Always in His Presence said:

Growing up in the Roman Catholic Church the Crucifix was always the symbol we had in the home. After leaving the church and becoming Pentecostal, now it is a Cross.

Which do you choose, and why.

Let's show our good Christian attitude and take jabs at each other.

For me - I choose the Cross, because I view it like I view the empty tomb - the Risen Savior.

Click to expand...

Never thought over this. Thank you for the thread. i use indifferently both

The Barbarian said:

No point in denial.

But you can't find any?

Click to expand...

I listed a litany of lies I feel Reiner spewed. It's not my job to make you move away from deceit and dishonesty that the Democrats victimized Trump with since 2017:


•he said that Trump posed a threat to American democracy.
•In 2017 he said he believed Trump was “mentally unfit” to serve as president
•he said Trump is the single most unqualified human being to ever assume the presidency of the United States
•he said Trump showed no interest in trying to find out how government works
•In 2024, he said that another Trump presidency could turn the United States from a democracy into an “autocracy.”
•he said Trump "can probably spell the word ‘bible’, I don’t think he’s ever read it and I don’t think he has any idea what’s in it."
•he said this about us Christians who support Trump, "but they excuse all that by saying God works in mysterious ways, and that he sent us this flawed vessel by which we can achieve the goals that we want to achieve."
•he called Trump a criminal
•he said Trump "basically lies every minute of his life”
•he once compared Trump’s repeated political comebacks to a “zombie or a cockroach.”
•he said Trump has declared war on this democracy.
•he said Trump takes funds that were appropriated by Congress and then refuses to distribute them, in clear contradiction to the Constitution, the separation of powers.
•he said Trump was threatening the Hollywood community's First Amendment rights.

rjs330 said:

While Denmark recognizes the Luthern Church it gas moved beyond it. Its difficult to say its a Christian country when only 2% of its population attend church. It is a deeply secular country now.

A lot of Danes still keep some of its traditions, but its more tradition based rather than a actual religious based.

I would consider a Christian Nation to be one where the vast majority of people are practicing their faith and BIblical values are paramount in the governance.

Click to expand...

Are there any christian nations using that definition?

Jesus Cleanses the Temple​

Matthew 21: 12-13 Then Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who were selling and buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. He said to them, “It is written,

‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’
but you are making it a den of robbers.”

Jesus Cleanses the Temple​

Mark 11:15-18 Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves, and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written,

‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’?
But you have made it a den of robbers.”

And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him, for they were afraid of him because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching.






What do you think, are there still money changers today and should they be driven out? God Bless All

Keras - talking about abrogation of the bible - you just pretend that Isaiah 13 has this massive futurist bit.
But it doesn't.
Isaiah tells us what he's talking about.

A massive army being raised against the Babylonians.
But who are they? The Medes aka the Persians! When is that? Verse 17.

So what on earth are you talking about trying to save your precious "Dark Sun" for the future?
It's clearly and inextricably tied into the still to happen (from Isaiah's point of view) annihilation of Babylon by Persia.
Or about 2500 years ago from our POV.
QED.

It's clear.
Except with you for some reason?
Oh yeah - your 2010 "vision."
Yeah - that worked out just fine didn't it?

Where's the temple Keras?

Troll Monster said:

Test

Click to expand...

???

Unprecedented errors are eroding the credibility of Trump's Justice Department


In a subsequent legal opinion, a federal magistrate judge said the errors were part of a broader pattern of unprecedented prosecutorial missteps, resulting in a 21% dismissal rate of the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office's criminal complaints over eight weeks, compared to a mere 0.5% dismissal rate over the prior 10 years.

_______

These mistakes are causing department attorneys to lose credibility with federal courts, with some judges quashing subpoenas, threatening criminal contempt and issuing opinions that raise questions about their conduct. Grand juries have also in some cases started rejecting indictments, a highly unusual event since prosecutors control what evidence gets presented.

