Latest activity

Joseph G · 2025-07-06T19:59:39-0500

Semper-Fi · 2025-07-06T19:54:39-0500

Job 33:6 said:
Michael Heiser understands that Genesis describes an ancient Israelite cosmology, not modern science. He takes the Bible literally, but he also doesn't confuse it with modern science and biology.

You need to learn what the word cosmology means. [Example] When the bible says He God
stretched out the heavens], and you claim it is cosmology, that is deception and a lie. No bible
wrighter ever used [science to discovered the heavens stretching-out]. God said it period.

The Barbarian · 2025-07-06T19:51:18-0500

Children of undocumented immigrants historically have been protected under the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. According to most legal scholars, undocumented immigrants come to the United States for employment, to contribute to the economy, and to live among U.S. society. What makes immigration laws enforceable against them is that they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment became the basis for landmark Supreme Court rulings over the years addressing birthright citizenship because the Citizenship Clause’s line about who was “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States generated some uncertainty.

The 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark finally answered the question whether a child of Chinese immigrants (who were ineligible for citizenship due to the Chinese Exclusion Acts) born on U.S. territory was eligible for birthright citizenship. The case confirmed the unequivocal precedent that anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parent’s immigration status, is a citizen at birth.

...

Breaking Down Trump’s Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship

Breaking Down Trump’s Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship - American Immigration Council

Trump issued an executive order to end birthright citizenship for babies of undocumented immigrants and for people with temporary status.

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

Joseph G · 2025-07-06T19:49:15-0500

Looks like I'll be wiping the dust from my feet and moving on soon.

Anybody interested in staying in contact, believer or genuine seeker, my email is joegunlock@gmail com.

There is power in the Name of Jesus to save, keep proclaiming His Name - everywhere without fear!

God bless and always praying for all here. Please pray for me.

Joseph
biblegateway.com

pasifika · 2025-07-06T19:46:25-0500

BobRyan said:
The Creation Sabbath of Gen 2 is being used as a symbol of New Canaan - heaven, heavenly Canaan -- just as in Gal 4 Jersualem above "is our mother".

Gal 4
24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.

We still have mothers - even though this symbolism is used in Gal 4.

Heb 4 is using something that still remains - the Sabbath, and adding it as a symbol for saints waiting for heaven/eternal rest.

yes the "sabbath rest" still remains. But the "day" you enter into has changed as per Hebrews 3&4. not 7th day but a day called "today".

this i believe is a "spiritual day" as it's not belongs to any particular day of the the 7day week.

That day only comes for each and everyone is when we "Believe" the Gospel message as in Hebrews 4:3..we who have "Believed" enter that "Rest".

so is not a 24hr day of rest as in creation day but a continuous and permanent Rest once we "Believe".

The Barbarian · 2025-07-06T19:46:03-0500

civilwarbuff said:
Oh, did the WH build that?....

They specified it. Trump visited and endorsed Alligator Auschwitz himself.

Joseph G · 2025-07-06T19:45:46-0500

Looks like I'll be wiping the dust from my feet and moving on soon.

Anybody interested in staying in contact, believer or genuine seeker, my email is joegunlock@gmail com.

There is power in the Name of Jesus to save, keep proclaiming His Name - everywhere without fear!

God bless and always praying for all here.

Joseph
biblegateway.com

Semper-Fi · 2025-07-06T19:45:23-0500

Job 33:6 said:
They aren't about biology. Adams sons are identified as the fathers of all those who play the flute and live in tents etc. it isn't about biology.

So you reject the clear genealogy of Adam and his decedents,
that explains it and all I need to know, you just reject Gods word.
You just try and reason around Gods clear teaching in the bible.

The Barbarian · 2025-07-06T19:41:29-0500

Joseph G said:
Nope. Not interested in science fiction, thanks.

I don't think "they are all lying!" is going to be a very effective defense for you.

