Glory to God!

The Emperor's New School

When the bible speaks of laws we no longer have to keep, it is speaking of the animal sacrificial laws and Priesthood laws. These animal sacrificial laws were a school master pointing us to the fact that Jesus would be sacrificed for our sins. Since Jesus died we are no longer under a school master, (required to offer up bulls and goats for our sins).

Now we must believe (have faith) Jesus died for us (Hebrews 10:4,9-10) 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 9 then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

This doesn't mean we don't have to obey God's moral laws of conduct. That would be like a man getting paroled from prison and then ignoring the same laws that sent him to prison in the first place. Jesus only died once, so if we willingly break God's law, after accepting Jesus, our reward will be eternal damnation (Hebrews 10:26-27) 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

The point that is not understood is that we all have sin, but until Jesus came, there was no way of getting out from under your sins. So God institute a Priesthood and laws that went with the priesthood to control the sinning, and so the Lord use animal Sacrificial laws, even though it could not remove sins.

When Jesus died on the cross that was the end of the first covenant, which consisted of the blood of animals and the keeping of God’s commandments. And his death also brought in the second covenant, which consist of the blood of Jesus and the keeping of God’s commandments.

Let us avoid this at all costs, seeking a better reward. Jesus will return real soon And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. (Revelation 22:12).

fli said:

1 John 3:22 And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. 23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment. NKJV

Love one another in verse 23 is not love our neighbor. We do not have to keep any New Testament law to be saved.

John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." NKJV

Above is the second commandment in 1John 3:23. We are to love other Christians as Jesus loved us. As you can read verse 35 states by this all will know that you are my disciples, both the one loving and the one loved are disciples

Leviticus 19:18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord. NKJV

Above is the OT law to love your neighbor as you love yourself. If we love Jesus, we will keep this one. If we don't keep it we will not be in the Spirit, and the Father will discipline us. We will not lose salvation.

Doesn't your church teach the bible? Do you read the bible?

Click to expand...

# 1 BE. //. GINOMAI. is the PRESENT TENSE. in. the PRESENT TENSE. in the IMPERATIVE CASE

# 2 YE FOLLOWERS. //. MIMETES. in. the NOMINATIVE CASE

#3. OF ME //. MOU. is a. PERSONAL. POSSESSETIVE. POSSIVE. in. the SINGULAR

# 4. EVEN AS //. KATHOS. is an. ADVERB

#5 I ALSO //. KAGO. is in. the. NOMINATIVE CASE in. the SINGULAR

# 6 ( AM. ). OF CHRIST //. CHRISTOS. in GENITIVE CASE in. the SINGULAR.

And we do preach GOD'S GOSPEL by Rom. 1:1 that says that. Paulv was SEPARATED. //. APHORIZO. which means

that c. Paul was bb. LIMITED. to only PREACH GOD'S. GOSPEL. !!

What Gospel does your church PREACH ??

AND what bible do you USE ??

dan p

Chesterton said:

If they're the drivers of MAGA it's just because there's more of them. In 2015 I intentionally talked politics with Arab immigrants at coffee hours after church, asking who people were planning on voting for. Two younger Arabs liked Rand Paul and Fiorina, but every older Arab was voting for Trump. No one was voting for a Democrat. My deacon from Syria voted for him and joked "If you don't see me after January, I didn't run off. You'll know I got deported".

I'm aware that some don't think we're real Christians, but I think those folks are a minority. Over the last five years we didn't have a church, and an SDA and then a Methodist church graciously let us borrow their space to have our services. (The SDA church worked out nice since, as I'm sure you know, they meet on Saturdays. )

Click to expand...

Our Antiochian Orthodox parish going back to 1890s Syrian immigration , I believe, is probably majority democrat although we thankfully keep our faith free from politics. Personally, I am conservative and vote mostly republican ( including Trump ) or 3rd party. Our parish is also patriotic and 6 of its sons were killed in combat in WW 2.

Going back to 1990 Desert Shield, US involvement in the Middle East probably began the final phase in a death sentence for Middle Eastern Christians.

Fervent said:

I'm just waiting for the first proprietary human. GLO-man.

Click to expand...

the licensing agreements will be boilerplate.

DaisyDay said:

Psst: sarcasm....

