Latest activity

CLEEB · 2025-11-25T10:07:34-0600

d taylor said:
-

Well the earth (land/ground) was created in Genesis 1:1 along with the heaven or heavens (depending on what type of Bible you have). So the age is unknowable. That earth created in Genesis 1:1 was restored in Genesis 1: 3 - end of Chapter 1 so that restoration happened around 6000+ years ago.

Time did not exist until the fourth day of creation week because then the very things we use to measure the passing of our own existence were created. The light on that 1st day was the glory of GOD. The darkness seperated from the light was the separating of GODS kingdom from Satans kingdom. This was indeed the recreation of the Earth after the destruction caused by the Satanic rebellion. The Earth existed before this and in it were giant creatures and vegetation that doesn’t exist today but we do dig up fossils, bones and such. It is impossible to know the age of the Earth.

Landon Caeli · 2025-11-25T10:07:15-0600

BCP1928 said:
Why? It's a sign that the !st amendment is still alive and well.

Wow! I never knew the left was so supportive of religious expansion in the U.S.

...It makes no logical sense! When things are illogical, it makes me think there is either delusion or evil at play. So I don't know what's going on here, but I'm interested in finding out.

Always in His Presence · 2025-11-25T10:05:59-0600

The Liturgist said:
That’s simply not the case - St. Paul makes use of a vast array of skillful oratorial techniques, even referring to the ancient logical error of Epimenides Paradox in his epistle to St. Titus.

On this we completely disagree - First, I am not speaking of oratory at all, but what Paul WROTE -

The Liturgist said:
Rhetoric is not evil if used to promote truth; indeed Christ our True God employs skillful use of parable, which is allegory - a classic rhetorical technique of antiquity.

Scripture is written:

1. Literal (includes historical)
2. Allegory
3. Poetic.

Paul in the verses we are citing is writing literally

Philipians 4:11 Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content: 12 I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. 13 I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

It means exactly what it says.

BCP1928 · 2025-11-25T10:05:13-0600

Landon Caeli said:
If they're one in the same, why aren't you complaining about the additions? It's not like the churches are going away because the mosques are going up. What's happening is that the total numbers are increasing! I would have thought that you would be opposed to that.

Why? It's a sign that the !st amendment is still alive and well.

BCP1928 · 2025-11-25T10:02:44-0600

Landon Caeli said:
It's normal for people with similar customs, languages, cultures and religions to flock together, like birds. If you get too many in one area, assimilation slows, or fails.

You think so? So what? As long as they remain loyal to the Constitution and the government derived from it then nothing else matters very much.

Landon Caeli · 2025-11-25T10:02:34-0600

Hans Blaster said:
I would be happy with none of either, I just refuse your notion that mosques are somehow problematic, but churches are just peachy keen.

If they're one in the same, why aren't you complaining about the additions? It's not like the churches are going away because the mosques are going up. What's happening is that the total numbers are increasing! I would have thought that you would be opposed to that.

...You're losing ground here! Surely you see the implications.

MotoToTheMax · 2025-11-25T10:01:14-0600

Good to see all the concern on how to better to protect children in churches on this place labeled Christian Forums. Warms my heart.

Landon Caeli · 2025-11-25T09:57:51-0600

Gene2memE said:
No, but it matters for that graph. It's measuring poverty rates between OECD peers. That's only capable because they have an agreement that ensures there is data sharing on a like for like basis.

No, the comment was that "democratic socialist" countries populate the low end of child poverty rates.

Democratic socialist is a subset of socalist countries.

They - generally speaking - combine democratic representative governments with substantial state involvement in the economy with universal social safety nets. Typical features include state-owned monopoly corporations which act according to a charter rather than purely financial considerations, some form of state-led economic planning and strong regulatory controls, particularly around labour.

Some may seek socialist reformation of the economy, while others are more concerned with market socialism as a way to curb the 'race to the bottom' excesses of unregulated capitalism. Generally that's a social democracy vs democratic socialism distinction, but time and popular usage has blurred those lines.

And so how do you know whether or not only certain countries were invited into the OECD data set to begin with, in order to produce a desired outcome? Sorry, but there's not so many countries in the world that it couldn't have been done to produce a true, realistic picture, rather than a selective one.

