mindlight said:

The new American national security review suggests Europe needs strengthening. Is Europe facing civilizational erasure? Is American policy good for Europe or not?

The report points to various weaknesses and issues to work with:

1) A declining share of global GNP - 25 --> 14% since 1990
2) Problematic cultural and civilization erosion - activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence.
3) Despite possessing a greater hard power than Russia in every category but nukes Europe lacks self- confidence.

The policy of the USA should therefore be:

Our broad policy for Europe should prioritize:
• Reestablishing conditions of stability within Europe and strategic stability with Russia;
• Enabling Europe to stand on its own feet and operate as a group of aligned sovereign nations, including by taking primary responsibility for its own defense, without being dominated by any adversarial power;
• Cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations;
• Opening European markets to U.S. goods and services and ensuring fair treatment of U.S. workers and businesses;
• Building up the healthy nations of Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe through commercial ties, weapons sales, political collaboration, and cultural and educational exchanges;
• Ending the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance; and
• Encouraging Europe to take action to combat mercantilist overcapacity, technological theft, cyber espionage, and other hostile economic practices.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf

Click to expand...

Sounds sort of anti-federalist. If individual nations want to give up their sovereignty to a regional body the only reason to care is that as a group they are far more powerful. The USA 13 colonies did just that. But weakness 2 seems to contradict some of the broad policies that suggest working together. Wonder what "Cultivating resistance entails?"

Sounds like talk from S. Africa before they gave up apartheid. Does Trump really just want the EU to be whiter? I call this the last gasp of white hegemony. Lets all consolidate the whites for a longer lasting leadership?

When I send/give out Christmas cards I use my own photos. I also tend to make sure the message is for the specific person. What I mean is to a Christian, I will make sure it says, "Merry Christmas". To a Jew I will have it say "Happy Hannukah". If the person celebrates some other holiday (Yule, Solstice, or Kwanzaa) I will have the card say that. I print my own.

Here are some of the images I've used:

Mark Quayle said:
Well, yes, I can, if 'free will' goes by the adjective, "uncaused". Nothing happens uncaused, except God. Everything that is —except God— is so because it was caused to become so.

SuperCow said:

I see an opinion. I do not see any proof. And there's two problems here. First is that just because God caused creation (and everything that goes along with it), that does not mean that he knows everything that will happen. It could mean that, but it could just as easily be that things were created and God let things happen and guided it along the way. Or technically it could even mean that he created things, didn't know what the result would be and changed things as they went. Or it could even mean that he caused the Big Bang, and went off to some other dimension when we didn't live up to our responsibilities.

Click to expand...

I agree it is opinion, as is everything philosophy and science uses for proof. It assumes that God is the only uncaused thing. But if you can show me how there is anything else uncaused, be my guest.

Second, as a believer in Scripture, it is my assumption that Scripture is true. And as Scriptures present an omniscient God, then he knows everything. Likewise, good reasoning shows God as the uncaused causer, the 'first cause', and, as I assume, to say that there can be more than one first cause is to contradict the meaning of "first cause".

Mark Quayle said:
If freewill is uncaused, man does not have freewill.

SuperCow said:

This reasoning is entirely backwards. Freewill that is caused is not freewill, and to think that it is creates a paradox.

Click to expand...

No. It is definition. There is nothing uncaused, except first cause. Therefore, if "freewill" is uncaused, there is no such thing in the created being. Your "paradox" assumes freewill is a valid concept. So, again, I say that if freewill is uncaused, man does not have it. Uncaused freewill is not a valid concept, except in God.

Mark Quayle said:
So you believe that God is not omniscient, if I follow your reasoning, here.

SuperCow said:

I believe "FutureAndAHope" provided a scripture that implies otherwise, and I provided two others. You have not provided any, from what I can see. All you have provided is opinions about what you think God should be to make sense to you, and what you need to do is provide a scriptural answer as to how an omniscient, omnipotent God can feel regrets in multiple scriptures in the Bible.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I don't follow. "...implies otherwise."? You provided scripture that implies that you do NOT believe that God is not omniscient? Or are you saying that @FutureAndAHope (and you) provided scripture that demonstrates that God is not omniscient? If I remember @FutureAndAHope right, he would take issue with the notion that God is not omniscient.

As for what you ask me to do, (and I could make your point better than you do—God even 'repents of' what he did, and 'changes his mind' about what he was going to do, according to the translations. He also says that 'it never entered my mind that they should do that'.) Several logical rules apply to hermeneutics and produce good exegesis. To take verses out of context, for example, is not a good hermeneutic. And to assume that a modern day reading of the English is all that is necessary for understanding a statement in scripture, is not exegesis. All Scripture agrees with itself. Therefore, the 'whole counsel of God' is to be brought to bear when drawing meaning and doctrine from a verse. If the Bible says, "God is not a man....that he should change his mind." and in another place, "God changed his mind", there is

Mark Quayle said:
So that they are without excuse. And so that we would know that they had no excuse.

