Thursday, September 29, 2011

Geisler Syndrome

Recently Jamin Hubner has raised issues relating to a simple question: is the modern secular state of Israel religiously and theologically significant? Is it "Israel" as in the Israel of Scripture, or Romans 11? And if it is not, is it open to criticism? He is concerned about the strength of the movement, mainly amongst American evangelicals, that has granted to Israel not only a theological position it does not actually hold, but which precludes even the slightest mention of criticism of a secular state. Now, I am not going to re-hash everything here, but he has even been accused of being a "shill for Hamas" due to sources he has cited and issues he has raised (which seems to me to provide strong evidence of the need to raise such issues and challenge the knee-jerk reactions of many in the Evangelical community as a whole).

If Dr. White can quote where I suggest that Hubner is a shill for Hamas because Hubner has criticized the Dispensational view of modern Israel, he’s welcome to do so. Otherwise, he’s burning a straw man.

Hays is simply unfair in his attempted response to Jamin. It is scatter-gunning, it is not sober, fair, researched writing. It is "you sound like a CNN reporter" rather than "here is a more sound, historical way of seeing those events."

i) Jamin’s notion of “sober, fair, research” is to glean his factoids from a PC-USA minister and writer for Sojourners magazine.

ii) Yes, Jamin is acting exactly like the average CNN reporter. Whenever you have a jihadist attack, the mainstream media goes out of its way to step around the elephant in the room. It studiously avoids suggesting a religious motivation. Anything but that.

Likewise, in his discussion of why “Palestinians” or “Arabs” kill Israeli Jews, Huber went out of his way to ignore the Muslim connection.

It seems that Hays leaps from the reality that Islam as a whole has a long history of anti-Jewish behavior, one which is easily documented today in Palestinian broadcasting and writing, for example, to the unfounded conclusion that there has never been any period of time in all of history where Muslims and Jews lived in relative peace in close proximity with each other.

i) The reason I brought up the long history of anti-Jewish behavior in Islam should be obvious: Hubner raised the issue of what motivates “Palestinians” to kill Israeli Jews. Do purely local circumstances account for that? Or is that part of a larger historical pattern, grounded in a religious ideology?

ii) Sure you can have peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Jews when Muslims subjugate Jews. When Muslims rule over a Jewish populace and bilk Jewish dhimmis for all they’re worth. When Jews are ghettoized. Second-class citizens. But I didn’t expect White to defend dhimmitude.

You can also have peaceful coexistence if both grounds are under the thumb of another overlord (e.g. the defunct British Empire).

This is part of the problem with this kind of thinking: it is far too easy to provide counter-documentation of where there have been enlightened, unbigoted Muslims (and Muslim leaders) who did not follow this path. The reality is, of course, that Islam is not a monolith, either today, or in the past. Is there violence against Jews based solely upon a deep and abiding presence of religiously inspired bigotry amongst some Muslims based upon, say, particular hadith stories?

So now we see White taking the CAIR line. We must distinguish between “true Islam” (the “Religion of Peace”), to which peacenik “moderate” Muslims adhere–and those wacky “radicals” who’ve “hijacked” the true faith, what with their twisted ideology and all.

It is absurd to accuse Jamin of being a Hamas shill, first of all. Jamin is not "constantly reciting the Hamas narrative."

Just compare Hubner’s narrative about “mass murder,” the right of return, and so forth and so on, with any jihadist website like, say, “The Palestinian Information Center”–to see that Hubner has simply repackaged the same rank propaganda.

Is Hubner a jihadist? No. He’s just a dupe for the jihadists.

The gospel transcends all geopolitical boundaries and is for all people at all times and in all places. Christianity does not require the importation of any political, cultural, or governmental system, again, unlike Islam. This is part and parcel of my presentation, and the role of politics, the existence and rights of Israel as a secular state, etc., have never had anything to do with my defense of the faith or my criticism of Islam. So on any logical basis, anything Jamin Hubner has said about the secular state of Israel, world history in the 20th century, etc., has nothing at all to do with my apologetic regarding Islam. Further, I challenge the implied assertion that speaking to the issue of whether the secular state of Israel has theological import or ramifications would undercut meaningful Islamic apologetics.

