rjs330 said:

Paul was taught by Christ. Peter was taught by Christ and affirmed Paul's teachings were scripture. So, they are from God himself.

Click to expand...

Again. So says Paul.

ThatRobGuy said:

Prop 8 was a unique situation, that wasn't even the typical "money in politics" stuff where they try to influence how people will vote.

That was sort of on a different level where it was targeting something that had already been voted on.

Where a citizen led ballot initiative gets put up for a vote... passes, and then a bunch of millionaires celebs get together to hire a former white house chief of staff to help them reverse it like it never happened, that's, as a said, sort of on a whole different level. Typically challenges to citizen led ballot measures are more in the theme of "adopt and amend"

You can imagine...

Citizen led ballot initiatives were pretty big over the past few years (for both pot legalization, and locking in abortion rights). If a bunch of uber-rich fundamentalists all chipped in to hire someone like a Karl Rove to negate it like the vote never happened, that would be viewed as a usurpation.

Click to expand...

That all assumes the initial prop 8 campaign was pure citizen outpouring with no "usurpers" playing the money game.

Postvieww said:

Some found a way out by stealing government funds.

Click to expand...

So all of them are "garbage" and should be deported. Got it.

dogs4thewin said:

except that to a certain extent they seek it out. I am not talking about medical grade here, either. I am not sure how you could say that something people seek out intentionally or not is a weapon of mass destruction.

Click to expand...

Many people who get hooked on fentanyl don't seek it out, but have it mixed into their other drugs.

Still don't think that this justifies this qualification, but it's not that clear cut.

All the while, the Director of the FBI has spent his time tweeting misinformation, attending a WH Christmas party and going on Katie Miller's podcast with his young singer girlfriend. Priorities, folks.

rjs330 said:

You do? If you do you wouldn't use only certain parts of it as a justification for governmental law while not wanting other parts to used as justification for governmental law.

Click to expand...

I don't want any part of it used as a justification for government law--except as it influences the opinions of the individual voter.

rjs330 said:

It seems to me you only want certain parts to be enforced. Thats not real belief in all of it.

Click to expand...

I want the government to enforce its laws, period. It's not the business of government to enforce any part of the Bible.

rjs330 said:

The fact you think its a political manifesto, or at least part of it is, the part you want to be, is evidence you really dont believe all of it. Because if you did you would want the greatest commandment enforced by government and not just the second.

Click to expand...

I don't want either commandment to be enforced by the government.

rjs330 said:

Scripture is NOT a political manifesto. For anyone. Including me. Using it in that way diminishes it and its message and purpose.

Click to expand...

So you never make any biblical arguments against, say, gay marriage? Or welfare? Almost every political argument you make goes back to the Gospel according to Paul.

SabbathBlessings said:

Are you referring to the annual sabbath(s) feast days as in animal sacrifices and offerings?

Click to expand...

The animal sacrifices and offerings were always a Shadow of the reality, in my understanding. Passover is Still a Holy Day, like Pentecost, and First Day of Unleavened Bread and the Weekly Sabbath. The Sacrifices were symbolic of what would be done, what had to be done, to make it possible for a man to "Change his ways". To remove the Sin that held men in the bondage of death. I think it's a mistake to concentrate on the blood of animals, as if the Holy Days were all about killing animals. Not because some religious sect or business tells me these things, but because God Himself said HE didn't desire the blood of animals. And yet HE did desire the promotion of, what HE called, the "Feasts of the Lord", in which HE didn't differentiate between any of His Sabbaths, as if one was worthy of my respect, and the others were not.

And certainly the first church of God under His Prophesied New Priest, didn't judge between the Sabbaths of God either, but honored God in them as is clear in Acts, and never killed even one animal. And God rewarded them with His Holy Spirit, that Peter says God gives to those who obey Him.

