The Barbarian said:

Yes. A reasonable person would ask themselves why Trump would rather have people assume he's a pedophile when he could just release the evidence and clear his name. The MAGA explanation seems to be that Trump is protecting Bill Clinton.

Click to expand...

One of the emails said Clinton never went to the island but there was abuse taking place in New York and Florida so that alone means nothing. I don't think any of the victims have accused Clinton though.

Apple Sky said:

Okay - I will try, but it's not so easy for F/E's as it is for globalists, as globalists just have all info at their finger tips

Click to expand...

And that is because the earth is a globe.
But you obviously can't understand that proof of a globe earth is easy to find because it is the truth.

Apple Sky said:

us F/E's have to seek to find,

Click to expand...

Of course - you have to seek to find other flat earth believers and YouTube videos which say what you want them to say.

Servus said:

I'm sure Collyridians and Antidicomarians etc etc is simple to you. But most people would need an encyclopedia and a dictionary to decipher your posts.

Click to expand...

Why? I explained what they were. Why would an additional reference be required? It does exist, by the way, and I literally cited it (and the Panarion is in English translation).

It seems to me not unreasonable to quote a Patristic work when that work is relevant and self-explanatory.

Note to self: Never eat chili late Saturday night before Sunday morning church.

Studyman said:

Since we are "cutting to the chase", lets look at how God Himself, defines His Own Promised New Covenant.

Jer. 31: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

So there you have it. 2 things were promised to change.

#1. The manner in which God's Laws are administered. In the Law and Prophets, how did men receive God's Laws? Was it not by those who "Sit in Moses Seat"? Could I go to my home and study the "Book of the Law" in Old Testament times? NO!, I couldn't. I had to go find a Levite Priest who had exclusive possession of the Book, and listen to him read the Book to me. This is undeniable Biblical Truth.

But what about now? Do I have to go find a Temple somewhere that a priest exists who can open the "Book of the Law" and read it to me? NO!, We are in the New Priesthood Covenant, and God has delivered His Oracles into my own home, into my own mind and I don't need for another to teach me, because EVERYONE can know the Lord from the least to the greatest.

Click to expand...

Let’s start here. It is important to take into account historical context. You missed the part of verse 31 that states who this new covenant is with, the house of Israel. This is not the new covenant with the gentile church. This verse is quoted in Heb. 8 with the same effect. The new covenant with the gentile church is the new covenant of the blood of Christ listed in Luke 22:20.

Studyman said:

#2. The manner in which sins are forgiven. In the Law and Prophets, when a man sinned, he was required to go find a temple with a Levite Priest, take a yearling goat to the Priest, and Kill it. The Priest would then take it's Blood and perform "works" according to the Priesthood Law that Abraham didn't have, and through this process, as it is written;

Lev. 4:30 And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar. 31 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.

But in the New Priesthood Covenant, Prophesied Priest of God, after the Order of Melchizedek, offers to God His own Blood for the remission of sins, as prophesied.

So God replaces the Priesthood Covenant HE made when Moses went up to God the 2nd time, with a New Priesthood Covenant, with a Priest that is not a Levite.

There is nothing in God's Promises that prophesies of His definition of Sin, righteousness or Holiness is changed. Only the Priesthood.

At least this is what the Scriptures actually say.

Click to expand...

There is a bit to unpack here. Hebrews 7:11-28 gives us the answers.

“So if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.

[Melchizedek was a king and a priest, a combination forbidden under the Levitical system. This is seen as foreshadowing Jesus, who is also a king-priest. He blessed Abraham around 430 years before the law including the 10 commandments was given through Moses. With that said read the fact that when the Levetical priesthood, part of the Mosaic law, changed (no longer there), the law changed also. It changed because our King-Priest fulfilled (completed) the law. ]


For the one about whom these things are said belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses said nothing concerning priests. And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life.

[This is the nail on the coffin for the law. Notice that the new priest is NOT on the basis of the law but on the power of Jesus resurrection.]

For it is attested of Him, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” For, on the one hand, there is the nullification of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect); on the other hand, there is the introduction of a better hope, through which we come near to God.