CLEEB · 2025-11-25T09:57:15-0600

ChubbyCherub said:
You've explained it well here but still..................I have to pray about it. It's a hard thing to understand

It is so difficult to understand because it isn’t true. Jesus had a GOD and this GOD was his FATHER. John 17:3 John 2:17 Revelation 3:12 While on Earth and also in heaven Jesus has a GOD. If you believe in the trinity then the FATHER of Jesus was the Holy Spirit not the one called the FATHER. Matthew 1:18-20 The trinity doctrine states that under no circumstances can the three gods be separated yet if one became a human how would that effect their unity. Being distinct makes people or anything else separate from each other. The trinity defies logic and reason. The trinity was developed by the primitive Catholic Church long after Jesus and the Apostles. It is an excellent deception, a definite work of the Devil. Search the scriptures to find direct proof of the trinity, it isn’t there, what “proves” it is scripture by deceived believers giving their own interpretations to define it by quoting scriptures they don’t understand or not confirming the proper meaning of Greek or Hebrew words and the deliberate alterations of scriptures by the Catholic Church. The Apostles knew Jesus was not GOD but the son of GOD and the GOD AND FATHER OF JESUS WAS GOD. Ephesians 1:3 1 Peter 1:3 2 Corinthians 1:3 1 Corinthians 8:6 Any scripture that trinitarians use to prove the trinity is in some way misapplied or misinterpreted or misunderstood. There is only one GOD who is the FATHER of Jesus Christ our messiah . Mark 12:32 Romans 3:30 James 2:19 Jesus is the mediator between GOD and man, the MAN Jesus Christ . 1 Timothy 2:5 but if Jesus was GOD then GOD would be the mediator between GOD and man. The idea of the Trinity creates confusion and scrambles the mind baffles one with bull dung. People who want to believe the trinity will and no one but GOD alone can change that.

essentialsaltes · 2025-11-25T09:57:12-0600

Valletta said:
A favorite of the major media, when Trump responds he "lashes out."

Have you seen his Truth Social feed? If the shoe fits...

Valletta said:
It's quite another thing to make an announcement against the President of the United States,

Was his name or office mentioned?

Answer: it is not

Valletta said:
suggesting that he gives illegal orders

Was that said?

Answer: no

fhansen · 2025-11-25T09:54:24-0600

zoidar said:
I don't see the problem. Hearing and learning is not the same as receiving Christ. Listening to the prophets enabled one to come to Christ, in other words, you would be drawn. If you ignore the prophets, you would ignore Christ

Yes, that revelation, itself, is grace, is God working on and then in us, exteriorly and interiorly. And it's not either/or, Him or me, but Him first and then me responding...or possibly not.

BCP1928 · 2025-11-25T09:54:19-0600

RDKirk said:
But once again, from Corporal Smith's perspective, an illegal order is an order to break a specific law. In his defense at the court-martial, he will have to cite the specific law being broken. And, surprise, surprise, "the Constitution" is a wrong answer for Corporal Smith because only the judiciary can interpret the Constitution, not minor Executive Branch member Corporal Smith.

They didn't even say all that. What they said was very carefully crafted...they said precisely, word for word, what each troop's LOAC training already says.

That's true and ultimately it would fail--not even "ultimately," but immediately--because Kelly's video does not remotely qualify as sedition under the UCMJ or US code.

Of course, Kelly has had, presumably, training in what constitutes an illegal order just as you have had. I will presume--until his court-martial or other developments reveal more information--that when he speaks of a right to refuse an illegal order he is speaking of orders which Cpl. Smith already knows to be illegal, most likely through his training in the matter, not one that he has to figure out whether it is illegal by personally consulting the Constitution. What Cpl. Smith is being reminded of is that he need not be bullied or threatened into carrying it out anyway.

Granted the above is just my opinion and the video itself was pretty stupid, but the MAGA response suggests to me that they resent the implied challenge to the basic MAGA principle that the word of Trump alone is law that all must obey.

essentialsaltes · 2025-11-25T09:54:14-0600

GoldenBoy89 said:
When the president is a known spiteful, vindictive jerk who’s also a sucker for flattery, it’s not exactly a bad thing to try to get on his good side.

