Latest activity

camille70 · 2025-12-10T16:33:51-0600

ICE Hearings

https://x.com/factpostnews/status/1998790868753346666?s=20

Login to view embedded media

Hentenza · 2025-12-10T16:33:46-0600

SabbathBlessings said:
Nothing to do with your original accusation. It’s not worth it to try to reason with you.

Everything to do with my post. You are just trying to distance yourself and your church from the prophesy fiasco.

timothyu · 2025-12-10T16:32:19-0600

Sharing in his nature is following the Will of the Father

Dikaioumenoi · 2025-12-10T16:32:04-0600

fhansen said:
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.

You still have yet to address my refutation of this position. Who does the "him" refer to in the clause, "and I will raise him up on the last day"? There's no disputing that it refers to those who actually come to Jesus. But who comes to Jesus? Grammatically, what is John saying here?

οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day."

The αὐτόν who is raised on the last day is the same αὐτόν who is drawn. Grammatically, the pronoun in ἀναστήσω αὐτόν must refer back to the nearest suitable antecedent, which is the οὐδεὶς δύναται… ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν clause. In other words, the "him" who is raised is the "him" who is drawn. The text itself makes no grammatical space for subdividing the referent into two groups -- those enabled to come, versus those who actually do.

Your reading requires precisely that distinction -- that some of the "him" drawn are not the "him" raised. But the syntax does not supply a second referent for αὐτόν to latch onto. You must therefore import an unspoken category. In other words, you're making an interpretive move that presupposes the very point you want to prove. Meanwhile, the surrounding context (vv. 37, 39, 65) consistently grounds coming in sovereign initiative, which strongly argues against any basis for that presupposition.

Again, consider the contrapositive.

Let p = "one can come to me"
Let q = "the Father draws him"
Let r = "I will raise him up"

The verse, as stated, reads: "not p if not q, and r," which, stated formally in symbolic logic, is (-q --> -p) ^ r

The contrapositive of this is (p --> q) ^ r, which reads:

"If one can come to me, then the Father has drawn him, and I will raise him up."

Who does Christ promise to raise? The one drawn. Who is the one drawn? The one enabled to come.

"If Sam is able to come to me, then the Father has drawn Sam, and I will raise Sam up."

This is a promise of final salvation based on the Father's sovereign act in drawing/enabling individuals. The natural implication of this is that this act of enablement leads effectually to coming to Christ. It is a transformation of the heart. This comports with John 6:37: "All that the Father gives me will come to me."

GoldenBoy89 · 2025-12-10T16:31:47-0600

First time online?

truthuprootsevil · 2025-12-10T16:27:51-0600

keras said:
This much prophesied, still to come, Lords Day of vengeance and wrath – will happen at the same time as an attack against Israel. Psalms 7:12-16, Psalms 83, Micah 4:11-12 People think there may be a nuclear exchange, but what is more certain is what the prophets say:
Jeremiah 50:25 The Lord opens His armoury and brings forth the weapons of His wrath, for this is His work to be done in the lands of the godless peoples. Deuteronomy 32:34-43
Isaiah 34:5 For My sword appears in heaven, it descends in judgement…….
Psalm 11:4-6 The Lord is in heaven, raining fiery coals onto the wicked. ……
Isaiah 66:15-16 See, the Lord is coming in fire, like a whirlwind. He will judge with fire, His sword will test mankind and many will be slain by Him.
Isaiah 33:10-12 Now I shall arise, says the Lord, I will exalt Myself. You will be as chaff and stubble, a wind like fire will consume you. Whole nations will be heaps of white ash, like thorns cut down and set on fire.
Psalm 144:5-6 Lord, part the heavens. Make lightning flashes far and wide.
Isaiah 30:30 Then the Lord will make His voice heard in majesty...descending in fierce anger with devouring flames of fire amid storms and hail.
Jeremiah 30:23-24 See what a scorching wind has gone out from God, a sweeping whirlwind which whirls around the heads of the wicked. The Lords fierce anger is not to be turned aside until He has fully accomplished His purposes. In Days to come you will understand.
Isaiah 29:5-6 Yet, the horde of Your enemies will crumble into dust, fly away like chaff. Suddenly in an instant punishment will come from the Lord, with storms, thunder, earthquakes and great noise and a flame of devouring fire. 2 Peter 3:7
Isaiah 9:19 The land is scorched by the Lord, the people are like fuel for the fire.
Isaiah 10:17 The Light of Israel will become a fire, its Holy One a flame, which, in one day will burn up and consume His thorns and briars.
Isaiah 30:26-30 On the Day that the Lord saves His people, the sun will shine with seven times its usual brightness and the moon will be as bright as the sun……
See; the Lord comes from afar, His anger blazing and His doom heavy. His lips are charged with wrath and His tongue is a devouring fire. His breath is like a torrent in spate. He sieves out the nations for destruction. Isaiah 63:1-6