________


A federal judge in November dismissed the charges against Comey, finding the indictment was secured by an unlawfully appointed U.S. Attorney who was hand-picked by Trump after her predecessor expressed concerns about the strength of the evidence against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Even before that ruling, the case was troubled: A magistrate judge said he uncovered a plethora of errors by U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, from misstatements of law to the grand jury, to possible misconduct that included presenting evidence to grand jurors that was not filtered to remove privileged materials between Comey and his attorney.

________

At least some of the legal blunders are being caused by a loss of institutional knowledge, legal experts said.

From January through November, public records show the department has lost more than 2,900 attorneys - triple the number of those who left in each of the previous four years.

Vambram said:

No matter how much you want to believe it. No matter how many times you say it, President Trump did not committ fraud. Only liberals believe that he did.

Click to expand...

And the courts of the State of New York.

Lackadaisical.

Regina Caeli​

Login to view embedded media

Derf said:

And that reality is one in which at least some of the participants make new reality. That's how God made us. I think it's one way we are made in God's image.

What do you mean by "first cause"? Do you mean that the first causer causes in a predetermined way for all subsequent causers? Then there are many things for which God is not the first causer. If I write a sentence, like this one, God is the first causer in that without His causation of me, and all the things that preceded me such that I came to be (not to mention all the things that happened after I came to be that shaped my personality), but He is not ordinarily the first causer of my thoughts and actions. In other words, His first causation was not a sufficient cause of my writing of this paragraph. More was needed.

No, not in a predetermined fashion.

Only insofar as that is how He describes Himself.

I'm not sure how that notion helps, but if you are presuming that our thoughts are only God's thoughts, the Bible tells us you are incorrect.

Why is that necessary? You seem to be saying that if God is not directing our every choice, the choice must be random. Why?Are you saying that God did not create us capable of making choices?

Click to expand...

If you've been reading my posts, you know I'm not saying we don't choose. Of course we choose. What do you think choice is?

Derf said:

Welcome to the club.

Click to expand...

I have done more than to merely assert. I have shown, according to the logical law of causation, that God is the first cause of all that follows, (if God is God, after all). And all that follows includes our choices.

Derf said:

God is not a sufficient first cause to produce my post.

Click to expand...

What does that even mean? "Sufficient first cause"?

Derf said:

Why is self determination a problem? He didn't say "self-creation" after all

Click to expand...

I didn't say self-determination is a problem. Those I characterize as INSISTING on self-determination (by which I intend, those who claim that God did not determine that some 'for example' come about) are operating under the assumption that they are little first-causes --that they absolutely are sources of "new". They can't prove it. They can't even demonstrate how it can be so. All they can do is assert it.

They're going to have to redefine 'petty'. The current definition doesn't begin to cover this.

Though I disagree theologically with your conclusions. mainly because tongues serve more purposes than just judgment at least in the new testament. Plus, as a Pentecostal tongues are an integral part of my faith, experience and gateway to the power and revelation of God. In Acts 2 and about three other instances in Acts, tongues were a sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, not judgment.

Here is an alternative use of tongues too The reversal of Babel: Questioning the early church's understanding of the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts as a reversal of the curse of Babel
These authors set forth a part of tongues, (the cultural aspects) that I never heard in Pentecostal teachings. To me those authors are wrong on the total package, but they get this one part of tongues that others seem to neglect.

Complicating the subject of tongues, is the gift "various kinds of tongues" and what those are. Of course nearly all of this hinges on if one thinks the gifts have ceased.

I do like your teaching in this chapter on the OT pattern, message, refusal, tongues and dispersion. To me the pattern in the NT for the believer is MESSAGE (The Gospel) Acceptance (Born again) Tongues (Baptism of the Holy Spirit) and Unification (The body of Christ and unity with God).

Say it aint so said:

And I'm a rocket scientist. First, since most of the volume of scripture passed off as "support" is late as the church had scribes sit there and make copies of copies of scripture day in and day out for years, doesn't mean much. Second. The scripture you provide proves my point.

Click to expand...

No it proves mine. We know what camp you are in.

that ye should remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles: knowing this first, that in the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming?

