By the definitions u/CrusaderPepe supplied by context, there's nothing to debate. He mischaracterizes my position by refusing to permit any other definition of the words.
-
By one definition ['"The Jews" are anyone of the Hebrew stock who publicly or privately REJECT Jesus Christ as their Messiah, Lord, Savior, and God. This includes all religious Jews, since the First Century (Pharisees, Rabbinical Jews, Orthodox Jews, Reformed Jews, Hasidic Jews, etc.). This includes all secular non-Christian Jews that are only ethnically Jewish. Whether they are Zionist or not doesn’t matter. It also includes converts to post-First Century Judaism.'], "the Jews" would, indeed, be cursed and enemies of God and the human race even up to the present; no other definition is in view there.
-
By one definition ['By "valid" I don't mean it justified them. No. It just better prepared them for Faith in Christ.'], the Old Covenant would, indeed, no longer be "valid" in the same way it was once "valid"; no other definition is in view there.
-
By one definition ['The term is "sanctifying grace." And this is the grace bestowed by God upon Baptism and is poured upon the soul while one has Faith and no stain of mortal sin. Mortal sin removes it. Penance/confession brings it back.'], having "sanctifying grace" once would, indeed, not be having "sanctifying grace" always; no other definition is in view there.
-
By one definition ['The "Hebrew-roots Christian movement" syncretizes Christianity with anti-Christ Talmudic/Rabbinical Judaism, believes the Old Covenant is still active, believes Mosaic Law is still active, practices the Sabbath, celebrates Jewish feasts, etc. and clearly meets the definition of a Judaizer sect (that being a sect that tries to enforce Old Covenant or Mosaic Laws into the New Covenant of Christ)' .... 'And even if they don't force other Christians to do so, by even influencing and advocating for these things, at all, they fall under the definition of "Judaizers".' 'When you post stuff defending the Talmud and/or Jewish interpretations of things ... you are influencing it, in a Judaizing way.'], the "Hebrew-roots Christian movement" would not be actually Christian; no other definition is in view there.
-
By one definition ['Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name.'], the Talmud contains "blasphemy"; no other definition is in view there.
If Pepe is willing to offer other definitions I can evaluate the new truth claims separately at that time.
Despite its other slight benefits, I'm reporting this AI music for being off-topic spam.
IMHO, OP is currently in process of disowning Christ, in part by contradicting him and claiming he abolished the Law, and in part by calling me and u/CuomoisaMassMurderer Judaizers when he has no proof his definition applies to us, which is disruptive to the c/Christianity community. Since he has been spamming these charges to nine other communities, it appears appropriate to flag his other admittedly spammed content to advise of this problem.
You have no proof of these charges any more than you have for those against me. You're so good at copy and paste but you don't seem to take a single quote from your interlocutors to prove any of your charges. Instead you change my words from "I have never said the Old Covenant is or was 'binding'" to "Swamp ... believes ... Old Covenant continues and is still binding".
It wouldn't matter to me (or I daresay u/CuomoisaMassMurderer) except that you are defaming the entire flock at that forum by implying they are followers of Judaizers. I understand if you believe all Protestants are heretics but then you need to explain Mystici Corporis Christi, which doesn't say that. I've told you that we can resolve this by using facts and logic but you are descending to ad hominem and appeal to nine other fora, after already admitting you were "spamming" for the purpose of proving your charges, which you have now run away from when given opportunity to defend them. The Lord hasn't told me to exorcise you yet but don't be surprised what happens next.
Since you now seem to have unblocked me, it merely suffices to repeat, 8 times, that my argument began by rejecting dual covenant, "Dual covenant theology wrongly teaches the Old Covenant is salvific"; and then to repeat that you contradict Jesus to say "The law was ... abolished", and your supersessionism is tantamount to teaching a past dual covenant because you imply the Old Testament had some valid "life" and "place" that was "replaced" and "superseded" by the New when you believe "the Old Law died" as if words of God could die forever.
The commenter above spammed this to nine communities after blocking me, so my response will be identical in each case.
There is no proof I ever said the Old Covenant is or was binding, so I am not a Judaizer by the definition quoted.
