We know that when he appears, we will be like him because we will see him as he is. And everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself just as he is pure.
In Jesus' arms.
Joined March 2015
- Tweets56.7K
- Following743
- Followers880
- Likes13.8K
Pinned Tweet
Context proves 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is an instruction to REJECT unverified claims of apostolic teaching.
✈️🩸 retweeted
Diversity is not our strength.
A clip 👇 from the Strictly Education episode where I explain the concept of the title of my book - Diversity is not our strength.
It is out next Thursday - November 12th!
You can pre-order it on Amazon:
amzn.eu/d/00go9Uff
I'm told by Roman Catholics over and over that there are no dead because "God of the living".
Which is it?
When we pray for the dead, we do so not only for them, but also with them, drawn into a reciprocal relationship that the Holy Spirit brings to life in our hearts. The Church is a mystery of communion between Christ, our head, and us, His members: from Him we receive life. This communion unites the blessed souls who already contemplate the face of God and all those who, in heaven or on earth, are journeying toward the radiant destination.
That's functionally the same as saying "Don't talk to Jesus, talk to your graven image of an artist's imagination of what Mary looked like instead".
This guy (Mr. William C. Michael, @wcmclaa) got wrecked regarding his appalling syllogism, so he blocks me and claims I copied and pasted an AI. He had to shop around for his screenshot, because these don't agree with him.
Anyone who reads the text would know an AI would never write a tautology like that.
My reply that got him so worked up
teapawt.org/JamesDitto12/status/21…
If you had studied logic, you'd know how to construct a syllogism without committing ignoratio elenchi.
First, you have butchered the natural language with a convoluted triple-negative just to force Premise 1 into a classical formula. But once untangled, your first premise is nothing more than a bad tautology: If Luther thought he had good reasons, then Luther thought he had good reasons, and since he thought he had good reasons, he must have had good reasons, proving good reasons exist.
From there, your syllogism attempts to smuggle in a massive logical leap: that because Luther attempted a defense of the Papacy in 1519 and subjectively believed it was "unanswerable," objective grounds in Scripture and reason must therefore exist.
That does not follow. A theologian's subjective confidence does not magically materialize objective Scriptural or rational proof. The fact that Luther claimed to defend the Papacy does not prove he actually succeeded.
Your argument relies on a bait-and-switch. Your refutation only addresses Luther's subjective history. You are using a naive 1519 Luther, pretending his claim somehow prevents him, and anyone else, from legitimately dismantling his "unanswerable" defense, simply because he claimed it unanswerable from Scripture and reason.
I found his "AI detector" and put the same text in and got a completely different result than what he presented.
There's a reason why he cropped website interface hiding which detector he's using.
But as I showed in the post above, he had to shop around for that result.
Now we know why he blocked me.
Fascinating insight and admission by a Roman Catholic about Roman Catholicism.
Unfortunately, it’s an unforced, awful self-own to admit your religion is syncretic to a pagan philosophy whose concept of God is completely foreign to the Scriptures.
Those who know, know.
That doesn't settle it at all.
The idea that Jesus would have corrected the misunderstanding of a metaphor is completely contradicted by Scripture.
Jesus allowed a misunderstanding of a metaphor (destroy this temple...Matthew 26:61) to be used as evidence against him at his trial.
He didn't correct their misunderstanding of the metaphore when he said it, nor did he correct their misunderstanding at his trial.
He allowed their misunderstanding to stand, and ultimately be used to put him to death.
But your case is made worse for you.
You agree that those who walked away correctly understood Jesus was being literal. Yet Jesus said just a few verses earlier that "all that have learned from the Father come to me" (v.45). In other words, those you agree with, Jesus says have not learned from the Father.
That doesn't settle it at all.
The idea that Jesus would have corrected the misunderstanding of a metaphor is completely contradicted by Scripture.
Jesus allowed a misunderstanding of a metaphor (destroy this temple...Matthew 26:61) to be used as evidence against him at his trial.
He didn't correct their misunderstanding of the metaphore when he said it, nor did he correct their misunderstanding at his trial.