That’s hopelessly naïve. For while the “gospel” transcends all geopolitical boundaries, “evangelism” does not. Islam disallows evangelism. Islam disallows conversion from Islam to Christianity (e.g. the law of apostasy). Wherever possible, Islam tries to suppress Christian expression. And that agenda is facilitated by willing dupes like Hubner.

Secondly, Hays' view of Islam is way too simplistic when he speaks of taking a position on the "role of Islam in geopolitics."

Once again, White is taking the CAIR line. We mustn’t blame all the “good” Muslims for a few “isolated incidents” perpetrated by a fringe group.

Unfortunately, White is suffering from Geisler Syndrome. Geisler syndrome is when a mentor automatically covers for his protégé. White constantly faults Norman Geisler because Geisler automatically covers for Ergun Caner.

Of course, one symptom of Geisler Syndrome is that you have to be an outsider to recognize the symptoms. The mentor himself is oblivious to the syndrome.

Because Caner isn’t White’s own protégé, White can clearly see the problem with Geisler. But because Hubner is White’s protégé, he lacks the same objectivity in that case.

Taken by itself, that’s simply a common human foible. What’s more unfortunate is that in order to defend his protégé, White is now sticking up for “moderate” Islam.

40 comments:

  1. Steve, if this was the Geisler syndrome, you'd just receive a postcard saying "If you publish, I'll respond" and get a refusal from then on for any interaction.

    The fact is your issue is with Jamin. Quit trying to drag the rest of the ministry into this. As James said, he has put too much into his resposne to Islam in the past five years to let such slanderous titles (my choice of words, not James') go with just a nod and a smile.

    Keep your disputes focused on the proper subjects, not their associates.

    ~The Rookie

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually, White is now dragging the rest of AOMIN into this issue.

    What's more, he's playing the "moderate Muslim" card, which undercuts what he's been doing for the past 5 years.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve,

    No, you posted Allahu Akbar and Omega Ministries, not Allahu Akbar and Realapologetics. Own it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jamin is on the AOMIN team. Own it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Does the same compartmentalization apply to the Geisler/Caner situation?

    ReplyDelete
  6. SIR BRASS SAID:

    "Keep your disputes focused on the proper subjects, not their associates."

    White is free to distance himself from Jamin's position. He didn't. In fact, he moved in the opposite direction.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steve said:

    Actually, White is now dragging the rest of AOMIN into this issue.

    Don't change the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The "AA and OM" quip was rather inflammatory, possibly silly. But the actual content of Steve's post here today is, by and large, a valid response to Dr. White's response, and worthy of consideration. His points are, for the most part, reasonable observations and concerns. Or we can just use the very tactics we despise when naturalistic materialists use them, and ignore the heart of the matter by harping on a periphery so as to distract from the real issues.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think it is fair for me to say I have heard Dr. White acknowledge that Muslim countries and Western Muslims are birds of two different feathers. And he just yesterday decried the absurdity of Pakistan's anti-blasphemy laws, which shows he recognizes that Pakistan is not a "moderate Muslim" country.

    So, I'm not sure Dr. White is playing the "moderate Muslim" card in the same way that CAIR would.

    I suspect that there is some degree of "talking past each other" going on here, since I get the feeling that Dr. White is starting to think that your position is that "all Muslims inherently hate and want to kill all Jews," which surely is not your intent.

    Of course, I'm not sure you've expressed what your view is. Perhaps if you did, it would open the door for Dr. White to agree with it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So then, James White's position is that Islam really is a peaceful religion and that it is the terrorists who are twisting it, failing to follow in the magnanimous, loving footsteps of Muhammad.

    Thanks so much for bringing this fact to light, Steve. Who knew that James was this compromised? I hope someone can reach him before he converts.

