lismore said:

Several of the cities mentioned in the bible, including one of the Seven Churches of the Revelation, were sacked by Turkish armies on Jihad.

Click to expand...

Surely Turkic, not Turkish?

Also, Christians armies have sacked cities mentioned in the Bible. While on crusades. Including Jerusalem and Antioch.

So, if that's the standard were meant to judge on, its pot meet kettle im afraid.

ThatRobGuy said:

I always thought the more apropos solution to these shutdowns would be...
At 7 days: suspend pay for congressmen and senators (and their staffers) until it gets resolved.
At 14 days: actual fines imposed on them
At 30 days: failure to reach an agreement means governors have the option to call a special election to replace them if they so choose (the same way they do when one of them vacates a seat)


As much as I dislike the "4th branch of government" (the bureaucracy), their pay getting frozen doesn't do anything to bring a swifter end to these shutdowns as it doesn't instill the right sense of urgency in the legislature.

The notion that there's a shutdown, and outlets are reporting "well, no agreement was reached, so they'll be back in 5 days to restart negotiations" is unacceptable. If there's outstanding assignments that are urgent and time sensitive at my job, I don't get to bail on Thursday and say "well, have a good long weekend, we'll pick this back up on Tuesday", it's more of a "it's gonna be a busy weekend, put on a pot of coffee".

Click to expand...

I agree.

If government is disfunctional, that's not anyone's fault but their own.

Could be better...

Could you ever get it clean enough?

Apathetic men never exercise.

PATH

pay attention to when it’s your turn, and don’t constantly be asking “Is it my turn?”

You can probably tell…

Camp Candy

Chesterton said:

In 14 years of frequent posting, I think this is the first post sympathetic to Christians that I've ever seen you make. Has Fuentes rubbed off on you from all the recent threads about him?

They are primarily Antiochian Orthodox, not Greek. We Antiochians and Greeks are theologically the same, the only difference is geographical location. I'm a conservative MAGA Antiochian Christian, and I have sympathy for them.

Click to expand...

So do I, but if you expect any sympathy from the Evangelical Protestants who are the main drivers of MAGA you will be disappointed. Most of them don't even think you are a "real" Christian.

Best you mind your manners.

Michie said:

No I said they were real people. And Paul was discussing covenants. Admittedly, I was scattered when I read this thread given the other things I was attending to at the time. Adam, Eve, Sarah, Hagar were real people. Using their situations as allegories to teach about covenants is not the issue, my misunderstanding was quickly reading through the thread while distracted and misunderstanding. So if you want to debate it, you aren’t going to find it with me. My apologies for hopping in and misunderstanding.

Click to expand...

That's fair: You misunderstood. No worries, mate.

Aryeh Jay said:

Since they haven't helped the Russians against Ukrainian homemade anti tank drones, it makes sense to get rid of them.

Click to expand...

Selling them would make sense. They aren't any good at shooting things down in the air. Each could be taken out by a single flamingo.

zoidar said:

No, why? The angel was only revealing part of the plan to Joseph.

Click to expand...

The angel's words are a definitive explanation of the very name of Jesus. The γάρ explicitly grounds the naming. His entire identity and mission on earth are defined by this statement. So the angel's words cannot be only a partial disclosure of that mission.

zoidar said:

"From their sins"? That exactly what Jesus will do, save the Jewish people from their sins, not every indidual Jew though. The deliverance "from their sins" clarifies what kind of salvation the Messiah brings, spiritual redemption rather than political liberation, not who is included in the scope of that salvation.

Click to expand...

But that reading isn't grammatically defensible. The future indicative σώσει ("He will save") expresses a definite, declarative act, not an attempt, offer, or possibility. The construction σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ is a promise of fulfillment, not a general intention.

So your qualification, "not every individual Jew though," can only be introduced if defining "His people" in a way that likewise "does not include every individual Jew." Grammatically, the text doesn't allow for a subset within "His people." Whoever that phrase encompasses, their salvation is certain and complete. He will save "His people" from their sins.

In other words, either "His people" refers to all Jews (in which case the angel's statement fails, since not all Jews are saved), or it refers to the covenant people who truly belong to Him; that is, the ones who actually are saved. The grammar itself forces that conclusion.

zoidar said:

Why do you believe the purpose of Matt 1:21 is to reveal the whole plan of redemption to Joseph?

Click to expand...

Because the angel explicitly ties Jesus' name to His mission. The verse isn't a partial hint; it's the divine explanation of His very identity and purpose on earth: "You shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

Matt. 1:21 isn't a statement about who Jesus ministered to first; it's a statement defining His entire identity and purpose on earth.

zoidar said:

In the Gospels where "His people, My people, His own" is mentioned it always refers to the Jewish people. Why then do you think there is this exception in Matt 1:21?

Click to expand...

