Latest activity

FredVB · 2025-11-11T11:19:02-0600

I was saying something else this does not answer, what I said not contrary to that, this might have been missed. The old covenant had all those shadows. Those not coming to Christ are only left with those. But now they are not in place to help anyone coming to faith. Christ is the priest, the effective sacrifice offered for actual atonement, the way to be effectively clean in the needed way to be before God, whom we are being restored to, this way. He was always the actual effective way, it is revealed in the new covenant. Who enforces penalties? The repentant redeemed are covered in Christ with his righteousness. Unredeemed will have righteous judgment coming to them. In this world there are officers of states, and believers are not enforcing penalties. This world is still fallen and not for us who are redeemed. The old covenant with its shadows are fulfilled, with all the new covenant with Jesus Christ being the fulfillment, and the shadows were part of the needed prophecy. Those things did not continue in practice. There was prophecy needed, the prophecies are credentials, and they are claimed by him rightfully.

In the new covenant, what we are to obey is to be in our hearts that we act on those things.

GoldenBoy89 · 2025-11-11T11:14:13-0600

iluvatar5150 said:
He hasn't even tried!

Well he did try but it appears water lilies have more rights than people in federal detention do.

PloverWing · 2025-11-11T11:13:48-0600

Say it aint so said:
Easy. No different with Blacks in the south and Hispanics in Texas, you go to the census and find out where those young white women live, and then you gerrymander those districts till those districts look like Jackson Pollock paintings.

This has the difficulty that many women live with other people... but if you're willing to draw the district lines through the center of people's houses, then maybe you could pull it off...

Jerry N. · 2025-11-11T11:07:43-0600

CoreyD said:
What especially impressed you, may I ask? I'm sure she'd be happy to hear.

Job is always very careful in how she writes her posts. She is always patient and concise and demonstrates deeper thought. I am also very fond of pizza. Unfortunately, I probably won’t post anything more until tomorrow.

The Barbarian · 2025-11-11T11:07:41-0600

durangodawood said:
Thats absurd. As much as Im an environmentalist, its people who need representation in congress. Not grass and ants. No people are entitled to more powerful representation than others just because of where they live

The key is that each group should have representation proportional to their proportion of the population.

The Barbarian · 2025-11-11T11:06:33-0600

probinson said:
I "understand" this "hit back" mantra that is being pushed here. I disagree with it. Integrity means something to me.

It's just both parties now following the same rules. Supreme Court says corrupt districting is O.K. so long as the primary intent in to give one's party an unfair advantage. And now republicans are furious that democrats have started following the new rules, too.

Apple Sky · 2025-11-11T11:05:18-0600

Phil G said:
And it makes them sound knowledgeable when they are not.

Some are extremely knowledgeable, if they aren't then I wouldn't bother watching them or posting their videos.

wing2000 · 2025-11-11T11:04:08-0600

Hentenza said:
Or the left can continue going left toward classic socialism and start consolidating power so we can end up like Venezuela.

...as often happens when the far Right abuses the rights of citizens. Cuba and Nicaragua for example...

Jerry N. · 2025-11-11T11:03:59-0600

CoreyD said:
If we want a good picture of creation, as well, we can go to Proverbs 8:22-31
There, it tells us the watery deep came into existence. So, God created the heavens; He created the earth; He created the waters, and then we start from Genesis 1:2
The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

So, Genesis 1:1 actually is an event the precedes Genesis 1:2, when God began his work on the earth, and the writer records everything with earth as the focus, or vantage point, with everything relative to earth.
Reading Genesis 1:14-18 then, would be understood different to the opposing arguments, which flat earthers present.

The recount of historic details in Genesis 2, destroys the six twenty four hour day arguments. Genesis 2:5-23
I'm glad we got back on track with the OP.
Thanks, man.

