[ref001]


#apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 4/19/96
#apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 4/19/96

[21:11] Questian (serenity@slip190.UCS.ORST.EDU) joined 
#apologetics.
[21:11]  whoa
[21:11]  greetings
[21:11]  with logic, reff...etc
[21:11]  re Questian
[21:11]  the saint somebodys prayer that defines 
your beliefs
[21:12]  Hi question....got a question?
[21:12]  X: the Nicene Creed?
[21:12]  hi question!
[21:12]  X: the Apostles' Creed?
[21:12]  yea yea
[21:12]  thats it!!
[21:12]  nicene
[21:12]  hmmmm
[21:12]  Yup, it says "Giver of live"
[21:12]  Does anyone here know masterq
[21:12]  no, it's "giver of live", as in "live ammo"
[21:12]  it sez "giver of live
[21:13]  :-)
[21:13]  hehehe
[21:13]  lol
[21:13]  Questian is ~serenity@slip190.UCS.ORST.EDU 
* > http://www.orst.edu/~collets/deism.htmlQuestian 
on #Apologetics @#deism 
[21:13]  very good
[21:13] Nick change: Alcuin -> Answier
[21:13]  Answier, lol
[21:14]  Ned: what's the popint of pasting 
my whois?
[21:14]  point, that is
[21:14]  yeah, whawhat's ththe popoint?
[21:14]  Questian: Saves everyone a lot of typing...
[21:14]  :-)
[21:14] Action: NedFlndrs thinks it is interesting
[21:14]  Answier to the Questian
[21:14]  :)
[21:14] Action: NedFlndrs allways does a whois :)
[21:14]  OK
[21:14]  the /whoismeister
[21:14]  lol
[21:15]  heheheh
[21:15] Action: NedFlndrs is nosey
[21:15]  It's your channel.
[21:15] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: 
You've got Questians? We've got Answiers!
[21:15]  #deism??......
[21:15]  :-)
[21:15]  interesting
[21:15] Action: Questian is nosy too, but I don't let 
everyone know that
[21:15]  Questian: You can whois is, too, by 
typing "faq" without the quotes, followed by the nick 
you're interested in...
[21:15]  NedFlndrs is dananova@ppp38.snni.com 
* NunyaNedFlndrs on #Apologetics NedFlndrs using SanDiego.CA.US.Undernet.org 
[204.252.0.52] CONNECTnet UUnet/MCI serverNedFlndrs 
has been 16 seconds idle, Fri Apr 19 16:09:00 signon 
timeNedF

lndrs End of /WHOIS list.
[21:16]  At least, that's the theory...
[21:16]  OK
[21:16]  hehe
[21:16]  uh oh
[21:16]  lol
[21:16]  watch the lightning
[21:16]  Ned: what about #deism?
[21:16]  c'mon
[21:16]  lol
[21:16]  hehe
[21:16]  nope
[21:16]  Apolo...you better re-think that 
answer
[21:16]  lol
[21:17]  lol
[21:17]  lol!
[21:17]  cute; more of the xian caricature, 
of course.
[21:17]  uhh ohhhhh
[21:17]  needs work...
[21:17]  you ppl better get to work on those faqs!
[21:17]  Questian: How did you come to settle 
on Deism?  
[21:17] Chem2555 (estoeben@cs500-1.sl005.cns.vt.edu) 
joined #apologetics.
[21:17]  hi
[21:17] Nick change: Answier -> Alcuin
[21:17]  huh?
[21:17]  hi Chem
[21:18]  Question..If you have a resolve against 
Christianity...please throw it out.....But semantical 
statements are not needed
[21:18] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Non-Deism
[21:18]  you put in a faq for deism before 
atheism??
[21:18]  Questian: You're a deist?
[21:18]  Hi, Chem
[21:18]  I don't understand your last remark
[21:18]  hi chem!
[21:18]  Ned, that is
[21:18]  Hi Chem
[21:19]  Alcuin: yes i am
[21:19]  Question.......remarks that are synical 
and sarcastic
[21:19]  But I don't accept the xian caricature 
of the philosophy.
[21:19]  That's an atomic verse for Chem.
[21:19]  Ned: Did I make such a remark?
[21:19]  you slay me Al
[21:20]  Questian: Do you accept philosophical 
analysis of the philosophy?
[21:20]  that's the best kind
[21:20]  Question.....thats an assertion...I 
asked for a resolve
[21:20]  Ned: "resolve" - as in a debate?
[21:21]  Question....lol....yes that is what 
a resolve is :)
[21:21]  nice and simple
[21:21] Action: NedFlndrs sicks a herd of Angry Chihuahuas 
on ProfG
[21:22]  I've never been involved in *formal* 
debates  so I don't tend to think in such terms, Ned.
[21:22] Action: Alcuin hands ProfG a moist towelette
[21:22]  Question...now is the time to start
[21:22]  heh
[21:22]  Questian: Is there a reason that you 
endorse deism, or is it more of a personal preference?
[21:23]  OK, Ned, my resolve is that deism, 
as embraced by most historical deists, did not entail 
an absentee, uncaring creator; merely a non-controlling 
one.
[21:23]  My reasons are highly philosophical, 
certainly not whimsical or emotional or particularly 
personal.
[21:24] Roswell (czege@ppp9-t.gatecom.com) joined #Apologetics.
[21:24] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: 
atheism Atheism ("a" = no, "theos" = god): Asserted belief 
that there is no God; alternatively, asserted disbelief 
that the

re is a God.
[21:24]  thats a mere statement of discription.......a 
better resolve would be that it is superior to Christianity??...correct?
[21:24]  oops
[21:24]  heh
[21:24]  Correct, since christianity is false, 
IMO.
[21:24]  prof>>lol.....you ok man?
[21:24]  Question...ok....how so?
[21:24]  duh, .topic instead of .faqset...
[21:24]  lol
[21:25]  heh heh
[21:25] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Non-Deism
[21:25]  Questian: is there a particular expression 
of deism that you find compelling?  A particular philosopher 
or school, for example?
[21:25]  Sue...would you like to have this 
one with Question?
[21:25]  lol
[21:25] Action: NedFlndrs is evil
[21:26]  yeah and Ill chair the meeting blindfolded!
[21:26]  Yes - Charles Hartshorne, with the 
proviso that he perfers the term neoclassical theism, 
but it's essentially the same.
[21:26]  or prefers
[21:26]  I will be watching tho :)
[21:27]  It's Questi*a*n, btw, not to be picky, 
but it's not as tho I've unwittingly mispelled "question"
[21:27] Nick change: ProfG -> PrafG
[21:27]  HARTSHORNE CHARLES HENRY 1802-1865 
[21:27]  may I call you Q ?
[21:27]  Sure
[21:27]  Im a lazy typist...