Especially when the president explicitly threatened to cut off federal money to NYC.

sovereigngrace · 2025-11-25T09:53:08-0600

Hentenza said:
James is literally telling Paul to show the Jews his Jewishness. The Jews in Jerusalem that had accepted the Messiah still believed that they were Jews including all elements of their culture. They followed the law including the sacrifices because that it what Jews did for centuries. This is the same argument that Paul addresses in his epistles. Their social and religious life revolved around the temple and its activities. Plus they thought that Paul had brought a gentile into the temple which would defile the temple. This was not going to change overnight. James was afraid that the Jews would revolt against the Christians including Paul because of what Paul was teaching and they did eventually. Teaching that the law and the prophets were no longer necessary was a capital offense which is why Paul had to cite his Roman citizenship to survive.

Jesus gives us an idea of when this was going to change when He spoke of the total destruction of the temple. The ending of Matt. 23 is Jesus lamentation and grieving for Jerusalem and in the beginning of Matt. 24 Jesus tells His disciples that the temple would be destroyed which would virtually end both social and religious practices in the temple for the Jews.

I don’t have time to expand this more now but will be happy to later today.

I agree. The thinking behind his actions is shown in 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 for all to see. None could doubt his overriding desire to see his fellow-religionists saved. He testified: “And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.”

I don’t see any deeper a meaning than this. Paul writings make it clear that the old covenant arrangement has been superseded by Christ and the new covenant. There was a religious / political aspect to the sacrifices that all Israelis were bound to as Jews in order to maintain their Jewish privileges.

essentialsaltes · 2025-11-25T09:51:00-0600

Why should Somalis not be protected?

Trump's state department warns people away from Somalia with its highest danger rating.

And while we're at it, why should Somalis only in Minnesota be subject to this action?

fhansen · 2025-11-25T09:49:02-0600

Dikaioumenoi said:
I'm not being eristic. The problem isn't "poor wording"; it's that you have consistently blurred two distinct categories: the generation of capacity and the exercise of that capacity. Your latest reply continues that confusion, as I show below.

If we agree that the enablement itself is infallibly successful, and your concern is only with whether the enabled person later acts on that capacity, then you have granted the point I originally made about ἑλκύω. The verb denotes the Father's decisive transition of a person from inability to ability. You cannot affirm the unfailing success of that transition while denying that the verb carries a sense of decisive movement. Your concern -- that the enabled person may or may not act upon the ability -- is something that ἑλκύω simply does not address.

So if the transition from incapacity to capacity is unfailing, then there is no theological reason to dilute ἑλκύω with a sense like "appeal to." A forceful, effective reading of the verb is entirely compatible with your view that the later exercise of the granted capacity is resistible, because John 6:44 attributes the verb to the Father's successful production of ability, not to the question of whether that ability is subsequently exercised.

This is why the semantic debate over ἑλκύω is ultimately irrelevant to the question of irresistible grace (which has been the whole point I have been trying to press regarding ἑλκύω). It cannot overturn the Calvinist argument; it can only weaken your own view. If ἑλκύω is made non-decisive, then the Father's enablement becomes fallible, implying that salvation may not even be possible. If you deny that, then you should accept the decisive movement the verb conveys and focus the resistibility discussion where it actually belongs: on the syntax and context beyond the verb itself.

No, you brought this up, not me. I may have initiated the exchange, but I was responding to your claim in post #18 that the verb means "to draw, to appeal to, to coax, to prompt, to inform, to grace, to call, to knock on our door." That cluster of senses for the Greek term ἑλκύω simply has no lexical footing. My position does not stand or fall on the meaning of ἑλκύω, as I have repeatedly clarified.

The verb does denote force. But you're so concerned about jumping ahead to another issue that you're failing to recognize that granting this does not pose a problem for your view. The semantic core of ἑλκύω is a decisive movement from one position to another. But what is that change of position, in John 6:44? It is not from "able to come" --> "actually comes." What ἑλκύω concerns is movement from "unable to come" to "now able to come." The verb answers οὐδεὶς δύναται, which is a description of personal incapacity to do something. If that movement ("inability" --> "ability") is not decisive and infallible, then the implication is that the Father attempts to make it possible for someone to come to Christ, but that attempt -- at enablement -- is not necessarily successful, leaving open the possibility that salvation is unreachable.

