The Quiet Christian wrote: In what way are these fake Jews?
Rom 2:27-29 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
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:
Rev 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Paul Krugman? Let's hope that [URL=https://tinyurl.com/y9ukk5nc]]]https://tinyurl.com/y9ukk5nc (Voters May Be Wising Up)[/URL]ūüĎć
"That‚Äôs Dr. K‚Äôs model: pontificate as a learned bearded economist, when in truth you are nothing more than a shrill whore for the liberal establishment. His solution for every problem is the same, raise taxes and have the federal government borrow yet more debt.
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 ‚Äúmanagement skills. ‚Äú How would he know?" (Theodore Roosevelt Malloch)
I'll save any admonitions because you've chosen to make liberal losers your mouthpiece. Birds of a feather...
Yolanda wrote: While most economists say President Donald Trump may be overstating his responsibility for recent better growth and jobs numbers, they say his policies may have had a limited positive influence in some areas. ‚Ä¶ At the same time, they warn, there are ways the president might also be a drag on growth ‚Ä¶ Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi says it's too early to conclude either way about the Trump effect. He says the economy was "doing fine" before he took office and hasn't changed much. He did add the president will get a chance to have a real impact in coming months. "They have got to raise the debt limit and pass a budget," Zandi said. "If they don't do that, it will do real damage."‚ÄĚ US News‚ÄÉ
‚ÄúMark Zandi is a registered Democrat and an advocate of Keynesian economics,‚ÄĚ says Barney Keller, a spokesman for the influential Club for Growth. ‚ÄúHe‚Äôs about as conservative as Paul Krugman, and wrong just as often.‚ÄĚ.
I believe I read in another article that Senator McCain arranged his own funeral.
So far he has arranged to strike out from the grave in anger/retaliation at Trump, Putin and now his former VP running mate Sarah Palin.
The bible says to not let the sun set on your anger but McCain took it with him to his grave. What a shame to go to the grave a bitter man. At least the Palin family responded graciously to his insult from the grave.
Yolanda wrote: I understand more and more what David meant while praying to the Lord to not let him fall into the hands of wicked men. Men like Lurker. My prayer is that you feel utterly ashamed as a child of Trump - having to demean one based upon the character of another. Shame on you Lurker.
Perhaps you should read my comment again, Yolanda. You'll notice I never uttered a bad or 'demeaning' word about the person of John McCain. That would be an ad hominem; like you calling me a "wicked man" without even knowing me. A personal insult, if you will.
I did, however, point out that his values were not friendly to conservatism. And for that tidbit of truth you shame me?
For your convenience, here is my comment again:
"I'll pray for the family of John McCain. And I respect him for his distinguished military service. But McCain was no friend of conservative values. A devout Never Trumper. That he is receiving flowery praise from Obama, Chuck Schumer, Pelosi and Hillary pretty well tells the story of his political values."
Christopher000 wrote: Lurker Wrote: "The headline is disgustingly misleading which seems to be the norm any more." Thanks Lurker, and you're right about that. I read the article this morning, and only then realized that it was focusing on a single kid, I couldn't help but consider the larger picture, and widespread ramifications of such rulings. Seems to me that the proponents will be just fine with this nonsense right up until it hits home and begins effecting their own children's privacy and safety. I wonder then if they'll continue to fight for these transgender rights, or if they'll drive straight to the school and demand to know why there was a boy showering with their child in the girls locker room, etc.
I don't comment much any more because all this up side down stuff makes my head spin. It's bad enough with all the ugly news but then add in Jim's liberal nonsense and it gets overwhelming. I'm beginning to understand why older people don't say much. Maybe I'm already there.
I'll pray for the family of John McCain. And I respect him for his distinguished military service. But McCain was no friend of conservative values. A devout Never Trumper. That he is receiving flowery praise from Obama, Chuck Schumer, Pelosi and Hillary pretty well tells the story of his political values.
The headline is disgustingly misleading which seems to be the norm any more.
Never the less, this Obama appointed federal district judge has no problem trashing the sensibilities of normal kids to cater to one "gender confused" girl. His answer to the parents of the normal kids? Take your kids out of public schools if you don't like it.
The Quiet Christian wrote: Whatever happened to you, perhaps at the hand of the Romanists, you need to give to Jesus.
What happened to Jim was the great recession fleeced his retirement portfolio which he blamed on the Republicans. Prior to that he was much more conservative. No wonder the bible says the love of money is the root of all evil.
John UK wrote: That's good, brother! But you've just done it again, and I can hardly believe it. You are referring to these great men of God like Charles Spurgeon and John Owen as if they couldn't read the Bible so took the "traditional" viewpoint of earlier men.
