W. Bathgate

I believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah, the Son of God, come in the flesh, and that God Almighty in his infinite mercy sent him so that through his birth, life, ministry, death, and resurrection people can be reconciled and turned to God and saved, and that through this salvation they are able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

The actual physical land is part of the covenant God made with Abraham. Gen 12: 6-7. Gen 15: 8-21 Gen 17: 7-8 Gen 26: 3 Gen 28: 13 The covenant God made with Abraham is the reason the nations (Gentiles) were blessed through his descendant, Jesus. We had all better trust that God does not break his covenants. He is faithful to keep them. Blessed be His name.

@RealBrysonGray @Unapologx How so? Or you just saying your opinion again?

“Jesus fulfilled it all. There is a new covenant. Those who are in Christ, that is the new people of God. The church is the new Israel. The land is meaningless.” -Carrie Boller Jesus's sacrifice is enough.

@RevesJM Imagine the person programming a game deciding to directly interact with one of the characters. How would he do it?

Was Moses facing a divine manifestation of God or was this encounter with an angel? “The Lord said to Moses, “Come up to me on the mountain and stay here, and I will give you the tablets of stone with the law and commandments I have written for their instruction.”

@HeraldHarvest preach

IF it’s true that, according to trinitarians, Paul’s whole point in 1 Cor 8:6 was to “incorporate Jesus into the Jewish Shema”, and IF this is supposedly as obvious as trinitarians try to make it seem… Then why do I never see trinitarians just quoting 1 Cor 8:6 as a straightforward Trinitarianism “proof-text”? If it’s so obvious that’s what Paul is doing here, then why is it that I only see this “Shema” interpretation used as a defense against unitarians? One might be forgiven for thinking this whole “Shema interpretation” is just a clever attempt to EVADE what’s REALLY obvious in the text, I.e. that Paul has identified the Father alone as the one God.

@TheOfficerTatum "Debunked misinformation"...... I've heard that before.... just can't quite remember...

1 COR 7:17-18 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised.

I'm amazed at how many Gentile believers insist Jews need to become Gentiles in order to be saved. If Paul was adamant Gentiles didn't need to become Jews in order to be saved, he would be adamant that Jews don't need to become Gentiles to be saved.

This is true. Bird, Magic, (gulp) Jordan took an existing prototype and evolved it to the highest level. Curry changed the entire way NBA basketball is played. If your old like me and have watched it through both eras you know its the truth. Not saying I like the NBA now, but hate it or love it, it's really the way it is now because of Steph.

Curry is the most influential nba player ever. That’s objectively true.

@Dom1968Juan 🤣

Lil' dude is going to be single all his life 🤣🤣

James is writing to Jewish followers of the Messiah. If you read who the letter is addressed to he let's you know. Just like Paul makes it very clear that he is the apostle to the Gentiles. They are not in disagreement, they have different audiences. Also, the first 8 books of Romans are Paul instructing both groups that they have to practice good works and live righteously.

"You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." Every Protestant can and should affirm this statement.

For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins

I don't use the term Replacement theology much. I still do, usually it is by accident because I am used to using it. When it comes to that approach to Scripture, I refer to it as anti-covenant theology. It makes my issue with that view a lot clearer.

@osasisHERESY The other thing to note is that the letter is written to a mixed church. Jews and Gentiles. Both groups are "Christians" though. I think in the verse you quoted he's chastising the Jewish Christians. Not because they are Jews, but because they aren't living righteously.

@bbathgate3510 Exactly amen

Why do ppl reject what the Bible says? Romans 2:28-29 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 Paul literally tells you a jew is one who's hearts are circumcised by the Holy Spirit That's Christians It couldn't be anymore clearer than that

@theocraticking1 💯 I will just shut these convos down as soon as I realize they are just arguing through a chat bot.

@bbathgate3510 Things like that will become more common. It does reveal one thing. The person is more interested in winning a debate than being edified by true biblical discussion.

I have a new term: A.I.segesis - this is when someone responds to a biblical argument with an answer which obviously came from ChatGPT. ~ Pastor Keith Foskey

These people were (still are) so far removed from the teachings of the Messiah that I wonder sometimes if it was ignorance, or if they were willfully and consciously opposing God while pretending to be "churchmen". The taking of a human life is the greatest offense because humans are the literal image bearers of God. It is not to be done because of a disagreement about theology.