So I know that this understanding is not widely taught or held by this world's religious sects, and I won't argue about it in this thread, I was simply trying to answer your question concerning the shadows of things yet to come, and how it appears God had them written on the hearts of the first Church of God under His Prophesied New High Priest.

I see Steve's still going with the "These people and I say it's true, therefore you have to accept what they and I say. No investigating for yourself or let others investigate. Just accept what we say and that's it." line of bad logic.

sjastro said:

So the peer review process in archaeology is flawed so true to form you provide two examples relating to medicine.

Just in case you didn't know.
Definition of Medicine
General meaning: Medicine refers to the science and art of maintaining health and preventing, alleviating, or curing disease.
Definition of Archaeology
General meaning: Archaeology is the study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture

Click to expand...

You do this a lott. You pick out one aspect and ignore the rest. Between those links they clear state that this is a science wide problem and not just within the medical sector. So you are making a strawman and misrepresentation of what the articles are actually saying.

sjastro said:

I bet many of the respondents to your posts have been exposed this nonsense beforehand such as being familiar with Erik Von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods.

Click to expand...

Another fallacy and thats why I don't like debating you. You tend to throw in these personal jibes that is completely unnecessary. This is proving my point exactly that skeptics immediately and automatically equate everything said as conspiracy and psuedoscience.

sjastro said:

The book follows the same procedures; argument from personal incredulity, argument from ignorance, cherry picking while ignoring the entire range of evidence, and the ancients were too dumb to make things to name a few.

Click to expand...

Do you mean like you just literally did lol. You cheery picked the one article on bias in peer review that mentions the medical sector to make out that this was only about the medical sector.

Just just equated everything I said as quack and offered no evidence. But even so just dismissing it all as conspiracy is itself a disqualifier. Thus your arguements are from personal incredulity and ignorance because you have obviously ignore most of what is said and you know it.

sjastro said:

Yet despite the parallel 'methodologies' the conclusions which are assumed to be true despite the zero and contradictory evidence are starkly different, according to Von Daniken it's not about the use of transcendental knowledge but the involvement of extraterrestrial aliens.
This not surprising as in science the evidence leads to the conclusion, in pseudoscience the conclusion is the starting point and the evidence is either made up or ignored if it contradicts the conclusion which you are clear proponent of.

Click to expand...

Your doing it again. Assuming that what I have said is conspiracy or quack. What have I said that is not within the scope of todays sciences.

Don't confuse the spectualtion in trying to workout how the ancients gained their knowledge through their experiences and beliefs with science.

Lets establish a basis as to where you draw the line. It seems you do not believe in anything but empiricle science as to what is knowledge of the world and reality. Is that right.

So therefore any spectualtion about transcedent knowledge such as through cultural beliefs or direct conscious experiences is unreal and but rather make believe. Is that right.

sjastro said:

The only suspect person is yourself having been caught out lying, I think your so called experts are ignorant and driven by faith but I wouldn't question their ethical behaviour.

Click to expand...

Where have I lies. Or is this lie concocted based on the many strawmen you have created and attributed to me.

sjastro said:

The comment about Hawass even if true is clearly anti-intellectual because of your non too subtle associating this with the orthodoxy.
This is an other issue with pseudoscience when all else fails turn it into an attack on science as being unethical.

Click to expand...

Another logical fallacy. This time an either/or ie criticising Hawass or peer review means attacking science and archeology altogether. It does not follow.

It is well known that Hawss holding a lot of power and authority has used his position to control the information coming out. It is well know that there is bias and gatekeeping.

It seems reasonable in a debate about the insistence of using specific gatekeeping rules that the credibility of such is brought up. Its rather hypocritical considering I have spent most of this thread having to defend the sources I have linked. Another example and red flag of bias.

Servus said:

He believes the president of Honduras was framed. That's why he pardoned him. Trump relates well to a president being framed.

Click to expand...

