Latest activity

Always in His Presence · Nov 4, 2025

FreeinChrist said:
The conservative brand, and definitely the Trump brand is toxic. The approval polls for him are the lowest of any president at this stage of his presidency. He even beat himself when it comes to low approval.
That is partly due to his over-inflation of his accomplishments.

The approval rating for the Democratic Party is at a historic low - 33%. They have even beat themselves in how much they can run off their own people. That is partly due to their leaving minorities, Unions and much of their everyday working man base aside for men who dress like woman and woke ideology.

In comparison to them - Trump is doing amazingly well.

Chesterton · Nov 4, 2025

rambot said:
And here's the funny thing.

Right wingers and those "uncomfortable with science"...

In other words, right wingers and left wingers.

NewLifeInChristJesus · Nov 4, 2025

Dikaioumenoi said:
Your engagement in this discussion has been more assertive and accusatory than substantive interaction with anything I've actually laid out. If this conversation is to be productive, I would ask that your further comments focus on engaging the argument and the textual evidence directly.

Regarding your claim that "it is improper to place the time of action of present participles after the time of action of the main verb," I already answered this in posts #12 and #17. You did not meaningfully engage with either element of that answer. What I originally pointed out to you was that this principle you're wanting to invoke (that "present participles have the same time of action as the main verb," to use your original wording) is basically true in narrative or temporal discourse, but not in gnomic or didactic statements. It's pretty obvious why: in gnomic contexts, the main verb itself isn't describing a point in time. It expresses a timeless, axiomatic reality. That's what a gnomic/didactic statement is. So, when you universalize the rule, you're trying to attach a "time of action" to something that doesn't have one. It's like timing a definition with a stopwatch.

Additionally, from your "response" in post #15 until now, you have continued to introduce this confusion between logical relationship and temporal sequence. The OP itself distinguishes the two, clarifying that this isn't an argument for temporal sequence. You either missed or ignored that. I corrected you on it in post #17 when you misrepresented my position as concerning a chronological sequence of events. You ignored that too. Now, you're still ignoring it. You're caricaturing the argument to fit the objection you want to give. Do you understand the difference between logical and chronological relationships?

Another gnomic example (just one of many we could go to):

1 Peter 2:6 - "...the one believing (ὁ πιστεύων, present participle) in Him will not be put to shame (καταισχυνθῇ, aorist subjunctive)."

The present participle describes the defining mark of those characterized by faith; the aorist subjunctive expresses the logical result of that: ultimate eschatological vindication. If the participle's "time" equals the main verb's, we're left with the nonsensical idea that one "believes" at the moment in time one "is not put to shame," as if faith occurs only simultaneously with final vindication.

I have not "wriggled around" on this point; my position has been consistent from the OP, as I've pointed out to you more than once. Go back and read it. The argument is that 1 John 5:1 expresses a logical, not temporal relationship between regeneration and faith. You're not addressing the point by repeatedly recasting it as a chronological objection.

You're not stating what problem you see here. These mean essentially the same thing. If two things occur simultaneously, there's no sequence in time. When I said that regeneration and faith may occur simultaneously in our temporal experience (as I noted in the OP to begin with), it was in response to your repeated discussion of temporal sequences. The point I was making is that timing is irrelevant to the argument. I am not making a chronological claim. My point from the start has been about logical priority, not temporal sequence. Nothing I have said contradicts that, so your claim that I'm arguing both ways is a misunderstanding of my position.

You are not reading my posts.

In post #17, I originally challenged this "faith after salvation" caricature of my argument by asking you directly: "Where have I argued for 'believing after salvation'?" You did not answer.

Instead, you simply doubled down on the caricature in your next reply, suggesting that I am "rearranging" grammar "to say that trust in Christ does not come before salvation" (my emphasis).

In post #30, I pointed out that you did not address my question. I then explained the reason for asking it, and how your wording misunderstands/misrepresents my position. You did not answer or acknowledge.