SuperCow said:

Again, this is entirely opposite reasoning to logic. If my actions are "caused", then my excuse is that God made me sin, as I had no choice.

Click to expand...

On the contrary. If God caused that I sin, it is by use of my [willed] choices. We know that it is logically self-contradictory to say that God can sin, (because God does nothing against himself, and sin is against God.) Likewise, Scripture says that God tempts nobody. So sin comes, just as James says, from our lusts. Follow that line of causation all the way back. There is God. He does not tempt, and he does not sin. We do. Satan does. Our lusts do. And the whole of creation was caused by God to exist. You can't escape that, except by ignoring it, or by claiming that God is less than omnipotent.

Mark Quayle said:
If God is not omniscient, he is not God.

SuperCow said:

Nonsense. If aliens created us in a lab, they technically would be our creator. If they continued to control us by force, they would technically be our God (or gods). This would be true regardless of our ability to resist or their ultimate abilities as a species.

Click to expand...

Yes, definitely "little 'g'" gods. As the story goes, the scientist argues that he can create life. All he needs, he says, is a spark of electricity and a bit of dirt. And God says, "Nope. Go get your own dirt!" Aliens can't create anything, technically. They would not be our creators; that is just a figure of speech. They are not first causers, and not omnipotent. Not God. I will accept nothing less than The Omnipotent as my God. If you want to discuss something or someone less than omnipotent as God, then we have no common frame of reference. If God created, he is the uncaused causer, and the only one.

Mark Quayle said:
Why do you think "choice" is synonymous with "free will"? I believe we have choice. In fact, we are commanded to choose, and we can't help but choose all day long. But that doesn't mean our choices are uncaused.

None of the Bible makes sense if choice is uncaused

SuperCow said:

That depends on what you call "free will". You could say that slaves do not have free will, but they can choose to defy their overlords and die. But what I am calling free will is the ability to make a choice. If my choice is caused by God, then as you say I have no free will, but that means I am nothing more than a biological robot who is just following its pre-programmed path, and so are the 8 billion other people alive today, along with however many billion who have lived in the past. We might as well all be part of a computer simulation in that case.

Logical rule of thumb:

My choices are caused : Any choice I think I have is an illusion, and I am an automaton.
My choices are my own : I can choose to serve God, or I can choose to reject him, but I might suffer consequences.
God is omniscient : God is all-knowing about the future, and so is unable to create anything that that has real choices, because his act of creating them automatically forces a path that he has pre-conceived. Therefore my choices are caused and I am a biological robot.
God is omnipotent : In this case it is impossible to also be omniscient, because God cannot create a creature with free choice, which then means there is something that is impossible for God to do. But then we already know God isn't omnipotent, because Hebrews 6:18 says "it is impossible for God to lie"

Click to expand...

Please, for the sake of brevity, show that your axiomatic statements are actually valid. When I used as axiomatic, "Nothing happens uncaused, except God." I assume it is valid, but reason (and not just my own) validates it. If there is more than one uncaused causer, then neither are uncaused, but are subject to facts they did not make, such as the fact that there are two. It is self-contradictory, then, to say that there can be more than one uncaused causer.

If your existence is caused, your choices are caused. Your choices are your own, and are caused. You have a will. A robot does not. Your will is to do according to your inclinations. You will always choose to do what you most want to do at that instant of choosing. Why do you have that inclination? Why do you want to choose what you choose? These things don't happen in a vacuum. You could not have chosen anything if you had not woken up to see the options. What caused you to wake up? How do you have any thoughts? Are these things entirely spontaneous? No, they are causes of effects and they in turn are effects of earlier causes. Your options are not illusions, but it will only ever be possible to choose what you end up choosing. And you don't know which one that is until you choose. Can you demonstrate that all options on the table are possible to choose? It is human to see them that way, but in the end, only the one is ever chosen, as history consistently demonstrates. And the whole scenario is God's. It doesn't happen by itself, but is established by God, in whom we live and breath and have our existence.

You attempt to show a logical self-contradiction with your syllogism built on the premise "God cannot create a creature with free choice". The premise is faulty—the statement is bogus. It is not that God cannot do it, but that the whole notion is logically self-contradictory. Would you say that the statement, "God cannot create a rock too big for him to pick up." is a valid statement? It is utter foolishness. Why would God even consider such a thing? He would not. It is not even a thing, but oxymoronic self-contradiction.

Hebrews 6:18 (which, by the way, you took out of context) is talking about the fact that it is impossible that God would lie. It is a logical self-contradiction to suppose that God would lie. He is not a man, that he should lie. (Numbers 23:19 Just in case you decide to ignore my scriptural references because I didn't include the address and zip code.

If you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall.
1 Corinthians 10
New RSV

BobRyan said:

Try my "AI Friendly form"

==================================

Identify the largest Trinitarian Christian denominations that (1) explicitly state that Scripture is sufficient to test all doctrine, (2) possess a single global administrative authority, (3) maintain one unified set of binding official doctrines for all members, and (4) contain no autonomous subgroups within their membership

Click to expand...

