com7fy8 said:

I think it was Jesus who talked about hypocrites being like tombs full of bones and having white-washed walls.

And Paul had some things to say to hypocritical people. For example > in Romans 2:1-11.

Click to expand...

Yes and I notice this same truth in the Lord prayer when it says "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us". As though our disposition is not to be judgemental to begin with.

But to be willing to forgive even our enermies or loved ones which can be very hard as well. Without going all ballistic on them lol. Or even persisting with a gruge. Which is completely against the mentality of the culture wars.

com7fy8 said:

I would say, yes, but first make sure we are calling out how we ourselves are wrong. And use this as an example to encourage others to also seek God for real correction.

Click to expand...

Yes 'take the log out of your own eye before removing the speck in another'. Really a life and psychological truth principle. Petersons mentions the 12 steps to a better life as a psychological principles.

The first being "Clean up your room" or your own house first lol. Then you may have achieved some value in maybe helping another. Then go on to be a productive member of the family and society and help others.

But even more so for Christians who proclaim a different way.

Even then I think the major aspect of Christianity is non verbal. The gospel is quite simple and on that alone we can rationalise as a matter of a testimony and faith claim. The rest is subject to that.

So a simple humble and quite disposition exmpling Christ speaks a 1,000 words. When some does say the little they will say. They will be well respected and listened to. It won't be the same old whitenoise of the culture war.

This to a fair extent was how the church and Christians were. A seperate moral voice that was not mixed up in the world. Sought out as wise counsel in moral matters. Until the two got into bed together and the church just became another corrupted power and identity in the world.

In some ways I think identity and culture wars are Pharisees in mindset as its all about the how to be good to earn salvation rather than the core truth that all are sinners and fall short and its only by the Gospel that we can be transformed in Christ to be the kind of person all these identities are trying to live up to.

So by engaging in the wars we are actually drowning out the simple truth which has no identity but in Christ Himself.

Fervent said:

That's a whole lot of assertion, and nothing really substantive.

Click to expand...

Are you sure that you want to question whether humans have an innate sense of right and wrong?

Okay, then in Genesis chapter 3, who told Adam and Eve that they were naked?

Hentenza said:

You still need to find the verse. Find a post crucifixion verse that requires the Christian to keep the 4th commandment.

Click to expand...

I have you just doen’t seem to allow the Bible to define itself. I would be more concerned when the God of the Bible gives a spoken and written commandment that He claims as His Exo20:6 something thats under His mercy seat, and all throughout the Bible says to keep My commandments that we take it upon ourselves to remove the one commandment He said Remember and points to Him as our Creator Exo20:11 Sacntifer Eze20:12 and the only God we are to worship Rev14:7

Guess all will get sorted out soon enough.

Be well.

The cross

Torture of extreme brutality turned into embodiment of salvation
When the wrath of God was poured out and
cup of curses was drunk to the full
When the justice of God was satisfied and
not any transgressions went unpunished
When the grace of God was withheld and
Jesus was separated from God for the first time

The harmony of divine attributes was manifested
The paradoxical dilemma was reconciled

Sin was fully propitiated and guilt completely atoned for
For His name’s sake, God accomplished this once and for all

Fervent said:

This is along the lines of the kind of opinions I was hoping would get discussed in this thread. Though I'm not sure it is a lone principle.

In particular, what I was hoping would get focused on is what it is that governments are instituted to preserve/protect...and whether or not the Enlightenment value of protecting individual liberties as the primary function of governments passes Biblical muster.

Click to expand...

God does love justice. He hates when the scales are imbalanced. However, he allows slavery but does not endorse it. I think God would reject free speech at least as far as the USA gives it. Pornography for instance would never be God's will for protected speech. God always seems to support due process. Paul appealing as a citizen of Rome shows that respect. God too has rules of evidence, such as everything being confirmed by two or more witnesses. God does give some criminals and foreigners rights too. I don't see any liberties that Americans would enjoy as being opposed to God, except maybe some exceptions for speech (the right to pornography an exception) and perhaps the right to any religious exercise. To me God gives free will though and while God does not want alternative paths to be worshiped, I think he suppresses that but does not outlaw it in the New Testament period. In the OT, God is quite direct in stamping out some nations that oppose him or are oppressive. In modern times, he allows far more. I think God emphasizes the difference between believers and non-believers, rather than the nations. I have seen some to suggest that God judges the church, not the nations in the New Testament. I lean to the former but there are times when God will judge leaders or groups that warrant this. If I consider the love of money in American society as a likely judgment coming, I have to assume that while everyone is effected those who are balanced in this area could actually fare better. Here I consider the low will be brought high, the high will be brought low as a Godly principle. The same goes for the humble versus the proud. So someone walking in humility without the love of money could fare extremely well.

