Next, note that Jesus' disciples didn't teach the word using parables after Jesus left, but went right into spirit talk. What Jesus preached laid the foundation for their message, what the Holy Spirit came to teach beyond that of Jesus.
Psalm 78:2 I will open my mouth with a parable; I will utter hidden things, things from of old—
Ezekiel 24:3 Tell this rebellious people a parable and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: “‘Put on the cooking pot; put it on and pour water into it.
Hosea 12:10 I spoke to the prophets, gave them many visions and told parables through them.”
Matthew 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
Matthew 13:35 So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”
And so, should I really put on the cooking pot?
Not sure what you intend by the cooking pot.
Matthew 13 was the moment Jesus spoke to a perticular multitude of hearers, speaking 100% parables in fulfillment of prophecies. But Jesus sent that multitude away. Note that in Matthew 5 in His sermon on the mount He didn't teach with parables. Nor did Jesus teach exclusively in parables after Mt 13, but mixed words of wisdom among fewer parables.
What am I missing, why that list of verses? Jesus explained His parables to His disciples whenever they asked. Even with the fully disclosed plan before them they missed it like everyone else that didn't get the interpretations. But it was Jesus' will his apostles would eventually see it all plainly.
With that done, Peter, Paul, James, et.al were equipped to carry on the gospel with understanding. Modern readers have no excuse not understanding. The big problem is lack of reading, and greater lack of studying the scriptures. An easy to detect problem is yanking verses out of context to make some religious or secular point that Jesus and the apostles would object to.
And so, should I really put on the cooking pot?
So you being an expert on dinosaur fossils and all, how old do you think this one will turn out to be after the research is done?
Castle River fossil discovery believed to be new dinosaur - Calgary - CBC News
My guess at the moment is 80 million years old. But of course, I'll wait until the research is done and I'll go with what the overwhelming evidence indicates.
Young Earth Creationists already know this fossil is less than 6,000 years old. Their scientific methods allow fossils to be dated before they are even examined.
Did you know that there is a movie in the works about Cope and Marsh?
Bone Wars: Steve Carell and James Gandolfini to Play Battling Paleontologists | WIRED
Unfortunately, Gandolfini died shortly after this article was written.
So I don't know where the movie stands at the moment, but it would appear that there are some acting jobs available. Perhaps you should look into it.
Yes, I could see you and several others who have been posting here playing the role of dinosaur bones.
I was not aware of this movie, very interesting stuff right here. Heh, I was just thinking the other day while reading through some Cope and Marsh stuff how really putting their theories aside, just the story for their own time, the conflict between eachother, the high intrigue and political facet could make a possibly interesting tv drama series. However, I would also think sadly that Cope and Marsh just ain't mainstream enough to interest a large tv audience.
Lol, Western Science History, and really just history in general is full of intrigue, dubious politicking, and high drama. It is actually a lot more common than is taught. Another very popular scientific feud that has been going around with some of my friends that are nerdy enough to care about this stuff is interest in Tesla and Edison. Both their interpersonal relationship, but also of course each man individually.
Maybe the moss on my pillow is actually extraterrestrial foam from the aliens who planted human life on Earth.
That's how irrational you sound. Just because something cannot be scientifically explained at this present moment, does not mean that there must be an extramundane, metaphysical explanation for it. What you are presenting is an argument from ignorance. You're saying 'we can't scientifically explain it, thus is must have been an omnipresent creator'.
I can't scientifically explain how I got home last weekend after a few too many beers, it doesn't mean that God personally carried me there!
Maybe you never had left the house in the first place, remember, you were drunk.
Here is something I have never been able to figure out. Dinosaur fossils have been found for a very long time and according to todays science they are thousands possibly millions of years old. But I don't get it, the bible doesn't speak of T rex's attacking ppl. When exactly did they roam the earth? because God created the earth in seven days on the sixth day created man okay so did the dinosaurs go around eating mankind from the very creation of the world then one day were wiped out?
If I was in a debate with an athiest trying to get him to accept God and he brought this up I would be clueless
If you are a YEC in a debate with a non-theist...then you will lose...
What y'all are forgetting is that the Earth was created millions of years ago and man was created some 6,000 years ago. There was stuff here before Adam and we are digging this stuff up and trying to mate it to modern day which won't happen and hence evolution.
In my opinion there is no "losing" since there is no real debate from them. When a real Christian debater comes up they warn each other to avoid contact, then hold on to unfounded denials of science facts that threaten their religion of Naturalism. I had to take many science courses under atheist evolutionist instructors, have never been afraid to be exposed to their designs, but never knew of one attending a seminar given by a scientist who believes Genesis literally, unless planted to disrupt a meeting. Regardless of the expertise of a "creationist" that often never ties the Bible to a presentation in public, they are cast off like dandruff by atheists who will never listen to a word of it just because of the speaker's testimony. They base their disbelief of Christian scientists mostly upon what they find on atheist websites, while some Christian sites that don't use a lot of wisdom towards ministering to atheists add to their fire. You can't lose what's already lost, souls bound for destruction.
I have met at least a dozen pastors who have bought in to evolution, and find in them the clue as to why their doctrine is usually strangely off, even in contempt of their denominational fundamentals. Once a person accepts it, the deception grows like a cancer, and the logical conclusion is to question Jesus and in effect the rest of the Bible. Their ministries have become mere jobs to make a living from. Those churches are dwindling quickly, having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof. If Genesis can't be taken literally, then none of it can be among the deceived. The RCC accepted evolution, "progressing" to acceptance of gay unions, for example, like some protestant groups that went before the Catholics. A great danger is growing today, many Christians on the verge of believing the great lie, slowly becoming disciples of error.
Really???? I accept evolution because the evidence of a six thousand year old Earth is zilch apart from a literalistic interpretation of allegorical mythological text passed down through generations as a moral parable of the progression of a human life. Facing scientific facts doesn't make you a spiritual cancer patient. Step back a bit.
Atheists still trust faulty dating methods, anything to find a way out of believing God at His word. The only stuff here before Adam predated him by a few days. While at it they scoff over the Genesis flood, which Jesus stood by. It produced almost all the present sedimentary record in less than a literal year.

Not a single thing in this silly post is true.