Bradskii said:

Surely, and I mean surely, no Trump supporter could possibly countenance this.

Click to expand...

This is definitely the last straw for me. I mean I'm just...I'm just so mad right now!

timothyu said:

Then the Romans took over.

Click to expand...

No, the message stayed the same, despite the Romans, despite politics. And it was the same message as taught by the Eastern Churches, despite isolation from those nasty Romans.

fhansen said:

You're trying to get way to much distance out of a single verse which was only meant to serve as a concise summary of the Way, of how one is saved. One must come, and no one can come unless enabled. Salvation is directly related to one's nearness to God-union with Him-that's why Jesus came, to reconcile and restore broken relationship between man and God.

Sam was enabled to come. Sam came. God will raise him up.

Nothing conflicts there with the fact that Sam must meanwhile remain in Him, Sam must persevere, Sam must overcome sin, Sam must make effort to be holy-or else Sam won't be one of those who are raised simply because he once responded and came. And that's all consistent with Scripture, early church teachings, and the ECFs.

Click to expand...

You still are not responding to the argument. You are changing the subject.

I did not ask whether perseverance, holiness, effort, or union with God are taught elsewhere in Scripture. I asked a narrow grammatical question about this sentence: who is the referent of αὐτόν ("him") in καὶ ἀναστήσω αὐτόν ("and I will raise him up")? Your reply does not address that question at all.

Instead, you have shifted from syntactic analysis to a theological overview. That may be a separate discussion, but it is not an engagement with my claim. It is a deflection.

The issue on the table is simple and specific:

Does the text itself distinguish between a "him" who is drawn but not raised, and a different "him" who is raised? Or does the grammar identify them as the same individual?

Until you address that question directly from the syntax of John 6:44, none of what you have said actually engages my argument or the text itself. What you have offered instead is a theological restatement of your position that simply assumes its own correctness. You are effectively reasoning in reverse: John 6:44 cannot mean X because X would conflict with what you already believe Scripture must teach elsewhere. That is not exegesis; it is harmonization by bare assertion.

The proper order runs the other way. If the syntax of John 6:44 says something that creates tension with a broader theological framework, the framework must be re-examined in light of the text, not the text neutralized by appeal to external commitments.

keras said:

Your 'careful arguments'. simply don't cut it.
Your post #150, is directly below mine #149, where I quote Jeremiah 8:5-12. A Prophecy that is obviously unfulfilled.

Click to expand...

What on earth are you TALKING about? It's OBVIOUSLY fulfilled.

Did you know archaeologists have discovered thousands of jars with baby bones and ashes in them from the babies the Israelites sacrificed to pagan gods? Do you know how the story ends? Have you even read the book through from start to finish, and read historical commentaries on it?

Did you know, in the very last chapters of Jeremiah where the king of Judah's sons are slaughtered before him and then his eyes are poked out (so that the last thing he ever saw was the death of his sons) - this whole awful general saga of Jerusalem being captured by horrible people doing horrible things is a fulfilment of Deuteronomy?

Our church covered Jeremiah recently. It's one of the biggest books of the bible - so they chose something like 7 representative passages - and quickly summarised a lot of the material in between. But one thing stood out. Amidst all the awful details of how Jerusalem was judged and starved for abandoning God, and the temple was sacked, and the king and his sons eventually executed - there's this one bit of hope.

The murdered prince's grandfather is kept alive!

Chapter 51 is how the book of Jeremiah ends.

31 In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Awel-Marduk became king of Babylon, on the twenty-fifth day of the twelfth month, he released Jehoiachin king of Judah and freed him from prison. 32 He spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat of honor higher than those of the other kings who were with him in Babylon. 33 So Jehoiachin put aside his prison clothes and for the rest of his life ate regularly at the king’s table. 34 Day by day the king of Babylon gave Jehoiachin a regular allowance as long as he lived, till the day of his death.

That last detail is remarkable! Archaeologists have found the Babylonian ration tablets that confirm (to secular people) that this all happened!
It's like God winking at us through historical evidence. "See doubters - this happened!"
And why is it important?
Because the prince's grandfather - Jehoiachin - is how the line of David continued through all this much prophesied, much warned CATASTROPHE!

