Christworshiper said:

Thank you so much and I will get it blessed soon.

Click to expand...

It’s beautiful!

CoreyD said:

That is a good question.

What do you think of Jesus; words here... Matthew 12:41, 42; Luke 10:13-15; Luke 11:31, 32

Click to expand...

I wasn't sure but this is what copilot said:

These passages emphasize that on Judgment Day, Jesus will be the ultimate judge, and past examples of repentance (Nineveh, Queen of Sheba) or rejection (Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum) will stand as witnesses against those who refuse to recognize him. They highlight that Jesus is greater than Jonah and Solomon, and that failure to repent in his presence carries heavier consequences than past generations faced.

Click to expand...

RileyG said:

More than one or just one?

Click to expand...

Hundred and more

Akita Suggagaki said:

Trespassing on government property during congressional session. Breaking the law. No excuse.

Click to expand...

Placing two pipe bombs at the DNC and RNC was breaking the law as well and nobody shot her.

Pavel Mosko said:

A little bit. I find Wesley interesting because he had some of the earliest interest in something that we Eastern Christians refer to as Theosis, that is sort of just being discovered by some contemporary Evangelicals in recent times.

Login to view embedded media

He also has a more positive take on tradition when it comes to theology, than most Protestants, especially Evangelicals (some Magisterial Protestants like Lutheran's, Anglicans and some Calvinists are kind of decent with that too).


I also know some of his heritage did help contribute to other movements like Pentecostalism.

Click to expand...

I know this an old thread and my reply is late, but yeah, I think I agree.

I am drawn to tradition and more spiritual aspects of the Christian faith, but still consider myself Protestant because I don't want forsake the plain teachings of Scripture.

I find both Lutheranism and Wesleyan-Holiness traditions to have a nice balance.

SabbathBlessings said:

Mat 5:19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Click to expand...

The context of what laws Christ is referring to is established in v17, saying "the law and the prophets," which is an all-inclusive term rather than one that isolates a subset. In this context (same verse), Christ says "I have not come to abolish them [the law and the prophets] but to fulfill them [the law and the prophets]" How we understand Christ having fulfilled a specific subset of laws, like circumcision or the sacrifice, should extend to the whole as is the context.

This also applies to how we understand "whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments..." as it applies to the context of the law and the prophets, not a unique subset. So how we understand us not breaking circumcision or not breaking the sacrifice can be applied to the entire law rather than a segregated portion of it, which is never taught.

By also using "the least" reference, Christ is also levelling our qualitative judgments of law and instead he says breaking any of them is the same as breaking all of them or the same as breaking unique subset that we deem as better or arbitrarily call moral over the rest. So whatever we remove from the equation, Christ is pulling it back in saying they are all treated qualitatively the same regardless of our superficial labels we may give them (sacrafical, ceremonial, moral, etc...). He is not dividing law, he is ensuring they are viewed as a whole, rejecting any idea we may have to separate them.

SabbathBlessings said:

The commandments Jesus is referring to is directly from the Ten Commandments and quotes two as the whole law He is referring, as they always came in a unit of Ten according to God. Deut4:13 Exo34:28 breaking one we break them all even in the NC James2:10-11

Click to expand...

Christ does quote from 10 but in a diminutive way, "You have heard that it was said to those of old" then goes on telling us a better way. So he tells us an older way, then shows us a better way, that better way is uniquely from Christ saying "But I say..." this creates a contrast between the ways of the old (the law) with the ways of Christ, showing Christ's way is better. Better than what? Better than the law.

Christ also quotes outside the law with the "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" and in like manner shows us a better way (again, diminutively referencing to the law portion or "way of old". So this does not agree with the logic that Christ is isolating and elevating a subset (the 10), but rather whatever he is referring to, must also include the "eye for an eye" rule and he is also not elevating but demoting. What he shows is his way is better so it seems a moot point what he is trying to deemphasize since his gaze is on his ways not the old ways. if you study the origins of these laws Christ is not referencing the 10 but instead the covenant relationship established under Moses.

