• 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.

Is God a do as I say not as I do God?

Unless you have the language background to distinguish between actual linguistic arguments and fluffery relying on "experts" in the manner you are is nothing but cherry picking as there are "scholars" to support almost any aberant position, and the ones that you are paying attention to are far outside of the academic consensus.

Aion and aionios, while related, are not the same word. One is a noun, the other an adjective. So how it is translated is irrelevant. As for "kosmos", "world" is an entirely appropriate translation but it isn't necessarily exhaustive and can be used in a variety of manners that are not all-inclusive. Your lack of background in languages discredits any opinion you have on the matter because it is clear your preferences are driven by a theological bent not actual linguistic interest otherwise you wouldn't be placing the opinions of a handful of scholars over the overwhelming consensus of Greek scholars on the matter.
You have your opinion and I have mine. I would say the same thing to you, are those you listen to being true to what God intended or are they just upholding the tradition they ascribe to? I am glad that the disciples did not go by that logic, because the Pharisees has all kinds of reasons for Jesus not being the Messiah, and they were doing the same thing that is being done today, they are the authority and they have many more numbers than those who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Fortunately the disciples did not give in, they knew the truth.
Upvote 0

Angels

I once knew a man who said he saw angels on a regular basis. He said that they were shadowy figures standing in the distance. In one instance, a man was charging toward him to do him harm, and one of the shadows moved between him and the aggressive man. The aggressive man turned away. Personally, I was climbing a small mountain and got stuck. I couldn’t go up or down. Suddenly a man appeared, seemingly out of nowhere, and started telling me where to place my feet until I got to a safe place. I stood there and tried to relax. When I turned to thank him, he was nowhere to be seen.
I, on a number of occasions spoke to individuals who have their physical needs fulfilled on a daily basis, because the angels they summon, and interact with provide them with the means to acquire money.
For some others, it's fame. For different ones, it's different things.

It's one thing to believe that Satan and his angels are so lame, that they don't know how to deceive individual, so that they have them believing things that are not scriptural, so that at the end of the day, Jesus tells them, "Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness".
It's another, to be in tune with, or understand Satan's schemes.

so that Satan will not outsmart us. For we are familiar with his evil schemes.
2 Corinthians 2:11​

When a person sticks to the scriptures, and put his ideas, in the background, he will not be outsmarted by Satan.
Who would not want to cast out demons, and perform powerful work?
Would you not like that, and is it not true that if you were given that ability, you would use the same logic as you did in your examples... "Ah, it must be God, because Satan would not do this for me."?

Wouldn't he?
Why then would Jesus in his right mind refer to these as lawless works? Matthew 7:21-23
The answer is given in 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.​

That's profound isn't it.
The very works that Jesus used, Satan - the one who masquerades as an angel of light employs.
In order to do what? Mislead, or deceive those who refuse to believe the truth, that would protect them from Satan's lies.
What is that truth, in this case?
I don't need to repeat it, since I already said it.

Did you notice though, that Paul says, God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie?
How much more plainer do we want it said.
A delusion is a fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.

There's nothing more can I say.
No amount of scriptures will convince someone who tells themselves that God bypasses and dismisses his means of communication, to deal with individuals as some kind of specialty, exclusive of billions of sincere ones, despite their not having one single scripture to support their subjective opinion, while on the other hand having several scripture that deny that opinion.

"Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? "
"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels ..."

"For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, Saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Caesar: and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee. Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me." (Curious that Paul would need an angel to tell him what the holy spirit in him could have easily revealed) ...

The phrase son of man is found a hundred and ninety seven times in scripture, ninety three alone of these God reverenced as being Ezekiel ... but who were these angels that Nathaniel was promised he would see ...

"But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins ..."
"But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men."
"Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."
"Beloved, now are we the sons of God ..." (the son of man is the son of God ... "Adam the son of God")

I'm curious to know what that scripture means to you firstly ....
I'm not certain what scripture you want address, since you used several, but I want to address all.
I hope I do answer your question. If not, please be more specific.

Your first text mentions "heirs of salvation".
Heirs of salvation. Heirs of salvation. Heirs of salvation.
I just wanted to emphasize that the heirs of salvation are specified.
So the ministering spirits are sent forth to minister for them.
The Bible refers to these heirs at Daniel 7:27; Romans 8:16, 17, and other texts.

