Re: I'm not the one replacing Jerusalem with saints - II

My dear vektek - that was not a side-swipe at you, or anybody else for that matter who benefits from these exchanges. In fact, I'm flattered that you and members of your family find my posts so helpful - no, really. And I don't know if you're aware, but Acts 15 and Eph 2-3 just happen to be among the most significant passages in this entire debate, but they approach it from a different angle - viz., the fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant by the New Covenant.

My point was simply that I would not voluntarily initiate a debate in one of the most obscure corners of the Bible before getting my ducks in a row regarding the rest of Scripture that speaks to us in plainer language - that's all. That obeys one of the most important rules in hermeneutics - that you interpret the obscure by the plain, not the other way round.

Trust me, if I thought this was a waste of time, I would not put so much effort into it, or give it so much of my time. Do you imagine, for example, that I labour under the delusion that I will ever convince refreshed? This is not primarily for her benefit, but for mine, and ppl like you. Basically, seekers of truth who have not closed their minds to alternative interpretations.

I hope that puts your mind at rest about any perceived insult or aspersions cast in your direction. And no, I don't think you have been brain-damaged. That will only happen after you have read my 'humdingers'.