shMinn

@BrimstonedLLC Me and Grok have been having a come to Jesus talk

@BrimstonedLLC @TheExBeliever Jesus was also aware of the optics

@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.)

So, apparently, ‘God’ needed baptism. Immediately after the baptism, another god, the Spirit, came upon Jesus and immediately led him into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. Matthew 3-4. Make this story make sense.

I’m having some lady time sweet tooth cravings & this sweet potato 🍠 w/ honey ain’t cutting it bro. 🙂‍↔️

@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.

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. ✝️📖🕊️🙏👑✝️🔥🌿⚔️

@Hestia_Esq Within your own premise, who says yes? That's why. Less yesses.

Why is this always framed as an issue with women? Do people think 30 year old men are getting married in better numbers? Are men not the ones who choose when to propose and typically the ones dragging their feet towards commitment?

@ma1ybe you mean this is what happens when you can't keep your legs crossed?

Hot take but we literally tried to warn you that this is what happens when abortion access isn’t accessible.

@nathancoxey What's the biblical example of canon selection?

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.

@_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?

@AshMinnehan @LizzieMarbach No, but seems like you're implying that Saint Stephen is giving a false testimony....

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.

@JasonR32169 @EX_EV0LUTIONIST @JohnAnneMarie2 @TheStaad Who is the authority, the master or the servant?

@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.

The Protestant Reformation was the beginning of the decay of Western civilization We’re still reaping its fruits

@man_of_options It's a sin if it results in failure to love God with all your heart

“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.

@Joe84cisneros Where does Scripture say how to identify Scripture?

❌️La tradición se puede equivocar. ❌️El magisterio se puede equivocar. ✅️La Escritura jamás se puede equivocar Solo la Escritura es infalible.

@RealDianeYap Not only will they still know, they might start to believe no one cares enough to help them get better

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?

@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

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.

@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

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.

@Rob_ThaBuilder 4) 1890s: "Little Billy can go mine coal"

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.

@_BikiniBottoms @LizzieMarbach Is a court transcript wrong if it records false testimony?

@LizzieMarbach History says it's wrong here 👇🏻

@LizzieMarbach Is the concept of canon biblical or not? If so, where is it established?

@EX_EV0LUTIONIST @JohnAnneMarie2 @JasonR32169 @TheStaad because of character limits, here is screen shot of typed reply in word document

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.

@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?

@SpiritofourLord @AshMinnehan A fake, such as 2 Peter, can certainly not be used as evidence of anything.

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”.