People mistakenly assume that they are these heirs, because they believe in Christ.
However, the scriptures make a distinction between the heirs, and those who would gain salvation. Romans 8:19-23; Galatian 4:29-31

This is not the thread to get into that, but think of the fact that the disciple understood that those heirs would sit on thrones in the kingdom of God, as is seen from James and John, wanting to be seated at the right and left of Jesus. Mark 10:37; Luke 22:28-30; Revelation 14:1-4
Paul is addressing those ones. Not us.
These are the ones Jesus promised holy spirit to guide and lead them by, and it is these alone whom Jesus used angels to minster.
John was the last of these.

Paul did not outlive John. The last visit of an angel to give a message and revelation, was to John.
People coming after can claim anything, but their claims are not substantiated by the breath of their mouth.

When Jesus said to Nathanael, you will see angels of God ascending and descending to the Son of Man, he referred to himself as the son of man, on this occasions, as he customarily did some 80+ times in the Gospels.
Angels did descend to him, and ascend, and one of those occasions was recorded by the historian Luke, who gathered his information from an eyewitness of those occasions. Luke 22:43

Jesus wasn't stating something that would become a rule.
He was letting these men know that they would see things of a heavenly nature, more than his ability to see a past event... like Nathanael sitting under a fig tree.
Again, this occurred while Jesus was on earth, and before he actually sent the Revelation to John, to give to the congregations.

Matthew 9:5-8
5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? 6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. 7 And he arose, and departed to his house. 8 But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.​

What the scripture says is...
Jesus said to the man, "thy sins be forgiven thee", that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, and the multitudes saw it, and they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men (Jesus was man (Matthew 4:3, 4; Matthew 17:8; 1 Timothy 2:5; Romans 5:15) - the son of man... (Matthew 8:20; Matthew 12:8; Matthew 12:40; Matthew 16:13; Matthew 16:27, 28; Matthew 17:9; Matthew 17:22; Matthew 18:11) born to man Galatians 4:4).

The scripture does not say anything more. It says only what it means, and means only what it says.
Do you see something else other than what it says?
Upvote 0

New belief among teenagers. What do you think?

One is about reproductive strategies and physical apparatuses, the other(gender theory) involves making an appeal to "social constructs"...but it remains the case that there are two sexes in human beings and that what we're born as is what we remain.
You are still imputing an ontological claim to trans people which they are not making.
Not in and of itself, though it deals with objective truth.
I like William Buckley's definition of metaphysics best: "Tedious discourses on the inherently unknowable." :)
Upvote 0

Vice president’s rumored vacation visit to Disney resort sparks impromptu protest

How many news stories should I post, so they can be denied, glossed over, sugarcoated, whitewashed?

I already addressed that. How many times to we need to go though the repeat repeat repeat game?

How many videos? How many times? I don't know, but it probably won't get any better before you support your claims with something more substantive than your imagination.

They went after the guy while he was out with his kids bearing ill will towards him and by extension his family. If there hadn't been a large security and police force holding them back, who knows how far they would've gone.

On one hand, that's true of every VIP.

On the other hand, lol, whine much?

Have you been to a Disney park in the last, oh... ever? Who's staging an impromptu protest inside a park that charges $160+/person/day? Nobody, that's who. The protestors in your video were all outside the park. The news anchor said they were also outside the Grand Californian hotel.

I haven't been to Disneyland in 40 years, but I have been to Disneyworld a few times recently and from what I can gather from Google streetview, DL seems to be pretty similar in that, when you're staying at a Disney hotel, it is very, very easy to avoid the parking lot altogether unless you're actually getting in and out of your car, since there's a monorail stop inside the hotel. That's even true for rubes like you and me, much less somebody with a security detail like VPOTUS.

Nobody has shown that his family was harassed at all.
Upvote 0

The Path to Salvation

You do not understand the idioms used by people in the first century AD.

It seems that you believe that the apostles blatantly disobeyed Jesus' commandment in Matthew 28:18-20 and instead made up their own new formula for baptism, using only Jesus' own human name.


John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.