If I consider a nation that has abortion rights as a major policy. Does God care? absolutely. So that to me is the paradox with Trump. Trump is God's choice because he is a vessel of correction in so many ways. In some things Trump is righteous yet in other things he is a leader in excesses. God is using both parts for America's good. Looking forward to more of your own and other's thoughts on this topic.

BPPLEE said:

Assault was overcharging. They should have just charged him with disorderly conduct. Surely you don’t think it’s okay to throw things at people, even if you don’t like them

Click to expand...

The problem is that they are the feds. They don't really have that charge available for a regular DC street. It would be a city charge.

fhansen said:

And why would God need to be patient with anyone and with what they may do if He's already predetermined that they'll come.

Click to expand...

Because God's decree does not eliminate means; it establishes them. His patience is not uncertainty about the outcome; it's the ordained space in which the elect are brought to repentance according to His timing.

fhansen said:

If the drawing can fail it's only because while God makes it possible for people to come to Him, He leaves it up to them to assent, or not.

Click to expand...

You're still missing the point. In John 6:44, ἑλκύω modifies δύναται ("is able"), not ἐλθεῖν. The Father's drawing is what effects the ability to come. If the drawing were to fail, God hasn't made it possible. That is precisely what the drawing does: it makes coming to Christ possible.

fhansen said:

Not so. That's like saying I can give...

Click to expand...

Again, you're not paying attention to what the argument is. Your analogy assumes God has already given something. The text says the Father's drawing enables coming: "No one can come to me unless the Father draws them." That drawing is what makes coming possible. So if someone can come, they have been drawn.

How, then, can it makes sense to say it is possible for someone to come, yet the Father's drawing -- the very act that makes it possible -- also fail?

You're wanting to jump ahead and say the Father's drawing doesn't necessitate that people will actually come to Christ. But that's not what we're disputing at this point. What we're concerned with at the moment is that the drawing is an enabling act of the Father that makes salvation possible. So if ἑλκύω can fail, salvation is not obtainable. The argument that the Father's enabling (drawing) activity does bring people effectually to Christ is a different point made from the grammar of the verse, not the meaning of ἑλκύω itself.

fhansen said:

1) The elect will be drawn, of course
2) The elect will come, of course
3) The elect wil be raised up, of course.

Does that mean that all who are drawn will necessarily come? Or that all who come will necessarily remain? No and no.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does. But not for any reason discussed above. What necessitates the conclusion that all who are drawn (i.e., all who are enabled) will come and be raised is that the grammar of the verse identifies the same individual in both clauses. The "him" who is drawn is the same "him" who will be raised:

οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ

This becomes even clearer when phrased contrapositively:

"If he is able to come to me, then the Father has drawn him, and I will raise him up on the last day."

Who will be raised up on the last day? The one who is drawn/enabled. There is no distinction or separate category; the drawing guarantees coming and final resurrection.

lismore said:

That is often true. The church is made up of people from all social backgrounds, all ages, together as one, a new family in Christ. We had some what of a culture war in this country in the 90s, people were more or less expected to be middle class tories to be Christians and that this would bring revival. Instead the number of people attending churches fell off a cliff, as people were pushed into being something they could not be. Someone from a single parent family cannot be a middle class tory anymore than fly to the moon. It can be good for a church to speak out on clear Biblical distinctives, like speaking against abortion, or greed, but aligning to a political movement is to step into a morass.

The Kingdom of God is not of this world as Jesus himself said.

God Bless You

Click to expand...

Yes as the epistemics underlying the culture war is about identity and which groups are oppressors or victims or good or bad. Then through intersectionality, another key principle that people can belong to more than one identity group and the more victim identity groups the better. The more bad identities the worse.

So fighting becomes about how much identity you have aligned with good and bad identity groups. Christianity can then be reduced to other identities dragging down or lifting up the Christianity. Christians become another identity group that may align with good and bad identities.