The fact that I call myself a Hebrew roots Christian does not mean I agree with characterizations of some "Hebrew Roots Movement" defined from outside; I've admitted the movement contains contradictory views. There is no proof I teach syncretism, dual covenant, legalism, Judaizing, or any such teaching simply because I believe the term "Hebrew roots Christianity" is an accurate representation of Romans 11.
In the link above, the commenter was given opportunity to defend charges of gaslighting, and ran away from the opportunity, instead deciding to use a nickname repeatedly that the mods regard as ad hominem, and to commit other factual and logical errors.
I'm happy as always to answer questions.
The above user has blocked me. My defense is at https://scored.co/c/Christian/p/17txocJazL/x/c
u/CuomoisaMassMurderer, you might remind him (since he's blocked me) that he knows he has full leeway to defend all these charges at the linked post by quoting me, which he hasn't yet. The argument from his silence grows greater the more he avoids the subject.
It's really funny that he thinks he's proven the charge and is now free to spread it everywhere, while he's blind to the historical inaccuracies that weaken OP. I thought that offering a debate would be good for all, but the idea of running from debate, blocking me, and declaring victory everywhere else never occurred to me as a Catholic response.
The Cheney Article I defense! The vice president as a legislative officer.
No such luck; OP is false. This is CODOH retconning a modern text search for "six million" and "Jews", nothing more. No significantly different results for "five million" or "seven million".
Then someone else should be able to report on it too, right? Been a long time and only you the keeper of narratives noticed it? I don't doubt you, but "extraordinary claims".
What if Vigano is Petrus?
I've been looking for the backdoor in Bitcoin, and if it exists it comes through SHA256 via DES, but since nobody has ever found it the odds are good that it doesn't exist. I do have one line on an anomaly in Bitcoin that is not relevant to this discussion and, if true, wouldn't prove anything significant to it, but I'm not commenting further about that without doing my own math first.
Have followed you awhile, but this one I have a bit of experience on.
You seem to be saying Bitcoin miners are not only (as per official storyline) generating value by performing mathematically verifiable labor, but also having their labor secretly diverted toward deep-state functions.
However, any miner can verify what is being computed, and it's merely a very game-based attempt to generate a rare hash with a set process. There can be no insertion of separately useful computation in the hash generation process because that would be a waste and miners fight each other for efficiency.
The only ways your implication would be true would be if the programming contained some unauditable, unfindable segment (but surely an end-to-end security check would find it and surely this has been done); or if the math contained some secret dual function (but because of the complementary hash chain there is no infusion of new data for a miner to assist with analyzing). Satoshi's whole point was to produce a math system that broad consensus would agree is unhackable and performs its purpose of creating value without any (or hardly any) central control or doubt. He published the white paper and then verified that the emergent community had established the consensus. If someone today could outthink Satoshi it wouldn't be found out like this.
u/CrazyRussian explains accurately in more detail.
Just your ordinary Seventh-Day Adventists sending you Ellen G. White's greatest book of the 19th century. The book reads fine enough.
They've been warning people for 180 years that the new world order will create laws forcing people to rest on Sunday and that obeying them is partnership with the devil.
They were finally right in 2020, when the government shut down all businesses on Sunday (as well as all the other days).
They're mostly tamed now, but they really want you to rest on Saturday, many of them don't believe in hell, and they still have a funny theory about Jesus opening the holiest place in 1844.
Your citing Amalek is accurate. We're actively discussing the very application of this point to the OP. If you want to join that convo, please confirm that you're able and willing to follow the its rules.
Quick take is that God knows when the entire tribe is guilty and so we can only use that when he reveals it. He has not revealed that all Jews are to be found guilty. In fact, there is no good Jew but Jesus, and there is no good Gentile either. The only "good" people are those found in Jesus. So we have no moral right to declare war preemptively.
In the link above I referred to the person of such holiness that he could perform all the judgment functions at once; Vlad may have at times been compelled to be such a person, I don't know. But without knowing where you're based now I'm not ready to assert your holiness today. (The community and the admins have asked me for reasonable objective regulations on civil speech, and to the degree you decline those regulations we must work our separate sovereignties.)
Sarcasm does not become you. I do welcome new accounts, but if I see you again on this account I also would recommend you adopt a sincere persona, thanks.
