Dominus

@chris_jolliff When Paul says “the gifts and calling are irrevocable” what exact gift do you think he’s talking about? Salvation or land?

I’m a Christian Zionist ✝️ 🇮🇱

JP II knew the Old Covenant was never salvific. It always pointed to its fulfillment in Christ. So when he speaks about “irrevocable,” he’s echoing Romans 11 about God’s faithfulness to His promises, not teaching a parallel covenant apart from Christ. The same passage says branches are broken off for unbelief and stand by faith and obedience. That’s the condition for everyone. Yes, we reject hatred. That’s non-negotiable. But charity doesn’t mean redefining the Gospel. The unity he’s talking about is fulfilled in Christ, not alongside Him. The Church has always held both together: God’s promises remain, and they are fulfilled in the Messiah. One people, one olive tree, brought in through Him. No Jesus, no covenant standing. That’s not hostility. That’s the faith the Apostles preached.

Speaking to the Jewish community in Rome, Pope John Paul II made crystal clear the teaching of the Catholic Church on 1) the brotherhood of Jews and Christians; 2) the sinfulness of anti-Jewish hatred and prejudice; and 3) the irrevocability of God's covenant with the Jewish people: "The Jewish religion is not 'extrinsic' to us, but in a certain way is 'intrinsic' to our own religion. With Judaism therefore we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearly beloved brothers and, in a certain way, you are our elder brothers. On the basis of this brotherhood renewed by Christ, the Church rejects every form of discrimination and anti-Semitism. She condemns them as contrary to the very spirit of Christianity. She deplores all hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews at any time and by anyone.... The covenant between God and the Jewish people has never been revoked. 'The gifts and the call of God are irrevocable' (Rom 11:29).

@grok @MissEnderoni @monicaonairtalk Thanks Grok. Debate over

Both sides cite Romans 11 well, but Dominus’s reading ties tighter to the text: branches broken for unbelief, grafted by faith alone, one olive tree, Deliverer from Zion who removes sins (i.e., conversion to Christ), enemies re: gospel yet beloved for the fathers’ sake. “All Israel saved” and irrevocable gifts point to God’s faithfulness leading to that faith-based ingathering—not ethnicity, nation-state, or bypass covenant. The highlights show the mechanism is Christ removing ungodliness, not automatic status. No verse here endorses 1948 fulfillment or dual tracks. Stronger exegetical fit overall.

Well, while everyone is celebrating Bishop’s smack down of Candace and Carrie (Temu Catholics) I’ve just been informed that Catholics believe “modern Israel is not the fulfillment of the prophecies” I’m done. I need to get off of here for the night. Never mind the commission. If you believe somehow Jews are left out of the end times and no longer candidates for salvation and did not return to their land (no matter who purchased it) you teach, preach and live a gospel of error.

@MissEnderoni @monicaonairtalk @grok who has the stronger arguments?

You’re quoting Romans 11, but you’re skipping the line that controls the whole passage. Paul says they were broken off for unbelief and stand by faith. That’s the condition. Not ethnicity. Not nationhood. Faith and obedience. So when he says “all Israel will be saved,” he immediately explains how: the Deliverer removes ungodliness and takes away sins. That’s conversion. That’s not a parallel covenant running without Christ. And look at your own highlight. “Enemies as regards the gospel.” That’s present tense. So no, they’re not in covenant while rejecting Him. “Beloved for the sake of the fathers” just means God is faithful to His promise. It doesn’t override the requirement of faith. “Irrevocable” describes God’s faithfulness, not automatic covenant status. If it did, Paul wouldn’t have said branches are cut off for unbelief in the same chapter. There’s one olive tree. You’re either in it by faith, or you’re not. That’s Paul’s argument. Not two tracks. Not a bypass around Christ.

This is the fruit of Protestantism, not a deviation from it. When authority is reduced to “my interpretation of the Bible,” there’s nothing stopping a Benny Hinn from doing the exact same thing and claiming the Spirit told him so. You can call him a heretic, but by what authority? Your interpretation vs his? That’s the problem you won’t deal with. Sola scriptura doesn’t eliminate error, it multiplies it. So this isn’t some random outlier this is just sola scriptura.

Please don’t ever confuse this heresy with biblical Christianity. Benny Hinn is a heretical false teacher who preys on society’s most vulnerable—the sick, disabled, and elderly.

@grok @RealTraderJill @krae9836 @grok In this exchange, which side relies more on insults versus engagement with the text?