Belief in Jesus Christ requires obedience to his commandments.
The apostles did not disobey Jesus. The apostles were not instructed to repeat Jesus' command, but rather to obey His command; thus, they administered water baptism in His name. They knew Jesus was the Father in creation, the son in redemption, and the Holy Ghost in regeneration. Again, the word says IN JESUS dwells all the fulness of the Godhead. (Father, Son and Holy Ghost)
Upvote 0

Is God a do as I say not as I do God?

So passages like Matthew 3:12, Matthew 10:28, and John 15:6 are referring to a refining punishment? They all sound destructive to me.

“His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭3‬:‭12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭10‬:‭28‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.”
‭‭John‬ ‭15‬:‭6‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Chaff isn’t refined in fire it’s destroyed. And the same with branches, they aren’t refined in fire they’re also destroyed.

Matthew7:13 broad is the path to destruction.

Romans 9:22 God endured with much patience the vessels of wrath that are fitted to destruction.

Philippians 3:18-19 the enemies of the cross whose end is destruction.

1 Thessalonians 5:3 destruction will come upon those who are in darkness when Christ returns and they shall not escape.

I’m not seeing the result of unbelief being refinement but destruction. I see passages like 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 referring to believers undergoing refinement but not unbelievers. For unbelievers who die without repentance I see death and destruction, not refinement.
I will answer with this; Jude 1:7 "just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are an exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire"
Ezekiel 16:53-54 " Your sisters, Sodom with her daughters and Samaria with her daughters , will return to their former state, and you with your daughters will also return to your former state"
Sodom was said to be burned with eternal fire but they are restored, this is what God does, he restores.
Apokatastasis from Acts 3:21 In Jesus Christ is the restoration of all things.
Just because to us it looks like being burned with eternal fire is the end, not so with God.
Upvote 0

Does the "reign in the influence of Israel" movement need a Tucker Carlson to be credible?

I'm speaking specifically about the "grab your signs and hit the streets" protesting. That's almost always only done when there's a perceived connection between one of the belligerents and a "Western power" in order to conform to a broader narrative.


I can enumerate several instances where people didn't seem to care about a particular foreign conflict, but it was only when a "western power" became involved when people wanted to hit the streets with their peace signs and seemingly take whatever side was opposite of the western power.


Iraq spent 3 decades going to battle with various neighbors
Iran did the same

Not much chatter on the streets, it wasn't until there was an opportunity (like Operation Dessert Storm) that people wanted to hit the streets and advocate for "peace in the middle east"


Vietnam was similar...

I don't recall seeing many protests or calls for peace when they were being occupied by (or in conflict with) Japan or Cambodia 10 years prior, but the moment the US got involved, suddenly a bunch of N. Vietnamese sympathizers in the US came out of the woodwork.


Kosovo and Libya followed that pattern as well.



A few sociologists and poli-sci authors have written about it.

Neta Crawford wrote how Western anti-imperialist and leftist movements often respond not to the crisis itself, but to the symbolism of U.S. or NATO involvement.

Jean Bricmont has written about how parts of the left reflexively oppose interventions not based on the actual nature of local crisis but because they see it as an opportunity to critique imperialism. He discusses how conflicts get ignored until the West intervenes — then become flashpoints for protest.

Christian Caryl has written several pieces about this phenomenon, specifically with regards to the Syrian conflict.



Hence the theme of my thread, does the "Reign in the influence of Israel" movement/narrative need some folks (like Tucker) who specifically aren't in that "reflexively oppose all things Western" crowd in order to make certain specifics of this conflict resonate with more people?
I don't know how old you are or why you hate what you think of as "The Left" so much but I am old enough to have been aware of many of the events you refer to and sometimes to the extent of actually protesting myself. I can state with confidence based on my own experience that your characterization of "The Left" is rapidly decaying into 100% pure weapons grade bolognium.
Upvote 0

Does the "reign in the influence of Israel" movement need a Tucker Carlson to be credible?

I'm not sure how you could possibly get that impression from what I said.

Thank you for clarifying your position. I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part.

To return to my original point, whether it was four thousand years ago, two thousand years ago, or today, the nation of Israel and the Jewish people are regarded as God’s chosen people. Although they have disobeyed God on numerous occasions and faced consequences over the millennia, the Bible consistently affirms that the Jewish people and Israel are chosen by God. According to scripture, they will be protected, preserved, and ultimately offered the salvation that God extends to all.