It often does, but claiming it always refers to ethnic Israel is a stretch. Lexical precedent doesn't control referential scope when the author himself redefines the covenant category in his own narrative. What matters is how Matthew uses the term in context, and the theological implications (like those mentioned above) of reading it ethnically in Matthew 1:21 are disastrous.

Matthew himself broadens the covenant category to include Gentiles and excludes unbelieving Jews (8:11-12; 12:48-50). John does the same: Jesus' "own" (τὰ ἐμά) are not limited to Israel, for He calls sheep "not of this fold" (10:14-16). Even John 1:11-12, which you cited, makes the point explicit: "His own" rejected Him, but whoever received Him, Jew or Gentile, became God's true children. Yes, "His own" refers to Jews there, but the point of the text is to redefine that. The whole point is that the true people of God is not defined ethnically.

Luke 2:31-32, which you also cited, likewise frames Israel's glory in the inclusion of the Gentiles. The Savior from Israel brings salvation "for all peoples." The covenant community, therefore, is not defined by national boundaries but by redemptive union with Christ. Yes, "His people" clearly refers to Israel there, but again the point is that the true covenant community is defined beyond national bounds.

Again, the critical issue is usage in context, not default semantics. Reading "His people" in Matt. 1:21 as merely "the Jewish nation" collapses the verse into either (1) a failed national redemption or (2) universal Jewish salvation, both of which contradict Matthew's entire theological purpose.

zoidar said:

Also the Gospel of Matthew was primarily written to Jews. Scholars often call it the “most Jewish” of the four canonical Gospels. That gives us a reason why it was specifically pointed out in Matt 1:21 that Jesus is the saviour of His people, the Jews.

Click to expand...

Yes, Matthew was written for a largely Jewish audience, but that fact does not tell us what "His people" means here. Authorial audience and referential scope are not the same thing. Matthew's Jewish readers were precisely the ones who needed to see that covenant membership is no longer defined ethnically but Christologically.

Hence, the "most Jewish" Gospel is also the one that most clearly dismantles Jewish exclusivism. From the Magi (Gentiles) in chapter 2, to the centurion's faith in chapter 8, to the Great Commission in chapter 28, Matthew's message is precisely that the promised Messiah of Israel brings salvation to all nations.

Dan Perez said:

And Romans 6:14 says. For sin shall NOT // OV. , is a DISJUNCATIVE PARTICLE NEGATIVE and the Greek word OV

means that SIN will neverrrrr everrrrr. RULE over you for you are NOT //. OV. UNDER the LAW but under Grace. , which

that the Law. of MOSES has been set ASIDE FOR. EVER !!

dan p

Click to expand...

Everything else in Romans 6 is speaking in favor of obedience to the Law of Moses and against am the law of sin, but if you want insist that sin has dominion over you because you would prefer to go in the opposite direction, then you can insist that sin has dominion over you because you are under the Law of Moses.

Let's just say this one person is a very animated, gregarious person. They tend to lead the table by talking almost constantly. They seem civil if not cordial, but it also seems that everything that comes out of their mouth is talking about someone. They don't necessarily talk bad about someone (though I don't know them enough to say this), but they're ALWAYS mentioning someone's name in practically every other sentence. It makes me wonder, is this too similar to gossip, or is this more excusable?

ps this is not the same woman who I sensed was condescending on me being a convert.

Years ago--$2000 of every new American made Chevy was union medical insurance.
The cars they made across the river in Lincoln Ontario cost them $2000 less to make. Think about that next time you buy a new car.
What employers pay for insurance increases the prices of
everything you buy.

In Christ Jesus, by God-gifted and God-persuaded faith in our Lord Jesus, we have redemption through his blood which was shed for us on that cross. Jesus paid the cost for us to be set free from our slavery (addiction) to sin so that we will now walk in holiness and in righteousness in obedience to his commands, in the power of God. For he bought us back for God out of our bondage to sin so that we will no longer serve sin, but so that we will serve God with our lives. We are not just forgiven, but we are delivered from sin.

For God’s grace, which is bringing us salvation, is training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives while we wait for Jesus’ return. For Christ “gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.” “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (See Titus 2:11-14; Ephesians 2:8-10)

For by God-gifted faith in Jesus Christ, which is not of our own doing, we are crucified with Christ in death to sin and raised with Christ to walk in newness of life in him, no longer to live as slaves to sin but as slaves to righteousness in walks of obedience to God’s commands. We are no longer to permit sin to reign in our mortal bodies to make us obey its desires. For if sin is what we obey, it results in death. But if obedience to God is what we obey, it results in sanctification, and its end is eternal life with God (see Romans 6:1-23).

And that is the will of God for our lives. For our salvation from sin is not just about being forgiven our sins so that when we die we get to go to heaven, but it is about being set free from our slavery to sin so that we will no longer serve sin, but so we will now serve God with our lives in surrender to his will and to his purpose for our lives. For even before God created the world he predestined that we should be conformed to the likeness of Jesus Christ and that we should be holy and blameless before him (see Romans 8:29; Ephesians 1:3-4).