Instead, in your next reply, you went right back to the language of temporal experience ("you are arguing for a reality that we do not experience"), continuing to ignore my repeated clarifications that the argument doesn't concern the question of temporal experience.

In post #36, I again pointed out your category confusion on this. No acknowledgement.

Instead, in your next reply, you shifted course entirely and took a personal experience approach, suggesting that you know my theology is off because your "alarm bells are going off." You chose not to engage at all with the content of my rebuttal to you.

Then, in verse #67, again, you repeat your caricature of my position: "there is no way to change the truth that God forgives sins and gives spiritual life to those who believe. It's not the other way around." (My emphasis). We're debating the logical priority of regeneration and faith, not the forgiveness of sins (justification).

And guess what? You've now done it again! "The fact is, you are arguing that faith in Christ comes after salvation." False. That is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that faith in Christ is logically subsequent to regeneration, not justification, final salvation, or the whole package. If you can't be honest about what it is I'm even saying, we have nothing to discuss.

I mean, they do. What more do you want me to say? You refuse to engage the content of my arguments in any meaningful attempt to show exegetically where I've erred. Do you expect me to just let you win a debate?

Let's look at two passages with the same gramatical structure.

"Whoever believes (Present Active Participle) that Jesus is the Christ is born (Perfect Passive Indicative) of God" (1 Jn 5:1), and
"the one who does not believe (Present Active Participle) God has made (Perfect Active Indicative) Him a liar" (1 Jn 5:10).

Your contention on the first is that being born again (logicaly?) preceeds believing based on the grammar.

So, to be consistent, you must also think that making Him a liar (logically?) preceeds not believing based on the same grammar. But you would be wrong because the rest of verse 10 explains that not believing God is what makes Him a liar (not believing (logically?) preceeds making Him a liar)...

the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed (Perfect Active Indicative) in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. (1 Jn 5:10)

Honestly, I do not think you know that justification, sanctification, regeneration, passing from death to life, possessing eternal life, being joined to the Lord, being one spirit with Him, not facing judgement, etc. all occur simultaneously and are comletely dependent on Jesus coming to live in our hearts. Logically, they all exist if Jesus is in us, and none exist if He is not. Same is true for chronological order. None of them existed when Jesus was not present, and all of them exist with Him present. So, please do not read my dismissal of your argument that we must differentiate between logical precedence and chronological precedence as dishonesty. It is simply a rejection of your premise.

And you are making points that require a great deal of effort to investigate and refute. And honestly, the effort required makes it impossible to address all your points.

joechristianwarrior · Nov 4, 2025

ChubbyCherub said:
Thank you so much for this! God bless!

I think Jesus wants us to obey His actual words. For starters, we need to accept that Jesus is the Son of God, come to the world in the flesh. And that all the words He spoke, He was ordained to do so by God.

Once we get that established, we are in a better position to appreciate all that He actually taught. He said that only a fool would hear His words, and then not obey them. (Matthew 7:24-27) And that's what most churches have shown themselves to be - fools, through their total disregard for the actual teachings of Jesus.

To be clear, I'm talking about actual commands of Christ. Stuff like, "give to those who ask", "call no man on earth 'Father', "go into all the world to preach the gospel", "love your enemies", etc. That sort of thing. Churches just don't preach that these days, and that's why they're all so dead. I suggest you check out this video, and pray to God to open your eyes to the real truth: Login to view embedded media

Strong in Him · Nov 4, 2025

Apple Sky said:
Why do they have to be mainstream ?

Hentenza said:
You are because scriptures do not teach a flat earth. There isn’t a single mainstream church that teaches a flat earth.

Because that's what he said.

Chesterton · Nov 4, 2025

rambot said:
Do you think I could have made that comment (specifically, with THAT word choice) without having read the article?

Obviously you did. Unless you have read the brick-and-mortar version?

