Paul Wolfe wrote:NicDots wrote:
We cannot hold the Jews who crucified Jesus accountable as they are all dead now.
Just like the 'African-American' shouldn't hold the 'white American' for slavery as all the slave owners are now dead, right?
I'm not saying
we hold today's Jews accountable, I'm saying
God holds them accountable for not accepting Christ as the Saviour He sent in response to their prayers. Ever hear the saying, "The sins of the father are visited upon the son"?
Exodus 20:5 wrote: - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me"
McLowery wrote:Paul, this accusation directly connects someone who was known to have unconditional love for all people and unsurmountable forgivness for them as well. How can anyone rationally believe the above statement and then turn right around and say that the being of pure love and pure forgiveness is causing havoc for the Jews (the peoples who killed him,) throughout history for what they had done to him. This concept is antiquated and petty.
Typical non-believer argument. Look at the word in bold in your statement. I never said God is
causing the havoc, I said the havoc is the result of the actions of the Jewish nation at the time Jesus was crucified.
The Biblical passage I quoted said,
"For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" Until being a loooooong time. The Jewish nation of today has not accepted Jesus as the Saviour, thus they still cannot see God.
Allowing and
causing are two very different things. You reap what you sow, my friend. Until you sow something different, you will reap the same thing.
Now, "antiquated and petty"? The truth is the same yesterday, today and forever. Again, just because you want to disagree with something doesn't mean it's not true. It is not antiquated because it is just as true today as it was on day one. It is not petty because it is not a 'narrow-minded' statement, it is a statement of belief based on a lifetime of study. You call my way of thinking 'antiquated and petty' yet you continue to use the same arguments used throughout history to say I'm wrong. Those arguments never worked in the past and will not work now.
Matt, when I said you are trying to convince others, I mean that your constant refusal to accept that
faith is the be all and end all of the discussion and your constant use of making 'intellectual sense' is a way of trying to convince
me that I may be wrong. I
have and
do read other views on religion, God and the Bible. The more I read the more I am convinced I am right in my faith.
Ultimately, God is not going to give you the answers you seek until you accept Him on faith. Only
after you take a chance on Him will He answer you. He has given you everything you have in this life, from the air you breathe to the ground you stand on to you musical ability and you have never thanked Him for it, yet you demand answers for your questions.
I am a man of faith, nothing anyone says will change that, because I know I am right. If you
knew in your heart that something was infallibly correct, would you need intellectual study to prove it to you? Would you back down from your beliefs just because someone questioned you?
Let me put it into musical terms. If one guitar player studies theory - say, Randy Rhoads - and another just plays - say, Dimebag Darrell - which is greater? I'm sure Randy would say the study of music got him where he was (along with practice), while Darrell didn't need the years of study to play what
he did. Randy pursued the intellectual and Dime did not, both were great. 'Intellectual study' is not necessary to know something.
