No kings ... including Jesus?
- By Vambram
- General Politics
- 31 Replies
That is not true.Most Americans disagree.
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.
That is not true.Most Americans disagree.
Representative Greene is incorrect.In a heated call, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene chastises Republicans over their shutdown strategy
![]()
In a heated call, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene chastises Republicans over their shutdown strategy
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene ripped into the shutdown strategy of her fellow Republicans and White House staff during a heated conference call on Tuesday.www.aol.com
On Tuesday, Greene accused her party of letting the country down, according to a Republican source who was on the conference call. Greene later confirmed the comments herself, even adding more detail, in the latest sign of a rift between her and her party.
Greene has long been one of President Donald Trump's most vocal backers, but in recent weeks, she's bucked her party on a number of high-profile issues, including the administration’s strikes on Iran, the conflict in Gaza and its handling of files related to the Jeffrey Epstein case.
Not long after Tuesday's call ended, the Georgia Republican began posting on X and confirming reports that she had reamed out her party leadership and expressed frustration with the White House's political team.
"I said I have no respect for the House not being in session passing our bills and the President’s executive orders. And I demanded to know from Speaker Johnson what the Republican plan for healthcare is," she wrote.
Greene also argued that Republicans' shutdown strategy has angered the American people and hurt Trump’s popularity, according to the source on the call.
The choice is between Democracy or Monrchy or oligarchy.If we have to choose between Mamdani style communism, and a Trump style monarchy for this United States, and this becomes the new left/ right division going forward... We would need to decide on the lesser of two evils.
...Which would you prefer? Communism or Monarchy.
Well, they were claiming that over a million species would become extinct, and a prominent UN official proclaimed to the Associated Press that: "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels" by the year 2000.Strawman. Scientists didn't say it would lead to humanity's demise. They said it would lead to more frequent major hurricanes. It has.
Or 'devastaing consequences'. It will.
Exclusive: ‘Devastating consequences’ now inevitable but emissions cuts still vital, says António Guterres in sole interview before Cop30
Where does Paul make a specific claim to "believe in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life"?
Crikey! That's insane. Does it cover everything?
per AI;Courts are able to rule on all law breaking.
Where are the Court rulings of such law breaking?
It seems the voters gave their verdict on that unconvincing lawfare.
Don't you just love democracy?
Romans 14 is about not judging others on the basis of the faith they have been given.
Claiming a 'Greater Holiness' by observing "a day" is exactly what Paul is teaching against.
Which commandments have natural consequences?if I am told to not eat the cookie or I’ll be punished, And I do so I’m put in time out that is a constructed consequence. If I’m told not to drink poison, and I do dying would be a natural consequence from drinking the poison.
Did you see that a lot of people don’t want Donald Trump to be the king of America?
On October 18th, there were a lot of “No Kings” rallies around the country, decrying what the protesters say are authoritarian actions by President Trump, whom they claim acts more like a king than a president. One protester in San Francisco held a sign saying, “Hey Trump nobody paid us to be here. We all hate you for free.”
Nice. You can read the Babylon Bee’s list of things accomplished by people like that in the No Kings demonstrate
The article is yet another example of why The Christian Post is not worth reading. I mean really - did you even see this line: "You can read the Babylon Bee’s list of things accomplished by people like that...." This site does not allow Babylon Bee articles as they are so often flaming, and are just parody. Yet this author finds it okay?Did you see that a lot of people don’t want Donald Trump to be the king of America?
On October 18th, there were a lot of “No Kings” rallies around the country, decrying what the protesters say are authoritarian actions by President Trump, whom they claim acts more like a king than a president. One protester in San Francisco held a sign saying, “Hey Trump nobody paid us to be here. We all hate you for free.”
Nice. You can read the Babylon Bee’s list of things accomplished by people like that in the No Kings demonstrations here.
The vast majority of protesters were democrats and leftists (I do believe there is a distinction between the two), and, of course, there were jabs from the right about the rallies, with some calling it “democrat sulk day.” Naturally, those supporting the “No Kings” rallies deny that and say they are simply against the despotic actions of any president who crosses the line of democracy.
Am I the only one calling baloney on that?
Continued below.
![]()
No kings ... including Jesus?