Landon Caeli · 2025-07-06T19:41:01-0500

FireDragon76 said:
Necropolitics was a term coined by the Cameroonian philosopher, Achille Mbembe ( awesome name, BTW). It's used to describe how powerful empires (both formal and informal/commercial) wield the power of death and degredation as a political tool. But necropolitics, IMO, also exists domestically now in the United States, and it's fairly blatant.

I like to pick your brain.

FireDragon76 · 2025-07-06T19:36:10-0500

Landon Caeli said:
Lack of safeguards! I get your view now.

...It took me a minute because I don't see it that way. I don't think people are quite that sinister, at least, if they think like I do.

Necropolitics was a term coined by the Cameroonian philosopher, Achille Mbembe ( awesome name, BTW). It's used to describe how powerful empires (both formal and informal/commercial) wield the power of death and degredation as a political tool. But necropolitics, IMO, also exists domestically now in the United States, and it's fairly blatant.

johansen · 2025-07-06T19:34:04-0500

Job 33:6 said:
Unless you think she is the mother of Adam too

Its turtles all the way down lol.

Akita Suggagaki · 2025-07-06T19:29:22-0500

iluvatar5150 said:
“Spiritual warfare” in the way she used it is nothing more than superstition.

Better than as the usual cudgel.

Fervent · 2025-07-06T19:27:50-0500

Jeff Saunders said:
Is not the connotative meaning just someone’s opinion on what they or a group thinks something means in the a particular context, but it’s still someone’s opinion and they have an agenda that they are trying to prove. A dictionary is just the agreement of what words mean at the time.

Technically speaking, both connotative meaning and denotative meaning are people's opinions of common usage. But neither are purely opinion based, but have to do with how the word is used and in the kinds of contexts its commonly found in. Words, in and of themselves, don't have a meaning as if anywhere a word is found the same concept is in play. Thinking as much is an exegetical fallacy known as the word-concept fallacy. Instead, the meaning of words depends partly on their common usage but more directly on the context in which they are found. Meaning primarily rests much higher than the word level, somewhere between the sentence level and the paragraph level. So dictionaries are of extremely limited value because they say nothing of what kinds of contexts the words are typically found in to shed light on various connotations that exist for the word.

Akita Suggagaki · 2025-07-06T19:24:05-0500

RileyG said:
As Christians, I know we are not supposed to feel "empty."

I have heard others warn that if the mind is "empty" the devil can come in. St John of the Cross says just the opposite, that if we empty ourselves the devil has nothing to work with. Of course the mind cannot be "empty" unless we are unconscious. But we can have a quiet, still attentiveness.

Psalm 62 My soul waits in silence for God alone;

That is how I best describe my practice once my mind has settled down.

Fervent · 2025-07-06T19:22:49-0500

rjs330 said:
There is no significant portion of people in the US who face that. The poor in this country have big screen tvs, 75% have one or two vehicles. People below rhe poverty levels get enough benefits to reach income levels or over $50,000 a year.

Say a single mother of 2 earns minimum wage. She will earn about 14000. Then with government benefits she earns 26000. Then with state benefits she typically will end up wearing about 47000 total in dollars and benefits. Enough to live on.

96% of poor report no one is going hungry in their family.

These homes typically had both air conditioning and a personal computer.

For entertainment, they typically had cable or satellite TV, three color televisions, a DVD player, a VCR, and a video game system, such as an Xbox or Play Station.

In the kitchen, they had a refrigerator, a stove and oven, a microwave, and an automatic coffee maker.

Other amenities included a cell phone, a cordless phone, and a clothes washer.[17]

On average rhe poor children have the same nutritional assessments as middle income children.

The home has at least one widescreen TV connected to cable, satellite, or a streaming service, a computer or tablet with internet connection, and a smartphone. (Some 82% of poor families have one or more smartphones.)

By their own report, the average poor family had enough food to eat throughout the prior year. No family member went hungry for even a single day due to a lack of money for food.

Thats not to say NO one ever has a problem. When the census was conducted 7% had missed a housing payment in rhe past two months. Only 2% had utilities problems.