Sure, sure. Birds of a feather and all that.

samaus123456789 said:

Yes they were hidden by God. I made a post about How God hides things. Ask chat GPT to show all the bible verses about God hiding things, and why. It is so only wise people come across it not swine/unworthy. The word apocrypha means hidden. Thanks for the positive comment.

Click to expand...

I think all inspired Scripture is already written in the two canons; however, I know we don't understand all of these inspired Scriptures. Chat GPT is not an expert on Scripture.

Parables were written to confound the obstinate unrighteous.

Matthew 13:35
This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world.”

Mark 4:11
And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; 12 so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven.”

Luke 8:10
he said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but for others they are in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.

Pommer said:

The data are the data and confirms the Somalian immigrants tend to commit the sin crime of being poor.

Click to expand...

Some found a way out by stealing government funds.

Romans 5:20-21
The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Grace is somehow "layered". The first Grace granted is through the first Covenant received by Noah. Covenants serve as the effective judgment standard replacing the Judgment of Law. Only 2/3 angels can pass the Judgment of Law. No man can possibly pass the Judgment of Law (i.e., no Jesus is needed), just as put, "no man is righteous, not even one."

The second layer is through the New Covenant, as sin increased, Grace increased all the more. The judgment standard described by the New Covenant is "Faith alone". Only Faith will serve as the judgment standard for humans under the New Covenant, that is, those who choose to believe in Jesus. (since only God can judge faith precisely, humans don't have the capability to judge how much faith a human has, humans need to evaluate faith through one's works).

These two layers of Grace are only possible with Jesus' self-sacrifice. Or else no man is savable, all men shall be destroyed with the flood. With Jesus, Noah represents a counter reset for humanity to extend and with humans judged by Covenants instead of Law.

rjs330 said:

Who's not being allowed to read it?

Click to expand...

Oh, so you have to be able to afford to buy it yourself in order to read it? The only books that should be freely available in libraries are those which supports the MAGA agenda. Got it.

ThatRobGuy said:

When the citizens vote a particular way, and a handful of millionaire A-listers use their money to undo the results with the help of seasoned political operative "guns for hire", yes.

If there was a vote on the matter
You and 58% of the population voted 'no'
Me and 42% of the population voted 'yes'

And I got a bunch of my millionaire friends together to all chip in to enlist the services of someone like a David Axelrod who knows how to traverse the system and has more extensive knowledge of "how the sausage is made" to challenge and undo it -- in ways that your team doesn't know how to do (and likely couldn't afford to even if you did)

That would usurpation.

I thought "money in politics" was one of those areas where I had more overlap with the left. But perhaps that whole "getting money out of politics" thing, in the eyes of some on the left, has a more limited scope than I had initially thought?

Click to expand...

There was plenty of money on both sides of the issue. I don't suppose you would consider the possibility that Proposition 8 really was unconstitutional? Never mind, I expect that Reiner's support of civil marriages for gays fully justifies the nature of Trump's "eulogy" to you.

Stopped_lurking said:

Not peer-reviewed. Self-published. This is their reference list:
View attachment 374587


Do you have the page or chapter that talks about vitrification? I can access it from my job, but what do you want me to read?

Click to expand...

This is silly. The logic that if theres little peer review then theres no truth to the investigations done. This is a logical fallacy.

When those researchers say "evidence" or "Tests" is this not science. Why are their tests and evidence any less scientific. Why do you want a tick of approval from a gatekeeper when you can directly assess whether the tests are wrong.

Anyone who disputes the tests will have to go and perform similar tests dispite peer review. First the tests and field research is done and these reports can be disputed. I think one of the tests was done by a Russian Institute of Geology. So why is this not credible science.

I mean if you look at say the work from Protzen this is released under Oxford University press and I would say has been referenced by other papers. The State library of the Victorian governement uses his work as a reference.

At what point does it count as good support. Its silly to say that only peer review articles count.

The other thing to note in regards to the whole issue of investigating these unusual works such as the vitrified and softened stones or the casting of stones. Is why has not the mainstream sciences themselves mentioned any of this.