    Actually, it may be too late, as someone did tell me that he has already recited the shahada! And on the dividing line, no less. I hope this is not true. If it is, it would explain a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There are pious Muslims who hate Jews for theological reasons.

    There are also nominal Muslims who hate Jews for cultural reasons.

    Jew-hatred is part of their cultural conditioning. This is fostered by conspiracy theories and urban legends about Jews, Christians, and Americans.

    Although most Muslims aren’t jihadis, many Muslims are still sympathetic to the jihadist historical narrative. There’s a groupthink mentality.

    In that respect, even “moderate” Muslims or nominal Muslims aren’t trustworthy, for when push comes to shove, their sense of ethnic/social solidarity will carry the day. That’s where their ultimate loyalties lie. With the in-group, not the out-group.

    ReplyDelete
  12. EX N1HILO,

    So does your sarcastic comment tacitly admit (pace Hubmer) that "Palestinian" Jew-hatred is, in fact, religiously motivated?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "We must distinguish between “true Islam” (the “Religion of Peace”), to which peacenik “moderate” Muslims adhere–and those wacky “radicals” who’ve “hijacked” the true faith, what with their twisted ideology and all."

    But contrast this:

    http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1249

    And this:

    http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=385

    I think this may be evidence that Dr. White's recent words have conveyed something to you (Steve) that he did not intend to convey.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Regarding this: There are pious Muslims who hate Jews for theological reasons.

    There are also nominal Muslims who hate Jews for cultural reasons.

    Jew-hatred is part of their cultural conditioning. This is fostered by conspiracy theories and urban legends about Jews, Christians, and Americans.

    Although most Muslims aren’t jihadis, many Muslims are still sympathetic to the jihadist historical narrative. There’s a groupthink mentality.

    In that respect, even “moderate” Muslims or nominal Muslims aren’t trustworthy, for when push comes to shove, their sense of ethnic/social solidarity will carry the day. That’s where their ultimate loyalties lie. With the in-group, not the out-group.


    I think Dr. White would agree with those points up to (at least) the last paragraph.

    What do you mean by "trustworthy" in this context? Does it just mean that if push comes to shove they will side with the more observant Muslims over the Jews/Christians? Or did you mean something more by it?

    -TurretinFan

    ReplyDelete
  15. Steve, I do believe that Muslim hatred for Jews goes back to Muhammad's teachings, "revelations", and example; although that's not really what I was trying to say.

    My point is that you misrepresent James White's position on "moderate Islam" as the true expression of Islam. From what I can gather, this is not his position at all.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Surely Steve is referring to White's position *now* in his latest missive in defense of his acolyte; not to what his historic position actually is. Come on, people.

    ReplyDelete
  17. TURRETINFAN SAID:

    "What do you mean by 'trustworthy' in this context? Does it just mean that if push comes to shove they will side with the more observant Muslims over the Jews/Christians? Or did you mean something more by it?"

    If push comes to shove, they will throw their lot in with fellow Muslims rather than (real or perceived) Christians, Jews, and Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think Dr. White has spoken enough on Islam for us not to jump to a conclusion anywhere near him taking a CAIR-like defense of Islam. The fact is that neither moderate or extreme Muslims are being fully consistent with their own religion, nor can they be since the Koran is not inspired and is inconsistent with itself. Obviously both moderate and extreme Muslims are picking and choosing with portions to follow. I think White is simply pointing out that Islam has non-zealous followers and "cultural believers" like Christianity might. It is too large of a people group to classify in such narrow terms.