What these (and many other) prophecies, seem to be describing is sunspot activity.
Maybe the sun is building up to a huge Coronal Mass Ejection, something we do experience with minor CME’s. They happen very suddenly and unexpectedly, reaching earth within hours and are capable of causing enormous damage and deaths worldwide.
All electrical and communications systems, industry, transport; our modern infrastructure could be destroyed, or at least severely damaged. Armies would be back to 1800’s technology.

A CME explosion of the suns surface, as described in Isaiah 30:26, by the sun flashing 7 times brighter, would be one of unprecedented magnitude and would literally cause all the graphically Prophesied effects. For example; the moon would shine bright red as it reflects this suns explosive flash, plus a thermoluminescent reaction between the metallic oxides of the moon with the superheated Hydrogen mass, also causing our satellites to crash to the earth, like ripe figs falling.

Nuclear weaponry most definitely

Zechariah 14:12

And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite the people that have fought against Jerusalem; their flesh still consume away while they stand on their feet, their eyes will consume away in their holes, and their tongues shall consume away in their mouths.

Sounds like the immediate effects of nuclear weaponry. And I noticed that some of the newer translations use the word rot, and there is a difference in rot and being consumed away while you stand on your feet, while standing on your feet means immediate action.

seeking.IAM · 2025-12-10T16:24:32-0600

Fonts are woke? Who knew! Make fonts great again, because 'Murica!"

We don't have universal health care, but we got .gov paying attention to the whole font crisis on our behalf.

Dan Perez · 2025-12-10T16:23:39-0600

Dave... said:
Hey Dan

John 10:27 would be spiritual Israel. these are already OT believers and declared righteous by promise. John 3:3,5 would be speaking of the way to become part of spiritual Israel.

And will say from. Gal. 6;16. and Gal 6:15. is coupled together where Paul. calls them. THE ISRAEL OF GOD !!

and we know from ACTS 28: 25 - 28 that Israel. was SET ASIDE and ISA 6:1-13 says SO !!

dan p

iluvatar5150 · 2025-12-10T16:22:14-0600

essentialsaltes said:
22 people were in the back of the vehicle, and they were all made to find alternate rides home. The driver, identified in a press release by Little Rock Police as 36-year-old as Zachary Platter of Indiana, was issued a citation because of the incident.

So… they hate illegals, but drive like them?

truthuprootsevil · 2025-12-10T16:20:58-0600

Eldeah said:
In Isaiah 43:10 we read:

"“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me."

This doesn't exclude that the speaker from being formed. (The hebrew word used in the sentence is Yatsar.)
Which in my opinion is beautiful if the Creator himself is Formed just like humanity was according to Genesis 2:7:

"Then the Lord God formed a man from the
dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Also in this sense we are way closer to G'd as we dare to believe.

Isn't it possible that God our Father formed / spoke himself into physical existence.

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God and the Word was with God. The same was in the beginning with God.

In the Old Testament Yahweh and the New Testament Yeshua / Jesus is the Word of God - the spoken Word of God who has physical existence and I'm not speaking of the human form he used when he was born of woman. You see he walked and talked with Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah. He said and ate with Abraham. He wrestled with Jacob though translation say Angels but Jacob said he has seen the Lord face to face.

Did not Jesus say our Father is Spirit / Spirit has no physical form. And he and our Father are one.

Hentenza · 2025-12-10T16:20:45-0600

SabbathBlessings said:
Your accusation was the SDA had a failed prediction of 1844 and that is not true, that came from a Baptist minister.

Again, where the Millerites the precursors of the SDA church? Is a yes or a no question.

