Forums

Back to the original questions; what does the Bible state is said about a prophet?  A phrase out of a sentence needs to be read in context. That  is important of course, but what of this statement by Jesus that "no prophet is accepted in his own country." ? No prophet, none, are accepted  in their own homeland. Fast forward to today, whom speaking  as though a prophet are rejected at their own homeland? Are any? My Lord was speaking prophecy and was rejected, and is today too. He was speaking of himself and his fulfillment of God's word. He also stated  "this is not my kingdom if it were my servants would fight".  So is this ( the world) his homeland, or not? Seems to me that those called out of this world to be servants of God do not have a home here, but are in it nonetheless. There is no need of new prophecy that tells of the need of Jesus. It has already been said by Jesus. There may be need of witnesses to testify of Jesus  each having been turned about to Him by the comforter the Holy Spirit, but there is no new prophecy needed; only a removing of the scales before individual's eyes. That is not prophecy it is  a gift of sight and insight into the faith of Jesus that saves all those foreknown and predestined to be with God the father son and Holy Spirit for eternity  forward as has always been known to God.

I think your view is spot-on. The audience was messianic Jews, and the apparent subject was animal sacrifice, reverting (or continuing), the Law, and Judaism. As a Gentile, I asked a question to paraphrase and expand upon: Is there a personal application for me here, or does it also apply to the churches and this age? As I prepared to discuss this further with you, another thought popped into my head. Continual sacrifice: who would do this in the modern age, omitting orthodox Jewry? The Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist is outlined by the Council of Trent, emphasizing it as both a sacrament and a sacrifice. The Eucharist is believed to be the true body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. The doctrine includes the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the concept of transubstantiation, and the mode of Christ's presence. The article also discusses the institution of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, fulfilling Old Testament prophecies and continuing the sacrificial worship in the Church. Adoration, reservation, and reverence for the Blessed Sacrament are highlighted, emphasizing the supreme worship due to the Eucharist as the presence of God. The article provides insights from various theologians and historical perspectives on the Eucharistic doctrine within the Catholic Church.1 1 A Catholic Dictionary This practice is disturbing. In other words, Catholicism believes they are eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking His blood. They must partake of their Eucharist frequently to remain saved. It is NOT a commemorative act of "do this in remembrance of Me." In effigy, they are sacrificing the Lord over, over, and over again, in cannibalism.   As mentioned, in my mind, the more I study God's word, the more I am grappling with the OSAS doctrine. As quoted in my sample listing of biblical verses in my original post, these are conjunctions conditional clauses to obtain something, if, and continue. The question is: what if NOT, or not until the end? The unpardonable sin: But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. (Matthew 12:24) I envision three unpardonable sins: The miracles of Jesus were performed through the power of the Holy Spirit, therefore calling God the Devil. Many Pharisees were eyewitnesses to His teachings and miracles of God, and they were without excuse. Can the unpardonable sin be committed today? Based on the definition of blasphemy, I believe so: Blasphemy is more than just swearing, encompassing contempt or slander towards God. In the Old Testament, blasphemy is viewed as speaking of God with contempt or acting as if He is irrelevant. In the New Testament, blasphemy indicates a hostile attitude towards God expressed in contemptuous or slanderous ways. Jesus was accused of blasphemy for claiming rights and powers belonging to God. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is considered an unforgivable sin, as seen in rejecting God's presence and power displayed through Christ. The unforgivable sin is not limited to Jesus' time but remains a danger for those who show contempt towards God. It is crucial for believers to honor God in their lives to avoid eliciting contempt towards Him.2 2 New International Encyclopedia of Bible Words In the singular sense, we speak of the unpardonable sin as only one. What about those who take the mark of the Beast. Are they still eligible for repentance and Salvation? Absolutely not; this, too, is an unpardonable sin, and I have a suspicion why. There are people in cults, entertainment, politics, and sports who have sold their souls to the Devil and worshipped him for fame, wealth, power, glory, talent, and ability. There are testimonies of some who saw the light, repented, turned to Christianity, and were saved. To name two, the testimonies of Ozzy Osbourne and Alice Cooper are interesting. Therefore, if this is true, devil worship is not an unpardonable sin. Lastly, some outright reject the Gospel, and some procrastinate, sitting on the fence trying to decide. At their last breath, their last heartbeat, their fate is sealed for all eternity. This is also an unforgivable sin, the rejection of Christ, with no second chances of repentance or changing one's mind.

I think this is a stretch. At the meetings I have attended the words were edifying and accurate.   

You have chosen to believe the unconfirmable, statistically disputed, Hamas controlled Ministry of Health figures? If you are truly that susceptible to propaganda, there is little chance of a reasoned discussion. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-gaza-health-ministry-fakes-casualty-numbers How is it that people still don’t understand the Hamas playbook – i.e. cause trouble to instigate an Israeli response, then cry victim when Israel responds? Israel claims to have killed around 15,000 Hamas combatants. Therefore, if we believe both numbers, that is a little over 1 non-combatant for every combatant killed. While the death of any non-combatant is regretful, this is remarkably low ratio for an urbane warfare setting. The elected government of Gaza committed such heinous atrocities against the local superpower – in such a manner as was bound to provoke a war. Then, those who committed the atrocities hide themselves in and around their own non-combatant civilians. But now they want to have a cry about their casualty numbers? How many times does Hamas get to play this same game before the world wakes up to the fact that we are being played (and not even in a sophisticated way)? Even if you believe the Hamas figures (which is so frustratingly naïve), there is no rule of war that a nation’s response to unprovoked attack must be “proportional” to the initial attack. A nation state is obligated to protect its own citizens. If that means hunting down its aggressors hiding amidst their own civilians – then so be it. That is – the numbers don’t matter. When your nation attacks another nation, the attacked nation is obligated to do everything in its power to destroy the capacity of the attackers to pose any further risk to its citizens. That is what I would expect from my nation. The idea that only Israel should be limited in its capacity to protect its people is absurd – and demonstrates a pathetically overt bias. If you don’t want to get maimed, you don’t ‘poke the bear’. The slaughter of Israel’s citizens by Gazans was ‘in cold blood’. The deaths of non-combatant Gazans by Israeli forces are collateral damage. That is, armed cowards from Gaza hunted unarmed, defenseless Jews, to commit en-masse, atrocities against them. Whereas the Israeli defense forces have strict rules of engagement designed specifically to mitigate civilian loss. One side specifically targets the unarmed while the other side specifically targets the armed. Any attempt to generate a comparison between the victims of each group is logically specious and intellectually compromised (a.k.a. blind to reality).   But if you are not prepared to negotiate for your needs, and subsequently throw an intifada tantrum whenever you don't get your own way, then you are at-least as responsible for the outcomes of your people. Besides, it would be disingenuous/ignorant to suggest the "animosity" started when Israel got control of the water. Furthermore, Hamas in Gaza has received billions in international aid. Perhaps they could have diverted some of that tunnel/rocket money to making Gaza water-independent (i.e. maybe use the aid money for the people it was intended to help - especially given that the Gazan population has near-doubled under Hamas' tenure).   You are making up excuses. The pretext for the ban on digging wells was to combat the decline in groundwater levels. https://jfjfp.com/gazans-fear-worst-after-hamas-bans-water-wells/  

Ok. What about the second part of the verse of-- I Corinthians 13:9‭-‬10 NKJV But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away