Richard T said:

An outstanding teaching that is grounded in scripture. Thanks for poiting out some possible misconceptions.

Click to expand...

thank you. Chat GPT continues to amaze me how it gets things right 99% of the time with the bible. I recommend trying it out.

ARBITER01 said:

Again,..... a lot of people are more worried about theology than a relationship with Jesus.

Click to expand...

How can you have a relationship with Jesus without knowing who He is and what He has done?

About the incident in Acts 16 where Paul circumcizers Timothy
⭐ 1. TORAH SYSTEM: ANCESTRY IS THROUGH THE FATHER (NOT THE MOTHER) You are correct. ✔ Tribal inheritance ✔ Land inheritance ✔ Lineage ✔ Covenant membership by birth All come through the father’s line in the Torah. Examples: Levi → Levite Aaron → priestly line Judah → Davidic line Israelite status → father Land allotments → father’s house (Num 1, Num 26, Josh 13–21) Nowhere in the Torah is descent through the mother the determining factor for tribal identity. So by Torah law, Timothy — whose father was Greek — would be considered: ⭐ A Greek (non-Israelite) unless he underwent circumcision and entered the covenant. The Torah basis is correct.


⭐ 2. SECOND TEMPLE JUDEAN CUSTOM: IDENTITY OF CHILDREN OF MIXED MARRIAGES WAS MATERNAL This is NOT Torah law. This is post-exilic Judean halakhic development. By the time of Jesus, Paul, and Acts: Children of a Judean mother and a Gentile father were treated as Judeans who must keep covenantal signs (circumcision, Torah, customs). Evidence: ✔ Ezra–Nehemiah Mixed marriages were condemned because of the mothers, and the children were assumed to “belong to” the foreign women. ✔ Mishnah Kiddushin 3:12 (reflecting earlier practice) “If her child is from a slave or a Gentile, the child is like her.” Meaning: If mother = Israelite, Father = Gentile, The child is treated as Israelite (obligated to circumcision) ✔ Josephus also confirms this social assumption. He describes children of Judean mothers as part of the Judean community even when the father is non-Israelite. So although the Torah itself is patrilineal, Second Temple Judean society was functionally matrilineal for identity in mixed marriages. This is the world Paul is operating in.


⭐ 3. TIMOTHY’S REAL SOCIAL SITUATION Acts 16:1–3: Mother = Judean (believer, raised him on Scriptures — 2 Tim 1:5; 3:15) Father = Greek Locals all knew the father was Greek Timothy was NOT circumcised So to the surrounding synagogues, Timothy was: ⭐ A Judean (by maternal identity in Second Temple society) ⭐ But an uncircumcised Judean = covenant-breaker An uncircumcised Gentile is one thing. An uncircumcised Judean is FAR WORSE in the eyes of Judeans. Paul could not bring him into a synagogue without massive scandal.


⭐ 4. CIRCUMCISION IN THE TORAH IS ABOUT COVENANT, NOT ANCESTRY Genesis 17 teaches: “Every male among you shall be circumcised… He who is not circumcised shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.” Key points: ✔ Circumcision = sign of the covenant ✔ ANY non-Israelite can join Israel THROUGH circumcision (Ex 12:48) ✔ An Israelite male who is not circumcised = covenant breaker So by Torah definition: Timothy’s ancestry is irrelevant His covenant status is determined by circumcision Timothy was: ✔ raised in Scripture ✔ Judean by community definition ✔ but uncircumcised = outside the covenant in Judean eyes This is the problem Paul needed to solve — not salvation, but social identity and synagogue access.


⭐ 5. WHY PAUL REFUSED TO CIRCUMCISE TITUS BUT DID CIRCUMCISE TIMOTHY ⭐ TITUS 100% Gentile Pressured by false teachers to circumcise “for salvation” Paul refuses (Gal 2:3–5) Circumcising Titus would corrupt the gospel. ⭐ TIMOTHY Considered a Judean in Second Temple society Uncircumcised Judean = covenant-breaker Impossible to bring him into synagogues without offense Circumcision removes a cultural obstacle, not a theological one Acts 16:3 explains Paul’s logic: “because of the Judeans in that region who all knew his father was Greek.” This is 100% a missionary strategy, not covenant theology.


⭐ 6. PAUL’S CONSISTENT RULE ✔ If circumcision is demanded for salvation → REJECT IT (Titus) ✔ If circumcision helps avoid unnecessary offense → ALLOW IT (Timothy) This exactly matches Paul’s own stated principle: 1 Corinthians 9:20 “To the Judeans I became as a Judean, to win Judeans.” Timothy needed to be acceptable in Judean synagogues. Titus did not. Thus Paul circumcized one and refused the other deliberately.

