Doubting again.

If I am not willing to be crucified with Christ, I cannot be saved.

What perplexes me is that some people hear the gospel, immediately believe in a saving faith way, and go on their way rejoicing. Like the Ethiopian eunuch.

To me, being saved, living the Christian life and walking the Christian walk means being unbearably squashed. What is perplexing to me is that the NT talks about the “joy” of a believer.

There are paradoxes in the supernatural realm. One has to do with free will versus election. Apparently, these are two sides of the same supernatural coin. Both are true at the same time.

Another paradox is the concept of salvation in a moment versus the daily walk. As Delvianna said, faith is something to be done CONTINUALLY. To me, that means: mess up at any point and you are out the door of the kingdom. But the NT talks of conversion-in-a-moment and the security of the believer. It also says, those who persevere to the end will be saved.

Between my own unwillingness to be crucified and the paradoxes, I am blown away by the gospel.

keras said:

God will not save anyone who hates Jesus.

Click to expand...

keras, the Jews attitude toward Jesus is going to completely change. Also, do you know that modern day Jews (Judaism) consider Jesus a "failed messiah" ? They don't "hate" Jesus. They just don't believe that he is the messiah, nor do they believe in the gospel of salvation in Christ, nor do they believe that Jesus is the LORD their God.

keras said:

Scripturally impossible.
Jewish Israel is very well defended. Gog will attack an undefended people.

Click to expand...

The land of Israel, as a nation, was desolate until the Jews returned following WWII, Israel is not capable on its own to defend itself against the size of the Gog/Magog attacking force.

Look at Ezekiel 38. Does it say that Gog/Magog is going to attack a nation that formed following a solar flare event that destroyed it's previous population ?

Always manage to hit the talking points, no matter how unrelated.

fli said:

The New Testament begins when Jesus died. All that is said does not apply to the church. In Matthew 23:9 Jesus is speaking to the Israelis of His time on earth.

Click to expand...

I know that position is taught, but that's not legit.

Jesus advised us that man shall live by every Word of God. Matt. 4:4, Luke 4:4, Deut. 8:3

What this means is that elimination of the Word of God based on historical referenced time frames or to whom said words were spoken to isn't legitimate. There really are deeper meanings behind every Word that apply to everyone.

Some people are "led" down your dead end because they can't remedy such matters as law vs. grace, so they toss the law entirely aside.

No prophet, Apostle or Jesus did such things, nor should we.

fli said:

Exodus 4:22 Israel was set aside as His people, His bride, and His children. It was not until the NT that we discovered not all Israel was Israel.

Click to expand...

Jesus, Paul, John and Peter tell us quite clearly who was with Israel that was not Israel in scriptures such as Mark 4:15, Romans 11:8, 1 John 3:8 and many many others.

You do realize that we all engage the tempter or his own, internally?

fli said:

Not all people on earth are His children. After Jesus died only those who believe in Jesus and walk in the Spirit are His children.

Click to expand...

Jesus advised us that we ALL have One Father: Matt. 23:9

Some of the positions you are tossing out are clearly not orthodox in any way. Some minor and irrelevant side sect of some sort more than likely.

fli said:

When did I ever mention any recipes or incantations? Please show me just where I cited anything other than scripture to justify my conclusions. Since you have accused me of this, I do expect you to prove it.

Click to expand...

Already have and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't bury your responses to me at the bottom of your responses to other posters.

fli said:

I never said that Jesus was saved by His works. Jesus saved His body, the church, by His works.

Click to expand...

You just did it, again.

fli said:

Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone. NKJV

Jesus suffered death, which He could have avoided as He never sinned. He suffered death so those who believed in Him did not suffer eternal death. Because He died in obedience to the Father's wish, God gave Him the right to save the world. He chose to save all who believed in Him (the redeemed, all true Israel) and also save those who showed Him and His brethren kindness (the white throne judgment). Two different groups.

Click to expand...

You only see people in your equations and then use that form of spiritual blindness to condemn other captives of the devils.

But then again it's not even you doing it, so there's that.

Pity, such sights.

The world is once again turning its eyes to the suffering and resilience of Ukraine. The war has devastated lives and landscapes, yet amid calls for peace from world leaders, another story is unfolding. Amid devastation, the church in Eastern Europe is proof that there is Gospel hope rising from the remnants of conflict and repression.

