WILL THE REAL ANTICHRIST PLEASE STAND UP

[Fenris]

As I understand, it is a common and reasonably well accepted belief amongst believers that the modern state of Israel actually is an example of God working through history.

From my perspective all of it strains credulity,

So on the one side, we have a prediction in the bible that took place 2500 years that was fulfilled in the most literal and observable sense. On the other, we have an allegation of a shadowy cabal of troublemakers, of whom there is no proof or even evidence of their existence, let alone the outcome of their secret plans.

And you can't tell the difference?

If there is some supernatural component to the story of Adam and Eve for instance

What if there isn't?

As Nachmanides said in his disputation with the Catholic Church in 1263, his soul is no more connected to Adam and Eve than it is to Pharoah.

Again, it is my understanding of the position of at least some non-trivial fraction of believers--that the bible is a record of history meant in part to illuminate the the spiritual threads that connects the beginning to the present to the end- Including the direct hand of God. 

Are you a religious person?

The bible is a story of a people and their trials and tribulations.

I mostly said 'heresies' because it rhymed, so you can disregard that as I don't think it affects the thrust of my point. 

Of course it affects it. If I don't believe that the Pharisees were heretical then Davy's point is meaningless. I mean it anyway, but just another reason why. 

I can't tell if you are rejecting the idea of literal supernatural/spiritual effects and consequences that can influence events and people over the course of time, or if you just think calling it spiritual residue was too glib.  Do you believe that supernature interacts with nature to cause things, and can it cause things over time? If so then that is all I mean by spiritual residue-- supernatural effects that can have an effect over some arbitrary period and scope.... or maybe its better said to have an effect over some period and scope that is permitted or mandated by God.  If you don't believe that , I'd love to hear what you do believe.

I don't believe that.  Simple as.

[Oscar_Kipling]

So on the one side, we have a prediction in the bible that took place 2500 years that was fulfilled in the most literal and observable sense. On the other, we have an allegation of a shadowy cabal of troublemakers, of whom there is no proof or even evidence of their existence, let alone the outcome of their secret plans.

And you can't tell the difference?

I believe you are leaving out one major allegation in the case of Israel that will shed some light on why I believe these things are less dissimilar than you do. That is that it is asserted in the bible that God would reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the surviving remnant of his people....and so on.

I suppose you lean less into the supernature of it all than other's I've encountered, but if we can both only agree that receiving accurate information about events to occur thousands of years in the future from the god of the universe is itself a supernatural occurrence--then, I think that needs to be acknowledged.

Perhaps you'll disagree with me here, but If the prophecy was not simply a prediction, but a promise from God, then it follows that the establishment of modern Israel was a supernatural series of events shaped by the influence of  supernatural power.

If you don't believe the God of the universe had anything to do with the establishment of modern Israel or that the only mechanisms that a supernatural god employed were natural mechanisms, then I suppose we are at an impasse because we disagree in principal about what constitutes a supernatural event.

Regardless, for me the establishment of modern Israel as an act of God that played out over thousands of years is no less impressive or incredible in principle than the Canaanite diaspora morphing into or having an effect on the Pharisees over the course of hundreds. 

What if there isn't?

As Nachmanides said in his disputation with the Catholic Church in 1263, his soul is no more connected to Adam and Eve than it is to Pharoah.

If you don't believe that Adam and Eve have a literal spiritual effect on humanity today, then I'd say if you take one step further and propose that they are probably fictional and we are on exactly the same page.

That Nachmanides quote is interesting, as I understand it he rejected the idea of original sin, or inherited guilt, but did not reject the idea of inherited spiritual condition. That is to say that mortality, evil proclivities (yetzer hara, I wont pretend I have a nuanced understanding of this), and some form of spiritual separation from God became a part of the human condition as a consequence. Additionally he appears to believe that the actual birthrate of snakes and their inability to talk is also directly related to the snake's acts in the garden.

 It is my understanding that these things in his mind were spiritual fallout (though specifically not guilt or inherited sin as the Catholics believe)...or erm 'residue' that modified humanity up through to today. I do not believe that Nachmanides actual position is that there were no spiritual or supernatural lasting consequences that stem from Adam and Eve as you've characterized it.

Are you a religious person?

The bible is a story of a people and their trials and tribulations.

I am not a religious person. I agree that your description of the bible is one that is accepted by many people as well. I also happen to know that some folks also believe that in addition to that, it is described as a record of how God works and moves through history....for my money I kinda feel like any description that fails to include God as a major aspect is insufficient.

