• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Democrats finally vote to open Government

In other words, today's rhetoric is basically a "Ha ha we fooled you" admission "mea culpa" for those who got snookered into believing "hey this shutdown is the fault of Republicans, it is a Republican shutdown no matter that all Republican Senators vote to open the government".

Lesson for all, try not to be so easily snookered.
The shut down was just as much Republicans as Democrats. Neither would vote for the other's bill.
Upvote 0

The Schumer Shutdown


Looks like there are brave Democrats who know it is time to open the government - here are their names.

Washington — Seven Democratic senators and one independent who caucuses with Democrats voted late Sunday to reopen the government and end the shutdown.​
Three of them have consistently voted for Republicans' short-term funding patch — which passed the House in mid-September — to keep the government funded until Nov. 21 at current levels. The measure narrowly advanced in the Senate after it secured the support of five more Democrats with the expectation that it will be amended to extend funding until Jan. 30.​
They were the brave ones. May they be protected from the wrath of the extremists (which seem to be about all but those 8) in the rest of the Senate who just gave us the longest federal shutdown in our 250 year history.
Upvote 0

He’s a citizen with a Real ID. ICE detained him anyway. Twice.

do for entering homes and businesses.
IF they are blowing off the doors of homes, they had better have a warrant.
Just like I said. When they need a warrant they are obtaining one.
Is being Hispanic give ICE reasonable suspicion to believe they are illegals?
Yes, if they are in areas where illegals are known to be. And of course sanctuary cities would he hot beds of illegals. If you raid a place with illegals then anyone matching the profiles of the illegals are going to be looked at.

This is rhe consequences of allowing 20 million illegals lose in the country.
Upvote 0

Trying to find people to debate for online content

It's possible that no one participating in this thread agrees with Mr. Kirk's statements about the war in Ukraine, so there wouldn't be anything to debate.

The only disagreement I'm seeing is over whether it's worthwhile to make a video analyzing Charlie Kirk's views on Ukraine. Ukraine itself, I'm very interested in; I have the Ukrainian coat of arms hanging in my office right now, a gift from a Ukrainian colleague. I hope they prevail and get to reclaim their land. But Charlie Kirk? I disagreed with him on a hundred things; Ukraine would just be a hundred and one. He was a young guy who might have matured if he'd had a chance to grow older, but he's gone. I don't know that you're going to have any audience for your video.

Is there any other topic you'd like to make a video about? There are lots of controversial things to discuss when it comes to religion. Maybe pick something different.
Hello, thank-you for this post as I find it to be constructive and largely agree with what you are saying.

It inspired me to make a new video: Login to view embedded media
Upvote 0

The auto-pen scandal is going to be massive

I know Hamas is murdering people they think cooperated with Israel and Israel has made some strikes on Hamas but it's the closest they have come to ending the conflict yet
So it's not ended. We agree on that. And we are to pat Trump on the back for bringing an abrupt end to the war. Well, when I say abrupt, there have been close to 100,000 men, women and children killed and they'll still be digging the corpses out of the rubble for some time now. Perhaps we can have a parade for Trump when they dig the last kid out.
Upvote 0

Will Russiagate scandal forever taint Obama’s legacy?

Yes, Mueller took down a lot of criminal associates of Trump, including his campaign manager, his national security advisor, his lawyer and about a dozen others. Trump pardoned most of them, of course, for reasons that are obvious. But they are still criminals.

The Mueller investigation was the weaponization and lawfare of the justice systems.
Juries disagreed with you. So did many of the perps, who took plea deals. No point in denial. There was widespread collusion; even Trump's National Security Advisor lied to the FBI about his contacts with Russian agents. Over a dozen people caught during the investigation. It is one of the worst scandals in American history.
Upvote 0

Trump proposes 50-year mortgage

Bonus tip: If you get paid bi-weekly, split your mortgage payment in half and pay half every other week. This will results in 26 half payments, or 13 full payments, meaning that you will make one full extra payment toward your principal each year. In my case, it will result in me paying off my 30-year mortgage in 22 years.
Or better yet, pay the minimum on the mortgage and invest the difference. You'll come out ahead in the end.
Upvote 0

Are the Jews Israel, or is the church Israel? Or does it depend on the context of the passage?

Exactly. God has made irrevocable promises to Israel, which make no sense when people try applying them to the church or ignore altogether. I think it’s very important for Christians to rightly divide the scriptures and understand that there are three groups of people; Jews (Israel), Gentiles (non-Jews), and the church (born again believers-Jews and Gentiles).

“After the Cross a new entity came into existence—the church that Jesus Christ promised He would build (Mt 16:18). As a result, there are now three divisions of mankind: Jews, Gentiles and the church. Paul tells us that we are to “Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God” (1 Cor 10:32). It is absolutely essential to understand that these three groups exist side by side in today’s world, to distinguish between them, and to recognize that God deals with each differently.”