FreeinChrist · Nov 4, 2025

Oompa Loompa said:
Listen. The liberal brand has become so toxic that only the most faithful liberal ideologues actually care about anything they have to say. The rest have tuned them out.

Try to stay on topic.

The conservative brand, and definitely the Trump brand is toxic. The approval polls for him are the lowest of any president at this stage of his presidency. He even beat himself when it comes to low approval.
That is partly due to his over-inflation of his accomplishments.

Hentenza · Nov 4, 2025

Apple Sky said:
This church does.

Fire & Grace Church
200 2nd Avenue
Opelika, AL 36801

And that is why I qualified my statement with “mainline”. So out of all of the denominations out there you found one so they must be right.

BTW- nothing in their statement of faith states that they believe in a flat earth.

Blank

Dean Odle Ministries, Evangelism, Prophetic, Teaching, Healing, Spiritual Warfare, Endtimes, Auburn, AL, Alabama

fireandgracechurch.org

Fervent · Nov 4, 2025

childeye 2 said:
I don't understand this response. It seems to me that reasoning or navigating between possible outcomes of decisions is structurally the same as the process of choosing. But only you know what you mean to convey by the statement.

Most choices don't involve deliberation, they're made in the moment. Reasoning can assist in long-range decisionss, but is not the same as the ability to choose in and of itself.

childeye 2 said:
The quote is in the op, for one thing. But it's also relevant, because it's clear that Jesus is saying the will that is of the devil is a predisposition to sin.

The relevance still eludes me.

childeye 2 said:
The Old Testament frames the moral/immoral context as a life-or-death situation. The freedom to do otherwise is affectively being shown to be subsequent to being morally inclined. The notion of freedom to do otherwise is being eliminated by the narrative inferring that God is sifting and refining rather than people can choose to do otherwise. That narrative is consistent with the Christ exposing that if your father is the devil then the lusts of your father you will do.

Seems like you're importing a framework that isn't there. The life-or-death choice is a covenental one, which while morality plays into it is not strictly moral. Nor are typical choices as black and white as choosing to follow God or choosing to go after the gods of the nations.

childeye 2 said:
I understand your intent. The reason it was a loaded question for me is because I couldn't answer yes or no without being wrong. The very reason I quoted the Christ was to avoid affirming that a "freedom to do otherwise" is a viable methodology for establishing blameworthiness, while not dismissing another means by which people could be found blameworthy.

Dancing around the issue doesn't address it.

childeye 2 said:
I see. I hope this helps show that sometimes what appears to be a contradiction is actually a paradox that can be resolved in another level of understanding

You pushing DBT now?

joechristianwarrior · Nov 4, 2025

One thing I have noticed is that most Christians cannot remember the things Jesus taught. For example, if you ask your average Christian to name 10 or 15 things Jesus actually taught - like His actual commands, not the 10 Commandments from Moses or anything like that - you'll find that most can't do it. They simply don't know what Jesus taught (love your neighbor as yourself, rejoice when persecuted, give to those who ask, etc.). If churches could do more to help Christians remember the actual teachings of Jesus, then I think it would go a long way toward helping Christians show that they actually love the Lord. (John 14:15)

JulieB67 · Nov 4, 2025

Abraham1st said:
You showed the verses

My post was to point out that I believe it's Christ's rest that we enter into today and not just one day of the week.

rambot · Nov 4, 2025

Chesterton said:
You commented indirectly.

Do you think I could have made that comment (specifically, with THAT word choice) without having read the article?

Apple Sky · Nov 4, 2025

Strong in Him said:
Are they mainstream?

Why do they have to be mainstream ?

Apple Sky · Nov 4, 2025

prodromos said:
when atmospheric refraction plays a role.

Maybe I should have bought a refraction kit off Rob.

Login to view embedded media

zoidar · Nov 4, 2025

Dikaioumenoi said:
This is not a response to what was said. ἑλκύω means ἑλκύω. There are no two words in any language that map from one to another with exactly the same range of meaning. You must show that ἑλκύω is sometimes used to "appeal" in a way that might be resisted. You have not done this.

