spoke of it as already existing in heaven.

Scripture tells us that Jesus Christ "was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times" for our sakes who believe in God's word (1Pet. 1:20). This does not mean that Jesus personally preexisted his appearance on earth, because in the same chapter we find that Christians have also been in the "foreknowledge of God the Father" (1Pet. 1:2). The words "foreknowledge" and "foreknown," noun and verb, are exactly alike. Peter uses precisely the same idea to refer to both Christians and Jesus. Christians do not preexisted heaven before our birth on earth nor did Jesus.

Similarly, the Bible speaks of Jesus as the Lamb of God who was crucified before the world began (Rev.13:8). Every Bible reader of course knows that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate in Palestine in the first century. But God ordained his crucifixion to happen before he even created the universe. Therefore, in God's mind, and in the Hebrew understanding, that which came to be had already been. The prophetic future was spoken of in the past tense. What God has decreed, He says is as good as done.

In John 17, Jesus prays just before his arrest in the garden, "I glorify You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given me to do. And now, glorify me together with Yourself, Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." (v.4-5) If ever there was a statement that proved the personal preexistence of Jesus with the Father in heaven before he came to earth, surely this is it. Once again, we must caution against haste, for "In Biblical ways of speaking and thinking one may 'have' something which is promised in God's plan before one actually has its." We have already seen this principle in operation, where God's plan of promises are spoken in the "prophetic past tense." God promised Abraham, "I have given you this land." God says to Christians, "You are seated with Christ in the heavenlies; you are already glorified (Eph. 2:6; Rom.8:30). We have these things already in the plan and purpose of God -- even though we do not (yet) have them! Scripture tells us that we have eternal life as a present possession, even though clearly we await the day of our entrance into the life of the Age to come, whether by resurrection for those already dead, or the rapture of the living, when Christ returns. God calls the things that are not as though they already exist (Rom. 4:17). Clearly, in Hebrew thinking, the glory which Jesus had "with" God before the world was, it is the glory that it was present in God's mind and purpose from the beginning.

When we examine the rest of Jesus's prayer, it becomes quite clear that the glory Jesus claimed to have had "with the father before the world was" is a glory in prospect. Jesus is using the peculiar Hebrew way of thinking and speaking by which the past tense is employed to speak of the future. To confirm this all we need to do is follow Jesus' prayer through. Jesus speaks as though he has already accomplished his work: he says I have "accomplished a work which you have gave me to do" (v.4). Quite obviously he has not actually finish the work because his crucifixion has not yet happened, and his cry from the cross, "It is finished," has not yet been uttered. Next, Jesus speaks as though the disciples have already fully glorified him (through their preaching ministry) even though the resurrection has not yet happened: he prays, "I have been glorified in them" (v.10). Jesus also says "I am no more in the world" (v.11) even though he clearly is still in the world. In his own mind, he is already, by faith in the father's promise, sitting in heaven having been resurrected. Jesus says he has already sent the disciples into the world to preach: he prays, "I have sent them into the world" (v.18), even though this did not fully happen until after the resurrection. Jesus prays for his disciples, and "for those also who[will] believed in me through their word" (v.20). That is, he prays for subsequent generations of Christians who will come to faith in Christ down the track. He prays that "the glory which You have given me I have given to them (v.22). He prays that all these believers "which you have given me" (the whole future community of faith) may behold my glory, which You have given me; for You did love [choose] me before the foundation of the world (v.24).

One day the Lord Jesus at his second coming will say to his own people, "Come, you who are blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matt 25:34). In Paul's language this hope is "laid up for you in heaven" which means it is in God's promise and plan and is certain of fulfillment (Col. 1:5). This hope is so certain that Paul can even speak of Christians as already glorified (Romans 8:29–30, noting the past tense). Indeed, this plan hatched in God's mind "according to His own purpose in grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity" (2 Tim 1:9). Dunn, in his book, Christology in the Making p238 adds: "The gift was purposed 'ages ago,' unless we are to take it that the actual giving and receiving, 'us' and 'Christ Jesus' were all alike preexistent." This hope of Christians entering into the age to come was "promised long ages ago" (Tit 1:2). Dunn continues p238. "Here it is even clearer that what is thought of as happening "ages ago" is God's promise; and it is that promise of eternal life which has been manifested. Indeed, the text says it is his word that he has manifested - that is, not Christ the Logos, but the word of promise, fulfilled in Christ and offered now back in the kerygma [ message]. In other words, we are back where we started – Christ as the content of the word of preaching, the embodiment of the predetermined plan of salvation, the fulfillment of the divine purpose."