⭐ 1. The problem was NOT race — it was covenant identity. Ezra 9–10 and Nehemiah 13 make this absolutely clear. The issue was: ✔ foreign wives ✔ who did not worship YHWH ✔ raising children in foreign religion ✔ which threatened to destroy the restored covenant community. The complaint in Neh. 13:24: “Their children spoke half in the language of Ashdod, and could not speak the language of Judah.” This means the children were being raised in Philistine / pagan culture, did not know Hebrew, could not learn Torah, and followed their mother’s religion. Thus: The foreign mothers were producing non-Israelite children culturally and religiously. This is why the marriages were condemned. ⭐ 2. In the ancient Near East, children normally followed the mother’s culture. This is a key fact. Across the ANE: mothers raised children, fathers worked outside the home, religious instruction came from the mother, language, customs, and household gods were transmitted maternally, and mothers’ foreign cults typically entered the home. So when Ezra says the children “belonged to the foreign women,” he means: ✔ they were being raised as Gentiles, not as Israelites ✔ they would not be covenant members ✔ they threatened the Israelite identity of the restored community. This is NOT about DNA. It is about covenant lineage. ⭐ 3. Torah explicitly warns that foreign wives will turn sons away from God. Ezra quotes Deuteronomy 7:3–4: “You shall not intermarry with them… for they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods.” The warning is not that foreign people are bad — but that foreign worship destroys covenant continuity. This is exactly what happened in Ezra–Nehemiah. ⭐ 4. Defining “Israel” in Ezra’s time = covenant membership, not genetics. After the exile: Israel was a tiny remnant, identity was fragile, the nation had nearly disappeared, idolatry had destroyed them once already, and they needed to rebuild a faithful community. Therefore, Ezra took a strict stance on marriage to ensure: ✔ children were raised Hebrew ✔ children learned Torah ✔ households worshiped YHWH alone ✔ Israel did not become culturally dissolved among the nations. ⭐ 5. Why children were assumed to “belong to the foreign women.” There are four reasons in the text: A. Language — Neh. 13:24: “Their children spoke the language of Ashdod… not the language of Judah.” This shows the mothers trained them in foreign identity, children were disconnected from Scripture, and they could not participate in covenant learning. B. Culture and religion — Foreign wives brought household gods, pagan festivals, ancestral deities, foreign customs, and syncretism. The home was influenced far more by the mother than the father. C. Household inheritance laws — In many ANE cultures the mother’s clan or tribe conveyed household gods (teraphim) and children inherited the mother’s cultic obligations. We see this in Genesis 31 with Rachel’s teraphim. D. Deuteronomy 7:4 — Ezra interprets this literally: “They will turn your children away from Me.” Ezra concluded children of these marriages were being lost to foreign worship, so they “belonged” to the mothers’ nations, not to Israel. ⭐ 6. Why the solution was strict (Ezra 10). Ezra commands: “Send away the foreign women and their children.” (Ezra 10) This sounds harsh, but the logic was: Israel was rebuilding a pure covenant community, the family line must be “holy seed” (Ezra 9:2) meaning covenant-faithful lineage, not genetic purity but spiritual loyalty, Israel was only a few thousand people — cultural dissolution was a real threat, and foreign wives represented active idolatry at the center of the home. Ezra acted to preserve the covenant identity of the nation. ⭐ 7. Important: The Bible does NOT prohibit all mixed marriages. Examples of righteous mixed marriages: Moses marries a Cushite woman, Boaz marries Ruth the Moabite, Salmon marries Rahab the Canaanite, Joseph marries an Egyptian, Tamar (a Canaanite) becomes ancestress of Judah, and Uriah the Hittite is a righteous Gentile. Why were these allowed? ✔ Because these foreign spouses joined Israel’s covenant ✔ They accepted YHWH ✔ They raised children as Israelites. This is the exact opposite situation from Ezra–Nehemiah.



did it violate the torah to trace ancestry through the mother

ChatGPT said:​

Short answer: No — tracing ancestry through the mother does not violate the Torah, but it is not commanded in the Torah either.
It is simply not the Torah’s system for determining tribal identity or covenant lineage.
Let’s break it down clearly:

---

⭐ 1. TORAH DOES NOT DEFINE TRIBAL IDENTITY THROUGH THE MOTHER​

Every place in the Torah where lineage, tribe, land, inheritance, or covenant status is assigned, it is always:
✔ “by the father’s house”
✔ “according to their fathers”
✔ “from the sons of … (father)”
Examples:
Numbers 1:2
“by their clans and families, by their fathers’ houses.”
Numbers 34–36
Land inheritance is only through the father’s line.
Leviticus 24:10 (the blasphemer)
Son of an Israelite mother + Egyptian father = not considered Israelite, treated as outsider.
Deuteronomy 7:3–4
Israelite women marrying Gentile men → the children would “turn your sons away,” showing the child follows the father.
Conclusion:
The Torah’s structure is fully patrilineal for identity.
So Torah law does not trace tribal identity through the mother.

---

⭐ 2. BUT — THE TORAH DOES NOT FORBID TRACING ANCESTRY THROUGH THE MOTHER​

Here is the key distinction:

◼ Torah commands tribal identity through the father​

—but—

◼ Torah does not prohibit recording or noting ancestry on the mother's side.​

You can know someone’s maternal ancestry, talk about it, document it — there’s no law against that.
Examples of maternal lineage mentioned:
✔ Moses’ mother is named (Exodus 2:1–4)
✔ Kings’ mothers often listed (1–2 Kings)
✔ Judges and leaders sometimes identified by mother
✔ Priests sometimes identified by both parents (Leviticus 21:13–14)
This proves maternal lineage can be recorded biblically,
but it never determines tribal identity or covenant membership.