    From what I've been able to observe there is not all that much disagreement between White and Hays. Like TF said, there seems to be a degree of talking past each other.
    I also agree that it comes off as kinda odd that A & O Min got pulled in because of a blog member's post on his personal blog. IMO, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I fail to see how Steve gets this

    Steve: So now we see White taking the CAIR line. We must distinguish between “true Islam” (the “Religion of Peace”), to which peacenik “moderate” Muslims adhere–and those wacky “radicals” who’ve “hijacked” the true faith, what with their twisted ideology and all.

    out of this

    James: This is part of the problem with this kind of thinking: it is far too easy to provide counter-documentation of where there have been enlightened, unbigoted Muslims (and Muslim leaders) who did not follow this path. The reality is, of course, that Islam is not a monolith, either today, or in the past. Is there violence against Jews based solely upon a deep and abiding presence of religiously inspired bigotry amongst some Muslims based upon, say, particular hadith stories?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "If push comes to shove, they will throw their lot in with fellow Muslims rather than (real or perceived) Christians, Jews, and Americans."

    I'm pretty sure that Dr. White would agree with that too.

    (Keeping in mind that with these sorts of generalizations there are bound to be exceptions that prove the rule - a point I'm sure you also grant.)

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Surely Steve is referring to White's position *now* in his latest missive in defense of his acolyte; not to what his historic position actually is. Come on, people."

    I don't think Dr. White intended to depart from his historic position. If he did intend to, then I agree that his historic position is largely irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  22. White wrote: "I have often acknowledged and taught that Islam is a politico-religious system, or a religio-political system (depending on its relative proportion in a population), and ... I fully understand that Islam cannot separate itself from the essentially political elements of its own underlying foundation"

    I think that's another key point of agreement between you and White and against CAIR.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I have to say I don't even know Steve or this blog to the best of my knowledge. However, I have been a fan of Dr. White for the last couple years and while I don't always agree with every stance he has I have no doubts especially regarding Islam as to his solidarity to Christianity and the Gospel. For someone to use slander like has been used here to insinuate White is CAIR like at all is nothing but inflammatory and foolish. If there's one thing I have noticed over the years and through a few grat debates it's this: If you are going to get in a battle of words with Dr. White for any reason(And start it by bad mouthing his ministry at that!)you're probably going to get verbally pounded. On top of all that I've recently been through the slander mill and by the grace of God I'm coming through it well. It happened because God humbled the heart of the accuser and gave me a soft heart to respond. Advice: At least say you were sorry for throwing mud like CAIR and Allah-whatever you said about AOMIN and start over being less inflammatory. God bless!

    ReplyDelete
  24. I benefit immensely from both T-blogue and aomin; particularly Steve and James.

    Both men are gifted servants of the Most High God.

    FWIW in my personal opinion I think Jamin is an immature kid. I also happen to think he's a very gifted brother in Christ who, in time, will bear much fruit by God's grace.

    I also think Steve was mistaken to link aomin in general with Jamin's personal hobby-horse. This was an unfortunate guilt by association tactic.

    Worse, however, was Steve's drawing of parallels between White's position and CAIR which is sheer lunacy. I was frankly surprised by this maneuver, and wondered for a moment if someone had hacked Steve's account.

    Lastly I think Steve is exactly right in asserting that James is suffering from "Geisler Syndrome" with respect to his defense of Jamin. Maybe it's more accurately described as the "Team Player Syndrome". Coming to the aid of our own.

    Maybe it's a fatherly impulse.

    Maybe James felt compelled to step in because Steve linked aomin and Jamin. After all Dr. White has many years and his reputation at stake in aomin. Perhaps he rightly feels protective of his work.

    Maybe he feels the truth is at stake.

    I dunno.

    But Jamin needs to own his responsibility here, and take his own lumps.

    In conclusion I think Steve and James need to pick up the phone and talk like men. A back and forth blog war seems truly unnecessary and fruitless.

    In Christ,
    CD

    ReplyDelete
  25. We need to talk about hero worship in the evangelical church, because it is raging out of control.

    ReplyDelete
  26. That's right Louis. Those of us who have defended Dr. White in this discussion have done so, not because we believe he has made valid points on this complex issue with which we tend to agree, but because we worship him.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I know this will be deleted, but what James White is really doing is taking a proprietary position on Islam, the type when one has been making an intellectual effort to learn about something beyond the level of mainstream understanding. The vanity involved in this will warp the person's perspective and make them reluctant to state the obvious if the obvious is something most everybody knows via mere common-sense and basic experience. Now delete away.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Seems to be some issue here of policing co-bloggers.
    Hard enough to police yourself!