You're confusing semantic force (what the verb means) with situational outcome (what happened in the scene). ἑλκύω does not mean "to try to pull but fail." It means "to pull with force sufficient to cause movement." Whether the person succeeds does not change the verb's meaning.

If I say, "He tried to lift the boulder but couldn't," the verb "lift" still means "raise from the ground," not "attempt to raise." The failure lies in the man's strength, not in the semantics of "lift". You don't redefine "lift" every time someone throws out their back.

So in John 21:6, the "resistance" is not a redefinition of ἑλκύω into "attempted pulling," just as my inability to "lift" a 1,000 pound boulder does not indicate that the verb "lift" means "try to raise." The resistance of the boulder/fishnet is a function of the subject's weakness, not the verb's meaning.

In other words, all you've shown is that the verb ἑλκύω (or "lift," to continue the analogy) can occur in a sentence where the subject fails to accomplish the action. But of course it can. That's not the point. The point is that the verb itself means to effect movement; to bring about a decisive change of position. So when you apply "failure to effect movement" to John 6:44, you're not describing the sinner's reluctance; you're describing God's insufficiency to enable them.

You still seem to be missing this point (this is my third time making it; you've yet to address it): the operative verb in John 6:44 is δύναται ("is able") not ἐλθεῖν ("to come"). The Father's drawing (ἑλκύω) is what produces the ability that man otherwise lacks. Under your interpretation, then, what the Father fails to do is not merely persuade someone to come, but to succeed even in the attempt to make coming possible.

That's why your attempt to "soften" the meaning of ἑλκύω actually undermines your case rather than helping it. You're not attending to what the drawing modifies in the syntax of the verse. The drawing counteracts human inability. If ἑλκύω does not inherently convey effective movement, then your position reduces to this: the Father tries to render sinners able to come, but He may not succeed in doing even that. Your softened definition therefore removes any guarantee not that the enabled will come, but that anyone is truly enabled at all. That's the "horrifying impotence" I was referring to.

You're missing the point of the argument. We're talking about your definition of ἑλκύω. The way you're using the term implies that the Father's enabling action in John 6:44 can itself fail. Your analogy about refusal doesn't touch that point at all. Rather, it assumes the person already has the ability.

Yes, the removal of any guarantee that the Father will succeed in making it possible for people to come to Him is a truly horrifying idea. You said: "At least in mine both have some part in the choice as to where they'll spend eternity." No, they do not. That's the whole point you're missing. Your definition of ἑλκύω implies that we don't even know if the Father succeeds in giving people that opportunity.

I'll forego responding to your other comments for now. Many of our other points of dispute don't hold much relevance until we make some progress on the current discussion. I also want to emphasize, again, that you're not responding to the grammatical argument I offered on John 6:44, which, if left unchallenged, refutes the entirety of your position. So if you're not going to engage it, our whole conversation is fruitless. Here was that argument (EDIT: I'll just summarize this rather than restate the whole thing):

Grammatically, the αὐτὸν ("him") in both ἑλκύσῃ ("draws") and ἀναστήσω ("will raise") refers to the same person. Thus, the one drawn is one-to-one the one who is raised. This is easily seen if restating the logic of the verse contrapositively:

"If he is able to come, then the Father [has drawn] him, and I will raise him up."

Who is the one raised? The one enabled to come; the one drawn by the Father. Everyone whom the Father enables to come to Him will do so. That's implicit in the grammar of the verse. Jesus assumes no distinction between the one "enabled" and the one "raised." Thus, there is no third category in which one may be drawn but choose not to come. The drawing is effectual.

This aligns with verse 37, which says, "all that the Father gives me will come to me." Gives/draws are conceptually identical in John 6 (see verse 65, which restates 44 but borrows the verb from 37 in the place of ἑλκύω).

I'm not very knowledgeable in Greek grammer, but I asked ChatGpt.