---

⭐ 3. SECOND TEMPLE “MATERNAL IDENTITY” WAS A CUSTOM, NOT TORAH​

After the exile (5th century BC), Judeans developed a halakhic rule:
Child of a Judean mother = Judean
Child of a Gentile mother = Gentile
This was not biblical law, but a cultural and religious fence built to protect purity.
This rule is visible in:
✔ Ezra–Nehemiah
✔ Early Pharisaic halakhah
✔ Mishnah Kiddushin 3:12 (reflecting earlier custom)
✔ Josephus (1st century AD)
But none of this is found in the Torah itself.

---

⭐ 4. SO DID IT VIOLATE TORAH TO TRACE IDENTIFY THROUGH THE MOTHER?​

No.
It did not violate Torah because:
✔ The Torah never forbade maternal genealogy
✔ The Torah only prescribes how official tribal identity is assigned
✔ Cultural customs can go beyond the Torah without contradicting it
✔ As long as the custom does not replace or alter Torah commandments, it is not a violation
However:
If someone claimed “maternal descent = tribe” as if it were Torah-commanded,
that would contradict the Torah’s patrilineal system.
The Second Temple practice did not formally try to replace tribal identity,
because after the exile, most tribes (except Judah and Levi) were lost anyway.
It was simply a practical purity rule, not a biblical lineage rule.

---

⭐ 5. SUMMARY​

Here is the simplest answer possible:
✔ Torah identity = father’s line only
✔ Torah does NOT ban recording maternal ancestry
✔ Second Temple Judaism used maternal identity for community membership
✔ This did NOT break Torah, but it did not come from Torah


All this ancestry stuff became irrelevant since Jesus

Mercy Shown said:

You make an important observation about the real injustices that occur in human societies. Scripture is not blind to oppression—God hears the cry of the afflicted (Exod. 22:23), condemns exploitation (Isa. 10:1–2), and calls His people to acts of mercy (Mic. 6:8). Whenever it is in our power to relieve suffering, the love of Christ compels us to do so (1 John 3:17–18). Compassion is not optional for the Christian.

But at the same time, we must remember what Christ actually commissioned His Church to do. Jesus did not send His disciples into the world to proclaim a program of social reform. He sent them to proclaim the gospel—the good news of repentance and forgiveness of sins in His name (Luke 24:47), and to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:18–20). Social justice—however noble—is temporal. It may ease suffering for a season, but it cannot save a soul. Only the gospel “is the power of God for salvation” (Rom. 1:16).

There is also a spiritual danger in making social justice our primary mission. When we begin to define and enforce what we believe is “just,” we risk stepping into the very role Scripture warns us against. Jesus cautions us not to judge by our own standards (Matt. 7:1–5), and Paul reminds us that human wisdom is always limited (1 Cor. 1:20–25). Political activism can subtly shift our trust from Christ to our own sense of moral correctness. In trying to fix society, we may lose sight of the only One who can truly transform hearts.

Jesus Himself asked, “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?” (Mark 8:36). Even if we managed to create a perfectly just society—a world free of exploitation, inequality, and suffering—without the gospel, people would still die in their sins. Christ’s mission is eternal; earthly justice, at its very best, is temporary.

So yes, we should relieve suffering when we can. The Good Samaritan is our model for personal compassion (Luke 10:33–37). But we must not confuse compassion with commission. The Church’s calling is to lift up Christ, not to become the world’s political judge. If we lose our grip on the gospel in the name of justice, we risk giving people a better world—while they lose their souls.

Click to expand...

Social justice should never be our primary mission, and yet it's an intirinsic part of it which cannot be dismissed because if we're ignoring our neighbor's needs, not doing for "the least of these" (Matt 25), then we're not really loving them, which means we're not truly a child of God. Preaching the gospel to someone whose children are starving will not impress them. And judging some social/political structure as just plain wrong that commits genocide or engenders starvation is just plain right.

I voted yes...but with a disclaimer lol.

Given the fact that the EU occupies a landmass that's smaller than the US, it makes perfect sense for them to "team up" on certain shared services.

For instance, it doesn't make sense for them to have 27 different versions of the FAA. It makes sense for them to team up on some defense capabilities. 27 disjointed air forces are less effective than 2 or 3 bigger ones that are the result of collaboration with a few decision makers steering the ship.

And given the close proximity, certain border travel agreements make sense. (I wouldn't want to go through a lengthy customs process every time I went to Pennsylvania)


But I do think it should be more of a federalist model, where there are certain "infield" and certain "outfield" aspects.

Structured more like a federalist system like we have in the US, where the certain "key" initiatives are mandatory buy-ins (the infield), but where each member nation/state still maintains the right to "go their own way" on stuff that's not of international concern (the outfield)


The one potential flaw I see... Their HQ needs to be in London or Berlin, not Brussels.