Of course with that comes all the morals that align with the identities and thus some Christian morals and beliefs are going to come into conflict. Either stand on that differences as a biblical truth. Or find ways to compromise so that it fits with the good identities and the perceived morals or worldview that goes with that.

Its too complicated and full of ideological and moral mindfields that cause divisions and cultivating a culture of war between identities and will turn Christians into just one more identity group at war in the overall culture.

Hi, everybody. I haven't posted in a while. Although my fiancé and I have had a home to live in for almost four months now, we still struggle. I only get disability and he's not had a paying job in years. He starts today on a temporary assignment today for which he will eventually get compensated, but it'll take a while. We must provide for ourselves in every way but rent and utilities. I have only a couple of friends who help here and there with donations. I saw on Google that Reddit offers subs where people can ask for donations; I joined the site and eventually got to post, but I made mistakes and was accused of trying to scam people. I have nowhere else left to ask at this time and it's still a long way until the next disability day.

I please want to ask for your urgent prayers that a way to get money in an honest way will become available ASAP.

Thank you, and blessings.

Hi, everybody. I haven't posted in a while. Although my fiancé and I have had a home to live in for almost four months now, we still struggle. I only get disability and he's not had a paying job in years. He starts today on a temporary assignment today for which he will eventually get compensated, but it'll take a while. We must provide for ourselves in every way but rent and utilities. I have only a couple of friends who help here and there with donations. I saw on Google that Reddit offers subs where people can ask for donations; I joined the site and eventually got to post, but I made mistakes and was accused of trying to scam people. I have nowhere else left to ask at this time and it's still a long way until the next disability day.

I please want to ask for your urgent prayers that a way to get money in an honest way will become available ASAP.

Thank you, and blessings.

lismore said:

Several of the cities mentioned in the bible, including one of the Seven Churches of the Revelation, were sacked by Turkish armies on Jihad.

Click to expand...

Surely Turkic, not Turkish?

Also, Christians armies have sacked cities mentioned in the Bible. While on crusades. Including Jerusalem and Antioch.

So, if that's the standard were meant to judge on, its pot meet kettle im afraid.

ThatRobGuy said:

I always thought the more apropos solution to these shutdowns would be...
At 7 days: suspend pay for congressmen and senators (and their staffers) until it gets resolved.
At 14 days: actual fines imposed on them
At 30 days: failure to reach an agreement means governors have the option to call a special election to replace them if they so choose (the same way they do when one of them vacates a seat)


As much as I dislike the "4th branch of government" (the bureaucracy), their pay getting frozen doesn't do anything to bring a swifter end to these shutdowns as it doesn't instill the right sense of urgency in the legislature.

The notion that there's a shutdown, and outlets are reporting "well, no agreement was reached, so they'll be back in 5 days to restart negotiations" is unacceptable. If there's outstanding assignments that are urgent and time sensitive at my job, I don't get to bail on Thursday and say "well, have a good long weekend, we'll pick this back up on Tuesday", it's more of a "it's gonna be a busy weekend, put on a pot of coffee".

Click to expand...

I agree.

If government is disfunctional, that's not anyone's fault but their own.

Could be better...

Could you ever get it clean enough?

Carl Emerson said:

Do I go by the Georgian calendar, maybe the Hebrew Calendar, whoops we lost 10 days in 1752...

Click to expand...

although I do not know how history has played out and there may be some calibration issues with the point of the first Sabbath but with Western adjustments to the calendar, the days of the week remains unchanged. Sept 2nd 1752 was a Wednesday, then there is a 10 day skip and Sept 14th was a Thursday so the days of the week continued their natural progression. On Wednesday night Sept 2nd, people went to sleep and woke up as expected on a Thursday morning, went to work and did their lives even if the date was 10 days ahead. if we count sabbath to sabbath it would have still been 7 days regardless of the date changes or adding on months, days or removing etc... it's no different with February, every 4 years we get an extra day but this has no bearing on how the days of the week continue.

to me the 7 days week has issue with it's origins. Since when traced back it seems to be a Babylonian invention around the same time of the Babylonian exile, which challenges the creation account as being it's inception and suggests the Hebrews adopted the 7 day week rather than it's origins going back to creation. To me the greatest point in favour of the Babylonians is the question of why the number 7? there no biblical reason why 7 is the magic number and why it wasn't 6 or 9... or better yet 10. There is a lot of significance with the number 7 in the bible, but it is all rooted in creation, yet creation has no answer for us why 7, and without explanation, it would seem arbitrary and would imply there is still another origin story to explain 7.

