d taylor said:

-
​

What are you reading, Matthew 7 is not a parable. The parables of Jesus do not start till chapter 13.

As for these people you know i do not know them so i have no idea what they believe or what they have placed their faith in. But if they have believed in Jesus for Eternal Life, then they are a permanent born again child of God.

Click to expand...

Matthew 7:13 was a warning to those who professed Jesus, but depended on works.

So, how does a person believe on Jesus for eternal life if eternal life comes by way of Jesus?

Another way of asking this question; if eternal life is given only by One, and that is. Christ, then how does my believing on Christ affords me the responsibility of giving myself eternal life?

John 3:15 KJV
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

We are commanded to believe on Him - and through our believe, we receive eternal life from Him. Yet, to believe on Him is not simply a mental agreement that He is the savior and my sins are forgiven. It’s more than that! To believe on Him is to believe all of Him, to include obeying His words, which we learn we cannot obey Him due to our sinful nature. However, He, by His Spirit, must live in us so that we receive His Power to obey, and to be conformed to Him, His image, to express Him in us - then we are children of God!

This is why the gospel tells us to put off the old man and walk according to the Spirit, among other commands - it is the gospel of Christ that is the Power of God unto salvation.

So, how does a person believe unto eternal life without understanding the gospel requirements for salvation? So to say we are to believe unto eternal life is incorrect.

People cannot just say because they believe on Christ they are saved unto eternal life - eternal life don’t belong to man, eternal life is given - and without the Spirit of Christ, we cannot receive eternal life.

JohnB445 said:

this has worried me, do I need to be a Catholic to be saved, or a Protestant? Or does the denomination have nothing to do with it?

Click to expand...

Denominations are just a variety of traditions that Christianity has assumed, due to the fact Christianity has penetrated different regions and different cultures. And sometimes Christianity is in decline and needs new movements to reinvigorate what has fallen.

So there are many denominations. Some denominations are in worse condition overall than others. But there may be good local churches in weak denominations. Or, there may be weak congregations in strong denominations.

Salvation is your relationship with Christ. Is his word in your heart, and are you following it day in and day out? Do you know what unconditional love is? Are you willing to maintain love in the face of attack? Are you willing to share the Gospel with those open to it?

Salvation is simply when Christ has "come into your heart," making you aware of your choice for him by the indwelling of his word within your conscience. You know you'r saved when your nature is being changed into the likeness of Christ, albeit imperfectly.

AV1611VET said:

Yes, really.

You can't lock truth behind iron bars.

Click to expand...

Nothing of what he's said ever is truthful, correct, accurate or right

BPPLEE said:

If there was something really bad about Trump in the files do you really think Maxwell's appeals would have stopped them from releasing them?

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely. Because if the files were released, that would essentially kill the case against Maxwell and let her walk free. Perhaps abiding by the law and procedures is a novel concept for you.

Apple Sky said:

As Antarctica encircles the earth like a ring.

Why do think they have the laurel leaves encircling the map on the UN logo ?

View attachment 373386

Click to expand...

Nonsense.
Those leaves don't meet at the top. They are not "encircling" anything, and they are laurel leaves, not a ring of ice.

Apple Sky said:

A symbol of the Ouroboros snake which encircles the earth​

Click to expand...

More nonsense. The earth is encircled by a snake, now?

YOU know the earth is a globe, just as you know that Charles Duke walked on the moon.
You just won't admit it.

Colo Millz said:

Co-Sufferers (Imitatio Christi): Christians are called to participate in the suffering of Christ. Personal suffering is utilized as a means of purification (removing self-will and sin) and spiritual growth. By uniting one's own pain to the Passion, it ceases to be meaningless and becomes a source of grace for oneself and others.

Is this a Biblical understanding?

Click to expand...

Yes. I just suffer knowing these things, that in this fallen world we have to suffer. And being Christians we suffer the rejection of the world around us. These things are extremely painful and difficult to accept. But accept it we must.

I think with me it's more resignation that ambition to suffer. I simply have to relinquish my will when God calls me to suffer whatever I have to suffer. I pray against it, perhaps, but I try to take my concerns to the Lord. Knowing God can relieve us of suffering and still wills that we suffer is one of the hardest things I experience in life.

But you're right. We have to surrender our will and let God have His way, without rebelling, complaining, or losing our spiritual composure. We aren't trying to achieve some superior level of spirituality--just maintain our spirituality and call to endure what God wills that we endure.

