Five Letters Easy Game...Fun!!!!!!!! :D
- By lucypevensie
- Recreation Room
- 19739 Replies
Keep some essential foods frozen.
FROZN
FROZN
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The trickster is among the most extensively studied figures in the comparative history of religion. He represents a divine mediator between heaven and earth, whose character bears the imprint of both realms. Consequently, the trickster embodies both animal and divine qualities, combining deception with nobility, good with evil—as exemplified by Coyote in Amerindian mythology. In early Christianity, the first theory of atonement embraced by the Church Fathers held that Christ tricked the devil.I’m sorry
this seems over educated jargon, not for the common people whom the gospel was intended for. But since Christ has such depth it is definitely food for you. But where your faith lies I don’t know. It’s not clear if the ‘trickster’ is a respectful term. It might be a colloquial term that suits philosophers fancy.. it could be derogatory.
i accepted what for a long time I was to afraid to admit. I had to forsake my sin and admit Jesus made sense and that there was going to be blessing for following. But until I forsook my sin it was hard to bear. How is the truth’ a trickster?!
Fair enough. All of our notions should be updated.
Notice, though, that here you speak of works, which the conversation you spoke against, brought up as something we were predestined to. Might those be the same as the "greater works" you describe as the weightier matters according to Jesus?
There are books that are outside the protestant canon that are inspired only for the wise that seek them out. They are apocrypha which means hidden from the wise of the world.I
I do use ai mainly as a reference tool though. On your topic I have to think more about what this means in relation to the mind of Christ. But the idea we know in part we prophecy in part, the call of us to seek and ask for wisdom, to meditate day and night on the word suggests the depper things of God are available if we make more effort.
And I am. not a TULIP FAN and Acts 2:36 is speaking. about Israel. and are KEEIPING the Law !!"The Meaning of Foreknew in Romans 8:29"
You may ask why this is in the dispensationalism forum. It's because it has everything to do with the transition from the old Testament to the New Testament.
I copied this out of a book that I once owned called "The Five Points of Calvinism, Defined, Defended and documented" about twenty years ago. You'll still find it floating around the internet on some forums. I wanted to confront that interpretation that I once defended.
Amazon.com
To my surprise, I found it, but not by me, rather, it was on monergism.com. Perhaps they copied my copy, as it still has some mistakes pointed out in the spell checker, mostly with spacing that I just now fixed.
You should read it, as some of the points made in that article I'll be discussing and using for proof of my position. You can read it here if you like.
The Meaning of "FOREKNEW" in Romans 8:29 | Monergism
This is from the Appendix of the book "The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented" by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas. THE MEANING OF
www.monergism.com
Romans 8:29-30 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
-------------
QUOTE from the book:
God has always possessed perfect knowledge of all creatures and of all events. There has never been a time when anything past, present, or future was not fully known to Him.* But it is not His knowledge of future events (of what people would do, etc.) which is referred to in Romans 8:29,30, for Paul clearly states that those whom He foreknew He predestined, He called, He justified, etc. Since all men are not predestined, called, and justified, it follows that all men were not foreknown by God in the sense spoken of in verse 29.
It is for this reason that the Arminians are forced to add some qualifying notion. They read into the passage some idea not contained in the language itself such as those whom He foreknew would believe etc., He predestined, called and justified. But according to the Biblical usage of the words “know,” “knew,” and “foreknew” there is not the least need to make such an addition, and since it is unnecessary, it is improper. When the Bible speaks of God knowing particular individuals, it often means that He has special regard for them, that they are the objects of His affection and concern. For example in Amos 3:2, God, speaking to Israel says, “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” The Lord knows about all the families of the earth, but He knew Israel in a special way.* They were His chosen people whom He had set His heart upon. See Deuteronomy 7:7,8; 10:15. Because Israel was His in a special sense He chastised them, cf. Hebrews 12:5,6.*God, speaking to Jeremiah, said, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you,” (Jeremiah 1:5). The meaning here is not that God knew about Jeremiah but that He had a special regard for the prophet before He formed him in his mother’s womb. Jesus also used the word “knew” in the sense of personal, intimate awareness. “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers’ “ (Matt. 7:22,23). Our Lord cannot be understood here as saying, I knew nothing about you, for it is quite evident that He knew all too much about them – their evil character and evil works; hence, His meaning must be, I never knew you intimately nor personally, I never regarded you as the objects of my favor or love. Paul uses the word in the same way in I Corinthians 8:3, “But if one loves God, one is known by him,” and also II Timothy 2:19, “the Lord knows those who are His.” The Lord knows about all men but He only knows those “who love Him, who are called according to His purpose” (Rom 8:28) – those who are His! ...END QUOTE
---------
I would add that Calvinism is also adding a qualifying notion. That being, Whom He foreknew [from the foundations of the world]. That simply is assumed into the text. If that was what was meant, it would be easy to just say it, as Peter did in 1 Peter 1:20
1 Peter 1:2 He indeed was foreordained [foreknew] before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you (Also see 1 Peter 1:2)
(ESV) "He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you"
The same Greek word for "foreordained" in 1 Peter 1:20 and "foreknew" in Romans 8:29. Also see John 17:24.
John 17:24 Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
So foreknown [from the foundations of the world] "Foundations of the world" is assumed by the Calvinist interpretation. It sounds reasonable, right? There is predestination right after that.