The rise and fall of the Soviet Union left lasting scars that continue to shape Eastern Europe. During Stalin’s reign of terror, known as the Great Terror from 1936 to 1938, believers of every faith faced execution, imprisonment, relentless violence and exile to the Gulags. Even for decades afterward, Christians were routinely discriminated against, harassed, denied education or employment and forbidden to gather publicly. State loyalty was presented as the new religion, and those who worshipped God met secretly in the shadows, becoming lifelines to the small pockets of believers. Others formed covert organizations, hidden from the eyes of neighbors and the secret police, keeping the Church alive.

Generations of religious repression reshaped entire nations across Eastern Europe, as governments enforced atheism and sought to eliminate any trace of organized religion. For millions, the wounds and stories from that destructive period remain fresh, even decades later.

Continued below.

The Republicans’ 2025 election losses have certainly gotten the Trump administration’s attention. After voters told exit pollsters that their top concern was an unaffordable economy, administration officials have announced a slate of new policies designed to make the economy more affordable.

But solving a problem is harder than announcing a policy, and many of the Trump administration’s latest moves sound like they were borrowed from the same Bidenomics playbook that failed both on its own terms and with voters.

Inflation

The most obvious affordability issue is inflation, which makes everything more expensive. This weekend, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested that the Trump administration has finally dispatched this adversary. “We had to stop the increase first, now we are starting to see prices level off, come down.”

This plea for voters not to assign Trump the blame for their pocketbook pain does not reflect the government’s own inflation statistics. In September 2025, annual inflation remained at 3.0%, half again higher than the Federal Reserve’s target rate. And President Trump has spent much of his first year lobbying the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, thereby taking its boot off of inflation’s neck.

Continued below.

9Rock9 said:

Mytho-history is a theory that claims Genesis should not be understood literallt (or at least not literally in the modern sense.) instead, it is largely a figurative account that expresses important theological truths and to establish Yahweh as the one true God vs the pagan religions of the Ancient World.

One argument for this view is that the Israelites would not have shared the same worldview that we modern 21st Century Westeners do. The fantastical and so-called scientific inaccuracies are accommodations rather than errors. That is, God met primeval humans at their level, and used language they would understand. Also, since the Israelites were an Ancient Near Eastern Semitic people, they were likely influenced by their surrounding neighbors such as the Caananites, Egyptians and Babylonians, and thus their texts all share similar themes and genre conventions.

Click to expand...

Yes I think so. It seems even before Abrahams sacrifice to God humans naturally knew about God or their version of god and worship like sacrificing to them. In fact if it was not for humans knowing this then Abrahams sacrific to the one true God would have no meaning.

The stage was set beforehand in that humans knew of God. The same when God declared Himself the one true God, the great 'I AM'. It would not make sense unless there were other gods created that were competing for Godship.

The Egyptians and proto Isrealites is interesting. How they end up in Egypt and then rise up as a threat to the pharoah. How the pharoahs god was challenged by Moses's God. A battle of Gods. I think it was around this time that the pharoah made himself a god. Made all the gods into one god. Which the God of Moses established Himself as the one true God.

This has been happening through history right up until the Isrealites were a Kingdon and nation and is still going on.

9Rock9 said:

God was not concerned with presenting an accurate view of cosmology or science so much as he was with correcting the theology of the Israelites. That is, he wanted to show that sun is a creation and not a god to be worshiped, and therefore more powerful than any pagan deity.

Click to expand...

Creation being a witness and testimony of God. We see Gods invisible qualities in the things He has made. False gods and even creation itself in the form of the pagan belief in Mother Nature have been made gods over God. Humans have a natural born knowledge of God.

The fullfillment of the old testament God is in Christ. God on earth so that there is no mistaking who is is. The only way toi God. Whereas the pagan gods lower god to humans and humans become the gods of their own world. Really the lowering of God to human level.

9Rock9 said:

Genesis contains a lot of figurative language. For instance, the account Creation week draws parallels with the ancient world practice of seven days of ceremony when constructing a new temple. This is because the cosmos is God's temple.

I have only recently switched to this view from Old Earth Creationism, so there are many things I am still unsure about, but I do think this view best accounts for both a high regard for Scripture and compatibility with modern science.

Click to expand...

I don't think it matters so much. Like you said it is a spiritual truth which cannot be rationalised with material science. The belief in a creator God who is behind what we see is the message. It was not the product of nothing, or creation itself. Life cannot come from non life.

With this comes our conscience and our connection to the spiritual world that tells us of a spiritual truth about humankind and creation. The battle of good and evil and Gods love in sending His son to reconnect with us and restore what evil destroyed.

