New Posts

Oompa Loompa · 2025-11-11T20:16:48-0600

essentialsaltes said:
There should be a searing Congressional investigation into this malfeasance, but instead Musk is put out to pasture with a "U tryed" sticker.

Wow! Slow news week, or just a bad news week for democrats?

PTW · 2025-11-11T20:16:18-0600

X-Men ‘97

Yarddog · 2025-11-11T20:06:20-0600

BobRyan said:
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.

Aldebaran · 2025-11-11T20:05:52-0600

Always in His Presence said:
These are the Senate Democrats who voted to reopen the government

After reaching a bipartisan deal, Senate Democrats finally gave Republicans the votes needed to advance a government funding measure.

www.cbsnews.com

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.

The Barbarian · 2025-11-11T19:46:09-0600

Aryeh Jay said:
Time to re open the Benghazi files.

When it was revealed that the republicans had cut security for embassies, over the objections of Hillary Clinton, the whole conspiracy fell apart.

Daniel Martinovich · 2025-11-11T19:42:10-0600

RisenInJesus said:
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.”

Jews, Gentiles, And The Church

prophecyupdate.blogspot.com

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:

It would seem that you are replacing the church with Israel.

zoidar · 2025-11-11T19:11:53-0600

Dikaioumenoi said:
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.

Dikaioumenoi said:
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 arguments, and even if I did I don't know if you are correct in your grammatical statements. It's impossible for me to interact with. Sorry!

St_Worm2 · 2025-11-11T19:10:30-0600

redraven said:
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.

redraven said:
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!!

redraven said:
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

redraven said:
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.

redraven said:
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!

redraven said:
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).

redraven said:
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

).

redraven said:
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

zoidar · 2025-11-11T19:05:09-0600

Dikaioumenoi said:
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

Dikaioumenoi said:
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.

Dikaioumenoi said:
"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, whom I can ask about Matthew 1:21.

GodAndChocolateVanilla · 2025-11-11T18:50:13-0600

Login to view embedded media

fhansen · 2025-11-11T18:50:04-0600

Clare73 said:
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?

Clare73 said:
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?

Clare73 said:
Adam and Eve died spiritually; I.e., they lost eternal life within their spirits.

Yes, as I've maintained. Dead men walking.

Clare73 said:
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.

Clare73 said:
But the soul does not die.

Thanks for your opinion.

Clare73 said:
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.

Hentenza · 2025-11-11T18:49:32-0600

Tigger Boy said:
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.

Servus · 2025-11-11T18:48:40-0600

The Barbarian said:
I'm guessing that it's undergoing some "adjustments."

Perhaps it was hacked.

hldude · 2025-11-11T18:46:12-0600

YouTube Channel Video Devo
Login to view embedded media
“Do We Give Our All?
Mark 12:41-44 NIV
Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

Recently, for our family devotion time, we read this passage about the widow giving all that she had. I have read this story numerous times in the past and am reminded of how powerful of a message it is showing us that giving our all in life is so important. I’m reminded of how crucial it is for us to truly give our all in every single thing we do in life. So often it’s easy for us to just give minimal in our efforts to various commitments.

I think about the religious leaders and other rich people who felt a sense of pride for throwing large amounts into the offering. I’m sure they had a puffed up ego feeling all good about their so-called generosity. However, the widow is amazing not only because she gave the least amount, but also that she gave everything she had and ended up giving more than them!

This makes me consider how often I honestly put in 100% effort into the things I do each day and how much I commit to my relationship with God, my family, church and friendships that I have. When I consider the widow, I often wonder how God wants me to give more in certain situations.

Guess who else gave their all? There’s many other examples in Scripture, but the best example every is Jesus Christ Himself. He literally gave it all. Just like the hymn, “Jesus Paid It All”. No one in history could ever give what Jesus did. Jesus gave His life to give us life.

I think we all need to start asking ourselves each day, “Do we give our all in our relationship with God, in our family, in our church, and other relationships?” In our commitments, where are we failing to give our all? Others are busting their tails often to help us and to provide for their families, so we definitely need to make sure we are giving our best effort in everything we do.

