keras said:

There are many Prophesies which have a dual fulfilment. Even triple. Tye remains as a city today.
This does not mean that a final and complete fulfilment won't happen in the future.

There are several Prophesies that say how the entire Middle East region, will be depopulated and cleansed. How the Lord Himself will send fire to achieve it. In a disastrous event, of a similar magnitude as Noah's flood.

Click to expand...

Keras that’s very true sometimes prophesies have dual fulfilment as with Tyre and the surrounding nations such as Egypt and Gaza and as mentioned in Ezekiel 26:14 and with Zech 9 : 1-6. But the scriptures were fulfilled nevertheless. Firstly with king Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of much of the area from 586 BC -573 along with the siege of tyre of that period but never fully destroying the power base of the island of tyre itself. But the final fulfillment did come under Alexander the Great with his conquest of tyre and the neighbouring nations from 332 BC Keras you mention that Tyre remains a city today and that it does under its new name Sur and people certainly still live there . But this is where we probably disagree. As it was never about the obliteration of the entirety of the people’s. It was about the obliteration of Tyre’s political standing as a power house mercantile nation. And even with the subsequent towns and settlements that arose out of the ashes they did not equate to the previous standing cities nor of Tyres once monumental standing. It was basically the end of the power of the Tyrian empire along with the fulfilment of where Scripture ended on the prophecy with the conquest of Tyre by Alexander the Great along with the judgements upon other surrounding nations like Gaza and Egypt too. So from what me has studied biblical prophecy isn’t always meaning the entire depopulation of peoples but rather in judgement of their their nation status as a sovereign influential power upon world events . Yours Kathleen

redraven said:

I'm wondering if anyone has any recommendations on how I could find people willing and open
to debate -specifically Charlie Kirk's self proclaimed Christianity and how his behaviour often
contradicted the teachings of Christ and the Bible.

I want to establish a few things. First, I know this is a controversial subject. I am trying to find people who would be willing to defend Kirk. He seems to have a lot of supporters all over the internet, yet I haven't found a single one (granted I haven't asked very many) who is willing to defend him in a video recorded debate. Isn't that ironic? As I understand, he was generally open to different perspectives.

I am realistic also - I'm not someone with a huge social media following. I have 30 subscribers on Youtube. Hey, it's a start. Yet my relatively small following doesn't invalidate the quality of my opinions or arguments. It just means I don't have a large audience. That's critical in social media. People gravitate towards the larger platforms and it takes years to build a following. Someone may argue that someone with a larger following is less likely to take me seriously - and I understand that sentiment. Yet again I go back to the spirit of Charlie Kirk - shouldn't someone who defended him be open to debate as he was? I would view someones reluctance to debate and defend as a form of hypocrisy and a sign of weaker confidence.

In any event, I've asked a few 'celebrities' thus far without receiving acknowledgement. I reached out to Megyn Kelly and Dr. Phill. Haven't heard back and I admit it's unlikely they'd give me a platform. I did engage with a lesser known Youtube with a fairly substantial following - about 150k followers on Facebook. He was not willing to agree.

I am quite confident in my rhetorical abilities and ability to hold my own in any discussion I am prepared for. My intent would not be to insult or ridicule the other party for 'clicks', it would be to geniunely challenge Kirk's credibility in the face of established facts and contradictions. I feel very confident in my ability to achieve this.

Finally, I'll share a brief opinion piece I made today related to this subject: Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

Rule Number 1: Read from a script. It's much better for expressing concise, accurate thoughts.
Rule Number 2: Don't worry about anything as superfluous as a background unless you just want to be entertaining. The YouTuber Styxhex just recently surpassed half a billion views and he's never used a background of any interest.

It's against the rules on CF to question another member's Christian faith. I think the same should apply to public figures such as Kirk also. I'm not a Kirk expert, but I'd possibly be willing to debate another topic, except I don't own a camera.

Bradskii said:

Tip Number 1: Nobody is going to be interested in talking to a random dude with no followers about anything.

Click to expand...

