Servus said:

85 million people are going to vote for him again anyways.

Click to expand...

Not so long as the Constitution stands. He's done. This fiasco is his last stand.

Servus said:

Epsteingate, from the people who brought you Russiagate.

Click to expand...

LOL. It was brought you by Trump's own conspiratorial base and Trump, Bannon, Patel, aka his circle ran with it.
This is a case of being hung by one's own petard.

Dikaioumenoi said:

You're answering the question. "Means" refers to the way of achieving something. God's patience concerns the temporal unfolding of what He has eternally decreed. His decree includes not only the fact that the elect will repent, but when and how they will. Regeneration and faith occur in time, not from eternity. God's patience, then, is His longsuffering toward the elect prior to that appointed moment, not hesitation or limitation in His power to bring it about.

Click to expand...

It's not about His limitations, it's about man's reluctance. And 2 Pet 3:9 is not about just the elect, either, but about all men, as Paul understood as well:

"Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’[a] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’[b]

29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” Acts 17:22-31

Dikaioumenoi said:

Yes, you keep repeating the same point without engaging what I am actually saying. It's like you have in mind responding to a particular argument, rather than paying attention to what argument it is I have actually made. You are conflating two issues here. Let me clarify the distinction, once more:

1. The drawing as enabling is decisive. You've suggested that the Father's drawing (ἑλκύω) can fail. But John 6:44 explicitly ties the ability to come to being drawn: "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him." The drawing is the act that makes coming possible. If the Father's drawing could fail, then coming would not be possible for that person. The very point of the conditional is that enablement (the drawing) is necessary; failure here means impossibility. Your repeated objection -- "enabling does not mean causing" -- misses this entirely, because the verse is about enablement itself, not human response. How is one able to come to Christ at all, if the enablement (ἑλκύω) can fail?
2. Grammar connects enablement to salvation. This is a separate issue! It is only with the addition of the final clause that we get anything relevant to the question of whether or not those drawn actually come. This is a separate issue to the above. I have not once argued that ἑλκύω itself tells us that one actually will come. The argument concerning the meaning of ἑλκύω is that it does not fail to bring about enablement (which is why your argument that it can fail does not help your position; this is the point I have been trying to press). The argument that ἑλκύω implies that the enabling act is effectual in actually producing faith is a grammatical one based on how the final clause ("and I will raise him up on the last day") relates to what came before it. The argument there is that, grammatically, the text equates the one enabled to come (the "him" drawn") with the one who will actually be saved (the "him" raised). The verse itself assumes that all whom the Father draws (i.e., all who are enabled) will come and be saved. There is no distinction made in the grammar between those enabled and those actually raised on the last day. Thus, in addition to point #1 above, it is also the case that the act of drawing, by virtue of its grammatical linkage to the raising, cannot "fail" in achieving its intended outcome. Nevertheless, this conclusion is not implied by ἑλκύω itself. It is an additional grammatical point.

This is not grammatically defensible. The "him" in the drawing and the "him" in the raising are grammatically identical. There is no conditional or caveat in the Greek tying the raising to "remaining" or "producing fruit." Those are theological interpretations imposed on the text. Grammatically, all whom the Father draws will be raised. Anything else is reading something into the text that the language itself does not say. You can say, if you want to, that remaining and producing good fruit do indeed occur in true salvation (and I'll agree with you on that much), but what the grammar of the text will not allow is the conclusion that the one drawn might not do this.

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

= -Q if -P and R, which, stated formally, is (-P --> -Q) ^ R, the contrapositive of which is (Q --> P) ^ R, which reads:

"If he is able to come to me, then the Father who sent me has drawn him, and I will raise him up on the last day."

If Sam is able to come to Christ, then it is because the Father has drawn Sam, and Jesus will raise Sam up on the last day.

ἀναστήσω is a future indicative. There is a promise here to raise someone up on the last day. Who is that someone? It is the same individual throughout the verse: the one drawn; the one able to come. Thus, the text is making two claims, one explicit, one implicit:

1. The explicit: the Father's drawing MUST succeed in order for it to be POSSIBLE for someone to come to Christ.
2. The implicit: being drawn by the Father one-to-one results in being raised up on the last day. Thus, the Father's act of enablement is effectual in bringing about the intended outcome.

Click to expand...

You’re not wanting to understand. The arguments I've submitted are sound. God provides the ability to come. You’ve determined that the drawing is decisive as in necessarily completing its job, God’s intention. But God can certainly fail if He chooses to associate man with the work of His grace, as has been taught, if man’s participation to one degree or another is desired, IOW.

