unworthyservant

It was just a handful of territories that were included.

Say what? What in the world does the kabbalah have to do with the price of eggs in China much less the subject at hand? Please clarify.

Who was asked to help whom? And where is your evidence that "we" set up the coup in 2014? I asked for references. Where do you get the intel that we set up the coup? Do you have some source of insider information from the CIA? That first statement is not true. (Kinda sounds like Russian disinformation) Let's talk about that UN process and the details. In February and March of 2014, Russia invaded Crimea and then annexed it illegally. On Feb. 22nd, the elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, was ousted. On Feb. 27th, Russian special forces with no insignias seized and took control of key strategic sites across Crimea. At first Russia denied involvement, claiming it was Crimean separatists who wanted to join Russia. Later after western media showed footage that proved they were Russian troops, Putin finally admitted it. On March 12th, those armed special forces occupied Crimea's Parliament. They forcibly dismissed the elected Crimean government officials and installed the pro-Russian Aksyonov government. It was the illegally installed Aksyonov government who then, on March 15th, announced the "Crimean Status Referendum", declaring Crimea's wish to become part of Russia. The very next day they announced that it had passed overwhelmingly with no that there had been a vote much less what that vote was. One day later on the 17th, the illegally installed government declared independence and formally requested to join Russia. Based on this, the very next day, March 18th, Russia formally incorporated Crimea as the "Republic of Crimea" and quickly militarized the country and warned against any outside interference. Most countries the annexation and declared it to be a blatant violation of international law. The annexation led to the other members of the G8 suspending Russia from the group. The United Nations General Assembly also rejected overwhelmingly the referendum and annexation and adopted a resolution affirming the "territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders". So, the UN never recognized the annexation as legal. Quite the opposite! Do you know something that the rest of us don't? You follow that with the statement that "'we' had promised never to move NATO to Russia's border." That is more Russian propaganda. There is no agreement that limits where NATO can go or what countries can or cannot join. Any European country can apply for membership. SOme Russian authorities claimed in the early 90s that a "oral agreement concerning no Eastward expansion of NATO but when interviewed about the issue, even then President, Mikhail Gorbachev denied it. Everyone knows that a treaty can't be altered by "oral promises" and NATO and US leaders agreed with Gorbachev that no such promise had been made. When Russia brought it up again in 2021 leading up to it's latest invasion, NATO leadership not only declared the decision to limit the expansion of NATO has never been taken, but that its adoption would entail a change in the fundamental documents of the alliance, which has never even been discussed. If such an agreement had been made, please explain the joining of NATO by Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 2004. Just what killing was going to be stopped by not allowing Ukraine into NATO? The only killing I can think of is that related to Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. To what killing do you refer? Protect who from what encroachment? The only encroachment that I have seen was on the part of Russia. By PNAC, do you refer to the "Project For the New American Century"? They disbanded in 2005. While you can still view the website there are no articles published after 2005. What are you suggesting that they said about the subject and could you please provide the article as I cannot find it.

I've read a little of the history. I know that according to the Council on Foreign Relations, "It was Ukraine’s ties with the EU that brought tensions to a head with Russia in 2013–14. In late 2013, President Yanukovych, acting under pressure from his supporters in Moscow, scrapped plans to formalize a closer economic relationship with the EU. Russia had at the same time been pressing Ukraine to join the not-yet-formed EAEU. Many Ukrainians perceived Yanukovych’s decision as a betrayal by a deeply corrupt and incompetent government, and it ignited countrywide protests known as Euromaidan. Putin framed the ensuing tumult of Euromaidan, which forced Yanukovych from power, as a Western-backed “fascist coup” that endangered the ethnic Russian majority in Crimea. (Western leaders dismissed this as baseless propaganda reminiscent of the Soviet era.) In response, Putin ordered a covert invasion of Crimea." I know that at the time, Putin put the blame on the CIA, as did the Russian News Agency, TASS. I also know that every reputable news agency that I can find both domestically and in Europe debunked those claims as Russian disinformation. Do you have credible knowledge that Putin's claims are legitimate? That was the first time any nation had launched an unprovoked attack on another European country since WWII. I As for the things that have happened since to which you refer, please enlighten me. (Besides the fact that they elected a comedian as President. That I know)

Protecting itself from what? A regime led by a former comedian with no military ties with NATO? And just curious, who is this shadow government that you speak of anyway?