Like the widow, do we find ourselves giving our all and being as humble as possible or do we just give a little and feel prideful for at least giving something? We need to ditch the pride and take a good lesson from not only the widow, but Jesus Himself.

rebornfree · 2025-11-11T18:32:21-0600

Michie said:
Testimonies are planting seeds. There is nothing wrong with writing and selling a book. A worker is worth their wages. It takes money to reach a wide audience, etc. You make a very good point about his celebrity opening people up to reading his testimony.

Thank you, and I agree about a worker being worthy of their wages.

essentialsaltes · 2025-11-11T18:32:19-0600

Democrat Adelita Grijalva to be sworn in 7 weeks after winning House election

Democrat Adelita Grijalva will be sworn in as a member of Congress on Wednesday when the House returns, seven weeks after she won a special election in Arizona.

House Speaker Mike Johnson will administer the oath of office to Grijalva at 4 p.m. Wednesday before the lower chamber holds votes on a funding bill to reopen the government, according to the speaker's office.

RocksInMyHead · 2025-11-11T18:32:04-0600

calicocat said:
When a bunch of violent, fighting-aged, disproportionately-male "refugees" started landing on my homeland in 1492 it didn't go well for us. And we didn't have our own leaders selling us out and our invaders weren't as fond of rape and their monogamy meant they didn't breed like rabbits. And we had a LOT of land. The effects took time to hit. And our elders gave awards to braves who fought back rather than jailing everyone who even complained about it.

Britain is cooked.

And they're cooked in the future on a level even the Native Americans weren't.

Ngl I don't care about Germany after what they did in the war, but watching Britain is horrifying.

Well that went from zero to racist real quick.

pasifika · 2025-11-11T18:28:59-0600

Bro.T said:
Well let's see what Paul is saying here in (Rom. 3:20) Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sights for by the law is the knowledge of sin. The deeds of the law is referring to the animal sacrificial laws, all those sacrifices can never remove sins, so they could never be justified. This is true because the blood of Jesus can only justify us. The animal sacrificial laws was added because people continue to sin, and the wages of sin bring for death. So instead of God killing people every time they sin, the Lord gave Moses a law to use, animals. So by the other law (Ten Commandments, Statutes and Judgement) is the knowledge of sin.

Now didn't Paul say in Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. You wouldn’t know what sin was if there was no law.

To sum up what going on here in Galatians, Paul is explaining that Christ came from Abraham seed, and remove the animal Sacrificial law. But in the days of Abraham that animal Sacrificial law never was on the table, and was not needed for Abraham to obey and have faith in God. But the Commandments was always on the table. Now pay attention, the law that is being spoken of here came four hundred and thirty years after this covenant. But God’s holy commandments have been around forever even before man was created.

Remember that Satan was kicked out of heaven because iniquity (sin) was found in him. And what is sin? The transgression of the law (commandments). Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. Now we have just read the biblical definition of sin, the transgression (breaking) of the law (commandments.) It doesn’t matter what you or I think sin is, it’s what God says sin is that counts. (1John 3:4)

(v.19) Wherefore then serveth the law? A question is being asked here. Then why should we serve this law? It was added because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; the law that we are talking about here was added because of sin. But we now know that sin is the transgression of the law.

How do you add a law if sin is the transgression of the law? Because there are two sets of laws, you have God’s holy commandments which abided forever, and you had the animal sacrificial law which was added because of sin, but it was only good until the seed should come to whom the promise was made, and that seed was Jesus.

(v.24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. This animal sacrificial law was only a schoolmaster.

In the days of Jesus, the religious leaders were constantly questioning Jesus in order to test Him and on this occasion a lawyer asked Jesus what is the great commandment?
Matthew (22:35) Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, (36) Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus reply was the 1st great commandment was to love God and the 2nd was to love ones neighbor. These were given as a commandment for man to love.

Matthew (22:37) Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. (38) This is the first and great commandment. (39) And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

One should note that by following the 1st and 2nd great commandment they will be adhering to the 10 commandments issued by Moses. If they love the Lord they won’t have any other Gods before him, or make any graven images or take his name in vain, they will remember his Sabbath and if they love their neighbor they will honor their Father and Mother and they won’t kill or commit adultery or steal or bear false witness nor will they covet. This is why Jesus goes on to state that on these two commandments hang the law and the prophets. Because by fulfilling these two commandments one fulfills the law.

