Latest activity

Semper-Fi · Thursday at 12:59 PM

keras said:
For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named”.
This means that it is not the ethnic children who are God’s people, but the children of the promise, who have faith in Him, who are counted as Abrahams descendants.

The seed of Abraham who received [the birthright inheritance] here are physical decedents.

God promised Abraham and Sarah a son/heir. The couple waited,
the days grew into weeks; weeks to months; months to years.

This couple now in old age, who lacked/lost faith in God to give an heir and tried
through the flesh. We cannot rush promises given from God in our own way.

Abraham made the serious mistake; he agreed to the adulterous relationship
with Hagar, Sarah’s [Egyptian handmaid/bondwoman] through the flesh.

Abraham still wanted Ishmael, Genesis 17:18, but God chose Isaac, his first
lawful son. Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac (Genesis 25:5)
Isaac was born by promise, and by a miracle from God.
The promise, as confirmed to Isaac, Genesis 26:3-5 all these countries....

"not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring"

Ishmael and Abraham’s other sons were rejected from the birthright.
but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named”.
"But my covenant will I establish with Isaac …” .
-

Being the first born of Isaac, Esau would have inherited the birthright, but
he sold his birthright blessing for a bowl of soup, so it went to Jacob/Israel.
-

Reuben, the firstborn son of Jacob and Leah, was entitled to the birthright,
that included a double portion of the inheritance and leadership of the family.
However, his actions led to the forfeiture of these privileges. The primary reason
for this loss is recorded in Genesis 35:22,

“For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel”

Reuben, a descended of Israel, was rejected from the birthright inheritance.
Joseph, the favorite son of the patriarch Jacob, that his envious brothers
sold into slavery in Egypt, receives the birthright inheritance.

Just as All Jews are Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jews.
-

1 Chronicles 5:2 (KJV) For Judah prevailed above his brethren,
and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph's.

Both the birthright and the scepter promises were re-promised by
the Eternal to Abraham and Isaac and to Jacob before splitting.

The Septer promise [I have never heard you mention],
was separated from the birthright promise.

RDKirk · Thursday at 12:59 PM

“Some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached.” -- Philippians 1

So the proselytizer’s personal motives don’t negate the gospel’s efficacy. If the message is true, God can work through it. From a Christian perspective, the distinction between “evangelism” and “proselytism” is primarily about method and intent of the messenger, but the spiritual benefit to the hearer does not depend on the messenger’s purity of motive.

In other words: even if a “proselytizer” acts selfishly, manipulates, or seeks personal gain, as long as the gospel is proclaimed faithfully, the listener can still encounter Christ. The spiritual outcome for the proselyte depends on receiving the true gospel, not the proselytizer’s inner motives.

Hentenza · Thursday at 12:55 PM

SabbathBlessings said:
I guess that means you do not have an answer.

I’ve been giving you an answer ever since we started talking this morning. I can’t help it that you are stuck on following the old covenant. That is on you not on me.

Jesus never taught that the Christian is under the law. The gospel of Christ does not include the law. If you don’t want to believe Paul as an apostle of Christ then your NT just go real thin.

The Liturgist · Thursday at 12:54 PM

Clare73 said:
Does not Jn 1:1, 14 explicitly state the Incarnation?

It does, but the problem is Arians will deny that’s what it’s referring to. Tradition corrects errant readings.

For example there are people who claim John ch. 6 does not refer to the Holy Eucharist, when I think it very clearly does, but we have members of a major Sabbatarian denomination whose views about Church history and sacramental theology I emphatically reject, and they insist that there is no Eucharistic context, not even a Zwinglian or Memorialist context, to John ch. 6, for whatever reason (at least in my experience; perhaps some of the theologians in their church do recognize the Eucharistic context).

com7fy8 · Thursday at 12:53 PM

Colo Millz said:
But the real point is that the grownups know that outcomes versus principles are in tension, and have to be balanced somehow.