Of course it affects it. If I don't believe that the Pharisees were heretical then Davy's point is meaningless. I mean it anyway, but just another reason why.

Okay, if you insist.

I don't believe that.  Simple as.

Well, alright then.

[Fenris]

I believe you are leaving out one major allegation in the case of Israel that will shed some light on why I believe these things are less dissimilar than you do. That is that it is asserted in the bible that God would reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the surviving remnant of his people....and so on.

I suppose you lean less into the supernature of it all than other's I've encountered, but if we can both only agree that receiving accurate information about events to occur thousands of years in the future from the god of the universe is itself a supernatural occurrence--then, I think that needs to be acknowledged.

It's a historical occurrence.

Perhaps you'll disagree with me here, but If the prophecy was not simply a prediction, but a promise from God, then it follows that the establishment of modern Israel was a supernatural series of events shaped by the influence of  supernatural power.

It was a historical occurence carried out by God.

Regardless, for me the establishment of modern Israel as an act of God that played out over thousands of years is no less impressive or incredible in principle than the Canaanite diaspora morphing into or having an effect on the Pharisees over the course of hundreds. 

Except that the existence of the state of Israel is visible by all and not the ravings of a diseased mind with no historical evidence to back it up.

If you don't believe that Adam and Eve have a literal spiritual effect on humanity today, then I'd say if you take one step further and propose that they are probably fictional and we are on exactly the same page.

The two statements have nothing to do with each other. Adam and Eve could have actually existed and yet have no "spiritual effect" (whatever that is) on mankind today.

That Nachmanides quote is interesting, as I understand it he rejected the idea of original sin, or inherited guilt,

Jews reject the idea of original sin and inherited guilt, yes.

but did not reject the idea of inherited spiritual condition.

I don't know what this means.

I do not believe that Nachmanides actual position is that there were no spiritual or supernatural lasting consequences that stem from Adam and Eve as you've characterized it.

Are you familiar enough with his works to make such a declaration?

 

I am not a religious person.

Then you're making all these arguments, not as a believer, but from the outside.

[Oscar_Kipling]

It's a historical occurrence.

It was a historical occurence carried out by God.

Except that the existence of the state of Israel is visible by all and not the ravings of a diseased mind with no historical evidence to back it up.

well, idk if Davy has any diseases of the mind but the critiques of his proposal appear to me to tend toward pointing out the absurdity of the logistics and  logical consequences of his proposition.

modern Israel exists, that is not up for debate--however the assertion isn't simply that modern Israel exists, it is that modern Israel exists because God made it so through supernatural means over the course of historical time scales---this point I do not find to be well evidenced, at least not any more so than other supernatural claims from the bible. Pointing out how absurd the logistics and logical consequences of God totally making Israel a thing are, doesn't normally gain any traction with believers in my expirience, so I find it curious that it is a sticking point for Davy's proposition.   


For my money any activity by God is supernatural by virtue whether it is implicit or explicit. I get the feeling there is some distinction in your mind that does not exist for me.

The two statements have nothing to do with each other. Adam and Eve could have actually existed and yet have no "spiritual effect" (whatever that is) on mankind today.

I didn't mean to give the impression that those ideas were  tied together in the sense that one follows from the other, but in the sense that I believe both that there are no lasting spiritual or supernatural consequences and that they probably didn't exist.

Spiritual effect---like do we have spirits? Were they effected? Is there a supernatural context to the consequences? like perhaps you can talk about whether you believe in supernatural or a spiritual aspect to the universe then provide your definitions and i'll likely just accept your definition and move on...sound good?

but did not reject the idea of inherited spiritual condition.

I don't know what this means.

I

It means that Nachmanides did not assert that the acts of Adam and Eve did not have any lasting consequences that are supernatural in nature. While we did not inherit guilt from Adam and Eve, we did inherit things like mortality and an inclination toward evil (yetzer hara). Every subsequent human inherited these conditions and those conditions are not only physical in nature but also spiritual. To be clear I'm essentially using spiritual and supernatural interchangeably, if that helps. 

I do not believe that Nachmanides actual position is that there were no spiritual or supernatural lasting consequences that stem from Adam and Eve as you've characterized it.

Are you familiar enough with his works to make such a declaration?

Maybe. Are you familiar enough with his commentary on genesis to show me where I've failed to understand his actual position?

https://www.sefaria.org/Ramban_on_Genesis?tab=contents


 

Then you're making all these arguments, not as a believer, but from the outside.