New chat, pasted your exact prompt

RileyG said:

I have a brother stuck in that lifestyle. It harmed him so much it breaks my heart.

Click to expand...

I just read a book called The Dogs of Venice. I thought dogs and Italy, how could the story be bad? But it was another novel featuring a homosexual character which I didn’t know until I started reading. So many do these days. Paul was getting a divorce from his partner. I thought that based on the title, his orientation would play a minor part of the story, but it wasn’t. He picks up a male waiter or maybe the waiter picked him up and the book involved a non-graphic, but still disturbing, sex scene where the waiter quickly leaves afterward, telling Paul he’s going to see his girlfriend. It was a short book that not only ok’d that lifestyle but ended abruptly, leaving out very much of what could’ve been part of a story about a relationship between between a dog, his human friend, Italy and Europe in general. I’ve read a couple of other books by this author but forgot his name. They were about homosexuality, too, and at least one of the two others included another sex scene, albeit also pretty non-graphic. I was disappointed.

SabbathBlessings said:

Considering Paul has a salvation warning 2Peter3:16 , I would caution anyone who is using Paul against the very Testimony of Jesus Himself Who said the Sabbath would not end at the Cross Mat24:20 or ever Isa66:22-23

There is more than one Sabbath in Scripture, one came before sin one after sin that had to do with food and drink and offerings the context of this passage. I have completed a Bible study on this that spells out the context hopefully some will take the time to prayerfully study before carelessly disregarding one of God’s own personally written and spoken commandments and His own Testimony Exo31:18 Isa8:20

First, we can't isolate Col 2:16 without looking at the immediate context if we truly want to understand what Paul is speaking about.

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
This verse sets up the following verses and gives us a lot more context.
Paul is giving us the context as to what he is speaking about

1. handwritten
2. against and contrary to us

1. Was the Sabbath commandment "handwritten" ?

Lets look at what the Bible says
Exo 31:18 And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

The had is what man uses to write with, on scrolls with ink. The finger is not the hand and no man could possible write with their finger on Stone, only God could do so, by design so man should not not to mess God’s commandments, not a jot or tittle because man is not God.


2. Is the Sabbath commandment against and contrary to us

Lets look at what Jesus said:
Mat 2:28 The Sabbath was made for man
The Sabbath was made for man, what God makes for man is not against us. The Sabbath is blessed and sanctified by God, its not the definition of contrary and against

Context doesn't fit

So looking at the immediate context shows clearly Paul is not speaking of the Sabbath commandment. Nor does Paul have the authority to change God's written and spoken Testimony Exo 31:18 the words of the covenant Exo 34:28 that God promised He would not alter Psa 89:34 they went from written on tables of stone to written on tablets of the heart 2 Cor 3:3 Heb 8:10 because God keeps His promises.

Right here is enough to know Paul is not referring to the Sabbath commandment, but lets keep going.

This is what Paul is quoting the law he is referring to is from

Deu 31:24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,
Deu 31:25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying,
Deu 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

2 Cor33:8 and I will not again remove the foot of Israel from the land which I have appointed for your fathers—only if they are careful to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses.” (Handwriting of ordiances the context)

The laws that were beside the ark of the Covenant handwritten by Moses, there as a witness against, the context of Col 2:14


But lets look at this verse closer

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
The Greek word for sabbath here is plural not singular. So its not speaking of "The" Sabbath day "The holy day of the Lord" as already seen in the context.

Paul is quoting Ezekiel all of the sacrifices and offerings.

Eze 45:17 And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and theburnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.

What was predicted would end when Jesus came?

Dan 9:27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate."

So this is not about any of the Ten Commandments but about the food and drink offerings, feast days that some were also annual sabbath(s) that were handwritten by Moses placed besides the ark of the covenant that came after the fall of man. The Sabbath started at Creation before sin Exo 20:11 so can't be a "shadow" of anything as it is part of God's perfect plan before sin took over and a need for a plan of salvation.

Why if you look at the next verse it clearly shows what it is referring to which works in perfect harmony with the context

Col 2:17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

Heb 10:1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. (contrary and against)
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: "SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU DID NOT DESIRE, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME.
Heb 10:6 IN BURNT OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES FOR SIN YOU HAD NO PLEASURE.
Heb 10:7 THEN I SAID, 'BEHOLD, I HAVE COME—IN THE VOLUME OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME—TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.' "
Heb 10:8 Previously saying, "SACRIFICE AND OFFERING, BURNT OFFERINGS, AND OFFERINGS FOR SIN YOU DID NOT DESIRE, NOR HAD PLEASURE IN THEM" (which are offered according to the law),
Heb 10:9 then He said, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD." He takes away the first that He may establish the second.

Exo 12:17 43 So the Lord said to Moses and Aaron: This is the ordinance of the Passover:
1Co 5:7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us.