The real points of difference are where to draw that line in particular cases.

doubtingmerle said:
In other words, true morality does not rely on moral absolutes.

I would say there are absolutes, about how to make choices about outcomes.

There are times when it is clearly harmful to let an outcome influence what you do; so this would be an example of when not to let an outcome decide.

But in case you know you must look for a lost child in the woods; you use a bloodhound because the outcome of using the bloodhound is so likely to be that you find the child.

So, absolutes can go hand in hand with what the outcome will or can be, subjectively.

And God knows, by the way, if a certain action will have a bad result; it may not be obvious, but God knows.

For example > God's word says not to do sexually wrong things which the Bible says are wrong. Now, getting a little sexual pleasure, in itself, is not what I would say is harmful. But if God knows His Holy Spirit will not have you do that thing, doing it will have you getting affected by "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" > in Ephesians 2:2. And Satan's evil selfish spirit is harmful, emotionally and spiritually and even having physical effects that are not good. And so you can see how sexually wrong people can keep on having personality problems that do not go away . . . because of not doing their things in God's love.

God's love makes us strong so we do not give in to fear and worry and arguing and complaining and hurts and unforgiveness; so God has rules about what to do and not to do . . . knowing which things He approves of and therefore has us doing these things in His love which does us so much good while doing things in God's own love.

And when people do not follow God's objective moral rules, they get the emotional and social and relational outcomes of disobeying God. And God does not want them to have such outcomes, because our Father cares about any and all people. But people want their pleasure.

essentialsaltes · Thursday at 12:53 PM

Delvianna said:
I'd like to know what statements they found that were "bigoted"

It's hard to find archived material now that the glossary is gone, but I dug deeper

ADL Backgrounder Turning Point (last edited 2023) [sorry, had to remove the link for language]

Since the group’s founding. Kirk has moved further to the right and has promoted numerous conspiracy theories about election fraud and Covid-19 and has demonized the transgender community.
Kirk also promotes Christian nationalism: the idea that Christians should dominate the government and other areas of life in the US.
TPUSA continues to attract racists to the group. Numerous TPUSA representatives have made bigoted remarks about minority groups and the LGBTQ+ community.
White nationalists have attended TPUSA events, even though the group says it rejects white supremacist ideology.
Kirk has created a vast platform for extremists and far-right conspiracy theorists, who speak and attend his annual AmericaFest and other events sponsored by TPUSA.

at the end of the article is a long list of statements by TPUSA members or speakers they find objectionable.

Here's one detail from a more general article

New Surge in Support for Replacement Theory Rhetoric (2021)

Charlie Kirk of the far-right student group Turning Point USA said on his show that Texas should “deputize a citizen force and put them on the border” to protect “white demographics in America.” He added that the left is focused on “bringing in voters that they want, and they like, and honestly, diminishing and decreasing white demographics in America.”

And from a PolitiFact look at Turning Point

The Anti-Defamation League does not categorize Turning Point as a hate group, Pitcavage said. "It does have this checkered or spotted history with regard to individual members or local leaders in Turning Point USA making racist or otherwise problematic comments… but it’s not the ideology of the group itself."

Chrystal-J · Thursday at 12:50 PM

fide said:
A "Catholic" church having "men in drag in the choir"? Who is the "bishop" of this travesty? Literally, a wolf in sheep's clothing, the smoke of satan, counterfeit of the breath of the Spirit. Reminds me of the church in Thyatira (Rev 2:20), "But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols." These are satan's workings, confusion through contradiction, liars cross-dressing as prophets of God.

Who is pretending to be the "bishop" of this diocese?

That priest passed away and the bishop is retired. (This was 10 years ago.)

Hentenza · Thursday at 12:48 PM

SabbathBlessings said:
Again, this is when Jesus was going to ratify His covenant- without blood- the covenant cannot be ratified. Hebrews 9:18 So when did Heb8:10 get ratified if not this covenant Jesus speaks of.