I think you need to ponder on just what it is your calling "the church."

Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spoke to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

I
t would seem that you are replacing the church with Israel.
Upvote 0

The Final Experiment (Flat Earth Bites The Dust)

It should never be above the horizon if the earth is horizontal with the sun, what they should have seen is the sun at the horizon line the whole time, but what is seen is the sun above them the whole time. From their perspective the sun should be below them on the globe earth model.
They don't see the sun "above" them. The sun appears to rotate around them, ranging from low on the horizon to high. They see this over the entirety of Antarctica during Summer, which your diagram fails to explain.
Upvote 0

Obama referred to DOJ for criminal charges

I think anyone on this board has the right to comment on a post here. You can ignore the foreign posters. I welcome their perspectives.
Say what they want. But their opinions have no more weight than those of an illegal immigrant. We are American citizens. My family has been here since 1620. I have people in the Revolution, the Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, VN, and the Gulf War. We have blood in this matter. My family has 250 years of blood, sweat, and tears. We cut down the trees, plowed the land, and picked up weapons when called up. We have been paying taxes since the nation was started. Foreigners can say anything they want. But their words really do not weigh beyond a logical position. Fine. They do not have any say in where that money goes. They have no say in who our leaders are. They have no say in our laws, our constitution, or the fate of our children. I assume they have problems in their own countries that need attending to. They have a say there. Not here.
I do not ignore their opinions... I just wonder why they care what happens in my country?
Upvote 0

The Saving results of the Death of Christ !

Well that in itself is problematic. Any statement you pull from our discussion does not contain the full context of it.

I shouldn't have to point out that if you're relying on AI to determine what is accurate, you have no business participating critically in this discussion (by that, I mean, I'm being overly gracious in entertaining your objections, not that you can't, of course, say whatever you please). I'm happy to answer questions, explain my reasoning, or engage with your own objections, but outsourcing your thinking to a fallible AI is intellectually lazy at best and disqualifying at worst. AI is not trustworthy. It can help retrieve information (and even then, it's not always reliable and can be manipulated -- whether intentionally or not -- to support whatever you want, depending on how you word your prompt), but it cannot replace genuine comprehension or careful exegesis.
Of course I agree the ChatGPT can't "replace genuine comprehension or careful exegesis." But it was the only way for me to meet your grammatical claims, since I don't know Greek grammer myself.
Yes, which I clarified and expanded on in post #95. You've not interacted with any of the reasoning laid out there. You're simply being argumentative at this point.
The problem is I don't fully understand your reasoning and even worse, I don't know if you are correct. It's impossible for me to interact with. Sorry!
Upvote 0

Do you keep the Sabbath? (poll)

There is a real spiritual war going on. There is someone who really does not want this for mankind and its not God.

Isa 56:1 Thus says the Lord:

“Keep justice, and do righteousness,
For My salvation is about to come,

And My righteousness to be revealed.
2 Blessed is the man who does this,
And the son of man who lays hold on it;
Who keeps from defiling the Sabbath,
And keeps his hand from doing any evil.”

6 “Also the sons of the foreigner
Who join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him,
And to love the name of the Lord, to be His servants—
Everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath,
And holds fast My covenant


Jesus said quoting OT

Mat4:4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ ”

There is a lot of thus saith the Lords one has to not live by, to come to the conclusion that God does not what us to keep His Sabbath and Holy Day. Why would we not want to be blessed by God Isa56:2 and receive His sanctification Eze20:12 and know He is our God, we are His people Eze20:20. The Sabbath comes with the power of God Exo20:11- I know of no one greater than He.
Upvote 0

New here and introducing myself

Thank-you so much St_worm2, very kind of you. I feel pretty comfortable regardless of the forum because at the end of the day, it's just a website and you can log off if it isn't your preference.
:oldthumbsup:
I was up front about the autism and my circumstances because for me it is relevant. At the same time, I know from experience on a different forum how sharing this info. has been used against me. I won't name the forum, but I have experienced relentless online harassment for years simply for sharing certain details.
I'm sorry to hear that, and I certainly hope that it doesn't happen to you again, especially here at CF!!

Anonymity can sometimes be advantageous. I also believe some people are simply quite disturbed and likely mentally ill when their behaviour is to inflict harm intentionally. I try not to take comments personally when they come from people who in my view are unwell.
That's a good attitude to have, especially online, because unlike the "old days" when we typically talked in person or, at least, over the phone to each other, acceptable/civil behavior is often replaced by rude behavior on social media platforms. People are mean (for all kinds of reasons .. the Christian faith talks at length about why, just FYI), but back when we were regularly forced to interact with one another "in person" to communicate, it seemed so much easier to treat other people like, well, people :)

I don't share the experience of autism and the past harassment to sound like a victim either.

