Search results

No, I clearly stated in #47 that slavery was protected by the Constitution. And in #48 you disagreed and said slavery was a state issue. So the time frame I brought involved the Federal govt also. Then once you saw you were in error, you developed this smoke screen of 'jurisdiction'. Stranger

Being a child of promise is to be called as Isaac was. In Isaac shall thy seed be called. (Rom. 9:7) Isaac's birth was a miraculous birth. He was a child of promise from God. This speaks to the first movement of salvation being from God. The promise of God comes first before any faith...

The promise was to Abraham, but not to all who were of Abraham. For in Isaac shall the seed be called. He is a child of promise from God and one who exercises the faith of Abraham. Though Jacob's name was changed to Israel doesn't mean all those of Israel are of Isaac. And in Isaac shall...

I don't ignore jurisdictional differences between the Federal govt. and the States. That the Federal govt. has jurisdiction concerning the aspect of slavery is proof that slavery was not just a states issue...as you claim it was. Stranger

Taken I'm not dismissing jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is not the subject. That slavery was an issue with the Federal govt. is the issue. That the Federal govt. had jurisdiction to regulate and govern slavery in the U.S. is proof that slavery was an issue with the Federal govt. Thus making...

Yes, and yes. The same aspect of the Father that led Israel into Canaan to destroy the Canaanites and establish Israel in the first place. Israel, and Jerusalem, and the Temple would be the location where Jesus Christ will rule and reign over the world in the Millennium. It would be the...

Oh Gee. A long list of nothing to add nothing to your case. Squawk about 'jurisdiction' all you like. You cannot deny that slavery was a Federal issue. Such a list becomes nothing but a smoke screen to hide that you don't know what you are talking about. Slavery was protected by the...

You're going to seed with your 'jurisdiction' speech. You stated in post #48 that slavery was the states issue and that the Constitution neither sanctioned it or outlawed it. But the Constitution did sanction it in protecting the slave owners property with the 'fugative slave law'. Thus...

It is an issue as it shows that slavery was not just a state issue. It didn't just concern boundaries. It concerned the importation of slaves. It didn't just concern a geographical line. It concerned a geographical line concerning slavery. It is not a question of whether or not I am...

No one knows who started the Roman church. It is not told us in the book of Acts. It was started before Paul ever got to Rome. (Rom. 1:13) Stranger

You can't understand it period. You can't have the Federal govt. acting upon slavery as they did and then say it is a state issue. That is ridiculous. When the importation of slaves was outlawed in 1808, that also was the Federal govt. making slavery it's issue. Your boredom is of no...

The priests in (Ez. 2:61-63) could not prove their genealogy. Therefore they were put out of the priesthood. That shows you that they needed to be of Israel. Later under Nehemiah the people would separate from the mixed multitude. (Neh. 13:3) Later Nehemiah cleansed the priesthood also...

I'm not denying salvation existed in the Old Testament. Being a child of Abraham does not make the Church Israel. In Romans 9 Paul is not teaching about Gentiles becoming the spiritual seed of Israel. He is showing how that being born of Abraham was not enough for the Israelite to be saved...

No, it is Christian doctrine. You just don't agree with it. Nothing in (Eph. 2) says the Church has become part of Israel. They have become part of the household of God. No, Israel is the name you and others are putting on the Church. To which I disagree. Stranger

Slavery should have been left to the states. But it was not being left to the states. The Missouri Compromise clearly shows the Fed. Govt. dictating slavery where it can or can't be allowed. And, the expansion of slavery is also the Fed. Govt. dictating where it can or can't be allowed. It...

If the Federal govt. had say so, then slavery was not a state issue. That it should have been only a state issue, yes. That was the problem. The northern states were pushing the Government to act against slavery. No provision should have been added prohibiting slavery for acceptance of...

What you said is slavery is a state issue. Thus I asked the question, if slavery was a state issue then why the Missouri Compromise? Do you know what the Missouri Compromise was? Stranger

You asked of me a history question. And I answered. Post #46 and 47. Now, I ask of you, as I asked earlier, if slavery were a state issue, why the Missouri Compromise? Either do the work, or quit playing games. Stranger

Indeed, I agree. Perhaps Americas lamp has been removed. Stranger

If slavery was only a state issue, why the Missouri Compromise? Do you even know the Constitution? Apparently not. You speak in broad strokes but have nothing to support your claims. Stanger