Refuse the trinity? Challenge the doctrine? Some think you should die.

well, I am sorry. I'm not here to argue with Bots. Bots are also not who I rely on for my arguments. That's NPC behavior. If you think Paul would cut Timothy off from Christ for the sake of the feelings of some Jews in that area, I don't know what to tell you. Either Paul was lying to the Galatians or something else is going on here. He would circumcise Timothy "because of the Jews in that area", but not allow it in Galatia because of the Jews there? C'mon, AI dependent man, you don't honestly see a problem there? Be honest, I know you can do it. And try to just respond with your own words with the mind that God gave you. I know you can do it!

Let’s not pretend like you’re typing out all your long replies from off the top of your head. We all have access to AI now. It’s a level playing field. The difference is I use it better, and I’m not standing on a theology cooked up 500 years ago and then patched together with 19th century dispensationalism. I’ve got the Church Christ founded behind me, with 2,000 years of history, theology, philosophy, early Christian continuity and the same Church that gave you the Bible you’re trying to argue from. Now to your reply. Your “male nor female” analogy doesn’t save you. I never argued Jews and Gentiles stop existing as social or cultural categories. Paul’s point is covenantal status in Christ. That’s exactly why the verse matters. In Christ, those old boundary markers no longer define access to God. So when you use ongoing Jewish distinctives to smuggle an ongoing Mosaic covenant structure, you’re saying more than what Paul does. Then your interpretation of Galatians is way too convenient. Yea Paul is addressing Gentiles being pressured into circumcision. Everybody knows that. The problem for your position is that circumcision is not some random custom. Its the covenant sign. So when Paul says taking that on as covenant obligation cuts you off from Christ, he's not attacking a harmless cultural custom. He's attacking reliance on the Mosaic covenant order as a covenantal framework for standing before God. And nope, Timothy doesn’t rescue you. Paul circumcised Timothy because of the Jews in those places, for missionary prudence, not because Timothy needed covenant standing through Moses. That’s the whole point. Paul can tolerate a custom for strategy without treating it as binding for justification or covenant membership. That fits perfectly with 1 Corinthians 9, where he says he became as one under the law though he himself was not under the law. Acts 21 doesn’t force the conclusion you want either. It proves Paul was not teaching Jews to revolt against every ancestral custom overnight, ok that's correct. But the question is whether those customs remained covenantally binding in Christ. That’s what you still haven’t proved. Then you quote 1 Corinthians 7 Again, that doesn’t mean “stay under the Mosaic covenant.” Paul’s whole point there is that external condition does not determine your standing before God. Circumcised or uncircumcised, slave or free, you belong to Christ. That actually cuts against your argument. If circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, then you can’t use circumcision to preserve a distinct covenant track for Jews. And your line about “keeping the commandments of God” doesn’t help either, because Paul doesn't mean “stay under Sinai.” He means obedience in Christ. That’s why he can say in Galatians that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but faith working through love. Same man, same theology. You also dodged the main point again. You keep reducing everything to “Gentiles shouldn’t become Jews.” Ok. But what you still won’t answer is whether Jews in Christ remain under Moses as a covenantal structure. Because if they do, then you have two covenant orders functioning side by side after Christ. And that is exactly what Hebrews blows up.

Many assume Paul abandoned Torah after coming to faith in Yeshua, but Acts tells a different story. In Acts 21, the apostles publicly affirm that Paul still lives in obedience to the Torah, challenging modern assumptions about the Temple, sacrifices, and Jewish life in Messiah. Watch the full reaction video featuring @ShawnRyan762 here: vist.ly/4uz4y

Dominus are you just using chat GPT? This response feels very AI generated. If your next response is AI generated, I will have to end the discussion. Paul is saying that if a gentile believer opts to get circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to them. If he is counseling someone not to get circumcised, that person is obviously not Jewish and not a proselyte convert. So he isn't speaking to Jews when he says this. He's speaking to Gentiles. So your position is that in Acts 21 Paul is lying to James? Or is it that James is lying about Paul's behavior? When Paul says he became a jew to the jews, a gentile to the gentile, he means that he approaches each group from their particular covenantal/legal status. Not that he pretends to be whatever they are. It means he would evangelize Jews differently than he would Gentiles. Parallel identities? I don't understand. Jews and Gentiles are culturally different. Paul instructs people to remain in the state they were when they came to faith: "Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called." Meaning if you were a Jew you continue to be a Jew, you don't become a Gentile. Jews and Gentiles both have the same justification before God through faith, but their actions and culture remain distinct. He literally says there is neither male nor female in the same verse you quoted. C'mon brother. It obviously doesn't mean all people will act alike. It means all people are accepted before God, AS THEY ARE. Whether Jew or Gentile, male or female, etc. If the Mosaic covenant is still functioning for Jews as a covenantal structure, why does Paul say going back to it severs you from Christ? You will need to site the verse where Paul says this. What he says is that those who attempt to BE JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW, are estranged from Christ. His GENTILE audience wrongly thought justification came from the works of the Law and that if they were circumcised they would somehow have better standing with God. This is what Paul is refuting. If Paul thought circumcising someone would cut them off from Christ WHY ON EARTH would he circumcise Timothy?? (Hint: Timothy was a Jew 😉)

