post

fact is, that article in the OP is full of lies, and what the president said is mostly true - although not without caveat, that he made statements about numbers and policies that are strictly true from one perspective though not true when they are misinterpreted or misrepresented - as the article in the link does. so he spun some things is the best light, and if you misconstrue his meaning, then you can call them "lies" - but you ought to remember that you're also misrepresenting the truth about what he actually said and referred to when you call him a liar. this is no different than what any president we've had in any of our lifetimes has done. all politicians frame statements in the most positive light that they can, and all opposition groups frame them in the most negative light that they can. as Christians, we ought not involve ourselves in secular partisanship. our citizenship & conversation is not of this world, but of the next. You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people. (Exodus 22:28) anyhow - try looking at a non-partisan analysis of our president's speech, instead of one with deliberate opposition bias. like this ACTUAL fact-check site

cool; i was not even aware that there were threads on this board dating back more than 11 years.

faith is part of every epistemology. even to say, "i think, therefore i am" -- you must by faith assume that 'you' are the one thinking. no complex logical system is without axiom - and axiom is based in assumption; axiom is unproven. all science is done under the premise (unverified & unverifiable assumption - taken by faith) that physical laws exist and are consistent everywhere in a relatively homogeneous universe. all philosophy is done under the premise (unverified and unverifiable axiomatic assumption - taken by faith) that human thought is coherent and human logic is externally justifiable. we, within our own minds, accept this, because the alternative is madness - but there is no guarantee that removed from our own anthrocentric thinking, that our thinking is sound. in fact, people who we accept as clinically insane by many measures do not consider themselves insane - their own minds convince themselves epistemologicaly that they are coherent. further - there is strong evolutionary pressure on brain development for the brain to accept it's own conclusions, right or wrong, because the alternative is a paralyzing madness. and more - as the Lord says - we have each gone our own way, doing what is right in our own eyes. true knowledge is not the prerogative of man to determine or discover. we all - believers or not - at some level work by faith, because 'proof' at some level must rely on information obtainable only from a dimension higher than the one in which we exist and operate. the derogatory harping of atheists and other humanists about 'faith' is often blindness.

yes! When Jesus told them, “I AM,” they backed away and fell to the ground. (John 18:6) as it is written: May those who seek my life be disgraced and put to shame; may those who plot my ruin be turned back in dismay. (Psalm 35:14) May all who want to take my life be put to shame and confusion; may all who desire my ruin be turned back in disgrace. (Psalm 40:14) May those who want to take my life be put to shame and confusion; may all who desire my ruin be turned back in disgrace. (Psalm 70:2)

looking to the one they pierced or upon or unto or on the one they have pierced does not in any way change the fact that Lord Himself, in Zechariah 12, speaks of Himself as the one pierced, in both 1st and 3rd person. that word "me" is in the text. you're dodging it, but it's there. the Hebrew says " אֵלַ֖י " whether you like it or not - though i see that you do not like it you appeal to the Hebrew there - but with regard to Isaiah 44:5-6 why do you ignore it? it literally says He is God, none else is, and other than Him there is no elohim. the word is " זוּלָתִ֖י " (zulati) and it means "except for" or "other than" -- it does not mean "separate from" as you would like for it to mean. it does not matter whether Jesus is called the Lord of Hosts or not. why should it? you're misdirecting & grasping at a straw here. if you don't think Christ is the bride of Israel, you don't understand why He is called the bride of the church, what the marriage supper of the Lamb is for, and why Paul patiently explains in his epistles that we are grafted into the olive tree, which is Israel, and become children of Abraham by the promise, not by the genetic descent (Romans 9:6-8, for example). divorce means divorce. the covenant God had with the nation Israel was broken. have a deeper look into the book of Hebrews. to Him, all are alive - because He gives life to the dead, and says to dry bones, "live!" and behold! they live! more straws. but i am confident that God will reveal your error to you, though it may mean the end of your life and the coming of His day before you see it. every knee will bow to Him - and will the Lord be pleased for us to bow to any other? as far as being mormon or not, i was just asking. because the shoe looks like it might fit. i agree that you appear to be somewhat un-doctrinated haha

