John UK wrote:
Lurker, you bring forth some points.

My main reason for commenting is your assertion that Abram was an idolater. I understand why you may think this but it's a pretty serious charge without any biblical evidence. May be better to say Abram lived in a land of idolaters.

As for the olive tree; everyone else is tossing about their opinions: Jews, Abraham, Abraham/Isaac/Jacob, etc. so I thought I'd toss mine in the ring.

But here's the thing. The Jews of Paul's day were broken off of something and at some identifiable point in time. Same as God giving them a bill of divorcement because they played the harlot? When did that happen? How about God bringing the curse upon them because they broke His covenant? How about concluding them all in unbelief? What is the state of unbelief and what was their state before being concluded in unbelief? How about taking the gospel away from them and giving it to a nation bringing forth the fruit thereof? When did all these things happen? Are they all the same as or consequences of being broken off of the olive tree?

Christopher000 wrote:
"Such establishments may still provide customers with plastic stirrers and utensils, but only if the server asks if they want these items and customers reply in the affirmative."
What nonsense. Too bad that all of the babys being murdered take a backseat to plastic straws being dumped into the landfills.

John UK wrote:
I agree that the clear promises of God which were fulfilled in Christ began in earnest with this converted heathen idolator, and that he is the physical father of the physical Israel.

Your comment caught my eye so just wanted to point out a couple things to consider.

I don't recall anything in the biblical account about Abram being converted nor being an idolater. Granted, he was called out of Ur which most likely worshipped idols but no evidence that Abram did the same.

Also, Abram was immediately obedient to God's call which tells me he was already circumcised in heart (he loved/believed God according to Deut 6:5) and that by Paul's definition makes Abram a Jew.

But the secular/historical term Jew came to be about the time of the Babylonian captivity and referred to the people of the southern Judean kingdom or more specifically Judah; one of Jacob's twelve sons. Biblically, this has some traction:

Psalm 78:67-68 Moreover he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim: But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved.

Jaycobee wrote:
Yes Lurker, I do believe God gives us free will. Is everyone on this board in disagreement with that belief?

. . .

Jaycobee wrote:
lurker I understand that people can harden their hearts and reject God even if they were to see a miracle. But there are people who I think would find the shroud as a legitimate justification for opening their hearts to God and the gospel. I think if every scientist and theologian did get on board and support the shroud we would see many people saved but there would still be people who choose not to believe.

I must say I picked up a strong sense of free will theism in your comment. If that is your theological position; it answers a lot of questions.

That said, God ordained the gospel (Christ crucified) as the sole means to reconcile those He foreknew unto Himself. We have been reconciled in time by the death of Jesus, because of what was taken out of the way and nailed to His cross, and saved by His life.

The problem with too many Protestant churches today is they have no idea what the gospel is and are ever dreaming up new ways to draw warm bodies to their pews or to keep those already there. Is God going to bless them when they have forsaken the means He ordained?

Jaycobee wrote:
I feel like alot of hostility toward the authenticity of this alleged relic is the general consensus among the group here that any holy relic takes away from the honor God alone is due and at worst can become an idol. Am I right everyone? Is that the big elephant in the room?

You've made it fairly clear you believe the shroud is authentic. Of course, that's your prerogative and it's ours to not believe its authenticity. But I can't help but wonder if there isn't more on your mind than just the authenticity.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the shroud was proven beyond any doubt to be authentic: The actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ.

In your mind, Jaycobee, how would that revelation play out for Christendom? Or put another way: Then what?

John UK wrote:
The most important doctrine of all is what God teaches about justification, namely by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. And I know this is not taught in Catholicism. So why consider attending a church which doesn't even have the gospel, the good news?

Amen sister MS. I think we'd all be willing to help Jaycobee but not on his terms. No sincerity….. too mechanical as though it's an intellectual exercise determining the perfect will of God. If God doesn't prick the heart as He did with the contrite publican, there is nothing man can do.

. . .

John UK wrote:
Jaycobee, there are no folks here think you are sincere.

Jaycobee came here asking for input yet has offered nothing about himself. No idea what denom he is, married, children, or his Christian experience to date. No testimony.... nothing that will help us determine his present standing with God. All we have gotten is "I'm not Catholic" yet he comes to the defense of all things RC like the shroud in this thread.

I asked a question regarding the shroud and crickets. Same as I got from him in most of the previous questions I asked.

I stand by my earlier observation that Jaycobee has never experienced the new birth and it's just a matter of time before The RCC reels him in. That's too bad but it's God who convinces..... not anyone here.

John for JESUS wrote:
Wing it? I've qouted irrefutable evidence as found in scripture. On the contrary, it must make sense or you wouldn't be commenting.
Wing it? I didn't say Jesus "probably" meant this or that like some people do. All of your arguments end with this verse:
But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Matthew 15:24

. . .

I don't know what happened to the "I'm not a robot" verification but I think I'm done here till a better system is implemented. I bet I had to check 50 boxes to finally get verified and now I see I have to do it again because I wanted to add this comment and the verification has expired. GRRRRRR

Jaycobee wrote:
Now you and some others here are saying that all you need is the Bible to show the Resurrection. That is fine, but what if someone wants more evidence than that? Are you really going to deny them the opportunity to learn about the archaeological evidence, the textual preservation evidence, the historical evidence.

John for JESUS wrote:
However, the earthly ministry of Jesus involved seeking after the lost sheep of Israel. He wasn't concerned with the Gentiles.

The text says "house of Israel". The house of Israel points to the ten tribes of the northern kingdom while the house of Judah points to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin of the southern kingdom. In the OT, "Israel" almost always points to the northern kingdom after the reign of Solomon, when Israel divided into two kingdoms, and "Judah" to the southern kingdom.

After the Assyrian exile of the northern kingdom, the house of Israel was considered "not a people of God" as they were without covenant with God. Therefore, they became as Gentiles, uncircumcised in both flesh and heart. Probably why Jesus called them lost sheep and "other sheep not of this fold"; "this fold" being the house of Judah.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Oh, the Trader Trump tapes
--[URL=https://tinyurl.com/yaz98xoe]]]Avenatti says Cohen's Trump recording 'is not the only tape'[/URL] ...Yikesâť— I have to stop this I think I'm getting a twitch in my eyeâť—

So if the FBI has the tapes then how is it possible for Cohen to release them? Jim, are you so enamored over any dirt on Trump that you've lost all ability to reason? And then there is the attorney/client privilege. Apparently Avenatti isn't concerned with that since Trump isn't his client. Yet he's a credible attorney?

Avenatti is a slimeball using a porn star to get into the national spotlight to further his career. He's probably paying her to agree to be his client. Yet you quote him with glee.

John for JESUS wrote:
Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
Acts 2:37
What do you suppose Peter said? Nothing you can do? To bad, so sad?

What you overlooked is this: "they were cut to the heart..." This is the work of the Holy Spirit convincing them of their sin and need of redemption. But that same work of the HS didn't always produce the same results:

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

But it always produces God's will:

Is 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Lurker, this should be more to your liking.

Mark Labberton, President of Fuller Seminary...
--[URL=https://tinyurl.com/yc8sj2v3]]]https://tinyurl.com/yc8sj2v3 ( Are evangelicals today more devoted to Trump and the Republicans than the gospel?)[/URL].

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Paul Krugman wrote:
...One way to say this is that America tried to create an international system reflecting our own ideals, one that subjected powerful countries — ourselves included — to rule of law, while protecting weaker nations from bullies. Small countries can and do win W.T.O. cases against big countries; small members of NATO receive the same unconditional security guarantees as major powers.
And what Trump is trying to do is undermine that system, making bullying great again.
What’s his motivation? Part of the answer is that anything that weakens the Western alliance helps Vladimir Putin; if Trump isn’t literally a Russian agent, he certainly behaves like one on every possible occasion....--[URL=http://tinyurl.com/yd6mqoyn]]]http://tinyurl.com/yd6mqoyn (For Trump, Failure Is the Only Option)[/URL]

Internet teachers? wrote:
"Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching." - Heb. 10:25 (KJV)

What did Jesus say about two or three gathered in His name. Doesn't count?

Will this help your discussion with J4J?

John UK wrote:
Lurker,
1. True, the covenant we have an interest in is called variously in the Bible "the covenant", the "new covenant", the "second covenant", and so on.
2. Please feel free to offer a third choice, which is suited to your thinking. I couldn't think of a third one, but obviously you have one up your sleeve.

Once again I'm setting out for the day but a quick response.

The covenant you're thinking of is called the covenant of peace and believe it or not, it was first given to Levi (Num 25:10-13, Ezek 37:26, Mal 2:1-8). I have come to call it the Zion covenant, contrasted against the Sinai covenant (Decalogue) but admit those terms are not found in the bible either. The NC differs from the first in that the fulfillment (Christ crucified)was promised to be written on our hearts by preachers of truth, Paul being the first.

A third choice? I don't have one but understand that I do accept the concept of federal headship; just not the version you are presenting. There are only two biblical choices, In Adam or in Christ.

However, I differ from you in that I believe the mortal bodies of all mankind, regenerate or not, are in Adam in this life but souls are either in Christ or Adam depending on if regenerated or not.

Christopher000 wrote:
the mentally handicapped, and mentally disabled, etc., and let's say from birth, or very early childhood, and on into adulthood. I would say that most of these, if not all, would never have the mental capacity to understand sin, grace, salvation, wrath, the gospel, Christ's sacrifice, etc., etc.
Serious question: Taking into consideration that they never had the capacity to believe, etc., would the elect few be saved, while the rest face eternal condemnation, even though they never even understood something as simple as sin or salvation, etc.?

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Transgression is a noun, most often translated iniquity, not a verb. So "committeth" is the operative part of this text and is present tense, not 6,000 years past tense.