rjs330 said:

Yes they COULD. I think it should be a legitimate concern for the organizers and should prepare for that possibility. The fact that the last rally went pretty well, bodes well for them this time. But they shouldn't poo poo away the fact that there are those who would latch on and be a problem. We've seen it before. I hope they are able to rally and be peaceful while doing it.

I want that from every group that does that.

Click to expand...

Not that it will do them any good. Protesters in Oregon are taunting ICE agents with donuts and are dressing up in inflatable frog suits and Trump wants to call out the army to stop them.

Valletta said:

Please no personal attacks.

“If you are here illegally, use the CBP Home App to take control of your departure and receive financial support to return home,” said Secretary Kristi Noem. “If you don’t, you will be subjected to fines, arrest, deportation and will never be allowed to return. If you are in this country illegally, self-deport NOW and preserve your opportunity to potentially return the legal, right way.”

DHS Announces It Will Forgive Failure to Depart Fines for Illegal Aliens who Self-Deport Through the CBP Home App | Homeland Security

DHS announced illegal aliens who self-deport through the CBP Home App will receive forgiveness of any civil fines or penalties for failing to depart the United States (U.S.).

www.dhs.gov

Click to expand...

The DHS announcement is not a law. Unless Congress has changed immigration law to allow unlawful presence to be waived, the announcement has no effect.

Bob Crowley said:

Catholicism agrees with Calvinism on some issues and Arminianism on others. ...

Click to expand...

For example, I happen to think that there's nothing much for both sides to discuss with respect to TULIP.

The real points of difference is in the solas.

That view may be a bit controversial.

A New Dawn said:

Universalism can only be discussed in the Controversial Christian Theology forum.

Click to expand...

Take it up with the Reformed Calvinist theologian Karl Barth - who of course did not preach universalism. We are, however, again, according to him, permitted to hope, genuinely hope, that in the end all of God's creation will be brought back to him.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

I have notice Christians and non Christian stubbing over the pebble/Trump. That I read in the Bible. I'm not saying Trump is the Antichrist. But he's opening the door for the Antichrist. I'm fine with that. because its meant to happen.

Click to expand...

Christians should read the Bible before quoting scripture. Some who opposed President Bush's war in Iraq called him the antichrist, while certain prominent televangelists on the right accused President Obama of the same. Now some call President Trump the antichrist.

Scripture states that the Antichrist will originate from Iraq.

I remember when that movie first came out. That and the Exorcist. I never saw either in the theaters but I watched them later when they showed on TV. Her husband completely sold his soul for earthly gain and fame.

wing2000 said:

IMO, it won't make a difference. Younger people look down on jobs that have historically been carried out by migrant labor.

Click to expand...

Meh, raise the wages to the level of market demand.

2PhiloVoid said:

Ok. So that's your method? But can you show me how your method was the standard operative method during the first 30 years of the Christian faith when most Christians did not own Bibles nor even have access to a set of New Testament books and letters that weren't written yet?

Click to expand...

Who were the Bereans? They were Jews living in the Greek city of Berea and when Paul taught in the synagogue, they accepted what Paul said because it aligned with scripture and I mean the old testament. But they searched scripture FIRST before they accepted and it says they did this "daily". This is a perfect example because Pauls message was the fulfillment of the old testament so Paul gave new revelation that the prophesies were fulfilled about the messiah and the Bereans accepted what Paul said because they could see from their own scripture he was telling the truth. Today its much easier to test to see what someone says since we have MORE writing than they did back then and can read specifically what the pastor/person is reading and study it for ourselves and not even take their word for it. We have no new revelation either unlike what Paul had to preach. The Bereans are mentioned in Acts 17.

2PhiloVoid said:

however, that fact is no guarantee that any and all of us are always understanding what Jesus and His Apostles and early disciples taught or that the Lord makes it clearly and easily accessible simply because we're trying to be faithful.

Click to expand...

James 1:5:
"If you need wisdom, ask our generous God, and he will give it to you. He will not find fault with you for asking".
Proverbs 2:6:
"For the LORD grants wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding".
Ephesians 1:17:
"I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better".
Luke 21:15:
"For I will give you speech and wisdom that none of your opponents will be able to resist or contradict".
Jeremiah 33:3:
"Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know".

God is consistent with what he has said, what he has promised and how he has helped others. This IS a guarantee. If God said it, it will happen.

2PhiloVoid said:

Why would Catholics and Mormons be expected to have the same interpretive methods?

Click to expand...

Do they have different rules of logic?

2PhiloVoid said:

Of course they disagree with each other. Do you not study the diachronic, historical development of denominational interpretive models? Do you not study the fields of Historiography and Hermeneutics by which to understand how easily different interpretive approaches are conceived by any human being among us, including yourself or me?

Click to expand...

Of course not. If they're studying facts, they should reach identical conclusions.

If the conclusions are different, then they must not be working with facts, or very many of them.