We should not prescribe what suffering anybody else has to suffer. We are all individuals. We should always let God speak first, before we judge what somebody else is going through. We can only judge sin--not circumstances.

A Devil's Advocate said:

Disclaimer: This post is intended for those who follow the True God of the bible and not the lesser form of God commonly associated with Christianity (sarcasm intended).

Click to expand...

Why the Disclaimer? You think the God of the Bible is to be separated from Christianity?

A Devil's Advocate said:

There is this popular belief that mankind messed up. We were given a test. Should we choose correctly, we would remain in a relationship with God, completely dependent on Him. But if we choose wrong, we would end up cast out from a relationship with Him and left to eventually die, unless God were to intervene. This test was made known through the two trees in the midst of the Garden; the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Of course, as we've all been made to understand, mankind messed up and made the wrong choice. This is absolutely ridiculous!

Click to expand...

It is hardly ridiculous. Everything about the trees in the Garden was a test of loyalty with consequences. God also tested Israel in the wilderness with consequences.

A Devil's Advocate said:

Let's start with the fact that God is the creator of the very reality in which we exist. All existence comes from God. The very idea that God would create a life form, from the infinite possibilities of what He could create, that would be capable of messing up, if He did not want them to mess up, is absolute fantasy.

Click to expand...

Not at all. Yes, God created all existence. And yes, God has infinite possibilities. But he did create the ability for angels and men both to "mess up." He did not want them to mess up due to His holiness. But He wanted them to be able to mess up because He wanted to test their loyalty, preferring their choices based upon free will.

A Devil's Advocate said:

If God did not want man to sin, man never would've sinned. When the serpent told Eve she would become like God, the serpent was speaking in reference to knowledge, not some form of godly power capable of messing up God's plan.

Click to expand...

Yes, God allowed the serpent to offer Man the knowledge of disobedience to God's word. That is not "godly power," but rather, "ungodly power."

A Devil's Advocate said:

Also, the idea that God was testing man to see if he would remain loyal is just as ridiculous. In everything that God created, He said that it 'was all very good.' There was nothing God created that could possibly tempt man away from God.

Click to expand...

Actually, what God allowed the serpent to offer Man in the Garden was precisely God's creation of circumstances that tested his loyalty. The creation was good. The choice to disobey by Man was not good. Having free will was good. The choice to use free will to rebel against God's word was not good.

A Devil's Advocate said:

By introducing the tree of knowledge, with the commandment not to eat from it, creates the very condition where disloyalty becomes possible. Meaning, God creates the very thing to cause disloyalty. This is illogical. If He did not want man to be tempted, He would not have created the potential for it.

Click to expand...

False, God thought it good to give Man free will. He did not wish Man to use his free will to rebel against His word. But God thought it good to allow Man, in his free will, to rebel against His word if he so wished to do so. Who are we to say that this is illogical or absurd? It is precisely what happened!

A Devil's Advocate said:

It should also be understood that you cannot know the character/nature of God without evil.

Click to expand...

That does not follow. I can know God as a good God without ever having sinned, just as the good angels who never sinned still know God is holy. They say so in the book of Revelation.

(Baron) Greenback really needed Danger Mouse.

RKCBN

May God comfort those who mourn!

Servus said:

Maybe if you didn't usually misinterpret what I say and didn't add in what I didn't say, I'd have some hope of a proper discussion rather than the usual rabbit hole.

Click to expand...

If I've misinterpreted or misunderstood your point, you've had more than enough opportunity to explain it better, or show me what I got wrong. Instead, you simply call my points strawmen and ignore them.

And since you've gone out of your way to miss my points, let me try to explain your point better, and see where we stand.

Your point, that even if Trump were framed, it wouldn't change our minds about him, misses one key, salient point: he wasn't framed. He did what he was accused of doing, and the evidence of that convinced a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's not all. Trump has been accused of many other crimes and misdeeds, a good number of them proven in a court of law. Fraud, defamation, sexual assault, just to name a few, and there are others going back well before his entrance into politics. His life has been public long before he descended in that escalator.

So, your implied premise that our criticism of Trump comes from bias alone is incorrect. One can easily object to Trump based on Trump's actions, and his character as has been observed and reported on for decades. The 34 felony convictions is just the tip of the iceberg.