[21:27]  Thanks :)
[21:27]  heheheh
[21:27]  HARTSHORNE CHARLES HENRY 1802-1865 
[21:27]  May I smack you sue?
[21:27]  No, Charles Hartshorne (1897- )
[21:27]  It must be the latter one.
[21:27] Action: NedFlndrs smacks Sioux over the head 
with a big book
[21:28]  HARTSHORNE CHARLES 1897 
[21:28]  OUCH :fi
[21:28]  his son?
[21:28]  yup.  Prolific creature, wasn't he?
[21:28]  lots of children?
[21:28]  NadFlundrs
[21:28]  lol
[21:28]  praf?
[21:28]  No, I don't think so. Anyway that 
would be biologically impossible.
[21:28]  :-)
[21:28]  ;-)
[21:28] Nick change: NedFlndrs -> NadFlundr
[21:29] newsong (newsong@206.9.124.11) joined #apologetics.
[21:29] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: 
Tha Hame af Ratianal Thaism
[21:29]  new :-)
[21:29]  Preeminent exponent of process theology/philosophy.
[21:29]  LOL!!!!
[21:29]  hame?
[21:29] Nick change: Sioux -> Saoo
[21:29]  Nice one, Apolobot!
[21:29]  teehee
[21:29]  HARTSHORNE CHARLES 1897 
[21:29] Nick change: Saoo -> Sioux
[21:29]  Questian: 
[21:30]  So, you find process philosophy intellectually 
tenable?
[21:30]  What is process theology?
[21:30] Nick change: NadFlundr -> NedFlndrs
[21:30] Action: PrafG is lost on process philosophy, 
and hands the ball to Alcuan
[21:30]  Roswell: It's a dialectical construction 
of theological issues.  Emphasis on dynamics of change.
[21:31]  More so than traditional theism, yes, 
not to say it's entirely free from problems.
[21:31]  NED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[21:31]  theological thesis/antithesis/sythesis, 
Al?
[21:31] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( newsong ))))))))))
[21:31]  Uh, *definitely* not to say it's entirely 
free from problems... ;)
[21:31]  hi newsong!
[21:31]  ProfG: do you consider yourself an 
expert on apologetics (considering you have a website)?
[21:31]  synthesis even
[21:32]  Praf: that's one way of configuring 
it, yes.
[21:32]  Newsong....How are ya???
[21:32]  an "expert"? haha
[21:32]  I have some knowledge in the area, Q
[21:32]  great....in the joy of the Lord
[21:32] Nick change: PrafG -> ProfG
[21:32]  expart??...yus thut would bee Praf
[21:32]  Questian: Are you fond of Whitehead, 
btw?
[21:33]  Alcuin: would those comprising the Jesus 
Seminar then be "process theologians"?
[21:33]  heh
[21:33]  OK, I just wondered since you aren't 
familiar with process phil., a major alternative to 
xianity in the philosophical marketplace - no disrespect 
intended.
[21:34]  It involves, among other things, some 
*rigor*...
[21:34]  Alcuin: more fond of CH & David Griffin 
than Whitehead, but WHitehead was a great man.
[21:35]  perhaps I know it under a different name, 
Q
[21:35]  sure, perhaps.
[21:36]  I am currently building a deism website 
& have a few arguments *for* a creator out there, but 
nothing contra christianity yet.
[21:36] Roswell (czege@ppp9-t.gatecom.com) left #Apologetics.
[21:36]  so is the main objection to the christian 
God is that he intervenes sometimes as opossed to never
[21:37]  ?
[21:37]  Questian: You may be interested in passing 
a bit of time here.  You'll come across some of the 
more important obstacles to rejecting Christianity....
[21:38]  I am always open to dialog in a spirit 
of good will.
[21:38] Chem2555 (estoeben@cs500-1.sl005.cns.vt.edu) 
left #apologetics.
[21:38]  Should you choose, you'll also come 
across compelling reasons to reject deism ;)
[21:38]  The *Creator* has a few questions, 
I would suspect, for you also......Q
[21:38]  Xpressor: the xian god, being omnipotent, 
elects to intervene seemingly whimsically or inscrutably.
[21:39]  newsong: He monitors the group, but 
seldom pipes in.  Whenever He does, he get's /whois'd 
like crazy!
[21:39]  Alcun...hehehehehe
[21:39]  Questian: the omnipotent God acts non-arbitrarily 
and self-consistently
[21:39]  Alcuin: I was once a devout evangelical 
Christian, so it is likely that I've heard most of 
the apologetic approaches, but you might surprise me. 
I'm open.
[21:40]  hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....that's unusual.....I 
know the Creator as very Vocal...Alcuin
[21:40]  I wonder if you are, though.
[21:40] Action: Alcuin observes that newsong has been 
reading her bible
[21:40]  hehehehehe,,,,
[21:40]  Questian: I'm willing to submit to your 
judgment as to whether I'm open.
[21:41]  Questian: I would hazard the guess, 
however, that you haven't heard the apologetic approach 
that will likely be offered to you here....
[21:41]  Alcuin:  well, is it even conceivable 
that you're wrong in your belief?
[21:41]  Perhaps I haven't, feel free to procee
[21:41]  Questian: what is your response to the 
transcendental argument for the existence of the Christian 
God?
[21:42]  Outline it for me, please.
[21:42]  Simply put, the proof of the existence 
of the God of the Bible is that without His existence, 
one could prove *nothing*
[21:43]  so it's an epistemological reductio 
ad absurdum?
[21:43]  e pluribus unum, even
[21:43]  Questian: I prefer to put it less simply, 
however.  It employs a reductio argument.  Technically, 
it's a transcendental argument, if you're into the 
lingo....
[21:44]  habeas corpus
[21:44]  That is my own favored approach to 
metaphysical argument (very presuppositional), I just 
don't see how it can yield the *christian* god.
[21:44]  Questian: yes, this is the place for 
you then. Most ops here favor presuppositional apologetics
[21:45]  more than evidential apologetics
[21:45]  Alcuin: sometimes I'm into the lingo; 
other times it makes me laugh; depends on my mood. 
 ;-)
[21:45]  Interesting.  I would argue that the 
specifically Christian model of God is a necessary 
precondition (in the TA sense) for epistemology, ethics, 
science, etc.
[21:45]  for example, "qua" never fails to crack 
me up, I'm not sure why.
[21:45]  Yup!  It's right up there with the ubiquitous 
"ceteris paribus"
[21:46]  So you think omnipotence is essential.
[21:46] Action: Questian laughs
[21:46]  yes
[21:46]  and Alcuinus Yaleus
[21:46]  heheheh
[21:46]  "Yalensis" actually
[21:46]  oops
[21:46]  my bad
[21:46]  heh
[21:46]  hehe
[21:46]  from a "historically Calvinist school 
in New England"
[21:47]  Questian: Yes, I not only think that 
omnipotence is essential, but I argue that a denial 
of it undermines the possibility of denial *qua*...
