Kathleen30 said:

Ok let’s move on and give it a break ❤️

Click to expand...

If you had not kept quoting my posts and answering something I was asking Apple Sky, we would have moved on ages ago.

keras said:

What pretentious tripe!

Click to expand...

Really?
What was it that led the Magi to Bethlehem to worship Jesus?
How did Saul of Tarsus meet Jesus?
Do you know how Constantine became a Christian? He saw the Chi-Rho sign in the clouds, had that sign painted, overnight, on the shields of his soldiers, and they won their battle the next day.

In addition to this, God spoke to OT Joseph in dreams, and to Joseph in the NT through dreams and an angel.
All could be said to be celestial signs.

keras said:

I stand by how if a Prophecy can be literally fulfilled, then it will be.

Click to expand...

But it was Jesus and the Apostles who told us if a prophecy was being fulfilled -you don't have that authority.

Incidentally;

keras said:

We are now 40 days from the Day when the Lord could send His fiery wrath.

Click to expand...

(Nov 4th 2025)

keras said:

30 days

Click to expand...

(Nov 13th 2025.)

did we miss something?

It’s been like 7 years since someone posted here, lol.

I like this verse right now. It’s not necessarily my favorite. I just like it.

John 10:37

“If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

I like that Jesus said that hey, you might not believe in who I am based on my words, but clearly my miracles are evidence for believing that I am God.

I might not have been able to see Jesus’ miracles, but the way the church rapidly spread in that day must be clear evidence for how amazing his miracles were, for the apostles to be so inspired to spread the message.

The

essentialsaltes said:

Times Investigation: Ex-Trump DOJ lawyers say ‘fraudulent’ UC antisemitism probes led them to quit​

• Nine former DOJ attorneys investigating UC antisemitism told The Times they felt pressured to conclude that campuses had violated the civil rights of Jewish students and staff.
• The attorneys resigned during the course of their UC assignments, some concerned that they were being asked to violate ethical standards.

Nine former Department of Justice attorneys assigned to investigate alleged antisemitism at the University of California described chaotic and rushed directives from the Trump administration and told The Times they felt pressured to conclude that campuses had violated the civil rights of Jewish students and staff.

In interviews over several weeks, the career attorneys — who together served dozens of years — said they were given the instructions at the onset of the investigations. All nine attorneys resigned during the course of their UC assignments, some concerned that they were being asked to violate ethical standards.

“Initially we were told we only had 30 days to come up with a reason to be ready to sue UC,” said Ejaz Baluch, a former senior trial attorney who was assigned to investigate whether Jewish UCLA faculty and staff faced discrimination on campus that the university did not properly address. “It shows just how unserious this exercise was. It was not about trying to find out what really happened.”

“We did have enough information from our investigation to warrant suing UCLA.” But Baluch said, “We believed that such a lawsuit had significant weaknesses.”

“To me, it’s even clearer now that it became a fraudulent and sham investigation,” another lawyer said.

Four attorneys said they were particularly troubled by two matters. First, they were asked to write up a “j-memo” — a justification memorandum — that explained why UC should face a lawsuit “before we even knew the facts,” one attorney said.

“Then there was the PR campaign,” the attorney said, referring to announcements beginning with a Feb. 28, 2025, press release saying investigators would be visiting UCLA, UC Berkeley, USC and seven other universities nationwide because the campuses “have experienced antisemitic incidents since October 2023.”

“Never before in my time across multiple presidential administrations did we send out press releases essentially saying workplaces or colleges were guilty of discrimination before finding out if they really were,” said one attorney, who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation.

The government has not sued UC.

But in August, the DOJ demanded that the university pay a $1.2-billion fine and agree to sweeping, conservative-leaning campus policy changes to settle federal antisemitism accusations. In exchange, the Trump administration would restore $584 million in frozen grant funding. At the time, Gov. Gavin Newsom called the proposal “extortion.”

Click to expand...