I know this is a popular teaching, but the context does not fit the Sabbath commandment written by the finger of God that is part of God's holy and eternal law Mat 5:18-19 Isa 66:23

Click to expand...

AND Antone reating Heb 9:18 has to ADM,IT what Paul who wrote HEB. 9:18 IS TRUE ad many I see reject it EVEN

WHEN reading Hb. 9:18. !!

Therefore. , not even the FIRST COVENANT was dedicated. WIOTHOUT. BLOOD ( CHECK. EXO 24 ;3-8. IS . ONLY

the b. BLOOD OF ANIMAL and that iOS n. why JESAUS died off a CROSS. and only the BLOOD OF CHRIST CAN

SAVED US ALL FROM SIN. !!

dan p

ladodgers6 said:

No Sir, you are not understanding. You make it seem that only a part of man is broken or missing. The whole man is fallen, everything from head to toe is affected and infected by Sin. All of His faculties are tainted with sin. But again by what you wrote, gives a very lofty view of man. And if you disagree that fallen man is Totally Depraved, then you must also believe that fallen man intrinsically good. This Sir, is Pelagianism/Semi-Pelagianism which by the way has been condemned by more Churches throughout history.​

Click to expand...

Not at all, and there is no such thing as "semi-pelagianism". The imago dei survived the fall, marred though it may be. The calvinist doctrine of total depravity is nothing but a misanthropic view of man that errs in the opposite direction to Pelagianism, with the truth lying in the middle.

ladodgers6 said:

Why not? Just curious.

Click to expand...

Because I don't agree with Aquinas regarding some supernatural sense existing before the fall. I take the Orthodox view that what man lost is not a part of himself, but access to the continual sustenance of God.

ladodgers6 said:

If I had a nickel for every time I heard this. Classical Calvinism or the Doctrines of Grace have been taught by the ECF's. It was Calvin who formulated and organized them.

Click to expand...

Which ECFs? Only one who came close, to my knowledge, is tertullian and he's not exactly orthodox for a number of reasons.

ladodgers6 said:

No Sir, curse of Sin is death & punishment, and eternal exile from God!

Click to expand...

Death, so mortality.

ladodgers6 said:

Well friend I suggest you do some research because Pelagianism/Semi-Pelagianism teach what you are saying here.

Click to expand...

Semi-pelagianism is not a thing, except among Calvinists who try to smear John Cassian by associating him with a monastic group in france that was anathematized for their beliefs about baptism. I'm well aware of the smears that Calvinists have attempted, and their lack of historical veracity.

ladodgers6 said:

Oh, are you really saying that the incarnate God coming down into time and history is a false dilemma?​

Click to expand...

No, the false dilemma Calvinists present between Pelagianism and Calvinism.

ladodgers6 said:

Do you see the tough question you just walked into? I didn't when I was studying to destroy Calvinism when I was an Arminian. This question got me to think more deeply of the human plight and God

Click to expand...

What question is that, exactly?

ladodgers6 said:

.

So, if all who hear the Gospel and fully understand it and know exactly the outcome of which way they decision to choose. Why would anyone choose to reject God and burn? Furthermore, what's happens to those who know everything about their fate and reject the good news of the Gospel, are they zapped like in MIB and have their memory erased. Why do some believe while others do not?​

Click to expand...

That's a question for those who reject God. Those who refuse to surrender love their sin beyond the point that God will tolerate, but that doesn't negate the genuine nature of the offer in the way that Calvinist doctrines render the gospel message void for those who happen to not be among the elect.

NxNW said:

Hyphens don't count.

Click to expand...

What about em-dashes?

With regard to this whole thing though I would give some criticism to the TA that graded it. I don't think it was appropriate for them to have written "graded by an LGBTQ+ person" or whatever it actually said with trans flag colors for highlighting. Even if they were highly offended by what she said, and they should have been, we all should have been IMO, I think "rubbing it in" like that just wasn't appropriate.

iluvatar5150 said:

Maybe it was one of his former Russian backers wanting his money back.

Click to expand...

Given the backdrop of several recent events...

That seems less likely than "zealot nutjob who views heterodox viewpoints as threatening trying to take matters into their own hands"


If we're going to go down the rabbit hole of entertaining "bordering on conspiracy" theories about why someone would shoot at him, given his more recent rhetoric, Mossad would be a bigger culprit than Russia, wouldn't it?

Admittedly, I haven't listened to Pool in a few months (I listen to a pretty big variety of various podcasts and and shows spanning the spectrum), but the last time I did listen to him, he was still on the thought train of being critical of Ukrainian funding, and suggesting that Western nations were provoking Russia by crossing red lines.

So not sure why they'd want him whacked.

BCP1928 said:

Are you talking about culture or morality? I can't keep track.

Click to expand...

One could make a strong case that one is downstream of the other.

Cultural offshoots of the prevailing ideology often dictates the morality standards of a region's inhabitants, as well as their legal expectations.


The interesting thing is, this phenomenon in question seems to be much more easily identified when looking at things through a domestic lens.