Click to expand...

yeah, if that is the best you have - then that is the best you have. Understood

Bobber said:

I'm Canadian....sorry but you do need to do some homework.....The Canadian dollar has hovered around 73 cents USD in multiple different years, including 2004, 2015–2016, 2019–2020, and again in 2023–2025. In all other years that never stopped us from visiting in great numbers.

Click to expand...

I forgot how weak and unstable the economy was.

Servus said:

It seems more likely that if a president is being protected, that president is Bill Clinton.

Click to expand...

Are you claiming Trump is protecting Bill Clinton?

I'm just waiting for the first proprietary human. GLO-man.

wing2000 said:

....and today, Trump orders the DOJ to investigate democrats who had dealings with dealings with Epstein.

Click to expand...

Which will become “we cannot release the files because we’re still using them to investigate Democrats“; as brilliant as it is transparent!

The Barbarian said:

Vaccines don't "morph."

Click to expand...

we will invent new ways to do what we're already doing, to fix the problems we already know about.
you'll easily have several options 100 years from now, take 200+immunizations over the first 15 years of your life, or a genetic upgrade for example. and it won't be the child making that choice.

there will be unforeseen consequences.

the covid vaccine was a big experiment and they had to make everyone get it so there wouldn't be a control group. we're now finding out the full extent of it and the current propaganda we're hearing is reduced cancer risk for people that got it.
well, what about the significantly increased misscarriage rate?

so there's a cost benifit trade off to everything.

2PhiloVoid said:

That kettle is diverse and has far more fish in it than the average modern Christian stomach can digest, I'm afraid. This is probably why only a few folks like you and me, and several others here, have much interest in ANE studies at all.

For some folks, what is found in the kettle can be .... scary.

Click to expand...

Mhm...and sadly that attitude gives ammunition to skeptics who portray the most simplistic understanding as the normative one.

The scary element and discomfort that comes with the uncertainty involved in examining these questions with academic distance requires too much faith when faced with simple alternatives that just require playing Ostrich.

Oompa Loompa said:

The problem is similar in other large U.S. cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Portland, and San Francisco. The common denominator is progressive leadership.

Click to expand...

So petty crime isn't a problem in conservatively led cities? They're crimeless utopias?

Dikaioumenoi said:

I've answered; you're not responding to what I answered. The issue isn't what the name means in isolation. The issue is how the angel explains the name:

"You shall call His name Jesus, for he will save His people from their sins"​

The future indicative σώσει is declarative and effectual. It is not probabilistic, partial, or tentative. Whoever falls under "His people" is guaranteed salvation. You're trying to separate the kind of salvation from its scope, but nothing in the text allows that. The angel's words present a definitive promise.


Again, γὰρ σώσει defines the essence and scope of His salvific mission. The angel's explanation of the name is itself a complete statement of the mission.


You're not understanding what you're quoting. The plural αὐτῶν refers to the sins of the group, not the people themselves. Notice what you quoted: "The “sins of the people” are considered collectively." (My emphasis)

So you're conflating two different elements of the Greek pointed out in what you yourself quoted. The corporate plural is in reference to sins, not to the scope of the saved. The future indicative σώσει guarantees that all individuals encompassed by "His people" are saved, not merely that the group as a collective survives in some abstract sense. The grammar does not allow partial fulfillment here. The corporate plural of the sins only tells us how the sins are counted; it does not redefine the scope of the salvation promised.


As I already argued, what is relevant is how the author himself uses the language in context. And in Matt. 1:21, it is defined by redemptive belonging, not ethnicity.


Again, already answered. You are still making an unwarranted distinction between lexical precedent and authorial redefinition. It does not matter how the specific phrase is used in other contexts; what matters is how it is used here. Even if the phrase historically refers to Israel, that does not determine what Matthews means in context. Matt. 1:21 defines the referent by the nature of the salvation promised. The angel promises redemptive salvation from sin, not national deliverance. You've conceded that much, but that concession eliminates an ethnic reading. Once the salvation is spiritual and effectual, the referent cannot remain merely national. A nation can experience political or covenantal privilege, but it cannot, as a collective entity, be forgiven of sin apart from the individuals who compose it.