And you want to undermine all this and say "Oh just ignore all that - it doesn't fit my own end times table?"
How dare you?
Wiki

keras said:

Then the Holy Land was destroyed by the Romans. 70-135 AD.

Click to expand...

Except Israel had ALREADY abandoned God in generations of apostasy and idol worship of the pagan gods, sacrificing their babies.

Except Israel had ALREADY been destroyed by the Assyrians and Babylonians.

Except Israel had ALREADY RETURNED as prophesied by Moses.
(They were returned roughly within a human lifetime - as the prophets YOU want to RIP out of context explained!)

These are the 3 fulfilments your chaotic navel-gazing timetable destroys and contradicts.

Your timetable fights the way the Old Testament hangs together in itself - over emphasising things that are already fulfilled as to do with OUR future - while undervaluing those rare passages that actually DO paint a picture of the last things.

Inconvenient, hey?

1Tonne said:

Your argument is built on emotion, not Scripture.

Click to expand...

I'll Chuck that one right back atcha. Scripture says the wages of sin is death, that the evil will dit, that God can destroy both body and sould in hell, and so on. Eternal life is purely the gift of God. Your lot turns it on its head and says that everyone has eternal life by default, and that thoe who sin will not only never die, but will live forever in torment. That not contradicts Scripture in two major ways: it turns eternal life that simply comes with having been born, and may ultimately be a curse from God rather than a gift. You also deny that God's "mercy endures forever", by saying that in fact His hatred and malice endure forever to torment those who haven't accepted our Lord's sacrifice as their own.Just for lagniappe y'all also believe that God's desire that all be saved is simply thwarted by most of His creatures, whom He therefore tortures for all eternity in His infinite and all-consuming anger.

So spare me the "we follow Scripture" canard. You most patently do no such thing. blythely ignoring Scripture that flatly contradicts your vile doctrine.

1Tonne said:

You speak as though God is required to share your definition of justice.

Click to expand...

So you cling to the repellent belief that if God behaves that all honest people would call monstrous and inhuman, that we must call it good. This idea sevtves one purpose only: to make it sound as though your doctrine isn't the barbarous falsehood that it is. You tell us that God that God behaves in a manner that worst horrify thateven the worst fiend human. So it's, "Yes, we believe that God behaves iin a whooly monstrous manner,, but we better not say so lest He get us too!"

1Tonne said:

But if a human court can sentence someone to life imprisonment for a single crime, why is it “monstrous” for the holy Judge of all the earth to execute eternal judgment for a lifetime of willful rebellion against infinite holiness?

Click to expand...

No problem there at all - if you ignore SCripture as to the nature of God, and turn Him into a cosmic version of Jong-Un KIm; a disgusting tyrant who takes pleasure in human suffering.

1Tonne said:

You say eternal punishment is “cruelty for its own sake.”

Click to expand...

As opposed to? What purpose does it serve? Rehabilitation? Nope, it's an eternal sentence without possibility of parole. Some arcane law that God somehow has to follow? Rubbish, there is no such thing. The uplift and enlightenment of the blessed? Fron the enjoyment they'll get out of watching the less fortunate scream in agony? Cui bono? God? If so, we're back to "for its own sake", aren't we?

1Tonne said:

That simply reveals how lightly you treat sin and how small you think God is.

Click to expand...

Yeah, old farmer Chun who who lived in 19th century Joseon (Korea) is a good example. Took care of his family, helped out his neighbors at need, was generally accounted pretty decent old man, and considered Christianity, based on what little he'd heard about it, to be yet another foreign religion with yet another god that some folks believed in and paid it no mind. So God, in HIs Justice, condemned him to be tortured forever for his ghastly sins, whatever they may have been. Thanks be to God!, right? Old man Chun deserved to tortured forever for whatever had stuff he did, because whether it's old man Chun or Hitler (Hitler is the standard for evil, right?), it's eternity in the fire, and we better bloody well say that's a Good Thing unless we want to jon them!

1Tonne said:

The cross itself disproves your accusation. Christ bore wrath so severe that He sweat blood.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm familiar with the effects of crucifixion. They're well recorded by history. The victims sometimes took days to die, since the Romans didn't have a way to make it last forever.