We spend at least 220 Billion dollars to help the poor. Thats 2 1/2 times more than is needed to eliminate child poverty in rhe US. Yet we still have some. Why, its obviously not because we aren't paying enough.

So, one would have to ask rhe question why are some still having g problems despite all of this. And its not becauae we arw not helping. We are, by a very large amount. These poor are getting FAR more than the gleaning at the edge of the field. They have housing, clothes, food, cars, big screen tvs, xboxes and air conditioning.

Where are these numbers coming from? This sounds so far off from what I see in my community that I'm quite suspicious of it, but I'm open to being contradicted. So where do these figures come from? Is this self-reports? What was the sampling method?

johansen · 2025-07-06T19:22:26-0500

Semper-Fi said:
How can you have a population before Eve, the mother of all living humans?

Its easy. God made humanity progressively from 200 million years of evolution, and then about 12,000 years ago came the first spiritually awake humans adam and eve..

Who messed up almost immediatly and cain goes out and finds a wife from the children of men, i.e. spiritually dead humanoids. But still biologically almost the same dna.

And we end up at noah, the last of the spiritual generation of man that God miraculously preserves (and yes there could be many Noah's that all acted prophetically to save their people from the rising flood waters of the last ice age)

You them get remnants of spiritually dead men who survived. Given the huge amount of neanderthal bones found in Israel it really makes me wonder if the giants of old.. are neanderthals and densovans.

What really surprised me with Job33:6, is he links to michael heiser. A man who takes genesis 6 litterally.

d taylor · 2025-07-06T19:22:12-0500

HBP said:
I just realized how extremely narrow these forums are. The Forum Rules define those who are "truly" Christians as those who fully accept the Nicene Creed. I just happened to be reading a book by Marcus Borg in which he distinguishes between "popular" Christianity and "academic" Christianity. Academic Christianity includes many NT scholars who identify as Christian, including Borg, but are almost unanimous in their judgment that popular Christianity simply isn't true, period. None of them would be able to post here as Christians. The academic perspective, like it or not, is simply that Jesus was not, and did not think he was, who and what the Nicene Creed and popular Christianity posit him to have been.

As mentioned elsewhere, I entered Christianity via a startling, "mystical" conversion experience some 55 years ago; attended a Baptist seminary; served with Campus Crusade for Christ; and have been neck-deep in theology and apologetics for decades. Do I fully accept the Nicene Creed, the "full eternal deity" of Jesus Christ, and Paul's status as a full Apostle, equivalent to or greater than the Apostles who actually walked with Jesus? Well, no I don't, at least not in the sense the Forum Rules and Statement of Faith are talking about. Probably like Marcus Borg, however, I think of myself as a "mature" Christian but certainly not "not a Christian." Here, alas, I am apparently not a true Christian.

I guess I shouldn't even be posting on the Controversial Christian Theology forum since I discovered to my surprise that it, too, is restricted to Christians as so defined and that discussions "may not contradict the Nicene Creed." Again, the majority of the very best NT scholars would be unable to post here.

To be clear, I have no "problem" with the Nicene Creed, the CF Forum Rules of the CF Statement of Faith. A forum can obviously operate however it wants. Those who can accept the Nicene Creed as their definition of Christianity are welcome to do so with my blessing. But it certainly isn't the only understanding of Christianity or what Jesus was all about. Since a forum is not a denomination or church, I'm not sure what is gained by such a restrictive definition of "true Christian" or by so narrowly restricting discussions. Is the idea to "protect" true Christians against challenging views, even those of the most renowned NT scholars? If so, doesn't that seem kind of odd and even cult-like?

Having been here long enough to have participated on a number of threads, it certainly appears to me that a fair number of folks are paying lip service to the Nicene Creed and other forum requirements of being a "true Christian" while the substance of their posts says otherwise. I'm not comfortable playing that game, nor with constantly wondering whether something I have said has crossed the line. So, I will accept being a non-Christian for purposes of these forums, strange as this may seem to me, and limit myself to discussing recipes for guacamole at The Kitchen Sink.