The seat of any international organization needs to be in a place that embodies a more diverse set of viewpoints that would be more likely to be amicable to all parties involved. When you place the HQ in an ideological bubble (within the Overton window you're working with), that leads to contention. The UN HQ being in NYC would be an example of that.

Taking heat for views on hell. tee hee

Perhaps our mission lacks effort.

KSEFF

BPPLEE said:

Paid for by the government with the endless supply of money, even though there are more people dependent on government assistance. But I guess that’s the goal, create more people that are dependent on the government who will vote for the party that gives them the handouts.

Click to expand...

The point of the school was to teach them to better themselves.

BPPLEE said:

My wife is a 4th grade teacher and her students tell her that they will not have to work because they can get a check

Click to expand...

Is that really the life lesson that immigrants teach their kids? The lazy folks I've known like that wouldn't have been inclined to move thousands of miles for a better life.

Also, the fact that you and your wife both make your livings off of this government largesse is not lost on me.

Parashah: “VaYishlach” (and he sent) GENESIS: 32:3-36:43

We see in this week's parashah that Ya'akov is on his way home to Beth-El. He comes to his “encounter” with his brother Esav. It is a time of tension for him, as we know, he “stole” from him the blessing. Or was it really theft? Remember that Esau “sold” or “traded” his birthright for a “bowl of red lentils.” Was it really theft? Perhaps we can say that Jacob took advantage of his brother's worldliness and carnal nature; some say it was “deceit,” but was it really? Esau and Jacob made a deal: Esau's birthright for a bowl of soup. It would be like exchanging a Mercedes-Benz 2025 for a used bicycle. Isaac gives Jacob the firstborn birthright, and Esau gets the leftovers. He threatens to kill Jacob.

Jacob and Esau departed as enemies. Time has passed, and Jacob has had much to think about. He feels perhaps guilt and remorse for having taken advantage of his brother. YHVH has blessed him with wives and children, the future “Am Yisrael.” He now feels a need for “compensation” for wrongdoing. Therefore, to “ease” the angry spirit of Esau (so Jacob thinks), he sends him gifts of cattle, hoping to “cool him off.”

But let's think about that: is compensation necessary for wrongdoing? The Torah says YES, it is. If I borrow your camera, and I drop it, break it, I will owe you another camera. If you and I have a wrestling match, and I accidentally break your hand, I would have to pay the doctor's bill, etc. This is the true meaning of “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.
”
Just for precautionary measures, he separates his family, “just in case” Esau is still on the war-path. Can we blame Jacob? Esau is coming to meet his brother with 400 armed men! Oi Vey, why with 400 men? Armed too! Could this be an attack? Or friendship rekindled? Jacob is “Schvitzen” (sweating). But now he is about to encounter “GOD” in the flesh.

He says, “Adonai, help!” Hey God, remember your promise? To keep me safe? You aren't going back on your promise, are you? YHVH responds with a personal visit that night. A very interesting visit.

The Torah says that during the night “a man wrestled with him until the break of day” Ya'akov didn't know it then, but he was wrestling with “HaMalach Elohim (The Angel of the LORD). How do we wrestle with God today? Ever think of that? Good question! We all “wrestle” with God in trying to understand his ways in our lives, some of his ways are uncomfortable, his ways might be testings, trials, hardships, and trying to understand how these events will work for “good” in our lives.

Trying to find HIS perfect will for our lives is one way, dealing with “flesh vs spirit” issues is another way. Trying to get HIM to follow “us”, instead of “us” following HIM, is another way. Just seeing where we fit in with his plan for our lives is a wrestling match, yet “Jacob prevails,” he says, “Bless me before you go!” YHVH says to him, “Your name will no longer be Ya'akov, but Yisrael.”

It is also interesting that both the angel and Jacob ask for names. First, the angel asks for his name, then Jacob asks for a name. Remember that in the book of Exodus, Moshe asks God his name also. The same answer is given: “Why do you ask me my name?”

We are so different from God, since we are finite beings, our names (at times) describe who we are. We are, in a sense, boxed in by names. We tend to act according to our names. Yet, God is very different. Why is that?

Adonai-Elohim can not be “boxed in” by a name, He is “beyond names” He told Moshe; “Ehye Asher Ehye” (I am who I am) which is not really answering the question, He is telling him “I have existed, I exist, I will exist” Now that answer was not given to Jacob (now Israel) Adonai answered his question with a question; “Why ask me my name?”

Today, we have many, many names that describe who God is. The most common three have been and are: Elohim, El, and Yah. When we read the names of prophets, they contain either of the two “El” or “Yah”. We also see that Israel states, “I have seen the face of God and have lived (Panim el Panim) But why “faces?” Why not “face?” One could say “13 faces” or “attributes” which describe who Elohim is.

Jacob finds himself alone, facing, as he thinks, imminent danger from being slaughtered by his brother Esau. He puts his family in hiding, he sends gifts of cattle to Esau to maybe “soften him up,” he might think. Now comes a wrestling match. Jacob is at his wits' end; it is only he and Elohim. Elohim comes to visit him in the form of the “Angel of YHVH.” The Torah says that he “wrestled with a man all night,” and Jacob did not relent; he did not give up the wrestling match until the Angel touched his thigh, thus wounding him. Then comes the interesting part: the Angel gives him a blessing, and he changes his name from “Jacob” to “Israel.”