And even if I conceded your point regarding John 6:44, it only means that Jesus was focused on the elect there, those He knows will come. I know the gospel and Scripture too well to be unable to flesh out the meaning of such a concise, isolated statement with all the other concepts and criteria involved in coming to God, and remaining there. I know that many are called and few are chosen while the elect are simply those who’ve been called and shown themselves to be good soil by the end of the day. And until then I know that people can deceive themselves all day along as to whether or not they’re even among those who’re called, those who are drawn and have come, and will remain, rendering the criteria a somewhat academic point until we receive the definitive verdict in the end.

Servus said:

Regarding Epstein what sort of Trump underlings are you referring to?

Click to expand...

Like the one transferred to a Club Med prison and will be pardoned by Trump in ....5..4..3..2...

Jeffrey Bowden said:

This world will be at peace immediately before the start of the Trib (the 7-year Tribulation). The state of the world immediately before the Trib is revealed in 1 Th 5:1-3.

The AC starts the Trib that officially begins in Rev 6:1-2. The AC is set in motion for the timeframe from the start of the Trib through Rev 19:20, when the AC is killed.

Rev 19:21 precedes Matt 24:29, the official end of the Trib.

The seal judgments through seal 6 take up all of Rev 6. The 7th seal begins in Rev 8:1.

Rev 7 is an interlude within Rev. We know from Rev 7:16 (famine and scorching heat) that Rev 7 spans from the 4th seal (famine) in Rev 6:8 to the scorching heat in the 4th bowl in Rev 16:8-9.

Rev 7 truly spans most of the Trib from the 4th seal to the 4th bowl (great tribulation). To further validate this, “great tribulation” is cited in Rev 7:14, which is two verses before Rev 7:16 and its scorching heat that is only found in the 4th bowl.

I’m pointing these facts about Rev 7 to simply prove its time range stems from the seals through to the bowls. That is the width and breath of Rev 7. That is why it’s called an interlude because its timeframe does not fit between Rev 6 and Rev 8.

In summation: The AC is put in motion, starting the 7-year Trib, in Rev 6:1-2. The AC is active until he’s killed in Armageddon in Rev 19:20.

The Trib ends in Rev at Rev 19:21. Then, Matt 24:29, the official end to the Trib. Then, the 2A (2nd Advent) In Matt 24:30.

Click to expand...

Why will all the world follow the prophesied beast? Why?? Make an explanation believable even to me. I see one answer to that. What have you got that can be more credible to me? I don't think you see the warning in Revelation 11:18 that I see.

I understand anyway there is time of tribulation from that time the one prophesied as a beast is followed by all (except the few so faithful to God then). No arguments needed for that.

Apple Sky said:

It's flat & level.

Job 38:4-11
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. / Who fixed its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a measuring line across it? / On what were its foundations set, or who laid its cornerstone.

You can't stretch a measuring line across a ball.

Click to expand...

He didn’t use a measuring tape nor does the earth have a cornerstone. This is symbolic language and we talked about this a couple of weeks ago.

Do you think that God needs a measuring tape to measure something? Even if the earth was a disc, as you claim, it still could not have a “corner” stone.

The earth is a sphere just like every other planet in the universe is a sphere. Even the moon is round.

Guojing said:

To avoid misinterpretation of Galatians 6:16, avoid the NIV.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. You are only saying this because of doctrinal bias. The NIV has one of the better translations of that verse because it shows that the Israel of God refers to all who follow the rule of being a new creation in Christ with neither circumcision (being a Jew) nor uncircumcision (being a Gentile) having anything to do with it.

(NIV) Galatians 6:14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. 16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.

But, even with the way it's worded in the KJV text, it's wrong to assume that the word "and" before it says "upon the Israel of God" implies that the Israel of God is a separate entity from those who walk according to the rule of being made a new creation in Christ regardless of being circumcised (of being a Jew) or not.

(KJV) Galatians 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. 15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. 16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

If the word "and" before "upon the Israel of God" implied that the Israel of God was a separate entity from those who have been made a new creature/creation in Christ, then does that mean those who fear God are a separate group than God's servants in the following verse?

Revelation 19:5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.

Clearly, those who fear God are His servants, so just because the word "and" comes before "ye that fear him" does not imply that those who fear God are a separate group or entity from God's servants. Obviously, God's servants are those who fear Him. Similarly, Paul saying "and upon the Israel of God" in Galatians 6:16 does not imply that he was differentiating between the Israel of God and those who have been made a new creation in Christ. He was simply referring to all those who have been made a new creation in Christ as "the Israel of God".