When I wrote that it wasn’t definitive, it was because one could read the second half of Genesis 1:2 as transitional. I only speak a little Hebrew, but my wife speaks it well. She also says that it isn’t definitive. The timing is not 100% clear, and there is no reason Moses thought it should be.

The Barbarian · 2025-11-11T11:02:22-0600

Job 33:6 said:
We would end up with all sorts of religious people wanting their positions in public schools. Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism etc. and that's part of what the founding fathers wanted to avoid, because it leads to schisms and conflict as well as some religious positions gaining dominance over others, which often results in oppression of religions. Which is what drove the exodus from Europe to begin with.

These ideas can be presented in public schools; it just can't be done by the school itself, or any agent designated by the school. Students can do it.

RocksInMyHead · 2025-11-11T11:02:01-0600

calicocat said:
but some variant of "x belongs to x and y belongs to y" is a self-determination, anti-imperialist creed I've read in older leftward-leaning literature

As you said, context matters - it can be about self-determination and anti-imperialism, but that's really only in the context of a country being a (former) colony, being ruled over by an imperialist power without a say in their own governance. That's not applicable to modern Germany, France, Britain, or America.

stevevw · 2025-11-11T11:01:31-0600

I think there is a revolution brewing. Kuhn call it a paradigm shift. We had a paradigm shift from the God centered universe to the Enlightenment which has led to the mechanical and material or naturalistic universe. Then another shift into the Quantum universe and now the Mind and Consciousness.

Which ironically sort of comes full circle from the God centered or spiritual universe to the observer and subject centered universe. Which naturally flows into conscious experiences such as phenomenal beliefs in transcedent spirits and gods.

Galileo realised to do science the subject had to be seperated from that which is being observed and measured. Now science is bring the subject back in because, well we are part of that reality and cannot be seperated.

Delvianna · 2025-11-11T10:58:50-0600

Fervent said:
I hardly think her trying to guilt us because she has decided to sit in judgment of us and blame us for her rejection of faith is "weak of faith". It's self-righteous behavior trying to manipulate us and demonstrates a rush to judgment and a lack of attempting to understand the views of others because of a sense of superiority.

That's not manipulation that was a confession based on your behavior. But I'm done talking.

tranquil · 2025-11-11T10:57:39-0600

GloryToHisName said:
Summary
Christian Widener contends that Daniel 9:24-27 outlines two distinct seventy-week (490-year) timelines—one fulfilled in Israel’s ancient restoration (Ezra/Nehemiah → Messiah), and a second fulfilled via modern Israel’s restoration leading into the eschatological age. Below you’ll find my translation (Hebrew above each English line), with grammar notes and a timeline chart for both cycles.

---

Daniel 9:24-27 — Hebrew + English (My Translation, Exact Wording)

v.24

עַל־ נֶחְתַּךְ שִׁבְעִים שָׁבֻעִים עַל־עַמְּךָ וְעַל־עִיר קָדְשְׁךָ
There are divided out seventy weeks for your holy city and your people's rebellion,
לְכַלֵּא חַטָּאת וּלְחָתֵם וּלְכַפֵּר עָוֹן
for the restraining of lawlessness, which is marked out for the coming punishment of purging,
חָזוֹן וּלְחָתֵם עֹלָמִים צֶדֶק וְלִמְשֹׁחַ קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים
for the sealing of the vision and the prophet unto the age of righteousness; and it is when the holy of holies will be anointed.

Grammar note (v.24):

נֶחְתַּךְ (Niphal Perfect of חתך) means “cut off/divided,” hence rendered “divided out” to reflect partitioned sequences.

The sequence of infinitives (restrain → seal → purge → bring in righteousness → anoint) indicates successive divine purposes—matching a two-phase fulfilment.