Do you realize that in saying that, you just talked to him?

Apple Sky said:

Some are extremely knowledgeable, if they aren't then I wouldn't bother watching them or posting their videos.

Click to expand...

Well the ones claiming that satellite tv signals come from relay aerial masts, dishes, balloons and use the ionosphere most certainly are either not knowledgeable or are deliberately being deceptive.

The reason why you think they are knowledgeable and are being honest is because you don’t have the necessary knowledge yourself to be able to see that their explanations are nonsense.

I don’t know why you post any of them. The people here answering your claims are no fools. Some have engineering backgrounds and personal knowledge which easily debunks flat earth claims.

And I think it’s fair to say all of us study Scripture with enthusiasm, seeking all that God has to tell us through His Word.

That study gives us the knowledge and understanding to be able to say that God does not tell us the shape of the earth in His Word, directly or indirectly.

You are relying on bad teachers who cherry pick verses and quote them out of context to suit their own aims.

A judge has granted in part a temporary restraining order request from a chaplains group seeking to cut ties with the Anglican Church in North America.

The Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy recently filed a complaint against ACNA over the Anglican denomination’s refusal to allow the ministry to disaffiliate.

United States District Judge Bruce Hendricks of the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division issued an order last week partly granting JAFC’s request for a temporary restraining order.

According to Hendricks, while the court “does not intend to entangle itself into an internal canonical dispute over the Anglican Church’s ecclesiastical structure,” some issues raised by JAFC “may be ripe and appropriate for the Court’s consideration, such as Plaintiff’s trademark claims.”

Continued below.

Job 33:6 said:

It tells us that the watery deep came into existence, but it doesn't say when.


The text doesn't actually say that verse 1 is an event.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the Earth...

Verse 1 is just an introductory statement.

It's like saying in the beginning when I rode my bike...

But it doesn't complete the event. It's just saying "when God did this..." And what's important is what comes next. Verse 1 itself is not an event.

In the beginning when I walked down the street...

It's an incomplete sentence. You need verse 2.

In the beginning when I walked down the street, it was raining outside.

In the beginning when God created the heavens into the Earth, the earth was formless...

The beginning is defined by God's action. Not by the material origins of the cosmos. The story is about God, it's not about the cosmos.

If I said, in the beginning when I walked down the street, it was raining outside, you wouldn't take that to mean that it instantly began raining the moment I walked outside.

Likewise, we don't assume that the Earth instantly came into existence the moment God began to create it.

That's an interpretive possibility, but the text doesn't mandate it.

And people have debated this for centuries. Both options are grammatically possible based on the Hebrew text.

Click to expand...

And I'll just add too that in ancient near East texts, if things did not exist, even that didn't necessarily mean that they were not materially present, but rather that they did not have a defined purpose. The ancient perspective on "existence", Bible scholars would argue was not based on material existence but rather was based on functional existence or whether something had meaning or purpose. And so the Deep was described as non-existent, But at the same time it's still chaos or chaotic Waters.

Proverbs 8:24-26 NRSV
[24] When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. [25] Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth— [26] when he had not yet made earth and fields, or the world's first bits of soil.

And you can see it if you look at this passage closely, before the mountains had been shaped, when he had not yet made Earth.

The creation or the making of Earth is associated with this idea of shaping mountains.

Proverbs 8:27 NRSV
[27] When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,

And here are the creation of the heavens is associated with the circle on the face of the deep, the circumference of the firmament. The Deep Is already there. And God draws a circle on it.

It's not talking about material coming into existence, it's talking about drawing and shaping and molding and doing things with material, that's what creation is. And this is how every creation text is in the Bible and anyone who's honest about the Bible will see this.

The Barbarian said:

It's just both parties now following the same rules. Supreme Court says corrupt districting is O.K. so long as the primary intent in to give one's party an unfair advantage. And now republicans are furious that democrats have started following the new rules, too.

Click to expand...

As an independent, I'm not "furious". I'm just discouraged.

BPPLEE said:

All of them?