2PhiloVoid said:

Some of you critical athiests make me wonder sometimes because your evaluations (and grievances) seem to emerge from confirmation bias rather than from a broad, interdisciplinary and academically balanced approach toward Christianity.

Click to expand...

I reject many of the basic assumptions that the religious take for granted.

It's tied to the modern concept of judicial branch of a government. The entity is responsible for interpretation of laws (which are made by a legislative branch). Jesus was accused of not obseving the Sabbath. However Jesus is the Lord of Sabbath, it means Jesus owns the right of interpreting what Sabbath could mean. It doesn't supersede the works of salvation such as preaching the gospel.

God also knows beforehand that among the billions of Christians in history, the mass amount of them don't observe Sabbath to its full. In the New Covenant it's not part of any criteria of salvation. It doesn't determine whether one is saved or not. It's thus no longer part of the New Covenant, or else it may be an even more controversial topic and making more noise and distraction from what truly concern our salvation.

Larniavc said:

Raise wages.

Click to expand...

IMO, it won't make a difference. Younger people look down on jobs that have historically been carried out by migrant labor.

No, this excellent Bible teacher explains the people involved in future prophetic events.

Power to Make War: Hodges, Zane C.: 9781879534018: Amazon.com: Books

wing2000 said:

Without prompt action

Click to expand...

Raise wages.

rjs330 said:

Well, I've watched plenty of protest videos where they just yell and scream at the officers and agents telling them to go home, and calling them Nazis and such. So I guess they think they are Nazis?

Makes no sense to me since they aren't Nazis.

Click to expand...

There you go

yum!

mincemeat pie?

SabbathBlessings said:

Great question — Colossians 2:16 is often cited in discussions about whether Christians are still required to keep the Sabbath commandment (the Fourth Commandment). Let's look at the verse carefully, in its full context, and then assess whether it refers to the weekly Sabbath from the Ten Commandments or ceremonial sabbaths in the Law of Moses.

---

Colossians 2:16–17 (NKJV)​

---

Key Questions:​

1. What kind of “sabbaths” is Paul talking about?​

Let’s break the phrase down:




This phrase appears in many places in the Old Testament, often in this same order, and always refers to ceremonial observances:

• 1 Chronicles 23:31
• 2 Chronicles 2:4
• 2 Chronicles 31:3
• Nehemiah 10:33
• Ezekiel 45:17
• Hosea 2:11

These texts link festivals, new moons, and sabbaths as ceremonial observances — part of the Mosaic (Levitical) system, not the weekly seventh-day Sabbath of the Ten Commandments.


That’s why Paul says in Col. 2:17:




In other words, these ceremonial laws pointed forward to Christ and found their fulfillment in Him.

---

2. Is the weekly Sabbath also a shadow?​

There’s a strong distinction between:

Type of Law	Description	Shadow of Christ?	Abolished in Christ?
Moral Law (10 Commandments)	Eternal moral principles (Ex. 20)	❌ No	❌ No
Ceremonial Law	Feasts, sacrifices, rituals, sabbaths tied to festivals (Lev. 23)	✅ Yes	✅ Yes

• The weekly Sabbathwas:
  • Given at Creation (Genesis 2:2–3)
  • Reinforced in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:8–11)
  • Not instituted as a shadow, but as a memorial of creation
• The ceremonial sabbaths(e.g., Day of Atonement, Feast of Trumpets) are:
  • Called sabbaths too (see Leviticus 23)
  • Fall on various days, not necessarily the seventh day
  • Shadows pointing to Jesus' work

Therefore, when Paul talks about “sabbaths which are a shadow”, he refers to these ceremonial sabbaths, not the weekly Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment.

---

3. Did Jesus or the Apostles abolish the weekly Sabbath?​

• Jesus kept the Sabbath (Luke 4:16)
• The disciples kept the Sabbath after Jesus' death (Acts 13:42, 16:13, 17:2, 18:4)
• Hebrews 4:9 says:

---

✅ Conclusion:​

Colossians 2:16 does not cancel the weekly Sabbath commandment.
It refers to ceremonial sabbaths, along with food and drink offerings, and religious festivals that were shadows pointing to Christ.


The Fourth Commandment Sabbath is not a shadow, but a memorial of creation and a sign of God’s sanctifying work (Exodus 31:13, Ezekiel 20:12).

2. But Which Commandment Does God Emphasize Most in the Bible?​

✅ The Fourth Commandment (Sabbath) is the only one God:​

• Calls "My holy day" (Isaiah 58:13)
• Links to Creation (Genesis 2:1–3; Exodus 20:11)
• Uses to test Israel's obedience before Sinai (Exodus 16)
• Commands to remember as a sign between Him and His people (Ezekiel 20:12, 20)
• Institutes as a covenantal sign (Exodus 31:13–17)

Click to expand...

Interesting. I guess if one asks the question without a lens the answer can be different.

AI Generated
Gemini

Question:
Is the weekly Sabbath a shadow of Jesus Christ of Nazareth?