God is now to be Owner-Master (Lord) of our lives, and our lives are to be surrendered to him to doing his will. He should be the one guiding and directing our lives, and not us, and not our flesh, and not other humans, either. Certainly we can hear the counsel of other humans, and if it is good counsel, and if God approves it, then we can move forward with it. But our dependency should never be in other humans to know and to do what God has purposed for our lives, no matter who they are. For we are all human.

For Jesus Christ taught that to come to him we must deny self, take up our cross daily (die daily to sin), and follow (obey) him. For if we hold on to living in sin and for self, we will lose our lives for eternity. But if we deny self, die daily to sin, by the Spirit, and we walk in obedience to our Lord and to his commands, in his power, then we have eternal life with God. For not everyone who calls him “Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one DOING (obeying) the will of God (see Luke 9:23-26; Matthew 7:21-23).

And we learn in 1 John 1-3 that if we claim that we have fellowship with God, but yet we walk in darkness (sin), we are liars. If we claim that we know God, but we do not obey his commandments, in practice, we are liars. For it is not the one who claims he is “in Christ” who is “in Christ,” but it is the one who has denied self, died with Christ to sin, and who is now walking in obedience to our Lord and to his commands, in practice, and no longer in sin. We have the hope and the promise of eternal life with God in heaven.

And with this all in mind, this is how we are to live our lives from now to eternity. This is not saying that we will be perfect in every way or that we will never sin again (1 John 2:1-2). But we should be living holy lives, pleasing to God, in surrender to his will, in obedience to his commands, and no longer should sin have mastery over our lives. And one day Jesus is going to return to take his faithful bride to be with him for eternity. But all who live in sin and in disobedience will not inherit eternal life with God. Believe this!

[Matthew 7:13-14,21-23; Luke 9:23-26; John 10:27-30; Acts 26:18; Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:5-10; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 10:1-22; Galatians 5:16-24; Ephesians 2:8-10; Ephesians 4:17-32; Ephesians 5:3-6; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 3:1-19; Hebrews 4:1-13; Hebrews 10:19-39; Hebrews 12:1-2; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 1:1-10; 1 John 2:3-6; 1 John 3:4-10; Revelation 2:1-29; Revelation 3:1-22]

Oh, to Be Like Thee, Blessed Redeemer

Lyrics by Thomas O. Chisholm, 1897
Music by W. J. Kirkpatrick, 1897

Oh, to be like Thee! blessèd Redeemer,
This is my constant longing and prayer;
Gladly I’ll forfeit all of earth’s treasures,
Jesus, Thy perfect likeness to wear.

Oh, to be like Thee! full of compassion,
Loving, forgiving, tender and kind,
Helping the helpless, cheering the fainting,
Seeking the wandering sinner to find.

O to be like Thee! lowly in spirit,
Holy and harmless, patient and brave;
Meekly enduring cruel reproaches,
Willing to suffer others to save.

O to be like Thee! while I am pleading,
Pour out Thy Spirit, fill with Thy love;
Make me a temple meet for Thy dwelling,
Fit me for life and Heaven above.

Oh, to be like Thee! Oh, to be like Thee,
Blessèd Redeemer, pure as Thou art;
Come in Thy sweetness, come in Thy fullness;
Stamp Thine own image deep on my heart.

Login to view embedded media
Caution: This link may contain ads

We Have Redemption Through His Blood
An Original Work / November 6, 2025
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

RamiC said:

He can vote now...good grief.

"While a highly unprecedented move, Andrew could choose to shift from Palace to politics as he is indeed able to vote.

Mr Hardman stressed that though it is unlikely he would vote, 'he could stand for the local council in Norfolk' and 'do something useful'.

Making light of a scenario in which a former Prince could stand for a role in public office, he added: 'I'm not sure he'd get many votes'."

Royal expert Robert Hardman answers questions about Andrew's future

Click to expand...

I would be amusing to see him finish below Count Binface.

mark46 said:

make your own cranberry sauce

Click to expand...

A definitive improvement. Fresh made cranberry sauce is divine. Canned is garbage.

I'm trying to learn Spanish but my memory is bad, can anyone help ?

Always in His Presence said:

OK - evidently there must have been more than one boat - your point?

Click to expand...

Only if you presume what he said is correct. Since then the Navy (DoD?) have said that they can't give the names of those killed because they don't know them. So how can they know that they were drug smugglers, they don't know who they are and they haven't presented the cargo in the boats.

My point is that Trump seems to be at least a sloppy communicator, or ok with embellishing the story. Both are bad traits in my eyes.

And as IF the next Democratic isn't going to exploit every loophole Trump has already blown wide open.
Like Larry Flynt raises from the dead and runs as a public health care supporting, poor helping, Obama loving socialist.

I've never been one for sweets or deserts, when we were kids my mum would ask what cake we wanted, mine was always a lard cake.

Rep. Ansari (D-AZ)

Since there's no business going on in the House. Might as well.