In other words, even if you view Matt. 1:21 as a partial disclosure of Jesus' mission, the kind of salvation described necessarily individualizes the referent. A corporate, ethnic category simply cannot receive forgiveness from sin in the sense Matthew uses here. Only those personally redeemed can fulfill that description. Hence, "His people" must refer to the redeemed community, not the Jewish nation as such.

Paul explicitly defines "Israel" not in ethnic but in redemptive terms ("not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel" - Rom. 9:6). Matthew is working from that same covenantal reality: Jesus' "people" are those whom He truly saves from their sins. And since Matt. 1:21 ties that saving mission directly to Jesus' name and incarnational purpose, the redefinition of God's people is already implicit in the angel's announcement.


"From" does not mean "limited to." John 4:22 speaks of historical origin, not covenantal scope. The Messiah arises from Israel according to promise, yet His saving work immediately transcends that boundary. Matt. 1:21 is describing the effectual scope of salvation itself, not the ethnic channel through which it comes.


Your interpretation divorces the "nature" of the salvation from its object, which the text itself does not permit. You're splitting the angel's statement into two unrelated halves, as if the angel were saying, "Jesus will bring a kind of salvation from sins, but I'm not specifying for whom." That's not a reading of what's there in the text. You're looking for a way to make the text read how you want it to.

Grammatically, there are two ideas joined in a single purpose clause: σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν. The object ("His people") and the nature ("from their sins") are bound together by the same verb (σώσει). You can't separate what kind of salvation it is from who actually receives it. The act of saving defines both simultaneously: the redemptive efficacy and the identity of the people for whom it is effective. If the salvation described is effectual and redemptive ("He will save," not "He will offer salvation"), then "His people" must be those who actually experience that redemption. To reduce it to a general announcement to ethnic Israel ignores both the verbal aspect and the theological intent. The mission defines the people; the people do not define the mission.


No, it doesn't. That's pure conjecture, not argument. As I've already pointed out, literary audience and referential scope are entirely distinct categories. The fact that Matthew's readership was Jewish in no way proves that every instance of "His people" must denote national Israel. In fact, as I already argued, the opposite is more plausible. It is precisely because the audience is Jewish that Matthew labors to dismantle ethnic exclusivism and to redefine covenant membership around Christ. That gives him every reason to immediately recast the term "His people" in redemptive, not national, terms.

Click to expand...

"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."

It is a covenantal announcement, not a statement of who the specific persons are who will experience salvation. This actually works perfectly fine grammatically.

The Bible often use this kind of corporate language, saying all people, without implying that every single individual in that body experiences the stated action.

Semantically we do understand Jesus will save the faithful Jews from their sins, but those details are not in Matthew 1:21.

Compare with:

And behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus; and when they saw Him, they implored Him to leave their region.
— Matthew 8:34

The whole city does not mean everyone in the city. The verse is not telling us who they were who came out to meet Jesus. In this way the Bible use coporate language.

Say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king for all of them; and they will no longer be two nations and no longer be divided into two kingdoms. They will no longer defile themselves with their idols, or with their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions; but I will deliver them from all their dwelling places in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them. And they will be My people, and I will be their God.
— Ezekiel 37:21-23

This is a declaration God will bring together the people of Israel into one nation. God will cleanse the people and save them. Semantically we do understand not every indvidual Israelite God gathered from among the nations will be saved, but only the faithful. This is a corporate promise addressed to Israel as a people

Bradskii said:

Trump should reduce the tariffs. They're causing food prices to rise.

MAGA: Reducing them is a terrible idea. Just listen to Trump.

Donald Trump moved to lower tariffs on food imports, including beef, tomatoes, coffee and bananas, in an executive order on Friday as the White House fights off growing concerns about rising costs. Trump reverses course and cuts tariffs on US food imports

MAGA: Reducing them is a great idea. Just listen to Trump.

Click to expand...

It's like filling a pool with a garden hose, but the rules to filling it are such that it has to be filled using only a specified amount of water per day, and has to be filled within 90 days, and the water cannot be shut off until completion, and the dimensions of the pool walls are mathematically unattainable (randomly lumpy).

So you turn the valve a little higher, then a little lower, and adjust it accordingly as you see fit, so as to not overflow it, or have it too shallow.

It matters not about the new testament being politically motivated. After all, it all as we have it was taken from OT scripture, and that was considered sound. If anything the only major problem at the time was that the new religion sold out the Kingdom in favour of partnering itself with the Kingdom's opposition, the world of man. Squabbling over the NT compilation seems rather irrelevant by comparison.

James was writing to the faithful remnant of Israel waiting to see if the nation of Israel would finally accept Jesus as king and receive the earthly kingdom. The verses around 16 deal with how they should conduct themselves while they were waiting. The word translated "confess" is not the same word in 1 John 1:9. Instead it carries more of the idea of acknowledgement. The word for faults carries with it the idea of a lapse of uprightness.

The idea I get fro the verse is that those awaiting the kingdom should be transparent, honest, and humble with each other to avoid contention and maintain good will.

Apple Sky said:

It wasn't this it was this

Click to expand...

Not in post #1,227, it wasn't.

Apple Sky said:

@Strong in Him

You've just posted the same image as Phil which I have already commented on.

Click to expand...

But that was the photo from Apoĺlo 16 which you said was generated by the computer which they didn't have.

CoreyD said:

I don't know what you find incoherent about that. It's pretty clear, what free will is, from there.

Click to expand...

In this case it's incoherent in the sense that the question of WHY we volunteer is not being answered by --> because we have a free will. This is a circular reasoning --> I do it because I can.

Like I said, it's an adjective meaning voluntary/willing, not a noun. So, for example, a voluntary will (noun) would not make sense since it implies that we will to will. Since logically we reason for a reason, there has to be an origin of a desire or a thing we want to do whether it's in response to someone or something or an intention we wish to accomplish. There are two ways to get rid of lusts and desires, (1) we fulfill them (2) we realize they are vain imaginings.

Are choices autonomous? Where is the origin of the will/ desire? Who am I and why do I choose as I do? Is each person a different definition of a free will?

So When I say incoherent, I'm talking about the problem of the terms will and free morphing in meaning subjectively. There's our own self will, which implies a false autonomy, the carnal will which cannot be subject to God, is in servitude to the flesh and even can be hostile to God. And there are voluntary choices and involuntary choices, autonomy, false autonomy, freedom to choose and freedom to not choose. Freedom to do the other that you didn't do. freedom of action (see I can move my finger). Freedom to not act (see I didn't move my finger).

Again, I'm not saying that we don't do anything willingly or voluntarily. I'm saying that in the moral/immoral context True freedom is being who God made me to be, restored in Christ to reflect His Image.

CoreyD said:

Post #3

...free will is defined as...​

the ability to act on one's own accord; unforced, of one's own will, voluntary; willing deliberate action (choice);​

The philosophical definition is varied, as well as extreme in some cases.​

Click to expand...

Free will is generally understood as the capacity or ability of people to (a) choose between different possible courses of action, (b) exercise control over their actions in a way that is necessary for moral responsibility, or (c) be the ultimate source or originator of their actions. There are different theories as to its nature, and these aspects are often emphasized differently depending on philosophical tradition, with debates focusing on whether and how such freedom can coexist with physical determinism, divine foreknowledge and other constraints.

We can see the definitions you post above are typical:

Core Definitions​

• Ability to choose otherwise: Free will means that at any given moment, you could have acted differently than you did.
• Self-determined action: It’s the capacity to make choices that originate from your own reasoning, desires, or values, rather than being entirely dictated by external forces.
• Moral responsibility: Free will is often defined in terms of accountability—if you have free will, you can be held responsible for your actions.
• Compatibilist definition: Even if the universe is deterministic, free will exists when your actions align with your internal motivations, without coercion.

What the world calls free will is a lie, because apart from God we are slaves to sin. That’s not freedom—it’s blindness and false freedom. The only true free will is a will freed from sin by Christ, so that our choices originate from love and truth rather than deception. Calling our choices ‘voluntary’ twists the narrative. Voluntary slavery is still slavery. Voluntary good is still God’s work in us. The word ‘volunteer’ hides the truth; that apart from God, our will is blind and bound. Only when freed from sin by Christ does responsibility and freedom become real.”

So, in all honesty I don't see how the blind people leading the blind that Jesus talked about fall into any free will category defined above --> .... they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Exodus 4:11
And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?

Jesus’ words in John 9:39: After healing the man born blind, Jesus says, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

• Blind seeing: Those who humbly acknowledge their need (spiritual blindness) are given true sight—faith, understanding, salvation.
• Seeing blind: Those who claim to already “see” (self-righteous, proud, relying on their own wisdom) are exposed as blind to God’s truth.