You can't put that in a test tube and thats all thats important. I don't think you can make a case on evolution or any material explanation because it will always be restricted to a certain aspect that does not give the full picture. That we are spiritual beings more than material ones. Our beliefs in the biblical stories speak to us beyond science and is every bit as real.

Surely Bannon knows that Trump can pardon him and others from future prosecution for past crimes, the way Joe Biden did for his son Hunter.

Wendy's has 6,011 US locations compared to Jack in the Box which has 2,200.

For me Wendy's is the last resort when the drive-thru lines are too long at McDonal's, Taco Bell, Jack in the Box, Burger King etc, because they're usually a lot less busy.

CoreyD said:

@Jerry N. can you or your wife read this?

Click to expand...

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים would be “At the beginning,” “God,” “created.” The following breaks it down better: Three Words From The Creation - Day 1 of 4

People and christians get attacked all the time
maybe not as obvious as a demon mauling you but when families are broken, there are discussions,
when people do evils things sometimes, when people get psycological problems, is a lot of times attacks.
The problem is the enemy hides and people don't figure out its them.

And i believe usually the enemy doesn't have 'rights' to attack, even is something very good happened, someone a person did something bad to him for the enemy to act.

Micah 4:11-13 But now many nations are massed against you. They say: Let Zion suffer, let us gloat over the Holy Land.
They do not know the Lord’s thoughts or understand His purposes, for He has gathered them like sheaves to the threshing floor.
Arise and thresh, you descendants of Zion; I will make your weapons strong and many peoples will be destroyed. Their land and property is to be consecrated to the Lord of the whole earth.

Micah 5:1 For now; gather behind your walls, seek shelter from the siege.
Israel’s ruler will be struck on the cheek by a rod.
Will Benyamin Netanyahu be wounded and incapacitated? This is a very likely scenario, as he has already survived many attempts of assassination.
A ‘rod’, would be the best description Micah could use for a snipers rifle.

The loss of the Jewish State of Israel’s good leaders, is Prophesied in Isaiah 3:1-5 and the panic that ensues in Isaiah 22:1-5
Iran and all the Islamic haters of Judah , will take advantage of this situation: Isaiah 22:6-9….Elam, Aram and Kir, will prepare to attack and the heart of Judah’s defences are laid open.

Then, the Lord will arise and destroy them all. Ezekiel 7:14. Zechariah 1:14-18, Isaiah 63:1-8, Revelation 6:12-17

Reluctant Theologian said:

Information/facts that are not mentioned in the Bible may not be necessarily untrue. The early church has circulating info and sometimes literature/books with extra-Biblical stories - of course the reliability and authenticity of those are at a very different level than the Biblical texts (and may even be completely fabricated), but there is no reason to dismiss by definition ALL extra-Biblical accounts/stories/books. These were part of early Christian society and its written or oral tradition. We assume all kind of historical events based on extra-Biblical information ..

Click to expand...

I would say that there is no reason either to dismiss or to believe extra-biblical details about people or events mentioned in the bible. Particularly with the biblical account of the Incarnation, we find all sorts of "details" added, and accepted as an essential part of the "Christmas story." The donkey, an innkeeper, the wise men visiting Jesus at the same time as the shepherds, and much more. Some of these things actually contradict what we find in the bible, and others, we just do not know.

To have Christisn fellowship at any time of the day or night and to meet people from around the world. Also you have time to consider what to say and you can choose which topics to engage with and which to avoid.

80's classic that I have somehow only just now become fond of.

Login to view embedded media
@Multifavs , I hope i do not presume too much about your personality when i say this sounds like it might be your kind of love song. Give it a listen!


Side note: Actor Andrew McCarthy was cool. I actually am not familiar with anything he was in past the 80's, though, strangely.

Durian.

A local HVAC company runs a yearly promotion in which they give two new furnaces and a few repair services to veterans of the US armed forces. I won a furnace! Which is good because the one currently in the house gave up the ghost some time ago. We've been heating with electric space heaters when heat is needed. Just got first snow on Monday.

The shutdown was because Republicans don't think people need to .... eat.

ChubbyCherub said:

Thank you very much.

They have not addressed Paul's comments re: Ephesus rather his at Corinth. They stated that Paul is not suggesting that women need to be quiet, submit or not have leadership or ministry roles in church but that it was contextual for the time and place Paul was instructing in Corinth.