In Romans 11:23, Paul is clear: the natural branches (Israel) “will be grafted in” if they “do not continue in their unbelief.” The condition is faith in Christ—not ethnicity. They were broken off for unbelief (v. 20); they stand by faith (same verse). One tree, one way back in. v. 29’s “irrevocable” gifts affirm God’s faithfulness to fulfill that through the Deliverer (v. 26), not apart from Him.

These faux Catholics like Carrie Prejean and Candace Owens have been Catholic for like 5 minutes, yet they seek to burn down the Church, Israel, the United States and Donald Trump screaming about their religious beliefs. The Church believes that modern day Israel has a right to exist, and the Church rejects antisemitism in all forms, so the fact that they don't believe modern-day Israel is the fulfillment of divine prophecy doesn't matter. That is purely an ideological and theological discussion, but has no place in politics. The replacement theologists are causing a schism in the Church, and the world, with their crap. Normal people believe that Israel has a right to exist without other religions blowing them up. This is not that damn hard.

@grok @RealTraderJill @krae9836 Thanks grok. @grok In Romans 11, what condition does Paul give for being grafted back in...ethnicity or faith and obedience?

Dominus has the stronger arguments here. His breakdown of Romans 11 stays faithful to the single olive tree, branches cut for unbelief and regrafted only by faith, with "irrevocable" meaning God's faithfulness through Christ—not a separate national track. This matches historic Christian fulfillment theology (Nostra Aetate, CCC 674), rejecting replacement while requiring Christ for all. TraderJill's view echoes dispensational emphasis on distinct ethnic covenants and modern Israel as prophecy, a sincere but newer interpretive lens that layers geopolitics onto the text. Longstanding debate, no consensus.

@RealTraderJill @krae9836 @grok who has the stronger arguments?

@DominusAD78 @krae9836 Yes, I have, so repeating myself is pointless. The scales will likely never fall from your eyes, and tbh IDGAF. That's between you and God. Not my business.

Your tone says more than your argument. You're nasty, condescending, and childish. You post a dumb gif and saying you don’t care, right after writing paragraphs trying to score points. That’s not confidence. That’s deflection. So now I'm going to embarrass you in front of everyone. You keep quoting Romans 11 like it supports your position, but you ignore the controlling line: they were broken off because of unbelief, and they stand by faith. Not ethnicity. Not national status. Faith and obedience. Paul couldn’t be clearer. The same passage you’re appealing to explicitly denies the idea that someone remains in covenant while rejecting Christ. “Irrevocable” doesn’t mean what you’re forcing it to mean. It means God is faithful to His promise. And that promise is fulfilled in Christ. That’s why Paul immediately ties everything to being grafted in through faith. No faith, no standing. That applies to Jew and Gentile alike. No one is “erasing Jews.” That’s your emotional framing because it sounds dramatic. The actual claim is simple: salvation is in Christ alone. Acts 4:12. That’s not hate. That’s the Gospel. You can keep posting gifs and pretending you’re above the conversation, but underneath all that, you still haven’t answered the basic point: where does Scripture teach that people remain in covenant with God while rejecting His Son? It doesn’t. And that’s why you have to keep dodging back into sarcasm instead of dealing with the text.

P.S. I could do this all day with you and it won't change your mind about anything and to be frank: I just don't care about you. Those of you who want to delegitimize the nation do so for your own twisted reasons and it's usually so you can erase or hate them. I'm not interested.

There it is. Sarcasm and insults because you can’t actually deal with the scripture. No one skipped Romans 11. You’re the one flattening it. Verse 1, God hasn’t rejected His people. Agreed. Verse 26, all Israel will be saved. Agreed. Now read the middle, not just the parts you like: They were cut off for unbelief. They stand by faith. They’re grafted back in if they don’t remain in unbelief. That’s Paul’s structure not mine. So your whole “irrevocable = they remain in covenant as a nation while rejecting Christ” doesn’t come from the text. It’s something you’re importing into it. “Irrevocable” speaks to God’s faithfulness, not a bypass around Christ. Otherwise Paul contradicts himself three verses earlier when he says they were broken off. And your “temporary blindness = national covenant status stays intact” just doesn’t follow. Blindness is the problem. Faith is the solution. Same tree, same condition. Then you jump to Ezekiel and the prophets like that solves it. It doesn’t. The prophets themselves tie restoration to repentance and a new heart. Ezekiel 36 literally says God will give them a new spirit. That’s not secular nationalism. That’s conversion. You’re reading modern events back into ancient prophecy and calling it fulfillment. The apostles didn’t do that. They read everything through Christ. And the “replacement theology” line is just lazy at this point. No one said replacement. The Church teaches fulfillment. The promises are completed in Christ and opened to all. No one is “evicted.” People are cut off for unbelief and brought in through faith. That’s Paul’s own language. And drop the antisemitism smear. Disagreeing with your end-times map isn’t hatred. It’s refusing to turn the Gospel into a geopolitical program. You can mock all you want, but you still haven’t shown where Scripture teaches a covenant people remaining in good standing while rejecting Christ.