this is an important question for you to consider. here is why: The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person, declares: . . . And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. (Zechariah 12:1 & 10) thus the One True God declares that He Himself is "the One they have pierced" now, if you believe scripture - John, speaking by the Holy Spirit, testifies that this scripture speaks of Jesus (John 19:31-37). so scripture reveals the mystery that the Christ and the Almighty God are one and the same, not 'different gods' or 'god and God' -- which would itself contradict many other scriptures, where the Almighty declares that 'apart from Me there are no other gods' (for ex. Isaiah 43:11, Isaiah 45:5).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM3N7oaGsqQ Great and Almighty, great King of all Kings Your glory goes higher than all that has wings It’s true what they say, that Your love lasts forever I bow down in fear at the thought of Your might Strength be found in my weakness ‘cos Your spirit lives within me Honor to You in the seat of perfection I ask that You mold me to be alike You Refine me, redefine me, start in me a change of heart, re-spine me, sanctify me, make me your sweet piece of art Hold me closer, let me feel the warmth of Your arms My despise for all that keeps me from you is on fire Entering light, (I) find reconstruction to be an unpleasant high. Your wings still shield me, gold must be burnt to lose what keeps it from shining Praise be to You for Your love and compassion That You take what’s nothing and lift it up high Your skills of restoring are somewhat insane How You fix what is broken, to You be the fame Strength be found. in my weakness ‘cos Your spirit lives within me Honor to You in the seat of perfection I ask that You mold me to be alike You Refine me, redefine me, start in me a change of heart, re-spine me, sanctify me, make me your sweet piece of art

are you Mormon? just asking. who is 'the one the Jews pierced' ?

who is the one the Jews pierced?

Christ actually called people liars. John 8:44. just sayin'

exactly.

it's as though you're saying Christ told Peter "slaughter and forsake my sheep" three times in a row, to drive the point home that He really wanted him to "feed the sheep" ??? come on guys, this shouldn't be hard.

if you don't think Christ declared all foods clean, and that Peter's vision reinforced this -- i'd just like to know how it is you think that God gave Peter a vision in which He instructed him to do evil, three times in a row, and reprimanded him for not doing it, in order to by metaphor teach him to do good? can you give another example of God instructing a righteous man to do wickedness, clearly and without ambiguity? as an object lesson? thanks.

wow dude, doesn't that strike you as an awfully pharisetical thing to say? Gentiles are and were any non-Jew. so you just lumped every single person in the world who was not an Israelite together and judged & accused and condemned them over all those things. including Cornelius of acts 10. good job. regarding Paul & the passover & 1 Corinthians 5:8 -- you're completely tearing this snippet out of context if you think Paul taught that all Gentiles who have come to faith should be required to keep the Jewish feast. completely. have a simple look back at 1 Cor. 5:7 -- Christ, our passover lamb, has been sacrificed. now tell me how you're going to keep - as a requirement - the Jewish festival according to Torah, which involves sacrificing another lamb? by spitting on the one that's already been sacrificed, that's how. as though His sacrifice was insufficient. Paul is using the shadow found in the Torah to teach the truth found in Christ here, not commanding Gentiles to keep rituals and feasts and to observe days. first it was talk of judgement according to food, now according to festivals. why'd ya skip drink? and why is it i suddenly don't feel like reading any sabbath threads?

why are these kinds of arguments only about pork, anyway? how about leviathan? is anyone going to be all tore up if eat some leviathan? Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness. (Psalm 74:14) His sheep are fed by His hand; amen!

if Moses' law was to distinguish the nation Israel from other peoples, what distinguished Noah from others, to whom God gave every kind of animal to eat? are we distinguished by obedience to the law of a covenant that was not made with us? but "let everyone be convinced in their own mind" -- because "meat does not commend us to God"

maybe i missed it, i don't see that you "dealt with" that verse at all, Shar -- in fact all that i see you do was misread that verse completely, and think that it was "my logic" that Jesus declared all food clean (on page 6). it's not my interpretation; it's Mark's - and by extension, if his gospel is inspired, it's the Holy Spirit's. try reading that verse again. or maybe your beef (kosher, of course) is with the translators of the Bible? i certainly don't know enough Greek to debate over that. i'd be happy to read your dispute over the text itself though. does this forum have Greek scholars? from what i can see, the Greek literally says "(he is) purifying all the food" & the NIV, NLT, ESV, BSB, BLB, NASB, HCSB, NET, NAS, ASV, ERV, Wymouth, WEB and others all translate this as meaning that Jesus declared all foods clean with this statement. so take it up with those guys.

https://youtu.be/--UABwqW9Sg טליה ג. סולאן - שירהספי עספורי - כלי מיתריוני דרור - כלי נשיפהאביעד בן יהודה - כלי הקשהאברי בורוכוב -- קונטרבס ועיבודיבגני קרוליק - סאונדבָּרְכִי נַפְשִׁי אֶת ה'. ה' אֱלהַי גָּדַלְתָּ מְּאד. הוד וְהָדָר לָבַשְׁתָּ: עטֶה אור כַּשַּׂלְמָה. נוטֶה שָׁמַיִם כַּיְרִיעָה: הַמְקָרֶה בַמַּיִם עֲלִיּותָיו. הַשָּׂם עָבִים רְכוּבו. הַמְהַלֵּךְ עַל כַּנְפֵי רוּחַ: עשֶׂה מַלְאָכָיו רוּחות. מְשָׁרְתָיו אֵשׁ להֵט: יָסַד אֶרֶץ עַל מְכונֶיהָ. בַּל תִּמּוט עולָם וָעֶד:"Bless Jehovah, O my soul.O Jehovah my God, thou art very great;Thou art clothed with honor and majesty.Who covereth thyself with light, as with a garment;Who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain;Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters;Who maketh the clouds his chariot;Who walketh upon the wings of the wind;Who maketh winds his messengers;Flames of fire his ministers;Who laid the foundations of the earth,That it should not be moved forever."

life is more than food (Luke 12:23)

If Isaiah 66 is where you want to 'hang your hat' then you're going to have to face a couple things: Isaiah 66:3 is part of that prophecy, and in it the Almighty calls their kosher sacrifices tantamount to swilling pigs blood. the thing that He holds against the people called His enemies isn't the mere fact that they ate bacon. taken in context, specifically with verses 2-4, and consistent with the other prophecy given in Isaiah, and with the testimony of Christ against the pharisees, even those who never ate any unclean food at all, but who harbor wickedness in their hearts, are subject to the very same wrath in your favorite verse 17. so let scripture interpret scripture; don't set it against itself.

why would you speak as though the new testament isn't scripture? trying to duck Mark 7:19? if you teach that we are under Moses' law with regard to dietary law (and why not every part of the law, not just the parts you may like?) then you're going to have to deal with that verse.

i think therese has said what else i would also say. the law of love is to govern our actions. if we ever eat together, there will be no BBQ at the table, for the sake of your conscience. but whoever can eat even a thing sacrificed to an idol without guilt, and be thankful to God for it - how can i accuse him or her? didn't God tell Noah also, Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. (Genesis 9:3) ? but about Isaiah 66 -- it does bear on this discussion, and verse 3 is part of the same prophecy as verse 17. it is the context with which v. 17 should be understood. there in 3, the Lord clearly says that those who offer grain - acceptable under Moses - are as those who offer pigs blood - abomination under Moses. additionally there are 3 more comparisons the Lord makes with outwardly kosher sacrifices, speaking of them as abominable. why does He say this?? isn't it because of what they chose in their hearts, as He says? so also, when Christ says that evil comes from within our hearts, not from what comes into our mouths, He is in keeping with Isaiah 66, and Isaiah 1, where the Lord says 'Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me!' when the heart is wicked, what is outwardly clean is the same as abomination before Him.

someone said "where iron sharpens iron, sparks fly" how true!

no problem - we're all here to learn from each other, and put here to build each other up. how could i hold it against you that you didn't see, if now you do! i'm glad that God has used me to bring this to your attention! - & i think a lot of people don't realize that's in the Bible. it's not in Matthew's gospel where the same discussion is recorded (ch. 15). most English translations put that in parenthesis ( ) - different from brackets [ ] as i understand it, brackets are usually there to indicate that something isn't in the Greek specifically but is inferred by way of translating a word that doesn't have a direct literal counterpart in English, or for something that's in some Greek manuscripts but not in others. as far as this particular verse in Mark, though, i've never seen a footnote saying that there was any dispute over whether it belonged or that it's not what is literally in the Greek. i think the parenthesis are there because it's a 'parenthetical statement' - that Mark himself added according to his understanding, while recording Christ's own dialogue. an 'aside' - just like Mark 7:3-4 are, and are also in parenthesis - a thing Mark added by way of explanation. that Christ is talking about much more than just food here, and that what's "in the stomach" is nothing compared to what's "in the heart" -- amen! 100% with you there

again, not my logic, but what is plainly written in the Mark's gospel. what could Mark have meant other than "Jesus declared all foods clean" when he (not post) said "Jesus declared all foods clean" ? or do you reject that the book of Mark is scripture? do you also reject Acts? what did Christ mean then, when He told Peter "what God has made clean, do not call common" ? do you also reject Colossians? what then did Paul mean when he said "do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink" ? do you think Christ and His apostles spoke of doing evil in order by metaphor to teach good? because if you do, we need to have an entirely different discussion before we can talk about food. as far as what the early believers did or did not do - don't you accept Acts? what was instructed by the council of Jerusalem? and do you accept that Justin Martyr was an early believer? what then did he mean when he said We neither accord with the Jews in their peculiarities in regard to food nor in their sacred days. -- Apologies Sec. 21 ? i'm sorry that i'm new here, and apparently taking some things for granted. let's put all these things in the open then