[21:47]  heheheh
[21:47]  Questian: Or should I say, "denial _tel_quel_"...
[21:48]  ok, that will be quite enough of that!
[21:48]  Questian: So, *have* you encountered 
a specifically christian transcendental argument before?
[21:48]  Give me an author or two to refresh 
my memory
[21:49] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[21:49]  Cornelius Van Til
[21:49]  Greg Bahnsen
[21:49]  John Frame
[21:49]  I read an essay by Van Til a long 
time ago - can't even recall name.
[21:49]  (sorta)
[21:49]  Well, for transcendental arguments as 
such, you'd want to look at Stephen Arndt, for example.
[21:49]  Bahnsen - on the web now, I think 
I saw a reference to him; haven't read him
[21:50]  Bahnsen has a book coming out on Van 
Til's apologetic
[21:50]  I could check out some of his material 
& later respond to it.
[21:50]  http://www.cleaf.com/~covenant/   Questian
[21:50]  thanks
[21:50]  Questian: He was a philosopher of the 
early 20th c.  Studied under A. A. Bowman at Princeton. 
 Won a couple of awards for his work on Whitehead, 
actually....
[21:50]  The preceding refers to Van Til, btw.
[21:50]  Does that school of thought cohere 
well w/ Plantinga's approach
[21:51]  ah
[21:51]  Alcuin: what is the guy's name that Icarus 
(loathian) likes so much?
[21:51]  Plantinga! that's the guy!
[21:51]  Plantinga doesn't use a transcendental 
argument, though.  He's more of a neo-Reidian.
[21:52]  better off with Van Til, Bahnsen, and 
Frame
[21:52]  personally speakin as a novice grunt 
..i'll take what he gives  ..even if its when he feels 
its right to give it ..who am i to tell him what is 
right
[21:53]  Plantinga I'm more familiar with; 
I attended a lecture by him recently, too.
[21:53]  Questian: Plantinga and Wolterstorff 
provide considerations that are in some measure consistent 
with the TA that Van Til developed; the latter, however, 
provides argumentation more than analysis, while the 
former are more descript

ive and analytical.
[21:53]  At Oregon?  Or at Notre Dame?
[21:54]  Oregon State.
[21:54]  In January.
[21:54]  A  refutation of naturalism.
[21:54]  Does his notion of epistemic warrant 
as "proper function over an effective design plan" ring 
a bell?
[21:54]  One of the few things I agree with 
from him.
[21:54]  brb
[21:54]  That's how he construes it, yes.
[21:55]  back
[21:55] ChuckF (me@198.77.18.103) joined #apologetics.
[21:55]  Acolyte has it from someone at SCCCS 
that Bahnsen's book on VT will be printed in 1997.
[21:55] ChuckF (me@198.77.18.103) left #apologetics.
[21:55]  hiya chuch
[21:55]  chuck even
[21:55]  brb
[21:55] Alcuin (an153611@130.132.159.48) left irc: 
Don't neglect to quit not being illogical!
[21:55]  97?????????????
[21:55]  oh no
[21:55]  not 97
[21:55] JimG (me@198.77.18.103) joined #apologetics.
[21:56]  hi again Chuck
[21:56]  So: to give you & your way of thinking 
a fair shake, I wd do well to check out Van Til, Bahnsen 
& Arndt.
[21:56] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line28.cis.yale.edu) 
joined #apologetics.
[21:56]  There....
[21:56]  re Al
[21:56]  brb....food
[21:57] Nick change: NedFlndrs -> Ned_away
[21:57]  Alcuin: No, "epistemic warrant as "proper 
function over an effective design plan" was not part 
of anything I recently read or heard.
[21:57]  ProfG!!!
[21:57]  okie dokie, Ned
[21:57]  Ned...got your ears on?
[21:57]  Great to see you :)
[21:57]  JimChuck!
[21:57]  :-)
[21:57]  darn
[21:57]  Well, actually, I'd recommend passing 
Van Til by.  He doesn't write according to the conventions 
of analytic discourse that we're now all so accustomed 
to.  He's more polemical, and less precise--requires 
decoding.
[21:58]  Oh, OK
[21:58]  hhmm
[21:58]  Are you going to be around a while, 
because i must log off for ~1/2 hour or hour.
[21:58]  have time to answer my questions now Prof?
[21:58]  But I'll check back later.
[21:58]  sure, Jim
[21:58]  we'll be in the middle of another convo, 
tho...
[21:59]  ok
[21:59]  sorry
[21:59]  no prob at all
[21:59]  bue quest!
[21:59]  hang on, Jim
[21:59]  Questian: I'd like to chat with you 
more, but I'll be gone later.
[21:59]  i mean bye
[21:59]  Questian: Will you be around later this 
weekend, perhaps?
[21:59]  Questian: have you read any of the #apologetics 
logs?
[21:59]  ANother time then; yes tomorrow evening
[21:59]  ProfG: Please whois me
[22:00]  Alcuin is kingtutor@remote4-line28.cis.yale.edu 
(kingtutor@aachen.gov)
[22:00]  Alcuin is on channels #Apologetics
[22:00]  on irc via server lowell.ma.us.undernet.org 
(News Corporation Undernet Server)
[22:00]  Yes, I discovered I'm included in 
a couple under the nick anselm.
[22:00]  couple logs, that is.
[22:00]  Thanks.  Looks like I'm back to normal. 
 The Blacksburg server was causing that problem....
[22:00]  hmmm
[22:00]  Later
[22:00]  ah yes, anselm
[22:00]  Questian: Till then, take care.
[22:00] Questian (serenity@slip190.UCS.ORST.EDU) left 
#apologetics.
[22:00]  Jim: still with us?
[22:01]  Jim: what was your question again?
[22:01]  yes Prof
[22:01]  I'm here
[22:01]  brb
[22:01]  ok.....
[22:01]  wasn't it concerning the claims to deity 
by Christ?
[22:01] Xpressor (kgb@slip2.worldaxes.com) left irc: 
Read error to Xpressor[slip2.worldaxes.com]: Connection 
reset by peer
[22:01]  we were talking about the trinity
[22:01]  uh huh
[22:01]  yes exactly
[22:02]  ok, what exactly did you have a prob 
with?
[22:02]  beleiving that Christ was God when He 
was on earth
[22:02]  i.e......
[22:02]  many references to Jesus saying stuff 
like......
[22:03]  "In my Fathers house there are many mansion..."......
[22:03]  and so on and so on.......
[22:03]  If he wasn't God....then he was the 
biggest fool that ever did walk the earth
[22:03]  if He was God.......
