Jim Lincoln wrote:
Lurker, what you say has nothing to do with the arguments in his articles or the facts that he pointed out in them. Evangelicals believe what they're believing for political purposes not biblical ones âť—

Here is the source for anyone interested which I didn't have space to post:

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Jonathan Dudley wrote:

He argues that evangelical opposition to gay marriage has more to do with allegiance to socially conservative cultural values than allegiance to the Bible. He demonstrates that traditional Christian valuations of science, as well as scientific evidence itself, should lead evangelicals to accept evolution and reject both creationism and intelligent design.

In the process, he lays the groundwork for a new generation of post-Religious Right evangelical political activists, who believe in evolution, rally behind the environmental movement, are moderate on abortion, and support gay marriage."

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Dave Hunt: ...The question remains, What are we to do? We must follow Scripture. Neither Jesus nor His apostles nor the biblical early church ever engaged in social or political activism or advocated it. The Great Commission is not to go into all the world to reform its morals by forcing sinners to behave like saints, but to “preach the gospel” and convert sinners. And in the end, the conversion of sinners will have a far greater impact on society than all of the lobbying, protest marches and passionate appeals to morality that consume the time and energy of concerned Christians....

You've been up to your eyeballs in political/social activism every since Trump was elected president yet you obviously can't see it. Are you blind?

Hunt says to "follow scripture". Where is the scripture in all the liberal op-ed trash you incessantly post up penned by atheists, Catholics and Godless heathens? Unbelievable!

Christopher000 wrote:
Prospective mothers-to-be, murder the unborn, enmasse, because they can. Their promiscuity has an easy out; a simple fix, and that is legalized murder...

And the only solution the sick minded liberals (like Jim and his ilk) can come up with is free health care/public assistance in the guise of compassion. Not to mention the liberal politicians are assured a vote and a lifetime cushy job as a master of their slaves.

In reality, there is no such thing as authority without responsibility. There is no such thing as personal freedom without personal responsibility. Yet our liberal culture takes away that responsibility and along with it, freedom, by promising "If you get pregnant, we'll pay for an abortion or we'll send you a monthly check if you keep the child." No incentive to not get pregnant. They no longer have freedom because they are no longer responsible. They give up freedom when they agreed to become a servant of the state.

What a mess we'd have if Corporate America and Small Business had the same attitude... 'Not to worry if we make a mistake and fail. Big brother will bail us out.'

Jim Lincoln wrote:
By the way, Lurker, [URL=https://tinyurl.com/yaou2u3x]]]https://tinyurl.com/yaou2u3x (Health care is a human right)[/URL]

James Madison: "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."

John for JESUS wrote:
It seems to me if the branches started off as only Israelites then the root of the promises must have been the Patriarchs who the promises were first offered. The covenants were planted and took root with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel. I don't know what the stock would be or if it is anything other than the tree in general, but I am open to suggestions. Although I have already done so some, I just don't feel comfortable speculating where it doesn't say specifically.

As for me, I'm going to stick with the two verses I quoted earlier from the Revelation coupled with this:

John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Same picture language, just a different plant used as a figure. In this figure, the whole purpose of the plant is to bring forth fruit pleasing to God and I can't think of a reason why the same wouldn't be true of the olive tree. You may want to have a look at Zechariah 4 where it's the olive oil which produces the light (John 8:12) of the candlestick (church, Rev 1:20).

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Of course if all the eating at Chick-fil-A is a communion service, I guess you can ignore what I said.

The Quiet Christian wrote:
I'm not sure, Lurker, that you have properly identified the Branch from Zechariah. Didnt Zechariah live well after David? Likely refers again to Jesus Christ -

Isaiah 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

Isaiah 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

Romans 15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

The Zechariah prophecy points to David as a figure of Christ who would build the temple, which temple we are, and rule as king and high priest from His throne which finds consistency with the following prophecy.