Say it aint so said:

So given the context of being mocked,

Click to expand...

And you are still doing it.

I guess the writer of Proverbs is also correct.

He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself,
And he who reproves a wicked man gets insults.

Thanks for the conversation.

What did you learn on-scene about the nature of the conflict?

From what I've read, most of the violence is occurring in the primarily Muslim northern areas with part of the conflict being between Christian farmers and Muslim herders--similar to the farmer/cattleman wars the US experienced in the 1800s--and not purely a matter of religion.

essentialsaltes said:

How is that possible? A handful of self-important pecksniffs complained. Just because those squeaky wheels got some grease doesn't mean they represent "the community as a whole".

Click to expand...

You m ean like the handful of pecksniffs who complained about the book being banned? Are you just upset because the "wrong" squeaky wheels got greased?

Its my understanding that the library board is voted on.

AFrazier said:

Also, this: "and assume the Diascalia is historical, and not pseudepigrapha" This is why it gave you the answers you wanted.

From ChatGPT:

1. “ChatGPT Supported My View” Usually Means Leading the Question

I don’t have beliefs to defend or theological instincts to privilege. What I do is respond to the shape of the question.

If someone asks:

• “How can the Didascalia be understood as preserving an authentic apostolic tradition?”

Then yes—I will:

• Lay out possible arguments
• Describe minority positions
• Explore harmonizations
• Use charitable language

That is not endorsement. It’s exposition.

But if someone asks:

• “Is the Didascalia Apostolorum written by the apostles?”

The answer—based on evidence—is no, and consistently so.

What often happens in debates like this is that one party conflates:


Those are not the same thing.

Click to expand...

You are really not wise are you.

• “Is the Didascalia Apostolorum written by the apostles?”

The correct answer based on exegesis is yes the text claims to be written by the apostles. You personally do not believe it is vs we scholars do( see what I did there).
You do not do exegesis you do eisegesis - you start with the assumption the internal claims to authorship are a lie for all these texts, then reject the internal claim of authorship of them. You believe the torah is pseudepigrapha but you are so dishonest you will not say it publicly. Chat GPT will assume the text is pseudepigrapha because websites written by people like you, and it was trained on that data which is why I have to tell it to do exegesis - that is assume the text is historical, and not pseudepigrapha.

Acts of Pilate is just one section of Gosp of Nic. There is another section not written by Pilate.

Also I forgot to ask- are you Christian? I will not waste my time any more if you are not.

Valletta said:

President Trump Touts Massive First Year Wins in Primetime Address

Trump highlights energy, trade, and manufacturing successes in national address.

townhall.com

I believe the Democrats will try and damage the economy by shutting down the government again.

Click to expand...

Of course you’d believe that.

ThatRobGuy said:

FYI - this site has been barely usable for the last week and a half lol.

CF staff, do you need my assistance? My consulting rate for side gigs is $90/hour.

Click to expand...

Whatever someone did…it’s a bit betterer.

Always in His Presence said:

Um.. because that is what they believe -

Click to expand...

If the White House believes that, why doesn't the president pardon the crime, rather than let the stain of this Biden lawfare stand?

Always in His Presence said:

Also it is shown they have NO connection to each other.

Click to expand...

That did not happen.

fhansen said:

Buit why compare- rather than applaud it wherever it's happening? And my denomination happens to have such a system anyway. It's called Catholic Relief and it's one of the hugest and most efficient relief agencies out there.

Click to expand...

As I said before: The Body of Christ does not have the spiritual or material power or authority to make a social justice plan applicable to the world.
Catholic Relief does what it can, but it does not have the spiritual or material power or authority to make a social justice plan applicable to the world.

The whole world is not clothed, housed, and fed.

That is not our mission. It wasn't even Jesus' mission.

Where I believe those 15 time periods fit into the final 7 years of this Christian era;

Revelation 11:2 & 13:5 - The 42 months from when the AC sits in the Temple, to the Return of Jesus.
Rev 12:14, the same period, the time the faithful peoples will be kept safe far away.
Daniel 7:25 & 12:7; again - the same period, the world under Satanic control for three and a half years.