"In Koine Greek, ἑλκύω generally means “to draw” or “to pull (toward oneself).” It denotes exertion of force with an intended motion, not necessarily successful completion of that motion.

Example: John 21:6 – they were unable to ἑλκύσαι (draw in) the net because of the multitude of fish.
→ The verb describes the attempted pulling, but the clause itself explains why it didn’t succeed.

Example: John 6:44 – “No one can come to me unless the Father ἑλκύσῃ him.”
→ There the emphasis is on effective drawing (inward motion toward Christ), but again, the verb’s base meaning is “draw/pull,” and context defines efficacy."

FreeinChrist · Nov 4, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
Let's check the checker shall we?

Democratic Republic of the Congo — Rwanda (Washington Accord)

Date: 27 June 2025 (signed in Washington, D.C.)

What: U.S.-brokered peace agreement intended to end fighting in eastern DRC, including a pledge for Rwandan troop withdrawal and security arrangements; signed in Washington.

Status: Signed; widely reported by Reuters, AP and the U.S. State Department. State Department+2Reuters+2

Trump claims to have ended the war in Congo. People there say that’s not true

U.S. President Donald Trump claims that the war in eastern Congo is among the ones he has stopped, after brokering a peace deal between Congo and Rwanda in June.

apnews.com

The Associated Press previously fact-checked Trump’s claim and found the war far from over.

It was just a cease-fire and that did not hold:

How many wars has President Trump ended?

US President Donald Trump claims to have ended eight wars - is that true?

www.bbc.com

The text called for "respect for the ceasefire" agreed between Rwanda and DRC in August 2024.

Since the latest deal, both sides have accused each other of violating the ceasefire and the M23 rebels - which the UK and US have linked to Rwanda - have threatened to walk away from peace talks......

"There's still fighting between Congo and Rwanda - so that ceasefire has never really held," says Margaret MacMillan, a professor of history who taught at the University of Oxford.

https://www.state.gov/peace-agreeme...the-republic-of-rwanda?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Always in His Presence said:
India — Pakistan (U.S.-facilitated ceasefire)

Date: 10 May 2025 (ceasefire announced)

What: A “full and immediate” ceasefire between India and Pakistan after a dangerous escalation; U.S. (Trump administration) publicly presented itself as a mediator.

Status: Ceasefire announced and reported by major outlets and the U.S. State Department; the truce was fragile with reports of violations shortly after. State sae

same source:

After four days of strikes, Trump posted that India and Pakistan had agreed to a "FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE"....

He said this was the result of "a long night of talks mediated by the United States". India, however, played down talk of US involvement: "The talks regarding cessation of military action were held directly between India and Pakistan under the existing channels established between both militaries," Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said.

LOL - Pakistan has learned that praising Trump offers them special treatment. They learned how to manipulate Trump.

Iran — Israel (ceasefire ending the June 2025 escalation)

Date: 24 June 2025 (effective date reported)

What: A U.S.- and Qatar-mediated ceasefire that ended a short but intense exchange (often called the “12-Day War” in coverage); Trump publicly announced the deal.

Status: Widely reported as a ceasefire; some details and claims were contested, but multiple outlets covered the deal. Wikipedia+1

Israel has since suggested it could strike Iran again to counter new threats.

"There is no agreement on a permanent peace or on how to monitor Iran's nuclear programme going forward," argues Mr O'Hanlon.

"So what we have is more of a de facto ceasefire than an end to war, but I'd give him some credit, as the weakening of Iran by Israel - with US help - has been strategically significant."

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/24/world/seven-unendable-wars-trump-intl

Like with many of the other conflicts he claims to have ended, Trump’s role in bringing the violence to an end is unclear. No peace agreement or a firm deal on the future of Iran’s nuclear program has been reached and both Iran and Israel have threatened each other since then.