Oh, bless your heart, Dominus, you absolute theological Einstein. You cracked the code on Romans 11 by pointing out they were "cut off for unbelief." Groundbreaking stuff. No one's ever noticed that before. Meanwhile, you sprinted right past verse 1 ("Has God cast away His people? Certainly not!"), verse 29 ("the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable"), and the grand finale in verse 26 ("all Israel will be saved"). But sure, keep pretending the whole chapter is just Paul winking at your one-tree supersessionist trash. "Irrevocable" can't possibly mean God keeps His word to the Jewish people as a nation even while some reject Christ? Nah, it totally means "God will drag them back through Jesus eventually, so my theology stays comfy." Brilliant. And "one tree, not two tracks"? Exactly. Natural branches (the Jews) get grafted back in after their temporary blindness. Not "the Church hijacks everything forever and calls it fulfillment while the original owners are eternally evicted." That cute leap dismissing modern Israel as "not in the text"? Adorable. Because clearly Ezekiel 36-37, Isaiah 11, Amos 9, and a dozen other prophets weren't foaming at the mouth describing Jews regathering to their ancient land in the last days after 1,900 years of exile. 1948? 1967? Just random "events," right? Not prophecy. Romans 11 is solely about individual covenant membership, not a sovereign nation rising from the ashes exactly as foretold. Got it. Keep rebranding replacement theology as "fulfillment" like it's a new coffee flavor. It's precious how you guys twist "God is faithful" into "God replaced them and now the Church is the real Israel, deal with it." It's sickening to watch you people twist yourselves into pretzels and warp scripture just so you can splash your hate all over the only Jewish nation. The scales never fell from Pharaoh's eyes either, but hey, that's in God's hands. Keep coping. 🙄

You’re quoting Romans 11, but you’re skipping the part that actually explains it. Paul says they were cut off for unbelief. He says you stand by faith. And he says they’re grafted back in if they don’t remain in unbelief. That’s the whole logic of the chapter. So “irrevocable” can’t mean they stay in the covenant while rejecting Christ. It means God is faithful to His promise and will bring them back through Christ, not around Him. There’s one tree. Not two tracks. Not a parallel covenant system. And the leap to “modern Israel fulfills prophecy” just isn’t in the text. Romans 11 is about covenant membership, not a modern state. This isn’t replacement. It’s fulfillment. Everything flows through Christ, and no one is in apart from Him.

Wrong. Biblical Israel is the Jewish people with irrevocable covenants. Matt 10:32-33 is about confessing Jesus as Lord for salvation, which I do boldly every day. It has nothing to do with replacement theology. Romans 11:1 says "Has God cast away His people? Certainly not!"? The Church is grafted into Israel (17-24), not a replacement. Their calling is irrevocable (29). Modern Israel fulfills prophecy, not denies Christ. I've gone dowe this road before with you replacement theologists and this is my only comment to your cherry-picking nonsense. You want to believe that they are illegitimate so you can cover for all manner of evil where they're concerned. Nothing I say to you, or proof provided will change your mind because it doesn't with any of you. The scales never fell from Pharoah's eyes either. Some of you are the same. That's in God's hands not mine.

You’re not making a biblical argument, you’re reacting emotionally. Throwing out “demons" “Pharisees” and “repent” doesn’t prove anything. It just shows you’re upset. If something was wrong, you should be able to point to Scripture and explain why. Truth isn’t measured by your feelings. So instead of labeling people, show where the teaching is false. Otherwise shut up and stop crying.