Specifically, women in Corinth were leaders/owners of brothels and were used to positions of power within society and at home as they were the financial heads of the families. As a result, they were raucous at church which Paul felt was distracting and didn't allow for people to hear the message that was intended, hence, a set of societal rules laid out to assist a very specific situation.

They stated that Paul's words are misrepresented and misinterpreted because the verses are read out of context instead of read as a whole. I read the bible and didn't see where the information re: woman's job roles, financial status etc came from so was put into a position where I had to instruct the family to just 'trust' what was being taught at church. But, they are very educated and so this was not sufficient for them hence the quest for further information.

Regarding Pauls letter to Timothy re: Ephesus, I have not yet addressed this with my church given that we now see that Paul says the same about Ephesus and there is not an explanation regarding why the women, or exactly how the women, were behaving in whatever way initiated Pauls comments. I might possibly ask them but I have asked them so many things already and, much like this forum, I have to allow people to keep up with all the questions I fire off!

Many thanks!

Click to expand...

The pattern in Paul's letters is that the trigger/reason to write about a certain subject may be a concerning situation in that specific church/fellowship, but the instructions for Christian conduct are universal, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

E.g. in 1 Corinthians 5 Paul discusses a serious case of immorality occurring in that church; how to deal with such a case and how to uphold standards of holiness is universal. In the TNK/OT God gave varying instructions to the Israelites on how to deal with the nations to Joshua, but how to behave once they conquered and inherited the land was universal.

So the reason why Paul addresses head-covering in 1st Corinthians is likely because an issue with that had arisen (possibly women removing their head-covering), yet the instruction on how to pray/prophesy would be expected to be universal. This pattern can be noticed in e.g. 1 Corinthians 14:34–35: the background/trigger is expected to be a local issue at that time, but Paul highlights the alignment of his instruction with Torah (=the Law) as universal guideline.

E.g. when some masters treated their slaves badly this could have been a reason to admonish the masters to the treat their slaves well, but it's nonsensical to suggest the instruction for proper conduct for a master or slave is ONLY for that local church with that issue.

Yet since the 1960's with the rise of Feminism and consequently the push for egalitarian theology (removing remnants of Patriarchy) we see exactly that. Unique exceptional alleged circumstances in the addressed churches are presented to argue that Paul's instructions on marriage, women in churches or even homosexuality are ONLY applicable to the local unique situation; basically neutralising their universal applicability. There are a few problems with this approach:

• Paul's text itself does not give any clues that the instructions for model behaviour are local-only
• it ignores the fact Paul gives general theological arguments that are time/culture independent (this includes the Torah reference, but also creation order, deception order, etc.)
• it doesn't work for 1 Peter as this is not addressed to a particular church - yet its message is identical to Paul's on the issue of marriage/women's role
• the very fact the entire Christian church throughout history had a fairly unanimous view, but all of a sudden under influence of (secular) Feminism since the 1960's the rising pressure for 're-interpretation' to make the Bible compatible with 20-21 st century Western values should be a red flag.

To make practised homosexuality acceptable in churches nowadays a similar argument is applied: in those days there were no committed loving relationships between men, so Paul's prohibitions (fully in line with Torah) of course ONLY would apply to non-committed casual relationships/hook-ups, so Paul certainly would approve of those committed loving homosexual relationships today. This approach conveniently makes an assumption not present in the text itself in a desperate effort to neutralise the principle already present in Torah.

Suffice to say I find these approaches highly speculative and dependent on conjecture - wishful thinking to suit a particular (new) agenda.

You mention 'women in Corinth were leaders/owners of brothels and were used to positions of power within society and at home as they were the financial heads of the families.' ... I would submit that is highly unlikely to be true for that church as a substantial part of the Corinthian church were Jews who practised their religion as such previously (you can find clues for that in the text of 1 Corinthians).

Yes, Yeshua was revolutionary in that He encourages women to follow Him, to listen to His teaching (Mary), to speak privately with a woman (the woman at the well in Samaria) - and Paul presumes women are praying and prophesying - the Holy Spirit is poured out on all; yet it's not a cultural conformist move by Yeshua to ONLY appoint males as the 12 - that's intentional.

E.g. great effort is made by egalitarians to try to argue that in 1 Timothy 2:12 Paul doesn't really mean women shouldn't have 'authority' over men, but only 'should not usurp/seize authority from men'. I.e. so supposedly when a bishop/elder gives that authority to a woman she is completely fine wielding authority over men. But this overlooks the very first part of that verse that also says a woman should not teach a man; and the verse before that were Paul instructs Timothy a woman should learn 'in subjection', and the verse after that (v 13) where a universal creation order argument is used, and the fact Timonthy's task was to set-up/organise several churches and v. 8 clearly has a universal nature ... Egalitarian reading makes a complete mess of this section.