Did you see that a lot of people don t want Donald Trump to be the king of Americawww.christianpost.com
Where does Paul make a specific claim to "believe in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life"?-They never claimed to have believe in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life, so there is no counterfeit faith.
I read Koine Greek relatively fluently and produce my own translations the majority of the time. This isn't about "choosing" a translation that supports a theology. It's about recognizing what the Greek verb form actually communicates. The verb in question -- γεγέννηται (gegennetai) -- is a perfect passive indicative. The perfect tense in Greek denotes a completed action with continuing results.
Grammatically, then, it means "has been born" or "has come to be born," with an emphasis on the abiding effect of that birth. Some older English versions, such as the KJV, use "is born" because in older English "is" can express a resultant state, roughly equivalent to "has been born." Modern English, however, distinguishes these more carefully, which is why most contemporary translations (NASB, ESV, CSB, etc.) render it "has been born," which is a more precise reflection of the perfect aspect.
So, ironically, it would be more accurate to say that you are choosing a translation that fits your theology. Even then, the issue isn't one of theological bias but of grammatical misunderstanding. The "is born" rendering was never intended to depict a present or ongoing action. It reflects the abiding condition of one who has already been born.
To read "is born" as referring only to a present or ongoing process, rather than a completed act with lasting results, is simply to misread the Greek. The grammar itself establishes that the birth precedes and results in faith, not vice versa.
That's precisely the issue, though. None of us should claim theology apart from grammar, because meaning is inseparable from language. You don't need to be a "Greek grammar theologian," but if the inspired text is written in Greek, then its grammar is how God chose to communicate truth.
So the question isn't what seems right to us, but what the text actually says. And in 1 John 5:1, the perfect indicative indicates a completed act of new birth with ongoing results, while the present participle describes the continuous activity of the one already born of God. That grammatical structure isn't a theological bias; it's simply how the language functions. I'm happy to show this from other passages if you wish.
As for your claim that "it does not take that to see that regeneration ... does not precede a persons belief," that is an assertion, not an argument. I have presented a grammatical argument grounded in the text itself. Moreover, Scripture consistently portrays regeneration as the necessary precondition of faith (cf. John 1:12-13; 3:3-8; 6:44, 65; Eph. 2:1-5; Acts 16:14). You can choose to argue that that isn't what those passages are saying, but that would require actually engaging with the grammar and context, not just asserting the contrary.
I'd ask in return: can you identify a single passage that explicitly teaches a person believes first and is born again after?
The relationship is logical, not necessarily chronological. The question is not whether regeneration and faith occur simultaneously in time (in human experience, they likely do), but whether one is the logical cause of the other. When John says πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων… ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται (1 John 5:1), the grammar indicates that the believing one is characterized by belief precisely because he has been born of God. The new birth logically produces faith; it does not respond to it.
This sounds modernist.
So it sounds like Southside Bobby is just quoting what seems to be rather established Abrahamic monotheistic thought on the matter.Do not praise your own faith exclusively so that you disbelieve all the rest. If you do this you will miss much good. Nay, you will miss the whole truth of the matter. God, the Omniscient and the Omnipresent, cannot be confined to any one creed, for He says in the Quran, wheresoever ye turn, there is the face of Allah. Everybody praises what he knows. His God is his own creature, and in praising it, he praises himself. Which he would not do if he were just, for his dislike is based on ignorance.
We ware addressing the costs in total - subsidized and unsubsidized parts.Companies are still subsidizing employee healthcare and the government isn't, at least not at the same rates as before. That's what the whole shutdown is about. Eventually it will affect everyone tho if people drop coverage and/or hospitals are getting reimbursed at the same rates. Fewer people in the pool to offset costs.
The excerpt that you provided seems to be a bit more of a paraphrase than a translation; this is a bit closer to the original language; from Lutheran Service Book:"For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried"
My denomination in its local expression really dislikes the atonement and I have been wanting to present source documents to preachers to challenge them. (I have even shown them their own official catechism). Most of our preachers would simply find comfort and support for their liberal theology from this section. What they DON'T like is the Father giving His Son in order in anyway to assuage His anger at our rebellion.
I wish this foundational creed was stronger on Jesus dying for our SINS (our rebellion against God)
Is this a problem for the reformed. or can we just say that this creed was put together in response to the attacks on the person of Christ rather than His work?