What is being saved by grace through faith? Faith implies believing God, providing God allows we hear His Word, for faith comes by hearing and hearing by His Word. So being saved by grace through faith isn't about a free will that chooses voluntarily, it's about transforming wills from the power of Satan to the power of God. That is what scripture teaches. The scriptures do not acknowledge that mankind can choose to be righteous apart from God's Holy Spirit.

1 John 3.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

Acts 26
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

CoreyD said:

Can you please define your terms corrupt and in a state of innocence, and elaborate on them. Thanks.

Click to expand...

A state of innocence and not having the Knowledge of good and evil are synonymous. In that respect, innocence is ignorance operating out of trust/faith. It is also a virgin territory for sowing a seed (seed defined as an image of God that is corrupted through other images of gods, Satan's seed). To me when I read scriptures like through one man's disobedience sin entered in unto all men and so did death through sin, I view this as the beginning of corruption and Satan's seed is a corrupt image.

CoreyD said:

Also, is having a free moral choice "innocence"? Is choosing one over the other, which may be wrong, "corrupt"?

Click to expand...

I would see this question as loaded because I don't think the innocent deliberate between moral and immoral choices, they operate out of faith.

Hebrews 11:6 “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” --> Faith is the foundation of moral reality.
Romans 1:17 “The righteous shall live by faith.” --> Innocence is not about deliberation but about trust.

CoreyD said:

Imperfect to whom.

Click to expand...

Imperfect according to the True Image of God.

CoreyD said:

Why can't free will be perfect in relation to God, and why can free will not be exercised without holy spirit?

Click to expand...

Another loaded question since the will is perfect and imperfect relative to God. The true free will depends on the Holy Spirit because He testifies to the Character of both the Father and the son.

CoreyD said:

Why is holy spirit needed for one to make a free willed decision, either, or?

Click to expand...

It's a loaded question. Either/or doesn't denote a will at all. It only denotes that options exist. Options existing doesn't mean autonomy; it means determinism. The will is either bound to lies in sin or freed by the Spirit of Truth. Without the Spirit either/or will inevitably fall into sin. With The Spirit, then either/or becomes the true freedom: righteousness.

CoreyD said:

It's not true freedom, I can agree, but the ability to choose true freedom or not, is still a choice we are freely given.

Click to expand...

Again, the existence of options does not denote a will, it denotes determinism. In pragmatics the Truth came first and the lie afterward, so as to usurp power through undermining the truth that first existed. Hence The true freedom came first through faith and the only one who suggested there was an alternative freedom was the serpent.

CoreyD said:

God did make his intelligent creatures capable of disobeying him, did he not?

Click to expand...

The proper way to articulate this is that God knew vanity would arise in the creature as a circumstance of being created, and He even knew it would first begin in the highest angels who were the most gifted. Do you see the difference? The way you say it sounds like God made us corrupted to begin with.

CoreyD said:

Are you saying, you don't think Adam and Eve had freedom?

Click to expand...

I said I don't see the capacity to sin as freedom. I therefore do believe Adam and Eve had freedom from sin when they were operating out of faith. I'm saying I don't believe evil was present when they went to do good. They couldn't deliberate in that sense so long as they had no knowledge of good and evil.

CoreyD said:

Are you saying Jesus does not choose to to God's will.... that he has no choice?

Click to expand...

I'm saying he operates out of faith. I'm answering this way because he knows there's only One Way, God's Way.

CoreyD said:

Does one choose whether or not to listen to God?

Click to expand...

The Word of God is the light and the Life of every man. If they're led by Satan's imagined image of god, they would not esteem any high plae and they would be thinking they choose to listen or not at their discretion.

CoreyD said:

Were Adam and Eve sinful, before disobeying God?

Click to expand...

Of course not. That would be like saying God's breath that he breathed into the dirt was sinful.

CoreyD said:

Why then are you referring to "free will you are describing allows one to choose to go against sinful desires, or with sinful desires."?

Click to expand...

Because I'm responding to your definition of free will here --> CoreyD said: "Free will allows one to choose to go against sinful desires, or to choose one course or the other... whether sinful - that is, prone to sin, or not."