[22:04]  then why didn't he just say "I My house 
there are....."
[22:04]  ?
[22:04]  etc
[22:04]  done
[22:04] budso (budman@client59.sedona.net) joined #apologetics.
[22:04]  oh....brother!!!!!!
[22:04]  Good evening.
[22:04]  hmmmmmm... bot lag?
[22:04]  Ah! Bishop Alcuin. How's the weather 
in Aachen?
[22:04]  hiya budso
[22:04]  It's reigning...
[22:05]  im sorry you think it's oh brother!!! 
newsong...it's an honest question from me that i would 
like to find out about
[22:05]  Al: 8^)
[22:05]  hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......
[22:05]  Jim: but He *did* claim deity... would 
you like some Scriptural support for that?
[22:05] Action: Alcuin observes that JimG is asking 
a Good Question (tm)
[22:05]  newsong sings!
[22:05]  And....how would I know it was *honest*?
[22:05]  sure why not
[22:05] Action: Alcuin observes that men and women 
of faith *should* ask why they believe what they believe....
[22:05]  Jim: who is Lord of the Sabbath?
[22:06] Action: budso wonders what is the "good" question?
[22:06]  budso: JimG is wondering why Jesus referred 
to God in the third person (no pun intended) if Jesus 
*was* God.
[22:06]  newsong......i'm not even talking to you...my 
question was directed at ProfG.....i don't need this 
from you
[22:06]  sorry......JimG....I though we were 
all in the room...I apologize
[22:07]  Jim is an honest questioner. Please be 
kind to them, as the sign says...  :-)
[22:07]  brb...get the Bible
[22:07]  BOT LAG
[22:08]  Al or Jim, in which verse?
[22:09]  Jim: note that Jesus is laying a *direct* 
claim to deity in Matthew 12:8
[22:09]  budso: In all of them.  JimG's considering 
a fully human non-divine Jesus, at least while Jesus 
was on the earth.
[22:09] Action: budso wonders if maybe Bob Dole took 
a clue from Jesus. "Bob Dole says that you can trust 
Bob Dole."
[22:09]  LOL
[22:09]  Only God, who instituted the Sabbath, 
is Lord of it
[22:10]  JimG: How do you understand Colossians 
1:15 and  Hebrews 1?
[22:10]  interesting...i'm not sure i beleive that 
is what He was sayinig
[22:10]  what else could he have been saying there, 
Jim (in context)?
[22:10]  Alcuin....that isn't what i'm saying either
[22:11] Action: budso wonders what the adjective "rational" 
means when in apposition to "theism."
[22:11]  BOT LAG
[22:12]  maybe saying that within Him is the 'spirit' 
of God....although he's not using the word God......as 
is the spirit of God within many of us
[22:12]  ?????
[22:12]  JimG: I'm sorry.  I thought that's what 
you were saying.  What *are* you saying?
[22:12]  going to Mark 2 1 2
[22:12]  I guess I'm lagged. Is Mark 2:1,2 the 
text under consideration?
[22:13]  Note that there in Mark, Jesus tells 
the paralyzed man that his sins are forgiven; the scribes 
caught the obvious intent of Jesus' words...
[22:13]  that doesn't say He's God either....to 
me.....says he preached the word......."the word was 
with God and the word was God"
[22:13]  they said, "who can forgive sins but God 
alone?"
[22:14] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line28.cis.yale.edu) 
left irc: Don't neglect to quit not being illogical!
[22:14]  Jim: "and the Word became *flesh* and 
dwelt among us"...
[22:14]  Praise God...ProfG
[22:14]  Preach it!!!!
[22:14]  Jesus replied to the scribes, "the Son 
of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"
[22:14]  JimG: Notice the interplay in Mark 2:7-10. 
the point of the healing
[22:14]  was to demonstrate his authority to forgive 
sins.
[22:14]  NO ONE can forgive sins but God
[22:14]  so there's a simple syllogism here.
[22:14]  but Jesus said that *HE* could forgive 
sins
[22:15]  Prop: Only god can forgive sins.
[22:15]  Prop: Only God can heal paralytics.
[22:15]  exactly
[22:15]  amen budso!!!
[22:15]  Prop: Jesus can heal paralytics.
[22:15]  i'm not sure i beleive that is what they 
are saying either
[22:15]  exactly, budsop
[22:15]  maybe there's no hope for me
[22:15]  lol
[22:15]  Conc: Jesus can forgive sins.
[22:16]  there is more, Jim...
[22:16]  final Conc: Therefore, Jesus is God.
[22:16]  c'mon, apolobot
[22:16] Action: newsong in the "Amen" corner....you know....over 
there by the choir
[22:16]  ProfG: Ask pascoe to borrow the new logos 
'bot. Way cool.
[22:16]  in Matthew 7, Jesus speaks of Himself 
as the ultimate judge who will have authyority to deny 
entrance into the kingdom of Heaven
[22:17]  that just talks about evil thing within 
man????
[22:17]  budso: ApoloBot is next on the list for 
upgrade
[22:17]  ApoloBot is also a logos bot
[22:17] Action: budso hopes that the 'bot responds 
before the movie starts.
[22:17] Sioux (chance@ppp26.snni.com) left irc: God 
always gives the answers....all we need to do is listen 
 :)
[22:18] Action: budso and his son are going to see 
"Celtic Pride." I'm a basketball fan and my son is a 
player.
[22:18]  Prof...i probably beleive that....."the 
only way into the Kingdom of Heaven is through the 
son"
[22:18]  but look, Jim...
[22:19] Nomos (pisteuo@kuts11p07.cc.ukans.edu) joined 
#Apologetics.
[22:19]  The law has arrived. Time to shape up.
[22:19]  hehe
[22:19]  amen
[22:19] Action: budso says, "This isn't my cigarette 
officer; I'm just holding it for a friend!"
[22:19]  ha Torah veha-Mitzvah
[22:19]  1) if no one is good but God alone, and 
2) if I am good, then 3) I must be God  (Mark 10)
[22:19] rrtgoddes (rrtgodes@modem066.magpage.com) joined 
#Apologetics.
[22:20]  hello
[22:20]  Nomos: Somehow the "h" doesn't sound very 
guttural!
[22:20]  premise two is incorrect
[22:20]  but Jesus didn't deny being good!
[22:21] RevWillie (wtburns@dialup0.newport.thirdwave.net) 
joined #apologetics.
[22:21]  you think that's what Mark 10:18 says? 
 That he is God?
[22:21]  he did not severely rebuke the man for 
offering worship to him
[22:21]  neither did he confirm it either
[22:21] Sioux (chance@ppp26.snni.com) joined #apologetics.
[22:21]  He sorry
[22:21]  Nite, all. Show starts in 25 minutes.