So, of course if someone came out and said Trump was framed, it wouldn't make a difference. A negative view of Trump doesn't come from that one single trial where he was proven guilty of 34 felonies, it comes from a much larger body of evidence of dubious and questionable behavior over the years, including a previous term as president. Add to that, the fact that the possibility of him being framed for those crimes is so monumentally unlikely, it's frankly laughable. That doesn't help your premise.

Trump being framed is about as likely as Trump singlehandedly curing cancer, another ridiculous scenario some have come up with to pretend that a justifiable and understandable objection to Donald Trump could not possibly come from the man himself, but must be due to an irrational bias. That's a false premise.

-- A2SG, the real difference between Trump detractors and Trump supporters is the former choose not to ignore reality, while the latter has to......

Delvianna said:

Same thing with Jehovah's Witnesses and their 2 class system. The people who think they are apart of the 144,000 just think they are.

Click to expand...

This always makes me laugh when I hear this, as the 144,000 are;

These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they are virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever He goes. They have been redeemed from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb. And no lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless
Revelation 14:1-5

And must belong to the twelve tribes of Israel.

'Do not harm the land or sea or trees until we have sealed the foreheads of the servants of our God.' And I heard the number of those who were sealed, 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel: From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed, from the tribe of Reuben 12,000, from the tribe of Gad 12,000, from the tribe of Asher 12,000, from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000, from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000, from the tribe of Simeon 12,000, from the tribe of Levi 12,000, from the tribe of Issachar 12,000, from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000, from the tribe of Joseph 12,000, from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000." (Revelation 7:1-8)

But no mention of the tribe of Dan, I wonder why this is ?

Yarddog said:

It doesn't fit into the definition of sedition. It is the duty of the military to refuse to obey an illegal order. They take an oath to the Constitution, not to the President.

Click to expand...

However, those Senators are very clearly implying that President Trump has issued or shall issue illegal orders to the military. I've been in the US military for more than 27 years and I have more trust in President Trump than any other President whom has been my Commander-in-Chief. President Trump has not, and he shall not issue any illegal orders to the military.

Yarddog said:

Yeah, nurses work 16 hour days.

Click to expand...

not the ones i know.

HantsUK said:

Just remembered: To Sir with Love.

Click to expand...

One I forgot also, but absolute classic. We had a tv wheeled into the class so we could watch the film too.

essentialsaltes said:

Federal judge orders Arlington, Fort Worth [and a dozen other] ISDs to remove Ten Commandments displays​

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered several Texas school districts to remove Ten Commandments displays from classrooms, issuing the ruling in a lawsuit brought by families who argue the postings violate the Constitution’s ban on government-endorsed religion.

The districts must remove the displays by Dec. 1, and the order will remain in effect while the case continues. This applies only to the districts named in the lawsuit, but the groups behind the case are urging all Texas school districts to avoid displaying the Ten Commandments.

The lawsuit was filed in September when some districts began putting up the posters after an August ruling [post #66] in a different case that called the law “plainly unconstitutional.” That earlier ruling temporarily blocked the law in nearly a dozen other districts across Texas’ largest metro areas. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a vocal supporter of SB 10, has appealed that decision.

Click to expand...

The liberals will be out in the cold, the "Ten Commandments" will win!

This is disgraceful (changed earlier this month), but what else should have been expected with an anti-vaxxer in charge of HHS?


Looks to me like someone is going to get a lot of people killed. And, they don't care.

Fervent said:

you are once again attempting to read in semantic considerations based on essentialist misconceptions. I'm making no category mistake, you're simply imposing something onto the text on a faulty basis to build your conclusion into it.

Having come in mid-thread, I didn't see the circumstances for your semantic argument.

Then why have you simply shifted to another semantic argument focusing on a different word but built on the same faulty approach?

Nope, "ability" is a vague concept that doesn't necessarily depend on a novel feature of the object. It is the drawing that is the focus, no need for any sort of change in the object of that drawing for the drawing to enable.

Again, you're reading a non-standard understanding of "ability" as in a novel creation in the object when it is more readily understood as belonging to the act itself rther than some change in the metaphysical situation.

And your questions only remain undistinguished if you impose an artificial metaphysical construct onto it. I don't need to argue your conclusion out of the text, I simply need to point out that its something you're packaging into it rather than genuinely drawing from it.

"Predicated of the subject" is a rather nonsense statement, since all predicates are dependent on the subject with the object being in the predicate. Your argument requires a metaphysical framework to be read into the word that it simply cannot support.

Which is supposed to be changing, the subject or the object?