The 10 commandments were first given in Ex 20. this is before Moses climbed the mountain and before they were etched in stone (then the tablets were destroyed) and etched in stone again. Moses climbs the mountain in Ex 24 but starting at Ex 20 there are numerous laws delivered as a whole with the 10 not separate to them. The 10 kick it off in Ex 20 and immediately following in Ex 21 speaks of the "eye for the eye" rule (with specific examples of what to do when you take someone's eye or tooth). This is all in the same event; there is no break in the event and what this event describes is the covenant relationship established under Moses's leadership, often called the Mosaic covenant.

"Mosaic" or "of Moses" is a theological term that does not mean Moses owns it or authored the laws; it a reference to time and place of when the covenant was formed. The covenant has multiple events where Israel affirms it and this is such an event, but these events are not there to segment the law, it is a constant reminder and a type of phased unpacking of the covenant relationship, but it is all the same covenant relationship. They are all from God, and all part of the same covenant. Ex 24 opens with all the elders gathered, and Moses wrote all the words of the Lord down (from Ex 20-23, including the 10 and the "eye for an eye" rule and many others) then a blood covenant was established under these laws. Then, Moses was invited up to the mountain where the tablets were given to him later on.

So what is Christ contrasting diminutively with his own words? He is contrasting the covenant established under Moses which includes the 10 but is not limited to the 10, and his reference is diminutive so his focus is not fixed on the diminutive part but rather the better way which is a direct contrast to this older system. This passage cannot be used to isolate and elevate the 10 in anyway, two things it definitely does establish (as it pertains to the 10), is that the 10 is part of greater grouping/covenant of laws/commandments (not isolated) and is deemphasized (Christ shows us a better way) over Christ's way. This is the exact opposite point you seem to be trying to make which questions your ability to understand the passage without this extreme bias since it is written so plainly in the text.

CoreyD said:

@com7fy8 I was thinking of an illustration to demonstrate why free will is not hampered by anything, whether it be holy spirit, the spirit of the world or the spirit of Satan.
Imagine that the chains represent any one of these.

What is it that moves one to do rhis?

Click to expand...

I imagine the chains are lies that lead to sin. Ignorance is therefore the void where people have the capacity to be deceived.

CoreyD said:

In the case of holy spirit, is anyone mighty enough to break that chain, or would God need to release that one, and let them go?

Click to expand...

The Spirit of Truth exposes the lies that enslave people to sin, just like Jesus said.

CoreyD said:

What would be the reason for releasing that person?

Click to expand...

Because Jesus loves others as he would want to be loved.

CoreyD said:

Would it not be due to their will not to have these chains on them? A rebellion?

Click to expand...

A rebellion against sin? Of course, any sound mind would not want to be held captive by lies.

CoreyD said:

Unless humans have the ability to exercise free will, none of the above are possible.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by free will here. When a person learns the Truth that sets them free, it's not because they exercised their ability to volunteer.

CoreyD said:

One cannot even do what God's word requires. Such as...
Joshua 24:23 . . .incline your heart unto the LORD . . .
Isaiah 55:3 . . .Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live. . .

Click to expand...

Joshua’s command to ‘incline your hearts to the LORD’ shows the people had been deceived. Scripture repeatedly affirms there are no other gods (Deut 4:35; Isa 45:5). The ‘strange gods’ were idols -> non‑entities. So, Israel was misled into deception through idolatry. Joshua saw their need to hear correction, not their autonomous free will. Their disposition was one of susceptibility to deception, requiring exhortation to turn back to the only true God.

CoreyD said:

God could not even say this about anyone.
Jeremiah 7:24 ...they did not obey or incline their ear, but followed the counsels and the dictates of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.

However, because we all have that freedom to act according to our own will, willingly, and freely, without being forced... voluntarily - of our own free will, all the above are possible.

Click to expand...