[22:21] budso (budman@client59.sedona.net) left #apologetics.
[22:21]  because he knew he was sent by the Father???? 
 To professie(sp) ??
[22:22]  John: note what happens in Matthew 21:15,16
[22:22]  hey nomos
[22:22]  hi willie
[22:22]  are we to "revere" you Willie?
[22:22]  or just God?
[22:23]  I just want a set of Revere Ware, 
that
[22:23]  the chief priests and scribes who saw 
Jesus receiving the praise "became indignant"
[22:23]  is all
[22:23]  ahh
[22:23]  I often wonder at those who claim that 
title
[22:23]  do they expect reverence?
[22:23]  Prof...there's too many people here to 
follow you...maybe some other time :(
[22:23]  Jesus replied, "Have you never read,'Out 
of the mouth of infants and nursing babes Thou [God] 
hast prepared praise for Thyself [God]'?"
[22:23]  Jim, no don't go
[22:23]  keep with me here
[22:23]  ....and this is too important of a subject 
for me to just not get it all
[22:24]  it's important, ya know
[22:24] afr (arogers@p17.pm2.theriver.com) joined #apologetics.
[22:24]  looks like a fight in #bible
[22:24]  afr  :-)
[22:24] newsong (newsong@206.9.124.11) left #apologetics.
[22:24]  you've lost me
[22:24]  Hi profg and alll
[22:24]  Did you catch what Jesus said there, 
Jim?
[22:24]  there's too much cross talk
[22:24] tranquil (user01@lordrich.clark.net) joined 
#Apologetics.
[22:24]  Basically it was, "When those children 
praise me, they are praising God."
[22:25] Honeyluv (nan@206.25.171.62) joined #Apologetics.
[22:25]  then of course there is the Gospel of 
John, where His claims to deity are strongest
[22:25] Honeyluv (nan@206.25.171.62) left #Apologetics.
[22:25]  the whole theme of the book
[22:26] rrtgoddes (rrtgodes@modem066.magpage.com) left 
irc: a soul who beholds beauty, becomes beautiful.
[22:26]  PROFG!!!!!
[22:26]  i'm having trouble following you
[22:26]  with all this cross talk
[22:26]  maybe some other time
[22:26]  Jim...you do not believe that Jesus is 
God?
[22:26]  John 5:23 also
[22:26]  *sigh*
[22:26]  sorry.....
[22:26]  Jim, I've tried to have this convo with 
you 3 times now
[22:27]  i appreciate you trying though
[22:27]  IRC is just like this; it can't be helped
[22:27]  you get used to it
[22:27]  hearing they don;t hear
[22:27]  ok..i'll go elsewhere then.....thanks
[22:27] Ned_away (dananova@ppp38.snni.com) left irc: 
I cant, He can, I think I'll let him.  :)
[22:27]  *sigh*
[22:27]  sorry to have put you through all this 
:)
[22:28]  and i appreciate your efforts.....
[22:28]  i just want to learn about Jesus
[22:28]  that is good
[22:28] newsong (newsong@206.9.124.11) joined #apologetics.
[22:28]  re new
[22:28]  yo Prof
[22:28]  what about him jimg? I just came in, 
missed earlier statements.
[22:28]  btw...Prof...are you for real?
[22:29]  for real?
[22:29]  for real?
[22:29]  real.....i.e., Professor
[22:29]  oh
[22:29]  heh
[22:29]  yes
[22:29]  of?
[22:29]  of what?
[22:29]  if I may ask.
[22:29]  BOT LAG
[22:29] Action: ProfG waits patiently
[22:29]  Professor of Bot Lag.....
[22:30] Action: ProfG drums his fingers
[22:30]  hehe
[22:30] Action: ProfG dances a jig or two
[22:30]  Solitair Prof?
[22:30] Action: ProfG builds a prefabricated home
[22:30]  kewl...jig...Prof
[22:31] sealed (dcruden@netport-4.iu.net) joined #apologetics.
[22:31] Action: ProfG solves the MidEast crisis
[22:31]  We could solve the Trinity  next.
[22:31]  hehee
[22:31] Action: newsong is a salesperson for lumber 
yards
[22:31]  and the Bot STILL hasn't answered
[22:31]  whew
[22:32]  and bot fixer
[22:32]  lol
[22:32]  a Post'er.......hmmm....
[22:32]  What is preterist?
[22:32]  post?
[22:32]  I am not post
[22:32]  Postmillenials.....doesn't fly
[22:33]  amen
[22:33]  ; )
[22:33]  Preterist: person who believes that many 
or most of the "end-time" prophecies were fulfilled in 
the first century
[22:33] Action: newsong sings "I'll fly Away, O glory"
[22:34]  ns...i like that song :)
[22:35]  there's a place dear to me where i'm longing 
to be...
[22:35]  with my friends at eh old country church
[22:35]  lol
[22:35]  I never heard of this before who was 
the first to express this view?
[22:35]  hehehehe....Jim
[22:35]  Postmillenialism: Eschatological belief 
in the victorious advance of God's established kingdom 
througout history; post-mils believe that the kingdom 
of God was established with the birth, life, death, 
and resurrection of Jesus Chri

st, and
[22:35]  that He will return at the END of time, 
once the Holy Spirit has completed His work of worldwide 
conversion and the Church is "without spot or wrinkle." 
Ref. Dan. 2:35,44; Matt. 13:33; I Cor. 15:

24-26
[22:36]  those need to be put in the bot
[22:36]  :-)
[22:36]  What about jere 31: 31-35
[22:36]  i.e., the church will become SO perfected...and 
SO wonderful....that it will be "Christ on Earth......(a 
little difficult to believe observing the condition 
of the church)
[22:36]  what about it?
[22:37]  : 
[22:37]  no, the BRIDE of Christ
[22:37] JimG (me@198.77.18.103) left #apologetics.
[22:37]  what does it matter the "present condition" 
if the Bible says that the FUTURE condition will be 
that way?
[22:37]  eyes of faith, newsong   :-)
[22:37]  The 'church' of Christ is not a building 
full of people
[22:37]  amen afr
[22:38]  amen
[22:38]  ekklesia
[22:38]  those called out
[22:38] tranquil (user01@lordrich.clark.net) left #Apologetics.
[22:38] job (tmay@an21ph.tir.com) joined #Apologetics.
[22:39]  Whoisthe first to have  PRETERIST
[22:39] JimG (me@198.77.18.103) joined #apologetics.
[22:39]  .....no....2 Peter 3:3
[22:39]  Prof....maybe i'm putting the cart before 
the horse here
[22:39]  don't remember, sealed. Ante-Nicene fathers, 
I believe
[22:39]  ooopss sorry
[22:39]  re Jim
[22:39]  What is Ante-Nicene?