So, they are only a threat to Europe as proven by their incursion into the independent state of Ukraine and their insistence on keeping the territory they have seized and it's rich mineral deposits for themselves? I guess at least Trump is trying to negotiate half of the remaining natural resources for the US. Screw Ukraine, it's all about us. Let's not forget, Putin was a KGB agent in the Soviet Union when it fell, much like Hitler was a soldier in WWI when Germany was defeated.

I believe your friend is probably speaking of "gematria". It is an ancient numerology system. According to Aristotle, it was used in the the Pythagorean Era with the Greek language. The first documented evidence use of it in the Hebrew is from around 800 BCE. It was used in the Talmud and Midrash. It is still used by Jewish scholars today. It's a quite confusing system and would take some time to master, I'm sure. It involves reading words, phrases and sentences as numbers and assigning numerical instead of phonetic values to each letter of the Hebrew alphabet and comparing the numbers with other words, phrases or sentences. Quite mystic if you ask me. The only other numbering system with which I am familiar is the one from Strong's Concordance where it assigns a number to every Hebrew and Greek word found in the Bible for easy reference. The numbering system found there has been used by pretty much every Hebrew lexicon since it came out.

Good point. I guess I thought the term was well known whether one's denomination believed it or not.

The passage you quote is totally out of context. I never said that "the only thing required to obtain eternal security is a simple question of faith" as a statement of fact but as part of a question on the tenant of "Eternal Security". As for how I see faith and/or belief, first let me say that I believe the example of the devil, while I understand the use to illustrate your point, is a unique outlier for comparison purposes to us mere mortals. My opinion is there are five basic groups of people on Earth. Those who have never heard the Gospel and they are becoming far less common. Second, those who have heard and denied it. Third is those that heard the word, believed, at least long enough to make a confession of faith but then returned to their sinful life. Fourth is those who heard the word, believed, made a confession of faith and are attempting to live a Christian life but are being misled by what they are being taught by false teachers and prophets. The fifth group are those who have heard the word, made a confession of faith and are doing their best to live a Christian life based on the Commandments of God and the teachings of Christ and thus are not swayed by the teachings of men. Christ said in Matthew 7:14 "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." for a reason. There are many ways that lead one down that broad path to destruction but only one way to "life" in Christ. Thus, "few there be that find it".

I try to define or rather ask other opinions because it's a term that's often bandied around especially by some Baptists and has several nuanced versions of dogma based on it in some form or another. So, while it's not a term I use in any context other than scholarly inquisitiveness, I feel it's good to know what others believe for many reasons.

It all depends on who you ask, thus the reason for the question. You mention rebirth. Rebirth is a concept that most folks associate with Christ's admonition to Nicodemus found in John 3:1-15. There Christ tells Nicodemus that "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." He goes on to explain further in the following verses. My question then is exactly what are you suggesting is required for that rebirth. Is it simply a confession of faith and/or some form of asking God's forgiveness or does it require a change in lifestyle from our sinful humanistic one to one based on living one's life according to the commandments of God and/or the teachings of Christ? Does one achieve eternal security even if one continues in a sinful lifestyle? Can one get to Heaven based on nothing more than a one time confession of faith?

The tenant of "Eternal Security" to which I refer is the idea that the only thing required to obtain eternal security is a simple confession of faith that may or may not be manifested in our lives or our works.

An interesting theory. I don't really recognize anything here as the same theory of "Eternal Security" with which I opened the discussion but an interesting take on the matter, nonetheless.

It's been all over the news, ad nauseam. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/03/nx-s1-5350897/trump-tariffs-heard-mcdonald-remote-islands https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/03/business/economy/trump-tariffs-heard-mcdonald-islands.html https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/tiny-australian-outpost-gets-steep-trump-tariff-despite-few-exports-2025-04-03/ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/03/donald-trump-tariffs-antarctica-uninhabited-heard-mcdonald-islands https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2025/04/02/trump-imposes-tariffs-on-uninhabited-heard-and-mcdonald-islands-remotest-places-on-earth/ All this may be fodder for late night comedy routines but did anyone even notice who got no tariffs? His buddy Putin. That's right, in all these tariffs, there's not any on Russia!

Now that's a concise and to the point summation of the entire question and I heartily agree. Well said.

I read the article. Some interesting points. Personally, I was more impressed with the way the questioner laid out his case than the answer from the host. The questioner posed very valid points in a concise manner while the answer was somewhat rambling. The reply included a quote from the first century historian, Josephus that was sort of cryptic in spots and didn't even cover the question. The reply also says "when the Jewish canon was later officially ratified, the number of books was 22, suggesting that in the first century a sort of unofficial, de facto Hebrew canon already existed". That doesn't make much sense. How could the ratification of the canon circa 200CE in any suggest what the 1st century Jewish sects were reading? We know for a fact that all the sects but possibly the Saducees were reading the books of the Apocrypha. The only reason there's doubt about the Saducees seems to be another Josephus cryptic passage (I have read it and am not convinced that it says that the Saducees only believed that the Torah was sacred scripture). The reply stated emphatically that after the prophetic line "failed" (not the word I would use) that all histories written after that, "however accurate, do not possess the authority of the earlier books". That's his opinion and doesn't necessarily reflect the beliefs of 1st Century Jews or Christians. I saw nowhere in the entire discussion where anyone addressed the idea that, as a Pharisee, when Paul says "all" one could could reasonably expect that to include the Apocrypha. As there was some debate even this early in the church about certain of those books at the time, it kinda sounds like Paul wanted to make clear that all scripture was sacred including the Apocrypha.

In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Paul says to Timothy; "15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." I want to hone in on the phrase "all scripture". We know that Paul was a Pharisee. The Pharisees, like the majority of Jewish sects, believed in all OT scripture, including the "Apocrypha". I know most Protestants don't believe that Apocrypha is inspired scripture for various reasons. The question is, as a Pharisee when Paul says "all scripture" does it not follow that would include the Apocrypha? While many Protestant denominations reject these books, the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches still accept most of them. Many were included in early Protestant English Bibles. Luther's Bible of 1534 published them as a separate section between the Old and New Testaments. They were included in the Geneva Bible with the following preface ""These books were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church and did not serve to prove any point of Christian religion save in so much as they had the consent of the other scriptures called canonical to confirm the same". The Anglican Communion accepts the Apocrypha "for instruction in life and manners, but not for the establishment of doctrine". These Protestant Bibles actually included three books; 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh that are regarded as non-canonical by the Catholic Church and are therefore not included in modern Catholic Bibles. To this date, the Apocrypha are included in the lectionaries of Anglican and Lutheran Churches. Modern Anabaptists still use the aforementioned Luther Bible with the Apocrypha included. The Revised Common Lectionary, used by many mainstream Protestants including Methodists, lists readings from the Apocrypha in the liturgical calendar. The original 1611 King James Bible included them in a separate section. It wasn't until the early 19th century that these books were removed from most Protestant Bibles. For many years the The American Bible Society forbade their inclusion until the restriction was lifted in 1964. So, the question is simply, did Paul exhort us to study the Apocrypha and if so are the Protestants who deny these books missing the boat?

I know from my own research that there's no consensus on the subject. Yes, Christ told us that we could know His followers by their fruits but some who espouse "Eternal Security" believe that once one asks God to forgive them and accepts Christ as their Savior, then they are saved regardless of any lack of fruits or continued sinful behavior. They use terms like "backslidden" to explain someone who in this situation.

I'd like to hear some opinions on the idea of "Eternal Security". I'm familiar with it from a Baptist and Methodist point of view but I know there are lots of varying beliefs on the subject. I am familiar with some of the verses that are the cornerstone for the basic idea, such as John 3:16, John 5:24 and John 10:28-29 to name a few. (I've recently been studying the Gospel of John which I find to be the most intriguing of the Gospels for study). I've also studied those verses people quote against the idea, such as 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, Hebrews 3:14, 2 Peter 2:20-22 and of course Matthew 24:13 where Christ says “But the one who endures to the end will be saved.”. A theoretical question for those who believe in the concept. If a serial killer comes to Christ by saying the "sinners prayer" or something along those lines and is baptized (as many believe baptism is key) and the engages in another killing spree, is that person really "saved"? Let's say this time at least each time he kills he asks God for forgiveness, does that change things? There's an old story that illustrates the way many people see Christianity. It goes something like this; "I asked God for a bike. I was disappointed when I didn't get one. Then I went to church and the pastor there told me that's not how God works, so I stole a bike and asked God for forgiveness." So, is eternal security some get out of jail free card for sin? What do you believe?