A number of the lawsuits stemming from antisemitic acts on campus have already been settled in the court system, see the NPR article:

UCLA reaches $6 million settlement with Jewish students over campus protests​

"UCLA initially had argued that it had no legal responsibility over the issue because protesters, not the university, blocked Jewish students' access to areas. The university also worked with law enforcement to thwart attempts to set up new protest camps.
But U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi disagreed and ordered UCLA to create a plan to protect Jewish students on campus. The University of California, one of the nation's largest public university systems, has since created systemwide campus guidelines on protests."

RamiC said:

BTW, I will not be bothered by any of them, since not one of them will invalidate John 3-16

Click to expand...

Exactly. He resorts to calling it a "cult" to believe in this verse because he and the ECT doctrine falls apart with it. They know they have to add to this verse to fit their doctrine.

The Liturgist said:

“Chief bridge builder,” not “Priest king”, in some cases held by the Emperor, for example, Julius Caesar held the office at a young age, but not necessarily. Archbishops Leo, whose unprompted intervention at Chalcedon inadvertently contributed to the schism between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, was the first of many Roman archbishops to use this title(they took the title of Pope, previously used exclusively by the Popes of Alexandria such as St. Alexander, St. Athanasius the Pillar of Orthodoxy and St. Cyril the Great, in the sixth century) including St. Gregory Diologos, whose Orthodox status is unquestioned.

Click to expand...

Priests have absolutely no right to the office of priest-king. This is a royal title and reserved solely for Caesar or “Emperor” however in some cases Emperor is a lower title than Caesar.

The Liturgist said:

The fact that Manuel I Komnenos may have claimed descent from St. John does not make it the case; all Orthodox sources I have agree St. John the Beloved Disciple was one of three members of the twelve who was celibate and unmarried, the others being his brother St. James the Great, and St. Thomas “the Twin” the Apostle to Edessa, Seleucia-Cstesiphon and India.

So thus far you’re proposing a “bloodline” from a celibate Christ to a celibate Apostle to the heir of the Byzantine Empire who was a member of the illustrious Komnenos dynasty, which was alas not the only dynasty to reign in Constantinople and not likely related to St. Constantine in any real sense; as far as heredity to Emperors before St. Constantine or St. Constantine’s heretical sons like Constantius, and Julian the Apostate (whose name is particularly apt in that he left Arianism to embrace neo-Platonism, which is to jump from tne frying pan into the fire, eschatologically, since the Arians deny Christ as the Incarnation of God and the latter deny him altogether, a bit like those driven by the modern day Jehovah’s Witnesses cult into atheism).

Click to expand...

In the Latin version of things, JC adopted Augustus who then adopted Tiberius. So adoption is not ruled out.

On another note, Russian monarchs have claimed descend from Prus, a brother of Augustus. This is another way of how inheritance is passed on, that is, to the closest relative. It would also explain the existence of something called Prussia.

Constantine is not relevant to the foundations of Christianity so I’m just going to ignore that.

SuperCow said:

False as the day is long. You continue in your notion of man as prime mover in his deeds.
- False that man is the prime mover in his deed. So I am not able to make my own choice.

Click to expand...

Still unproven assumption. You are only restating your definition here.

SuperCow said:

You indeed do WILL to do what you do, and that, by what you deem more advantageous or desirous.
- You will do what you do...by what you deem more more advantageous or desirous. Now I am the prime mover after all, therefore now my initial statement is true and somehow I can make my own choice..

Click to expand...

Same. Still assuming the one necessarily means the other. You've proven nothing here.

SuperCow said:

You choose according to your inclinations.
- Again I am making a choice according to my inclinations. Further solidifying that my initial position is true.

So the second two sentences contradict the first.

Click to expand...

They contradict only if you assume that choice by definition makes the chooser the prime mover.

SuperCow said:

I am not disputing cause. I am disputing the logical incoherence that causing something that you know the result of can result in any effect that is not pre-determined, and if it is pre-determined then it is logically incoherent to suggest that anyone besides the causer has any choice.

Click to expand...

Wrong. But at least a small change in subject. That's refreshing.

God does not 'inhabit' this reality in the same way we do. He did not make something without knowing ahead what would come of it. This is not some experiment where mere "chance" has more causality than God, and God must risk his project on CHANCE. You do not consider yourself to be "self-existent" like God, yet somehow you consider yourself able to choose uncaused to do so. That is, to use your terminology, logical incoherence.