The isolation/unemployment is reality, but I do have resources available. I don't mind spending a lot of time online, but I also don't want my life to be spending 10 hours+ per day online and I want more meaningful connections that go beyond online.
:oldthumbsup:
You mention the 'Golden Rule'. Do to others what you would have them do to you. I agree - this is basic common sense. Easy to understand in principle yet not always applied by all people.
Yes, it's a principle that's been around for centuries and in many different cultures, although it's mostly been a "don't do" kind of principle outside of Christianity, as well one that had "self" in view, at least first & foremost. As one famous rabbi put it (loosely), "Don't do anything bad to other people so that they won't do anything bad to you".

While my preferred translation of The Golden Rule wording isn't the common one ("Do unto others...." is), it still says the same thing, so, here again is the Christian version of this principle from Jesus.


Matthew 7
12 However you want people to treat you, so treat them, for this is the Law & the Prophets.

The difficulty with Jesus' version is what He meant by it/how it is to be obeyed, IOW, that we are to always treat others in the way that we, at least, hope that they would choose to treat us, even when they have treated us and/or are treating us horribly (which is what makes always following His version of the principle difficult).

Finally, something that I have found very fascinating and may interest you too is what Jesus sums up for us in the first half of it, specifically, "the Law and the Prophets" (which is one of the ways that Jews refer to the entirety of the Old Testament). IOW, "However you want people to treat you, so treat them" is the whole of the teaching of the Old Testament's commandments, laws, precepts, etc., distilled down for us into half of a sentence (all that is taught to us there about how we are to relate to one another, anyway), which I, at least for one, find amazing!


I don't see any quote from Mark Twain?
I edited the first version of my post into what you see above now, because it seemed too long to me. That said, here's the missing quote that I edited out (right after I posted it) from Twain.

Mark Twain - Kindness Deaf Hear Blind See.jpg

Just FYI, "patience and kindness", according to the Bible, as the two principal "ingredients" (if you will) in Godly love (you'll find the whole "ingredients" list here: 1 Corinthians 13:4-8a .. a passage that is read at most Christian weddings, in point of fact, as it ends with, "love never fails" :) (and if you'd care to read the passage in context, here are the first three verses prior to the "list" 1 Corinthians 13:1-8) the whole of which giving us much insight into the Christianity or, at least, what the Christian faith is supposed to look like, anyway).

Here is one I just looked up: "The secret of getting ahead is getting started'.
That's a very good quote, as most of Twain's quotes are (even the rude ones ;)).

I am trying to find more meaning in my life. What exactly I should be working on I do not know.
I have been very motivated at various points in my life and maintained a more disciplined routine. These days I am unsure what I should do to find more meaning and purpose, though I have not given up hope.
I have some ideas about that, because that (finding the true and ultimate meaning and purpose to life, that is) is a big part of what finally led me to the Christian faith 39 years ago (I wasn't always a Christian, just FYI). I'll leave talking about that for a later time however, and only if you want to hear about it then, of course.

--David
p.s. - here's another quote for you (one that is both thought-provoking and nice enough for the forum we are on, too ;)).


Mark-Twain-The-two-most-important-days-in-your-life.jpg
Upvote 0

Deal Reached To End The Government Shutdown

I see what you did there. The Democrats had no qualms using hunger as a bargaining tool. As it was, ALL Senate Republicans voted to keep the government open and not use hunger as a bargaining tool while only eight Senate Democrats voted to end the shutdown and fully fund hunger programs. The majority of Senate Democrats preferred to keep the government closed.
Now we look forward to seeing Hakem Jeffries and the Democrat kabuki theater as try try to continue shutting down the government while simultaneously blaming Trump and Republicans. Lol!
Upvote 0

Matthew 1:21 - He will save His people

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).
Well, he does also say "His people" are the ethnic Jews.

I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?
— Romans 11:1-2

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.
I have tried my best with grammer and ChatGPT. I can see it's not working very well. I will however see if I can find someone who is an expert in the Greek language and I'll ask about Matthew 1:21.
Upvote 0

Hell doesn't exist and there is no eternal suffering, instead bad peolle just cease to exist

Look, we're on the same side as it pertains to people.

I'd also point out that technically, the RCC "allows" their adherents to believe that every person has a shot at purgatory, and also technically, could move past that point, although a heterodox position, not commonly held. The EO is not so kind and prefers eternal resistors in torment. The same God loving us while tormenting them. Kinda weird imho

Actually, I have to agree with your above statement. While I find much that is beautiful and challenging in Orthodoxy, there are a couple of things that leave me scratching my head. The insistence of some on eternal torment is one of them. It does, however, seem that the most ardent supporters of this idea are converts from Protestantism who have brought over their theological baggage with them.
Upvote 0

What is the meaning of Total Depravity?