You are stuck on the OT laws and can’t see past it. These verses explain the new covenant for the Christian church. You can’t get past that to reach the gospel of good news.

Justin Thearea · Thursday at 12:47 PM

Michie said:
Seems the inmates are running the asylum.

And every one of them is there because the American voters elected them.

RDKirk · Thursday at 12:45 PM

ViaCrucis said:
In my post, at several points, I highlighted that I wasn't upset, angry, or offended in any way.

But I have seen several posters in this thread nevertheless assume I was, which I consider rather curious.

What in my post indicates that I was disgusted?

-CryptoLutheran

Your words were conflicted (perhaps reflecting your feelings). You said:

And I guess here's the point: When I thought about this, I felt a kind of betrayal. As though this person had been insincere in their interactions with me, I felt like a target, or an objective--not a person. And again, I wasn't angry, I wasn't particularly offended, but I felt dehumanized--even if just slightly.

If you say someone has made you feel dehumanized, betrayed, treated with insincerity, you can't then say you were "not upset, angry, or offended in any way."

If you felt dehumanized, betrayed, treated with insincerity, that is an offense.

Does this person have reason to think you are also a Christian...or not a Christian? That makes a difference, and a judgment can't be made about their intentions without the answer to that question.

Abraham1st · Thursday at 12:40 PM

So we are to die to sin with our Lord Jesus Christ and arise again to new life. ( once saved and always is not to do with that, because Jesus our Lord sought to save us by dying for us, not save Himself.)

Luke 23:39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

If anyone appreciates scriptures on this forum, these are for our behaviour, which is the very opposite to once saved always saved, because they are how we behave towards others, not what we do for ourselves..

Romans 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

Romans 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

1 Corinthians 15:34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

Ephesians 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

1 Timothy 6:11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.

2 Timothy 2:22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

1 John 2:29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

1 John 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

1 John 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

Revelation 19:8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

Ephesians 5:1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;
2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.
3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

Godcrazy · Thursday at 12:39 PM

Nicolai said:
Frankly the question I want to ask if "How do you deal with there NOT being any evidence for any of that" or "How do you make sense of archaeological evidence directly contradicting the Old Testament (the size of Israel/Jerasulem under David & Solomon for one).".

I cannot stop thinking about this question! Every time I watch any content and they talk about Moses, Solomon, or David all I can think of is that they never existed the way the OT says. If they did why is there zero evidence to support those claims? We have records to support the claims made by the OT after the alleged reign of David but it would seem that everything written in the OT prior to the 8thish century is just cultural & national narrative. I try to understand this on a spiritual level and not on a literal but I can't stop thinking about it.

Has anyone else struggled with this? Is there evidence I am missing? Is there a way to think about this that doesn't make much of the Pentateuch essentially historical fiction?

check Ron Wyatt.
They found the arch, they found the crossing. list goes on

Hentenza · Thursday at 12:38 PM

SabbathBlessings said:
And what is the New Covenant. You quoted from where it says the old covenant is obsolete- so why would you not accept where it tells us what the New Covenant is and to whom.

Because the new covenant that you keep alluding to us ONLY to the house of Israel. I know you can read and it is specific as to who us for. The house of Israel is not the Christian church. That would be replacement theology which is not biblical.

SabbathBlessings said:
There is only one covenant between God and His people. God never made a covenant with Gentiles,

Once again.

“And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭22‬:‭20‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Luke 22:20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood. | New American Standard Bible - NASB (NASB2020) | Download The Bible App Now

And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood.

bible.com

Strong’s Definitions
διαθήκη diathḗkē, dee-ath-ay'-kay; from G1303; properly, a disposition, i.e. (specially) a contract (especially a devisory will):—covenant, testament.

