Christianity and the End Times

It's knowledge. You guys are just blowing hot air in your zeal to debunk anything and everything about Chrsitianity. It is knowledge, it is all based on careful exegesis of the scripture, one part of scripture compared to all the other parts. You know nothing. As usual this debate is just an exercise in stupid futility. I hope someone is getting the truth out of it but the debunkers are as usual aggressively determined to destroy truth at all costs.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But that is most definitely NOT true Faith; in fact it is based on carefully ignoring most of what is actually written and taking lines out of context and comparing those lines taken out of context to other proof texts taken out of context.If it really was honest exegesis it would look at the passage within the context of that particular story and tradition.But it's not. It simply apologetics.

That's literary criticism. It's as much a contribution to knowledge as the study of lesbianism in Jane Austen novels.

If it was just literary criticism then it would not have been fulfilled as prophecy, which it was when Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit as the seed of the woman Mary, and bruised the serpent's head when He died on the cross to pay for all the sins of those who believe on Him, those sins which were the consequence of Satan's seduction of Eve. It happened, it wasn't just literary criticism, it was prophecy and it was fulfilled in the coming of Christ and His death on the cross. Here's a discussion of the verse which uses the translation "crush" in place of "bruise" to describe crushing the head pf the serpent, and describes his wound as fatal, which it was although he will go on tempting and persecuting humanity until the final judgment before it is all over for him.The term "bruise his heel" doesn't seem strong enough to me to describe what Jesus endured in dying for us, but I gather the idea is that He triumphed over it whereas the serpent did have a deadly wound that ended his career.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

common mistranslation, he actually said the Greeks will inherit the earth

Actually it was the geeks.He also only supported only one sport saying "Take up Lacrosse and follow me!"

That seems like a self-serving translation. So it's another one of those you-shall-die-the-same-day things with "the same day" being thousands of years in the future? That's pretty far-fetched.And another thing: Genesis 3 talks about enmity between Eve's seed and the serpent's seed. If the serpent was "Satan", that would mean that Satan had descendants. That's pretty far-fetched.And just for fun, compare Serpent Seed with Seed of the woman.ABE: Yeah. Yet another indication of how far-fetched the Messianic idea is.Edited by ringo, : Yeah.

Yeh, a buised heel does seem a tad less inconveniencing than being tortured to death. 'You gather'? Sheesh, this is just a work of imagination. It has no more connection to the real world than The Hobbit.

quote:

---

It is also something I haven’t disputed. And of very little relevance. So why keep going on and on about it ?

---

Who are the "THEY" of Revelation 12:11 ?What evidence do you have to support your understanding ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Who are the "THEY" of Revelation 12:11 ?

---

And yet another sign of your inability to read For comprehension.I already answered that question in the post you replied to, but I’ll repeat it.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

According to one commentary, the seed of the serpent refers to all those who follow Satan, or "live by the flesh" rather than the spirit. Yes the Serpent Seed doctrine which has Satan literally fathering Cain is an old heresy.ABE: I see Phat answered this and he's right: it refers to the spirit of Satan as murderer and liar as obeyed by humanity, not a literal seed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I knew you were going to bring that up.There are some problems with that passage: Edited by ringo, : Eliminated redundant repetitiousness.

So the Bible itself doesn't support that view.

Commentaries are given to us to help us understand the Bible. The best ones are written by men who have studied the Bible in depth, also its original languages and the cultural context of the passage they explain, which is a great help to those of us who won't ever study all those things.Here's a commentary on the two seeds in this verse by the famous 18th century evangelist George Whitefield: