unworthyservant

So, it sounds like you are proposing that this was possibly a "staged event" to call attention to Himself and His ministry. I reject out of hand any notion that Christ "staged" any event just to get attention. I believe Christ said and did everything He said or did for one reason, because He was teaching us the way to salvation.

I do not believe that a Christian should espouse controversial political views on either side unless it's to bring to light some actual sinful behavior and one should call that what it is regardless of party affiliation. If one takes a hard far left stand they risk damaging their Christian testimony with those on the right and vice versa. Christ didn't get involved in political opinions aside from the famous "Render unto Caesar" quote and that was only to remind everyone that he wasn't here to get involved in political matters such as tribute as either way He answered it would alienate someone. So he added "Render unto God that which is God's". The two were separate. "Render unto Caesar was telling us to go ahead and obey the civil authorities and "render unto God" was reminding us that His message was about more important things, those things which are God's and we should not forget them.

I'm curious does anyone have any reliable numbers for migration? While, it's true that people are and have been leaving the country since it's founding, the US does not keep official migration records like they do for immigration. I searched and could only find one that even had a reasonable sounding graph of long term net migration, (immigration less migration). The problem though is that since the US publishes no official data their data was based on other countries reports of how many Americans had moved to their country in any given year. This would require searching the immigration records of every country in the world to have a really accurate count and the above mentioned graph only used data from 14 countries. Does any one have any better data? You've got me curious.

I never said that any works "save a man". Zacchaeus had obviously heard the teachings of Christ. He went beyond Mosaic Law retribution and first gave half of all his worldly goods to the poor as Christ taught. He had obviously repented based on the teachings of Christ and acted on that repentance and in faith had taken the action of giving half to the poor. He then made Mosaic Law retribution. " I don't like to paraphrase the words of Christ as it oft times can misconstrue the real words that are recorded in the gospels. So, let's look at what Matthew 19:16-22 actually says in the KJV; "16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 2But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions." So, it all starts when the young man asked Christ, "What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" Christ answered "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments". When the young man asked which commandments, Christ replied with 6 Old Testament commandments. Christ never said anything about because you have recognized me as divine you already have eternal life as your paraphrase indicates. Otherwise why would the young man go away sorrowful if he already had what he sought, eternal life? The young man answered Christ with the statement that he had indeed kept the commandments "from my youth". Christ, knowing the young man had riches said, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me". Christ spoke of being perfect, a commandment he gave in another instance where in Matthew 5:48 He said; "48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect". I've heard all the arguments of why perfect isn't a good translation but Christ explained exactly what he meant when He said "even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect". Now, I believe most folks would agree that our Father in Heaven is perfect in every way, so we know what Christ meant. Now, did Christ actually intimate that this was an achievable goal? He didn't say but He sure gave us a high bar to strive for. In the case of the young man he added one thing to the admonition to keep the commandments. He told him to sell all that he had and give the money to the poor. Christ knew the young man had riches and wanted to see (or knew and wanted to demonstrate) if he was willing to give his all to show his faith in Christ. The early Christian's knew this as we see in the story of Pentecost in Acts 2;44-45 where we read; "44And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need". So we are told "all who believed" that day "sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need" So, they heard the Gospel and acted on it in faith. Then note that Christ said after He told the young man to sell his goods and give the money to the poor, "and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me". Two things stand out here. First Christ said very clearly that only if he had faith enough to give up his worldly goods could the young man "have treasure in Heaven" or in other words have eternal life. Only then did the young man go away sorrowful. Secondly, he said then "come and follow me". he didn't tell the young man he could follow Him just because he had kept the commandments or had recognized Christ as divine, but only after he had the faith to give away his riches. If we pick and choose certain verses and put them together, you can make an argument for many things. I prefer to take the teachings of Christ in their totality. I'm not going to get into the weeds with each individual verse out of context but suffice it to say that Christ taught, faith, repentance, baptism and works.

That's why I corrected my grammar in the previous post to say :the only rich man that's recorded in the Gospels that Christ ever said received salvation. Good theory but the bible doesn't say that. The only reason given in the Gospel account is that he was rich. It doesn't say whether he ever gave Lazarus anything or not.