Its obviously been sitting there for decades uninvestigated and unknown. Why neglect to investigate such an important issue. It seems a lot of these examples have been known but never investigated. Or investigated properly. Like they were unimportant to the narrative being told.

ThatRobGuy said:

.....I thought "money in politics" was one of those areas where I had more overlap with the left. But perhaps that whole "getting money out of politics" thing, in the eyes of some on the left, has a more limited scope than I had initially thought?

Click to expand...

Yes, try to change the game. But if you cant, then play the game youre in, not some other game youd prefer - which doesn't exist.

Honestly I dont know why I have to repeat this to people smart enough (I think) to know better.

SabbathBlessings said:

These appear to be your words, not what Jesus said plainly Mark2:27-28 Isa56:6. Whoever we obey is who we serve. Rom6:16 Why Jesus said to live by His words, not mans and said not to add our words to His. This is telling Him what He says doesn't matter, our words mean more than His.

Click to expand...

No. Those are the words of Mark.

Isa. 56:6 is speaking of converted gentiles to Judaism as that was the way to keep His covenant since the old covenant was made with Israel not with the gentiles in general.

Rom. 6:16- keep reading. You are again reading your pet doctrine into scripture.

“But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were entrusted, and after being freed from sin, you became slaves to righteousness.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭6‬:‭17‬-‭18‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

How are we freed from sin? Did the Mosaic law give anyone a way to repentance?

SabbathBlessings said:

There is no Scripture that says this

Click to expand...

Sure there is but it doesn’t work for you.

BCP1928 said:

I believe all of it. It's your opinion of what it means I am talking about--which is just as useless as anybody else's according to you, yourself.

Click to expand...

You do? If you do you wouldn't use only certain parts of it as a justification for governmental law while not wanting other parts to used as justification for governmental law.

It seems to me you only want certain parts to be enforced. Thats not real belief in all of it.

The fact you think its a political manifesto, or at least part of it is, the part you want to be, is evidence you really dont believe all of it. Because if you did you would want the greatest commandment enforced by government and not just the second.

Scripture is NOT a political manifesto. For anyone. Including me. Using it in that way diminishes it and its message and purpose.

Greetings my brother in our Lord Jesus Christ. Hope and peace to you and yours.

You have provided some good verses, and many. I don't know about you, but I don't have time to address all our topics all at once. Is there a verse you would like me to address first (Job, Jude, Peter) on whether these verses support the claim that angels procreated with human women?

Before we start...

samaus123456789 said:

1 enoch is not a fable

Click to expand...

My apologies if you thought I meant that the book of Enoch was a fable. It is clearly a physical book and does have some value (which I think I claimed in a previous post to you). What I was referring to as being a fable was the story that angels procreated with human women.


Peace to you brother.

Dan Perez said:

# 1 IN ////. EN. is a PREPOSTION

# 2. THAT HE SAITH //// LEGO. is. in. the PRESENT TENSE in. the ACTIVE VOICE

# 3 A. NEW. //// KAINOS. in. the ACCUSATIVE CASE in. the SINGULAR

# 4. COVENANT /// KAVEN

# 5. HE HATH MADE ///. PALAIOO. in. the PERFECT TENSE in. the INDICATIVE MOOD , and this MOOD , means you BETTER BELIEVE IT

# 6 THE /// HO is a DEFINITE ARTICLE in. the ACCUSATIVE CASE , in. the SINGULAR

# 7. FIRST ///. PROTOS. , in the ACCUSATIVE CASE , in the SINGULAR

# 8 OLD /// PALAOO , in. th PERFECT TENSE , in. the ACTIVE VOICE , in. the SINGULAR

# 9 NOW ///. DE. , is a CONJUNCATION

# 10 THAT WHICH DECAYETH. ,///. in the PRESENY TENSE , in the PASSIVE TENSE . in. the NOMINATIVE CASE. in. the SINGULAR in. the NUTER