From “trickster, deceiver” to “straight to G-d” When we see the name “Yisrael” it can be divided into two parts; “Yasher- El” (straight to G-d) the name “Yisrael” also contains the acronyms of the patriarchs and matriarchs who played a part in forming the nation of Israel; “YI” Yitzchak “S” Sarah “R” Rachel and Riv’kah “AE” Abraham “L” Leah.

Israel now says something interesting: “Vayikra Ya’akov shem haMakom Peniel Ki ra’iti Elohim Panim Et Panim” (and Jacob called the name of that place “Peniel” (face of God) for I have seen Elohim “faces to faces”.What is interesting is that here, the word “face” is used in the singular and in the plural. Peni-el, (face of God) in the ancient paleo-Hebrew letters, the word is symbolized as “mouth, life, action, God, Leader” in gematria, the word “Peniel” adds up to 171, (the unique, one (echad) G-d is perfect) when we add 1+7+1 = 9. “9” is the number of “emet” (truth) and “Yeshua” also has that title.

But “Panim El Panim” (faces to faces) is somewhat strange, or is it? How many faces does God have? Or does he even have a face, since he is “spirit”? In one way, he “has a face” in physical form as the “Angel of YHVH, Jacob saw him, Abraham also saw him. But now, “faces?” What could that mean? Here is one idea;

He has the “Panim Rachamim” (faces of Mercy) or “mercies” (endless mercy!”) He has the “face of forgiveness” the “face of longsuffering” the “face of patience” yet the faces of “punishment” “chastisement” “judgement and condemnation” for unrepentant sinners, the faces of “joy” and “wrath” of “happiness and sadness” “approval and disappointment” the face of a “God who listens and responds” the list could go on. I am thinking of Exodus 34, when Moses asks to "see God" and he lists his atributes. We could possibly call the atributes "faces."

We can imagine how he is feeling inside when we are in obedience or disobedience. Another way of seeing “Panim El Panim” is “Faces God Faces” because “El” is one of G-d’s names. (the shortest one)

Israel has now surrendered to the will of YHVH. He meets Esau, and the meeting is touching; no hard feelings. And Israel renders homage before his brother, a very penitent attitude. They fall upon each other’s necks and kiss and weep! Israel made amends; he shared with his brother Esau a portion of his blessings. Making amends is very important. There is such a thing as “restoration” (of relationships) and “restitution” (for things, perhaps stolen, destroyed, etc.)

Israel and his children go to Shechem, where we see that “Dinah is raped.” Yet we must ask; "What business did Dinah have in wandering off and mixing with the 'daughters of the land?" Being that Shechem was a pagan Canaanite city. Was she looking for trouble? The brothers take drastic action and retaliate, destroying the city. I would say very “rash” and “violent “action. But why would they want to associate with people who are idol worshipers? The case being, they had no business there in the first place. If you are in the wrong place and at the wrong time, you're bound to get “bit”.

However, Jacob (Israel) moves on and arrives at Beth-El, where God appeared to him when he left his home in Beersheva, where he envisioned the Heavenly Ladder. He builds an altar there and calls it “El-Elohei-Israel” (God, the God of Israel). He stands firm in his convictions, yet his sons have a lot to learn.

There are probably many times when we act rashly and do not do things God's way, thus embarrassing our relationship with YHVH. I think we all have a bit of carnal Esau and Jacob in us all. Yet, like the Ladder that reached heaven, we are to advance up the ladder step by step, rung by rung, hanging on to Yeshua all the way.

Israel/Jacob moves on; he nears "Efrata" (now known as Bethlehem), "Beit-Lechem" (House of Bread). This is where Rachel gives birth to Benjamin and then dies in childbirth. Now, here is a lesson to learn. Rachel had stolen the household idols from the house of Laban, her father. We don't know the reason why. One possible reason is that she believed that having the idols in her possession would guarantee the blessings for her new family, or that it would have been impossible for Laban to track down Jacob without "divination" through those idols or "household gods." These are just possibilities, in accordance with popular belief and tradition in Mesopotamia.

When Laban caught up with Jacob, he accused him of stealing "his gods!" Jacob did not know that Rachel had stolen them. Jacob responded:
"May that person not live" (if the gods were found in that person's possession). Jacob's words came to pass. Rachel died in childbirth and was buried alone in a tomb near Bethlehem. It is still there today.

Lessons to be learned: We all wrestle with God, trying to figure out his ways in our lives. Let us submit to his perfect will in our lives. Make peace with people whom we have offended. Restoration and restitution are BIBLICAL MEANS. Sometimes, the only thing we can do is offer a sincere "I am sorry." Be careful with our words, they just might come to pass. Let us go back to our Beth-El, the "House of God." He will meet us there; he is already waiting.

stevevw said:

Sorry no. You disqualify yourself with this sort of stuff.

Click to expand...