First, when analyzing any claims of this sort, I read the article cited. We'll get into that but the next thing I do is check the bias and reliability of the source, in the case, Just the News.com. What I found is every watchdog on both sides that I could find rates them as right leaning to far right and their reliability ratings are mixed, with the majority calling them less than reliable. Then I checked the election results in Racine county and Trump won by 4% while Biden won the state. Now, to the article. I read it and the numbers you quote are not what I found there. The only figures quoted in the entire article are as follows; "A parallel audit by Thomas More Society found 100% voting rates in over 90 nursing homes across the state." First note this was not a finding of the special counsel but an audit report from the Thomas More Society, a right wing non-profit think tank. That was in 2022. Since then every single independent reputable national fact checker I found rated the claims as false. I don't like to just look at the national fact checkers but when they all agree it starts to look bad. Then I, as is my habit, looked at the media that usually has the whole story, the local media. I found one that everyone rates center on political bias (those are usually the best source of the truth), the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and indeed they covered the story pretty thoroughly. What they had to say is found in the links below; https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/05/election-day-2024-debunking-wisconsin-voter-fraud-myths/75937551007/ https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/12/07/conservative-group-finds-no-signs-widespread-wisconsin-voter-fraud/6409013001/ The first link is to a story about the integrity (or lack thereof) of the Wisconsin voting system in general. It includes the following about the "nursing home controversy". It was titled "Myth: Widespread nursing home voter fraud skewed Wisconsin election outcomes" It leads off with the following statement. "Nursing home voter fraud in Wisconsin was scrutinized among Republicans, who claimed voter fraud among older adults living in nursing homes skewed the outcome of the previous election despite an independent audit and a report from a conservative group showing Joe Biden winning over former President Donald Trump". The article is full of links to the paper's other coverage of the issue. One is the second link I provided. It was to the article referencing the "independent audit and report from a conservative group". That article is titled "Conservative group finds no signs of widespread voter fraud in Wisconsin but urges changes to election processes" In it we find that the conservative group is the "Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty", a far right think tank and law practice that has filed many lawsuits supporting radical right wing causes. They are funded by the far right wing Bradley Foundation that According to the New Yorker, “has become an extraordinary force in persuading mainstream Republicans to support radical challenges to election rules—a tactic once relegated to the far right” and “funds a network of groups that have been stoking fear about election fraud,”. They filed a suit based on the changes to the election process that they referenced. The case was fought all the way to Wisconsin Supreme Court where the court ruled against them. Even with this bias in mind, their report "found no evidence of widespread fraud in Wisconsin’s presidential election". The report from the institute concluded "there were no indications of widespread fraud and there was nothing suspicious about voter turnout or the timing of the vote tally. In addition, voting machines operated properly." So, now back to the independent council report. The Republicans in the assembly spent 1 year investigating the charges at a cost to Wisconsin taxpayers of $676,000. In the end the report issued by the Wisconsin Elections Commission stated in part "Certification of the November 2020 presidential election was based upon lawfully cast votes that were affirmed by municipal, county and state canvass certifications and multiple court decisions after reviewing these matters." So, after all the time and money spent, neither the conservative think tank nor the Republican led Wisconsin assembly found the allegations credible. My question to you is why would you post a 2022 article from a biased source with far right funding and expect me to take it as the truth without researching to find the truth yourself. "If you want a cool drink of water, you've got to dig a little deeper in the well and if you want the truth, you've got dig a little deeper in the story". If you really want the truth there are many more articles than those I've listed and there are handy links to the others embedded in the one's I provided. Good try but I'm not buying it. Neither has any of the reliable sources I've researched. Neither did the conservative think tank or the republican led Wisconsin Assembly. As for the special prosecutor you so proudly reference, Michael Gableman, after reviewing the allegations and his conduct during the investigation, The Wisconsin state Office of Lawyer Regulation in 2024 filed a 10 count complaint against him. As a result of those complaints, Mr. Gableman received a three year suspension of his law license.

I read it as Zacchaeus sought Jesus. Obviously Zacchaeus sought out Jesus because he had heard his teachings and as the account says,"he sought to see Jesus, who he was". So, he had obviously heard of Christ's teaching and wanted to see Him and who it was that was teaching the things he had heard.

Christ didn't say that. I was referring to the totality of His ministry as recorded in the Gospels. In the Gospels, Zacchaeus is the only rich man that Christ said received salvation. What Christ said was "Today salvation has come to this house". That is the only time recorded in the Gospels that He ever said that to a rich man and it was only after Zacchaeus told Christ that He had given the bulk of his wealth to those less fortunate, just as Christ taught.

I didn't go into anything about the law because I was trying to keep it about Zacchaeus in order to keep it simple. Life's too short not to get right to the point, I say.