Mark Quayle said:
No, I do not claim that God does not (nor that he does) have that ability. I claim it is logical nonsense, a figment of the imagination, words playing in the mind of presumptuous humans.

I did not intend "the source of choice" there. I intended the source of the ability to choose Christ, and the source of salvific Faith

SuperCow said:

Oh, but you are making a claim. You just don't realize it.

Which is it? A or B?

A. I have a choice whether to follow God.
B. God already knows whether I will choose to follow him or not.

Click to expand...

C. You will choose because you must. You cannot avoid it. And God knows what you will choose— knew it before the foundation of the world. Argue against the Bible, if you will: Have you not heard of the Biblical term, "the elect"? Do you think the "Bride of Christ" is a haphazard compilation of indeterminate members?

SuperCow said:

If God knows that I will follow him, then there is no reality where I will not follow him.

Click to expand...

True

SuperCow said:

Conversely if he knows I will not follow him, then there is no reality where I do follow him.

Click to expand...

Also true.

SuperCow said:

You cannot say both, because to quote from you, it is logical nonsense.

Click to expand...

Not at all. Both are true statements. It is only logical nonsense that both would happen at the same time in the same way.

Further, he uses your choices to bring whichever reality about. The fact that from your POV the human doesn't know what will happen doesn't mean that it is not already determined. In fact, ha!, lately the scientific community is claiming that all of time already exists. No wonder they are struggling to come up with ways to explain how that can be true, if multiple options are actually all possible. They cannot admit to a proper definition of GOD.

Maria Billingsley said:

My opinion on this article:

This article completely misconstrues and redefines Christian nationalism in a manner that is far more dangerous than the political reality it seeks to describe. By labeling Governor Newsom a "Christian nationalist" simply because he cites Scripture to support funding for social aid (feeding the hungry), the author is attempting to normalize and neutralize a specific political ideology. The widely recognized definition of Christian nationalism refers to the belief that the United States must be governed as an explicitly Christian nation, granting legal and political privilege to one religious identity, often threatening the constitutional principles of pluralism and the separation of church and state. The act of equating this specific political power structure with the simple act of any politician using their faith as a source of moral inspiration—regardless of party or policy—is a misleading rhetorical tactic. This redefinition is dangerous because it strips the term of its critical meaning, making it impossible to address the actual threat posed by those who seek to formally fuse state power with a narrow, exclusionary religious agenda.
Let us reason. Please.

Thanks for sharing.
Be blessed

Click to expand...

Completely correct.

Newsome is pointing out that the Christian Nationalists have a log in their own eyes.

Turns out the Hannukah party was primarily a children's event, with face painting, bubbles and food. A two month old was among the dead.

In the meantime, the killing is being celebrated by X users. In the following link, you can see how many times a "fire" emoji was used, that means they like terrorists shooting up children's events.

https://x.com/IsraelWarRoom/status/2000200592006803721?s=20

RileyG said:

Makes me wonder if the food pyramid contributed to the obesity crisis in our nation?

Click to expand...

Yup

timothyu said:

Regardless of bloodlines, they all still follow the wrong Kingdom.

Click to expand...

What?

BelieveItOarKnot said:

See previous.

Vacous claim on your part. Sorry. Not taking the appeal to separate lust from desire on any basis

Click to expand...

Of course not, you must ignore the different meanings for Lust and Desire for your misinterpretation to survive. Yet, you’ve no evidence they mean the same and they do not.

Rather, you appeal to the Humpty Dumpty logic of “Alice in Wonderland.”

“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

Simply, Desire is Not the same as Lust, not in the NT or OT.

Chamad: strong desire or delight.

Lexically, the word “chamad” in Genesis 3:6 is NOT used elsewhere to convey a sinful desire. You’d know this if you consulted a Lexicon and Bible dictionary for Hebrew.

Eve’s mere desire for knowledge here isn’t sinful and there is nothing in the text to state this was a sin or that God treated her desire as a sin.