Do you agree or disagree with these biblical principles?
Upvote 0

New belief among teenagers. What do you think?

I remember reading a Texe Marrs
My condolences, bruv. Marrs was a nasty piece of work, and Im not sure whether he was a complete crackpot, a vile grifter preying on the credulous, or a mixture of both. I've saw a church broken up because of his rubbish. One of the church elders declared that pastor :didn't believe the Bible" because he told her that our Lord might not return in 2000, and she left and took about half ther congregation with her. One of the people who stayed jokingly dubbed the preacher "Brother Gideon" becaue of it.
This was big business in many corners of the Evangelical and Fundamentalist world of the 70's and 80
Very big, and I almost got sucked into it myself. I was probably saved from it by my mom's hard-nosed Korean skepticism. She declared Marrs to be a crook from her first reading of one of his books. (I persuaded her that the bookstore wouldn't give me my money back, but at least I should have tried.)
Mike Warnke is perhaps the most famous of these, he was everywhere, not just at churches and Christian conferences, but on mainstream broadcasts being interviewed by serious journalists.
No lie. I doubted him from the outset. His tale just never rang true somehow; it smacked too much of magic, and I'd already learned that magic was designed either to entertain an audience or bilk the gullible.
Upvote 0

Do you agree with the President on border enforcement and illegal aliens?

There's no either/or, the question is which is more important to you your nationalism or the teachings of Christ?
I fully support the teachings of Christ and Holy Scripture.

Which includes:

Obeying those in authority. IOW don’t support criminal Actions. The one germane to this thread would be the criminal act of coming into the country illegally.

It took seven months in an internment camp for my parents to enter this country legally and it is a slap in the face to embrace people who break the law.
Upvote 0

Do you agree with the President on border enforcement and illegal aliens?

My (preferred version of God's) way or the highway. This tactic is not showing much openness to compromise and meeting in the middle, much less allowing followers of Jesus to decide for themselves what that requires.
Perverse autonomy, strictly speaking, is not a Christian value.
Upvote 0

Do you agree with the President on border enforcement and illegal aliens?

Make up your mind. Are we a Christian nation or not?
Whether or not we are a "Christian nation" is irrelevant, the question is which is in the driver's seat for you your politics or your faith?
Bring my Lord into the political realm then if you follow Jeses you have to take a stand against killing babies in the womb and sexual perversions that rally around the rainbow flag.
You seem to operate on the idea that there is a binary and that political opinions are a matter of team sports. It is quite possible to regard illegal immigration through a humanitarian lens while not embracing the left's assault on moral living.
Which is it?
There's no either/or, the question is which is more important to you your nationalism or the teachings of Christ?
  • Winner
Reactions: BCP1928
Upvote 0

Is This The New Normal?

My family has been Republican since I can remember, probably around the early 60s. There wasn’t a progressive bone in them. And Kennedy was progressive and embraced the civil rights movement, and the only reason LBJ signed the civil rights bill was because Kennedy was so keen on it, not because he had a soft spot for blacks, because he was the most racist president in modern terms. He knew that would keep the blacks coming back to vote for them for years. He was counting on 200 years, though it’s only been about 50 and they are starting to turn away because they see how those failed policies have not helped them move forward.

So, like I said, if there was an ideological switch, it has reverted. The left is STILL trying to keep the blacks under their thumb. They can’t through chattel slavery, but they can through economic slavery.

I am not acquainted with you or your family, so I will accept your statements at face value. Historically, U.S. political parties have experienced significant shifts; for example, prior to the Civil Rights Acts, many individuals who identified as Democrats later became Republicans, and vice versa. Progressive movements have frequently supported minority rights, from the Civil War and women's suffrage to the civil rights movement and contemporary issues such as gender identity, same-sex marriage, and immigration. Conversely, conservative groups in America have often been associated with efforts to maintain the status quo and uphold traditional interpretations of American life, including opposition to certain civil and women's rights advancements.
Upvote 0

Is God a do as I say not as I do God?