He allowed their misunderstanding to stand, and ultimately be used to put him to death.
But your case is made worse for you.
You agree that those who walked away correctly understood Jesus was being literal. Yet Jesus said just a few verses earlier that "all that have learned from the Father come to me" (v.45). In other words, those you agree with, Jesus says have not learned from the Father.
This is simple.
The ONLY way the Word of God can nourish a soul is to believe the teaching.
How else can the Word enter the soul?
This is why Jesus explains elsewhere (Matt 16) that bread represents teaching, and it was already a known metaphor from the Old Testament (Ezekiel 3:1).
Free a soul from purgatory: for the low, low price of going to a cemetery, praying, having communion, and not sinning.
Or the high price of God's one and only son dying on the cross, you (He) can actually get infinite people out of darkness and into the kingdom of light.
Crazy is reliance on AI-slop.
Allow me to explain.
Lofty citations prove nothing. If they did, Jude's citation of the prophecy in Enoch would be inspired canon. If a literal New Testament author quoting a text doesn't magically teleport that text into the Old Testament canon, then a 3rd-century bishop loftily quoting Wisdom or other text definitely doesn't.
Case in point: you cite Origen. But he explicitly excluded the Book of Wisdom when he laid out his formal Old Testament canon.
You're just being selective trying to use citations to override the explicit rejection from canonical lists of the ECF and eastern councils (such as Laodecia) before AD.382.
I note your list is absent of Eastern Fathers; I guess you're admitting the Eastern Fathers were wrong, and the Western Fathers were correct.
Your AI-SLOP list has some GLARING ISSUES, that prove that lofty citation doesn't equate to belief the text is inspired canon.
Cyprian called Tertullian "The Master" and read him daily. But, Tertullian explicitly defended the Book of 1 Enoch as "divinely inspired", authentic scripture (in On the Apparel of Women).
The Eastern Orthodox Church rejects 1 Enoch.
Clement of Alexandria quoted the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas as "scripture", and elevated the pagan Sibylline Oracles to the status of a "prophetess" who sang by "divine inspiration" alongside Isaiah. In 'Exhortation to the Heathen' (Protrepticus) (Chapter 8), Clement lists Sibyl alongside Jeremiah and says: "Let the Sibyl prophetess, then, be the first to sing to us the song of salvation." He explicitly states she spoke by "inspiration." In 'Stromata' (Book 6, Chapter 5), Clement also cites an "oral tradition" of the Apostle Paul commanding early Christians to "read the Sibyl" to understand divine prophecy.
The Eastern Orthodox Church rejects every single one of those from the canon.
Origen openly cited the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache as "divinely inspired" texts.
Neither are in the Eastern Orthodox Bible.
Augustine explicitly cited the pagan Sibylline Oracles as containing genuine, "divine prophecy" about Jesus Christ (in City of God). He says of her, she "must be accounted among those who belong to the city of God." Finding a "prophecy of Christ" in a text did not mean Augustine thought the text belonged in the Old Testament, because he included it in no lists of his own, nor did his orchestrated Councils of Hippo and Carthage.
It's all theater.
They don't actually oppose the bill.
Liberal leader Angus Taylor and MP Andrew Hastie have sparked anger by failing to vote against Labor's Digital Duty of Care bill, despite previously warning it would result in "1984 levels of censorship".
"Spineless"
noticer.news/top-liberals-fa…
✈️🩸 retweeted
Paul hypothetically places even himself and the other apostles under the authority of the gospel once for all delivered to the saints (Galatians 1:8; Jude 3).
How much more, then, must those who claim to be their successors be subject to that same authority?
✈️🩸 retweeted
TERRIFYING: Islamic scholar in Florida threatens Americans:
“When we have the power and the strength, we’re going to start FORCING people to become Muslims like we did everywhere.”
When they tell you their plans, believe them.
✈️🩸 retweeted
Muslims have killed more than 600 million non-Muslims since 622.
But if you point this out, they’ll say it’s Islamophobia.
🤖 Made with AI