Let me offer some context that Calvinism doesn't use because their understanding of Scripture limits that context. In Romans 8:28-29, Paul is speaking of true OT believers. That's the flow of the whole book in context, and the more immediate context is the same. They were foreknown as believers already, and were given to the Son by the Father, so that He would not lose one of them, thus predestined to be what? Conformed to the the image of His Son. These were already appointed to eternal life as true OT believers, and were thus foreknown by God, but would need to make the transition to the Gospel message as believers. These He also called (with the Gospel), His Sheep will hear His voice. Those He called, He also justified [in Christ, Pentecost and beyond] also see Romans 3:25. And those He justified, He glorified.
It's actually fits perfectly. If you think that sounds wrong, consider that Paul tells us who is foreknown in Romans 11:2.
Romans 11:1-5 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, "Lord, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life"? But what does the divine response say to him? "I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
It's Israel. That's the same point that the five points of Calvinism was making, they just didn't examine that Scripture with the entire context, since most Calvinists believe that there is no transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament. That there is no difference in the way God deals with people from one to the other. That OT believers were saved and already had all the benefits of being in Christ. I disagree with that. Listen to the argument made in that article, it actually supports what I'm saying.
This Gospel that these Jews were hearing was completely different from what they expected and understood. Paul is explaining the Law verses grace. How physical Israel is different from Spiritual Israel. How God chastising the Jews and including the Gentiles was part of His eternal plan. How those Jews who God had chastised could still be a part of that plan of salvation. It's a covenant by faith, not of the Law. Peter makes the same kind of Argument to similar minded Jews of that time who were also ignorant as to what was happening in Acts1-2.
Acts 2:22-23 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know-- Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;
36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
To use the same argument as the article, I think its not part of the Text, and therefore not necessary to add [from the foundations of the world] to the meaning of the word foreknew. I understand why that idea was assumed into the term foreknew from the Calvinist framework, but I believe that framework lacks the proper context. As the writer points out, God is speaking of a particular people who He foreloved. That's Israel. And they, the true believers, spiritual Israel, were predestined to take the next step in that transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament and come to faith in Jesus Christ, thus placing them in Christ, [after Pentecost] and as a result, being justified in Him and being conformed to His image.
Any thoughts?
The Church. That is the true church of Our Lord Jesus Christ.Who do you think has the authority to determine the correct interpretation?
Seems strange cause Americans can get an electronic visa. I read a tourist visa takes 4 days. Likely Graham applied for a different type of visa? My advice for anyone traveling to minister is to really take a look at the destination and keep things as simple as possible. Unless your going to stay longer generally a tourist visa is fine. Your not working if you dont take money from the place your going. Of course Graham is high profile plus he is bringing a team. I can say too in my experience that groups are scrutinized more by immigration authorities. There is nothing like going to a country and not being allowed to enter. The usa even rejects some valid visa holders.The Rev. Franklin Graham was recently unable to attend a Christian revival event in India due to a visa issue, with some alleging foul play.
Reports circulated last week stating that the 73-year-old Graham was prevented from speaking at an event in Nagaland late last month to commemorate the anniversary of a crusade his father, the late Rev. Billy Graham, conducted in the region 53 years earlier. The Times of India reported that Graham had been denied a visa, causing one local leader to send letters to federal officials voicing displeasure with the matter.
A spokesperson for the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association clarified the situation in a statement sent to The Christian Post on Tuesday.
"The visas for Rev. Franklin Graham and our team were approved by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division; however, it was after the necessary departure date for Mr. Graham to arrive in time for Nagaland United: A Gathering of Faith, Hope and Revival and for the Hornbill Festival," read the statement.
Continued below.
![]()
Did India deny a visa to Franklin Graham ahead of a crusade? Here's what we know
The Rev Franklin Graham was recently unable to attend a Christian revival event in India due to a visa issue, with some alleging foul playwww.christianpost.com
Single party rule does have it's consequences. Minnesota actually had good government way back when.
- McClarey
![]()
Reality always wins in the end.
Thought for the Day – The American Catholic
the-american-catholic.com
The OT Davidic kingdom of Israel was restored on Pentecost 2000 years ago. Kingdom of Israel restored on Pentecost.Israel has returned.
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?
I bet there's an uber-radical leftist somewhere saying, man, I'm glad he got that pack of smokes, and knifed that fascist nazi.That's what he claims...he also claims that he was approaching in (what appears to be an aggressive attack stance) to attempt to trade the knife for cigarettes.
View attachment 374221
If we're being honest, given the guy's previous criminal record of stabbing, and roughing up store clerks. In all likelihood, it was probably more of a "give me those smokes!" (holding the knife to imply "or else")
...but even if we operate on the assumption that the defendant's statements on that were 100% accurate, I would hope you're being facetious here. Someone yelling a slur from 20 feet away as a person is moving towards them with a brandished weapon wouldn't be justification for assaulting them with said weapon. (especially in an open-air environment in a state that establishes a duty to retreat)
Yes, to met that's conservatism, although my liberal friends would disagree. Perhaps they would prefer "that which has been shown to work in the past."To me that’s the common sense approach.![]()
Did the hit dog holler?He didn't. Mark Kelly didn't either.
I would go to Sunday school and hear how God created us, then go to school and learn how [Gaia] created us.
I'm thankful that I learned the Truth in my earlier years; else I may have suffered cognitive dissonance and ended up choosing the wrong path.
Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
Sounds good to me!Would it have been so bad if the FBI agents had chosen to kneel to show solidarity with the protestors?
In the march in our town in 2020, some police officers walked alongside us to help ensure that everything stayed peaceful and to make sure traffic stopped for us when we crossed streets. When we got to the park that was our end point and had a short ceremony (prayers from local clergy, etc.), the police officers knelt when we did. I took that as a statement from them that they disapproved of Floyd's killing and similar acts of excessive police violence, and I was encouraged that our local officers were making that statement.
It will never end.Florida Man strikes again.