For instance, I've heard a number of progressives assert things to the effect of:
"This more radical push we're seeing in the past 10 years among conservative evangelicals is a backlash and reaction to their loss of preferential status in law/society, and an aggressive last ditch effort to attempt to retain those privileges they've become accustomed to"

Yet, when discussing this very same type of concern, just with a different religion/region in question, that behavior pattern detection seems to get lost

Not to mention we're talking about people from religion/region that's even more accustomed to everyone walking on eggshells and bending over backwards to specifically accommodate their religious preferences.


So whatever perceived "sense of religious entitlement" one may ascribe to southern conservatives when they exhibit backlash to DEI/secularism initiatives/etc... You can rest assured that a Fundamentalist Muslim, coming from an Islamic nation, ...that "sense of religious entitlement" exists to that degree times 10. We're talking about a cohort of people who are not only used to having zero separation of church and state (and not even having to get creative about it like some do in the US to sneak it in, they're used to be being blatant about it "My religion says X, so we're going to do X" has been the status quo they've become accustomed to), but also having a government that will harshly punish anyone who so much as criticizes their religion.


That touches on the same contextual differences between the various religious texts that I've mentioned before. The Jesus of the Bible doesn't establish any rules for "government takeovers" or trying to use government as a tool to cater to Christianity. Obviously there are people in the US who try to do that, but it's in spite of the texts, not in adherence to them. Whereas, that same dynamic isn't true for Islam.

Muslims preferring a government that enforces their religious viewpoints with an iron fist doesn't require any selective inferences or "creative interpretations" of the texts.

...which is why I think we see the results that we see.

Christians in Westernized countries that are Christian-majority have had ample opportunities for 200 years to do a "brute force takeover" to establish harsh theocracies, but haven't.

Muslims in Muslim-majority countries... establishing at Sharia government seems to be a day-1 agenda item on the meeting notes.

Chat GPT is awesome

⭐ JESUS THE NAZARENE / OF NAZARETH​

Matthew 2:23 — “He shall be called a Nazarene.”
Matthew 21:11 — “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee.”
Matthew 26:71 — “This man was with Jesus the Nazarene.”
Mark 1:24 — “I know who you are—Jesus the Nazarene!”
Mark 10:47 — “Jesus the Nazarene, have mercy on me!”
Mark 14:67 — “You also were with Jesus the Nazarene.”
Mark 16:6 — “You seek Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified.”
Luke 4:16 — “He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up.”
Luke 18:37 — “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.”
John 1:45 — “Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
John 18:5 — “Jesus the Nazarene.”
John 18:7 — “Jesus the Nazarene.”
John 19:19 — “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”
Acts 2:22 — “Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God…”
Acts 3:6 — “In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, walk!”
Acts 4:10 — “…Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified…”
Acts 6:14 — “…Jesus the Nazarene will destroy this place…”
Acts 10:38 — “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit…”
Acts 22:8 — “I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.”
Acts 24:5 — “A ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.”

---

⭐ PROPHETIC BACKGROUND OF “NAZARENE” (BRANCH)​

Isaiah 11:1 — “A shoot (netser) will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.”
Isaiah 53:2 — “He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.”
Zechariah 3:8 — “I am going to bring My servant, the Branch.”
Zechariah 6:12 — “Here is the man whose name is the Branch: he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the LORD.”

---

⭐ JESUS AS A JEW / KING OF THE JEWS​

John 4:9 — “How is it that You, a Jew, ask a drink from me?”
John 4:22 — “We Jews worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.”
John 18:35 — “Your own nation delivered You to me.”
John 19:19 — “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”
John 19:21 — “He said, ‘I am King of the Jews.’”
Matthew 2:2 — “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews?”
Matthew 27:11 — “Are You the King of the Jews?”
Matthew 27:37 — “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.”
Mark 15:2 — “Are You the King of the Jews?”
Mark 15:9 — “Do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?”
Mark 15:12 — “What shall I do with the one you call King of the Jews?”
Mark 15:18 — “Hail, King of the Jews!”
Mark 15:26 — “The King of the Jews.”
Luke 23:3 — “Are You the King of the Jews?”
Luke 23:37 — “If You are the King of the Jews, save Yourself.”
Luke 23:38 — “This is the King of the Jews.”
John 19:3 — “Hail, King of the Jews!”
John 19:14 — “Here is your King.”

---

⭐ JESUS THE GALILEAN​

Matthew 26:69 — “You were with Jesus the Galilean.”
Luke 23:5 — “He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Galilee.”
John 7:41 — “Will the Christ come from Galilee?”

---

⭐ JESUS THE SON OF DAVID​

Matthew 1:1 — “Jesus Christ, the Son of David.”
Matthew 9:27 — “Have mercy on us, Son of David.”
Matthew 12:23 — “Is this not the Son of David?”
Matthew 15:22 — “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David.”
Matthew 20:30 — “Have mercy on us, O Lord, Son of David.”
Matthew 21:9 — “Hosanna to the Son of David!”
Romans 1:3 — “Born of the seed of David according to the flesh.”
Revelation 22:16 — “I am the root and the offspring of David.”