    Let's just accept that it can't be done. Unless there is blog micromanagement to the nth degree. And few bloggers will submit to that.

    Let's just accept that in this meta... co-bloggers merely have a loose association. May have loose cannons. May have a hobby horse. And may not be worth reading for that matter.

    But I certainly don't attribute Jamin's views to James. Sure, there is some 'guilt by association' (and some similarity of names)... but that's about it.

    Reminds me of the Passentino's critique of Hunt (in their book Witch Hunt). Criticizing Dave for playing the "Guilt by Association" game far too much. A critique that I see as valid. And a game that I now find as specious.

    A game that was played with Jesus, "Why eateth your Teacher with publicans and sinners?"
    And might also be seen as, "Why co-blogeth your Teacher with pre-mill's and dispy's?".

    So, let's get over this "G by A" people... and get back to Kum by A.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I'm familiar with James White, and one of the things that impresses me about him is his ability to respect his opponents.

    It's a rare thing these days to see someone actually climb into someone else's theological boat, read the things they read, and try to understand what they understand.

    This is what James has done with Islam. It seems to me that this is the right approach to ministering to Muslims. They will be far more likely to listen and hear the words of someone who they know understands them and respects them.

    But Steve Hays I'm unfamiliar with. He seems to behave like one of the trolls in the religious section on Yahoo Answers ~ looking for a fight.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Holy crap. There sure are a lot of people on here who have no idea what Dr. White has said, previously posted in his blog, stand for or stands against. Ignorance sure isn't bliss if it is creating this kind of outrage in the form of such demagoguery couched in an political Christian self righteous foolishness.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yeah Steve- this whole thing in unbalanced and ill-informed. It's silly to continue holding the line that Dr. White is "soft" on Islam- he's just attempting to serve the God of Truth by being accurate with his representation of them. My pastoral advice to you is: Retract and move on.

    Too much good work to be done to stall out on this...

    ReplyDelete
  32. I do believe the "Geisler Syndrome" is a bit, itty bitty bit much, don't you think?

    While I cannot say with any conviction Geisler's mentorship program with Caner will bring about any Glory due the Living God, I do have a conviction White's mentorship program with Hubner will.

    I could be wrong?

    But I believe this whole thing is way over the top in light of the reality that just as there will be some perishing, there will be some not; and forgive me citing verbatim the verses:

    1Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
    1Co 1:19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."
    1Co 1:20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
    1Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
    1Co 1:22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
    1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
    1Co 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

    ...

    ...

    1Co 12:12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.
    1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
    1Co 12:14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many.
    1Co 12:15 If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body.
    1Co 12:16 And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body.
    1Co 12:17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell?
    1Co 12:18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose.


    One can rightly conclude that there are Jews, Greeks, Parthians, Meades, Arabs, Syrians, Chinese, plug your own ethnicity in here if you please, in both camps, the Camp of the Elect Righteous and the camp of the eternally damned.

    Are all Muslims eternally damned? I dunno?

    One wonders just what is going on here when we still have this mandate that has not expired?

    Act 26:14 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'
    Act 26:15 And I said, 'Who are you, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.
    Act 26:16 But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you,
    Act 26:17 delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles--to whom I am sending you
    Act 26:18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'
    Act 26:19 "Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,...".


    If you take a hold of the plow you have been given and then let go, oh well then? So?

    ReplyDelete
  33. NatamLLC: Can you please provide some clarity as to how you see those verses applying to what anyone else was discussing? I'm having trouble seeing how they relate to either the Israel/Palestine issue or the mentor-student/hero-worship issue. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I used to think this was a good resource for apologetic material...not one for criticizing brothers in Christ.