Ignorance is the darkness where people are vulnerable to deception, which is not indicative of a will that is free. Scripture shows that idolaters ‘know not, neither do they understand’ (Isaiah 44:18), and that God’s people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6). Jeremiah 7:24 says they did not obey or incline their ear but followed the dictates of their evil hearts. That is ignorance leading to trusting in idols, not evidence of autonomous free will.

Matthew 10:28

BobRyan said:

g908
βάπτισμα βάπτισμα baptisma
The text then says "NOT the washing away of dirt from the flesh" (the waters of baptism) but rather the appeal to God for a clean conscience )such as is the case with a believing adult.

The fact that it is contrasting the washing with water and the appeal to God, shows the image being used is literal baptism

Click to expand...

Biut the Greek for WATER. // HYDOR is not in. the Greek TEXT 11

And in. Eph 4:5 reads , ONE LORD , ONE GFAITH , ONE BAPTISM

ONE. IS. THE GREEK WORD .// HEIS

It reads ONE BAPTISM , so what is that ONE BAPTISM. ??

# 1. THERE iS the word BAP[TISMOS

# 2 THERE IS the word BAPTO

# 3 There is the word SPRINKING

# 4 There is the word. BAPTIZED

# 5 There is the word BAPTIZING

# 6. THERE is the word BAPTISM

# 7. THERE is the word WASHING

So what is that ONE //HEIS. , BAPTISM

dan p

Fantine said:

How can you blow that up of proportion while excusing a tax deadbeat who billed NY taxpayers, including me for several years, of half a billion$?

Click to expand...

He did no such thing.

Reluctant Theologian said:

Any interpretation regarding the meaning of a word in the NT should come from linguistic analysis/understanding (including word usage) - I am curious as to why you think masturbation by definition should be included as neither the TNK/OT or NT mention that AFAIK. No judgement, just curious .. (and I'm not talking about anything related to addiction/porn/immoral fantasies etc.) I'm aware early interpreters frequently refer to the history of Onan from Genesis 38 but that's an entirely different issue.

Click to expand...

The Bible doesn't mention Trans people either.

HIM said:

Smart comments are not necessary. Especially considering it does not even apply.

1 Peter is not Acts 13:34. Two different topics. I hope you don't need that explained to you. Neither of which have anything to do with what was posted to you Here at this link

Acts 13:34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.
35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:
37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Click to expand...

Xeno.of.athens said:

The Law, as revealed by God and fulfilled in Christ, serves as a moral compass and pedagogical guide for the Christian faithful. It includes the Mosaic Law, especially the Decalogue, and finds its perfection in the New Law of the Gospel. “The Law has become our tutor unto Christ” (Galatians 3:24), and its enduring moral precepts are reaffirmed by the Church as binding. The Catechism teaches that “the Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel” and “remains necessary for man” as it “denounces and discloses sin” (CCC §1963–1964).

The Ten Commandments, given to Moses on Sinai (Exodus 20:1–17), are “fundamentally immutable” and “engraved by God in the human heart” (CCC §2072). They express the natural law and are reaffirmed by Christ, who deepens their meaning in the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Matthew 5–7). The Commandments are not abolished but fulfilled in charity: “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). They are the foundation of Christian moral life, guiding the faithful in their duties toward God and neighbour.

For the Christian in this world, the Law and Commandments are not burdens but paths to freedom and holiness. Grace enables their fulfilment, and the Spirit writes them anew on the heart (cf. Jeremiah 31:33; CCC §1965–1966). The faithful are called to interiorise the Law, living it not merely by external observance but through love: “Love is the fulfilment of the law” (Romans 13:10). Thus, the Commandments remain essential, not as relics of legalism, but as living expressions of divine wisdom and the way of life in Christ.

Click to expand...

And need you if you can explain ACTS 15:1 ??

And certain ones having come down. from Judea were teaching the brethren , that you would be CIRCUMCISED after the

THE CUSTOM OF MOSES , you are NOT //. OV. IS A DISJUNCATIVE PARTICLE NEGATIVE and means you cannot EVER

BE SAVED ??