Armenia — Azerbaijan (peace declaration; White House signing ceremony)

Date: 8 August 2025 (initialed / joint declaration at the White House)

What: Joint declaration/peace agreement initialed in Washington aiming to end the Nagorno-Karabakh era of conflict; Trump hosted the leaders and was presented as a mediator/witness.

Status: Initialed and text published; reported by Reuters and others. Reuters+1

from CNN - link is above:

Trump certainly deserves credit for hosting the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan at the White House in August, where they finalized a peace agreement, which they first announced some five months earlier.

While undoubtedly a step forward, the agreement has not been ratified by either country. Several issues remain to be resolved – most notably, Azerbaijan is demanding that Armenia changes its constitution – a move that would likely be rejected by Armenian voters in a referendum.

The fighting had actually ceased in Sept. 2023.

Israel — Hamas / Gaza (October 2025 ceasefire / Gaza “peace plan”)

Date: Early–mid October 2025 (initial phases/ceasefire around Oct 9–10, 2025)

What: A multilateral, U.S.-led 20-point plan and associated ceasefire phases aimed at pausing fighting in Gaza and arranging hostage releases; Trump was the U.S. lead publicly promoting the plan.

Status: Agreement/first-phase ceasefire widely reported (October 2025); described and analyzed by CFR, Wikipedia and major press. (Note: the deal is complex and implementation has been contested.) Council on Foreign Relations+1

From the CNN link above:

He says Trump does deserve credit for being willing to push Israel more than previous US leaders.

"However, this is only stage one and getting to a two-state solution will be even harder. If he pulls that off, he and anyone else key to the success do deserve the Nobel Peace Prize someday," he adds.

Look at the way Jimmy Carter got the Noble Peace Prize. He hosted the accords between two warring countries (Egypt and Israel). The two countries then eventually, signed a peace deal. Then all three leaders, President Carter, Anway Sadat of Egypt, and Menachem Begin of Isreal, received the Nobel prize. Also, Carter did not send military into cities, weaken NATO, or praise strongarm leaders.

Thailand — Cambodia (ceasefire / Putrajaya / Kuala Lumpur declarations)

Date(s): July–October 2025 (Putrajaya declarations July 28 referenced; signing / summit activity in late October)

What: Declarations and a ceasefire framework between Thailand and Cambodia, publicized during U.S. diplomatic/ASEAN engagement and in White House releases.

Status: The White House and regional coverage describe a U.S.-facilitated de-escalation; independent international press covered later ceremonial signings. (White House material and Al Jazeera/other reporting available.) The White House+2The White House+2

Trump threatened both countries, both heavily dependent on the USA for exports, and the two countries reached an agreement to reduce hostilities. Outright war had not been declared, so agreeing to reduce hostilites, while good, is not the end of a war.
Cambodia's minister nominated Trump for a Noble peace prize, but like other world leaders, he has learned how to manipulate the president in order to gain favor.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles...ark-peace-trade-deals/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Serbia — Kosovo (re-engagement/normalization steps claimed)

Date / note: White House materials include Serbia–Kosovo in lists of 2025 achievements; however, the major Serbia–Kosovo documents widely cited were from 2020 and independent reporting in 2025 discusses diplomatic re-engagement rather than a brand-new full treaty. The White House+1

How many wars has President Trump ended?

US President Donald Trump claims to have ended eight wars - is that true?

www.bbc.com

The two countries have long been in dispute - a legacy of the Balkan wars of the 1990s – with tensions rising in recent years.

"Serbia and Kosovo haven't been fighting or firing at each other, so it's not a war to end," Prof MacMillan told us.

The White House pointed us towards Trump's diplomatic efforts in his first term.