I agree, faith and not works are the way to salvation. I also believe that "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." James 2:26 (KJV) This verse highlights the idea that a professed faith, without corresponding actions, is not a genuine. Living our faith was also taught by Christ. In Matthew 7:20 Christ said; "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." In the same chapter verses 24-27 Christ says; "24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." As I noted, in Matthew Chapter 25, Christ tells us how we will be judged. He didn't say, did you have faith, but rather did you have faith enough to do what I taught you and help those less fortunate. For some reason it won't quote it but you go on to say "Jesus didn't tell him to do those things and Zacchaeus did it freely out of the joy of seeing and apprehending Christ." I'm not sure what is meant by "apprehending Christ" but how did Zacchaeus know that giving away his money was something that Christ taught if not that he had heard Christ's message and was following it?

In Luke 19:1-10 we read the story of Zacchaeus, the only "rich" man who Christ ever said received salvation. In the KJV it reads; 1And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho. 2And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich. 3And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature. 4And he ran before, and climbed up into a sycomore tree to see him: for he was to pass that way. 5And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house. 6And he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully. And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner. 8And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold. 9And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. 10For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. So, why did Christ tell Zacchaeus "This day is salvation come to this house"? Christ famously said in Matthew 19:23 "That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven." This was after his encounter with the rich young man. The young man had asked Christ "what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" Christ first answered him "keep the commandments" and listed a few of the Old Testament commandments of God. When the rich young man told Christ "All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?" is when Christ replied; "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." Of course we are told that the young man went away sorrowful because he had "great possessions" and was unwilling to give them up. When Christ relayed the Parable of Lazarus and the rich man, in Luke 16:19-31 we read in verses 22-23 "22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments," So, why is it that Lazarus went to "Abraham's bosom" and the rich man went to hell. I've heard people say that the rich man went to hell because he didn't help poor Lazarus. First, nowhere in the story does it say that he never gave him anything. Secondly, it doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint. If he never gave him a handout, why was Lazarus still hanging out, begging at the rich mans gate. One would think if the rich man never gave him anything he would have found greener pastures. All we know from Christ's telling is that Lazarus was poor and went to heaven and the only thing we know about the rich man is he was rich and went to hell. So, without reading between the lines, we have only the fact that he was rich to explain why he was in hell. So, what was different about Zacchaeus? I think it;s obvious. Zacchaeus told Christ that he had given half his goods to the poor and anyone who he had cheated, he repaid them fourfold. Zacchaeus had heard Christ's teachings and acted upon them by giving away his wealth to the poor and making restitution to those he had cheated. I find it interesting that he gave half to the poor before making restitution. That meant more for the poor since they got theirs off the top and still the restitution to those he had cheated was the same. At any rate, Zacchaeus was the only rich man to actually act on what Christ taught and thus Christ said he had received salvation. This leads one to conclude that the only way a rich man can receive Christ is to give away their riches to those less fortunate and the vast majority of rich people will never do that. Thus the admonition that a rich man can hardly ever get to heaven.

A story of Christ "cleansing the temple" is found in all four of the Gospels. Matthew 21:12-17 Mark 11:15-19 Luke 19:45-48 and John 2:12-25 There has always been some debate about whether there was one incident or two. This is mainly due to differences from the conical Gospels and John's version. I see that particular subject has been covered here already and I don't intend to get deeply into whether it was one incident or two as that is not the point of this discussion. I do want to look at one big difference in the accounts. It is what Christ actually said as He was clearing the temple. In Matthew (KJV) we read "And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves." In Mark we read; "My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves." and in Luke; "It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves.". I want to hone in on the last phrase. Notice in all 3 the last phrase is "you have made it a den of thieves", of course referring to the temple. In all three instances the word in the Greek used is lēstōn (Strongs Greek 3027, the link is to Strong's). It is translated as thieves or robbers. Then in John we read in the KJV; "Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise." Here the word in the Greek is emporiou (Strong's 1712) and it's translated merchandise. (sorry, the second link doesn't seem to work) So, let's look at what these money changers and sellers were actually doing that made Christ drive them from the temple. I've heard the argument that they were charging exorbitant fees or amounts for their wares or services, but can find no credible evidence to support that theory. The only thing we know for sure is that they were selling things needed to worship God for their own profit. That's what the Bible tells us! Christ was consistent in that He taught us to "freely give" the Gospel. He told every disciple whom He ordained to preach to take no gold or silver for their efforts. I think given the evidence and the circumstances, this is just an extension of those teachings. Christ was admonishing them for profiting from the worship of God. Today, we have way too many people to list here profiting from either preaching the Gospel, writing about it or selling merchandise related to Christianity and the Gospel. You can purchase everything from expensive Bibles, to books written on every single verse in the Bible, to crosses or crucifixes made of everything from wood to gold and diamonds, to bumper stickers, to t-shirts and all sorts of miscellany. Not counting Bibles (with sales estimated at $430M annually), Christian books sales bring in an estimated $750M, out of Approximately $1.2B in religious books in general. While actual numbers for recorded Christian music sales are hard to pin down, according to Patheos "the gospel music industry has matured into an almost $1 billion-a-year business". Almost $600 million is spent annually on audio equipment and instruments for performing church music. According to Zip Recruiter, the average salary for a professional Gospel singer is $261,533. I can't find reliable numbers for all the other Christian merchandise, but suffice it to say that it is a big business. So, let's just break down the numbers we have. Between just books and music we have over $2B. Last year approximately 700,000 people are homeless in America. That would break down to over $2800 per homeless person. To feed a starving child in Africa costs around $20 per month. That comes out to 100 million months of food for a starving child. This doesn't even count all the money profited by "preachers" or musicians or all the other Christian merchandise. So, we must ask ourselves, what would God rather we do with all that money? Spend it on things to worship Him or worship Him by doing what Christ taught us to do with our money, and use it to help those less fortunate? Christ drove out those who were making the profit but these days the only way they can make the profit is if Christians support them instead of using our money to help those in need. Just saying.