Click to expand...

Each of them.

iluvatar5150 said:

He hasn't even tried!

Click to expand...

Well he did try but it appears water lilies have more rights than people in federal detention do.

pasifika said:

You can know it by what they say. No offense to the brother.

Click to expand...

No one can read thoughts, only God.

If one thinks God waited to show love only to His New Covenant believers, doesn't seem like they know God, because God does not change. I think its just a misunderstanding of what the promises are of the New Covenant Heb8:6 and mistaking it for all new words, when God promised those would not change Psa89:34 Mat5:18

Job 33:6 said:

We would end up with all sorts of religious people wanting their positions in public schools. Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism etc. and that's part of what the founding fathers wanted to avoid, because it leads to schisms and conflict as well as some religious positions gaining dominance over others, which often results in oppression of religions. Which is what drove the exodus from Europe to begin with.

Click to expand...

These ideas can be presented in public schools; it just can't be done by the school itself, or any agent designated by the school. Students can do it.

calicocat said:

but some variant of "x belongs to x and y belongs to y" is a self-determination, anti-imperialist creed I've read in older leftward-leaning literature

Click to expand...

As you said, context matters - it can be about self-determination and anti-imperialism, but that's really only in the context of a country being a (former) colony, being ruled over by an imperialist power without a say in their own governance. That's not applicable to modern Germany, France, Britain, or America.

I think there is a revolution brewing. Kuhn call it a paradigm shift. We had a paradigm shift from the God centered universe to the Enlightenment which has led to the mechanical and material or naturalistic universe. Then another shift into the Quantum universe and now the Mind and Consciousness.

Which ironically sort of comes full circle from the God centered or spiritual universe to the observer and subject centered universe. Which naturally flows into conscious experiences such as phenomenal beliefs in transcedent spirits and gods.

Galileo realised to do science the subject had to be seperated from that which is being observed and measured. Now science is bring the subject back in because, well we are part of that reality and cannot be seperated.

Fervent said:

I have no idea what you mean by that.

Click to expand...

You said that god have the authority to tell others how they should behave. When questioned about why god have that authority, you said that it was connected to knowledge.

Then I asked what do god know, and how do we know what god knows? So I put forth that we could test what god knows with standardised tests.

Then you said something about opinions, and that there was no common ground for discussions. But I do believe knowledge is able to be measured and we can surely find a measure we could apply to god to see if god has enough knowledge to have the authority to determine how people should behave.

fhansen said:

As I said. So the person, even though a living, walking body, can be dead.

Click to expand...

The physical person is not dead until the physical body dies.

Who woulda' tho't such basic knowledge would be challenged?

The human spirit never dies.

Surely Catholics know this. . .

Dikaioumenoi said:

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.

Click to expand...

The name Jesus means "God saves". It does not mean "God will save the select few" or something like that. Where does it say the angel reveals the whole extent of the mission on Earth? The angel defines the kind of salvation, Jesus is the Saviour from sins, not worldly opression.

Dikaioumenoi said:

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.

Click to expand...

The angel’s declaration is that Jesus will bring about the promised salvation of His people Israel, by delivering them from sin, thus fulfilling God’s covenant purpose. The verse isn’t addressing the individual scope of application.


ChatGPT

"Collective possessive

The Greek: τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν

τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ = “His people” (singular group noun)

ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν = “from their sins” (plural possessive)

Even though αὐτῶν is plural, it refers back to the group as a whole. This is called a corporate plural. The “sins of the people” are considered collectively, not necessarily as every individual sin accounted for one by one."

Even though αὐτῶν is plural, it refers back to the group as a whole. This is called a corporate plural. The “sins of the people” are considered collectively, not necessarily as every individual sin accounted for one by one."


So the grammar guarantees that the group as a whole will experience salvation, not every individual within the group.

Dikaioumenoi said:

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.

Click to expand...

Again, where does it say the angel reveals the whole extent of Jesus plan on Earth? The angel tells Joseph the essential purpose of Jesus life: He is the Savior from sin. It defines the nature of His mission, not the full unfolding of how that salvation will happen or to whom it will ultimately extend.

Dikaioumenoi said:

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.

Click to expand...

A stretch? Ok, where do "His people, My people, His own" in the Gospels refer to someone else than the covenant people of Israel?

Dikaioumenoi said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, Matthew broadens the catergory to include Gentiles, that is true, still the specific phrases "His people, My people, His own" always refer to the people of Israel. The expansion doesn’t change that fact.

Dikaioumenoi said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, the true covenant community is beyond national bounds. But it all starts with the nation of Israel as the reference point. Salvation comes from Israel, the covenant people, and only then flows to the nations.

You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
— John 4:22

Dikaioumenoi said:

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.

Click to expand...

The verse defines the nature of the salvation (from sins) and the certainty of its fulfillment. It's not a declaration of which individuals will receive it. So it neither collapases into faild national redemption or universal salvation. It simply shows God starts with the nation of Israel and for then later expand to the Gentiles.

Dikaioumenoi said:

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.

Click to expand...

But the fact that it was written for Jews helps to explain why Matthew in verse 1:21 shows Jesus as the Savior of the covenant people of Israel as the starting point of God’s redemptive plan.

Delvianna said:

Because it makes it the law of the land. It's like if a panel of judges ruled on allowing people to just murder who ever they want, because the judges are part ruling the country, the nation will be judged when murder sky rockets.

Click to expand...

So, Americans that disagree with the ruling are as guilty as the judges?

Why clean it ?

linux.poet said:

Given the amount of times that Israelites are rebuked for being “stiff-necked”, I tend to think that it’s a liability. My “stubbornness” was something my adult companions tended to rebuke me for as child.

Click to expand...

I think this is inherent in all from the Fall. We have a default disposition to rebel against God.

linux.poet said:

Over and over, I’ve been told that being open to new ideas and giving careful consideration to them before rejecting them is a good idea. That way I have a logical or Scriptural basis for what I reject that I can defend in the court of public opinion.

Click to expand...

Yes its become tricky with all the rationalisations. We can even rationalise the truth into a lie and a lie into the truth. We have become very good at it. The best ones at it in the church are the wolves. Don't be fooled.

You can tell by the fruits of the spirit if you look carefully using that critical thinking. But that needs a ground. Christs fruits are the ground. Not human rationalisations according to enlightened thinking which has no spiritual ground.

linux.poet said:

In addition, I have also been conditioned to just ignore any hard disagreements where the person will not change and just walk away rather than continuing to get frustrated and angry. I work around and accommodate the disagreement or just act in accordance with my viewpoint to heap negative consequences on them (this only works IRL).

Click to expand...

Jesus told the disciples and they told other disciples that when they go into a twon or city to bring the Gospel that if the people reject you to not stay and move on to another town that may be open to the Gospel.

I think this is true today. It is about belief at the end of the day and no rationalisation or logic or scientific test will prove that. Todays postmodern philosophical worldview is based on relativism. The idea is to find a fault, find a reason why its not the case or the fact or truth. Because everything is determined by narratives which come subjective experiences.

So its a mindfiled and theres fake news and facts and all sorts of different claims and counter claims. All professing the truth to the point of culture wars.

So yes its best to walk away sometimes. You sort of get a feel for when that time comes. But as they say you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. And thats not making a demeaning comment on those who disagree. Its just how it works because its about a belief. A belief change comes from a complete mindset change.

That may happen quick sometomes but its usually a chipping away. You may have a arguement over something you believe is the truth but have to accept the other person is not going to agree. But you don't know that later something you said was something helps a person see things differently. But really its Gods spirit. I think we can give signposts or we ourselves are corrected where we at first don't see the truth. But later our eyes are open to it.

linux.poet said:

But: is this type of morality Biblical/Scriptural? Or is it just secular programming from the American state that works for adults’ convenience to insert knowledge into kids’ heads and keep them under control?

Click to expand...

I think in todays culture wars there are a lot of ideologies being promoted. All with a moral aspect. You can hear it in the words and language. Thats because we cannot order society without some meaning and moral code. So the culture war is really about which basis should we use as the meaning and moral code.

As God has now been rejected from the public square as the basis as in the past. The void is open to whatever idea dominates. As its just one idea in the market place just like anything its open to a war on ideas in the end. Because this is not just selling cars. Its life, morality and reality itself. Well at least that is how it has evolved to be today. Everything has become a matter of serious consequence and the opposing groups are threats.

So I reckon run for the hills and find a nice quiet place lol. Seriously I don't think as you say anything can be changed. Really the gospel is simple and I don't think the early church engaged in politics or culture wars.

Just a plain simple truth of the gospel and then exampling that. The example speaks volumns. Especially in a world where theres 1,000s of convincing, manipulating, decieving, objecting, accusing and screaming voices everywhere. The contrast would be radical and there could be no arguement against it.

contratodo said:

How is it that the sun, outside of the sky and millions of miles away does not completely light up the whole part of the earth facing it?

Click to expand...

It does, though there is a projection angle thing going on. If you measure the zenith angle z between straight up and the Sun, the amount of light you get is L = S cos z. The Solar constant is 1360 W/m^2. When the Sun is 60 degrees from zenith (30 degrees above the horizon) L = 1360 W/m^2 * cos (60) = 680 W/m^2 (half). At the horizon, z = 90, cos 90 = 0, total light goes to zero. Thus, the "limb" of an irradiated sphere, like the Earth or the Moon, will appear dimmer, but still be lit.

Dan Perez said:

IN 1. COR 1:15 SAYS THIS !!

# 1 LEST. // ME is a DISJUNCTIVE PARICLE NEGATIVE

# 2 ANY // TIS is an. INDEFINITE PRONOUN. is a NOMINATIVE CASE. , in. the SINGULAR

# 3 SHOULD SAY //. EIPON. in. the AORIST TENSE in the ACTIVE VOICE is. a SUBJUNCATIVE. in. the SIGNULAR

# 4 THAT //. HOTI. is a CONJUNCATIONI.

# 5 I HAVE BAPTIZED // in. the AORIST TENSE in. the ACTIVE VOICE. is a INDICATIVE. MOOD in. the SINGULAR

# 6 IN // EIS is a PREPOSITION

# 7 MINE. OWN. //. EMOS. is a POSSESSEIVE PRONOUN. in a ACCUSATIVE CASE. in. the SINGULAR

# NAME // ONOMA. in the ACCUSATIVE CASE in. the SIGNULAR in the NEUTER

# A. And Paul could NEVER say I PAUL BAPTIZE. YOU. in. the name. of PAUL ,!!


#B THAT. was. given too the ELEVEN. disciples. in Matt 28:16. and 19.

#C. And teach bother what. Jesus taught his disciples.

# D And what happened in Matt 28 was way before Saul was ever saved 11

dan p

Click to expand...

New Christians may not tap into everything that is available to them to help them experience the transformation:

I do not know of any Christian group, who believe the water itself saves you, since all believe it is God who saves and God is not limited by water.

Water baptism is not a “requirement” for salvation, since God does the saving, but is something Christians get to do to help them and others.

I know that I needed everything God could provide to assure me of my conversion, both outwardly and mentally. God wants you to physically feel the experience of what is going on Spiritually.

You would like to add to your conversion a definite time place and physical experience, which God has provided for you.

Adult believers water immersion is to be a physical outward representation of what had or is happening spiritually in the person being baptized. It is mainly to help the individual being baptized to better grasp what is going on, but it can “witness” to others observing the baptism. It has the elements of going down under the water (burying the old man), placing your dependence in another; the person baptizing you (surrendering your life to God), being washed (having your sins washed away), rising out of the water (rising from the old dead body), and stepping forth out onto the earth (a new person). The person is walking out into the hugs of his new family. It is also a sign of your humility, since it is a humbling act anyone can simple allow someone to do to them (so not a work) and since humility has been shown in the accept of charity (God’s free gift of undeserving forgiveness) it should just support and add to the memory of that acceptance. To refuse Christian water baptism when it is readily available might mean you are not ready to handle other responsibility like having the indwelling Holy Spirit and you are hurting yourself.

Christian Baptism replaced John’s Baptism and not circumcision, since circumcision went on at the same time as John’s baptism and it is not in the Bible where, Jewish Christians cease circumcising their boy children after baptism became available. Circumcision was a physical visible daily reminder to all Jewish boys and men that they were a Jew. The indwelling Holy Spirit is our literal daily reminder that we are Christians. The indwelling Holy Spirit replaced circumcision and is for both men and women.
Peter, Paul and all the rest would have agreed that: “water” does not save you, only Deity (God/Christ/Holy Spirit). God does not need you to “do” anything for Him to save you, but as Christians, we have the wonderful privilege and honor to add to our Spiritual salvation, a physical remembrance by physically going through a death burial and resurrection: washing away, reliance on others, rising to a new life in the arms of fellow Christians and witnessing to other what Christ went through in remembrance. Baptism is for us, because it helps us, and some of us will need that additional help, so God wants all of us to add this physical remembrance and witness.

Look at the context of 1 Cor: 16-17, 1 Cor. 1: 10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Yet tell me this: If Paul did not believe in water baptism, why did he specific give exceptions as being exceptions to his baptizing of Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas?

Paul is addressing one of the many issues the Corinthian Church was having, which was division among them partly created by them being baptized by different Church leaders or disciples of those church leaders. Paul personally limited baptizing people for the same reason Christ did not baptize anyone.

Paul is not bring judgement down on being baptized, but their division and using who baptized them in dividing up.

Why would baptism not be a benefit to you?

David Lamb said:

The bible doesn't tell us how old Mary was, nor does it tell us that she rode a donkey to Bethlehem.

Click to expand...

No don't say that. Your spoiling the image I have in my head of poor Mary, or rather brave Mary riding a donkey in the cold desert night air with the stars shining above. Now I have to reimagine it. No I'm keeping my image lol. Thats how I picture it.

David Lamb said:

It also doesn't tell us that Joseph was much older than Mary. We have songs that tell us these things, for example, "Little Donkey" and "The Cherry Tree Carol" which begins: "Joseph was an old man, an old man was he." But such songs are unbiblical.

Click to expand...

Yeah they are filling in the picture and each culture will have their own version. THough they are pretty close. They all say he's older but some like to elaborate he was much older as the percieved custom could potentially have an old man marry a very young women in those times.

Some religions in ancient times had girls of 8 and 9 bestowed and married at 9 or 10. But the husband had to wait to the coming of age. Still a scarry proposition to allow such an opportunity in the wrong hands. But that was the custom and practice in some parts of the world. Which was really an extreme version of how generally it was the norm for older men to marry females at 14, 15 and often 16 years.

I think it was around the 50s that some western nations had marriage laws below 16 years. I know Gerry Lee Lewis got in trouble for marrying a girl at 14.

Thanks! Glad you liked them!

durangodawood said:

Rap can be clever as heck. But its not so good for generating emotion.

Click to expand...

Idk… I think it’s a YMMV kind of thing. The first time I sat on the lyrics to “Gangsta’s Paradise” it kind of broke my heart. And there are lots of good hype up songs that are rap.

I think since music depends on so many factors to illicit a response… Words, music, voice, pacing… It has more benchmarks to hit in order to hit people in a certain way. Like, I think Bob Dylan is a lyrical genius but his voice and accompaniments make me want to beat my head on a wall so I don’t find his music all that inspiring. Rap has a similar issue for me, but it’s because my tastes gravitate more to dance or modern pop, which in many ways is the opposite. The song that makes me feel heard, sometimes to the point of tears, is a dance pop song. It hits me perfectly, but anybody who’s not into that genre isn’t going to feel it like I do.