-

Well in truth, believing in The Nicene creed is not what God said a person must believe to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life.

God's free gift of Eternal Life is only receive by belief in Jesus, believing Jesus is who He says He is. The Son of God/The promised Messiah, the resurrection and the life. When a person believes this they can believe in Jesus for Eternal Life.

At the very moment of belief in Jesus the person becomes a permanent born again child of God.

Jeff Saunders · 2025-07-06T19:19:07-0500

Fervent said:
A dictionary is an impoverished lexicon, as there isn't really "a definition" for words but a range of semantic possibilities. More complete lexicons bring out not only the denotative meaning but also the connotative meaning, with the latter often being more important in regards to translations.

As for bringing up Sagan, it's beccause he's the one who popularized the idea that "cosmos" and "universe" were interchangeable ideas, and his reason for doing so was to promote a secular worldview by coining a term to use in place of what he deemed a theologically loaded one.

Edited note: The principal issue equating "universe" and "cosmos" isn't primarily an issue of its Greek meaning, but the understanding that such things would have held to a Greek mind. To the Greek, the world=the universe, so it's fair to say that cosmos means universe. But that obscures the fact that our modern concept of "universe" would be foreign to the original audience, as the concept has dramatically shifted as our scientific understanding has improved. So Greek dictionaries are likely to flatten the issue rather than provide illumination. Today, "universe" has come to include not only the world but also what would previously have been considered "the heavens" though our understanding of what such things are composed of is markedly different.

Is not the connotative meaning just someone’s opinion on what they or a group thinks something means in the a particular context, but it’s still someone’s opinion and they have an agenda that they are trying to prove. A dictionary is just the agreement of what words mean at the time.

Hentenza · 2025-07-06T19:16:16-0500

Fervent said:
Thanks for the scolding. Though my comment wasn't intended to disparage him, just to express my skepticism towards his claim. Anyone can say anything on the internet, especially in regards to their personal experience. So there's not really a way to make a rebuttal to such a claim, unless you want me to hire a private eye to investigate his history. He very well could be telling the truth, but its a claim I have difficulty believing.

Scolding not intended. Google can tell you just about everything though.

Semper-Fi · 2025-07-06T19:15:27-0500

Job 33:6 said:
Wow, KJV only and all other Bible translations are wrong? That's real honest.

Assuming and putting words in my mouth, thats original.

And there is a difference between adam, that is
humanity or mankind, and adamah, for ground.

Yes I know I mentioned before about this. [The root] of the word Adam
is from being made from, dirt, red, earth.] Makes sense, then Adam
calls His Wife wo-man, because She came from Adams rib bone.

[And] "The Hebrew lexicon defines Adam as the first human
created directly by God, the progenitor of all mankind".

Here The Hebrew lexicon define Adam as the first hu-man.
"The man Adam represents humanity Because [he is the first male man]
and he is the father/or start of all the human race that followed after".

It seems you reject the genealogy back to Adam the person. Adam is
called the son of God who was the father of Seth who is in Adams
image through Eves childbirth, according to the bible.
Genesis 2:19 AdamH121 " the name of the first man"

So how do you make mankind or humanty?
One male and one female right.

Even your reference to strongs concordance plainly says it "or the species, mankind etc.".

You claimed Adam meant humanity, I showed H120 can have two meanings.
My post was Back in post #80, did you not see the word highlited in red?
Adam H120 "a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.):"

I also said "Names/words can have several meanings, you should know this."
Your NASB Translation list 25 or so different meanings, backing my claim.

Not hard to understand. Not sure why you're denying your own source.
You're contradicting yourself.

I am not denying anything nor contradicting myself, [you] missed my post.
I will say it again 'âdâmH120 could mean an individual man or the species.

