shMinn

5K posts

shMinn banner
shMinn

shMinn

@AshMinnehan

I drink to the word, raising a word or a shining cup Words give glass quality to glass, blood to blood, and life to life itself.

Katılım Ekim 2019
22 Takip Edilen36 Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
shMinn
shMinn@AshMinnehan·
@BrimstonedLLC Me and Grok have been having a come to Jesus talk
shMinn tweet media
English
1
0
2
389
Brimstone
Brimstone@BrimstonedLLC·
@TheExBeliever Sure. No problem. Ready? Jesus is a man. Hope this helps. (Had you ever actually READ the Bible, this wouldn’t be a question.)
English
3
0
2
48
Peaches 🍑💜
Peaches 🍑💜@PeacheswuzHere·
I’m having some lady time sweet tooth cravings & this sweet potato 🍠 w/ honey ain’t cutting it bro. 🙂‍↔️
Peaches 🍑💜 tweet media
English
2
0
4
51
shMinn
shMinn@AshMinnehan·
@PeacheswuzHere In other words, people were anxious about tomorrow so the tried to rationalize how God provides rather than why, or simply just trusting God will.
English
0
1
1
72
Peaches 🍑💜
Peaches 🍑💜@PeacheswuzHere·
let's get uncomfortable in the Christian community this morning, shall we?! lol The more i personally study Scripture for myself... the more i’ve started feeling like the Trinity may actually be one of those later theological systems that people now read back into the Bible instead of something the biblical authors themselves were directly trying to teach. And honestly... i don’t even think u necessarily need the Trinity framework at all in order to understand Scripture, follow Christ, or believe what the apostles preached. When i read the Bible plainly...i see constant emphasis on the Father as the one true God. Jesus repeatedly points people toward the Father. The apostles constantly distinguish between God & Jesus in their greetings, prayers, sermons, & teachings. Paul says: “For us there is one God, the Father...” 1 Corinthians 8:6 Jesus Himself says:“My Father is greater than i.” John 14:28 And maybe one of the biggest verses for me personally is when Jesus prays: “That they might know thee the only true God, & Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” John 17:3 When i slow down & just let those verses speak naturally...without importing centuries of later doctrinal language into them... it honestly feels much simpler than the complicated metaphysical explanations modern theology often builds around them. What really started standing out 2 me was realizing the word “Trinity” itself is nowhere in Scripture... nor do we see the apostles ever explaining God using phrases like: • “three co equal persons” • “one essence” • “co eternal” • “God the Son” • “God the Holy Spirit” Those are all later theological constructions. Again...bi understand why church history developed those ideas. People were trying 2 reconcile verses showing Christ’s divinity w/ verses showing distinction, submission, prayer, obedience, & the Father being identified as God. But personally... i’ve started wondering if alot of those later councils were trying to philosophically solve tensions Scripture itself simply leaves in place. & sometimes i think modern Western Christianity unintentionally treats the Trinity almost like a required lens that every verse must fit into...instead of letting the text define itself naturally. To me... the apostles preached Christ crucified, risen, exalted, Messiah, Son of God, Lord... & not a fully articulated doctrine of triune ontology. When Acts records evangelism over & over... people are called to repent, believe in Christ, follow God, receive the Spirit...but nobody is ever walked thru the later creedal formulas we now often treat as central. So personally... i’ve started asking myself whether the Trinity is actually Scripture’s foundation... or whether it became a later interpretive framework layered over Scripture after centuries of debate, philosophy, empire influence, & doctrinal consolidation. That does not mean i deny Christ’s authority, divinity, glory, or unique role whatsoever. It just means i’m no longer convinced the later creedal system itself is required in order to faithfully read or understand the Bible the way the earliest believers did. ✝️📖🕊️🙏👑✝️🔥🌿⚔️
English
32
4
21
1.3K
shMinn
shMinn@AshMinnehan·
@Hestia_Esq Within your own premise, who says yes? That's why. Less yesses.
English
0
0
0
29
shMinn
shMinn@AshMinnehan·
@ma1ybe you mean this is what happens when you can't keep your legs crossed?
English
0
0
0
0
shMinn
shMinn@AshMinnehan·
@nathancoxey What's the biblical example of canon selection?
English
0
0
0
7
Nathan
Nathan@nathancoxey·
In the entire Bible, there is zero example of God's people collecting, preserving, displaying, or venerating bones, skulls, tongues, hair, or body parts of dead prophets, apostles, or saints as an ongoing devotional practice. There's no model for relic collection or veneration.
English
172
26
311
13.7K
shMinn
shMinn@AshMinnehan·
@_BikiniBottoms @LizzieMarbach very good point The question is then was the witness knowingly in error. Sometimes false is not intentionally deceitful, but due to imperfect knowledge. Is anyone assuming Stephen had perfect knowledge?
English
1
0
0
3
Lizzie Marbach
Lizzie Marbach@LizzieMarbach·
I’ve never once heard any Protestant appeal to church authority or tradition for this answer. We trust that the Holy Spirit has kept His word pure. And we can tangibly see that he has with real historical evidence like the Dead Sea scrolls.
☦︎ 𝔓𝔞𝔱𝔯𝔦𝔰𝔱𝔦𝔠 𝔓𝔦𝔩𝔩 ☦︎@patristicpill