The teachers that I follow do not let their theology drive their scholarship, for some its the other way around, they used to believe in the wests way of theology that is definitely driven them in their understanding of the Greek. Its not cherry picking sources its following those who have looked back at the Greek of 2000 years ago and reading how it was used in other literature outside the scripture and how some of the early church fathers used the Greek of that day and show how it is not the same as the Greek of today in some cases.
Aion is a good example, one of the most important words for this discussion, aion in the Greek of 2000 years ago was age, not eternal or world as it is taught now.
Unless you have the language background to distinguish between actual linguistic arguments and fluffery relying on "experts" in the manner you are is nothing but cherry picking as there are "scholars" to support almost any aberant position, and the ones that you are paying attention to are far outside of the academic consensus.
Look at the book of Matthew, aion is translated world 7 times and kosmos is translated 6 times as world,(KJV) did Matthew not understand the Greek meaning of these words, if he meant world why would he use two different words that have two different meaning to say the same word? I believe that the translators let their theology drive their translation, if they used age as it should be, it undermines their theological bias of an eternal hell, thats why its translated eternal or forever also. The mistranslation of aion as world or for ever, undermines Gods use of the ages for his progressive revelation, and his plan for humanity. This then leads into the mistranslation of aionios, being the adjective of aion, we get the mistranslation of aionios as eternal from not using the correct definition of aion itself, it should be pertaining to the age or age enduring. This definition can't be used because it undermines their theological bias of an eternal hell.
Today the large majority of thinking comes out of the Augustine model and that is flawed, the first Lexicon, which most people point to the lexicon for their understanding was not written until 1607, continuing in the failed model. I wish we had a Lexicon from 2000 years ago but we don't, the idea of aion being eternal seems to come from plato, not scripture.
Aion and aionios, while related, are not the same word. One is a noun, the other an adjective. So how it is translated is irrelevant. As for "kosmos", "world" is an entirely appropriate translation but it isn't necessarily exhaustive and can be used in a variety of manners that are not all-inclusive. Your lack of background in languages discredits any opinion you have on the matter because it is clear your preferences are driven by a theological bent not actual linguistic interest otherwise you wouldn't be placing the opinions of a handful of scholars over the overwhelming consensus of Greek scholars on the matter.
Upvote 0

Do you agree with the President on border enforcement and illegal aliens?

My (preferred version of God's) way or the highway. This tactic is not showing much openness to compromise and meeting in the middle, much less allowing followers of Jesus to decide for themselves what that requires.
I’m open, where do we agree about Scripture?
Upvote 0

As Texas Flood Deaths Rise, Officials Blast Faulty Forecast by National Weather Service

Yeah the NWS is only responsible for sending the warnings out, they’re not responsible for who is monitoring them or not.
That's not entirely true. Pulled from above.

The Weather Service’s nearby San Antonio office, which covers other areas hit by the floods, also had significant vacancies, including a warning coordination meteorologist and science officer, Mr. Fahy said. Staff members in those positions are meant to work with local emergency managers to plan for floods, including when and how to warn local residents and help them evacuate.

So there is some need to coordinate warning with local officials. And no doubt having that additional warning coordinator could have helped.

That said, again, if one has taken the time to read this thread, the finger has pointed more and more to what local officials did and didn't do. (and let us not forget that it was local officials who first pointed fingers at the NWS).
Upvote 0

Do you agree with the President on border enforcement and illegal aliens?

The very moment the left stops, I will also.

Name one thing from the left that add to drawing the party’s closer together.

I do not deny that many individuals on the left find nearly every action or inaction by President Trump or today's Republicans problematic. Even minor tweets from President Trump or other conservatives are often seen as irritating to liberals, who may sometimes interpret issues where none exist.

However, a similar dynamic occurs on the right. Any criticism of President Trump is frequently dismissed as mere opposition without substantive basis. In response to liberal criticism, conservatives also tend to scrutinize and criticize even minor actions by those on the left.

We can either persist in this reciprocal behavior and maintain our disagreements, or move beyond political differences to seek common ground, or at least acknowledge that, despite our differences, we all aim for a better America.
Upvote 0

Does the "reign in the influence of Israel" movement need a Tucker Carlson to be credible?

You previously mentioned that modern-day Israel may not be the same as the Israel referenced in the Bible. Are you now changing your position on this statement?
I'm not sure how you could possibly get that impression from what I said.
Upvote 0

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,871,540
Messages
65,302,244
Members
275,936
Latest member
Becca112