Jacob Mendelsohn

@JoelWebbon While it’s true that there is some risk of enforceability, a carefully crafted prenup can largely achieve this. Additionally, you can also use irrevocable trusts to shield assets from divorce. This is particularly useful if passing wealth to children and protecting them.

YES, it is morally permissible for Christians entering marriage to can get a PRENUP. Let’s start here: Is No-Fault Divorce immoral? Most conservative Christians will say YES, and they’re right. This Bible has strict penalties for adultery and abandonment, but because our court system is wicked and corrupt, a woman can commit adultery, divorce her husband, and still get half of his stuff (or even most of it). *But what if both the man and woman, before entering marriage, signed a prenup that made it to where if either of them commit adultery, or physically abandon the marriage, they forfeit all material assets? In other words, the couple is essentially saying… “Since we live in a godless society with unjust courts, we are going to voluntarily and legally bind ourselves to the standards of marriage set forth in God’s Law as a hedge against future temptations to sin.” There are plenty of midwits out there saying, “But that’s just planning for failure!” So did God Himself plan for failure by giving His Law with certain penalties for those who would defile the sanctity of marriage? This is not “planning for failure”, it is actually hedging against prevalent temptations in a godless society to further ensure success. Don’t be stupid pietists, guys. I promise, it’s okay to use both Scripture and logic - Neither contradicts the other.

@V_Lady2024 So do the contractors expect to recover payment from this guys after tearing out the patio? Once they chose to tear it out, not only did they risk criminal charges and forfeit their right to recover damages, but now the property owner can sue them for damages.

He just had a fresh patio poured. Job done, looks solid. Then the owner goes: “Nah, I don’t like it.” Installer grabs a sledgehammer and starts SMASHING it to pieces right there. Peak man-Karen energy: entitled flip-flop, zero accountability, and now he’s got a sledgehammer therapy session instead of a backyard. 😂 Who’s the real Karen now? Smh

@rabbriansamuel @brunobarking Penal substitutionary atonement is not biblical. What Yeshua actually did was teach us how to be merciful in our judgments.

Yeshua took the punishments of the Laws away. He didn't take the Laws away. This is basic New Testament.

@LilaGraceRose Dr. Phil is confusing “life” with “personhood.” The only reason scientists even question personhood is because they don’t want to admit genocide is happening.

Open any biology textbook and you’ll learn we all start life as a single-cell embryo, genetically distinct from our parents. Human biology 101. I think Dr. Phil was trying to argue the pro-abortion position that a human child’s “personhood” somehow gets assigned after birth. But he’s wrong there, too. Any time, in human history, when we deny personhood or human rights to humans because of ANY factor—race, age, sex, religion—we open the door to history’s worst human rights abuse. The Holocaust. The Rwandan Genocide. Slavery. A human embryo is small and dependent, but so is a human newborn or toddler. Your size, development, or level of dependency doesn’t dictate your humanity or worth. We have double homicide laws that penalize violence against preborn persons if an abusive partner perpetrates it. It’s the blindness of our era that ignorantly denies life before birth and strips all rights from the preborn child. Enough. It’s unscientific and profoundly unjust. If you’re a member of the human species, you have human rights. Period. The first human right is to not be murdered.

@BishopJaxi God is my authority. The church is my peers. My family is my subordinates.

Protestants say Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the ultimate authority. But in practice, it becomes: “My interpretation of the Bible is the ultimate authority.” Protestants say Sola Fide means faith alone saves. But in practice, it becomes: “Faith in my theology, my definitions, and my understanding of Jesus is what saves.” They claim to submit to God’s authority, but functionally replace it with their own. Because in Protestantism, I define what “true faith” is according to my interpretation of Scripture. And anyone who disagrees conveniently “never had real faith.” Every man becomes his own final judge. And once that happens, there is no longer any objective, binding authority to determine what Scripture actually teaches, or what the true faith even is.

@UziCryptoo Never heard of GoodRX? Could have bought that same drug next door for $50.

My daughter recently had an ear infection. Took her to the doctor, who prescribed an antibiotic. That doctor visit cost $244. My insurance covered $60, so we owe $184 out of pocket. I pay $556/month for family health insurance. Something seems broken.

The fact that people are making efforts to deny that Messianic Jews exist shows that we Messianic Jews are in fact a prominent enough group that we’re a “problem” that needs to be addressed, because we break their theological boxes. Jews who believe in Yeshua are still Jews. Even if Christians don’t like it, even if Jews don’t like it, Messianic Jews are legitimate followers of Yeshua (Jesus), and we are legitimate Jews in ethnicity, identity, and calling. The faithful remnant of Israel is alive and kicking. Messiah is King, Am Yisrael Chai.

@poopybutt2009 @JosiahForYeshua Their response to that, of course, is that Christ removed the curse of breaking the law, so now we no longer have to choose.