[This continues nailing the nail on the coffin for the law but now the author of Hebrews is taking about commandments being nullified because of their weakness and uselessness (See Romans 8) because the law never made anything perfect. The better hope is the giving of Spirit which is how we get near God]

And to the extent that it was not without an oath (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him, “The Lord has sworn And will not change His mind, ‘You are a priest forever’ ”); by the same extent Jesus also has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

[Jesus is the guarantee of the new covenant. The guarantor in a contract is the one that takes ultimate responsibility for the debt. The debt in this case is the propitiation of our sins. This is what being justified by the grace of God through faith not by the works of the law. The moment that you add a requirement besides the grace of God then grace is no longer grace if it is through works so it becomes an obligation. (Rom. 4). If it is necessary to keep Saturday as the day of worship so thst we do not sin, as some here believe, then it became a requirement for salvation and, therefore, a salvation by works).

The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing; Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently.

[This verse is a perfect example of the OT being Christological in nature. It showed us that a messiah would come and that a new covenant would be given. Jesus priesthood has always been and will forever be.]

Therefore He is also able to save forever those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

[The law changed because the priesthood changed. The priesthood changed so that we could be justified by the grace of God through faith. And now here we see the practical application of Jesus sacrifice. God demands perfection but we are not perfect, after all Jesus came “while” are still sinners (Rom. 5:4). He intercedes for us to show us perfect in the eyes of God (Col. 1:22). ]

For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens; who has no daily need, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because He did this once for all time when He offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, who has been made perfect forever.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭7‬:‭11‬-‭28‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬
Hebrews 7:11-28 So if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizede | New American Standard Bible - NASB (NASB2020) | Download The Bible App Now [Annotations mine]

Studyman said:

You forget the most relevant truth. God's definition of Sin was never prophesied to change, just the manner in which Sins were forgiven.

Click to expand...

And yet it did. The law in the OC defined sin but the law was fulfilled by Christ crucifixion and resurrection, nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). So if the law was nailed to the cross then it can no longer define sin so the what defines sin? The helper, the Holy Spirit, is the one that will convict the world regarding sin (John 16:8). So follow the Spirit not the law.


I did not finish replying to the rest of your post because you changed my post by adding words that I did not write to my quote that you quoted. This is called “fixed it for you” and it is considered goading and against the flaming rules of CF. I am not going to report you this time but don’t change peoples posts ever again.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

If you believe a law-abiding American should tell a sex worker recruiter’s boss not to recruit young girls, but avoid contacting authorities, you misunderstand what good citizenship and strong character truly mean.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,”

Click to expand...

Or was he too dimwitted or self involved to notice or care what his good friend was up to. Surely they shared confidence.

He must have been aware. And knowing him. Took pleasure in, Epstein’s arrangements. Would anyone now really be surprised?

stevevw said:

Also when I read the words 'blood and soil' Hitler was the furthest from my mind in relation to American history of fighting for anti slavery and the principles of freedoms and democracy.

They certainly fought and spilt blood on their own soil and that soil produced one of the worlds greatest democracies which gave us freedoms.

Click to expand...

Okay, that is what the words "blood and soil" evoke in your mind. Something about the honor/sacrifice of those who gave their lives for America.

But that is not what "blood and soil" meant in Nazi ideology. Today we might say "genes and soil" -- that something about the German people was specifically connected to the land. And that the people were better because the land was better. And people who didn't have German blood didn't belong on the German soil. (and 'them' not being connected to the land, congregated in the cities, and filled them with moral turpitude.) Per wiki: a racially defined national body ("Blood") united with a settlement area ("Soil").

So now we ask ourselves how the author of the Harvard Salient used it. The full text isn't public (as far as I know), but what we know of it is that it does not seem to be about the battlefields of Saratoga or Gettysburg, but about Muslims not belonging in America.

Whereas Hitler said, “France to the French, England to the English, America to the Americans, and Germany to the Germans,” Army wrote, “Germany belongs to the Germans, France to the French, Britain to the British, America to the Americans.”

(This again is connecting a nation of people directly to a place.)

Army also called for the adoption of notions of “blood, soil, language, and love of one’s own” in response to concerns over large-scale migration of Muslims into Europe.

This is pretty clearly a very similar sentiment to the way the Nazis used the phrase -- to separate an us (our blood/genes, our soil, our language, our love of us) from some other, who doesn't belong.

Servus said:

That's really complicated and convoluted.

Click to expand...

Really? Seems simple to me, and it seemed simple to the Early Church Fathers and to Martin Luther. We worship Christ our True God, together with His unoriginate Father and the Holy Spirit, ever one God, and venerate those who magnify Him, especially the Theotokos.