The two countries signed economic normalisation agreements in the Oval Office with the president in 2020, but they were not at war at the time.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles...r-historic-peace-deal/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Egypt — Ethiopia (claimed U.S. role in “keeping peace”)

Date / note: The White House narrative has included Egypt–Ethiopia among issues the administration says it helped stabilize; independent outlets note the longstanding GERD dispute remains unresolved and coverage characterizes any 2025 progress as limited. The White House+1

The two countries were not at war. They have had a bitter dispute over a big hydroelectric dam that Ethiopia built which Egypt and Sudan oppose it as it is on the Nile.
There hasn't been a solution yet. How could Trump stop a war that was not happening?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles...r-historic-peace-deal/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

“Abraham Accords expansion” / other Israel-normalizations

Date / note: The White House materials sometimes bundle earlier Abraham Accords work and newly announced steps or bilateral openings in 2025; some are ceremonial or exploratory (overflights, talks, recognitions) rather than fresh full diplomatic normalization treaties. Independent reporting distinguishes the 2020 Abraham Accords from 2025 actions. The White House+1

The Abraham Accords did not stop a war. There was no war between the two countries. They were not friendly, but not at war. The agreement was about trade between the two countries and normalizing relations.

Carter did not get the Nobel prize for having the Camp David Accords, but the three leaders got them later once the two warring countries actually signed a peace agreement.

Trump massively overstates his accomplishments, and always has. The stuff mentioned above is what most presidents do, and only two got Nobel Peace Prizes.

keras · Nov 4, 2025

Strong in Him said:
None of which is even hinted at in Zechariah 5. He would not have known about such things; you are reading into it.

That is why Zechariah used words like 'scroll' and 'barrel'. They both refer to the same thing; A nuke loaded missile, which Zechariah and everyone on earth up until now, couldn't comprehend.
Surely people can see how Irans crazy Mullah's are flat out getting these things ready, right now? They have been humiliated and damaged, but not stopped in their avowed intent to wipe Israel off the map.

Life on this world is going to get very interesting!

joechristianwarrior · Nov 4, 2025

Most Christians are standing on sand. And that is because they have been sold on everything BUT the rock the teachings of Jesus represent. They are the "Cornerstone" which all the various religious leaders have rejected. I suggest you watch this video, and pray for wisdom: Login to view embedded media

Strong in Him · Nov 4, 2025

Apple Sky said:
This church does.

Fire & Grace Church
200 2nd Avenue
Opelika, AL 36801

Are they mainstream?

JulieB67 · Nov 4, 2025

rachelrising said:
Interesting points-would you see Christ's word as a prophecy all of them to stand his WORD everything he said to stand until it is removed? His word has not be rewritten over-

Again, we that believe in the new covenant believe that Christ fulfilled the Sabbath rest by the words in Hebrew 4. So we don't see it as being rewritten but fulfilled. The weekly Sabbath is not mentioned at all in those verses but it talks about Sabbtismos remaining. They are entirely two different words. We are talking about rest period and we see those who believe do enter into HIS rest. Again, I realize you and others see it differently.

rachelrising said:
. What do you mean by the word "enforced" regards to the Sabbath. or do you mean we have choice?

I'm talking about the "weekly" Sabbath. Again, Sabbath means rest and we today have that rest in Christ. The weekly Sabbath was just a shadow of what we have today. If it was so important as many make it out to be. It would have surely been in the letters we have today. Instead, we have teaching on the Sabbath, talking about a Sabbath's journey but there's nothing from the disciples teaching anyone to make sure and "observe" the Sabbath. Even to the Gentiles just joining the church.

rachelrising said:
Revelation 22:19, which warns that anyone who takes away from the words of that prophecy will have their share in the tree of life and the holy city removed by God.

I don't believe I have. We know the commandments that Christ gave us and many of us believe we are keeping the fourth commandment by entering into that rest that's described in Hebrews 4, making it part of the new covenant and fulfilling that law.

I stated that the weekly Sabbath -Sabbaton is not in the Hebrew 4 verses. But the weekly Sabbath (Sabbaton) is in this verse-

Colossians 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:"

This is Sabbaton here, which is the day of the weekly repose. So there's no mistake of his meaning in the next verse-

Colossians 2:17 "Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

He's not talking about special feast days when he specifies the sabbath days. He makes sure to separates the holydays(feasts) from the sabbath (sabbaton) a days. And when you take it to the Greek he's stating very clearly that the sabbath (weekly day of repose) days were a shadow of things to come.