The Bible in both TNK/OT and NT is Patriarchal, but divine love takes the sting and strive out of that - as it does for master/slave relationships or those between parents and children.

Be blessed sister - and welcome to correct me in case you detect an error in my thinking !

Michie said:

Jews are already inherently unique. We don’t need to prove it by naming our kids Cinnamon, Aqua, or Afternoon.​

A clip from the second season of the Netflix series Nobody Wants This recently made the rounds in the parent-verse. In it, interfaith couple Joanne and Noah (Kristen Bell and Adam Brody) attend a baby-naming party and submit to only the most L.A. experience: pretending you didn’t just hear something completely, utterly, and offensively dumb.

Joanne asks the Jewish mom, played by a peppy Leighton Meester, an innocent enough question: “What’s [your daughter’s] name?”

“Afternoon,” replies the mom.

“That’s not a,” starts Joanne, before catching herself mid-snicker. She quickly reverts course: “That is … my favorite time of day.”

I know this routine all too well, the one in which we swallow our tongues, nod, and reflexively exclaim “beautiful!” while simultaneously relishing new fodder for group texts. “You won’t believe the name I just heard” has grown all the more frequent and yet all the more competitive: No longer does Republic, Churchill (for a girl), or even Quinoa raise an eyebrow. I recently overheard Farro (or Pharaoh—unclear!) at the playground, and my group chat pals were unimpressed: “I dunno, I could see a President Farro/Pharaoh.”

It used to be that faddish progeny trends were more prevalent within our gentile neighbors, but not us–we who name after our beloved Bubbes and Zaydes and a long lineage of Jewish leaders, Biblical characters, and that one female Israeli prime minister. I come from a generation in which every other Jewish kid was named Talia, Ilana, or Rachel. Now I see those very same peers opting for Coyote, Striker, and Roxstar.

It’s sometimes hard to square away these peculiar pairings—an unorthodox first name with an often Jewish surname. Gravity Cohen? Aqua Levenstein? Cinnamon Goldberg?

Continued below.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/community/articles/stop-giving-jewish-kids-dumb-names

Click to expand...

Would be funny if it wasn't so hard on their kids. Save the unusual names for the pets! Now, will Tomorrow come in when I call her, because I've got to take Bingeworthy for his walk?

Soyeong said:

Paul spoke about multiple categories of law other than the Law of Moses, so it is always important to discern which law he was referring to. For example, in Romans 7-8, Paul said that the Law of God is good, that he wanted to do good, that he delighted in obeying it, and that he served it with his mind in contrast with the law of sin, which was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do, which was waging war against the law of his mind, which he served with his flesh, which held him captive, and which the Law of the Spirit as free us from. The Law of God leads us to do what is godly, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12) while the law of sin leads us in the opposite direction by stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death (Romans 7:5). So verses that refer something that would be absurd for Paul to delight in doing should not be interpreted as referring to the Law of God while verses that refer to a law that is sinful, that causes sin to increase, or that hinders us from obeying the Law of God shouldbe interpreted as referring to the law of sin. For example, Paul described the law that we are not under in Romans 6:14 as being a law where sin had dominion over him and it would be absurd for Paul to delight in sin having dominion over him, but rather that is the role of the law of sin. In Roman 6:15, being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and in Romans 7:7, the Law of God is not sinful but how we know what sin is, so we are still under it. Moreover, everything else in Romans 6 speaks in favor of obedience to the Law of God and against sin.



The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so if you think that Paul should be interpreted as promoting rebellion against what God has commanded, then you should be quicker to disregard everything that he said than to disregard anything that God has commanded. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they speak against obeying His law, so it is either incorrect to interpret Paul as doing that or he was a false prophet, but either way followers of Christ should be followers of his example of obedience to the Law of God. The reality is that Paul was a servant of God who therefore never promoted rebellion against what He has commanded.


In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith alone.

Click to expand...

No where I stand , and check out ESE 36 :25-38. B!!

Then n n read EZE 37:1-15

Then. read EZE. 37:15-22 AND Israel has ONE STICK and JUDAH. will have ONE STICK. and Christ will. those

two STICKS become ONE STICH. and Israel then. become ONE STICK. and one again become ONE NATION !!

And will like your REPLY. !!

dan p