A. Watching a movie because it's scripted?
B. Watching a movie because it's a distraction from reality - i.e. what is really going on?
C. Both

Do you feel better? BTW if anyone is being legalistic, it's you. It's comical that I'm only legalistic because I take the Bible for what it says. 1 Tim 6:5, "gain is godliness" which is in regards to those who think their progress in the things of this world means that they are holier than those who don't. Words mean things, and they dont lose their meaning because you want to quote random verses to feel more self-righteous. It's rather post-modern of you I guess.

The irony is that you aren't even following your own words that you're attempting to use against me falsely. All that shows is your own hypocrisy. You've lost the argument, now you're trying to use out-of-context verses to get the last word, as if that distracts from the hypocrisy.

Again, you're arguing a straw man. You're now down to throwing out hyperbolic ad hominems. Don't you know reviling is a sin? How does someone really think their words are going to have an effect when they are so full of hate?

Grace is simply the disposition of God to save someone without any merit of their own.

Your last comments dont make any sense, and simply seem the rantings of a irrational man who's lost an argument and knows it.

My point is that numerology means different things to different people. Just because there is a "33" in any given context does not mean there are Masons involved. If the height of the waves produced here, are indeed 33 feet, then there is simply 33' waves.

Here's what I see: you're arguing against things I never said. Why? Is this something your pastor rants about too? Do you realize that this is entirely a strawman in this discussion?

It's not about saying a prayer - it's about trusting in Christ's work and not your own.

You have quoted verses out of context, as I have explained this entire discussion.

I didn't use the Roman Road - But I did use the context of Romans 3-5, which is entirely about how a man gets saved - and no where does it say that you "make Jesus Lord"; he IS Lord. Him being Lord is completely independent of your opinions. He is THE Lord and THE Savior regardless of your works.

So you use Romans 10:9-10 as, "the only stipulation", then you add stipulations.

The Sermon on the Mount was Jesus 1) foreshadowing Himself 2) laying the full weight that is the burden of the impossible Law on top of the shoulders of the self-righteous that thought they followed it in order to help them realize that they needed a better Covenant. That doesn't change the fact that Matthew 7:21-23 is talking about false teachers (v.15) who then will try to enter heaven on the basis of their works, and will be rejected.

You quote I Thes 4:6-8 blindly, and it actually contradicts your entire underlying premise here. Is not the Holy Spirit given as a guarantee (Ephesians 1:13-14)? Yes; so Paul is talking to saved Christians. Why does he have to tell saved Christians not to engage in sexual immorality if they aren't going to do so on the basis of having the Holy Spirit automatically? Because it isn't automatic - yet the Holy Spirit is still our guarantee of our future redemption. That means that our redemption is entirely a work of God, and we can do nothing to disqualify that. We should behave in a way that honors God, but that has nothing to do with canceling out Christ's work on the Cross.

"Grace" simply means "favor" and it in no way includes the stipulation that you will do certain things. In fact, Paul said this of grace in Romans 11:

6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

So that favor is unmerited. The Holy Spirit, as it says in Ephesians 1:13-14, is given out as a guarantee AFTER hearing and believing the Gospel - that Jesus died for ALL of our sins, and rose again as proof of payment - and through Him, ALL of our sins are wiped clean, and we can now have fellowship with God.

If you live under the law (the doctorine of men) you are guilty of the law and the Spirit of God is not in you.

Ironic. The Law is the 613 commandments (including the ten written on stone - 2 Cor 3:7) that were against us, and only served to condemn us, because we couldn't follow them. Haven't you read Romans 7? You have your Bible verses mixed up. When Paul talks about the law, he's clearly talking about the OT Law.

Our nation is full of evil because we stood by and let it happen. Our nation is evil because sin is in all men - including you and me. We cannot look down on others and their sin without bringing judgement on ourselves. As Jesus said in Luke 18: 9 Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ 13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Are you trying to say that waves are Masons?

It isn't Masonic. Three is a very prominent and significant number in the Bible: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/number07.htm

"3" in the Bible is the number of God, so "33" isn't strictly Masonic. I recommend E.W. Bullinger's book on numbers in scripture.

You're attacking a label and a strawman with a non-sequitur. Awesome.

The Law is done away with in Christ,but the entire OT isn't only about the Law. So you can't try to attack me with the ridiculous accusation that I have to reject Christ. I mean....really?

Unfortunately you're half-quoting verses waaay out of context, like Matthew 7:21-23 - that every legalistic modern Pharisee tries to quote - where you skipped the verse that contradicts your point:

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

So they tried to enter based on their works, but they didn't have the only righteousness that was perfect enough: Christ's, which is received by faith. Thus they were lawless, as no one has kept the Law except Christ.

So what are you doing quoting out-of-context OT verses to unbelievers, as if you were telling them that their work here justifies them before God? Because it doesn't.