Paul makes sure to separate them so one can't lump them all into feast days or special Sabbath days. That's not what he stated.

I try and keep my beliefs strictly to the Word. I've been fed many false doctrines in my lifetime not to do so. With many churches today you are getting man's word, not God's unfortunately.

joechristianwarrior · Nov 4, 2025

Oompa Loompa said:
Well...who was present when God created the universe? Who was present to document Jesus being tempted in the wilderness? My opinion is that there were no witnesses. But stories heard through word of mouth.

We have to trust & *believe* that the Scriptures were inspired. And that some of the stuff which there seems to be no eye-witness to was revealed through the power of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, you'd have to reject a good portion of the Bible if you only say you're going to accept eye-witness testimony for everything it contains.

childeye 2 · Nov 4, 2025

Fervent said:
Reasoning is a separate question,

I can't be sure I understand this response. It may be referring to John 8:44, or to my comment on the ability to reason being a mechanism that serves the will/desire.

It seems to me that the desire denotes the will in scripture, and reasoning or navigating between possible outcomes of decisions is structurally the same as the process of choosing a way to fulfill the desire. But only you know what you mean to convey by the statement.

Fervent said:
and I'm not sure why you think that quote is relevant.

The quote is in the op, for one thing. But it's also relevant, because it's clear that Jesus is saying the will that is of the devil is a predisposition to sin which subsequently would not be based on logic.

Fervent said:
I don't see it as being a moral/immoral context. Simply presenting it as the typical philosophical free will of "freedom to do otherwise." Moral issues exist subsequent to free will, since free will is a necessary component for culpability.

The Old Testament frames the moral/immoral context as a life-or-death situation. The freedom to do otherwise is effectively being shown to be subsequent to being either morally or immorally inclined. The notion of freedom to do otherwise is being eliminated by the narrative inferring that God is sifting and refining rather than people are displaying an ability to choose to do otherwise. That narrative is consistent with the Christ exposing that if your father is the devil then the lusts of your father you will do.

Fervent said:
What was loaded about it? I was trying to clarify what you were attempting to say with the quote.

I understand your intent. The reason it was a loaded question for me is because I couldn't answer yes or no without being wrong. The very reason I quoted the Christ was to avoid affirming that a "freedom to do otherwise" is a viable methodology for establishing blameworthiness, while not dismissing another means by which people could be found blameworthy.

Fervent said:
It's a reference to 1984 and the concept of newspeak/doublethink. Your statement struck me as being internally contradictory.

I see. Sometimes what appears to be a contradiction is actually a paradox that can be resolved at different level of understanding. That may sound arrogant, but it's just something I had to learn.

PloverWing · Nov 4, 2025

It looks like California bill AB-957 failed, having been vetoed by the governor: Bill Status - AB-957 Family law: gender identity. . Is there a different version of the bill that passed?

Chesterton · Nov 4, 2025

rambot said:
What was my commentary on the contents of the article specifically?

You commented indirectly.

rambot said:
Why would you assume that author did NOT choose those phrases EXACTLY for that reason? HE's at Harvard; clearly he's an accomplished writer.

Always in His Presence · Nov 4, 2025

Oompa Loompa said:
Listen. The liberal brand has become so toxic that only the most faithful liberal ideologues actually care about anything they have to say. The rest have tuned them out.

It is proven out in the fact that their approval rate is 33%

Latest activity

Latest activity

Fire & Grace Church​

200 2nd Avenue​

Opelika, AL 36801​

Fire & Grace Church​

200 2nd Avenue​

Opelika, AL 36801​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

Fire & Grace Church

200 2nd Avenue

Opelika, AL 36801

Fire & Grace Church

200 2nd Avenue

Opelika, AL 36801