What about H121 Adam, the name of the first man? or G76

H121
אָדָם
'âdâm
aw-dawm'
The same as H120; Adam, the name of the first man,
also of a place in Palestine: - Adam. Total KJV occurrences: 21

G76
Ἀδάμ
Adam
ad-am'
Of Hebrew origin [H121]; Adam, the first man; typically (of Jesus)
man (as his representative): - Adam. Total KJV occurrences: 9

So why is these not talking about the first man? Does God make
Man/humanity in gen 1, then makes another man called Adam in gen 2?

And yes, animals are called nephesh. The same word translated as "soul".
Im sure you can use a strong's concordance to verify that too.

I did use a concordance and posted the verses. Animals are not called
nephesh or soul, the word nephesh is translated as “moving creature”,
“great whales and every living creature” “Living creature” (Hebrew nephesh).

I'm still not sure what your concern is about this fact of the Bible.

You said in post #79
something about "both topics may be simultaneously true".
1"Adam has a soul, or is a living soul,"
2"and so to do all of humanity whom he represents."

1 I claimed both could not be simultaneously true, which is correct.
2 Then I showed the word nepesh means any air breathing animal, not just
humans, and asked if Adam represents animals too? Not a hard question.

Genesis 1:27 is God making a whole population of people? And then
in Genesis 2:7 God forms another man, that He put in the garden?

In gen 2:20-23 AdamH121 [not H120] calls his new help-ment woman,
Are you claiming there are other humans alive before Cains mother Eve?
Gen 3:20 Adam called his wife Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

How can you have a population before Eve, the mother of all living humans?

rjs330 · 2025-07-06T19:15:05-0500

Fervent said:
I suppose the people in my community who can't afford to eat regularly, who are subject to hard choices between which utilities they're going to pay this month and which ones they can kick the can on, who have to choose between their own hunger and their childrens...that's not suffering, right? To deny that there is a significant portion of the population who suffer from a lack of access to resources is either ill-informed or has a strange tolerance for human misery.

There is no significant portion of people in the US who face that. The poor in this country have big screen tvs, 75% have one or two vehicles. People below rhe poverty levels get enough benefits to reach income levels or over $50,000 a year.

Say a single mother of 2 earns minimum wage. She will earn about 14000. Then with government benefits she earns 26000. Then with state benefits she typically will end up wearing about 47000 total in dollars and benefits. Enough to live on.

96% of poor report no one is going hungry in their family.

These homes typically had both air conditioning and a personal computer.
For entertainment, they typically had cable or satellite TV, three color televisions, a DVD player, a VCR, and a video game system, such as an Xbox or Play Station.
In the kitchen, they had a refrigerator, a stove and oven, a microwave, and an automatic coffee maker.
Other amenities included a cell phone, a cordless phone, and a clothes washer.[17]

On average rhe poor children have the same nutritional assessments as middle income children.

The home has at least one widescreen TV connected to cable, satellite, or a streaming service, a computer or tablet with internet connection, and a smartphone. (Some 82% of poor families have one or more smartphones.)

By their own report, the average poor family had enough food to eat throughout the prior year. No family member went hungry for even a single day due to a lack of money for food.

Thats not to say NO one ever has a problem. When the census was conducted 7% had missed a housing payment in rhe past two months. Only 2% had utilities problems.

We spend at least 220 Billion dollars to help the poor. Thats 2 1/2 times more than is needed to eliminate child poverty in rhe US. Yet we still have some. Why, its obviously not because we aren't paying enough.

So, one would have to ask rhe question why are some still having g problems despite all of this. And its not becauae we arw not helping. We are, by a very large amount. These poor are getting FAR more than the gleaning at the edge of the field. They have housing, clothes, food, cars, big screen tvs, xboxes and air conditioning.

FreeinChrist · 2025-07-06T19:13:31-0500

ThatRobGuy said:
What you're saying it conflicting...

Denaturalization wouldn't apply to people born in the US with a US birth certificate.

But they go through the process be citizens and they get sworn in by a judge.

But I also heard him today talk about it and say even those born in the US.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Breaking Down Trump’s Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

Breaking Down Trump’s Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship