Jerusalem capital of israel

[Tambora]

House and Senate passed a bill called the “Jerusalem Embassy Act,” which formally recognized the city as the country’s capital and called for the U.S. Embassy in Israel to be moved there from Tel Aviv by 1999. Support for the bill was overwhelming. It passed the Senate by a 93 to 5 vote, with four Republicans and one Democrat voting no. It passed the House 374 to 37, with 153 Democrats joining most of the new Republican majority that had swept into power in 1994.

Right.
This is not some new thing.
It is what the USA had already agreed to.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

That would be neo-Judaism. It is nowhere in the NT. Everything was made 'new' in Christ. New covenant, David, temple, Passover, Jerusalem, etc.

Those are not the reasons for having the capital there. Forget it.

The reasons are: if you are going to 'return the place to the land it was originally' you would have to delete Islam from the area. That's not going to happen. You would also revive a nature cult that burnt the babies born from sex between the best farmers and prize pagan temple under-age virgins. I assume there would be international outcry about that because it would be a form of sex trafficking; maybe not.

None of the four points above are found in NT eschatology, read accurately, about its own generation. When the end of the world was expected immediately. It no longer is.

Thanks, preterist.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

That would be neo-Judaism. It is nowhere in the NT. Everything was made 'new' in Christ. New covenant, David, temple, Passover, Jerusalem, etc.

Those are not the reasons for having the capital there. Forget it.

The reasons are: if you are going to 'return the place to the land it was originally' you would have to delete Islam from the area. That's not going to happen. You would also revive a nature cult that burnt the babies born from sex between the best farmers and prize pagan temple under-age virgins. I assume there would be international outcry about that because it would be a form of sex trafficking; maybe not.

None of the four points above are found in NT eschatology, read accurately, about its own generation. When the end of the world was expected immediately. It no longer is.

1. Some people were promised land.
2. Some people were promised a city from heaven.
3. Some people were promised heavenly places.

Deal with it.

How many general sections were in the ONE temple of God?

 

[rexlunae]

1. Some people were promised land.
2. Some people were promised a city from heaven.
3. Some people were promised heavenly places.

Deal with it.

How many general sections were in the ONE temple of God?

:rotfl:

 

[patrick jane]

 

[patrick jane]

:rotfl:

Let me get this straight. You don't believe in God and laugh about it, but you DO believe that Trump worked with Putin to rig the election.

 

[rexlunae]

Let me get this straight. You don't believe in God and laugh about it, but you DO believe that Trump worked with Putin to rig the election.

I don't believe is God. But what I'm laughing about is God as real estate agent.

And you think a criminal conspiracy is less likely than a God?

 

[Danoh]

I don't believe is God. But what I'm laughing about is God as real estate agent.

And you think a criminal conspiracy is less likely than a God?

I'm curious about something, rex - you have stated that you do not believe in God.

And most assert that "only saved people can understand the Scripture."

I have found that is not the case. That it is contrary to what the Scripture actually teaches on that, when actually studied beyond merely going by one passage.

And I have also found it to be the case while evangelizing.

I wonder if you would do me a favor rex, either here, or via pm, or not at all.

Just from reading the following, what would be your understanding of it, from it?

I mean, you do not believe in God, let alone, obviously, in the Bible, or its Christ.

So you would be one not supposed to be able to properly make out neither head, nor tail of it.

What do you make of the following, just going by your everyday sense of words?

Thanks in advance.

Romans 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

 

[rexlunae]

I'm curious about something, rex - you have stated that you do not believe in God.

And most assert that "only saved people can understand the Scripture."

I have found that is not the case. That it is contrary to what the Scripture actually teaches on that, when actually studied beyond merely going by one passage.

And I have also found it to be the case while evangelizing.

I wonder if you would do me a favor rex, either here, or via pm, or not at all.

Just from reading the following, what would be your understanding of it, from it?

I mean, you do not believe in God, let alone, obviously, in the Bible, or its Christ.

So you would be one not supposed to be able to properly make out neither head, nor tail of it.

What do you make of the following, just going by your everyday sense of words?

Thanks in advance.

Romans 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Well, he's explaining how he thinks God will save all of Israel by saving some amount of the Gentiles.

 

[Danoh]

Well, he's explaining how he thinks God will save all of Israel by saving some amount of the Gentiles.

Interesting - actually that IS a view held by some.

Though based on that much alone.

Did you read that somewhere?

Or is that your take from those passages alone - and passages I take you have probably never read before if you do not believe in God to begin with.

Of the various times I have looked into this sort of think, I once tried something like this with an individual of Roman Catholicism.

Just pointed out some passages that are consistent with one another.

Without a peep from me, he concluded the view they hold of an eternal virgin was not supported by Scripture.

Lets just say he was not to happy with me after that.

In their case, though, we were still able to work out the resulting conflict, without compromise.

Too often a rarity among the so called "right."

But I am just curious about perception in general, in that way.

Anyway, feel free to answer those questions, or not.

Again, thanks for your input.

 

[rexlunae]

Interesting - actually that IS a view held by some.

Though based on that much alone.

Did you read that somewhere?

All I did was look up and read all of chapter 11. I find it difficult to read single verses out of context.

Or is that your take from those passages alone - and passages I take you have probably never read before if you do not believe in God to begin with.

No, I've definitely read them before, possibly heard a sermon at some point about them. I'm a heathen, but not an unchurched one.

Of the various times I have looked into this sort of think, I once tried something like this with an individual of Roman Catholicism.

Just pointed out some passages that are consistent with one another.

Without a peep from me, he concluded the view they hold of an eternal virgin was not supported by Scripture.

Lets just say he was not to happy with me after that.

In their case, though, we were still able to work out the resulting conflict, without compromise.

Too often a rarity among the so called "right."

But I am just curious about perception in general, in that way.

Anyway, feel free to answer those questions, or not.

Again, thanks for your input.

It's my pleasure, though, in the interests of full disclosure, you should know that I was raised Lutheran and was an Evangelical Christian for several years as a teen and young adult. And I studied a bit of religion in college.

I mostly post here about politics now, but my introduction to these forms was in the religion section, posting against it.

In a larger sense, the way I take the verses you posted is in the context of justifying the departure of the new Christian religion from the Judaism that preceded it. They had to find a way to explain what seemed like breaking with the Jewish understanding, and this was a part of that. To me, it sounds defensive, like he's trying to justify something.

 

[Danoh]

All I did was look up and read all of chapter 11. I find it difficult to read single verses out of context.



No, I've definitely read them before, possibly heard a sermon at some point about them. I'm a heathen, but not an unchurched one.



It's my pleasure, though, in the interests of full disclosure, you should know that I was raised Lutheran and was an Evangelical Christian for several years as a teen and young adult. And I studied a bit of religion in college.

I mostly post here about politics now, but my introduction to these forms was in the religion section, posting against it.

In a larger sense, the way I take the verses you posted is in the context of justifying the departure of the new Christian religion from the Judaism that preceded it. They had to find a way to explain what seemed like breaking with the Jewish understanding, and this was a part of that. To me, it sounds defensive, like he's trying to justify something.

That does bring out an aspect of the dynamic behind the perspective you are actually posting your replies to me from.

And your last paragraph there is actually somewhat similar (though not exactly the same) in context to the one depicted in Scripture about the issue you raised in that paragraph.

Questin - did you ever believe that Christ died for your sins?

What specifically did you believe that you can still recall?

As for why you went your way, that is on you to share or not; as that is your business.

Thanks again.

 

[rexlunae]

Questin - did you ever believe that Christ died for your sins?

Of course. It would be pretty hard to consider yourself a Christian otherwise.

What specifically did you believe that you can still recall?

I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense for me to try to give you an obsolete witness. I'm happy to answer questions where I can though.

As for why you went your way, that is on you to share or not; as that is your business.

Thanks again.

It was certainly a set of steps. I realized that there were a lot of religions out there, and that it was pretty difficult to defend believing in a particular one. I eventually came to reject the whole model of sin as the Bible describes, and I came to reject the notion of vicarious redemption.

 

[Tambora]

Atta girl, Nikki!!!

(15 minute video)