"If teardrops were commercials we'd all be on TV"

Yes. I don't like to read between the lines or assume anything that's not recorded. That's what causes one to lose focus. And speaking of focus, I'm also tired of debating things that have nothing to do with anything other than your seeming need to take the conversation to the absurd. You'll not divert my focus any longer than it takes to write a simple answer. If you haven't got the idea by now, I don't see anything I can do to open your eyes. So, while I don't mind answering serious minded questions that are presented with evidence to bolster their authenticity, I'm going to have to quit answering those that are nothing but ramblings with no substance for awhile as it is tiring.

I can only go on what was recorded in the Gospels as to what Jesus taught or did. If you want to speculate on things he may have said that aren't recorded, then how do you know what those things were? If Jesus did teach defiance to those laws, please provide where in the Gospels it is recorded and what He said. You present a lot of proclamations with little documentation. Please provide documentation that Christ spoke in defiance of those laws. (BTW, He also taught us to love our enemies).

Oh, my. I quit. You can't debate with someone who doesn't read or acknowledge your response. I believe I listed some of the shows on the Salem News, such as the Lara Trump Show, the Larry Elder Show, etc. Are those shows on the Salem News, a tiny publication out of Southern Essex county?

Did you read the NIH report? There's way more to it than you're simplistic description and I'm not going to go into all the details. Suffice it to say that since Christ didn't involve Himself in what the Government thought about sin, neither should we. "Judge not lest ye be judged". You quote one verse from the Psalm. God loves everyone, but He hates the actions of those who "work iniquity". I don't take that to mean that God hates the person but rather hates what they are doing.

I agree that Christians should "oppose" homosexuality in all it's forms including marriage. I just think that Christians should spend their time and effort trying to share the Gospel with sinners rather than trying to get the government to outlaw sin. It's a fools errand. How many sinful things are legal? We can't stop sin! We can only call it what it is. I hear so many preachers preach on homosexuality. They trumpet how it's an abomination to the Lord and how it was punishable by death in the Old Testament. I hear very few who preach how a proud heart and a lying tongue are also an abomination to the Lord. I also rarely hear them preach that being divorced and remarried is adultery according to Christ and adultery was also punishable by death in the Old Testament. Just because one doesn't speak against the government's acceptance of sin doesn't make one complicit in the sin. If that were the case, was Christ complicit in the "infanticide" that was legal (and even mandated) by law in his day? The Roman law, which He was under dictated that if a man had a female child and didn't wish to raise them, they could leave them outside to die of exposure. It also mandated that any child born with a birth defect had to be killed by way of exposure. Did Christ speak out in defiance of these laws? No! Did that make Him complicit in these sins? Again, I say, NO!

This is what happens when you make an assumption. I don't know anyone outside of Essex County, MA who even knows of Salem News out of Danvers. It's a small publication that reaches 63,000 with it's 4 day a week subscription service.

What questions do you wish answered? I thought I had answered all the legitimate questions.

Recently, most of the hateful and angry rhetoric has been on the right, since Trump entered the picture. I used to call out Bill Clinton on his lies as well. I also made clear my opinion of his moving closer to China. As for Obama, he was pretty careful to stay away from outright falsehoods so as to avoid confrontation. While I didn't always agree with the things he did, I didn't see nearly the number of hateful or angry rhetoric from him. This anger and hateful speech and talk of retaliation against those the opposition didn't really take center stage in the White House until Trump came along so there's more to call out these days. That's all. Nothing partisan about it. When I see it, I call it out. I've just seen a lot more of it since Trump.