The Babylonians have it, 7 is the known number of celestial bodies of the ancient world (before telescopes were invented). These are basically the planets we can see with the naked eye but also include the moon the sun (does not include the earth) they are the Sun, the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. The days of the week were set at 7 to venerate these planets, each day for a separate planet which in English are still named this way today. (Sunday = Sun, Monday = Moon, Saturday = Saturday, etc...) Even the 7th day had a special veneration to not work but the Babylonians were motivated from fear and hiding themselves. This gives explaination for why the number 7, without the need to go deeper, where the creation account still asks why 7?
dd
This may be upsetting to many and they would outright reject it as it can be seen as challenging the authority of the scripture. But scripture is most certainly has a lot of woven metaphore, the entire law points to Christ for example. But it really depends on how we view these accounts of valuing literal details or spiritual truth and if the latter is more important, can the details take on shape to affirm the spiritual truth? I would say the 7 day system was adopted by the Hebrews and used as a tool to reveal a message far better. A system rooted in pagan motivation is uprooted to point to Christ, which is a biblically consistent theme and is a more noble goal. This is challenging for a lot to accept and requires a type of faith that does not need the inerrancy of the literal details but instead the inerrancy of truth. It also requires clear understanding of non-negotiables where we can say the creation account may have not been litteral God still is the one who created it. Or that this doesn't mean Christ wasn't a literal person or literally died and resurrected, etc. Drawing the line means a very critical version of faith to understand what details are non-negotiable and what may be negotiable. The question of why 7 is an example of critically challenging the text.

Apathetic men never exercise.

PATH

pay attention to when it’s your turn, and don’t constantly be asking “Is it my turn?”

You can probably tell…

Camp Candy

Chesterton said:

In 14 years of frequent posting, I think this is the first post sympathetic to Christians that I've ever seen you make. Has Fuentes rubbed off on you from all the recent threads about him?

They are primarily Antiochian Orthodox, not Greek. We Antiochians and Greeks are theologically the same, the only difference is geographical location. I'm a conservative MAGA Antiochian Christian, and I have sympathy for them.

Click to expand...

So do I, but if you expect any sympathy from the Evangelical Protestants who are the main drivers of MAGA you will be disappointed. Most of them don't even think you are a "real" Christian.

Best you mind your manners.

Michie said:

No I said they were real people. And Paul was discussing covenants. Admittedly, I was scattered when I read this thread given the other things I was attending to at the time. Adam, Eve, Sarah, Hagar were real people. Using their situations as allegories to teach about covenants is not the issue, my misunderstanding was quickly reading through the thread while distracted and misunderstanding. So if you want to debate it, you aren’t going to find it with me. My apologies for hopping in and misunderstanding.

Click to expand...

That's fair: You misunderstood. No worries, mate.

Aryeh Jay said:

Since they haven't helped the Russians against Ukrainian homemade anti tank drones, it makes sense to get rid of them.

Click to expand...

Selling them would make sense. They aren't any good at shooting things down in the air. Each could be taken out by a single flamingo.

zoidar said:

No, why? The angel was only revealing part of the plan to Joseph.

Click to expand...

The angel's words are a definitive explanation of the very name of Jesus. The γάρ explicitly grounds the naming. His entire identity and mission on earth are defined by this statement. So the angel's words cannot be only a partial disclosure of that mission.

zoidar said:

"From their sins"? That exactly what Jesus will do, save the Jewish people from their sins, not every indidual Jew though. The deliverance "from their sins" clarifies what kind of salvation the Messiah brings, spiritual redemption rather than political liberation, not who is included in the scope of that salvation.

Click to expand...

But that reading isn't grammatically defensible. The future indicative σώσει ("He will save") expresses a definite, declarative act, not an attempt, offer, or possibility. The construction σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ is a promise of fulfillment, not a general intention.