# 11 AND ,/// KAI is a CONJUNCATION

# 12 WAXETH. OLD. , /// GORASHO. in. the PRESENT TENSE in. the ACTIVE VOICE means CHRIST is causing. it to be OLD is a PARTICIPL

in the NOMINATIVE CASE in. the SINGULAR and in. the NEUTER , meaning neither MALE or FEMALE

# 13. READY. , ///. ONGYS. is an ADVERB

# 14 TO VANISH AWAY , ///. APHANISMOS. in. the GENITIVE CASE in. the SINGULAR

#A. THIS MEAND THE OLD LAW OF MOSES has been sat aside FOREVER. !!

# B. And Rom 6:14 FOR YOU ARD NOT. //. OV s a DISJUNCATIVE PARTICLE NEGATIVE and means you will NEVERRRRR. be under

the LAW but UNDER GRACE. ,

# C This means that SALVATION is by ROM 10:9 and 10

# And John 3:3 and verse 5. will not save anyone and John is speaking to Israel ONLY. !!

dan p

Click to expand...

Again, it is important to sort out the differences between what this world's religions promote, and what is actually taught in the Holy Scriptures, given all the warnings about the preachers of this world.

Gen. 6: 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

8 But Noah found grace "in the eyes of the LORD".

9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was "a just man" and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Both Noah and Abraham sinned, as all men have sinned. And they were both Saved by Grace. To deny this, is to deny the Holy Scriptures themselves.

BobRyan said:

yep

"Mankind shall not live by bread alone" Matt 4.
"The Sabbath was MADE for mankind not mankind MADE for the Sabbath" Mark 2:27 speaks of the making of BOTH in Gen 1-2

Click to expand...

Nope. That’s you reading the old covenant into the new covenant. Why do you always ignore Mark2:28?

BobRyan said:

Instead of the much imagined "Sabbath was MADE For Jews"

Click to expand...

Sabbath was made for man, Jesus is fully man and fully God (the cornerstone of the new covenant), therefore Jesus is the Lord if the sabbath.

BobRyan said:

Sabbath commandment Exodus 20 does not say "for in 6 days God made the Jews and rested the seventh day"

Click to expand...

It does not say that nor did anyone say that it does. That’s your typical Strawman.

BobRyan said:

The creation event is ALL MANKIND being made in that 7 day week.

Sabbath was made in Gen 2:2-3 as even Exodus 20:11 points out ... so than Jesus who made the Sabbath in Gen 2 is Lord of it.

Click to expand...

The old covenant sabbath no longer exists since it was part of the Mosaic law which is not part of the new covenant. The Christian’s sabbath rest is in Jesus not on a day.

BobRyan said:

Mark 2 does not say Jesus made the Sabbath in Mark 2 or that He became Lord of it in Mark 2.

Click to expand...

Sure does. It’s in the verse that you keep ignoring, verse 28.

BobRyan said:

James 2 says to set aside one of God's commandments is to set aside them all. Which means it is a fitting topic for this particular thread

Click to expand...

Right. So you don’t want to remain under the guardianship of the law since it will profit you nothing. Paul says the same thing in Galatians.

PloverWing said:

It's just coincidence. People are, unfortunately, murdered every day. Our posts here don't cause the murders.

I didn't see your earlier thread asking God to kill you, but I wouldn't expect God to grant a request like that.

On veiling, we've had lots of discussions about head coverings in the past here on CF, and I didn't think I had anything new to add this time around. Covering one's head to show submission to men makes me uncomfortable, but if it's done to show reverence for God, then that's a positive thing. Romans 14 probably applies here.

Click to expand...

That is an interesting thought. I know 1 Corinthians 11:4, but I feel badly if I pray without my head covered. It is definitely a sign of submission to God. I’m Messianic and male. The priest and Levites covered their heads in the Temple, why would Paul say otherwise? Enough things have gone on in my head that a little dishonor sees justified.