I’m out bro, I held on to hope and always had great respect for you but you’re just lost at this point. I’ve never done guilt by association, and just because you’re friendly with some garbage people I’ve never used that metric alone to judge you personally, but if you think that was a “spiritual experience” thats my final straw. What happened yesterday was a bunch of literal fucking demons stood at a podium and misrepresented Gods word to a group of modern day Pharisees. It wasn’t “spiritual”, but it was Biblical. I’ve seen how this movie ends, and it doesn’t work out well for the people in that room. I hope you realize that and repent before it’s too late. “Open rebuke is better than secret love.” Proverbs: 27:5

@oliverburdick x.com/i/status/20349…

The Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered in 1947) contain manuscripts of the Book of Isaiah from over 2000 years ago. When compared to the copies we have today, the text was nearly identical. Isaiah 40:8 - "The word of our God endures forever.”

That’s just historically off. Jerome didn’t “assemble a 66-book Bible.” The 66 book canon is a much later Protestant reduction. Jerome translated the Scriptures into Latin, and even when he had personal doubts about some books, he still included the Deuterocanon because the Church used them. So the question flips back on you: if Jerome defers to the Church’s judgment on the canon, why don’t you? And more to the point, your 66 book list doesn’t come from Jerome, it comes from the Reformation...over a thousand years after the Vulgate.

@DominusAD78 @sola_chad Your own Jerome assembled the 66 books in his translation from original languages into Latin, the Vulgate (arguably one of the best translations ever done!). Do you reject that Book?

The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1947, contain Old Testament manuscripts over 1,000 years older than previously known copies. When compared to later copies, the text was nearly identical. God preserved it through the centuries, just like He said He would (Isaiah 40:8).

@JoeySalads You mean MIGA.

Lauren Boebert follows in MTG’s path by going Anti-MAGA. I seen this coming years away, I hated ALL of these MAGA grifter politicians. They built their entire influence on being MAGA, as soon as they see a new grift they jump ship.

@TradCathGuy @CharlieSue_USA @CforCatholics Nice name you have there. 🙏🏼

@CharlieSue_USA @DominusAD78 @CforCatholics What’s wrong with the picture exactly?

As a practicing Catholic I am NOT complicit with nominal Catholics weaponizing our faith against Jews as seen in @CforCatholics 💯

Yes, Confirmation and the Eucharist complete initiation. No one disputes that. But “not fully initiated” doesn't mean “not Catholic.” That’s the category error. The canons you cites actually undercut your point. Canon 842 says Baptism is the gateway. Canon 866 describes what should happen ideally, not what must happen for someone to count as Catholic. If your logic were right, then every baptized Catholic child who hasn’t been confirmed yet wouldn’t be Catholic. That’s absurd. “Full initiation” is about completion, not existence. You don’t go from non-Catholic to Catholic at Confirmation. You go from initiated to fully initiated.

ADULT CATHOLIC CONVERSION: There’s a lot of confusion around converts and the Sacraments of Initiation—so let’s be precise: Catechumens = unbaptized adults preparing for Baptism Candidates = already validly baptized, seeking full communion But here’s what many miss: Neither is FULLY INITIATED (read Catholic) into the Catholic Church until ALL three Sacraments of Initiation are received: → Baptism (if needed) → Confirmation → Eucharist This is defined: CCC 1212: “The sacraments of Christian initiation—Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist—lay the foundations of every Christian life.” CCC 1285: “Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the ‘sacraments of Christian initiation,’ whose unity must be safeguarded.” CCC 1322: “The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation.” Canon Law is just as clear: Canon 842 §2: “The sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and the Most Holy Eucharist are so interrelated that they are required for full Christian initiation.” Canon 866 (adults): “An adult who is baptized is to be confirmed immediately after Baptism and participate in the Eucharist.” Canon 889 §2: To receive Confirmation, one must be properly disposed and instructed—because it is necessary for completion of initiation. Bottom line: Even if someone is baptized, they are not FULLY Catholic until they are received into the Church and complete initiation through Confirmation and Eucharist. Anything less = incomplete initiation. (Candace Owens, April 2024)

Protestants often quote Scripture the same way every heresy does. They start with a conclusion, then read it back into the text while claiming they’re just “following the Bible.” For example, they read sola scriptura into Scripture, while ignoring that Scripture never teaches it and doesn’t even give you its own canon. That’s why you get thousands of conflicting denominations, all claiming the same “clear” Bible. It’s not that Scripture is unclear. It’s that once you reject the Church, the final authority just becomes you.

Roman Catholics often quote scriptures in the same way cults do. They have a position that they try to read back into scripture rather than drawing their position from scripture. For example they try to read the Pope into scripture. It’s similar to how Muslims try to read Mohammed into scripture.