[22:40]  "ante" before   "Nicene" Nicene Creed, foundational 
creed of Christianity
[22:40] Action: afr would suggest the URL
[22:40] Triad (giveme@dialup11.newport.thirdwave.net) 
joined #apologetics.
[22:40]  circa 300-400 A.D.
[22:40]  hey nomos
[22:40]  http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/nicene.html
[22:40]  They based this on what scriptures?
[22:41]  In order to stand on Postmillenialism.....you 
must interrept by Allegorical Method
[22:41] Triad (giveme@dialup11.newport.thirdwave.net) 
left #apologetics.
[22:41]  ok I will have to check it out
[22:41]  you are a complete biblical literalist 
then, newsong?
[22:41]  Sealed. It is well worth a couple of hours
[22:41]  sealed: I suggest also another URL
[22:41] JimG (me@198.77.18.103) left irc: 
[22:42]  Hey Prof....can you name any Postmillenialists 
before Joachim of Fiore?
[22:42]  Well, Ican't discuss someting I don't 
know about...... 
[22:42]  I do now I am  literalist
[22:42]  sealed: hang on, getting it...
[22:42]  I'm sure there probably were
[22:42]  can't think of any off hand
[22:43]  Will this at all change the gospel?
[22:43]  thehope of Glory......Christ in us
[22:43]  sealed: no, not at all!
[22:43]  in fact, more hope than ever
[22:43]  I understand the "grammatical-historical" 
method
[22:43]  Nothing said by man will ever change my 
belief in Jesus
[22:44]  Then whyisthereso much about pretib, 
postrib, premil, post mil.
[22:45]  sealed: I believe the URL is http://jf.org/jflocal.htm 
 -- look under PAPERS for "The Beast of Revelation Revealed" 
or something like that
[22:46]  Sealed. Frankly I ignore the whole prospect. 
He said we would not know and I don't even think about 
it.
[22:46]  sealed: the pre, mid, and post trib stuff 
is all premillenial. Been there, done that, got the 
T-shirt
[22:46]  So Prof....you do not see Israel...the 
literal nation of Israel coming into a golden age???
[22:46]  technically speaking, of course, I suppose 
postmils are also post-tribs, since most believe the 
tribulation took place in A.D. 70
[22:46]  newsong: I see that the Church is the 
Israel of God
[22:46]  who was the beast Prof????
[22:46]  Nero
[22:47]  when the church become "perfected"????
[22:47]  at the end of time
[22:47]  ???? say what???
[22:47]  what???
[22:47]  there, said it
[22:47]  hehehehe
[22:47]  he he
[22:48]  :-)
[22:48]  But....how can it be....that Israel....literal 
Israel....will not have a "time" yet tocome...she has 
not seen what was promised to Abraham yet.....
[22:49]  newsong: we can go verse-by-verse thru 
Revelations if you would like to question specific 
interpretations
[22:49] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[22:49]  In a everlasting Covenant
[22:49]  and I can show you with many and sundry 
verses why the Church is the Israel of God
[22:49]  if you have a good while
[22:49]  everlasting Covenant
[22:49]  well.....that would be tremendous....especially 
since Rev. says...."Blessed is the one who reads the 
words of this prophecy...""""
[22:49]  amen and amen
[22:49]  :-)
[22:50] Sioux (chance@ppp26.snni.com) left #apologetics.
[22:50]  so give me specific verses from Rev. 
whose postmillenial interpretation you question
[22:50]  But in the Abrahamic Covenant there 
is specific reference to land real earth
[22:51]  boarders and geo landmarks
[22:51] Nomos (pisteuo@kuts11p07.cc.ukans.edu) left 
#Apologetics.
[22:51]  ...you're the Professor!!!!.....i'm 
just a lowly layperson....only studying to enter ministry. 
...(hehehehe)
[22:51]  heh
[22:52]  Seriously Isreal is promised to be a 
nation an evelasting covenant made by God 
[22:52]  but Revelation is a big book, newsong... 
there must be some verse which you have understood 
to be interpreted in a premil fashion which postmils 
would interpret differently
[22:53]  how can Jesus 2nd Advent be interrpeted 
as "spiritual"....when His 1st Advent was Literal???
[22:53]  sealed: give me chapter and verse, and 
I will help you to understand what I am saying
[22:53]  newsong: it is not interpreted that way 
by postmils
[22:53]  His second coming is going to be very 
literal
[22:53]  what is not interpreted...???
[22:53]  Gen chapter 12:1-3
[22:53]  then what???
[22:54]  newsong: then the end shall come
[22:54]  (thanks)
[22:54]  *sigh* bot lag again
[22:55]  vs two....I willmakethee a great nation, 
and Iwill bless thee, and make thy name great
[22:55]  ok...
[22:55] job (tmay@an21ph.tir.com) left #Apologetics.
[22:56]  is the Church not called a "nation" of 
people, God's people?
[22:56]  I don't think so, we are a church
[22:56]  where Christisthe head
[22:57]  a NATION of priests, no?
[22:57]  sorry for my typing
[22:57]  np
[22:57]  Tell me how PostM...fits the facts 
of history?????? Prof..G
[22:58]  is thatin Hebres prof
[22:58]  newsong: is the Church greater or lesser 
than it was in the first century? better off or worse 
off?
[22:58]  where is the church called a 'nation' 
of ppl....????
[22:58]  hebrews
[23:00]  I don't think the church can be catagorized 
simply as 'better off or worse off'....
[23:00]  in romans the church (we) are referred 
to as lambs lead tothe slaughter
[23:00]  I also see the church age prophetically 
spoken of by the 7 churches of Revelation....
[23:00]  @@@ge15:19
[23:00]  newsong: that is nice, but why do you 
see it that way?
[23:00]  @@@rev2:17
[23:01] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp5.snni.com) joined #apologetics.
[23:01]  Hi ned!!
[23:01]  sealed, ApoloBot is too lagged
[23:01]  !!!!!!ned!!!!!!!
[23:01]  re ned
[23:01]  It is a indicator of how God saw/sees 
the successes and failures of the church age....
[23:01]  re all
[23:01] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( sealed ))))))))))
[23:02]  Hi Sealed
[23:02]  hello 
[23:02]  newsong: that is not there in the text. 
You have to be *taught* that. Those were real letters 
to real churches.
[23:02]  Ned....did you once go by a nick "gold"????
[23:02]  whats up Sealed?
[23:02]  Ned my first friend on christian chat:))))))))
[23:02]  noope....
[23:02] Action: NedFlndrs has allways been NedF;ndrs
[23:02]  NedFlndrs
[23:02]  Yes....Prof....but there is the law 
of "double Reference"....they were literal...but also 
spoke of prophetically
[23:03]  "the law of 'double reference'"? where 
is that law at?