Well, yeah. Is there some reason why i'd be precluded from understanding the topic as clearly as a believer? perhaps...some...spiritual component i'm missing?

[Fenris]

modern Israel exists, that is not up for debate--however the assertion isn't simply that modern Israel exists, it is that modern Israel exists because God made it so through supernatural means over the course of historical time scales---this point I do not find to be well evidenced

You keep using terms like "spiritual" and "supernatural", not me.  All I observed was that a prediction was made in the bible more than 2500 years ago, and said prediction came true. I find it historically fascinating that only one middle eastern tribe from the iron age has repopulated their original lands.  What happened to the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Idumeans, the Hittites, and so on? They're gone. Did anyone predict their rebirth? No.

at least not any more so than other supernatural claims from the bible. Pointing out how absurd the logistics and logical consequences of God totally making Israel a thing are, doesn't normally gain any traction with believers in my expirience, so I find it curious that it is a sticking point for Davy's proposition.   

Davy's proposition has no proof or even any evidence. That you keep arguing in spite of that simply makes you look contrarian, nothing more. You may as well be arguing that the moon is made of green cheese.

For my money any activity by God is supernatural by virtue whether it is implicit or explicit.

But you've already said that you're not a believer.

I didn't mean to give the impression that those ideas were  tied together in the sense that one follows from the other, but in the sense that I believe both that there are no lasting spiritual or supernatural consequences and that they probably didn't exist.

Again, whether they existed or not is a separate matter from whether they has a "spiritual effect". This just seems argumentative and contrarian and nothing more.

Spiritual effect---like do we have spirits?

I have no idea. What is a "spirit"?

It means that Nachmanides did not assert that the acts of Adam and Eve did not have any lasting consequences that are supernatural in nature.

Textbook case of argument by omission. He also never said that the moon isn't made of green cheese, so obviously it must follow that he believed that the moon must be made of green cheese. No?

While we did not inherit guilt from Adam and Eve, we did inherit things like mortality and an inclination toward evil

We did not "inherit" those things. Their actions made humans subject to death and gave humanity free will.

Maybe. Are you familiar enough with his commentary on genesis to show me where I've failed to understand his actual position?

Is there a specific comment he made that's of interest to you, or are you just going to post all his works and challenge me to find where he says the opposite of what you believe?

Well, yeah. Is there some reason why i'd be precluded from understanding the topic as clearly as a believer?

Why, yes. There is. You don't believe any of this and have no skin in the game. No particular reason to try to understand. You're just a contrarian, looking to argue and feel superior over believers.

[Oscar_Kipling]

You keep using terms like "spiritual" and "supernatural", not me.  All I observed was that a prediction was made in the bible more than 2500 years ago, and said prediction came true. I find it historically fascinating that only one middle eastern tribe from the iron age has repopulated their original lands.  What happened to the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Idumeans, the Hittites, and so on? They're gone. Did anyone predict their rebirth? No.

I do keep using those words, and it increasingly seems like those terms don't apply to your beliefs I guess.  So I suppose that is the end of that.

Davy's proposition has no proof or even any evidence. That you keep arguing in spite of that simply makes you look contrarian, nothing more. You may as well be arguing that the moon is made of green cheese.
 

noted

But you've already said that you're not a believer.

I was trying to have a discussion within the paradigm of a believer, I did this because my question was more about the reasoning behind the reaction to Davy's post and not the existence of god....the only thing kicking my post off with my unbelief would have done is irritate people, and frankly given who I am I was going to do that in the natural course of just being myself.

Again, whether they existed or not is a separate matter from whether they has a "spiritual effect". This just seems argumentative and contrarian and nothing more.

noted

I have no idea. What is a "spirit"?

Back of the napkin answer---Spirit is the supernatural, immaterial, aspect or component of a human being (and perhaps some other organisms, objects, places and concepts too). It is capable of detecting, interacting and/or communicating with God and perhaps other spirits and additional aspects of the supernatural world. It can manipulated or influenced and those influences can express themselves in the physiology and or psychology of a person. It continues to exist after physical death.

I've come across many properties said to belong to the spirit and spirits and such, but I'm fine with that as a working definition that can be adjusted to suit needs.

It means that Nachmanides did not assert that the acts of Adam and Eve did not have any lasting consequences that are supernatural in nature.

Textbook case of argument by omission. He also never said that the moon isn't made of green cheese, so obviously it must follow that he believed that the moon must be made of green cheese. No?