You quote the Strong's summary for the Hebrew word Kashaph. It meant to practice sorcery, divination or necromancy. I was curious as to your take on how the Greek word Paul used "Pharmakeia" became witchcraft in 16th and 17th century English Bible translations.

He told some who were healed to show themselves to the priest at the temple because Christ adhered to Old Testament Law, and I believe that we too should follow His example. I look at the example of healing as something that I'll deal with when I find myself in a position to be the recipient of such a healing or the conduit for the same. Otherwise, I think it serves as a reminder that Christ taught us that the Law would stand "Until heaven and earth pass away". His sacrifice on the cross did fulfill some of the law and the prophecies and He did clarify a couple of points in the law, such as lusting is committing adultery, calling another names in anger is just as damning as murder and that divorce did not mean one could remarry. I believe that the mountain moving was meant for every follower of Christ. It was geared to the disciples when they were unable to cast out a demon from a boy. He spoke of faith. "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." I believe that Christ meant what He said for all of us. If we could only have that kind of faith, nothing would be impossible. I don't pretend to know what that faith would be, as I've never moved a mountain, but since Christ says it's possible, I believe it. What words do you believe were intended for Israel and not for us? You ask me to clarify what I mean by the "teachings" of Christ. I see the teachings of Christ as everything He said that relates to any situation that I may find myself in and believe His teachings are not only found in His words but in His actions.

I believe that the entire modern idea that we must, can or should give a proper name to God is problematic to say the least. When God told Moses to tell Pharaoh to free the Israelites we read the following exchange in Exodus Chapter 3; 13And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? 14And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. So God didn't give a proper name, only the cryptic "I am" or "I am that I am". This kinda sounds like God didn't want to be known by a human name. It is in Exodus Chapter 6 where we first see the name that became Jehovah in English translations. There we read; 2And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: 3And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. As noted in another reply, the Hebrew word that ended up being translated "Jehovah" was actually, when transliterated letter by letter, either YHWH or YHVH. Notice these words really have no definite pronunciation as they contain no vowels. Given the aforementioned “I am that I am”, it was a Jewish custom to never utter a name for God and many believe that is why the word itself is basically unpronounceable. The Latin Vulgate Bible of the 4th century translated YHWH as Dominus, simply meaning Lord. So, how did YHWH or YHVH ever become Jehovah? It seems that’s quite a story. Early English translators expanded the word to “Yahweh”. Later English translators felt they had to have a name that was more English friendly. So, instead of transliterating the actual letters, they transposed the four constants YHWH with the vowels of another Hebrew word transliterated Adonai. The word Adonai was a more generic word that’s translated in most English bibles as Lord and was never meant to be a formal name for God himself. As a matter of fact there are several words in the Hebrew Scriptures to describe God that are not names for God. Among them in transliterated and translated version are, El Elyon (God Most High) Shaddai, (Almighty), Ehyeh, (I am) and Tzur, (Rock). There is also reference to YHWH Tzvaot meaning Lord of Hosts. Christ referred to God as "Abba" in Aramaic, an informal term for "father". Never did Christ use a name for God aside from Father or our Heavenly Father. Then there are the words “El” and “Elohim” which are often used to refer to gods other than the Almighty. This conundrum is all the more baffling considering in most English versions of the Holy Bible the word Jehovah only appears 6-7 times. The exception to that rule is the New World Translation, a Bible published by the Watchtower Society of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. There it appears over 7000 times. (That is a Story for another day and time). At any rate, man’s attempts to name God with earthly names is not only futile but is evidence of man’s arrogance that he can define and name the Most Holy God. As for the name of the son, His earthly given name was Jesus. Since Christians believe He is the Christ, He's also known by that name as well. I use them somewhat interchangeably unless the conversation dictates otherwise. I don't know that naming Christ is as much a conundrum as naming the Almighty!

I agree it's a conundrum and didn't mean to imply that we can "justify ourselves by works as to being worthy to receive salvation" but rather that Christ taught that the world could know our faith by our works as noted in Matthew 7:16-20, Matthew 12:33-37 and Luke 6:43-45. I am curious. I see you quote the KJV version of Paul's list of "works of the flesh". I'm curious as to what you think of the idea that witchcraft is listed.