If you ask a Protestant how they know the Bible isn’t corrupted, they can’t answer this properly without appealing to authority and tradition

English
117
7
147
45.8K
Jason R Vessey
Jason R Vessey@JasonR32169·
@EX_EV0LUTIONIST @JohnAnneMarie2 @AshMinnehan @TheStaad Folk in denial will always find some way rubbish or distort scripture , which isn't very wise (2 Peter 3: 16). Re you last paragraph... 1 Cor 13: 1 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
English
2
0
1
23
Joey
Joey@TheStaad·
The Protestant Reformation was the beginning of the decay of Western civilization We’re still reaping its fruits
English
141
38
408
9.4K
shMinn
shMinn@AshMinnehan·
@man_of_options It's a sin if it results in failure to love God with all your heart
English
0
0
0
12
Rob B. Kowalski
Rob B. Kowalski@man_of_options·
“God met people where they were at,” so He regulated polygyny because men were going to do it anyway. Interesting theory. People were going to commit adultery anyway too… yet God never gave instructions for how to do adultery properly. Men were going to practice homosexuality too… yet God never regulated homosexuality. Because biblical polygyny was never treated as sin. But God DID regulate plural marriage. Because biblical polygyny was never treated as sin.
English
5
2
20
325
shMinn
shMinn@AshMinnehan·
@Joe84cisneros Where does Scripture say how to identify Scripture?
English
1
0
0
4
Joe Cisneros
Joe Cisneros@Joe84cisneros·
❌️La tradición se puede equivocar. ❌️El magisterio se puede equivocar. ✅️La Escritura jamás se puede equivocar Solo la Escritura es infalible.
Español
121
21
160
6.2K
shMinn
shMinn@AshMinnehan·
@RealDianeYap Not only will they still know, they might start to believe no one cares enough to help them get better
English
1
0
4
33
Diane Yap
Diane Yap@RealDianeYap·
If you don’t put kids into ability sorted reading groups, they’ll still know they’re poorly performing. It will be rubbed in their faces daily when better readers show them up without effort. You’re saying that’s more likely to lead to them making an effort?
Kevin McLeod@bannon1975

When a child is put in the lowest reading group, they usually know it. The name of the group doesn't fool anyone. The Butterflies. The Robins. The Stars. Children are very good at working out which group has the hardest books. And they carry the information about which one they're in for years. We designed a system that sorts children in plain sight and then wondered why some of them stopped trying.