---

⭐ JESUS THE SON OF MAN​

Matthew 8:20 — “The Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.”
Matthew 12:8 — “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
Matthew 16:27 — “The Son of Man will come in His glory.”
Matthew 20:28 — “The Son of Man came to give His life.”
Matthew 26:64 — “You will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds.”
Mark 2:10 — “The Son of Man has authority.”
Mark 14:62 — “You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power.”
Luke 19:10 — “The Son of Man came to seek and save the lost.”

(There are over 80 Son of Man references, but these are the core representative ones; I can list them all on request.)

---

⭐ JESUS THE SON OF GOD​

Matthew 3:17 — “This is My beloved Son.”
Matthew 14:33 — “Truly You are the Son of God.”
Matthew 16:16 — “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
John 1:34 — “This is the Son of God.”
John 20:31 — “That you may believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.”
Romans 1:4 — “Declared to be the Son of God with power.”
1 John 4:15 — “Jesus is the Son of God.”

---

⭐ JESUS THE CHRIST / MESSIAH​

Matthew 16:16 — “You are the Christ.”
Matthew 1:17 — “Jesus who is called Christ.”
John 1:41 — “We have found the Messiah.”
John 4:25–26 — “I who speak to you am He.”
Acts 2:36 — “God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ.”
Acts 9:22 — “Proving that Jesus is the Christ.”
1 John 2:22 — “He who denies that Jesus is the Christ.”

---

⭐ JESUS THE LORD​

Luke 2:11 — “A Savior, Christ the Lord.”
Acts 10:36 — “Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all.”
Romans 10:9 — “Confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord.”
1 Cor 8:6 — “One Lord, Jesus Christ.”
Phil 2:11 — “Every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”

---

⭐ JESUS THE RABBI / TEACHER​

John 1:38 — “Rabbi (which means Teacher).”
John 3:2 — “Rabbi, we know You are a teacher sent from God.”
Matthew 23:8 — “You have one Teacher, the Christ.”

---

⭐ JESUS THE HOLY ONE​

Mark 1:24 — “You are the Holy One of God.”
John 6:69 — “You are the Holy One of God.”

---

⭐ JESUS THE PROPHET​

Matthew 21:11 — “Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth.”
Luke 24:19 — “Jesus of Nazareth, a prophet mighty in deed.”
John 7:40 — “Surely this is the Prophet.”

---

⭐ JESUS THE SAVIOR​

Luke 2:11 — “A Savior is born.”
John 4:42 — “This is indeed the Savior of the world.”
Acts 5:31 — “God exalted Him as Savior.”
Acts 13:23 — “God brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus.”

---

⭐ JESUS THE LAMB OF GOD​

John 1:29 — “Behold the Lamb of God.”
John 1:36 — “Behold the Lamb of God.”
1 Peter 1:19 — “The precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish.”
Revelation 5:6 — “A Lamb standing as if slain.”
Revelation 14:1 — “The Lamb.”
Revelation 21:23 — “The Lamb is its lamp.”

---

⭐ JESUS AS SON OF JOSEPH​

Luke 3:23 — “Being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph.”
John 1:45 — “Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
Luke 4:22 — “Is this not Joseph’s son?”

---

⭐ JESUS AS SON OF ABRAHAM​

Matthew 1:1 — “Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham.”

---

⭐ JESUS AS SON OF ADAM​

Luke 3:38 — Genealogy ends: “Adam, the son of God.” (Jesus’ lineage goes to Adam.)

Being on holiday can really mess with your sense of liturgical time. I spent last Palm Sunday travelling back from Hawaii, and it made my Holy Week really weird.

The Liturgist said:

Roman Emperors did not historically wear blue - they wore a purple Toga or the Toga Pretexta, but by the time of the Hagia Sophia that would have been out of fashion for some time.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of icons with either red, purple, or both, with clear imperial embroiderment. Just do a Google search.

In this particular case, it looks somewhere between blue and purple. It can be the picture quality, the shape and style of the mosaic itself. But in any case, you can see underneath he has finely embroidered Byzantine vesture, and overall it is not working class attire.

Chesterton said:

Symbolically there could be something Satanic to that.

Click to expand...

There probably is, considering that Muhammed was obviously, at least to begin with, under the influence of a fallen angel impersonating St. Gabriel the Archangel. And alas since his only contact with Christianity had been with an Arian heretic, he was not equipped to realize how he was being misled. I suspect this was also the basis for the later “Satanic Verses” controversy - clearly, as demons tend to do according to the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, and the Orthodox lives of the saints, he was abandoned, and not knowing what to say, uttered a Sura which confused his followers, only to retract it.

