Ezekiel

Ezekiel, chapters 40 to 48 are to be taken literally, supposedly: Literally Reading Ezekiel 40-48 | hipandthigh (Cf. Triablogue: Literal events, figurative depictions)

Ezekiel, chapters 38 and 39 are to be taken literally, or are they? Triablogue: Gog and Magog 

If Ezekiel, chapters 38 and 39 are subject to some degree of figurative interpretation, then chapters 40-48 also take a place along the slippery slope. Where, for example, is the very high mountain near Jerusalem? (Riddleblog - The Latest Post - Eschatology Q & A -- What About Ezekiel's Vision of the Temple (Ezekiel 40-48)?

In the process, premillennialism and dispensationalism become questionable; however, by the same token some objections to the apologetical outreach of Messianic Jews also become questionable. For instance, some of the items of Mark S’ list--repeated and re-posed time and again on Yahoo! Answers--hinge on a strict literal interpretation of such passages: Where in the Tanakh do Jews reference when they deny Jesus was the Messiah? - Yahoo! Answers.

And yes, all of the information above is yet another reminder that the world is not a simple place.

Reasons for Christian Apologetics

A reminder of what is at stake when it comes to Christian apologetics and the lack thereof:

What is Apologetics? An Outline | Why do Apologetics | Who does Apologetics | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Eight reasons why we need apologetics | Purpose of apologetics | Why use apologetics | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Not listed among Slick’s proof texts of the necessity of apologetics are these: 1 Timothy 6.1-2 and Titus 2.9-10.  Semi-Pelagian apologists should especially love these two passages since they apparently are consonant with idea that slick advertising can bring about repentance and faith.  In any case, the two texts apparently support the idea that Christians or Christian teaching should, at worst, be only minimally offensive to unbelievers.

As a side note, and interestingly enough, one may notice that according to those two texts it was particular rejection of slavery that would have been offensive to unbelievers of the time and place in which the apostle Paul lived--the opposite of what critics of Christianity now object to when they charge that Christianity supports chattel slavery.  Of course, if one will make more than a superficial comparison and contrast between Roman-era slavery and modern slavery, then he should discover that motivations and circumstances behind the two institutions are quite different.  That is what they should discover, yet we live in a world where people are lazy and have their own particular agendas, do we not?