What say you. ??

dan p

essentialsaltes said:

Hegseth declines to comment on report that boat survivors were killed as a result of his orders to military​

According to The Washington Post, the Sept. 2 boat strike initially left two survivors clinging to the boat. The Post says Adm. Mitch Bradley, head of Special Operations Command, then ordered a second strike in order to comply with Hegseth's orders and to ensure the survivors couldn't call on other traffickers to retrieve them and their cargo.

If true, it is unclear why Bradley wouldn't have ordered troops to collect the survivors and their cargo from the water, as the military did in a subsequent strike when two survivors were taken aboard a Navy ship via helicopter.

"The Department has no response to this article and declines to comment further," a Pentagon spokesperson said Friday.
--
Some experts say the alleged “double-tap” strike may violate the law of armed conflict, which forbids targeting an enemy combatant who’s out of the fight due to injury or surrender.

“They’re breaking the law either way,” Sarah Harrison, a senior analyst at the Crisis Group think tank who served as associate general counsel at the Pentagon, told CNN. “They’re killing civilians in the first place, and then if you assume they’re combatants, it’s also unlawful — under the law of armed conflict, if somebody is ‘hors de combat’ and no longer able to fight, then they have to be treated humanely.”

Hegseth's got a date in the Hague.

Click to expand...

The Hague is for people who lose wars and get gethroned. People who commit war crimes and stay in power will never be persecuted.

I thought the book was pretty boring.

A couple different synopses of the book from Amazon:

• "Set at a boys' boarding school in New England during the early years of World War II, A Separate Peace is a harrowing and luminous parable of the dark side of adolescence. Gene is a lonely, introverted intellectual. Phineas is a handsome, taunting, daredevil athlete. What happens between the two friends one summer, like the war itself, banishes the innocence of these boys and their world."
• "'A Separate Peace' is a poignant coming-of-age novel set during World War II at a New England boarding school. The story revolves around the complex friendship between two boys, Gene Forrester and Phineas (Finny). As they navigate the challenges of adolescence, themes of jealousy, rivalry, and the loss of innocence emerge. The idyllic setting contrasts sharply with the underlying tensions of the war, reflecting the internal conflicts faced by the characters as they grapple with their identities and the realities of growing up. The narrative delves deep into Gene's psyche, exploring his feelings of envy towards Finny's charisma and athleticism. This jealousy ultimately leads to a tragic incident that alters their lives forever. Knowles masterfully captures the essence of youth and the bittersweet nature of friendship, as well as the impact of war on personal relationships. The novel serves as a powerful exploration of the transition from innocence to experience, making it a timeless reflection on the complexities of human emotions and the challenges of adolescence."

Always in His Presence said:

I'll give you 100 dollar's to quit the grammar patrol.

Click to expand...

I remember reading something somewhere about, "Here. I fixed it for you." But I cannot remember where.

Albion was a wayward fellow, I pray he found his way home, for his immortal souls sake.

Truth7t7 said:

It was no secret, Donald J. Trump ran his 2024 election based upon cleaning house, and he's standing on his promise to his constituent base, it's that simple

MAGA Vance/Trump 2028

Click to expand...

Everything upside down and backwards. Welcome to Administration by Chaos.

Seraphim . said:

According to one of the nuns, she challenges anyone who thinks she is infirm in her body to a race.

Click to expand...

Will that be up a mountain, singing "The hills are alive......" ?

This Democrat Wins in Red America. He Has Advice for His Party as He Eyes 2028.​

Experimental archaeology using evidence from tomb reliefs found it was relatively easy to haul 20+ ton limestone blocks used to build the pyramids at Giza.
This is from the 10 minute mark of the video.

Other related Egyptian stories are:
Cleopatra's sister's skull at the start of the video and the Plague of Akhenaton from the 13.30 minute mark.
The most ridiculous is the conspiracy theory that archaeologists excavating at Gobekli Tepe fearing the truth would come out planted olive trees en masse to hide the evidence. This is from the 16 minute mark.