---

v.25

תֵּדַע תַּשְׂכֵּל וְתֵדַע מִן-מֹצָא דָבָר לְהָשִׁיב וְלִבְנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלַ͏ִם
This prophecy to some shall be made understood and known from the word that went forth for the restoration and building of Jerusalem,
נָגִיד וּמָשִׁיחַ לִירוּשָׁלַ͏ִם שָׁבוּעִים שִׁבְעָה תִּבָּנֶה
for a ruler and an anointed one for Jerusalem; it shall take the weeks, seven sevens, for it to be built,
וְתָשׁוּב בַּשְּׁנַיִם שִׁשִּׁים וְצוֹק וְחָרוּץ בְּרְחוֹב בָּעִתִּים
and it shall be returned at the second sixty; and anguish and diligence will be in their streets in those times.

Grammar note (v.25):

מִן-מֹצָא דָבָר (“from the coming forth of a word”) echoes v.23 — Gabriel’s commission — setting a divine “going out.”

בַּשְּׁנַיִם שִׁשִּׁים (“at the second sixty”) clearly signals a second marker, supporting a dual-cycle model.

The apposition נָגִיד / מָשִׁיחַ (“ruler and anointed one”) allows human (type) or Messianic reference.

---

v.26

וּשְׁנַיִם וּשִׁשִּׁים שָׁבוּעִים אַחֲרֵי יִכָּרֵת מָשִׁיחַ וְאֵין לוֹ
Two and sixty weeks after—none but not being for the Messiah will be cut off,
וְעַם-נָגִיד יָבוֹא בַּשֶּׁטֶף וְהָעִיר וְהַקֹּדֶשׁ יִשָּׁחְתּוּ
and the people of the ruler shall come like a flood; the city and the sanctuary shall be destroyed.

Grammar note (v.26):

וְאֵין לוֹ (“none for him”) indicates exclusion of those not aligned with the Anointed One (Acts 3:23; Romans 11).

בַּשֶּׁטֶף (“with a flood”) conveys large-scale invasion/destruction — both historical and typological.

---

v.27

וְהִגְבִּיר בְּרִית לָרַבִּים שָׁבוּעַ וְחֲצִי הַשָּׁבוּעַ
And the many of the covenant He shall cause to prevail for the week and a half of one,
וְעַל מִנְחָה וְזֶבַח יַשְׁבִּית שִׁקּוּצִים עַל-כְּנַף וְעַד הַכָּלָה תִּתַּךְ עַל-שֹׁמֵם
and upon offering and sacrifice He shall bring to an end abominations even upon wings, until the one who makes desolate pours out what is decreed for the consummation.

Grammar note (v.27):

וְהִגְבִּיר (Hiphil Perfect of גָּבַר) = “cause to prevail,” indicating active empowerment rather than treaty.

וְחֲצִי הַשָּׁבוּעַ (“and a half of one”) marks a defined midpoint in the week, enabling division into 10½ years + remaining half-week.

“Upon the offering, abominations shall cease” points to the prophetic Day of Atonement (Lev 16), when cleansing and judgment are completed. The Body of Christ, as a living sacrifice (Rom 12:1), fulfills this through suffering and testimony (Rev 6:9–11) until its vindication and catching up (Rev 12:5). The “wings” signify divine preservation and the wilderness refuge (Rev 12:14).

---

Interpretive Summary & Cross-References

Many of the covenant = Israel + faithful remnant prevailing against enemies.

The cutting off of v.26 = rejection/ exclusion of unbelieving Israel (Acts 3:23; Romans 11).

Week and a half of one = ~10½ years of prevailing before the Tribulation and the Day of the Lord begins.

Abominations = idolatrous temple desecration + persecution of the saints (Ezekiel 8-9; Revelation 12).

Major historical markers: 457 BC (decree), Messiah’s death ~33 AD, temple destroyed 70 AD, Jerusalem walls restored under Suleiman ~1542 CE, Jerusalem returned 1967 CE.