1Tonne said:

your view doesn’t magnify God’s mercy, it trivializes it.

Click to expand...

Explain to me how being crucified would be worse then being burned alive forever. I'm somehow not grokking that in fullness. I'm probably just not religious enough. Or at least callous enough.

1Tonne said:

And no, hell is not “burn baby burn.” It is the solemn, righteous judgment of a God who has given every warning,

Click to expand...

Tell old man Chun how righteousnit is. He'll probably be a lot less sanguine about the whole thing. I expect the average poor benighted human has a hard time just what it was he did that made him deserve to be tormented forever.

1Tonne said:

If someone raped and murdered a member of your family, you would not call a life sentence “monstrous”.

Click to expand...

A life sentence that included continuous torture? I'd like to think I'm a civilized enough human being to leave off the torture and settle for the a few years in the pen and then a lethal injection. I'm not merciful or compassionate enough to advocate for a lifetime of torture.

1Tonne said:

Yet when the infinitely holy God judges the unrepentant who trample His grace for a lifetime, suddenly justice becomes “cruelty.”

Click to expand...

Because that's what it is simple cruelty that serves no purpose at all except to onclict torture. Again, who benefits from it? God? How? THis is just the remnants of medieval barbarism beng attributed to God. That anyone still embraces such a blasphemous image of God is beyond my understanding, especially when it means having to ignore so much Scripture and "interpret away" so much more. I hesitate to say it's diabolically inspired, but it does, in fact attribute diabolical behavior and motivations to God. You might want to ponder tha. (JK, I know you won't.)

1Tonne said:

The problem isn’t God’s justice. The problem is your standard.

Click to expand...

THe problem is your vile unGodly blasphemous doctrine.

Apple Sky said:

This is not figurative.

King James Bible
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Click to expand...

It is figurative language. The moon reflects the light of the first light making it the second light.

DaisyDay said:

Lols, not even close.

Click to expand...

Not even close.
Trump inflating assets for favorable terms and undervaluing them for tax purposes was pretty much a business model.

Delvianna said:

I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea of fiction in general, but it can go south quickly when you start making up deities and stuff. I think a great idea would be to look at some Christian Fiction writers like CS Lewis. I don't think Tolkien's works is all that ethically stable, but I think Lewis does a greater job at how you can merge fiction while staying in the boundaries of scripture.

Click to expand...

I guess this is why this an interesting topic for me and should fictional video games with magic in it be avoided when there is no deity worship or deity-sourced powers? At the beginning of my first post in this topic, my answer would be it is acceptable. From what you and @CoreyD have been sharing, it causes me to think a bit about it.

Dan1988 said:

I believe that every word in the bible is Gods Word, from cover to cover. So I don't have a problem with any of it, but I reject your interpretation of all the scriptures you twisted to force them to say something thewy are not saying. This is to abuse Gods Word.

Click to expand...

How did I abuse:

Acts 5: 29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

If you are going to make such serious accusations you should at least provide some evidence. Something I said that contradicts what is actually written in scripture. I don't think God is going to just take your word for it, and either should I. Show me where I twisted these or any scriptures so I can be corrected, isn't that the reason for the Holy Scriptures in the first place, at least according to Paul?

2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Dan1988 said:

I asked you why you reject what God has said, but you gave no answer.

Click to expand...

But Dan, I absolutely answered your accusation towards me by posting for you who Paul was Speaking about when he said;

9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have "before proved" both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

I showed where Paul "before proved" that "They" (whose damnation is just), not "WE" (Church of God) as you assert, but they are all under sin.

Rom. 2: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing "seek for" glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: (Church of God, who Seeks God)

8 "But unto them" that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, ( children of men, who doesn't Seek God)

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon "every soul of man" that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

But You didn't even address Paul's words at all, as I asked. Nor David's Words that Paul quoted that I asked you to review. You didn't even acknowledge them. And now you are accusing me of not answering your questions.

The Church of God are NOT the men that God, David, Paul and Jesus said refused to Seek Him. Someone has convinced "many" that there is no difference between David and Paul, and the Pharisees. But it wasn't Paul, or David or Jesus or the Holy Scriptures, in my view.