English
3
0
24
1.7K
shMinn
shMinn@AshMinnehan·
@RealDianeYap Well, both outcomes are world changing. And plenty of sociopaths are proud of themselves So maybe the tradeoff is violent tendencies with occasional creative breakthroughs Can't have one without the other
English
0
0
0
10
Diane Yap
Diane Yap@RealDianeYap·
A man is more likely to be violent than invent some world changing technology. And yet, I always hear men taking credit for the latter while denying that men are violent. “But that’s only a small percentage of men!” Yes, even more so in the inventor case.
English
94
7
102
5.5K
shMinn
shMinn@AshMinnehan·
@laisofealdwine It's less about specific sins and more about mind-rightness. Make your thinking pure and your behavior will follow It's like saying
GIF
English
0
0
0
138
Ealdwine
Ealdwine@laisofealdwine·
If when Jesus said, “everyone who looks at a woman with desire/lust has already committed adultery” implies a married woman, then all Jesus has done is merge the commandments not to commit adultery and not to desire/covet your neighbor’s wife. This is rather unnecessary.
English
9
1
37
3.8K
The Heretical Liberal 🇨🇦
I'm 43 now, and I've now seen three distinct phases in my life regarding attitudes towards gender/sex. Here's a handy guide for determining which one is the correct take: 1) Pre-1990ish: "Little Billy can't play with dolls b/c he's a boy and everyone knows boys don't play with dolls" ❌ 2) 1990-2010: "Little Billy can play with dolls if he wants, boys can play with dolls. It doesn't make him any less of a boy" ✅ 3) 2010 - Present : "Little Billy IS a girl because he plays with dolls, because everyone knows boys don't play with dolls" ❌ As we can see, #2 is the correct choice. #1 and #3 are examples of toxic right wing gender norms, and toxic left wing gender norms, respectively. That's the funny thing about gender ideology; despite its adherents loud claims that they are somehow smashing traditional gender-based norms and stereotypes, they're actually rigidly enforcing them. The truly enlightened viewpoint is that there is no right or wrong way to be a boy or girl and kids should feel free to explore and play with whatever they want without activists with an agenda slapping an inappropriate label on them and forcing them into a pathway towards lifelong medicalization and dependency on Big Pharma.
English
240
1K
5.2K
146.3K
shMinn
shMinn@AshMinnehan·
@LizzieMarbach Is the concept of canon biblical or not? If so, where is it established?
English
0
0
0
15
🙏TERRE😇🧬
🙏TERRE😇🧬@EX_EV0LUTIONIST·
Because the scripture plainly shows that he was. Peter tacitly acknowledges Paul's rebuke with acceptance to all Christian's: 2 Peter 3:15-16 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as 𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒓 𝒃𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝑷𝒂𝒖𝒍 also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. If Peter had disagreed with Paul's rebuke, do you honestly think he wouldn't have said so in his epistles? He accepted the rebuke for what it was. A correction to his hypocritical withdrawal from the Gentiles at Galatians 2:11-21. His withdrawal had affected others behavior towards Gentiles as well. Barnabas had done the same thing. Paul was in keeping with what Jesus taught and Peter wasn't. They didn't make it a big deal. Paul corrected Peter and the behavior was modified to be in line with Jesus's teaching. Peter was grateful for the correction because it could have eventually led to his destruction had it not been so.
English
2
0
0
23
shMinn
shMinn@AshMinnehan·
@JohnAnneMarie2 @SpiritofourLord Whether fake or not (I think it's legit), it doesn't "vouch" for Paul. It says Paul is right on a narrow topic that Peter was just writing about, while adding to paraphrase "use at your peril." It's like the surgeon general's warning. You're free to choose risk. But why?
English
0
0
0
8
𝕮𝖆𝖗𝖑𝖔𝖘 יִשְׂרָאֵל
You know someone has slipped away from the truth when they start arguing that Paul was a false apostle and refer to the Holy Spirit as “she”.
English
6
2
28
692