I hereby condemn all antichrists, antichrist Gentiles and antichrist Jews, and I leave Christ to sort out those who are not antichrist.
Did you want to ask the c/ConsumeProduct mods to restore all my comments naming the Jews for real?
Did you want to exempt present company from the charge of either bombing countries or of not mourning over the dead? Being a Ron Paul libertarian, I don't know the last bomb I thought valid. Even Little Boy I have two minds about.
Did you want to talk about rules of war? Your persona doesn't seem to require them. But I'm open to talking about whether any people has committed such belligerence that I should be at war with them.
Did you want to talk about what constitutes a Christian? Because have you ever once approved of a Christian beside yourself? It's hard to believe you approve of Jesus, haven't you implied he was a lawbreaker rather than that he actually kept the law?
I just answered in your other post as being zero to several decimals. The expert shooters are all saying there's no way to do this with the precision necessary, the error margin is up to 3 inches with this gun, and the head keeps moving, and there's wind. I can't contradict that, no white hat would script it this way unless they had more control than we can imagine. Clever magicians could script something similar but there are too many risks for things to go wrong in the actual circumstances that transpired, and there would be tells that indicate where they had a secret hand in things. Here no tells are aligning into one explanation. Except:
The only person who could "set this up" to achieve objectives is God. The clearest answer is that everything points to him as having chosen Trump to get grazed but neither missed nor killed. He orchestrated things so that no human or agency could take credit as having anticipated everything. So that's my stance unless anyone can show anything different. Every theory trying to explain this as humanly anticipated has holes in it.
What are the probabilities of an anticipated precision shot to the edge of the ear? Body language seemed twisty to me..
I think that's zero to several decimals. The closest I could come would be that the white hats know there's a risk of someone getting the rifle in line (as indicated by former assassination attempts) but they have a backup plan for that and they anticipate (correctly so far) that its actual odds are quite low. I see no scenario in which Trump's team would knowingly permit a rifle in unvetted hands in line of sight. I do see potential for certain aspects to be anticipated but nobody can put together a big picture yet, and so we can say every scenario has holes in it.
He says his ear is missing a piece, he has a full bandage over it now in public, so we'll see what new look he goes for.
I previously said Penn & Teller would've turned down this gig. They say "No permanent damage."
Very informative video. Wife Helen Comperatore is visible here (her pic is public now), and I think I picked out the two daughters, one of whom is Allyson.
See a still shot of almost this same moment.
I haven't seen the line of fire graphic to explain this one yet. Plus, both other crowd victims were said to have two entry wounds (both are currently stable).
"Stage right" means rightward from the performers' perspective, is that what you meant?
I understand all that, and the agent behind the stage makes (only slightly) more sense in this scenario. As a natural skeptic, I look for the holes in all the theories, and at this date they all have them.
I don't think the white hats would brainwash a kamikaze. Plus he is clearly dead, no getting around that one.
I don't think there was coordination in the idea of Trump turning his head before he could be sure the shooter was about to fire.
There were five people allegedly injured by gunfire with at least seven entry wounds: Trump, the shooter, Comperatore, and two other victims.
Note well: James Copenhaver was shot in the leg and in the abdomen, and David Dutch was shot in the liver and in the chest. How many magic bullets went off in all? Where were they sitting? The snipers weren't on silent, were they?
I do know one person capable of coordinating these events to get his own message across: God.
Hi again, still love your username.
If you read it all on both sides, you'd see that by refusing all alternate definitions or any synthesis toward discovering additional truth, and refusing all questions, u/CrusaderPepe is doing a lot more frame-controlling than me. I just try to keep things on track so that a conclusion can be reached instead of just having (say) two unanswered dissertations.
The fact is that he's mostly speaking accurate Catholic theology that I don't disagree with (as I document in this thread). My own theological viewpoints are inaccessible to him because he's not willing to admit that any other definitions exist; so there's no point in my explaining my views on baptismal regeneration or Dake's 1,050 NT commands until he can settle that core. But by going to the full-press ad hominem he's basically, um, shutting things down.
I trust you can see that my strategy accomplished my goal of bringing his true epistemology into the light for God to convict him on.