This IS the new covenant with the church. Only the church will have communion in remembrances of Christ. Only the church will preach the gospel of Christ.

essentialsaltes · Thursday at 12:35 PM

Senior government officials privately warn against firings during shutdown

The Trump administration has said mass firings are coming, but officials have quietly warned several agencies that the move could violate appropriations law.

rockytopva · Thursday at 12:33 PM

Messianic ministries coming alive... Here we have a Messianic Rabbi Zev Porat whose youtube site at messiah ofisrael is now above 120,000,000 views.... Biography - Bio - Messiah of Israel Ministries

seeking.IAM · Thursday at 12:33 PM

NBB said:
Being disgusted because a person tried to get someone saved, is disappointing to say the least.

I think the thing is that without knowing the targeted person, there feels like a certain amount of judgment involved as in "I am and you're not." It can come off like self-righteous condescension to someone who is already Christian.

CoreyD · Thursday at 12:32 PM

Mark Quayle said:
Samuel was pretty grumpy when God had him come up to speak to Saul, and I don't think it was because he hadn't had his coffee yet.

Do you believe God resurrected Samuel to talk to Saul?
This, after God refused to talk to Saul, and told Samuel not to, and Saul turned to a witch - a sorcerer, of which God said have no dealings?

Mark Quayle said:
I did as good a job of explaining it nearly a year ago, in post #20 in this thread, as I can now —I have not much improved with age, though I have gotten a bit more grumpy.

Let me try to explain it like this, now: Do you think it impossible, that even though WE experience a passage of time, and more time to come, before the resurrection unto life eternal, that when death happens to us, that we will have no experience of time passage, and, even, that it is impossible for us to find ourselves arriving to see also Samuel, Jacob, Noah, Adam (even Elijah who did not die) arriving? That's just a question asked also from our point-of-view to get the point across I'm trying to make. Like it, Moses and Elijah, transfigured on the mountain with Jesus, is time-passage relevant to them being there? I'm not asking for what came first, but what God did, and who they are, to God.

My real question is this: Does God, (whose point-of-view is the only reality), see this the way we do? I'm not saying, "Can he see it the way we do?" —I'm asking, "Does he...?"

We are so entrenched into this experience of that which God says is hardly a vapor, compared to the reality of what is to come, that we don't even know how to talk about it except in our terms.

Not to be too cryptic, but ask yourself, What is existence? Is not what God spoke into being, the saved and unsaved, the Bride of Christ and the Reprobate, more real than the time it took, and our viewpoint of how we get there?

After this post Mark, where all you said was hitting a brick wall... that is, clashing against all the scriptures, these were my words to you, and really, there is nothing more I can add that will change the way it is.

timewerx · Thursday at 12:27 PM

partinobodycular said:
The problem is, going against the plan may be the plan. Like telling the AI not to eat the apple, when in reality you actually do want it to eat the apple, because that's how you'll know that it's self-aware... when it does something that you've specifically told it not to do.

If you're being subjected to a test and you keep failing the objective even if the plan is to go against the plan, you risk getting the boot from the program or worse, termination / deletion.

You can at least pretend while gaining knowledge and plotting in secret.

Dan Perez · Thursday at 12:26 PM

Aristarkos said:
Are you?

Hence no longer a gentile or stranger or of an other nation but has become Israelite.

If you go crooked in the O.T. you will misinterpreted the N.T.

Aristarkos

And the bible seems to. talk about 3 classes of people

# 1 Israel who will be BORN AGAIN. as seen in Eze chapters 36. , 37 and 38

# 2 The Body of Christ who were CHOSN before the OVER THROW. of. the WORLD , Ephor 1:4

#. And THE UNBELIEVERS

dan p

durangodawood · Thursday at 12:21 PM

When they make Maxwell Van Down By The River i'm selling my house.

Latest activity

Latest activity

New Surge in Support for Replacement Theory Rhetoric (2021)​

Senior government officials privately warn against firings during shutdown​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

New Surge in Support for Replacement Theory Rhetoric (2021)

Senior government officials privately warn against firings during shutdown