That is quite unfair considering that my next sentence continues to explain my understanding of Nachmanides position. I write long sentences, but I think its unreasonable to expect that I would pack everything that I had to say about his position into that one.

While we did not inherit guilt from Adam and Eve, we did inherit things like mortality and an inclination toward evil

We did not "inherit" those things. Their actions made humans subject to death and gave humanity free will.

Hmm, I suppose I can see where you are coming from. I'll conceded that it makes just as much sense to consider it to be a one time change to the human condition that is merely expressed in all subsequent human existence. So, let us say that as a consequence of A&E's actions the human condition was forever changed and that change exists to this day.

Maybe. Are you familiar enough with his commentary on genesis to show me where I've failed to understand his actual position?

Is there a specific comment he made that's of interest to you, or are you just going to post all his works and challenge me to find where he says the opposite of what you believe?

Well, no. You introduced Nachmanides to the conversation using a quote in a way that gave the impression that he supported your position, it struck me as  a mischaracterization. So I went to the source to confirm for myself.

You then asked me if I was familiar enough to stand by my assertion. I could be incorrect in my interpretation, so I gave you the link so that you could challenge my assertion using my source if you so choose.

Historically you've completely ignored it or clipped things out of context when I provided you with excerpts from sources, it has not been a successful approach for me.  If you think there is something wrong with my characterization, then you are welcome to produce it off of the top of your head or take the time to read it (really just the first 20 or so chapters are relevant to my argument).

Well, yeah. Is there some reason why i'd be precluded from understanding the topic as clearly as a believer?

Why, yes. There is. You don't believe any of this and have no skin in the game. No particular reason to try to understand. You're just a contrarian, looking to argue and feel superior over believers.

That's quite a thing to say to me.

[Fenris]

I was trying to have a discussion within the paradigm of a believer

But you aren't. You believe none of this. There's no point.

Back of the napkin answer---Spirit is the supernatural, immaterial, aspect or component of a human being (and perhaps some other organisms, objects, places and concepts too). It is capable of detecting, interacting and/or communicating with God and perhaps other spirits and additional aspects of the supernatural world. It can manipulated or influenced and those influences can express themselves in the physiology and or psychology of a person. It continues to exist after physical death.

This is not a good definition.

That is quite unfair

No, it's not. You're arguing by omission, which is a logical flaw and means absolutely nothing. I have never stated that I was not a follower on scientology on these forums, so using your logic, that means I am a scientologist.

So, let us say that as a consequence of A&E's actions the human condition was forever changed and that change exists to this day.

See, it can be described without appealing to "spiritualism."

Well, no. You introduced Nachmanides to the conversation using a quote in a way that gave the impression that he supported your position, it struck me as  a mischaracterization. So I went to the source to confirm for myself.

You "went to source"? The man was a giant sage and wrote vast commentary on the bible. Yet you claim to understand his position on vague topics.?

He was also the first European to use the Indian digit zero as a placeholder, as we do now. Does that mean that you understand all of mathematics?

That's quite a thing to say to me.

I call it like I see it.

[Oscar_Kipling]

I was trying to have a discussion within the paradigm of a believer

But you aren't. You believe none of this. There's no point.

You don't see any purpose in it, but It's worth it to me to once again get to bask in your charming repartee.

Back of the napkin answer---Spirit is the supernatural, immaterial, aspect or component of a human being (and perhaps some other organisms, objects, places and concepts too). It is capable of detecting, interacting and/or communicating with God and perhaps other spirits and additional aspects of the supernatural world. It can manipulated or influenced and those influences can express themselves in the physiology and or psychology of a person. It continues to exist after physical death.

This is not a good definition.

That is unfortunate, I put some effort into it. I invited you to provide a definition that you find acceptable, which you ignored. So, once again, would you like to share a definition that you find acceptable? Or perhaps you would like to modify the one I provided?

That is quite unfair

No, it's not. You're arguing by omission, which is a logical flaw and means absolutely nothing. I have never stated that I was not a follower on scientology on these forums, so using your logic, that means I am a scientologist.

lets review how i've represented my understanding of Nachmanides' position:

"That Nachmanides quote is interesting, as I understand it he rejected the idea of original sin, or inherited guilt, but did not reject the idea of inherited spiritual condition. That is to say that mortality, evil proclivities (yetzer hara, I wont pretend I have a nuanced understanding of this), and some form of spiritual separation from God became a part of the human condition as a consequence. Additionally he appears to believe that the actual birthrate of snakes and their inability to talk is also directly related to the snake's acts in the garden.