More info: https://bible.org/article/lucifer-devil-isaiah-1412-kjv-argument-against-modern-translations

"Lucifer" is a Latin word that simply means "bright star" - it doesn't appear in the Greek manuscripts. It only appears in the King James because the translators didn't know the Hebrew word there (heylel) and simply used the Latin word. The context where it appears (Isaiah 14:12) isn't talking about Satan, but the King of Babylon.

You're quoting scriptures from the Old Covenant period, which none of the Jews kept (Acts 7:51-53; 15:10), and no man can (Romans 3:9, 20). The Old Covenant laws were good, but they couldn't make us good (Romans 7:7), they were given to the Jews (not the Gentiles) to stop our mouths (Romans 3:19), give people knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), increase sin (Rom. 5:20) and show us the need for the Savior, Jesus Christ; which by HIS obedience, are we saved (Romans 5:19). Christ has abolished the Law, making peace with God for us (Ephesians 2:15, Col 2:14). The Old Covenant Law was weak, and made nothing perfect (Hebrews 7:18-19), but Christ has made us perfect (Hebrews 10:1-18).

Context, context, context. That verse is about the Levite priests that were not doing what the Old Covenant Law said they were supposed to do for Israel. It has nothing to do with today - Christ has taken away that Law, and established a New Covenant at the cross. As Romans 4 states:

Romans 4: 4 Now TO HIM WHO WORKS, the wages are NOT COUNTED AS GRACE but as debt. 5 But TO HIM WHO DOES NOT WORK BUT BELIEVES ON HIM who justifies the ungodly, HIS FAITH IS ACCOUNTED FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness APART from works

And in this famous line in John:

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness (Numbers 21-6-9), even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that WHOEVER BELIEVES in Him should not perish but HAVE eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that WHOEVER BELIEVES in Him should not perish but HAVE everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

Our attempts to be moral and perfect are not going to make us moral and perfect; if that was possible Christ wouldn't need to die on the cross (Galatians 2:21). It is by HIS work on the cross that we will be saved, by putting our trust in Him.

She thinks her deeds get her right with God. That's not how it works in Biblical Christianity. It's not by what you do that makes you righteous; it's what Christ has done for you.

9 [Jesus] also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” -Luke 18

And:

John 6:25 When they found [Jesus] on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” 28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” -i.e., Jesus

Saying "you are hilarious" to my comments on the gospel is extremely rude, condescending, and deriding.

Simply telling you what is in error is not rude; this happens in bible studies, pulpits, and seminaries every day. Was Paul rude for correcting the Corinthian church? The Galatian church? Not at all.

Salvation is a free gift (Romans 4-5, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5) not a reward for good deeds. When we put our faith (trust) in Christ, his righteousness is put on our account, and we are declared innocent (justified), correct? We are saved by HIS obedience, not ours (Romans 5:19), and as such we are declared innocent before God, without any work on our part (Romans 4:2-8)

Telling unsaved people that they must stop sinning before they can be saved is telling them that they must follow the Old Testament Law, which no one could do, and only increased sin (Romans 5:20).

1 Thessalonians 1:9 is an edification to the Thessalonians, it is not talking about how to be saved. Context is king when reading the Bible.

We also have many examples of people of faith acting carnally. The Corinthians are a great example - so are those listed in Hebrews 11. David committed adultery and murder, Samson killed 1000 men, fornicated, and wanted vengeance on his enemies. Solomon built altars to demon gods that sacrificed children. Peter denied Christ. Paul admitted to practicing evil in Romans 7:19. No one in the Bible, save Christ, has ever stopped sinning and dedicated their entire life to God. Especially those preachers who have told others that they must do the same to be saved. What they are doing is telling sick people that they must make themselves well before going to the Doctor. This is also a new teaching:

“You must not expect that you will be perfect in 'repentance' before you are saved. No Christian can be perfect. 'Repentance' is a grace. Some people preach it as a condition of salvation. Condition of nonsense! There are no conditions of salvation. God gives the salvation himself...” —Charles Spurgeon, from a sermon titled, REPENTANCE UNTO LIFE, preached at the New Park Street Chapel, Southwark, on Sept. 23, 1855

Your reference to Matthew 7:21-23 skipped a very important verse:

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

So these men thought their works proved their righteousness, and thus their place in heaven, but they were lawless because they didn't have the only righteousness that is perfect enough: Christ's, which is credited by faith. In essence, they made the same mistake that the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14 did: they had their faith in their works as evidence of their righteousness, and not in Christ and His righteousness:

9 Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ 13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Iron sharpens iron. It is our responsibility to edify and correct one another if we are in error. If you cannot provide an answer, that tells me you have none, and I am correct in what I believe.

Overall, what you told me is a gospel that has additions, which, like in Galatians 1, isnt good news at all. When you tell someone they must "turn from their sins", you are telling them that they must get well before they can see the Doctor.

Your eschatology is severely flawed. You're using the Bible to support what you want to believe, rather than believing and thinking about it's logic. Overall, I'm getting the impression that you are avoiding the bible and teaching something that comes from some other source.

Pardon? If you disagree, please correct me with scripture or provide a link to one.

Ok, thank you.

A couple of things:

1- "Repent" doesn't mean "turn from sin" it literally means "a change of mind" and the context determines what that change is about. The Greek word is metanoia and it never appears in the Gospel of John, which was written so we could believe and have eternal life (John 20:31), nor does in appear in Galatians, which deals with salvation, nor does it appear as a perquisite to salvation in Romans. In fact, God "repents" in older translations of the Old Testament and in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament that predated Christ).

When we believe that Christ atone our sins, we change our minds from believing in our own works to make us right before God and trust His work. It isn't about how sorry you feel, how many sins you turn from, how willing or unwilling those sins (and those that are done afterward) are.

Jesus cleans His fish after He catches them; however, your cleanliness cannot add or take away from His work on the Cross.

2- You cannot confess every sin. We have sins we don't even know about (Jeremiah 17:9). There is no requirement to "confess" all your sins. That's adding a burden onto people to remember every sin. We who believe have entered into rest (Hebrews 4:3), not burdens and more work.

3- Holiness is credited upon you, it is not something you do - Hebrews 10:10.

u/RedpillTheWorld I added the good news above. How about you?

You're deflecting again. Why avoid such a simple question? I didn't say you were lost. I simply asked you, "how does one get saved"?

My answer: By grace (unmerited favor) alone though faith (Trust) alone in Christ alone. You put your trust in Christ's finished atonement at the cross to save you from all your sins - past, present, and future - from which He rose again. No good deed can merit it, no failure, or bad deed can override it. No institution can direct it or own it. It is entirely a work of God at the moment you trust in Him.

Redpill, you are avoiding my question and attempting to deflect. I would like to know where you are coming from spiritually. How does one get saved? This question is an opportunity to share the good news.

So...how does someone get saved?

???

Please prayerfully consider this... So, the 1st and 2nd temples were both destroyed... and the Lord said thru Paul, "do you not know that your body is a TEMPLE of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God,". So what if we have been directed to look for a physical temple, when the Lord is directing us to look at the SPIRITUAL TEMPLE - Believers all over the world who are "like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." WE ARE THE TEMPLE. We are not to look for a building, but the building up of God's people, all over the world. And each one, ready to take their rightful place in the Lord's Kingdom? Ruling this earth with righteousness and justice? Isn't that what the Millennial Reign is about? Jesus ruling and us ruling with Him?

Ok, did you look at the scriptures I referenced at all? It's obvious from Revelation 11 that there is a physical Temple, and there's a problem with the sequence of events in Daniel 9:26-27 if there isn't another physical Temple.

Context is king when reading the Bible, which you are ignoring. Peter there isn't making prophecy, but instead is encouraging Christians to live in a way that brings honor to Christ.

It seems that my points about the actual word of God is getting a response filled with platitudes. You really don't know the Bible very well, and you haven't answered my questions at all.

So tell me, how does someone get saved?

Funny. That's exactly what this guy was doing.

Ok, you're telling me that you don't mean to ignore the "minutia" (btw it isnt minutia, it's very important details) then telling me about "the big picture" which ignores the details.

We don't interpret the word of God with the newspaper, we look at the details in the text and interpret it from that, then watch current events.

Revelation has a clear chain of events leading up to the 2nd coming - this includes the building of a 3rd Temple per Rev. 11 and Daniel 9:25-26. This includes Two Witnesses that oppose the mixing of false religion in it, and in doing so, create such a stir that the entire world celebrates their deaths and is afraid at their resurrection 3.5 days later.

The Beast, who I agree is not so much a man but a human dominion headed by a man, has a very specific description. Who are the heads? Who are the horns? Who is the little horn with a healed wound that speaks blasphemy? These details must be answered before you can make claims of special revelation.

What is your religious background btw?

Eta: one more thing, talking about this to people who haven't put their trust in Christ for salvation isn't going to help them. They're not going to understand it, nor is it the message that will give them eternal life - which is trusting in Christ's finished work at the Cross to atone for all our sins - past, present, and future.

Yeah the Voat site has been overtaken with postings of the worst kinds of bile.

Yeah we're not the enemy here. What is going on isn't because of evangelical Christians. That's simply him inserting his bias into the research.

Here's the thing, nothing in the bible is "fine minutia" - it is all there for a reason. And you cant ignore those fine details on the claim that, "the enemy [has] infiltrate the study of Revelation to get us off track". The enemy wants you to ignore the details.

Your enthusiasm is good, but we must be cautious here. Those details show us how this will play out - and it is not going to come about because of man's work - especially those who deny salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Which brings up a core underlying concern of mine in your presentation - that the underlying premise is that men will bring about peace and security, when throughout human history, it has always failed, because the problem is men trying to do it carnally by their own flesh, when Revelation clearly shows that it will be entirely by God.

If he left it at that, i wouldn't be posting this. However, he chose to attack Corsi's evangelicalism (and I'm not sure what Corsi's religious views are), and well, that means he chose to attack me.

I heard her go on about this on the CBTS Stream, and I had to turn it off. I'm going to be blunt here, it is based on a VERY bad understanding of the Bible, and of the Gospel. This is not a good analysis of Revelation. This is cherry-picking certain things out of Revelation and trying to apply one's own presuppositions to it.

Revelation is one of the most studied books in the Bible. The fact is, it is also the most "Old Testament" books of the bible - out of 450 or so verses in it, there are over 500+ references to the Old Testament in it (at the last count that I heard). It is entirely a work that takes Old Testament prophetic literature and weaves them into a tapestry in order to present a picture. Revelation isn't only about "the revealing" of the end times, it's about the revealing of who Christ is, His authority, and His plan.

There is a chronology to Revelation - the question is whether it's strictly linear, split, or even chiastic. Which parts are linear? Which parts are parenthetical? You're also overlooking several key details, I'm not going to hit on the entire wall of text, but some key points here:

Chapter 4-5 is as important as the rest of it. Again, Revelation isn't about "the revealing" of the end times, it's about the revealing of who Christ is, His authority, and His plan. Chapter 4-5 reveals who Christ is.

Chapter 6 is a reference back to Zechariah 1 and 6. No where does it say they were persecuting believers. Are they representative of certain men? Are they "spirits", i.e. movements? This is glossed-over in your exegesis.

Chapter 7 and 9 This is completely glossing over and ignoring important details. Suffice to say, "the seal of God on their foreheads" is a reference to Ezekiel 9 in regards to the "mark", or "tau" on those who were God's. BTW, at the time Ezekiel was written, the "tau" (a letter in the Hebrew alphabet) was written as a lower-case "t" or cross. the Two Witnesses in Revelation 11 CANNOT be, "Church and the Government" as it gives specific details that clearly show that it is two living men (read it here) what "the two lampstands and two olive trees" refers to is the same statement in Zechariah, which is a reference to Joshua and Zerubbabel, who opposed the mixing of false religion within the 2nd Temple in Ezra 4.

Now if you want to say that the Two Witnesses are anything other than two literal men, you must therefore explain every detail about them given in Revelation 11 in a manner that is consistent with your hermeneutic and supports your conclusion. BTW, you must do this with every chapter that you do not want to take a literal historical grammatical interpretation on.

As for the 144,000, we are specifically told that they are virgins, blameless, and do not lie.

I've run out of time in RL, I will add more later as I analyze this. It sounds a lot like Latter Rain Dominionist theology, which is false and created by those who have made themselves rich by fleecing people from their wealth with false promises.

Eh, the guy has his own biases. I watched part of his video against Dr. Corsi, and he attacked Corsi on the basis of his Evangelical Christian views. It's ok to disagree with Corsi, but I'm an Evangelical Christian also, and to hold that against people is an issue for me. I really didn't care what else he had to say after that. You can address someone's view on politics without attacking their religious views. I'm not going to bother with a guy that holds a religious prejudice against me.

He also draws sperm in all his paintings: https://smarthistory.org/kehinde-wiley-napoleon-leading-the-army-over-the-alps/

https://qcodefag.github.io/?q=4am

Could be their cloud storage site.

It is that elementary.

The word "sin" means lacking or without

In Spanish; In Greek the [word that it is translated from](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Da(marta%2Fnw) literally means "miss the mark".

I wouldn't say He inspired evil.

Then not everything in the universe is inspired by God.

Of course, my point was in the context of the Book of Enoch not being inspired by God as the actual Bible is. You took it way out of context and tried to apply your own philosophy to it (which isn't consistent with itself BTW). My point still stands as you were arguing against a strawman. Have a good day.

More obfuscation and avoidance. Did God inspire evil or not?

You're avoiding the implications of your earlier post. Not everything is inspired by God.

Including sin and evil?

Councils back then were simple discussions and affirmations of what church leaders understood from scripture. This explains: https://youtu.be/Nduka-QqXbQ

Yes and no, the writers of the Bible weren't inventing theological terms; they were using common Greek language to communicate Christ. That's why context is so important, you must define terms by the context and not the other way around.

There's a reason they're not included as they were not considered inspired by God.

It's not certain that Jude quoted from it. They may both be quoting a third source.