---

Dual-Cycle Timeline (My Model)

First 70 Weeks – Ancient Fulfillment

7 weeks (49 yrs): 457 BC to 408 BC → Decree to build → completion under Ezra/Nehemiah

62 weeks (434 yrs): 408 BC → 26 AD → Prophetic preparation → arrival of Messiah

1 week (7 years): 26–33 AD → Messiah begins His ministry → the covenant people are cut off through unbelief → Christ completes His redemptive mission → first 70 fulfilled

Post-week: temple destroyed 70 AD

Second 70 Weeks – Modern Fulfillment (~490 yrs)

Beginning “word went forth”: ~1542 CE (Suleiman’s restoration of walls of Jerusalem)

“Second sixty” marker: 1967 CE (return of Jerusalem)

Week and a half (~10½ yrs): 2018 → ~2028/2029 CE — Israel and the covenant people prevail over enemies

Remaining half-week (~3½ yrs): ~2029 → ~2033 CE — Tribulation / Day of the Lord begins → abomination ends → consummation poured out.

Chart
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✶✶ DANIEL’S TWO SEVENTY-WEEK PROPHECY CYCLES ✶✶
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

FIRST CYCLE — EZRA TO MESSIAH (COVENANT PEOPLE CUT OFF)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
457 BCE → “Word went forth” for restoration and rebuilding
• Word from God concerning total restoration
• Ezra raised up as the anointed one; Nehemiah joins as ruler

408 BCE → Completion of wall and city renewal under Nehemiah
• 7 weeks (49 years) fulfilled

↓ 62 weeks (434 years)

26–33 CE → Appearance of the Anointed Ruler (Messiah)
• People of the covenant reject Him
• Those *not for Him are cut off* (corporate cutting-off of unbelieving Jews)

70 CE → Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple
• Judgment follows the rejection — first 70 cycle completed

SECOND CYCLE — SULEIMAN TO THE END OF THE AGE
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
1542 CE → Word goes forth again: Suleiman rebuilds Jerusalem’s walls
• Beginning of the second seventy-week sequence (490 years)

1967 CE → Jerusalem returned to Israel (key prophetic hinge)
• The second 60th week, marker of the second cycle

2023 CE → “Flood war” — people of the ruler that shall come
• Hasmas / Islamic Jihad war begins, foreshadowing final conflict

2025 CE → Beginning of the 70th week (final 7 years)
• Covenant people prevail at first; rise of end-time opposition

2028.5 CE → Mid-point of the final week (3½ years in)
• Their power is broken; persecution intensifies (cf. Dan 12:7)

2032 CE → End of the 70th week (1542 + 490 = 2032)
• Purging complete; holy place anointed; kingdom age / age of righteousness begins
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
---

How This Supports Christian Widener’s Theory

Widener states: “Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy properly understood repeats in two fulfillments…” (The Temple Revealed in the Garden, p. 134)

He emphasizes archaeological inscription evidence of the 16th-century rebuilding of Jerusalem (The Temple Revealed in Creation, p. 57).

My grammatical analysis shows the text can support two cycles: נֶחְתַּךְ (“given out in two”), בַּשְּׁנַיִם שִׁשִּׁים (“at the second sixty”), and וְחֲצִי הַשָּׁבוּעַ (“half the week”) all indicate division of time.

While Widener uses dates and history, this reading uses grammatical syntax to validate dual-fulfilment.

---

Morph Table 2 — Key Lexical Forms

Hebrew FormRootStemGloss / Function

נֶחְתַּךְחתךNiph. Perf.“given out / divided”
לְכַלֵּאכלאPiel Inf.“restrain / confine”
חַטָּאתחטאNoun“lawlessness / sin”
וּלְחָתֵםחתםQal Inf.“to seal / mark out”
עָוֹןעוןNoun“punishment / guilt”
צֶדֶקצדקNoun“righteousness”
וְלִמְשֹׁחַמשׁחQal Inf.“to anoint”
נָגִידנגדNoun“ruler / leader”
מָשִׁיחַמשׁחNoun“anointed one / Messiah”
וְהִגְבִּירגברHiph. Perf.“cause to prevail”
וַחֲצִיחציNoun“half / midpoint of the week”
שִׁקּוּצִיםשקץNoun pl.“abominations”
שֹׁמֵםשׁמםPart.“desolator”