 It is my understanding that these things in his mind were spiritual fallout (though specifically not guilt or inherited sin as the Catholics believe)...or erm 'residue' that modified humanity up through to today. I do not believe that Nachmanides actual position is that there were no spiritual or supernatural lasting consequences that stem from Adam and Eve as you've characterized it."

&

"It means that Nachmanides did not assert that the acts of Adam and Eve did not have any lasting consequences that are supernatural in nature. While we did not inherit guilt from Adam and Eve, we did inherit things like mortality and an inclination toward evil (yetzer hara). Every subsequent human inherited these conditions and those conditions are not only physical in nature but also spiritual. To be clear I'm essentially using spiritual and supernatural interchangeably, if that helps."

You've chosen to remove my statement from its context, and then ridiculed it for not making sense after you divorced it from that supporting framework.

So, let us say that as a consequence of A&E's actions the human condition was forever changed and that change exists to this day.

See, it can be described without appealing to "spiritualism."

So, you have a problem with this event or series of events being considered supernatural at all in addition to not being heritable?

Anyway, I think there is a difference between being able to make that statement without explicitly including the fact that the consequences spoken of were those imposed by the the supernatural creator of the universe, and asserting that there is not a supernatural component at all.

It is quite a treat to be in conversation with a believer that appears to be doggedly determined to divorce the events of genesis from any relationship to the supernatural. 

Well, no. You introduced Nachmanides to the conversation using a quote in a way that gave the impression that he supported your position, it struck me as  a mischaracterization. So I went to the source to confirm for myself.

You "went to source"? The man was a giant sage and wrote vast commentary on the bible. Yet you claim to understand his position on vague topics.?

It would be fair to call it a source as opposed to 'THE SOURCE'-- A source however, that dealt directly with the topic at hand and is to my knowledge representative of his position on the topic. Again you are welcome to point me in the direction of some of his other works that deal with the topic or are more representative of the topic than his genesis commentary.

He was also the first European to use the Indian digit zero as a placeholder, as we do now. Does that mean that you understand all of mathematics?

Man I would love a source on that whole zero business, because I've never heard anything remotely like that and I am extremely skeptical of that claim. Anyway appealing to Nachmanides' commentary on genesis in order to ascertain his position on the nature and consequences of the events that are recorded in Genesis is nothing at all like claiming to understand all of mathematics based on a suspiciously dubious factoid. If I were to make an analogy, it would be closer to reading Method of Fluxions and then asserting that it is representative of Newton's rationale and framework for derivative notation.

It is undeniable  that that Nachmanides commentary on Genesis is about Genesis, and we were in fact talking about events in Genesis. There may be better sources, but it is not a ridiculous place to look for insights on his thinking on the topic.

That's quite a thing to say to me.

I call it like I see it.

and what a worthwhile addition to the conversation it was.

[Athanasius]

I mean, I think you were clear about your suggestion from the beginning, but perhaps I wasn't clear about mine. Generally speaking the idea that choices that people made in the past have very literal spiritual eternal existential consequences in the future seems to lie at the heart of many folks interpretation of events depicted in the bible. I mean, its not like I'm defending the whole enterprise as not absurd, but like, I don't understand why you guys think this crosses the line into absurdity.

Davy's idea isn't merely that "choices have consequences".

I might make the exact case you are making, if it served my question...In this case though lets handwave it away by saying that the scripture need not be corrupt, only the interpretation. For my money, this is the insidiousness of heart hardening and the like, God needn't change anything about reality, just the target's perception of it. Or perhaps put another way, he could change the incentive structure to stimulate preexisting paradigms of motivated thinking.

Why are you talking about God when I responded to Davy about people? Davy's position doesn't allow for "only the interpretation" to be corrupt, since he makes it a point to mention that the Kenites became scribes and keepers (of God's word).

Honestly I might have written this myself when I'm feeling particularly cogent, but I feel like I've gotten sidetracked. I saw Davy's post and thought it seemed par for the course theologically...and I really do get all of your objections, its just that--and I hate to keep repeating myself, but like why this? Like with a few mad-libs style replacements, in my eyes your objections here are the framework for why most of the bible doesn't hang together. so why this?

Why what?