[23:03]  oh, talking about preterist and postmil, 
which I am not familiarwith
[23:03]  Folks- all this has nothing at all to do 
with my belief in Christ so I'll leave you to your 
unlearnable prophecys.
[23:03]  Ned....does "tiptoe thru the tulips"....mean 
anything to you...
[23:03]  bye 
[23:03]  bye afr
[23:03] afr (arogers@p17.pm2.theriver.com) left #apologetics.
[23:03]  newsong....lol??...LOL
[23:04]  ???
[23:04]  It is a system of interrpetation under 
historical/grammetical......not law as in the Bible....
[23:04]  refresh me
[23:04]  hmmmmmmmmmmm....someone else is using 
your 'nick'
[23:04]  is that a reference to Calvinism, newsong? 
 ;->
[23:04]  no.....NOT Calvinism
[23:04]  TULIP   lol
[23:05]  newsong....thats is the rumour I 
hear.....they are into some wierd stuff
[23:05]  rev2:17  what is your new name?
[23:05]  Ned...who is 'they'
[23:06]  whoever is using my nick
[23:06]  I am NED!!!!!!!
[23:06]  I guess...Ned
[23:06]  ahhhhhh!!!!!
[23:06]  ok, ok, ok, I believer inthe rapture 
preribulation, the return of Christ with the saints 
thenthe millin. reighn
[23:07] RevWillie (wtburns@dialup0.newport.thirdwave.net) 
left irc: 
[23:07]  reighn
[23:07]  Ican't spell tonight must be sotired
[23:07]  sealed: you have to be *taught* that, 
it is NOT plainly there, as is the postmil position
[23:08]  Prof...Let me spell out "double-reference" 
a little....your students will run into it...I would 
imagine....???
[23:08]  sealed: the "new name" of Rev. 2:17 refers 
to the new character and identity of those who belong 
to Christ.
[23:08]  ProfG, does this postition afect my 
salvation?
[23:08]  sealed: you are saved by grace from God. 
Period.
[23:09]  it is an eschatological question, not 
a theological one.
[23:09]  I agree!!!!!!!!
[23:09]  yo...professor...what about Daniel's 
70 weeks???
[23:09]  it is not a point of fellowship (or disfellowship), 
though many premils have made it out to be one
[23:09]  what about them, new?
[23:11]  Our fellowship is in Jesus....I say 
Amen to that...Prof....in that we can be agreed.....
[23:11]  I have tiostudy this Iwill lookup what 
you gave me, its like duh!!!! how can I even discuss 
sometingwhen I do not even know, the premises, it is 
so frustrating to be a novice
[23:11]  true....the greek word for Justified 
is Diakaoo.....means more than mere restitution from 
the law....its means as if we had fufillied the law 
completly....God see us as if we had when are Justified 
through Christ
[23:11]  go to those URLs, sealed
[23:11]  How does PostM....see the prophecy 
of Daniel's 70 weeks?
[23:12] Questian (serenity@slip184.UCS.ORST.EDU) joined 
#apologetics.
[23:12]  greetings
[23:12]  as basically fulfilled, newsong
[23:12] Action: sealed :)
[23:13]  but...how?????.....how did history 
fulfill them???
[23:13] Action: sealed got togo and duh!!!! myself 
tosleep... not really I will always lovethe Lord and 
thank God for saints to encourageme to study
[23:14]  the BIG question for premils is HOW one 
can insert a 2000 year "parenthesis" in the fulfillment 
of the 70 weeks
[23:14]  i.e., how did 'he' confirm a covenant 
with many for one 'seven'...in the middle of the 'seven' 
he will put an end of sacrifice and offering....???
[23:14]  bbl
[23:14] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp5.snni.com) left #apologetics.
[23:15]  lag
[23:15] sealed (dcruden@netport-4.iu.net) left #apologetics.
[23:15] Questian (serenity@slip184.UCS.ORST.EDU) left 
irc: RL beckons  :-(
[23:15]  newsong: how long was Christ's ministry?
[23:16]  I was just trying to answer your last 
question......should I answer this one now?
[23:17]  and...aren't you interested in double-reference 
if you're a professor?
[23:17]  we are throwing questions before answers, 
no?
[23:17]  heh
[23:17]  oh ...oh....is it is '''us''
[23:18]  questions before answers, no.....is 
that european phrasing?
[23:18]  newsong: yes, but I wanted you to *show* 
me the basis for double-references
[23:18]  what shall we discuss first?
[23:18]  I'm just the beginner here
[23:18]  newsong: no, I mean we are not answering 
each other, are we?
[23:18]  not so fast
[23:19]  your phrasing is interesting....
[23:19]  re Q
[23:19]  greetings in the Name of Jesus Questian
[23:19] Xpressor (kgb@slip2.worldaxes.com) joined #apologetics.
[23:19]  Q=Mark?
[23:19]  hi kids!
[23:20]  i'm waiting for the professor to define 
the question.....
[23:20]  new: give me specific verses so that 
I may answer you more easily please
[23:20]  sorry
[23:20]  hehehehe...
[23:20]  great....but....which one of the questions 
shall I use a verse for....:)
[23:20]  heh, take your pick
[23:21]  non=comittal?
[23:22]  heh
[23:22]  ok.....Daniel 9:27
[23:22] Action: Xpressor thinksits very kind of theprof 
and the other ops to be accessable to us for free!!!
[23:23]  but xp still cant type!
[23:23]  how does the postM...see Daniel 9:27
[23:23]  are you there???
[23:23]  yes
[23:23]  ok
[23:23] VideoBlue (email@qrvlppp106.epix.net) joined 
#Apologetics.
[23:24]  just was looking it up
[23:24]  {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{vidio}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
[23:24]  that is the "abomination of desolation"...
[23:24]  but...before..we discuss...you have 
interesting phrasing...is that european?
[23:25]  yep......
[23:25]  agreed there
[23:25]  which was the surrounding of Jerusalem 
by the Edomites in AD 68, then the Romans in AD 70
[23:25]  Well X it's kind of quiet tonight
[23:25]  European? No, souther  ;->
[23:25]  yes....that is true
[23:25]  southern even
[23:25]  really.....
[23:25]  coastal southern???
[23:26]  NC
[23:26]  Mountains
[23:26]  :-)
[23:26]  hmmmmm....only been to the mountains 
once...rockies
[23:26]  can i interupt to ask what the topic 
is ..or is it too late?
[23:26]  hee-yuk
[23:26]  hehehehehe
[23:27]  so there is the postmil interpretation, 
new
[23:27]  the destruction of Jerusalem
[23:27]  AD 68-70
[23:27]  Jesus spoke of it
[23:27]  re X
[23:27]  yes....doesn't track Prof.....