Rather, the sin God identifies and punishes is eating the fruit.

Simply, you have nothing to treat chamad as lust for Eve. Nothing.

The Bible, where chamad is sinful, is unequivocal, as noted in the 10th Commandment.

Furthermore, there is no Biblical verse supporting your claim Eve sinned by lusting for the tree, its fruit, or knowledge. None.

At best there’s a progression towards a sinful act but the progression itself isn’t sinful.

Desire/lust

It doesn't take a leap of any scholastic sorts

Click to expand...

Indeed. However, you have submitted no evidence for your interpretation. That’s why Chamad, as desire, is used in the OT where the act isn’t sinful because desire and lust are the same only in your definitional universe, but on earth and in Hebrew lust and desire are not synonymous.

Bobthebomb said:

Looks like I am lost.
I have been searching for a while subconsciously, which is how I found my way here.
Tonight was too much, I asked God and Jesus into my life.

Nothing. I feel more alone than ever.

Click to expand...

Hi Bob

I'm not sure what it is that you were hoping to feel. A relationship with Jesus starts with you admitting that you're powerless over the sin in your life and that it's destroying you. That's what brought you to the point where you are now. You bottomed out in the lies of the world and the sin that it promotes. The world told all of us the same lies. it said 'Just dive in and you'll be free', 'you'll have peace', and 'if you just have enough, you'll be satisfied'. 'You'll have life itself'. It feels like it's the truth in the beginning when you're young. But later when you begin to see the noticeable affects of sin it has already done a lot of damage. Probably more than you realize. It's a progression. Then it's just a question of when you will bottom out in the lies of the world. Some take it to their grave. I liken it to the alcoholic. It's similar in that it's a progression. We don't see the negative stuff right aways. But when we do, we usually just brush it aside until we can't any longer. The world promised you freedom, and gave you enslavement. It promised you peace, and gave you anxiety. It promised you fulfillment, and left you always longing for more. It promised you life, and gave you death.

Jesus frees you from that bondage. That real freedom. Freedom from the bondage of sin. It doesn't mean that the desires of the flesh are no longer going to whisper in your ear. It means that you now have the capability to say no. Jesus will give you peace. Even in the midst of a promised persecution, and life's difficulties, you'll have a peace beyond all understanding. We now, as Christian, put down our desires for the lies of the material world. They will always leave you wanting and needing more. Our sights are set on the work at hand and after, heaven, and all the promises that come with it and Him. We get life. Real life. Not just in eternity, but it begins right now. Jesus said that those who seek to save their lives will lose it, but those who lose their lives for His sake will find it.

Get into His Word and let Him feed you. If you're saved, you'll need the spiritual food as much, if not more than the physical food. I actually feel physically sick if I go too long without reading His Word. Start there. Repent, believe, and dig into His Word, and remember, the commands are there to protect you, mostly from yourself. Evidences are given to know if we are saved, not experiences. The sin is what is killing you. Jesus gave you the power to get rid of it. I suggest that you take advantage of that power or nothing will change.

Follow hard after Him and He will not let you down.

I'll leave you with this quote by an old theologian by the name of Spurgeon.

"It is ever the Holy Spirit's work to turn our eyes away from self to Jesus; but Satan's work is just the opposite of this, for he is constantly trying to make us regard ourselves instead of Christ. He insinuates, "Your sins are too great for pardon; you have no faith; you do not repent enough; you will never be able to continue to the end; you have not the joy of his children; you have such a wavering hold of Jesus." All these are thoughts about self, and we shall never find comfort or assurance by looking within. But the Holy Spirit turns our eyes entirely away from self: he tells us we are nothing, but that "Christ is All in All." Remember, therefore, it is not your hold of Christ that saves you--it is Christ; it is not your joy in Christ that saves you--it is Christ; it is not even faith in Christ, thought that be the instrument--it is Christ's blood and merits; therefore, look not so much to your hand with which you art grasping Christ, as to Christ; look not to your hope, but to Jesus, the source of your hope; look not to your faith, but to Jesus, the author and finisher of your faith. We shall never find happiness by looking at our prayers, our doings, or our feelings; it is what Jesus is, not what we are, that gives rest to the soul. If we would at once overcome Satan and have peace with God, it must be by "looking unto Jesus." Keep your eye simply on him; let his death, his sufferings, his merits, his glories, his intercession, be fresh upon your mind; when you wake in the morning look to him; when you lie down at night look to him. Do not let your hopes and fears come between you and Jesus; follow hard after him, and he will never fail you.""