But isn't our need for Jesus the consequence of earlier (arguably the earliest) human blunders that polluted the river of human history with sin all the way back at the mouth? The question isn't if the kind of world where spiritual fallout through history can exist given the logical consequences of that fallout, it is, What are the consequences if any of the failed Canaanite genocide and were they spiritual and long term? Or maybe its, what precludes the consequences from being this.

You're responding to me taking issue with turning the Pharisees into boogeymen. Did you mean to quote something else?

I guess you did answer though, continuing to do this will probably just be an exercise in repeating ourselves..I mean unless it isn't, not saying I don't want to read em if you got em.

I don't know what else you'd want me to say. I have to go make dinner.

[Oscar_Kipling]

I mean, I think you were clear about your suggestion from the beginning, but perhaps I wasn't clear about mine. Generally speaking the idea that choices that people made in the past have very literal spiritual eternal existential consequences in the future seems to lie at the heart of many folks interpretation of events depicted in the bible. I mean, its not like I'm defending the whole enterprise as not absurd, but like, I don't understand why you guys think this crosses the line into absurdity.

Davy's idea isn't merely that "choices have consequences".

Right, I guess. I was looking at your statement:

"The assertion I'm speaking to, is the one that suggests the Kenites effectively survived millennia in whatever form, to side with the Pharisees in Jesus' day in their role as scribe, having been "[keepers of] the letters of God's written Word" since time immemorial (or at least the time of Chronicles). It's that particular I'm pointing to as absurd."

and I couldn't, and still can't quite wrap my head around why this would be an absurd consequence of failing to wipe out the Canaanites. IOW why is this sequence of unlikely events that includes the survival of the Kenites and their maintaining some scribal role not a possible consequence in the context of supernatural consequences in the bible. To say it plain If i take for granted that If god tells you to do something and you don't do it, the consequences could appear very unlikely (even miraculous] and take a long time but that's what you get when you disobey God. So some people surviving hundreds of years to throw a monkey wrench in some future events seems on brand. maybe that is more clear.

I might make the exact case you are making, if it served my question...In this case though lets handwave it away by saying that the scripture need not be corrupt, only the interpretation. For my money, this is the insidiousness of heart hardening and the like, God needn't change anything about reality, just the target's perception of it. Or perhaps put another way, he could change the incentive structure to stimulate preexisting paradigms of motivated thinking.

Why are you talking about God when I responded to Davy about people? Davy's position doesn't allow for "only the interpretation" to be corrupt, since he makes it a point to mention that the Kenites became scribes and keepers (of God's word).

I was talking about god because it seemed relevant imo, why else would I do it? I did not read Davy's assertion as excluding the idea that "only the interpretation" was corrupt. I read that the kenites became scribes and keepers of god's word that sided with the Pharisees, not that they changed the text in order to side with the Pharisees, because then what is Davy relying on as scripture?

Honestly I might have written this myself when I'm feeling particularly cogent, but I feel like I've gotten sidetracked. I saw Davy's post and thought it seemed par for the course theologically...and I really do get all of your objections, its just that--and I hate to keep repeating myself, but like why this? Like with a few mad-libs style replacements, in my eyes your objections here are the framework for why most of the bible doesn't hang together. so why this?

Why what?

I'm banking my earlier response in this post as clarifying here, but if not just let me know and i'll try to be more clear.

But isn't our need for Jesus the consequence of earlier (arguably the earliest) human blunders that polluted the river of human history with sin all the way back at the mouth? The question isn't if the kind of world where spiritual fallout through history can exist given the logical consequences of that fallout, it is, What are the consequences if any of the failed Canaanite genocide and were they spiritual and long term? Or maybe its, what precludes the consequences from being this.

You're responding to me taking issue with turning the Pharisees into boogeymen. Did you mean to quote something else?

huh, Reading it back, it does seem like I was responding to something else, though I do not remember what.

I guess you did answer though, continuing to do this will probably just be an exercise in repeating ourselves..I mean unless it isn't, not saying I don't want to read em if you got em.

I don't know what else you'd want me to say. I have to go make dinner.

I didn't want you to say anything in particular, I was just trying to make it clear that I was open to reading any of your further contributions even if though it seemed like there wasn't much meat on that bone. enjoy your dinner

[shepherdsword]

The OP has no flexibility in his understanding. His position is full of dogmatic assertions that speak of his immaturity. I think it's fine to hold a position on eschatology. Just don't get up and do a "walk away" when you are challenged. I read the book of revelation often and my view constantly shifts as I see through the lenses of different theoretical interpretations. That ability developed with age