Recent content by Derf

It's a nice story, but it isn't what the scriptures are saying explicitly. For one thing, according to Romans, He arose never to die again. Romans 6:9 KJV — Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. You'll notice that it doesn't say...

He didn't rise to heaven yet. that came 40 days after His resurrection. He even told Mary not to cling to Him, BECAUSE He hadn't yet ascended. John 20:17 LSB — Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brothers and say to them, ‘I ascend to...

We all agree some things are worth arguing over.

That's where my daughter is, and she said -20.

A luncheon shoot? what a great idea!

That would be 2016. We barely escaped electing Hillary Clinton as our president that year. For once Al Gore was correct.

But what does it mean for a sentient being to fill heaven and earth? Just because He's a spirit doesn't mean He's like a gas that expands to fill a volume.

Or even in a septic tank (toilets are a little small for us to fit in). The point of the verses is not that God is in every place, necessarily, but that He is watching over us wherever we go. He sees us when we are in trouble. He is with us always, who are His, but is He with everyone, even...

Is God in the toilet when you are taking a dump?

Would you answer the question? Is the answer as crass as the question?

It makes sense that John wrote Revelation earlier than 90, but it would be weird to have written to churches Paul started (like Ephesus) so early in Paul's ministry--even later in Paul's ministry. But if he did, you're saying that John's two resurrections were for who, exactly? Jewish Christians...

If Rev 20 speaks of a "first resurrection" which implies a 2nd resurrection (after the 1000 year reign of Christ), but you think there is a prior resurrection spoken of by Paul (which we call the rapture), shouldn't Paul's resurrection be called the 1st, the one in Rev 20:6 the 2nd, and the...

Maybe @Ps82 said both that God is in all and all is in God.

I get them confused sometimes, but I thought panentheism says that God is in everything. What @Ps82 and @chrysostom are saying is the opposite--that everything is in God. If everything is in God, that sounds more like everything is God, which I thought was closer to pantheism.

He sounds like Thomas Sowell.