---

Final Question for Hebrew-Grammar Experts

Given these forms—especially נֶחְתַּךְ (“given out in two”), בַּשְּׁנַיִם שִׁשִּׁים (“at the second sixty”), and וַחֲצִי הַשָּׁבוּעַ (“half the week”)—does the Hebrew syntax of Daniel 9:24-27 provide a strong linguistic basis for reading two distinct seventy-week cycles (ancient + modern) as Widener proposes and as my timeline outlines?
If yes—please identify the most compelling grammatical features.
If no—please point out the constraints (word order, semantics, singular forms, scope of ׳וְאֵין לוֹ׳) that favour a single continuous 490-year timeline.

Thank you in advance for your grammar-based analysis. I look forward to your insights.

I appreciate your diligence here. But if we are going to go with various non-standard interpretations, we need scriptural witnesses to back up these hypotheses.

In other words, does Revelation back up this interpretation?

I have said this a billion times, but no one seems to be willing or able to see the following:

the 'flood' of Dan 9:26 is not talking about 70AD, it is talking about the time prior to the confirming of the covenant. The 'locusts' of Rev 9's 5th Trumpet are the Dan 9:26's 'people of the prince to come'. The 'five months' in Rev 9:5 is a flood reference to Genesis 7:24. The 'desolation is determined' of Dan 9:26 is caused by the abomination (at the 6th Trumpet) (the 'people of the prince to come place the abomination' as in Dan 11:31) and is the great tribulation mentioned by Jesus in Matt 24:15 (also the 'when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies' of Luke 21:20. Same timeframe as Ezek 8-9 and is Dan 11:31 and is Zechariah 5's 'basket of wickedness' in Jerusalem (the 'house') that then travels to Mystery Babylon (Zech 5:11).

In other words, there are 2 abomination of desolation events: one in Dan 9:26 and at Dan 9:27 (Jerusalem, then Mystery Babylon: one at the beginning of Dan 12:11's 1290 days and one at the end, which is simultaneously the middle of the covenant 'week'. (30 days for Rev 9:13-21).

The 'mighty angel' of Rev 10 is the 'dragon'/ 'Satan' that is confirming the covenant (he is the Dan 7 Little Horn) (and will break it at the 7th Trumpet). This 'mighty angel' is the angel king 'Tyre' in Ezek 28:14 (Tyre, along with the Assyrian, are part of the 10 nation coalition in the Psalm 83 war).

The 'rainbow' that the mighty angel is wearing is another reference to this 'flood' as it is the 'covenant' that is 'ending the flood'. In other words, the Dan 9:27 covenant is pretending to end the 'great tribulation'. Again, this mighty angel is confirming the Dan 9:27 covenant by his 'swearing an oath to heaven'.

Swearing oaths is basically synonymous with making covenants. This occurs over and over in scripture where someone (or God) swears an oath which then creates a covenant between the parties.