Abel was Righteous, Noah was Righteous, Abraham was righteous, Caleb was righteous, David was righteous. Here is what God teaches about Zacharias, not according some preacher I listened to, but according to the Actual Holy Scriptures. Shall I not believe them?

Luke 1: 5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 6 And they were both "righteous before God", walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

So according to Peter's Words that I also posted, and were completely ignored, Zacharias should have been given by God, the Holy Spirit, Yes?

Luke 1: 67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, 68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

Zacharias actually knew of and believed in the Messiah before HE was even born. While the children of men didn't believe Him when HE was healing people right in front to them.

But there are men that are trying to convince me that Abel's, Noah's, Abraham's, Caleb's, Daniel's, Shadrack's, Simeon's, Cornelius's and even Zacharias's, "mouth is an open sepulechre". That Paul was judging all these faithful obedient men, of never seeking God.

Consider the words of David that Paul quoted;

Ps. 9:9 The LORD also will be a refuge for the oppressed, a refuge in times of trouble. 10 And they that know thy name will put their trust in thee: for thou, LORD, hast not forsaken "them that seek thee".

But there are those who will not Seek the Lord.

Ps. 10: 4 The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will "not seek after God": God is not in all his thoughts.

Ps. 27: 4 One thing have I desired of the LORD, that "will I seek after"; that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to enquire in his temple.

Ps. 22: 26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD "that seek him": your heart shall live for ever.

Ps. 24: 3 Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place? 4 He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. 5 He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation. 6 This is the generation of them "that seek him", "that seek thy face", O Jacob. Selah.

Ps. 27: 8 When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, "will I seek".

Ps. 34: 10 The young lions do lack, and suffer hunger: but they "that seek the LORD" shall not want any good thing. 11 Come, ye children, hearken unto me: I will teach you the fear of the LORD.

Ps. 63: 1 O God, thou art my God; early "will I seek thee": my soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is;

I could go on and on and on. The teaching that Paul and David, who Paul quoted, is teaching that there is NO ONE that Seeks God, might hold water if a man rejects the entire rest of the Bible.

What I'm saying is that according to what is actually written in scriptures, when all of them are considered, there are "Children of men" who refuse to Seek Him. But there are also those men who believe what Jesus instructed us to do, "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and "his righteousness"; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Paul and Peter and Zacharias, and David and Abraham and Noah and all the Faithful examples God gave us in the Scriptures that make up the Church of God, are not the target of Paul or David or God's teaching. Not because I said so, but because of all the Holy Inspired Words of God, that I posted for men's consideration, said so.

10 As it is written, Ps. 14: 1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. 2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.

5 There were they in great fear: for "God is in" the generation of the righteous.

Dan1988 said:

You resorted to making false allegations about my faith, with zero evidence to support your false accusations.

Click to expand...

It was the teaching of the Post that I challenged, as I am instructed to do. It was nothing personal, except that it was your post.

"We can only obey after we are born again and receive the Holy Spirit, and it is the Holy Spirit who leads us and enables us to obey".

Click to expand...

God, His Son, the Jesus "of the Bible", James, Peter and Moses, all the Prophets and Paul all refute this religious philosophy when a man considers all of their teaching, in my view. I even posted Peter's own Words in the hope that men might consider them and become "renewed in the spirit of their mind" and consider Peter's teaching. Men are free to lash out at me, Jesus said it would be this way, and I really don't care. And God knows I don't like being corrected either in the moment, but have grown to be thankful for the correction, once I get control of my flesh. It's more important to me personally that men consider the Scriptures and maybe by discussing them we can grow in the knowledge of the Lord.

"Nobody has ever been able to keep the law anyway",

Click to expand...

God Word seem to contradict this in my understanding. While every man has sinned, there are those who "repented", Turned to God", and brought forth "works worthy of repentance", as Paul teaches both Jew and Gentile. If men are interested in finding out who God said obeyed Him, I am happy to provide for them several people who God's Word Itself, Glorified to the point that everyone, who has ever had a Bible, knows that they were Faithful obedient servants to God. How many men who died in Sodom, do we know the names of? Not One, Yes? But we do know about Abraham whose SEED was blessed by God Himself, as God Said "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. Why would a person want to demean these most Faithful men by preaching to others that they, or their faithful obedience to God never existed, and in the process, accuse God of Lying about them?