John for JESUS wrote:
1) So you are saying that everything from sanctification, justification, and salvation is ultimately for the purpose of bringing us back into fellowship with God the Father? If I am following you correctly.
2) I believe the roots are the Patriarchs to whom the promises were first given. What do you mean by stock? Fruit or sap? Gentiles who believe will receive what Israel has been promised.

2) By stock I mean the trunk of the tree. It's a word used in the KJV for that from which non-molten idols were fashioned. See Isaiah 44:19.

But my question to you: Wouldn't it make more sense if the root of the olive tree was that which produces the goodness rather than that which was promised the goodness?

Rev 5:5 Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Yet David, a type of Jesus, was called the branch:

John for JESUS wrote:
Lurker...
1) We agree that God only saves believers.
2) Okay, I get it. You are older and wiser and trying to help me formulate my arguments better. Thank you. I read Ezekiel 37 and agree Israel will have peace, but I really don't believe that is all that the promises of Israel contain. The verses itself even mentioned a covenant with Israel that promises to take away their sins when they believe.

John for JESUS wrote:
1) The verses may not specifically mention Israel, although it does mention Gentiles in contrast to the natural branches. The whole passage is about how God is not through with Israelites and how Israel stumbled yet not to fall. How by Israel's rejection the rest of the world has been reconciled and by their acceptance of Christ the Ressurection will happen.

2) What else would the olive tree be? Care to share instead than playing games?

2)Sorry you think I'm playing games. I'm actually trying to get you to make a biblical argument for what you believe to be true.

John for JESUS wrote:
1) You'll have to take it up with God because scripture says: For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.”
Romans 11:27

2) My absurd assurtion that the olive tree is Israel comes from: I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew...
Romans 11:1‭-‬2
For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
Romans 11:15
If natural branches were cut off resulting in Gentiles being grafted in, then when Israel is grafted back in it will result in the Second Advent and the Ressurection.

Was Peter a Jew cut out of the olive tree? Was he a faithful believer? Was he saved from wrath by grace when he believed? If so, why was he looking forward to the salvation granted Gentiles?

Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

John for JESUS wrote:
Lurker...
It's a covenant to take away their sins which will only be done when they believe.

Is 59:20-21 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

When does the Redeemer come to Zion? Second advent. That's when those of Jacob who have already turned from transgression, who already had His words of life in their mouths, shall be saved from wrath and become party to the grace of the promised new covenant. They will be grafted back into their own olive tree along with all the believing Gentiles from the beginning of Paul's ministry.

John for JESUS wrote:
Lurker...
do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.
Romans 11:18‭, ‬24

John for JESUS wrote:
Lurker...
God made a covenant with Israel to take away their sins, saving them, and giving them eternal life.

John for JESUS wrote:
Lurker...
And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins." As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Romans 11:26‭-‬29

Rev 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

John for JESUS wrote:
John UK...
Is eternal life promised to you? If so, it is only because you were grafted into the promises of the cultivated olive tree which you are not naturally a part of. So I ask, is God done with the nation of Israel?

The Quiet Christian wrote:
In what way are these fake Jews?

Real Jews are made by God the Son (Christ crucified), not genetics:

Deut 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

It's called regeneration, the new birth by means of the gospel.

Phl 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Which is why Alpha Omega revealed to the apostle John:

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Paul Krugman? Let's hope that [URL=https://tinyurl.com/y9ukk5nc]]]https://tinyurl.com/y9ukk5nc (Voters May Be Wising Up)[/URL]đź‘Ť

Krugman is nothing more than an establishment ventriloquist in a cushy leather academic library chair paid for by some innocent donor who has been robbed. He has never run anything, served in a corporation or managed a profit & loss statement effecting real employees or been judged by the bottom line. Yet this windbag is given a perch weekly in a notable newspaper to knock Trump because he lacks “management skills. “ How would he know?" (Theodore Roosevelt Malloch)