Dave

stevevw said:

building Gods Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven

Click to expand...

Which the Gentile top heavy religion eventually built in man's own image, rejecting the Kingdom itself for allying itself with the Empire. We can't have it both ways.

The Liturgist said:

Docetic

Click to expand...

Hardly

Inspiration .. 2 Timothy 3:16

David Lamb said:

That may be true of some churches, but not all.

Click to expand...

One would hope, considering the Kingdom was Jesus' only Gospel. It's about the Will of the Father overcoming all adversity.

eleos1954 said:

well no

Click to expand...

Thank you Eleos. It' clearer for me

eleos1954 said:

because all prophesy must be filled ... and it was

Click to expand...

Not very familiar with what prophesies imply. Likely for i stand wary of current ones. Let's forget it.

Yet i think you're particularly right in these cases.
Besides, you indirectly give a different conclusion to this chatgpt produces through samaus.

Indeed, the ai concludes :
"it’s very reasonable (and very “biblical”) to say God intended Mary and Joseph’s protective care to be one of the means by which Jesus was preserved—without implying they were coldly calculating “his doom on the cross” from the start."

It seems it neglects the concern Jesus reminded his disciples, that Joseph, as descendant of David, perhaps then more than Mary, is likely to have been keeping in mind, that is, as you write, "all prophesy must be filled".

So, yes, i incline to think Joseph and Mary were waiting for the prophesies you mention to happen, but not coldly, as the ai states it might have been.
And their flight in Egypt could have stem from that as well

BCP1928 said:

Actually, it had already been home to home to many Jews for centuries. It was a refuge for Jews driven out of Christian Europe.

Click to expand...

Various Ottoman governors killed them or stole their property. They were overtaxed and victimized under centuries of Muslim rule - so how does this support your case? Much of the property Palestinians claim was stolen from them was originally stolen from Jews. Jews in Israel can keep their property, are taxed fairly and can defend themselves with overwhelming force is the difference between having a state and not. They are also thriving there in a way that never happened under the various corrupt and incompetent Ottoman governors. There are orange groves in the desert now where before it was just wasteland.

Factotum said:

He had no criminal history, never even a traffic ticket and especially never any Acts like this, sooo... You listed elements of his mental health crisis!
Was that a big huge detail you deliberately ignored?

If he was Caucasian, would you still have processed it in that same way you described?

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what your criminal history is, the color of your skin, or what your mental health issues are. If you force your way into my home and have a mental breakdown that terrifies and traumatized my children, you are getting forcibly removed either in handcuffs, or in a body bag. My Sig 226 is an equal opportunity enforcer.

Here I combined two of my charts together. To show the trumpet plagues and vial plagues taking place during the 1335 day long great tribulation.

fhansen said:

The notion that the kingdom might be fully realized here on earth by God working through His people had its day for many years. Ain't gonna happen; no heaven on earth. It's what we should strive for nonetheless, while understanding that eternal life beings here but is only fully consummated in the next life.

Click to expand...

Yet, in every embassy in the world, within the walls of the embassy the laws of the home nation prevail, not the laws of the host nation.

Shouldn't all Christians be fundamentalist?

These days the powers that be seem to be pretty good at redefining terms and words to advance their cause. This is how I see it.

There was an influx of liberalism being injected into the Christian churches at the turn of the century, that being the eighteen hundreds into the nineteen hundreds. So the dry theologians all got together and created a fundamental set of doctrines to protect against the false teachings that were encroaching. These were the fundamental set of doctrines that were considered essential doctrines. As we see today, they had good reason to be concerned.

I believe in the fundamental doctrines. I'm a Christian fundamentalist.