God gave us the commandments to show us that nobody could keep any of them"

Click to expand...

I would really be interested in the source of this teaching, because I know that the Holy Scriptures, nor the God who inspired them, nor Moses and the Prophets HE sent, nor His Son Jesus, nor any of His Apostles ever said that God gave His People Laws, to show them they couldn't keep them, which means both HE lied to men when HE told them they could keep them, and yet God killed them by the thousands when they didn't keep them. I would advocate really "Taking heed" of a religious sect or business that promoted such a philosophy, given what is actually written in Scriptures.

We are all born into a world in which religious deceivers exist "that Profess to know God". Just as Eve was placed in the same world.

I advocate that men "come out of her" and follow the Christ "of the bible", and become a "Doer of His Sayings" and not a hearer only.

But it seems like a very controversial position to take, in this world God placed me in.

zelosravioli said:

In all the mentions of 'worm or worms' in scripture, there is no such reference to: adversity to the will of the Father' Nor are any of those words, neither do I see such in any word studies reference material.

Click to expand...

The entire Bible from front to finish is about the Will of the Father over the will of man. It was Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom. The books are full of references directly and by way of metaphor and parable of the message, put out in many ways in the many ways human may perceive. It is the core theme and all religion should revolve around it.

fhansen said:

That message is the treasure.

Click to expand...

Then the Romans took over.

iluvatar5150 said:

I'm responding to your comments in this thread.

Click to expand...

By making an unsolicited comment about another member in reference to something they may have said.

rjs330 said:

People who say the dangerous Islamists dont represent all Islam followers are apply the No True Scottsman.

Click to expand...

No, if they were committing the fallacy, they would say the terrorists weren't Muslim.

Vambram said:

Did Christ's teachings include bringing in a culture from another nation which practices fraud and tribalism and stealing billions of taxes from us

Click to expand...

Ask that question aloud to yourself. And name me one culture that has not come America and have been immune from enacting some kind of fraud? The Native Americans would love to know.

Perhaps Christians, specially Trump supporting Christians should revisit their Bibles and concentrate on what Jesus asked of them in those red letter verses.

And btw, surely to be appealed but those convictions just got overturned.

Always in His Presence said:

How about the unsubstantiated accusation that he was somehow associate with the President?

Click to expand...

I don't see any.

Factotum said:

Are you on the grand jury? Are you privy to the proceedings??

Where did you get credible info that made you say "i am sure" about this?

Click to expand...

She already got busted false claims to the courts. I am quite sure. And I will make this claim. Along the lines of other Trump lawyers going down in court sanction and disbarment, she will be the next.

Vambram said:

Did Christ's teachings include bringing in a culture from another nation which practices fraud and tribalism and stealing billions of taxes from us

Click to expand...

No culture practices that. Good job falling in line with vilifying an entire immigrant community by the crimes of very small percentage of them.

Factotum said:

No, not in a putrid city which hates Trump and loves Big Tish for her prosecutorial misconduct that an unethical judge assisted her with.

Click to expand...

Or maybe there's a reason why the initial AG quit after refusing to bring charges. So now, they had to send in the insurance lawyer who is making a utter fool of herself in court and apparently at grand jury indictments.

Factotum said:

Thanks, for posting the 2nd Home Rider. It allows you to easily see where she broke the law, within her niece's timeframe of living there.

Click to expand...

If it's clear, spell out what provisions you think she violated. Because I don't see anything.

Factotum said:

Do you have some paperwork verifying she didn't commit crime with the Brooklyn home she misrepresented?

Click to expand...

The burden of proof is on the accuser there. Considering that the government hasn't even tried to indict her over this, I see no reason to believe that she's done anything wrong in that case.

Oompa Loompa said:

Oh. So you are calling me out. Thank you for admitting it.

Click to expand...

AFAIK, calling somebody out requires tagging them. I'm responding to your comments in this thread.