[Pierac]

Christ the First-born of all the creation

The word "first-born" comes to the New Testament with a rich heritage. The Hebrews had a custom of conferring special birthright privileges on their oldest sons. The eldest son of a father would receive the double portion of the family's inheritance. The well-known story of Jacob tricking his father Isaac into conferring on him - rather than on the first-born-Esau all the family blessing is typical of this culture (Gen 27:32). There is a deeper nuance to the meaning of this word "first-born." The Greek word for "first" can mean either a first in time or first in status, regardless of birth position. The "first-born" may designate one who is given the honor of chief rank, that is, the first place. This usage can also be found in the Hebrew Bible, as when Jacob summons his son to bequeath his patriarchal blessing on them, he designates Reuben as "my first-born" preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power. (Gen 40 9:3)

Although Reubin is "first-born" in time, the prominent idea is his status in dignity. This is clearly the meaning in Jeremiah 31:9 where God calls Ephraim his "first-born" even though Ephraim's brother, Manasseh, was the elder of the two. Or when God calls Israel his first-born son in Exodus 4:22 and commands Pharaoh to "let my son go that he may worship me." (v.23) The concept has to do with Israel's precedence in importance over Egypt as far as God's plans were concerned. The classic instance of this idea of pre-eminence of rank is in the Messianic Psalms 89 where God, in glowing words, speaks of the coming promise Davidic king, the Lord Messiah:

Psa 89:26 He shall cry to me, 'You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.' 27 And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. 28 My steadfast love I will keep for him forever, and my covenant will stand firm for him. 29 I will establish his offspring forever and his throne as the days of the heavens.

In the spirit of prophecy, God announces that this king's superior position is a matter of appointment, not the time of birth. Furthermore, God makes his appointed king "the highest [in status and rank] of the kings of the earth." Thus, when the apostle applies the term "first-born" to the son of God in Colossians 1, he is using a well-known OT Messianic description. In fact, the expression is repeated a few verses later, where Paul writes, "He is also head of the body, the church; and he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead" (v.18). The different qualifier here is noteworthy. Whereas in verse 15 the Son is the "first-born" of all creation," here the Son is the "first-born from the dead." If we take into account the Hebrew literary style of parallelism, where the same idea is repeated but in slightly modified form, it is quite reasonable to suggest that the qualifiers "of all creation" and "from the dead" means the same thing.

The thought is clearly that Jesus the son of God is the first man of God's new creation, because he is the first man ever to be raised to immortality. Christ return is the beginning of the eschatological resurrection. His resurrection is the promise and the guarantee that God's new order of reality has begun. The church is that new community in prospect. This confirms that the subject matter under discussion is not the Genesis creation of the heavens and the earth, but rather the creation of the church, the body of believers who constitute God's new humanity, the New Man(kind). For this reason, he is the beginning (arche which has an ambivalence, and can mean either the ruler or chief, or origin or beginning, v. 18) Either way, Jesus as the first-raised from the dead is the origin of God's new creation, and he is in consequence of this priority and resurrection also the highest in rank "so that he himself might come to have first place in everything" (v.18). However, whether we take the term firstborn to mean first in relation to time or first in relation to rank, this much is at least clear, that taken in its natural sense, the expression and firstborn excludes the notion of an uncreated, eternal being.

To be born requires a beginning. In order to verify our findings so far, we must look at the second part of the phrase that the son is "the first-born of all creation."

Mar 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.


Paul

[Pierac]

Christ the Head of the New Creation

The various popular English translation are at odds as to whether the Son is "the first-born over all creation" (as in the NIV and NK JV), thus first in rank, or whether he is "the firstborn of all creation" (which reflects a literal translation of the genitive case, as in the KJV, RV and NASB), meaning first in time, which would refer to Christ being the first-created being of creation.

We evidently need the wider context to determine which nuance fits best. It is clear that Paul continues his line of thought in the next verse, as he uses the conjunction "for": "For in Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities- all things have been created through him and for him" (v.16). Jesus never claimed credit for the original Genesis creation of the heavens and the earth. He was in no doubt that the universe was God's handiwork.

Mat 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he (God) who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

Remember Jesus has a God"Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:3). Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, (1Co 8:6)

Mar 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God (my Father) created until now, and never will be.