John! Are you alright? Get into a bad batch of carrot juice?
I have no idea where you came up with the above but the broadly accepted tradition I was speaking of was the commentaries you and Adriel posted.
I was going to ask your opinion on "Thy kingdom come", knowing you're an amil, but I changed my mind.
John UK wrote: I say this as a friend, and I hope you don't take it badly.
Of course I don't take it badly, John.
To set the record straight, I was never dogmatic about anything in my posts. I never suggested your view was wrong or those you quoted were in error and I made it clear I was thinking out loud trying to make sense of the text in its historical setting and timeline. I'm still thinking on it but there is no sense continuing on here when I'm thought of as a rebel against broadly accepted tradition because I don't immediately jump on the bandwagon.
Thanks John, Adriel and Christopher for your thoughts.
John Mackay wrote: Lead us not into temptation implies simply this ;-that God would keep us from falling into sin as we are unable to uphold ourselves without his grace working in us by The Holy Spirit It is being expressed negatively and it is really saying lead us away from temptation by your Holy Spirit and don‚Äôt leave us to ourselves
It's an interesting interpretation but may I respectfully say that at the time the prayer was taught by Jesus the first covenant stood extant and the Holy Spirit had not yet been sent to indwell believers. So while it may sound good it doesn't meet the test.
John UK wrote: Thanks bro but I reckon you're barking up the wrong olive.
I'm a slow learner but I can tell when it's futile to question the Protestant popes so I'll take my leave of the subject. Thanks for the exchange.
John UK wrote: I don't think you are missing anything, bro. John Gill says, "There are various sorts of temptations."
"Now, in this petition, the children of God pray, that they may be kept from every occasion and object of sinning; from those sins they are most inclined to; that God would not leave them to Satan, and their own corrupt hearts; nor suffer them to sink under the weight of temptations of any sort; but that, in the issue, they might have a way to escape, and be victorious over all." JG
I'm off for my days duties but will look into this more this evening.
Where I'm stuck is the words "lead us not". That doesn't imply "Don't let me fall..." or anything similar as the commentaries suggest. What it does imply, at least in my mind, is that some (not those who pray with a sincere heart) will, in fact, be led into temptation by God and clearly not for their good but for their eternal damnation.
Rev 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
I rather believe this is the temptation being spoken of in the prayer.
John UK wrote: Ah Lurker, Bro Ryle is far more brief in his treatment than Bro Calvin. And he seems to take a much softer approach, probably trying to avoid attributing any injustice to the Lord. The eighth sentence is a petition respecting our weakness: ‚ÄúLead us not into temptation.‚ÄĚ It teaches us that we are liable, at all times, to be led astray and to fall. It instructs us to confess our infirmity, and beseech God to hold us up, and not allow us to run into sin. We ask Him, who orders all things in heaven and earth, to restrain us from going into that which would injure our souls...
Here's what the pope is proposing:
"A better rendering of the petition would be: ‚ÄúDo not let me fall into temptation,‚ÄĚ Francis said."
I can't tell the difference between Ryle's treatment and the Pope's. What am I missing?
In case I'm not making much sense I should say I agree with you that the prayer is intended for the faithful remnant. "Lead **us** not" makes that clear. But the possibility still exists that the tares amongst the wheat will be led into temptation and not delivered which is agreeable with Ryle's commentary, even though he didn't make that point real clear. After all, the sickle will be laid to both the wheat and the tares but the tares will be bundled and burned while the wheat is raised into the Father's barn.
Thanks for the three part commentary, John. I read them all twice.
But... Ryle ended up where I began.
"God not only gives us up to the will of Satan, to kindle the flame of lust, but employs him as the agent of his wrath, when he chooses to drive men headlong to destruction..."
However, I agree with Ryle in that the petition is one: "lead us not but deliver us". Now, if it were not possible for God to lead those who call Him Father into temptation then the entire petition is rendered meaningless and we both know Jesus wouldn't teach a meaningless prayer. So what now?
I'm still hung up on the timeline Jesus taught the prayer was during the first covenant economy. Did God lead the northern kingdom into Assyrian captivity? Or the southern kingdom into Babylonian captivity? Were the two kingdoms tried, as in an iron furnace, during their captivities and a faithful remnant, purged of dross, delivered? Is there yet another tribulation and great tribulation to be fulfilled?
I'm just thinking out loud here John. Perhaps the temptation is what Paul warned the unbelieving Jews of:
Acts 13:40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;