Amen. "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants." Deuteronomy 30:19

This is a straw man. The alternative to “once saved always saved” is not “earning our salvation.” It’s not really even “losing our salvation,” because we can’t be separated from God or accidentally misplace our faith. But we can THROW AWAY our boldness and the reward that comes with it (that’s biblical terminology—Hebrews 10:35) through the active choice to keep willfully sinning, thereby trampling upon and cutting ourselves off from Yeshua’s sacrifice (v. 10:26). We cannot earn our salvation through our own actions, but only by belief in Yeshua; likewise, we cannot be saved if we walk in unbelief. If we allow sin to harden our hearts, it will cause unbelief in us and we will fall away from God (v. 3:12-13). So no, this isn’t about “earning your salvation” or trying to use your own works to keep yourself saved. But we as believers need to have the sober understanding that if we allow sin to fester in our lives, there is a real danger that we will reject the faith and revert to unbelief—and no one who is in unbelief can be saved. If we do fall away like this, then Yeshua can’t die for us a second time (v. 6:4-6), and we can’t be born again again. Have confidence and peace in your faith, knowing that there is NO WAY to accidentally lose your salvation, or for anything to insert itself between you and God. But Scripture teaches us to have a healthy fear of the damage that sin can cause. Exhort one another, so that none of us will be hardened to God and throw away the new life that He has given us.

@Exodus15_11 Exactly. They needed to reject the Roman paradigm completely. But since each Protestant founder was a devout Catholic, I’m not sure that was a realistic expectation.

The Reformation was necessary and good, but it didn't go far enough. The Reformers largely continued to cling to their Catholic eschatology, refusing to consistently use the literal method of interpreting the Bible. Thus we can rightly refer to the Reformed sect as a Catholic-Protestant hybrid. "People tend to place the Reformers on a pedestal and act like they completed the revolution, but they did not. Why was the Protestant Reformation only a partial restoration? It was because they used the literal method of interpreting the Bible selectively." @dr_andywoods

@RevReads289 Believing that Original Sin is a real thing is an even weirder doctrine.

Original Sin being washed away by infant baptism is the weirdest common church doctrine from my view. People are condemned for something they never did but a select few get that condemnation washed away because their parents chose to sprinkle them with water.

@MrCasey62 Interestingly enough, most of Christian theology actually contradicts scripture.

No Scripture verse says this. Many Scripture verses condemn this. And anyone who bothers to think it through knows it doesn’t even remotely make sense.

@Matthew56193629 @Biblicalman Does Revelation 20 not say that those who refuse the mark will be raised for the millennial kingdom? It’s up for debate and interpretation who those people are, but I don’t think we can say one way or the other.

@themendelbrain @Biblicalman We won't. The folks in the Millennial Kingdom will.

You don't sacrifice animals. You don't stone adulterers. You don't keep the Sabbath. Congratulations. You already believe in dispensationalism. You just don't know the word for it.

@RealBrysonGray Or Australia.

Crazy how taste buds work because I genuinely don’t understand how people enjoy ANYTHING from in and out

@Glorandriel @TopNewsPrime Because they are both street level heroes. I can almost guarantee that Dare Devil will make an appearance (as dare devil this time and not Matt) and Deadpool will be in the after credit scene. This is what fans have been asking for, so I think Marvel is finally listening.

@TopNewsPrime Real question — why is Frank even in this movie? 🤔 cool seeing the cross over, tho

The trailer for Spider-Man Brand New Day has been released

@KirtonMcBonky We are still Latter Day Saints, all of us Even if we change some things, or or we break the rules… Or we have complete doubt that God exists… We can still all work together and make this our paradise planet!

i've read the book of mormon 50+ times it's filled with errors, anachronisms, plagiarism, and "translation" errors at best, it's a fantasy book not backed by even one shred of physical evidence it has been repeatedly revised and altered by the lds church hope that helps!

@AmericanTorah Good video!

I don't think Charlie Kirk wrote chapter 10 in his book Stop in the Name of God. I think his editor's Sunday school teacher did. It's a poorly researched speed bump, full of regurgitated propaganda and elementary reading comprehension errors, in the middle of an otherwise great book. I only address the first 3 "objections" to keeping the Sabbath because the rest are all just as bad. I urge you to look up these passages in the Bible and read them very carefully for yourself. Ask to whom was this written? What does the surrounding text tell you about the actual subject matter? Colossians 2:16-17, Romans 14:5-6, Galatians 4:10-11 youtu.be/qHN3Vh3xUbM

@crackberrykevin @ericmigi @clickskeyboard Just watched this and would love to buy the Clicks phone! Only issue is the camera. A part of detoxing from smart phones is to engage real life, which requires a decent camera. I’m not sure why every minimalist phone on the market fails to see the value in the camera..

Total blast to join Pebble founder @ericmigi on his Tick Talk pod and chat @clickskeyboard and the newly announced Communicator!

Shabbat shalom!