There is physical death of the body. . and there is spiritual death of the human spirit (i.e., absence of eternal life).
At physical death of the body, the body ceases to exist except for its dust.
The human spirit is immortal and nevers cease to exist, even without eternal (God's) life.
And?? Is that supposed to somehow deny the fact that Jesus raises the spiritually dead to newness of life?
The soul does not die.
Adam and Eve died spiritually; I.e., they lost eternal life within their spirits.
The spirit of man does not die either then, since, as you say, it's immortal.

Death of the soul is a metaphor historically used for the same concept that which happens when one is separated from God. And that's the point. So are you denying that man is born dead metaphorically, while truly dead to God, and must be born again?
Adam and Eve died spiritually; I.e., they lost eternal life within their spirits.
Yes, as I've maintained. Dead men walking.
They did not die physically, they died spiritually (loss of eternal life). . .there is a difference.
Physical death is cessation of the body's existence.
Spiritual death is not cessation of the immortal spirit's existence, it is absence of eternal (God's) life within the immortal human spirit.
Man is born in spiritual death (no eternal life in his spirit), by his nature an object of wrath (Eph 2:3), and who is reborn into eternal life by the sovereign choice (as unaccountable as the wind, Jn 3:6-8) of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-5).
OK? This adds nothing to what I've said. Dead men walking.
But the soul does not die.
Thanks for your opinion.
Nor does man inherit sin. (Eze 18:20)
The sin with which man is born is the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:14, 17, 18-19, 12-16), which is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputed righteousness of Christ to man, just as righteousness was imputed to Abraham (Ro 4:1-5).
A distinction without much of a difference. How is imputing sin to anyone who isn't guilty of it any different-or better- or more just? You don't quite seem to get it. All fell with Adam and so all share the same fate and consequences. All are equally dead. All need to be born again in order to live. Why, woud you speculate, do all of Adam's descendants inevitably sin? Hint: there's something more wrong with them than imputed sin.
Upvote 0

What would have happened to Adam and Eve and Cain after death?

I have presented to you evidence in the words of Christ, as recorded in Jh. 20:17, that Christ did not go to heaven/paradise the day of His death, but two days latter. I have also shared with you in my first post (Ezekiel 18:20, and Rev. 16:3) which states that souls die, which I assume you don't believe. (John 5:28,29; Acts 2:29,34; Job 17:13) that the saved do not go to heaven when they die, nor the lost to hell, which i assume you believe. And Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,10; Psalms 115:17) that the dead know nothing, nor do they praise the Lord. All of these Biblical texts and others I have not mentioned prove that the thief could not have gone to paradise along with Christ the day Christ was crucified.

You need not apologize for not agreeing with me, as you are free to believe whatever you choose to believe. But certainly my previous posts show that I have given Biblical support for why the comma in Lk.23:43, has been placed in the wrong place, since it contradicts what the Bible clearly teaches on death. So no, I haven't relied on "it shouldn't be there to justify it
It is no difference than the poor man in Abraham bosom depicted in Luke 16. Paradise is the third heaven as Paul describes in 2 Cor. 12. This heaven is not the same as where Jesus explains He has not been to in John 20:17. In fact, Paul and Jesus call the third heaven paradise.

Ezekiel 18:20 teaches that the soul that sins will die which they will indeed at the end of times. The soul of the sinner will go to hades just like the soul of the rich man in Luke 16 did. Rev. 20 describes how hades and death will be thrown in the lake of fire at the end of times (Rev. 20:14).

Rev. 16:3, John 5:28-29, has no teaching about the soul.

Acts 2:29 only talks about David’s grave not about his soul.

Acts 2:34 is a quote from Psalm 110:1 which is a prophesy about the messiah. Also read, Luke 20:23 and Heb. 1:13.

Job 17:13 Sheol and Hades are the same place. This is where the rich man in Luke 16 is.

ECC. 9: 5-6,10. The first two verses refer to the body not the soul. Verse 10 is also not talking about the soul otherwise it would be in tension with Luke 16 where the rich man was talking and needed water. When an interpretation causes tension between parts of scripture then is best to examine one’s interpretation rather than force an interpretation.

Psalm 115:17 the dead bodies do not praise the Lord but the souls do including the souls of the martyrs (Rev. 6:9).

I have now addressed every verse that you have posted and added a couple of my own.

Be blessed.
Upvote 0

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,878,021
Messages
65,411,439
Members
276,359
Latest member
Liyan alrabadi