[23:28] papa2two (papa2two@kit.cat.rrnet.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[23:28]  tracks exactly, new
[23:28]  papa  :-)
[23:28]  Hey Prof!
[23:29]  How are you?
[23:29]  Jesus said ....so, WHEN YOU SEE...standing 
in the holy place the.......etc etc
[23:30]  if that was "IT".....his terminology 
was wrong
[23:30]  new: but crossreference to Luke 21:20-22
[23:30]  heheh
[23:30]  I'm fine, papa  :-)
[23:30]  and you?
[23:30]  how is the wife?
[23:30]  Better, at least a little.
[23:30]  what does that have to do with our 
discussion...doesn't track??? Prof
[23:31]  1) The entire prophecy has to do with 
Daniel's ppl....and Daniel's city....
[23:31] Questian (serenity@slip184.UCS.ORST.EDU) joined 
#apologetics.
[23:31]  greetings
[23:31]  2)the beginning of the whole period 
of 70 weeks is definitely fixed....
[23:31]  hey Xpressor
[23:32] VideoBlue!email@qrvlppp106.epix.net kicked 
by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: idle process
[23:32]  newsong: but Jesus refers to THAT specific 
prophecy in foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem 
- the "abomination of desolation", etc.
[23:32]  etc. etc...lost interesting already 
Prof....didn't make a very impassioned statement for 
your position....
[23:32]  newsong: if the beginning is fixed, why 
isn't the end?
[23:32]  the end is fixed....
[23:32]  newsong: not according to premils
[23:32]  Daniel's 70th week.....which has not 
been yet
[23:32]  we are in the "great parenthesis" according 
to premils
[23:32] VideoBlue (email@qrvlppp106.epix.net) joined 
#Apologetics.
[23:33]  yes.. go on
[23:33]  the "weeks" went by like clockwork until 
the end of the 69th... then they mysteriously "stopped"
[23:33]  and we now wait for the 70th
[23:33] Action: papa2two can't stay. See ya all later...
[23:33] papa2two (papa2two@kit.cat.rrnet.com) left 
#apologetics.
[23:33]  hmmmmmmm
[23:33] Action: ProfG waits
[23:33]  and waits
[23:33]  and waits
[23:33]  ;->
[23:33]  X: eschatology
[23:33]  VideoBlue: do you know someone with 
the nick, masterq?
[23:34]  parentheses.....
[23:34]  Intervals....parentheses...happen all 
over prophetical scripture...what's the beef
[23:34]  newsong: name one
[23:34]  AND
[23:35]  the events of Daniel 9:26..requires 
a gap....because......
[23:35]  newsong: name one where it was foretold 
that it would occur exactly in this order, but not 
really
[23:35]  2 major events are said to take place 
AFTER the 69th weeks and BEFORE the 70th week
[23:35]  VideoBlue: hello?
[23:35]  1) the cutting off of the Messiah
[23:35]  I wasn't ignoring you ...
[23:35]  2) the destructiion of the city and 
temple in Jerusalem
[23:35]  Sorry I don't 
[23:35]  and for.....NO. 3
[23:36]  MATT 23:37-39 teaches that Israel has 
been set aside....until the restitution of God's dealing 
with them....
[23:36] Nick change: Questian -> anselm`
[23:36]  (are you really a professor)
[23:36] Nick change: anselm` -> Questian
[23:36]  newsong: to ask that is not kind. I could 
ask you "Do you really read the Bible, or just Hal Lindsay 
and Dave Hunt books?"
[23:37]  or maybe just Scofield's notes?
[23:37]  I must assume  VideoBlue is away.
[23:37]  really....let me rephrase......lots 
of ppl says they are preachers...or this or that...but 
really aren't....perhaps if we had spoke more often 
I would know that you are who you are....I apologize 
for offending you
[23:37]  but...anyhow...where is the Victory...the 
Blessing of a Post M view?
[23:38]  No I am here
[23:38]  newsong: I am Dean of Students at Miami 
Christian University (http://mcu.edu/). I also teach 
Political Science and International Relations at Florida 
International University, where I am presently completing 
my doctoral work in Int

. Rel.
[23:38]  wow
[23:38]  No I am here
[23:38]  Glad to meet you....
[23:38]  I am simply...me...
[23:38]  he anwered you ..question
[23:38]  aswered
[23:38]  ahh, i c
[23:39] Action: Xpressor cant type or spell
[23:39]  new:
[23:39]  ya
[23:39]  the victory is definitive with Christ's 
atoning work, is progressive with the advancement of 
His kingdom on earth, and is final with His glorious 
return at the end of time.
[23:39]  Yes.....the atonement...Praise God....
[23:39] Dionysus (diogenes@becker2.u.washington.edu) 
joined #apologetics.
[23:39]  newsong: I was not boasting. You asked 
if I was really a professor. Those are my partial credentials.
[23:39]  Right, got it, VB, thanks
[23:39]  Anybody home
[23:39]  ?
[23:40]  hello Dion
[23:40]  partial credentials???
[23:40]  glorious return...yes!!!
[23:40]  What is going on here?
[23:40]  how do you tackle....the very elect 
being deceived....etc.
[23:40] Dionysus (diogenes@becker2.u.washington.edu) 
left #apologetics.
[23:40]  newsong: I could dcc you a complete c.v., 
if you wish.
[23:40]  just...enjoying your wit
[23:40]  Matt 24:24
[23:40]  newsong: I must leave soon, as it is 
11:20 p.m. here...
[23:41]  yes...glad to make your acquaintance....
[23:41]  Matt: 24:24 - what about it?
[23:41]  but I do have a question....
[23:41]  I'm not sure I entirely understand 
what you mean by ...advancement of the kingdom...etc...
[23:41]  newsong: the leaven in the measure of 
wheat  ;->
[23:42]  "As surely as I live, ALL the earth shall 
be filled with the glory of the Lord!"  :-)
[23:42]  (also preceding verses 22 & 23...from 
Matt 24
[23:42]  newsong: find me again, we can discuss 
Matt. 24 in depth.  :-)
[23:42]  Prof...that is a millenial promise 
that will be fulfilled only when JESUS LITERALLY reigns 
on earth...
[23:42]  newsong: so YOU say
[23:42]  :-)
[23:42]  yes...hehehehe
[23:42]  Matt. 24 is one of the most misinterpreted 
chapters in the Bible (in postmils' views, of course)
[23:43]  we will talk more about it
[23:43]  but later
[23:43]  of course....:)
[23:43]  good night all
[23:43]  God bless
[23:43]  bye prof!
[23:44]  thanx!
[23:44]  c u all l8r
[23:44] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial105.fiu.edu) left irc: 
Leaving
[ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page
[ref003]Return to LOGS Page
[ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library



[ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_4_19_96.html
[ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html
[ref004] ../