SabbathBlessings said:
Now you’re changing what you said. In 1844 there were people from all denominations studying the 2300 day prophecy found in our Bibles.

Not really. Can you cite what denominations were studying such a prophesy?

Dikaioumenoi · 2025-12-10T16:20:35-0600

zoidar said:
I can neither verify nor refute your grammatical and theological claims, but I will say this: John 6:45 identifies those who are drawn as listening and learning, describing those who come as God-taught. The text does not explain why they listen and learn, why they are God-taught. It simply presents these as qualities of those whom God draws.

The reason why they are God-taught is not left unexplained. It is embedded in the adjective itself. Again, the expression διδακτοὶ θεοῦ does not depict a teaching merely offered, capable of being accepted or refused. For that, we would expect something like οἱ διδασκόμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ("those being taught by God"), which would simply denote the ongoing activity of instruction directed toward them, without specifying its outcome.

But διδακτοὶ θεοῦ is a predicate adjective describing persons as the result of a completed divine action. It presents them as those who have already received the effect of God's instruction. The form therefore presupposes divine initiative and successful divine agency. This is not a teaching that may or may not take root; it is a teaching that achieves its intended effect.

So there's the reason: These individuals are taught because God determined that they should be. The reason they "hear and learn" is not an open question supplied from outside the text. The grammar itself provides it. They hear and learn because God has made them such. He has rendered them "God-taught."

camille70 · 2025-12-10T16:14:20-0600

Gas varies by region. Ive been paying around $2.30.

AAA Fuel Prices

https://x.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1998109322992099709?s=20

Food prices are higher though and I'm too broke to go joyriding anyway.

Dan Perez · 2025-12-10T16:13:45-0600

Dave... said:
Hey Dan

I'm not a Tulip fan either. Acts 2:36 is speaking to physical Israel. Acts 2:41 is speaking of Spiritual Israel (which can include Gentiles). Peter was calling out Spiritual Israel from physical Israel. Only Spiritual Israel (Jew and Gentile) had a genuine OT faith, and were predestined to believe the Gospel, His sheep hear His voice. And be conformed to Christ likeness. Everyone claiming genuine OT faith in Acts 2:36 is physical Israel. Those with a genuine faith, the wheat, are Spiritual Israel. Cornelius and Lydia were Gentile and Spiritual Israel before they heard the Gospel and believed. They were predestined to be conformed to Christlikeness per Romans 8:29. in Acts 2:36, Peter is calling out Spiritual Israel from physical Israel.

And I see that you. are quoting some good verses but the TARES and WHEAT. is still speaking STILL. about ISRAL. and the

BODY of CHRIST begins with SAUL in Acts 9:5 and the BACK. up PROOF is. in. 1 TIM 1:16 as SAUL was the

FIRST ONE. //. P[ROTOS. that in ME. /. join. the Greek EMPHATIC , meaning. ONLY ME and no one ELSE. , PERIOD

Where many make mistakes are in ROM chapter 11. !!

dan p

sjastro · 2025-12-10T16:12:46-0600

Hans Blaster said:
Part I. In which Steve responds to Herr Doktor Blaster's reminder of the subject of his inquiries.

Oh, to be so wrong...

You've been asserting that ancient peoples, including specifically the ancient Egyptians, had this esotaric/transcentdental knowledge *BECAUSE* they were immersed in nature. Since I KNOW we aren't going to see eye-to-eye on the existence of those things, I chose instead to address your supporting claim that they were immersed in nature. That's why their existence as an agricultural and urban civilization is RELEVANT. My point has been that the agricultural society I grew up in (everything farms except a few scattered woods, wetlands, and towns) is certainly no less connected to nature as they were. I used Egypt specifically because it is so clear with Egypt (being confined by deadly deserts) and Egypt has been a primary subject of this thread and a place where you have specifically made this "immersed in nature" claim.

(and yet again, my attempt to keep the conversation focused on a sub-point until it was finished fell victim to the expansion impulse)

Nope, didn't make that claim. It's strictly about your "Egypt was immersed in nature" argument to your claim about "transcendent".

Irrelevant. Not the point I am making. You are arguing against the straw man. (Here's a hint for good conversation, just because you know something about the other person, does not mean you should focus your response on that aspect of them when it is not the subject. What is it we call an argument that focuses on the opponent instead of the argument?)