To expound a little on Trump's words..."When Ingraham insisted the U.S. has "plenty of talented people here," Trump said, "No, you don't. No, you don't have certain talents, and people have to learn.""

There is a 2nd part to that which would be that US businesses would then need to actually hire those US citizens that have learned. Or, they could train some of the talented people they have now for those skills.

I'm recently retired from 35+ years in tech industry. 25+ of that in a fortune 50 firm.
Were there cases where a US worker with a certain skill couldn't be hired? Sure those existed.
Where there cases where US workers were either not hired or kicked out so jobs could be outsourced to foreign countries or replaced with H1B workers to use cheaper labor? Oh my goodness YES! way, Way, WAY more of these cases than cases where skilled US workers couldn't be found or existing workers trained.

Apple Sky said:

No I can't, so the sun is 93 million miles away this is just plain folly.

Click to expand...

No, it's a fact that you just can't "see"/understand. That's how it is.
If you were taking an exam, one of the questions was "how far away is the sun?" and you wrote "3,000 miles" it would be marked wrong.
If you were taking part in a quiz and a tie-breaker question to win the cup was "how far away is the sun?"; if you gave your answer, you'd lose.
If you had a child who said, "mum, how far away is the sun?" you said "3,000 miles" and your child repeated that to their mates at school - guarantee they'd be laughed at.

Why don't you take the trouble to find out HOW it is a fact, rather than just saying "it can't be"?

Apple Sky said:

I said, 'why does water always find it's own level' ?

Click to expand...

?? We weren't talking about water.

Apple Sky said:

No I can't & for good reason.

Click to expand...

The "good reason" is that you refuse to accept them.
That's not at all the same as saying that they're not there.

Apple Sky said:

The world you think you live in is a fairy tale world.
What world do you live in ?

Click to expand...

The world that God made - how about you?

Apple Sky said:

Facts have changed especially in my world.

Click to expand...

The only facts that have changed recently in your world is that you no longer believe Charles Duke; in fact you think he is a liar.
A few months ago you said "sorry" to God for doubting the astronauts and said that believing in a globe earth would be hard but that "with God's help, I'll get there".
You have since completely changed your mind about that and, apparently, now don't need God's help because "yaaay! I'm back on track." Once again you are saying that the astronauts are liars and that the earth is flat.

Always in His Presence said:

it is? Please - where is it apparent? You have a link showing that, or it is your assumption.

I'm not defending anyone -

Click to expand...

Of course. Fannie as an agency exists without employee conduct guidelines.

My global church community, the Anglican Communion, is currently wrestling with this, as there have been some splinterings in the last century, and another schism may be in progress. I agree that argument does not have to mean division, that argument can be a healthy part of living together as a community.

Humility is part of the picture, recognizing that I may be wrong. Respect, too: recognizing that the other person is genuinely trying to follow God, to do what is right, and to believe what is true.

I think often of some words from our baptismal liturgy, based on words from Ephesians: "There is one hope in God's call to us." Ultimately, I think our union is in that common call from God. How to live that out well is a tougher thing.

Hans Blaster said:

My peer review documents are confidential and in XXX ZZZ physics, not archeology, so they aren't the documents you want.

Click to expand...

I'll bet they are interesting. Mine are not and very few and have to do with learning vocational skills--not a subject which Steve is interested in. Maybe he should read my MA thesis. That would put him in a very, very small but select group.

This thread REALLY has gone down the pseudo-science rabbithole unrepentantly.

I'm bouncing. Good luck to all staying behind.

From a cursory AI search:

• In De Anima (On the Soul), Tertullian describes the soul's fate immediately after death: the righteous go to a place of comfort (paradise or Abraham's bosom), while the wicked go to Hades for torment until the final judgment. There is no third category of purifying fire for imperfect believers.
• He mentions fire in eschatological contexts (e.g., the final judgment or hell), but never as a post-mortem purgation for the saved.

The word "purgatorium" as a noun for a place of cleansing first appears in the 12th century (e.g., in writings influenced by Augustine and Gregory the Great).

In summary, while Tertullian supported prayers for the dead and an intermediate waiting period, he provided no substantive basis for the doctrine of purgatory. Claims otherwise typically involve anachronistic readings of his texts. For primary sources, see Tertullian's works in the Ante-Nicene Fathers collection (vol. 3–4).

concretecamper said:

Tertullian also wrote about the affects of Purgatory.

Click to expand...

Proof requested please.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

No one is dividing into anyone. No one is distracting anyone. Voters themselves are involved in these cultural conflicts.