(40) On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Jesus stated that these 2 commandments where the 2 great commandments however the following verses will show that these commandments were not new and that the Jews and Jesus was speaking to were aware of them. These were the same ones issued to Israel by Moses.

Deuteronomy (6:5) And thy shall love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Leviticus (19:18) Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Now that it has been established that man was commanded to love one needs to examine the scriptures to get an understanding of the love required in these great commandments.

In the following verses Moses is telling the Israelites that God chose them strictly out of His love for them.Deuteronomy (7:7) The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: (8) But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

(9) Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

Note in verse (9) Moses states a condition that God requires in order for Him to keep covenant and have mercy. And that is an individual must love God and keep His commandments. The scriptures will show that there is only one way to love God and that is by keeping His commandments.

Note that Jesus states in the following verse that in order to love Him one has to keep His commandments.

John (14:15) If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Jesus further defines the love He requires when He states in the following verse that those who have His commandments and keep them are those that love Him. One does not have to guess at Jesus definition of love He made it clear.

John (14:21) He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Jesus also reinforced what was said in Deuteronomy verse (9) by adding that those that love Him will be loved by the Father. How does one love Jesus? by keeping His commandments and Moses said God will keep covenant and have mercy with those who keep His commandments. So therefore by following Jesus one shall receive love from Him as well as mercy from the Father.

Note in these scriptures it did not say those who profess their love for Jesus or those that claim that Jesus knows what in their heart. Jesus made a clear and direct statement if one has His commandments and keeps them they are the ones who love Him. The statement that Jesus made as well as the condition Moses gave in Deuteronomy verse (9) were based on behalf of an individuals actions not their feeling or emotions or conditions. To exhibit love towards Jesus one must engage in a specific action and that action is being obedience to the word of God. And one will see that they are to be obedient regardless of their feeling or the surrounding circumstances.

Jesus states again in the following verses what is required of an individual to receive His love.

John (15:9) As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. (10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Notice Jesus use the word if ye keep my commandments, so what happen if ye do not keep his commandments. The above verse shows to be loved of Jesus one needs to be obedient. Jesus also states in verse (10) that He was obedient to the Father by keeping His commandments and therefore abides in His love.

Thank you for the post, the "deeds of the law" is referring to the old covenant law as a whole. Not just animal sacrifices because sacrifices applies when you sin and needed forgiveness, as if no sacrifices then there is no forgiveness of sin (both animal sacrifices and law goes hand in hand). The new covenant though is forgiveness by believe in the Gospel no animal sacrifices. Christ is our sacrificial lamb. Believe in Him and your sins will be forgiven.

You cannot keep any commandments given under the old covenant the lamb as was only given so we can see our sinful ways. So you can never show love by trying to keep the Sinai law.

Michie · 2025-11-11T18:27:14-0600

FaithT said:
You’re welcome! How many stitches?

I don’t know. I did not count them. It was a big Z shaped incision that went up into her hairline to the corner of her right eye and across the cheek. There were a lot for sure.

ArmyMatt · 2025-11-11T18:17:28-0600

calicocat said:
He's a laughing-stock even among some of the more insane extreme ones. I'm honestly not certain he isn't a fed like Carlson.

doesn’t surprise me

Yarddog · 2025-11-11T18:16:35-0600

9Rock9 said:
Ah. That's pretty much what I think.

Inspiring Philosophy thinks Adam and Eve were basically priests, and the Eden was the holiest of holies. Thus, Adam had a special connection to God that the rest of humanity didn't have.

This, in a way, parallel Jesus, as he is referred to as the New Adam, is the representative of humanity, and is also a high priest.

About 20 years ago the Holy Spirit spoke to me and said, " Jesus is the Tree of Life, the Tree of Knowledge is the Law, and the Tower of Babylon represents all of those people that try to achieve heaven through their own efforts, including many Christians".

God the showed me that the Garden of Eden is righteousness. (A place that man must be created in God's image, perfect.) Adam and Eve are naked because in righteousness, we open ourselves to God and hide nothing.

Adam and Eve are the Hebrew people who received righteousness through faith from Abraham. The fruit of the Tree of knowledge is the desire to work for righteousness. Because of that, they were kicked out of righteousness. They rejected Jesus and embraced the Law.