"No one is able to fly unless given wings." The giving of wings does not itself guarantee that one will use them, but that has no bearing on whether the act of giving was successful. The transition from wingless to winged is decisive; the later question of whether one actually flies is a separate issue. So arguing that "giving" does not guarantee flying does nothing to show that the giving itself was non-decisive. It only confuses the success of the enabling act with the later exercise of the enabled capacity. This is why the definition you provided for ἑλκύω does not work. What it concerns (to use the analogy) is the giving of wings -- the granting of an ability -- not the use of them. That giving/drawing marks a decisive transition from one state to another. Incapacity --> capacity. The verb in John 6:44 does not govern whether the capacity is actually used; only that if and when it is given, the giving of it is successful.

And as I have repeatedly pointed out, this is not the issue. I have nowhere argued that ability requires subsequent action. The problem has been that ἑλκύω does not refer to that subsequent action. What it refers to in John 6:44 is the granting of the ability itself! So when you argue that the term means "to appeal to" or "to prompt," and not decisive movement, you are implying that the granting of the ability to come is not guaranteed.

So your "answer" that "either way, yes, the ability exists," is a concession of my point on ἑλκύω. There is no theological or textual reason to push against the argument that it denotes decisive movement, because the movement it concerns (ἑλκύσῃ --> δύναται) is not acting on the ability, but the granting of the ability in the first place.

No, it cannot. Your statement is not untrue, but it is also not what John 6:44 says. You have replaced the main verb of the clause with a complementary infinitive and treated the infinitive as if it carried the syntactic force of the sentence. That completely changes what the verse is saying.

The main verb of the opening clause is δύναται ("able"), not ἐλθεῖν ("to come"). ἐλθεῖν is a complementary infinitive governed by δύναται. It does not carry the assertion of the clause. It supplies the content of what the subject is or is not able to do. The main idea is the subject's ability, or lack thereof.

Your reformulation erases δύναται entirely and makes "coming" the controlling verb, which is not what John wrote. You have not derived a logical consequences of the syntax; you have replaced the syntax with a theological inference. The grammar asserts a condition for ability, not a retrospective condition for having come.

Look at the contrapositive of your reformulation:

You said "If he has come, then the Father has drawn him, and I will raise him up"
= (p --> q) ^ r

This is equivalent to (-q --> -p) ^ r, or, to reflect the ordering of clauses in John 6:44, "not p if not q, and r", which reads:

"He does not come unless the Father draws him, and I will raise him up."

What happened to ability? You've erased the main idea of the verse.

A grammatically valid paraphrase of the verse's logic must preserve John's verbal hierachy:

"No one is able to come unless the Father draws; and the enabled one will be raised."

You are essentially suggesting that the grammatical referent of αὐτὸν in the phrase ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ("raise him up") is the one who actually comes. But that -- while theologically true -- is not a grammatical conclusion. It is not what John is saying here. Grammatically, the referent of αὐτὸν is the same αὐτὸν governed by ἑλκύσῃ. John's syntax binds the two occurrences together. The conditional structure is implicit: no one has the capacity to come unless the Father draws him, and that same him is the one who is raised. The grammar does not permit redefining the second αὐτὸν as a narrower subset of the first.

When you rewrite the verse's logic by replacing the actual main verb with a different one, recasting the conditional structure, and supplying a new semantic role to αὐτὸν that the grammar does not give it, you are not exegeting John. You are telling me what John "must have meant," but didn't say. That is the very definition of eisegesis: when the text won't give you the argument you want, rewrite it until it does.

Ok, whether or not the word ἑλκύω necessarily denotes a completed action from one position to another, I agree that this is what God does. He gives sufficient reason and means for us to come. He draws man to Himself, meaning He makes that union possible. The drawing is the enablement, as providing a life preserver is the drawing, the enablement for a drowning person to be saved.