Based solely on the provided biblical information (Colossians 2:16-17), the weekly Sabbath is grouped with festivals and new moons as a "shadow of things to come," with "the substance belonging to Christ." This text does not explicitly exclude the weekly Sabbath from this "shadow" category, but different biblical interpretations exist on this specific point.

Thanks for sharing.

BPPLEE said:

I thought ICE was only doing raids at Home Depot and apartment buildings

Click to expand...

....which has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Are you against providing more temporary visas to meet the labor demand?

rjs330 said:

As I said, they are free to protest whatever they wish and believe whatever they wish. The fact that rhey can is evidence that its a false narrative they are fussing about.

Click to expand...

A narrative informed by actual abuse of power by this president:

- deporting people with no due process
- detaining citizens based on their appearance
-snatching students off our streets by masked agents
-calling the democratic party, and now No King's protesters, terrorists....

Servus said:

Oops.

Click to expand...

Oops indeed. Now, would you care to answer the question, or are you just going to keep playing games? Because that would be...disrespectful.

2PhiloVoid said:

I do agree with you that it is possible for people to put too much stock in certain leaders. However, my saying this doesn't demonstrate how I know if, or when, they may be right or wrong in their teaching.

How does the Lord show you whether or not a pastor is correct in his teaching and/or interpretation of the Bible? Do you just have "a feeling" about it?

Click to expand...

I question everything. Because we are supposed to be like the Bereans who searched the scriptures and tested what Paul said to them in Acts, it was only when they saw that what he said aligned with scripture, that they accepted what he said. So it starts with testing what a preacher says to the bible and asking God to guide you to the truth whether they are correct or not. You search the scriptures to see if there is even a remote possibility that any scripture contradicts the point that the preacher made or if the verse he claims says what it says, is even true when you study the context. So when I say the Lord shows you, it's the Lord who guides you through scripture to help you better understand what it says, and points you to verses, chapters or books that either backs up the argument or refutes it. And since the bible backs up itself, you can find more verses on any topic than just one so you have a more well rounded understanding.

Most people don't do this as they are afraid of getting something incorrect. But that's where trust and faith comes in that God isn't going to steer you wrong if you are consistently searching the scriptures for truth and allowing the idea that maybe an understanding of a verse MAY be wrong. He would give you the idea or understanding of it (thoughts/inspiration) and then back that up by scripture in multiple different ways. Test everything, pastors, spirits, thoughts, inspiration and trust that no matter what rabbit hole you go down or how you might divert off course, that God is true to his word as being a faithful and good Shepard, that he will lead you to where you need to go and you'd get there eventually, even if it takes time. We are supposed to be a lover of truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10) and that means continually searching it out no matter how long it takes so that we aren't deceived by error or false teachers.

Catholicism agrees with Calvinism on some issues and Arminianism on others. Individual Catholic theologians and religious are going to lean one way or the other, but the main Catholic theological strands preceded both of them.

The Catholic Church cannot be said to be “Arminian” because it came before Arminianism and is not a product of that theology. Rather, it is better to say that Calvinism and Arminianism agree with Catholicism on some issues and disagree with it on others.

Click to expand...

In some respects Catholicism and Calvinism agree (e.g., Catholic theologians from Thomas Aquinas to Robert Bellarmine have taught unconditional election) and in some they disagree (the Church does not teach that all believers are predestined to persevere in the faith). In some respects Catholicism and Arminianism agree (the Church teaches universal redemption) and in some they can disagree (the Church allows for the possibility of unconditional election).

Click to expand...

My old Presbyterian pastor (who was originally Methodist, and not much of a Calvinist) once said to me "I think Catholics soft pedal judgement. I think they do anyway."

We might lean a bit too far towards mercy sometimes, and forget what the "mercy" is for. It's for deliverance from God's judgement when it is all said and done.

jacks said:

View attachment 371371
Doesn't this seem like a good thing?

Click to expand...

I'm watching the event live on TV. It's a joyful day in Israel and Gaza, and I credit President Trump for making it possible.

Goof Troop

...

Have you seen the "domestic terrorist"?

Andrew Egger writes:

"These days, after all, accusations like “terrorist wing,” “pro-Hamas,” and “Antifa” aren’t just insults. They’re talismans—phrases that unlock, in the view of the administration, a permission structure for the deployment of state violence. The largest, most organized, peaceful protest movement of the Trump 2.0 Resistance is coming back this week—and Republicans are talking as if they’re prepared to unleash the might of their increasingly politicized federal law enforcement (and, perhaps, accompanying military?) on it.

This isn’t to say, of course, that a state crackdown on No Kings 2 is guaranteed to take place. Even Donald Trump and Stephen Miller might flinch from the headlines that would result from their militarized cops cracking heads in a peaceful crowd flying American flags. That’s no way to win a Nobel Peace Prize!

The point, though, is that they’re keeping their options open. It may be better to put down protest through fear than through action—but either works. In the rhetoric of today’s Republicans, a No Kings protester is functionally equivalent to a domestic terrorist. That gives them all the room to maneuver they might need."