Daniel 8:14, the 2300 evenings and mornings; actually 1150 days; is past history. It refers to when King Antiochus 4 conquered Judah and placed a pig on the altar, until it was cleansed in 164BC.

Daniel 9:27, After the supernatural destruction of a huge army attacking the people in the Holy Land, led by Gog from Magog, the leader of the rest of the world will make a 7 year peace treaty with the leaders in Jerusalem. He will break it at the halfway and conquer the Holy peoples.

Ezekiel 39:9 & 12, There is no way we can pinpoint this time of the cleansing of the Holy Land. It must start before that 7 year treaty. Probably overlap some.

Revelation 11:3 & 12:6, the final period of 1260 days before Jesus Returns, Same time as the 42 months and the three and a half years.

Revelation 11:11, refers to actual days, Those 2 Witnesses will be raised by Jesus when He Returns, along with all the martyrs killed during the 3 1/2 year time of world Satanic control.

Daniel 12:11 The extra 30 days after Jesus Returns, is for the Atonement of the people and the removal of the abomination.

Revelation 9:10, fits somewhere in the final 3 1/2 years. 5 months of torment by stinging critters, part of the Great Tribulation.

Your question fields at least this theological concern. If a human lived on another planet would Satan have any influence there?
Revelation 12:9 (ESV)
9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Deceiver of the whole earth, or world? If world does not include other planets, a man not born again would still have a sin nature, but if living in another planet, perhaps there is no demonic involvement at all? It would be an interesting experiment to see if even the space station has demonic involvement.

It seems like man will press the boundaries of earth plus cultivate potential resources from other planets so I think when the tech is there will be visits and maybe occupation of other planets. Of course God could thwart any successful attempts in all kinds of ways.

stevevw said:

I think you are missing the point. You used Protzens opinion that the stones may have been polished. You are using my link, the same link you say is not good enough and that I need peer reviewed evidence for.

If my link is good enough for you to use to point out something wrong. Therefore I should be able to use my links to do the same and this should be accepted with the some logic as how you just used my own link to refute me.

Yet if I did the same as I have been doing I am demanded to provide further evidence such as peer review.

All I was looking at was Protzen was one of the experts referred to in my article who was credible as far as experts looking at ancient works. It doesn't matter what his particular findings were. Its that you use one of my own references as evidence. While at the same time dismissing my references as unreliable and lacking credibility.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

You are missing the point. I don't care about what is said and by whom. My point was that you suddenly found credibility in my own links by referencing Protzen. Yet when I reference anyone peer review is demanded. Its a double standard.

If you want to use someone within my references to defeat my point just by referring to them and not going through all the hoops of peer review or whatever it is demanded.

Then by the same logic when I cite others you should accept them without all the hoop jumping. But thats not what is happening. See how the rules are bent for one and not the others. Otherwise it does not matter what Protzen said or what it was about. If we apply the same hoop jumping then any point you are trying to make about Protzen perhaps saying the works may have been poliched is discredited under the same logic.

It does not matter. You are referring to him. If he did say the works were polished. Then you would use that as evidence that perhaps it was not vitrified. Is that correct.

Then you are using my reference and using evidence in the exact same way as I have been doing. So its double standards to then demand peer review as you never applied that to yourself. You were quite happy to use the possibility of Protzens contradiction to refute that the stones were vitrified.

Click to expand...

What? I don't think Protzens writings about the supposed vitrified surfaces are the definitive answer. He performed very little tests, if any to evidence that. In post 1576, I stated that I believe he is speculating regarding the supposedly vitrified surfaces.

I was wondering why you reference him, when it seemingly goes against the position you try to argue.

peter2 said:

Hello concretecamper.
Forgive me please : i'm not familiar enough with the english speaking to wholly feel the difference between the 2 adjectives.

Click to expand...

That's ok. Neither adjective counters whether someone possessed preternatural gifts