Deut 4:13 For the LORD your God is a merciful God. He will not leave you or destroy you or forget the covenant with your fathers that he swore to them.
Deut 4:27 Then the LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and only a few of you will survive among the nations to which the LORD will drive you. 28 And there you will serve man-made gods of wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or eat or smell. 29 But if from there you will seek the LORD your God, you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul. 30 When you are in distress and all these things have happened to you, then in later days you will return to the LORD your God and listen to His voice. 31 For the LORD your God is a merciful God; He will not abandon you or destroy you or forget the covenant with your fathers, which He swore to them by oath.
Genesis 26:28 “We can plainly see that the LORD has been with you,” they replied. “We recommend that there should now be an oath between us and you. Let us make a covenant with you.
2 Kings 11:4 But in the seventh year Jehoiada sent and brought the captains of the Carites and of the guards, and had them come to him in the house of the LORD. And he made a covenant with them and put them under oath in the house of the LORD, and he showed them the king’s son.
Psalm 105:8 He remembers His covenant forever, the word He ordained for a thousand generations— 9 the covenant He made with Abraham, and the oath He swore to Isaac. 10 He confirmed it to Jacob as a decree, to Israel as an everlasting covenant: 11 “I will give you the land of Canaan as the portion of your inheritance.”
Psalm 132:11 The LORD swore an oath to David, a promise He will not revoke: “One of your descendants I will place on your throne. 12 If your sons keep My covenant and the testimony I will teach them, then their sons will also sit on your throne forever and ever.”
Hosea 10:4 They speak mere words; with false oaths they make covenants. So judgment springs up like poisonous weeds in the furrows of a field.
Luke 1:68 “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, because He has visited and redeemed His people. 69 He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David, 70 as He spoke through His holy prophets, those of ages past, 71 salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us, 72 to show mercy to our fathers and to remember His holy covenant, 73 the oath He swore to our father Abraham, to grant us 74 deliverance from hostile hands, that we may serve Him without fear, 75 in holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of our lives.

Deut 8:18 You shall remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day. 19 And if you forget the Lord your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I solemnly warn you today that you shall surely perish. 20 Like the nations that the Lord makes to perish before you, so shall you perish, because you would not obey the voice of the Lord your God.

Say it aint so · 2025-11-11T10:56:36-0600

Easy. No different with Blacks in the south and Hispanics in Texas, you go to the census and find out where those young white women live, and then you gerrymander those districts till those districts look like Jackson Pollock paintings.

Fervent · 2025-11-11T10:54:58-0600

Delvianna said:
How DARE YOU! That was so egotistical I can't even right now! That is what you say to someone weak of faith that is ready to give up? That is DISGUSTING behavior! I am siding with what she found because it was GROSS behavior but for some reason you think this is totally okay and normal to treat people like this? May the Lord rebuke you for this, because this is NASTY.

I hardly think her trying to guilt us because she has decided to sit in judgment of us and blame us for her rejection of faith is "weak of faith". It's self-righteous behavior trying to manipulate us and demonstrates a rush to judgment and a lack of attempting to understand the views of others because of a sense of superiority.

Clare73 · 2025-11-11T10:52:47-0600

fhansen said:
As I said. So the person, even though a living, walking body, can be dead.

The physical person is not dead until the physical body dies.

Who woulda' tho't such basic knowledge would be challenged?

The human spirit never dies.

Surely Catholics know this. . .

zoidar · 2025-11-11T10:49:49-0600

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

The name Jesus means "God saves". It does not mean "God will save the select few" or something like that. Where does it say the angel reveals the whole extent of the mission on Earth? The angel defines the kind of salvation, Jesus is the Saviour from sins, not worldly opression.

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

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

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

The angel’s declaration is that Jesus will bring about the promised salvation of His people Israel, by delivering them from sin, thus fulfilling God’s covenant purpose. The verse isn’t addressing the individual scope of application.

ChatGPT

"Collective possessive

The Greek: τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν

τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ = “His people” (singular group noun)

ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν = “from their sins” (plural possessive)

Even though αὐτῶν is plural, it refers back to the group as a whole. This is called a corporate plural. The “sins of the people” are considered collectively, not necessarily as every individual sin accounted for one by one."

Even though αὐτῶν is plural, it refers back to the group as a whole. This is called a corporate plural. The “sins of the people” are considered collectively, not necessarily as every individual sin accounted for one by one."

So the grammar guarantees that the group as a whole will experience salvation, not every individual within the group.

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

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

Again, where does it say the angel reveals the whole extent of Jesus plan on Earth? The angel tells Joseph the essential purpose of Jesus life: He is the Savior from sin. It defines the nature of His mission, not the full unfolding of how that salvation will happen or to whom it will ultimately extend.