Part II. In which Hans asks Steve to provide evidence that the ancients, particularly the Egyptians, were immersed in the transcendent. [Me: Based on what evidence? (Subject is EGYPT.) ] To which he replies a full page. Does he answer the question? Let's see...

I'm not the subject.

I'm not asking for general claims about "transcendent spirts". I want evidence on how we know Egypt was immersed in them.

I'm not asking for your opinion of skeptics. I know how much you despise us.

I didn't ask for you to tell me what I believe. I know what that is and you don't. One more paragraph, will you respond to the question?

Nope. He won't.

I'm not asking for some more ranting about "material science" or the back of your front (whatever that is about).

In summary, you didn't answer a simple question.

[end of part II response to question "Based on what evidence? (Subject is EGYPT.) "]

Part III In which Steve valiantly avoids answering questions about Egypt and agriculture.

Question the first: [ I literally just told you that Egypt was an agriculture and urban culture. How is agriculture and cities "immersed in nature"?] The response:

No "how is ag and cities "immersed in nature" question and a very reasonable one given your claims.

Not the claim I was making. I was asking how being agriculturalists meant Egypt was "immersed in nature" as you have been asserting.

I didn't make that claim here. I asked you a question about agriculture and nature. Transcendentalism wasn't the subject of the question.

Somewhere about three paragraphs back you walked completely past the point of the question.

Question the second: In which I had asked sarcastically if the Egyptians knew nature well because they were hunter-gathers (they obviously weren't) [Me: Did the Egyptians spend their days hunting on the savanna for meat and hides to sew into simple clothing?] Will the response reflect the question?

Nope. Not even close.

School children know the answer. The answer is "No. They didn't. They had farms and cities."

When you are reading our posts and have them up in the edit box, are you just waiting to dump whatever floats into your mind onto the screen. As with every other part of this "reply" to the second question of part III, this is not relevant in the slightest.

It's weird that you seem to be denying that Egypt was agricultural. Why is that?

Your mal-understanding of QM isn't even close to the topic.

Oh boy, this is not only not a reasonable answer to anything I've asked, but I also don't care.

The third sub-part in which to the statement "On the other hand the nature of Egyptian agriculture is well established." Steve replies.

I take it you've never been near a farm. We were all very connected to the seasons, the full moon and the sun, the ebb of nature, etc. Nothing has changed here. You're starting to sound like one of those urban interlopers that come out to our open farm lands to "experience nature" and get "holistic understandings" of everything. We hated those guys.

Now to question the final ["What has that got to do with Egyptian urban and agricultural society?"] to which Steve replies

SMH.

As you are aware @stevevw's answers are based on a standard template, it doesn't matter what you post his responses will always be the same.
The sheer stupidity of using a template is that despite a myriad of peer reviewed articles and tests which clearly debunk Egyptians using stone softening techniques, tools producing machined surfaces etc is automatically judged as nonexistent otherwise it contradicts the template.

This leads to @stevevw's fallacious reasoning assertion transcendental knowledge is a product of his refusal to even acknowledge the role of science and the evidence in reconstructing the world the ancients lived in.

BPPLEE · 2025-12-10T16:09:23-0600

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
my personal experience is far more “bigger picture’ then a guy who watched some you-tube video and think he is an expert in Islamic culture!

Okay. I’ll leave you two to argue about that

FaithT · 2025-12-10T16:08:46-0600

How many ladies here who attend the N.O. wear a Chapel Veil or Mantilla to Mass? And how common is wearing one in your parish? I’m starting to see more women do it …..there used to be just one lady that I saw. Now, I’ve seen maybe three or four. I’m wondering if it’s going to become a trend? I dont wear one nor do any of my friends but I remember as a child wearing one and mine had sparkles (rhinstones?j on it. It was beautiful.

BPPLEE · 2025-12-10T16:08:06-0600

BCP1928 said:
That's just it, it was never taught in classrooms and never will be. What is objected to is the observation, which Desantis blames on CRT, that there is still racism going on and that is what he doesn't want taught in the schools.