Political parties engage in cultural conflicts because most Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, like cultural debates. The majority of evangelical Christians believe that the pro-life movement takes precedence over economic issues. Similarly, progressives consider matters such as pro-choice or civil rights for LGBTQ individuals to be significantly more important than US debt crisis.

It is your prerogative to consider cultural issues less significant in life. However, others may view these topics more important than anything else.

Click to expand...

I do not consider the cultural issues less significant. What I object to is the use of these issues as a tool to divide the workforce. For instance, that we can't have single-payer health care because it's "socialist" and everybody knows that the end goal of socialism is to turn your kids gay. Whether gays can get married or drag queens can read to kids, even abortion, have nothing whatever to do with the economic well-being of the working class. They are separate issues.

Our history has already been written. How did it all begin? We can read about it in Luke's Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, among other places. These are Luke's first and second letters to Theophilus, our history.
Our history continues in the Acts of the Apostles (Luke's second letter to Theophilus): "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
” (Acts 1:1-3).

In fact, our history begins in Heaven, where we were in God's plans. "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love..." (Eph. 1:4-8).


Our history thus begins in Heaven and ends in Heaven. Everything that happens in between is told in the Bible, the Old and New Testaments. That is the history in which we live. All other “church histories” are histories of foreign religions.

Restoration

It was not until the 4th century that church developments began, which continue to cause division. The original Christianity founded by Jesus remained outside these developments. This is still God's will.

God still plans to bring the congregation back to His original will in every way. He will not change His teaching to suit our actions. We must change to suit His will. We must be wary of any activity that may violate the biblical order of importance.

Why is there no teaching in the Bible about establishing a church? - It is because Jesus established his own congregation only once, in a unique way.
As it was in the apostolic age, so it should be at the end, in every locality.
The congregation has no connection with the church.

Strong in Him said:

Phil G has experience of the subject so he therefore knows; you don't so you can only "believe" or "reckon".

Click to expand...

What does Phil know about orbiting satellites ? Please tell.

camille70 said:

You said he didn't want his name on a failing venture which is why it was called the ACA. That is false.

Click to expand...

No - it is just as accurate an opinion as yours is..

Akita Suggagaki said:

Johnson apologized by blaming Democrats. Real character.

Click to expand...

Speaking truth to power is seldom comfortable - they held their constituents hostage - openly saying they were using their suffering for leverage - millions of people effected and in the end got ZERO - nothing.

That's a fail in my book

Strong in Him said:

You can't see how we get heat from a sun that is 93,000,000 miles away.

Click to expand...

No I can't, so the sun is 93 million miles away this is just plain folly.

Strong in Him said:

You can't see how the earth could turn and we don't all fall off.

Click to expand...

I said, 'why does water always find it's own level' ?

Strong in Him said:

You can't see how satellites could orbit in space.

Click to expand...

No I can't & for good reason.

Strong in Him said:

It has been said to you many times; the facts don't change/go away because you "can't see" or don't understand them.

Click to expand...

The world you think you live in is a fairy tale world.
What world do you live in ?
Facts have changed especially in my world. Amen

Fantine said:

To those with selective attention (aka denial issues) maybe.

Click to expand...

And what are the facts proving it?

Got any?

Fantine said:

If tax credits are not extended for the ACA, these turncoats will have to walk the walk of shame--along with 53 Republicans--for betraying their constituents.

Click to expand...

turncoats? That is terminology that authoritarian governments use against those that do not walk in lock step with dear leaders...

What happened to bipartisan legislation?

FYI - the subsidies don't go to their constituents, but directly to the insurance companies who are making greater profit margins than ever.

Fantine said:

Schumer will lose to AOC in the next primary.

Click to expand...

Of course he will. The Party has spoken - they kill their wounded. (Politically speaking) Just like removing a sitting President from his re election ballot against his will. Democracy in action? I think not.

Best thing that could happen to America is an AOC/Sanders ticket for President - pretty much guarantee Republican leadership for the next eight years. With all my heart - I hope she runs.

Donald Trump told Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell to stop plucking young girls from the spa at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort to groom and sexually abuse.

Click to expand...

If I know someone is going around committing burglaries, and I say "Just don't burgle my house", that isn't much of a moral slam dunk.

-CryptoLutheran

Delvianna said:

Awesome! You write any short stories or just novels?

Click to expand...

Both. In fact, I have a few free short stories due for the holiday. You can find them (three of them) at the bottom of this page: Rod’s Fiction Universe | Rod Trent | Substack