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

A stretch? Ok, where do "His people, My people, His own" in the Gospels refer to someone else than the covenant people of Israel?

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

Yes, Matthew broadens the catergory to include Gentiles, that is true, still the specific phrases "His people, My people, His own" always refer to the people of Israel. The expansion doesn’t change that fact.

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

Yes, the true covenant community is beyond national bounds. But it all starts with the nation of Israel as the reference point. Salvation comes from Israel, the covenant people, and only then flows to the nations.

You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
— John 4:22

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

The verse defines the nature of the salvation (from sins) and the certainty of its fulfillment. It's not a declaration of which individuals will receive it. So it neither collapases into faild national redemption or universal salvation. It simply shows God starts with the nation of Israel and for then later expand to the Gentiles.

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

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

But the fact that it was written for Jews helps to explain why Matthew in verse 1:21 shows Jesus as the Savior of the covenant people of Israel as the starting point of God’s redemptive plan.

PloverWing · 2025-11-11T10:48:53-0600

redraven said:
I'm wondering if anyone has any recommendations on how I could find people willing and open
to debate -specifically Charlie Kirk's self proclaimed Christianity and how his behaviour often
contradicted the teachings of Christ and the Bible.

I don't see the point of debating Charlie Kirk. Whether you liked his public statements or not, he's not saying them any more. He's gone.

Perhaps debate some current issue instead? "Churches who do X aren't following the teachings of Jesus", for some X that interests you.

CoreyD · 2025-11-11T10:47:31-0600

Jerry N. said:
No, I didn't know, but I greatly respect how she presents her arguments.

What especially impressed you, may I ask? I'm sure she'd be happy to hear.

pasifika · 2025-11-11T10:47:09-0600

SabbathBlessings said:
How do you know what this poster understands or not. Only God can read minds.

You can know it by what they say. No offense to the brother.

Delvianna · 2025-11-11T10:46:23-0600

Fervent said:
All this tirade shows is you are quick to rush to judgment and appears flagrantly self-righteous.

How DARE YOU! That was so egotistical I can't even right now! That is what you say to someone weak of faith that is ready to give up? That is DISGUSTING behavior! I am siding with what she found because it was GROSS behavior but for some reason you think this is totally okay and normal to treat people like this? May the Lord rebuke you for this, because this is NASTY.

CoreyD · 2025-11-11T10:45:36-0600

Jerry N. said:
It is not as clear to me. How does it matter? I agree that we are still in the Sabbath rest of God after creating, but what would indicate that it is the longest of the seven days?

That's a good point.
In hindsight, the seventh day does not have to be the longest. Is true.

Delvianna · 2025-11-11T10:44:34-0600

Tropical Wilds said:
You know what? That was it right there. I felt a shift, the switch flipped, and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt… Christianity isn’t for me anymore. I cannot ethically or morally justify being Christian, nor tell others to be one, when that is seen as the Biblical, Christian attitude. I came to Christianity as a faith, not as an extension of capitalism, and certainly not to snicker about people not having food and how the people who are disappointed in the inaction of the church are the problem… That not feeding people or basic outreach is against the collective conscience and anybody who says otherwise is somehow wrong.

You have, through your speech and works and witnessing of your faith, explained to me clearly and with excruciating detail exactly why Christianity is not the way for me anymore. You have converted me away from Christianity.

Thank you for the wake up call. Truly. I hope you end your day today knowing that the work you did made it easy to walk away from the church with no guilt or even sadness. This forum and that exchange showed me… Nope. Can’t do it. This forum, and you all specifically, take the credit for showing me that Christianity as a religion is just flat out false.

Never walk away from God. Their actions don't reflect on what God taught or what we are supposed to do. I really hope you understand the difference between the two because there are a LOT of fake hypocrites out there in Christian name only and that shouldn't pull you from your walk with Christ.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page