POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Nope. "The Church" did not exist prior to the 4th century AD. If anyone believes that there were no true branches before that time, they are following a different teacher.
I am not correct. The word is correct. All of it. Not just the parts that agree with a dogma. I fixed some things that were easier corrected than retyped.
One of MANY types used to illustrate that God isn't limited by human means. He establishes who He establishes by their heart and not their birth order. The arrogant are set aside for the humble. Those who would take the crown for themselves, for those who set aside their life so that others might have a share In it.
The criteria is the same as it ever has been and will be. Just as Ruth and Rahab were grafted into the ancestry of David, so too have gentiles always been able to attach themselves to God through the promise of His son, The Lamb, by choosing His ways, and not following the traditions of mankind.
Not all descended of Israel are Israel, just as not all in the Church will be acknowledged before his Father by Jesus. The arrogance of believing someone else is cut off you to be grafted in is the sane as Israel's arrogance in believing the occupants of the land were cut off FOR them.
God was very specific that the previous occupants were cast out because of their disobedience. In fact, that's why Abraham to whom the promise was made couldn't take possession right away. Their chosen corruption wasn't yet complete. The new tenant does not "replace" the old tenant on the old lease. The lease agreement is specific to each tenant, even if the terms are exactly the same as before.
We should never be so arrogant as to think someone was broken off FOR US. That is the essence of the replacement doctrine. It is putting new wine into old wineskins, just as is accepting the Lamb but going right back to sinning as if nothing changed but your outer garments.
It's like saying the person broken off because of their choices can't be grafted back in at the same spot because you've taken it. The parable of the prodigal son tells us otherwise. We need look at the whole word to understand the difference.
Not trying to be a jerk. I just don't want things being misrepresented.
As I already posted, there are no other interpretations. That line in the Constitution is extremely specific.
It's wild. Blows me away to think about it. Got to talk to a guy that still lives there but also has a place here in the states (Aussie citizen). He's stunned into near grief. Doesn't know where to live now that this country looks like it's going the same direction.
Serious question: how far back does your memory go?
Treating ginned-up, ominous-sounding hypotheticals as facts isn't a good way to go through life.
Not if it is your second try after being put out.
Somebody lost their stash.
Sharks off Rio de Janeiro test positive for cocaine.
First 'Cocaine Sharks' Discovered off Brazil
Cocaine has been detected in sharks for the first time, but scientists aren’t sure of the impactwww.scientificamerican.com
Now we know why he was named "hunter.."
Sure. Which still has nothing to do with apportionment. House representation counts nonvoting felons too.
Served with some in the Gulf War as well and I agree.
Exactly. The only reason anyone is confused about this is they don't want to understand and want to skew it for their benefit
I think you give BBBLazing to much credit for being moderate. From what I've seen, he's got the brain f**k of an anointed liberal.
Ford just reported a loss of $1.1 billion on their EV business.
Way to go Democrats... keep ramming down those shitty policies down our throats!
Edit... it gets better: Ford expects to lose $5.5 billion next year on the EV business.
A perfect example of what happens when the fed govt gets involved in business and tries to pick winners/losers.
Way to go Democrats... keep ramming down those shitty policies down our throats!
Edit... it gets better: Ford expects to lose $5.5 billion next year on the EV business.
A perfect example of what happens when the fed govt gets involved in business and tries to pick winners/losers.
Last edited:
He must not have been a true liberal. He took his own life without taking a bunch of people with him.
6 House Dems vote with GOP to condemn Kamala Harris for 'border czar' role
The House of Representatives voted to condemn Vice President Kamala Harris' role as the Biden administration's "border czar."
Hillary and Obama CREATED ISIS.
Logic and common sense? Representation is a right of the citizen. If you arent a citizen, you get no such right. Its really that easy.
Can't wait to see the mayhem they cause when the election is getting certified for Trump in January.
I understand you think that, he’s antivax though. He was never an alternative as the Democratic electorate hates him.