If you provide me with an intelligent reason how everything I have said over this entire thread has refuted your personal based opinions with evidence, has been ignored and turned into me ignoring your opinions then I will apologise.

Yarddog said:

Well, we know that they have killed many people, including survivors, which is illegal. They were told by many military men and lawyers that hitting the boats may be illegal. Hopefully, we'll get a court ruling soon.

Click to expand...

That's all hearsay, not proof.

iluvatar5150 said:

Which is a religious law that, contrary to your earlier claims, does not supercede civil law anywhere in the US. Again, the woman has every legal right to pursue a divorce in this country than any other woman would.

Click to expand...

If they can survive the social backlash associated with not complying with a "ruling".

There's a lot of legal precedent and guardrails that, on paper, sounds like it covers all bases, but works a little different in "real-world scenarios".

I view the private Sharia arbitration entities (that as you said, have no official legal standing in the US) with the same skeptical lens that I view the "Chinese Civil Assistance and Integration Centers" (IE: "Secret police stations") that also have no official legal standing on paper, but still wield a great amount of influence over people through thinly veiled threats and coercion that certainly has a way of dictating other people's behaviors.


If we were talking about any other religion that wasn't perceived to be in a marginalized group doing this, I'm skeptical that people would be so dismissive of the impacts.

If a Kentucky Southern Baptist church was doing the same thing and saying "Y'know, we want to be able to arbitrate and try to address these matters internally before things go to an actual court" (pertaining to matters of marital conflicts or sexual orientation), that would not sit well with people (especially people on the more progressive wing). Hence the reason people take issue with Pastoral councils engaging in "conversion therapy" Those pastors don't have any real legal power on paper, so why are people so bent out of shape about them trying to do "gay-to-straight conversions" right? The answer is, because when people don't have their "oppressed vs. oppressor" lenses on, they can accurately identify that religious clergy have the power to make people's social lives more miserable than a real judge on non-criminal code matters.

"who has the actual authority" is ultimately in the eye of the beholder.

Despite a private-entity "council" not having official legal standing, if a person has reason to believe that said "council" has a higher likelihood of getting their parents to disown them, or getting their entire social group and family to shun them, that council has more practical power/influence than an actual judge on civil matters.

Jan001 said:

I a

I agree that Revelation, chapters 1-12, was imperative for the first-century Christians to read and understand, as was Matthew 24, chapters 1-35.

The heaven and the earth of the Jews (their temple) literally passed away in 70 AD.

Nero committed suicide on June 9, 68 AD. He killed many Christians. He was an antichrist.

I think the final antichrist, aka the man of sin, will pretend to be the Jewish Messiah and that he will literally kill Enoch and Elijah, who have come back to earth to witness to the Jews that Jesus Christ is their true Messiah.

Click to expand...

The man of sin had to happen before 70 AD. He was going to sit in the physical temple of God which stopped existing 70 AD. If a replica OT temple was built the God of Abrahams spirit would not be in it so it can not be a temple of God. It was likely one of the zealots that put a statue of himself in it by the sound of it. I made a post on Daniel 9 how it ended 70 AD Daniel 9 ended 70 AD . Rev 1-12 happened 70 AD so the two witnesses happened 70 AD. Yes according to Gospel of Nicodemus, History of Joseph the Carpenter, and Apocalypse of Peter the two witnesses were going to be Enoch, and Eiljah. All 3 texts are internally written pre 70 AD, and have a prophecy of those 2 witnesses looking forward not written past tense. All 3 texts are apocrypha inspired for the wise only. Gospel of Nic, and History of Joseph are the most important two out of them. Josephus described this guy
Jesus ben Ananias - Wikipedia

which is interesting although it does not match Rev 11. So that is not one of the two witnesses but it gives an idea of what they might of looked like to outsiders- crazy people.

Unqualified said:

Israel has returned.

Click to expand...

The OT Davidic kingdom of Israel was restored on Pentecost 2000 years ago. Kingdom of Israel restored on Pentecost.

There are three main components to our Lord’s commandment that I see here, and so I am going to look at each of the three parts individually, but then I’ll also look at how the three must all be a part of the same whole.

Love One Another

Now, for us who are English speaking people, we must understand that this word “love” is not of human flesh. It is not centered in our emotions nor in the ones we are loving. We love others regardless of whether or not others love us in return, or even if they hate and despise us, in return. For this is loving like God loves, like Jesus loves us. For Jesus didn’t give his life up for us on that cross because of how wonderful we are, but while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. So this love is self-sacrificial, and it is unselfish.

And this word translated in the English language as “love,” in the Greek interlinear it is the word “agapē,” which means “to prefer.” It is used in the Bible in the context of either preferring what is evil (this one very little) or preferring what God prefers (which is how it is used primarily). And what God prefers is all that is holy, righteous, godly, morally pure, upright, honest, faithful, and obedient to our Lord’s commands. So this love is morally pure, upright, honest, and faithful in its love for other people.

Lay Down Your Life

And, as already was mentioned, this love is self-sacrificial and unselfish, and it is willing to die to show the love of Christ for the people of this world. It is willing to be hated by other humans in order to love them with the love that Christ had and has for us. And in what ways did Jesus demonstrate this love? Well, he spoke the truth in love to the people, whether they wanted to hear it or not, and whether they liked him or hated him in return. He told them the truth they needed to hear even though, for him it meant his death.