It should be noted the writings of St. Epiphanios are not considered controversial, for he is venerated by all ancient churches, including the Church of the East, which has some Nestorian influence despite rejecting Nestorianism in the 7th century under Mar Babai the Great; indeed some modern iconoclasts ill-advisedly have tried to appeal to the writings of St. Epiphanios as proof of ancient iconoclasm, unaware of the problem of Arian iconography (which depicted our Lord as a beardless youth so as to stress difference from the Father rather than Nicene consubstantiality, and which we keep finding archeological examples of beyond the Arian Baptistry at Ravenna, most recently in the form of a glass paten from the fourth century).

Of course the idea of iconoclasts appealing to the writings of an early church father who regarded not venerating the Blessed Virgin Mary as an error equivalent to worshipping her is something I find greatly amusing, since almost all modern iconoclasts are neo-anti-dicoMarianists, usually crypto-Nestorian, and thus their abuse of the Panarion seems to me the apex of eisegesis. Sometimes irony can be pretty ironic, as William Shatner said in a moment of great satire.

Phil G said:

We supply evidence and you need to do it too.

Click to expand...

Okay - I will try, but it's not so easy for F/E's as it is for globalists, as globalists just have all info at their finger tips, us F/E's have to seek to find,

Remember when you were 17, waking up on a summer morning, around 10 AM? The smell of the early morning air?

Login to view embedded media

HIM said:

Says nowhere in scripture and you know it. Otherwise you would have posted it and not try to state Rom 3 says it.

Click to expand...

pasifika said:

Romans 3:27 for the two laws (Faith & works) and Chapter 4 is regarding Abraham in respect to the two laws (works & Faith)

Click to expand...

Rom 3:27 says law of faith, meaning out of faith. Chapter one starts this premise in it's repeating from the Old Testament that the just live out of faith in Rom1:16. This is how the law is not made void but established as Rom 3:23 shares. There is not a new Law replacing the Law that gives us the knowledge of sin. The Law never made anyone righteous, for all have sinned and the wages of one sin is death. But the just, the righteous live out of faith. for by the law is the knowledge of sin. As it is written, the Law is for the sinner if used lawfully, not for the righteous as 1 Tim 1:8-10 shares and Rom 7 confirm. For Paul had said,, I had not known sin, but by the law:. And this he says in context to chapter 6 where he stated, shall we continue in sin that grace abound? God forbid! How shall we who are dead to sin live any longer therein?, This sin that is defined by the Law as verses 3:23 and 7:7 state.

Belk said:

You tell me. This was a huge matter of speculation on the conspiratorial fringe. I would not think this would still be a topic were it not for two items. One, it continues to be a pain point for Trump. Two, a lot of fringe individuals are certain it is part of a larger plot. The ongoing denials by top officials while not releasing much of the info is just adding fuel to the fire.

Click to expand...

Yes. A reasonable person would ask themselves why Trump would rather have people assume he's a pedophile when he could just release the evidence and clear his name. The MAGA explanation seems to be that Trump is protecting Bill Clinton.

rjs330 said:

So you dont really care and are just trying to poke Trump supporters?

Click to expand...

I did not care before. The continued refusal to address this on Trumps side makes me both curious and it causes me to wonder exactly what it is he does not want released.

Servus said:

Based on how long several people in the government have had access to those files throughout two administrations, it seems unlikely there's anything in them that would lead to an indictment of child abuse. If there is, then Merrick Garland and those running the DOJ when the files were obtained would have a lot of explaining to do.

Click to expand...

Have they actually looked through the files? Not sure what the procedure is and whom would be tasked with doing so.

Servus said:

That doesn't seem worth all of the hubbub that's going on over these files. Or is there supposed to be a conspiracy that the democrats are using it to tear the GOP apart or whatever?

Click to expand...

You tell me. This was a huge matter of speculation on the conspiratorial fringe. I would not think this would still be a topic were it not for two items. One, it continues to be a pain point for Trump. Two, a lot of fringe individuals are certain it is part of a larger plot. The ongoing denials by top officials while not releasing much of the info is just adding fuel to the fire.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

Didn't God say "I kill and I make ALIVE?"

Click to expand...

Yes, he can certainly do "both"

hunting season

Cute Chinese children constantly charm.

9Rock9 said:

Hello!

I'm undecided about eschatology but doing some research on it. I think good points are made for both amillennialism and premillennialism. The only view I currently hold to with is inaugurated eschatology (or "already and not yet") where most prophecy has double fulfillment. It's normally associated with George Eldon Ladd, who was a premillennialist, but I don't see why one can't be amillennial and also agree with inaugurated eschatology.