This is just factually incorrect. An idea never posited until the modern era. Here you have Ignatius of Antioch (who knew and learned from St John) writing around the year 110:
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. […] Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. […] Whatsoever [the bishop] shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”
There are an almost limitless supply of other pre-Constantine references to "the Church" and meaning it explicitly in the way in which I am referring to the Church. I mean, Our Lord himself creates the Church by ordaining the Apostles and placing Peter over them. "Feed my sheep." "What you bind on Earth is bound in Heaven...". etc.
Perhaps we're talking past each other to a certain extent. I am not saying Jews can never be accepted into the Church or that they lost salvation simply by once being Jews. You are correct in that we are all grafted into the vine and should claim no special privilege for having been grated on. And I definitely do not suppose that anyone being grafted in "takes the spot" of someone else.
What I am saying is that rejecting Christ, which Jews must do or else they are no longer Jews, means that you cannot be grafted on. That is the absolute bare minimum for being seen as a good servant of Our Lord. Again, they can be grafted on at any moment by abandoning Talmudic Judaism and accepting authentic Christian teaching. I am not claiming they are cast out and can never return. But they actually have to accept Our Lord for that return to happen. As of now, that is not the case and probably won't be until the end, if you accept that interpretation of Revelation.
To head off the old covenant still being in place argument, I must ask how a Jew today can ever faithfully uphold the covenant without a Temple? Why would God allow the Temple to be destroyed if he expected the Jews to still faithfully follow the Mosaic Law? Isn't it much more reasonable to see the destruction of the Temple (and it's never having been rebuilt for 2000 years) as a sign from God that the old covenant can no longer be fulfilled by humans. The only way is through Our Lord Jesus Christ
This is straight wild if you want to go down the rabbit hole stuff about all that the CIA can do and has done. They have been using mask technology since at least the 60s.
Tony Mendez (The guy for the Argo movie/Operation ""The Canadian Caper"), his wife
Tony Mendez (The guy for the Argo movie/Operation ""The Canadian Caper"), his wife
EXCLUSIVE My White House - Mission Impossible: How I, the CIA's disguise division chief, deceived the Secret Service, infiltrated the Oval Office and shocked the President… by peeling off MY face
Last edited:
The fact that the American Commander-in-Chief cannot get through a simple television broadcast without appearing to be cognitively impair.
Political BS aside, it is absurd that Kamala is not in charge right now. Situations like this are exactly what VPs are for.
And you’d throw your vote away again. Did Perot win? Can any third party presidential candidate?
Sue the crap out of 'em.
www.foxnews.com
Trump's defamation lawsuit against ABC, George Stephanopoulos can move forward, judge rules
Former President Trump's defamation lawsuit against ABC News and its anchor George Stephanopoulos can move forward, a Florida judge ruled Wednesday.
Do you also think that is rational to expect EVERY single one of those representatives to uphold their oath to the Constitution and see that the very laws that they have written are enforced? Thereby securing our border and immediately deporting every single one that broke our laws the moment they entered this country illegally and many have broken other laws (including rape and murder) since.
I believe I would almost, almost rather watch the view than to hear that word salad fool talk. Scratching a chalkboard is easier on the ears.
It very specifically does. It’s a specific list of which statuses qualify: “…whole number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” It specifies Citizens in literally the paragraph before that one. If they had meant citizen, they would have said citizen. They very specifically didn’t. As even shown directly by them going on to specifically exclude certain noncitizens(untaxed Indians) who were part of that included noncitizen group.
While it’s entertaining to watch Dion repeatedly cite a provision of the Constitution that was replaced by the 14th Amendment, I’ll go ahead and point out the provisions Dion is citing were replaced with the 14th Amendment.
If we were following the basic moral concern for the country and upholding the constitution that would be true, of course.
Take it up with the anointed demo☭rats. The only thing they gaf about is if he could be re-elected. He's been a puppet from day one.
And it's all out in the open now and dem voters still dgaf. Total Scum.
Thanks for pointing out that showing an ID when voting does nothing to prove the person with the ID is a citizen & thus has the right to vote.
We live under the rule of law though. Your "logic and common sense" is just your opinion. So you're admitting you have no legal basis for your position and just want the Constitution changed to reflect your personal feelings?
Similar threads