So, when we love others like Jesus loved us, it is not about a popularity contest. It has nothing to do with whether people love us in return. It is all about what they need and us supplying them with what they truly need (not necessarily want), as we are able, and as we are led by the Spirit to do so, even if it costs us friends, family, church family, and other humans who might reject us and turn away from us, because we are just too weird for them. It is what it cost Jesus in order for him to show us his love for us.

Do What God Commands

If we are going to love God and our fellow humans with this kind of love, the way in which God loves us, we must be those who are walking (in conduct) in obedience to our Lord’s commands. This is not to say that we will always do this perfectly, or that we will never fail (1 John 2:1-2), but the Scriptures make it quite clear that if sin is what we practice, and not obedience to our Lord and to his commands (New Covenant), that we do not know God, we are not in fellowship with Christ, and we will not inherit eternal life with God.

So, obedience to our Lord’s commands is not something to be dismissed, nor is it just a recommendation which we are free to ignore. It is a requirement of God, not as a means of earning our salvation, but as a love response to God for saving us from our sins. Yet, it is not optional. In the Scriptures we learn that obedience to our Lord’s commands = faith, and that disobedience to his commands = unbelief, which results in separation from God and us not having the hope of salvation from sin and eternal life with God in heaven.

The Scriptures Teach

For Jesus Christ taught that to come to him we must deny self, take up our cross daily (die daily to sin), and follow (obey) him. For if we hold on to living in sin and for self, we will lose our lives for eternity. But if we deny self, die daily to sin, by the Spirit, and we walk in obedience to our Lord and to his commands, in his power, then we have eternal life with God. For not everyone who calls him “Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one DOING (obeying) the will of God (see Luke 9:23-26; Matthew 7:21-23).

For by God-gifted faith in Jesus Christ, which is not of our own doing, we are crucified with Christ in death to sin and raised with Christ to walk in newness of life in him, no longer to live as slaves to sin but as slaves to righteousness in walks of obedience to God’s commands. We are no longer to permit sin to reign in our mortal bodies to make us obey its desires. For if sin is what we obey, it results in death. But if obedience to God is what we obey, it results in sanctification, and its end is eternal life with God (see Romans 6:1-23).

[Matthew 7:13-14,21-23; Luke 9:23-26; John 10:27-30; Acts 26:18; Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:5-10; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 10:1-22; Galatians 5:16-24; Ephesians 2:8-10; Ephesians 4:17-32; Ephesians 5:3-6; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 3:1-19; Hebrews 4:1-13; Hebrews 10:19-39; Hebrews 12:1-2; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 1:1-10; 1 John 2:3-6; 1 John 3:4-10; Revelation 2:1-29; Revelation 3:1-22]

In Harmony

Based off Romans 12:9-21; 1 Peter 3:8-17
An Original Work / September 2, 2012
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

Love each other truly.
Cling to what is good.
Hate all that is evil.
Never lack in zeal.
Serve the Lord with fervor.
Joyful in hope be;
Patient in affliction;
Praying faithfully.
Honor one another.
Live in harmony.

Share with all God’s people
Who are found in need.
Do not be conceited.
Sympathetic be.
Love, and show compassion
In humility.
Keep your tongue from evil.
Peaceful you must be.
Honor one another.
Live in harmony.

God sees who are righteous;
Listens to their prayers.
But He’s against evil –
Is His to avenge.
Do not fear what they fear.
Suffer patiently.
In your hearts, make Christ Lord.
Serve Him faithfully.
Honor one another.
Live in harmony.

Login to view embedded media
All About Love
An Original Work / December 9, 2025
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

Ivan Hlavanda said:

I know there are Christians out there that do not hold the view the first 11 chapters of Genesis are literal history, Adam was not literal, God did not create everything in 6 days ets...because the science disproves this.

If you do not believe in literal Adam, you then cannot believe in literal 2nd Adam, Jesus Christ the Saviour. Because if Adam did not exist, then the fall did not happen and there is no need for a Saviour.

You cannot believe in a metaphorical Adam and then believe in literal resurrection of Christ, the second Adam who came to fix what the first Adam broke. You also have problem explaining Romans 5:12-21

P.S. I know the view of metaphorical Adam is held by very few, but it has been bothering me deeply that people believe this, and I am studying Romans 5 and this is on my heart.

Click to expand...

The fall does not hinge on a literal Adam. Many conservative evangelicals and Bible scholars acknowledge this. If you think their number is "very few", I would recommend investigating the topic a bit more. Have you at least read the works of Tremper Longman III and John Walton?

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro faces subpoena over private home security upgrades after firebombing​

A GOP-led committee in the state legislature voted Tuesday to issue three subpoenas seeking records related to, among other things, roughly $1 million in security upgrades to his personal home in the suburbs of Philadelphia. The Intergovernmental Operations Committee is also seeking documents concerning "several charter flights arranged for the Governor's Office" in mid-January.