And regarding Muhammad’s personal life, well “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

CLEEB said:

Even Jesus did not know the day and hour of the second advent. He said that only the FATHER knows. Theories are OK as long as we do not make them doctrine. Christ returns early to stop the tribulation else no one would be left alive. The two witnesses, after being killed, are resurrected 3 1/2 days later and rise up into the air to meet the returning Jesus. I would think that at that time , when they are killed, we, if alive, will know that in 3 1/2 days Jesus returns. When the antichrist signs a covenant with 10 nations this begins the countdown of the final “week” and at the midpoint of that week 1260 days into it, antichrist defiles the temple, as Paul said, declaring himself GOD. This event is the beginning of the great tribulation that is cut short for the sake of the elect, who are the church, and this indicates the church is still on Earth at the time of the great tribulation but is protected from this hour of trial that comes upon the whole earth. Revelation 3:10 Jesus was only involved with the earth twice, during his fleshy existence and second when he returns in glory. Hebrews 9:28 verifies this. Also in his prayer to the FATHER in John 17:5 Jesus specifically asked his FATHER to not take the church out of the world. The rapture theory began in 1830 by a Scottish woman , Margaret Macdonald, it was then popularized by a preacher, John Nelson Darby. If Christ re in secret before the tribulation this would be his third interaction with the earth when Hebrews 9:28 limits his appearances to only two times, his life on earth and the second advent. The confusion seems to come from making how we meet Jesus in the air with the second advent, making two separate occurrences rather than just one. The church rises up to meet the Christ at his return, not at some time beforehand. Certain scriptures are misused and misinterpreted to develop this rapture theory. This Macdonald woman and false preacher Darby literally invented the rapture from their own carnal minds.

Click to expand...

The Great Tribulation in Matthew 24:15-22 was in the first century AD.

“So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; 17 let him who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house; 18 and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle. 19 And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! 20 Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a sabbath. 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. 22 And if those days had not been shortened, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.

According to Jesus, the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place will be the Roman armies that will soon be encamped around Jerusalem within this generation. These armies were comprised of soldiers from the many nations of the Roman Empire.

Luke 21:20-24 But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it; 22 for these are days of vengeance, to fulfil all that is written. 23 Alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! For great distress shall be upon the earth and wrath upon this people; 24 they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

The two witnesses that the disobedient Jews rejected were the law and the prophets, which were symbolized by Moses and Elijah. Luke 9:28-37
The Old Testament foretold Jesus the Messiah's birth, death, and resurrection. Luke 24:44

David Hunter said:

What did you think?!!

Click to expand...

I thought it was great!

I watched the entire program!
There was so much talent on that stage ... I really wasn't expecting such a professional performance.
They did a real swell job of celebrating the holiday with song, while keeping it all very 'groovy'!

The fact that all the performers are volunteers ...
and doing it for such a worthwhile cause ...
made it all even more *special*.

I have a 25 yo niece with Down Syndrome. So this year's concert beneficiary (Invited In Disability Ministry) speaks to my heart! My sister has always worked hard to keep my niece active and involved with others, so I know how important this type of ministry is. I hope they were able to raise alot of money for this very good cause.

It made for a fun nite, watching the concert livestream. Thanks again, for sharing the info.
It was nice of Grace Church to host the event this year.
(They shared that Grace is their favorite venue!)


P.S.
For anyone interested in listening to a very upbeat Christmas performance:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

In 1/2 Maccabees in 100s BC they did not think there was any prophets among them

1 Maccabees 9:27​

Common English Bible​

27 So there was great distress in Israel, the worst since the time when prophets ceased to appear among them.​

​

1 Maccabees 4:46​

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition​

46 And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them.​

​

​

2 Maccabees 2 quotes a prophecy from Jeremiah which is from 4 Baruch in the 500s BC but it is not an original prophecy in Maccabees just quoting something else that was written centuries before. ​

​

Psalms of Solomon Psalms of Solomon - Wikipedia This is not psalms in the normal bible. ​

​

Some of these are describing Pompey invading Jerusalem 63 BC then dying in Egypt 48 BC. One is describing the Babylon exile 587 BC or the Assyrian exile 722 BC. One claims to be a conversation Solomon had back in the 900s BC. It is possible that one goes back to Solomon. I do not know why a scribe titled this manuscript psalms of Solomon when none claim to have authorship by Solomon, and several are clearly recalling events after his time. Psalm 17 contains multiple prophecies about Jesus so at least this psalm is claiming be written before 1 AD, and claiming to be inspired scripture. The same psalm contains a part about either Pompey or Antiochus 4 in Maccabees also. Assuming it is about the same person in the other psalms that besieged Jerusalem it was Pompey. The internal date of authorship is between 48 BC, and 1 AD. I believe it is inspired scripture.​

​

So although most prophecy seemed to stop after Malachi was written around 400 BC there is some prophecy 48 BC-1 AD. I believe 1/2/3 Maccabees are inspired like Esther, and those books are history with no prophecies where as most other OT books have both.

Ask chat GPT to show how Zechariah 13 happened in 1/2 Maccabees too. It gives some good verses. The latest that prophecy could of happened was 70 AD. Some parts are a double prophecy about Jesus also as the NT quotes it. ​

The context here is the story of Jesus’ friend Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha, who was sick and died. Jesus did not get to him before he died, so when Jesus did arrive, Lazarus had already been in the tomb four days.