Nice try, but you’re stacking partial truths and then forcing a conclusion Paul never makes. Yes, he’s writing to mixed churches. That doesn’t create two covenant tracks. Your whole move depends on shrinking what Paul means by “the law,” and it doesn’t hold. Galatians isn’t about man-made boundary rules. It goes straight to circumcision, which is the covenant sign itself. Paul says if you take that on as covenant obligation, you’re severed from Christ. That’s not trimming excess. That’s a direct hit on the Mosaic covenant as a system of justification. Acts 21 doesn’t rescue your position either. Paul participating in a purification proves he can accommodate Jewish customs for the sake of mission. It doesn’t prove he sees himself as bound to that covenant. He says the opposite. He can live like one under the law without being under it. That’s flexibility, not obligation. Then you quote Romans 3:31 like it means the Mosaic covenant keeps running unchanged. Paul already told you what “establishing the law” means. It’s fulfilled in Christ and lived out by the Spirit. Christ is the end of the law. You’re trying to keep the structure after the fulfillment has already happened. Your olive tree point misses Paul’s argument. The issue isn’t visible distinction. It’s participation in the life of the tree. And branches are cut off for unbelief and grafted in by faith. If natural branches can be broken off, then ethnicity isn’t carrying covenant status. That’s the point. One tree, one covenant life, not parallel identities. You’re right that Gentiles were never under the Mosaic covenant. That actually tightens the case against you. Jews have to come to Christ to remain in the tree, Gentiles come to Christ to enter it, so there isn’t a separate lane running for Jews. There’s one people, one body, one way in. That’s why Paul says there’s no distinction and that both are made into one new man. The male and female analogy doesn’t land either. Paul isn’t erasing creation. He’s removing covenant division as a basis for access to God. If you belong to Christ, you are Abraham’s offspring. That’s covenant language, not sociology. Here’s the problem you keep avoiding. You want Jews in Christ while still holding onto a covenant defined by the law Christ fulfilled. Paul won’t let you do that. The moment the law is treated as an ongoing covenant structure, Galatians kicks in. If you seek justification through it, you’re cut off from Christ. So answer this cleanly. If the Mosaic covenant is still functioning for Jews as a covenantal structure, why does Paul say going back to it severs you from Christ?

@DominusAD78 @followffoz Also gentiles were never under the mosaic covenant to begin with. It wasn't given to them. Paul is saying they shouldn't place themselves "under the law" voluntarily through circumcision. They are complete without it.

Paul is writing to a mixed church. There are two messages. One discourages Jews and proselytes from placing their faith in the law. The other discourages gentiles from using their freedom from the law to commit violations of the Law. Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. In Romans 21 you plainly see Jews are coming to faith in Messiah and as a result they are zealous for the law. The commandments contained in ordinances were not Torah. They were jewish laws that restricted contact between Jews and gentiles. Nothing in Torah forbids fellowship, eating together, etc. Galatians is a letter to Gentiles. They had already come to faith. He was counciling gentiles not to become jews, just as Paul didn't believe Jews were to become gentiles. He is clear on this. He was not saying Jews were not to circumcised their children and keep the Law. Read acts 21. Paul was being FALSELY accused of these things. Paul also says there is neither male or female. Should men behave as women also? When you graft in a wild olive branch in real life it is always distinctive from the original tree. There are videos of this 👍🏽

@RisingDisciples this is where philosophy gets you

If you can manage to get through one minute, 39 seconds of Piper's incoherent babbling, you'll discover the depths of depravity that Calvinism will drag its believers and "teachers" down to. Proceed at your own risk.

@midwhit 😂

yeah, but