"The Pennsylvania State Police and independent security experts conducted thorough reviews to pinpoint security failures, review protocols, identify gaps, and make concrete recommendations for improvements to the Governor’s security. As a direct result of those recommendations, security improvements have been put in place to keep the Governor and his family safe," the spokesperson said. "The Shapiro Administration has repeatedly responded to lawmakers' inquiries on this matter and publicly released a substantial amount of information about the security improvements put in place by PSP without compromising those security protocols."

Democrat Eileen Higgins has flipped the Miami mayor’s office, defeating Republican Emilio Gonzalez and marking the latest sign of the party’s momentum heading into next year’s midterms, according to Decision Desk HQ.

The win is the latest boost for Democrats, who are coming out of better-than-expected elections in November and a strong showing in this month’s special House election in Tennessee. The party hopes that an energized base and a focus on issues like affordability will help them flip the House and possibly even the Senate in next year’s midterms.

Strong in Him said:

I am sure they did that because they were showing the sacrificial love that Jesus showed, taught and embodied.

What evidence do you have that they were expecting "the mark of the beast?"
How do you know what their motives were; were you there?

Click to expand...

See acts 2:16-21 and understand the meaning of the "day of the lord".to Israel.

It has a very specific meaning

You can also refer to 1 peter 1:3-9 for the last day trial he was telling Israel about, 2 peter was written at around the acts 8 time period.

For the solidarity of their faith, let them see that their status as a believer is maintained by the faithfulness of God. Establish the simplicity of the Gospel in their hearts and minds.
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Establish that the Father and Jesus is on their side. Jesus and the Father want them to succeed.


Hebrews 13:5 KJV
5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

Romans 8:35-39 KJV
35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Of course, there are many others. But at the beginning, I think, it is essential to reinforce these sorts of facts in the new believer.

BCP1928 said:

A person who tries to "beat down God with science" can easily be shown to be wrong. Even atheist scientists like Hans have tried to show you that it can't be done.

Click to expand...

If this is the case that atheist scientists or anyone using science to beat down the beliefs of Christians know that its impossible. Then every time they do ( and plenty of examples can be shown).

Then they are purposely attacking Christians knowing its impossible and this is blantant cruelty and bias against them. Its also a complete contradic tion to the sientific thinking they are using by insisting that it can. Making them hypocrites.

BCP1928 said:

As for Christian beliefs you rarely, if ever, present any, so I don't see what you are complaining about.

Click to expand...

Lol and what has that got to do with anything. Are you saying I have none and therefore its ok to attack me on Christian beliefs. The very fact I am arguing for Christian belief is supporting Christian belief.

The problem is you want specific words. Everything is measured by the words. You miss all the language that may not specifically mention Christian belief but is supporting Christian belief.

BCP1928 said:

It's not our fault that you know so little of Christian theology that you think such a thing is even possible.

Click to expand...

What that people are demanding Christians show evidence of God or otherwise they are fools and deluded. Do you want me to show you the evidence lol. Its in the language used.

BCP1928 said:

On the contrary, we're 1500 posts into a thread in which you are promoting pagan ideas about "transcendent knowlege" and "mind out of body" that we are trying to talk you out of. You should thank us.

Click to expand...

Once again you make a false claim. Show me where I am promoting pagan beliefs or mind and body. Let alone trying to talk me out of it.

Don't mistake mentioning the fact that there are pagan beliefs and others (even science) who themselves work on the mind and body issue and have done for centuries. Don't mistake mentioning them as some sort of endorsement or belief that they are true in themselves.

I have mentioned these only to point out that it is quite natural for humans to be inclined to believe in such transcedent ideas. Not that they are all true in any particular belief. Only that there is such a transcedent realm and that all the different beliefs are attempts to express this.

If there is a God and belief and spirituality as Paul mentions and we all know God. Then it makes sense that this knowledge is expressed in all sorts of different ways when people replace God with their own versions. Its actually support for a God.

Michie said:

A growing number of Britons who leave Christianity are turning to paganism or other forms of spiritualism instead of converting to other major religions, a new study has found.

The survey, released by the Institute for the Impact of Faith in Life, questioned 2,774 adults who self-identified as having "experienced a change in their religious belief," seeking to provide insight into "how, why, and in what direction Britons are moving between faiths, spiritualities, and non-belief."

The researchers conclude that "Britain is not secularising in a straightforward way" but rather "undergoing a re-composition of belief, a shift away from inherited institutional structures towards personalised, practice-based, and wellbeing-oriented forms of faith."

Forty-four percent of respondents said they left Christianity, while only 17% said they had newly become Christians. Meanwhile, 39% of respondents said they had become an atheist or agnostic.

Continued below.

Rising number of Brits leaving Christianity turning to paganism

A growing number of Britons who leave Christianity are turning to paganism or other forms of spiritualism instead of converting to other major religions, a new study has found

www.christianpost.com

Click to expand...

This often happens when the church waters down it's postion on current cultural and church issues.
When people see there is no difference between their watered down religion and the world, they figure, why bother?

We did have 3 Aussies and 5 Canucks and a couple from South Africa on the tour. The other 32 folks were American.