I’m not arguing about CRT, although elements of it have been taught in classrooms, my post was simply about a mistake someone made in their post

FAITH-IN-HIM · 2025-12-10T16:07:09-0600

rjs330 said:
For anyone listening you MUST listen to the interview I posted.in 141. THAT is Islam. That is tge type of Islam I am talking about. That is the Islam that is invading the west. It is not the nice Muslim people Faith is talking about. He obviously has not had to deal with Islamists and lived the lives these women who live through this. He and others are protecting this kind of ideology that treats women like this. Please listen to her story. Its real and it is truth. Islamism is dangerous.

This is yet another example of fearmongering regarding immigrants.

Dikaioumenoi · 2025-12-10T16:07:05-0600

Brightfame52 said:
Doesn't the drawing activates the coming unto Christ as here Jn 6 44

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The word come erchomai: is active

to come

of persons

to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arriving and of those returning

to appear, make one's appearance, come before the public

metaph.

to come into being, arise, come forth, show itself, find place or influence

be established, become known, to come (fall) into or unto

to go, to follow one

to commit oneself to the instruction of Jesus and enter into fellowship with him,

So I believe the drawing results into discipleship and fellowship with Christ.

ἐλθεῖν is a complementary infinitive. Yes, it's active, but as a complementary infinitive it "completes" the idea of the main verb, δύναται. Thus, what the drawing specifically responds to is οὐδεὶς δύναται, "no one is able." It is that lack of ability to do something that the Father's drawing specifically addresses. "Come" is what one lacks the ability to do, but the central idea is ability, not the fact of coming itself.

I do agree with you when you say "the drawing results in discipleship and fellowship with Christ," but I do not think you can conclude that from "no one can come to me unless drawn." All that "no one can come to me unless drawn" tells us is that the drawing is necessary in order for coming to occur, not sufficient to produce coming. What does entail sufficiency, however, is the final clause, "and I will raise him up on the last day." It is that statement that tells us the one drawn/enabled = the one who actually comes and is raised.

PloverWing · 2025-12-10T16:06:36-0600

I might say to the brother-in-law, "I'm sorry about that priest yesterday. That was a tasteless thing to say at a funeral." Not a long speech, but a short something to let the brother-in-law know that you saw what happened and that you're sympathetic.

If you have a relationship with the priest, you might quietly say to him next time you see him that it was really uncomfortable that he singled out a Jewish attendee like that. He might not have realized how his words would sound to the grieving family. Again, not a long speech, and not berating, but calling it to his attention so he doesn't accidentally do it again in the future.

keras · 2025-12-10T16:06:16-0600

CLEEB said:
I think you had better look into more updated news about the Jews in Israel and their efforts to build the third temple.

Apart from the fact that secular Jewish Israel opposes a Temple because of the strife it would cause, Bible Prophecy clearly states that the new Temple will be built by the Christian peoples. Zechariah 6:15, Isaiah 56:1-8, Isaiah 66:18b-21, Revelation 11:1-3, +

CLEEB said:
several Rabbis have announced that they have met with the messiah

Jeremiah 8:5-12 Judah has no remorse or repentance, How can you say: We have the Law, when your scribes have falsified it? For all, high and low are out for ill-gotten gain, your prophets and rabbis are frauds, every one of them. This wicked race would rather die than live. They say: All is well; no, nothing is well, they will all fall with a great crash on the Day of Reckoning. You will be as dung spread on the ground. Then, I will give the Land to new owners.
THIS is scripture, believe it!

FAITH-IN-HIM · 2025-12-10T16:03:51-0600

BPPLEE said:
I have to tell you what liberals tell me when I point out that I went to school with, played sports with, worked with and am friends with black people. Your anecdotal experience is not necessarily evidence of the bigger picture

my personal experience is far more “bigger picture’ then a guy who watched some you-tube video and think he is an expert in Islamic culture!

WordSword · 2025-12-10T16:03:32-0600

SabbathBlessings said:
“We are not under the law as a covenant of works / not justified by it,”
…which is very different from “no need to obey God’s moral commands.”

Aren't Christians obedience to God's commands greater than the Law's commands? God wanted the Jews to move on to Christianity, but obviously the majority chooses not to believe in the Lord Jesus and His commands. Christ and the Father's commands are far greater than the Law's of the Decalogue, but still He has a place for His people.

"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put My laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people" (Jer 31:33).

This has yet to come to pass!

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page