Again, the subject or the object?

You are, through a fallacious essentialist approach to linguistics

The problem is exactly this, you think grammatical analysis is the same as exegesis. It's not. It's a supplement, and can't bear the weight you're trying to place on it.

I'm contesting your essentialist approach to linguistics, which had you read your own citations you would understand the issue with.

Click to expand...

I'm tiring of this assertive approach of yours. I'm going to be direct with you.

Your replies continue to fire off unsupported assertions while avoiding the actual point I have pressed from the beginning. You keep circling back to abstractions about "essentialism," "metaphysics," and "semantic fallacies," but none of these touch the argument I have explicitly grounded in the syntax of the text. At this stage, I'm not going to keep chasing every passing sentence you throw out

If you intend to continue, you need to engage the syntactical argument itself. If you will not, then this conversation has reached the end of its usefulness.

Here is the argument you must address:

1. John predicates δύναται of the subject (οὐδεὶς). The construction expresses a personal capacity or incapacity, not an environmental condition. That is simply the function of δύναται in Greek grammar. "You're reading a non-standard understanding of "ability"" is an unsubstantiated claim. I already challenged you to defend it. You won't. You insist on reading English conceptual models into a discussion of Greek semantics and syntax. That's not a serious contribution to our exchange.
2. John 6:44 presents a conditional structure: ἑλκύσῃ --> δύναται. The Father's drawing is the stated condition that generates the person's ability to come.
3. John gives no secondary effect for drawing, no third category such as "general atmospheric possibility," and no indication that drawing may occur without producing the predicate ability he assigns to it.
4. Therefore, if drawing occurs and ability does not arise, the conditional statement is false. The text leaves no space for a drawing that fails to accomplish the one effect John attaches to it.
5. The final clause of the verse ("and I will raise him up on the last day") grammatically ties the raising to the granting of the capacity to come to Christ. It is the one who is granted this ability who is promised salvation.

That is the entire argument. It is grammatical, not metaphysical. It is structural, not theological. And it stands or falls on the text, not on accusations of "essentialism." Your use of that term reveals a fundamental misunderstanding -- either of my argument or of the concept itself. At no point have I argued that words possess immutable, metaphysical senses, or that meaning is fixed by nature rather than by usage. The argument I gave concerning δύναται was based on its usage in Classical and Koine literature. Deploying terminology like "essentialism" here is just swinging a hammer in search of a nail. It attempts to land a critique where none exists and distracts from the syntactic reality the text actually presents.

The bottom line is there is no point to this exchange if you can't go to the text and deal with what's there in the grammar. I will not respond again unless you do so. Dispute the grammar. Show where δύναμαι functions as an imported condition detached from the subject. Show where John permits drawing without producing the predicate ability. Show where the conditional structure may be broken without rendering the sentence false. And show where the one raised is not explicitly identified as the one granted the ability to come.

If you cannot or will not do that, then the discussion is over. I'm not interested in an endless loop of assertions that never touch the text, and will regard the next round of them as a tacit concession to the argument I laid out above.

It could be a word directed at you,
see, words people speak to you, like
'you are going to get sick'
'You lack memory'
'Cancer'

if that word enters you, it can happen it doesn't, but if a negative word enters you
it can have all kind of bad effects, including giving rights to the devil to torment.

If you have some communion with the Holy spirit, you could ask him if this is a word, and what word it was.
If the Holy spirit brings an idea of this to you, the rest is easy you just pray for it to go away.

Fervent said:

not quite, Islamic jurisprudence is heavily regulated until modernists have sought to re-write Islamic history. They say "the doors of ishtijad are closed" and defer to classic interpreters, who unanimously agreed that ayat like 9:29 were unlimited calls to war until the end of time "when there is no more fitnah."

Click to expand...

As I said, it's all interpretation. All sections of the Quran must be read in context. No cherry picking or I'll start with the OT.

Fervent said:

Perhaps I should have added "or pay the jizya" since that is what Islam calls for, modernist whitewashing not withstanding.

Click to expand...

No, that only applies to non believers within an Islamic state. And nowhere does it call for beheading. Or any other form of death.

sovereigngrace said:

The good olive tree is true Israel. We have been joined to them - the elect remnant according to grace. It is a spiritual Israeli tree. It is a believing tree. It is the household of faith from the beginning.

Click to expand...

The text does not say that the good olive tree is Israel.

The good olive tree is people who believe God and are saved. Not any particular nation.