I'm wondering if one can hold to a non-literalistic premillennialism?

Like, I don't think the events in Revelation are strictly chronological and probably could be oit of order or just the same events from different angles.

I also don't know if I believe the 1,000 years mentioned in the book to be be a literal millennium.

Could one believe in a Millennial State after the Second Coming, but not think the Millennial Kingdom will be a literal 1,000 years?

Click to expand...

For clarity , this how I am defining Inaugurated eschatology:

A theological perspective that the end times began with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, meaning the Kingdom of God is "already" present through His Flock but "not yet" fully realized. This "already/not yet" means believers currently experience the blessings and power of God' through salvation and the infilling of His Holy Spirit. The complete fulfillment, like the resurrection of all the dead and final judgment awaits after Christ's second coming.

Indeed this theology is deeply embedded in the New Testament and is considered to be the core biblical framework for understanding the Kingdom of God. The central tension arises from what transpires in the theological concept of the 'already,' leading to a dramatic parting of various theological perspectives.

My view as a Partial Preterist would define this period as symbolic for the 1000 year time frame mentioned in Revelation. This is not a millennium but rather takes its definition from the verse 2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

In reference to your question:

Could one believe in a Millennial State after the Second Coming, but not think the Millennial Kingdom will be a literal 1,000 years?

It would be impossible. The fundamental conflict is that Dispensational Premillennialism demands a literal 1,000-year reign because its entire system is based on a strict, literal interpretation of prophecy. Accepting the 1,000 years as merely symbolic would violate this primary rule, undermining the unique basis of their view and putting their entire framework in a quagmire.
Blessings

Always in His Presence said:

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

Click to expand...

Wut? That you responded to was sarcasm. It's neither the best nor the worst, it just is. Do you actually understand? Your comments contradict that notion.

Apple Sky said:

I beg to differ, when I explained Genesis 1 to my son & his wife, they had a complete turn around towards God & the bible. Now they are well into Jesus.

Before my son would just shrug the Bible off. What a difference in him now.

This also happened to my late husband,

Click to expand...

Well God can, and does, speak through his word.
Learning that God created all things - i.e this world isn't random - and that humans were made in his image is a wonderful thing. Of course he can use his word to turn people to him.

What I mean is that it's not the shape of the earth that saves anybody; it's Jesus.
If your son and his wife accepted Jesus and believed that the earth is a globe, they'd be saved.
If they accepted Jesus and believed the earth is flat, they'd be saved.
If they were the greatest Flat Earth believers in the world and did loads to promote it, but they rejected Jesus, they wouldn't be saved.
If they were absolutely committed to Jesus, loved him, served him, had weekly meetings where they showed Charles Duke's testimony to unbelievers and taught that Flat Earth was complete nonsense - they'd be saved, and not condemned.

Never has God said, "I'm not going to save them or fill them with my Spirit because they believe the earth is a globe".

Dan1988 said:

your theology is so twisted that you can't find a single verse in the bible to remotely support your unbiblical and silly nonsensical opinion that "annihilation" is mentioned in the bible.

Click to expand...

Unbiblical and silly?? When we take the bible as a whole, it's always been life or death. What's silly is not taking to heart Christ's words when he calls the Lake of Fire "the second death"

Even one of the most quoted verses in the bible supports it -John 3:16 which proves only one gets everlasting life. The other perishes. It does not state the other gets eternal life in hell. But again, if we want to believe death does not mean death than one can believe anything.

Christ's words in Matthew 10:28 totally supports the words in Malachi-

Malachi 4:1 "For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave then neither root nor branch."

That's what a fire does.

To suggest there's no support in the bible for the body and soul being "fully" (the Greek) destroyed in the Lake of Fire is untrue. I mean, it is called the "second" death for a reason.


I will state I don't believe there's any evidence to support Universalism -just the opposite.

So 3 beliefs -we shall all see in the end....

Jerry N. said:

You haven’t done that with the statements made against flat earth.

Click to expand...

It's not as easy as all that.

rjs330 said:

We still don't know what are in the files. Speculation that Trump is involved the child cases in about as stupid as it comes. The Biden admin would have released them in a heartbeat if he were.

Click to expand...

The fact that Trump was caught creeping into the dressing room of under-aged females (he even privately bragged about it) does indicate that he was interested. So motive plus opportunity...

I know in the old days it was because of smoking lol.

It was even mentioned in songs

I've got the obligatory Hendrix perm
And the inevitable pinhole burns
All down the front of my favourite satin shirt