    Sorry man, I cannot follow such an unstable, and I would nearly say....un-Christ-like...apologetics ministry as Triablogue, sorry. You've lost my interest and respect.

    I will be praying for you that you may seek the Holy Spirit in guiding you through issues as this, not your emotions.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Jacob,

    well I am tempted to ask you to "consider" what I said and the Lord will give you understanding about what I said.

    Nevertheless, I will say something about my choice of Biblical Words.

    I am not taking sides because I am neither for these men nor am I against them.

    In my view that tag that Dr. White fits the Geisler Syndrome model, presumably something Steve sees is Dr. White's own doing to himself, wasn't fair. But, so what? I think it an itty bitty bit much. Obviously Steve views it differently.


    It is clear to me, at least, that any Reformed minded soul should clearly see a difference between Norm Geisler's coddling of Ergun Caner, ( by way of the great Evangelical coverup) and Dr. White's clear position to interact with men of God respecting their points of view Theologically, his contributing blog members of AOMin., giving each a wide berth to rest their expressions on without having to be Bob the policeman?

    As for Steve's comment about Jamin being like a CNN reporter, well, that's another story framed that way; and to build onto that idea that the comment about Dr. White being like CAIR and their activities when dealing with Muslims, seems to me to be a fair assessment of reality. Do you see something different?

    As for the choice of verses, the first set from 1 Corinthians 1, I proffered them as something for consideration? If you see something differently, by all means, raise it up some more as you have already! Thanks by the way for doing that!!

    Presumably both Steve and James are in total agreement that the "real" Terrorist and Monolith in the room is Jesus, not those of false religious practices peddling themselves off as the read deal? Last I checked, Christ is going to subject all things to Our Heavenly Father, as it says in 1 Corinthians 15, "...When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. ...".


    As for the second set of verses taken from 1 Corinthians 12, it simply is to point to that backdrop what I would suspect no one would disagree with, that Steve is not James and James is not Steve? Their unique qualifications and ministry speaks to that. What is the fuss then seeing we have two different ministries at work here?

    One thing Steve has going for him that James does not is we who want too can comment in here one way or another directly responding to Steve's positions after he publishes them. Whereas, that is not the case nor afforded to those of us that are not connected to AOMin. who want to comment on his points of view and stated positions, there. You have to be "in channel" with the likes of TurretinFan and others to respond directly to James for good or for ill.


    Finally for me, the third set of verses from Acts 26 is the major issue, here. It is for me to question on Whose side you are on? Are you a player called out of the world to stand fervently on the side of Christ and in His mission in this life or Satan's? Are you actively prosecuting the war against the devil and his minions being "faithful" to the heavenly vision as the Apostle defends it and himself to King Agrippa?

    Here is where I take issue with both James and Steve.

    For me, this whole affair seems to diminish that real work all of us are called to war against. There exist, now, true and deadly adversaries. By this back and forth response or reaction to, whichever it is, by Steve with regard to Jamin's blog article by making the connection between him and AOMin., or, James taking issue with Steve doing that so forcefully, seems to distract from that warfare, does it not?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Truth never won a popularity contest.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "...nor will it"! He did have one on one side and one on the other side and only one went with Him, then! That's a good start of something New, I suppose?

    I suppose it was because of the immanent reality that befell him or what was put into him and came through him, the decree, as death was staring them all in the eyes?

    But, the rest is history and thousands and thousands, millions and millions have since followed there where no man can!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Sorry, NatamLLC, I have trouble following your line of thinking and the way you word some of your sentences is a bit confusig. Perhaps English isn't your native tongue and you are using a translator tool?

    I still don't see the connection between those passages and the two discussion topics noted.
    If you are just quoting them because you happen to like those passages and wish to exhort everyone to consider them, hey that's great, I just thought there was perhaps something more directly applicable to the context you were trying to communicate by quoting them at length.

    God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Jacob,fair enough.

    Thanks for the exchanges.

    Where do you stand in all this?

    ReplyDelete