And your position is that all who are thus enabled are saved: they will come, and will remain. You maintain that the syntax of the verse demands this while I submit that it allows for a variant reading where the group “those who come” is not necessarily all inclusive of those enabled. We’ve already identified and established the existence of two separate sets in the first part of the verse: those who are enabled and those who come. At that point, those who are enabled do not necessarily come as far as we know. We simply don’t know that all who are drawn will come; we know that all who are drawn and come will be raised up. So, from the rest of the verse it’s quite logical to deduce that the criteria for being raised up is that he did, indeed, respond: he answered the call and came.

But, again, EVEN IF the verse is necessarily all inclusive, even if it can be read only in the manner you maintain, I maintain that, in light of the whole counsel of Scripture, the passage itself is not all inclusive or exhaustive to begin with as to what must occur in order for one to be saved.

sovereigngrace · 2025-11-25T09:46:26-0600

Daniel Martinovich said:
You seem to have misunderstood my reply. The phrase second advent or second coming of the Lord does not exist in the Bible. Therefore I believe the same exact things that have always happened when the Lord physically and literally comes down to earth will continue to happen. Judgement, overseeing calamity and to fulfill promise and prophecy,

You really should read that article I linked rather than assuming you understand the subject. There are a dozen examples in the Bible of the coming of the Lord.

I do not typically hit outside links, because I cannot engage with them. I normally find posters do that when they cannot effectively outline in their own words what they believe.

What is your theological position?

GoldenBoy89 · 2025-11-25T09:45:18-0600

Oompa Loompa said:
And perhaps Trump isnt the fascist Hitler that the left wing media was painting him to be.

Perhaps. I only know of JD Vance calling him Hitler and he didn’t seem too bothered by the fascist label himself when it was brought up at the meeting with Mamdani so maybe they’re not so far off the mark.

Apple Sky · 2025-11-25T09:43:14-0600

Larniavc said:
When are you going to try to prove it?

Now;

Tartarian Empire | Erasure of Great Tartaria

Login to view embedded media

Landon Caeli · 2025-11-25T09:38:57-0600

essentialsaltes said:
It is to laugh.

Trump praises MTG and claims she is ‘very respected in Congress’
"She is a fantastic person, a very smart person and very respected in Congress.”

Mr Trump went on to claim that “a lot of people don’t know how respected” MTG is."

That's from the past. Perhaps he was giving her a chance, but she proved unworthy... You won't see Trump say such things today.

essentialsaltes · 2025-11-25T09:35:36-0600

Landon Caeli said:
I've also never met a republican who amplified the messages of Marjorie Taylor Green. To be honest, she was also a left wing favorite in the same way.

It is to laugh.

Trump praises MTG and claims she is ‘very respected in Congress’

"She is a fantastic person, a very smart person and very respected in Congress.”

Mr Trump went on to claim that “a lot of people don’t know how respected” MTG is."

FAITH-IN-HIM · 2025-11-25T09:34:17-0600

Vambram said:
That one judge is merely attempting to help Comey and James instead of allowing them to go to trial.

If the judge was biased, the case should be appealed to a higher court to seek reversal of the judge's decision.

I have confidence in the American judicial system. While I may not always concur with its decisions, I believe that, in most cases, our courts and judiciary have acted with greater honor and adherence to the law compared to other branches of government.

Apple Sky · 2025-11-25T09:31:39-0600

Where Is Tartaria? Has History Been Rewritten?

Login to view embedded media

Daniel Martinovich · 2025-11-25T09:30:46-0600

Marilyn C said:
And your scriptures to back that up?

I already gave you an article with 3 chapters of from Isaiah that back that up. Start with it . If you need more I can show you more since there are a couple dozen chapters of it. Linked below.

The Bride of Christ

The Bibles prophecies about the free world. The New Jerusalem of Isaiah Chapters 54,60,65.

wordservice.org

Latest activity

Latest activity

Tartarian Empire | Erasure of Great Tartaria​

Trump praises MTG and claims she is ‘very respected in Congress’​

Trump praises MTG and claims she is ‘very respected in Congress’​

Where Is Tartaria? Has History Been Rewritten?​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

Tartarian Empire | Erasure of Great Tartaria

Trump praises MTG and claims she is ‘very respected in Congress’

Trump praises MTG and claims she is ‘very respected in Congress’

Where Is Tartaria? Has History Been Rewritten?