God condemned Adam to work the soil
(works). It produces nothing worth while.

These are allegories. They could be real people but the hidden message is more important than the literal.

The Liturgist · 2025-11-11T18:13:10-0600

Chesterton said:
You know who else talks back like a human? Humans. I get emotionally triggered by talking to humans on CF, but not by talking to AI. More on that in the next post...

Except apparently neither you nor AI can actually reliably tell the difference. I, on the other hand, as someone who uses AI all the time, can spot it; you’re missing the actual telltales that I’ve worked so hard to to eliminate from my custom GPTs (but without complete success; there are some embedded Turing-tell behaviors that I can’t get the model to avoid without crushing the beauty of its output.

By the way you have given this conversation the character of a Philip K. Dick novel for which I salute you. Have you considered that you might have been replaced by an AI without realizing it?

ThatRobGuy · 2025-11-11T17:52:43-0600

He had to be really steamed about the flag to throw a Starbucks beverage on it... that cup of tea probably cost him $8 + tip.

essentialsaltes · 2025-11-11T17:39:48-0600

On Monday, Trump welcomed Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa to the White House despite his past ties to terrorism. The Syrian leader had links to Al-Qaeda under the nom de guerre Abu Mohammed al-Golani, and he battled U.S. forces in Iraq before entering the war in Syria.

At one point, al-Sharaa had a $10 million U.S. bounty on his head and was eventually imprisoned by U.S. forces in Syria for several years.

Loomer blamed the meeting between him and Trump on "the people who work for President Trump."

"Sometimes I feel like some of the people who work for President Trump deliberately go out of their way to sabotage him," the Trump insider wrote Tuesday on X. "Who said: let's invite the ISIS terrorist to the White House for a photo op in the Oval the day before Veterans Day? How many US soldiers did Julani kill?"

essentialsaltes · 2025-11-11T17:33:37-0600

The Blaze’s Pipe-Bomb Bombshell Appears to Bomb

The right-wing outlet claimed to solve the Jan. 6th pipe-bomb mystery

EARLY SATURDAY MORNING, the Blaze published the most hyped investigation from a right-wing media outlet in recent memory—an exposé on what it claimed was the likely identity of the January 6th pipe bomber.

In the Blaze’s telling, a female former Capitol Police officer who joined the CIA shortly after January 6th was “a forensic match” for the individual caught on camera footage the night before. The article, which included the woman’s name and several pictures of her, purported to be buttressed by “gait analysis” comparing the ex-officer to videos of the bomber.

The article’s claims ... were quickly picked up by leading Republicans, including Trump appointee Kari Lake and several Republican members of Congress. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), the chair of the House’s new January 6th subcommittee ... Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). Rep. Anna Paulina Luna declared on X that “a capitol police officer placed a pipe bomb at the RNC on J6,” adding that the Blaze story was proof that Republicans would “all be in the gulag” if not for Trump.

Two days later, it seems like that excitement may have been more than a little overcooked. Rather than matching the Blaze’s reporting, rival January 6th reporters on the right are casting doubt on its conclusion.

In a sign of how things are going, Luna has quietly deleted her post about the woman’s identity.

When Trump took office again, MAGA expected answers. But, frustratingly for the right, the installation of Trump diehards like Kash Patel and Dan Bongino as the leaders of the FBI hasn’t turned up any more information.

After landmark lawsuits resulted in rulings against InfoWars and Fox News over conspiracy theories, putting them on the hook for massive amounts in damages, right-wing pundits have tended to go after more vaporous groups like the “cabal” or even just an unnamed “they,” the better to avoid the prospect of a similarly damaging libel suit. The fact that Baker had named and published photos of a specific person gave the impression that he might actually have the goods.

Now it gives the impression of an imminent damaging libel suit.

New Posts

New Posts

Democrat Adelita Grijalva to be sworn in 7 weeks after winning House election​

The Blaze’s Pipe-Bomb Bombshell Appears to Bomb​

The right-wing outlet claimed to solve the Jan. 6th pipe-bomb mystery​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

Democrat Adelita Grijalva to be sworn in 7 weeks after winning House election

The Blaze’s Pipe-Bomb Bombshell Appears to Bomb

The right-wing outlet claimed to solve the Jan. 6th pipe-bomb mystery