But when Jesus arrived at the tomb of Lazarus, and the stone had been removed from the tomb, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth.” And Lazarus came forth, no longer dead, but alive (John 11:38-44).

But now I am going to focus my attention here on verses 25-27 and look at what that means for us today. For to believe in Jesus Christ means to be “born again” of the Spirit of God. By God-persuaded and God-gifted faith in the Lord Jesus, our old lives of living in sin and for self are put to death with Christ at the cross, because of what Jesus did in putting our sins to death with him when he died on that cross. Then we are resurrected with him to walk in newness of life in him, as those who obey him and his commands.

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).

Therefore, what it means to believe in Jesus is not words only. We cannot merely mouth words of confession of Christ as Lord and Savior and expect that all our sins are now forgiven, and that heaven is our eternal destiny, if we do not, by God-provided faith in him, deny self, die to sin daily (in practice), and walk (in conduct, in practice) in obedience to our Lord and to his commands. For belief in Christ is the persuasion of God as to his holiness and righteousness, and of our sinfulness, and of God’s requirement that we deny self, die to sin daily, and follow him in obedience to his commands.

So, what this means is that, even if we die in our bodies, and we no longer have the physical breath of life within us, because we have now departed from this sinful world for forever, if we believe in Jesus (as described above), then we will live for eternity with God – Father, Son Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit. And all of us who walk by faith in Jesus Christ in holy living, pleasing to God, in obedience to our Lord’s commands, and no longer as slaves to sin, we will never die spiritually, but we will live with our Lord for eternity.

[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]

A Believer’s Prayer

An Original Work / July 31, 2012
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

With my whole heart, Lord, I pray
To be Yours, and Yours always.
Lead me in Your truth today.
May I love You, and obey.
Lead me in Your righteousness.
When I sin, may I confess;
Bow before You when I pray;
Live for You and You always.

Love You, Jesus, You’re my friend.
Life with You will never end.
You are with me through each day,
Giving love and peace always.
You will ne’er abandon me.
From my sin You set me free.
You died on that cruel tree,
So I’d live eternally.

Soon You’re coming back for me;
From this world to set me free;
Live with You eternally.
Oh, what joy that brings to me.
I will walk with You in white;
A pure bride, I’ve been made right
By the blood of Jesus Christ;
Pardoned by His sacrifice.

Login to view embedded media
The Resurrection and The Life
An Original Work / December 7, 2025
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

Should be stickied for reference.

Michie said:

A majority of pastors are now using artificial intelligence to prepare their sermons, with ChatGPT and Grammarly reported as the top two AI tools, new survey data shows.

"ChatGPT is the most visible generative AI tool that can engage in human-like conversations and assist with a wide range of tasks, from answering questions to generating content," researchers wrote in "The 2025 State of AI in the Church Survey Report" prepared by AiForChurchLeaders.comand Exponential AI NEXT.

“As the most popular AI tool among church leaders (26%), ChatGPT is being used for applications such as sermon preparation, research, and crafting church communications. Its versatility and ease of use make it a powerful asset for streamlining ministry work and sparking creative ideas."

The data, based on responses from 594 pastors and church staff members, shows that church leaders are now more concerned about "the weighty ethical and practical considerations involved" in the use of AI as they continue their rapid embrace of the technology.

Continued below.

Majority of pastors now using AI to prepare sermons amid rapid embrace of technology: study

A majority of pastors are now using artificial intelligence to prepare their sermons, with ChatGPT and Grammarly reported as the top two AI tools, new survey data shows

www.christianpost.com

Click to expand...

This is bad. What I have seen of AI so far is often blathering idiocy and often enough downright error.

I just finished reading an AI explanation of the difference between Vitamin C and ascorbic acid. It's pretty simple, actually in that they have the same exact chemical formula but Vitamin C is the left handed chiral form of ascorbic acid. The synthetic stuff comes in a mixture of right and left chiral forms. AI was lost in the fog trying to explain that.

I worry that AI will further confuse already confused pastors and spread that confusion to their people. That happened before AI but this takes even less effort with AI dishing out garbage.

Pretty good article, I thought.
We all can seek “Existential Well-being

1. Engagement in life
2. Connection with others
3 Vitality
4. Spiritual congruence

DaisyDay said:

24 hours after birth. The problem as explained to me is that people can be silent carriers of the virus which can be passed through breaks in the skin such as scrapes, scratches and minor cuts. Infants who get infected are at high risk for liver cancer, cirrhosis of the liver and chronic liver problems. Unless everyone who is going to handle the baby is tested, then it is unknown what the actual risk is. The risk of the vaccine versus infection is heavily weighted towards the infection.

Click to expand...

No, you aren't a 'silent carrier', you're infected or your not. And again, all major European countries wait until 2 months or more (some even wait until adolescence)