So your qualification, "not every individual Jew though," can only be introduced if defining "His people" in a way that likewise "does not include every individual Jew." Grammatically, the text doesn't allow for a subset within "His people." Whoever that phrase encompasses, their salvation is certain and complete. He will save "His people" from their sins.

In other words, either "His people" refers to all Jews (in which case the angel's statement fails, since not all Jews are saved), or it refers to the covenant people who truly belong to Him; that is, the ones who actually are saved. The grammar itself forces that conclusion.

zoidar said:

Why do you believe the purpose of Matt 1:21 is to reveal the whole plan of redemption to Joseph?

Click to expand...

Because the angel explicitly ties Jesus' name to His mission. The verse isn't a partial hint; it's the divine explanation of His very identity and purpose on earth: "You shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

Matt. 1:21 isn't a statement about who Jesus ministered to first; it's a statement defining His entire identity and purpose on earth.

zoidar said:

In the Gospels where "His people, My people, His own" is mentioned it always refers to the Jewish people. Why then do you think there is this exception in Matt 1:21?

Click to expand...

It often does, but claiming it always refers to ethnic Israel is a stretch. Lexical precedent doesn't control referential scope when the author himself redefines the covenant category in his own narrative. What matters is how Matthew uses the term in context, and the theological implications (like those mentioned above) of reading it ethnically in Matthew 1:21 are disastrous.

Matthew himself broadens the covenant category to include Gentiles and excludes unbelieving Jews (8:11-12; 12:48-50). John does the same: Jesus' "own" (τὰ ἐμά) are not limited to Israel, for He calls sheep "not of this fold" (10:14-16). Even John 1:11-12, which you cited, makes the point explicit: "His own" rejected Him, but whoever received Him, Jew or Gentile, became God's true children. Yes, "His own" refers to Jews there, but the point of the text is to redefine that. The whole point is that the true people of God is not defined ethnically.

Luke 2:31-32, which you also cited, likewise frames Israel's glory in the inclusion of the Gentiles. The Savior from Israel brings salvation "for all peoples." The covenant community, therefore, is not defined by national boundaries but by redemptive union with Christ. Yes, "His people" clearly refers to Israel there, but again the point is that the true covenant community is defined beyond national bounds.

Again, the critical issue is usage in context, not default semantics. Reading "His people" in Matt. 1:21 as merely "the Jewish nation" collapses the verse into either (1) a failed national redemption or (2) universal Jewish salvation, both of which contradict Matthew's entire theological purpose.

zoidar said:

Also the Gospel of Matthew was primarily written to Jews. Scholars often call it the “most Jewish” of the four canonical Gospels. That gives us a reason why it was specifically pointed out in Matt 1:21 that Jesus is the saviour of His people, the Jews.

Click to expand...

Yes, Matthew was written for a largely Jewish audience, but that fact does not tell us what "His people" means here. Authorial audience and referential scope are not the same thing. Matthew's Jewish readers were precisely the ones who needed to see that covenant membership is no longer defined ethnically but Christologically.

Hence, the "most Jewish" Gospel is also the one that most clearly dismantles Jewish exclusivism. From the Magi (Gentiles) in chapter 2, to the centurion's faith in chapter 8, to the Great Commission in chapter 28, Matthew's message is precisely that the promised Messiah of Israel brings salvation to all nations.

Dan Perez said:

And Romans 6:14 says. For sin shall NOT // OV. , is a DISJUNCATIVE PARTICLE NEGATIVE and the Greek word OV

means that SIN will neverrrrr everrrrr. RULE over you for you are NOT //. OV. UNDER the LAW but under Grace. , which

that the Law. of MOSES has been set ASIDE FOR. EVER !!

dan p

Click to expand...

Everything else in Romans 6 is speaking in favor of obedience to the Law of Moses and against am the law of sin, but if you want insist that sin has dominion over you because you would prefer to go in the opposite direction, then you can insist that sin has dominion over you because you are under the Law of Moses.

Let's just say this one person is a very animated, gregarious person. They tend to lead the table by talking almost constantly. They seem civil if not cordial, but it also seems that everything that comes out of their mouth is talking about someone. They don't necessarily talk bad about someone (though I don't know them enough to say this), but they're ALWAYS mentioning someone's name in practically every other sentence. It makes me wonder, is this too similar to gossip, or is this more excusable?

ps this is not the same woman who I sensed was condescending on me being a convert.