Observe in Colossians 1 that "all things" created are not "the heavens and the earth" as per Genesis 1:1, but rather "all things in the heavens and [up]on the earth." These things are defined as "thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities." Evidently, Jesus has been given authority to restructure the arrangements of angels as well as being the agent for the creation of the body of Christ on earth, the Church.

This is the thought as we soon shall see in Hebrews 1 where the Angels are told to worship the Son. It is also the thought that Peter mentions in 1 Peter 3:21-22 where, after "the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who he is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to him, " it is the new Messianic order that God has brought in through Christ the Son that is under discussion. Just before his ascension into heaven at the father's right hand of power, Jesus declares that "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matt.28:18). His resurrection has Jesus a new status, "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come" (Eph.1:21).

All of this is to reiterate that this hymn of praise concerns the new order of things that now exist since the resurrection of the Son. An eschatological shift of the ages has begun with Christ's exaltation to the Father's right hand. God has "put all things in subjection under his [the resurrected Christ's] feet" (Eph. 1-22). Paul repeats this thought in the next chapter of Colossians: "and he is the head over [or of] all rule and authority" (Col 2:10). In the words we looked at in Philippians 2, God has rewarded Jesus' obedient death on the cross by highly exalting him, and bestowing on him "the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:8-10).
It is highly significant that in verse 18 Jesus attains to a supreme position, meaning that it he did not have it already. Thus he cannot have preexisted as God. If he did his final status would be more of a demotion than the promotion described by Paul.

If Jesus was God in the flesh then it is impossible to be a man. He would have been something entirely else. Not a man. This is why Jesus has to learn wisdom, Luke 2:40, Luke 2:52. God is all knowing. He does not need to learn anything. Paul tells us Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and something else.

Heb 5:6 "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." 5 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.

It is an insult to say that God learned obedience! Jesus learned obedience because he was a man, a man like you and me not a hybrid. Most fail to understand the concept of Agency. When you kiss the Agent of the one sent, you are actually kissing the one whom the Agent represents. When you worship Jesus you are actually worshiping the One who sent Him. Thus Jesus comments

NASB Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.

Joh 12:49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.

There is no God in the flesh hybrid (Theos aner) in these verses.

If Jesus is already God in the flesh then He can not have a God because it would be two Gods not one. Yet, scripture clearly tell us he does have a God, both before and after His resurrection. Philippians 4:20; Ephesians 4:6; John 20:17; Matthew 27:46; Revelation 3:12; Revelation 3:2.

One issue is God can not die. So if Jesus was God then he would have had to pretend to die and thus there would not be any forgiveness of sin because he really didn't die.

Let's see who can forgive sins.

Mat 9:2 And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, "Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven."

Mat 9:6 "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--then He said to the paralytic, "Get up, pick up your bed and go home."

Mar 2:7 "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?"

John 20:21 So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them,"Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."

Jesus never forgave sins before He was anointed with God's Spirit. And now the Apostles have the ability to forgive sins, once again only after Jesus gave them the Holy Spirit. The Apostles are now Agents of Jesus the Christ and "have authority on earth to forgive sins". How? Because as the Father has sent Me, I also send you


Paul

[darinhouston]

Pierac, is this a piece you wrote as a result of your research, or something you found in the process of your research? There is no author stated. Are you wishing us to critique your position? Or that of another? If another, is there a particular point you find interesting about this piece that you want us to focus on? It helps to have some context before I invest in such a read.

I hate to be a broken record, but there is a lot of material on the net and while I'm happy to review something germane to a discussion, if it's just thrown up in the abstract, I'm not very interested and doubt others are either.

[Pierac]

Pierac, is this a piece you wrote as a result of your research, or something you found in the process of your research? There is no author stated. Are you wishing us to critique your position? Or that of another? If another, is there a particular point you find interesting about this piece that you want us to focus on? It helps to have some context before I invest in such a read.

I hate to be a broken record, but there is a lot of material on the net and while I'm happy to review something germane to a discussion, if it's just thrown up in the abstract, I'm not very interested and doubt others are either.

You will not find this on the web, unless of course you find one of my post at another site. I completely understand if your not very interested, as the book of Revelations does little for me at this time, so I see no reason my studies should be exciting to you. The question remains however, what do you find incorrect in my post? Remember, I did not ask you to believe it, I just ask for you to show me any error you may see.

You are confusing me with trying to be a teacher, I only ask questions that no one wants to answer, and then I am forced seek the answers alone. So what do you find non-scriptural about my last 3 post?
Paul