Best of RNS 2018 News Top Stories

At Trump’s hotel, spiritual warriors pray for the president Trump

Worshippers at the Revolution 2018 conference are commissioned at the Trump International Hotel on Dec. 8, 2018. (Screenshot via livestream)

WASHINGTON (RNS) — The Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., which towers above other buildings near the White House, is best known for hosting global diplomats and prominent dignitaries in its lavish facilities.

But last Friday afternoon (Dec. 7), one of the hotel’s many glimmering ballrooms was transformed into a sanctuary, where dozens of worshippers held their hands aloft and spoke in tongues as Jon Hamill, co-founder of Washington, D.C.-based Lamplighter Ministries, led the group in prayer.

Hamill — whom supporters describe as a prophet — closed his eyes tightly and shouted above the chattering: “In Jesus’ name, we declare the Deep State will not prevail!”

He then hammered a judge’s gavel onto a podium as people raised their voices in approval.

It may seem unusual to mix ecstatic worship with a popular conservative theory that Donald Trump’s administration is being sabotaged from within by government officials installed by previous presidents. But last week’s Revolution 2018 conference (Dec. 6-8), organized by Hamill and Lamplighter Ministries, offered a rare glimpse into a peculiar subgroup of faith-fueled Trump support: a loose network of charismatic Christians who see his election and presidency as a catalyst for a spiritual “turnaround” in America, even as the nation is under siege by forces of spiritual evil.

Speakers at the conference described visions, prophesies, direct conversations with God and encounters with angelic beings — all hallmarks of charismatic Christianity. But while some charismatics shy away from explicit political speech, those assembled in Washington over the weekend claimed to see a direct tie between politics and the spiritual world.

It’s an approach that’s proved controversial.

Attendees were originally slated to gather at the Museum of the Bible, but organizers were forced to scramble to find a new venue when academics and news reports pointed out potential conflicts between the conference’s political edge and the museum’s politics-neutral mission.

The museum later said in a statement that the impetus for the move had to do with restrictions on religious services.

Trump International Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. Photo by James McNellis/Creative Commons

Hamill turned down a request for a full interview. And the event was officially closed to the press, which organizers said was at the request of the hotel. (The proceedings were livestreamed for a small fee.) But he did tell Religion News Service that he holds no ill will toward the museum.

Hamill also rejected the idea that his group was “right wing.” Instead, he insisted that the “eagle” of America needs “a strong right wing and a strong left wing,” and losing one would result in the nation “flying in circles.”

Yet conference speakers repeatedly cast Trump administration officials as agents of God. And they urged the gathering of “intercessors” — believers who offer invocations on behalf of others — to aid the White House through prayer. Doing so, they argued, would help bring about a cosmic, spiritual “turnaround” for the nation.

“I saw headlines that President Trump had one of the most difficult days of his presidency yesterday,” Hamill told the assembly on Saturday. “It is extraordinary to me that … God drew the finest group of intercessors on the planet to come here and pray through that darkest hour of President Trump’s presidency.”

Brad Christerson, professor of sociology at Biola University and an expert on the broader charismatic movement, said the Lamplighter Ministry group appears to be part of what he calls “independent network charismatic Christianity,” one of the fastest-growing religious groups in the country.

While charismatics have been around for some time, the specific political theology preached at the Revolution 2018 conference and elsewhere is a relatively new trend.

“They really think God installed Donald Trump to then install other people in the government to have what they call ‘kingdom values,’” Christerson said, speaking generally of the movement. “We call it ‘trickle down Christianity.’”

Christerson, co-author of The Rise of Network Christianity, also noted that the group’s preferred methods of political influence are distinct from religious right leaders who champion traditional grassroots organizing.

“They really feel that they’re involved in this spiritual battle to take over the world, but their tactics are pretty much all supernatural,” he said.

Hamill explained the Revolution 2018 conference was set during the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah so that it could usher in a spiritual shift “to a nation that desperately desires it.”

Chuck Pierce, president of Glory of Zion International Ministries, said worshippers at the event would face off against evil forces — “a season of demonic confederacies” — in every U.S. state.

“A NEW DAY is breaking in AMERICA!!” read a slide during Pierce’s presentation, which he said were God’s words to him. “FROM STATE TO STATE BORDER WARS ARE BEGINNING! THE DAY OF BIPARTISAN RULE HAS NOW SHIFTED! A NEW RULE FOR A NEW ERA! This is a TIME TO PROPHESY!”

The original poster for the Revolution 2018 Commissioned By Fire event that was to be held at the Museum of the Bible in Washington. Screenshot

Speakers also appeared to adopt Trump’s rhetoric. Although Hamill, a former photojournalist, championed the idea of a free press, he and others invoked the idea of “fake news.” His wife Jolene, co-founder of Lamplighter, called on worshippers to repent for trusting certain media sources.

“We need to repent of drinking the cup of the media, because it is a false cup,” she said, closing her eyes and lifting her hands in prayer.

She later added: “We repent for getting our information, intel and all kinds of things from a false media network.”

Conference speakers repeatedly suggested their prayers helped bring about some of the president’s major achievements and hinted at an unusual level of access to the Trump administration.

Hamill told attendees a story about visiting the U.S. State Department in July with a group of faith leaders — including some at the Revolution conference — and encountering Sam Brownback, the U.S. ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom. He said the ambassador invited the group into his office where they prayed for pastor Andrew Brunson, who was imprisoned by Turkish officials at the time.

“We have governmental leaders throughout the Trump administration who love Jesus with all of their heart, and they are giving their all for this nation and for God’s dream for this nation,” Hamill said.

Three days later, said Hamill, Brownback announced at a major gathering on religious freedom that Brunson had been released from prison and put under house arrest.

Brownback’s office did not respond to a request to confirm the story.

Brunson, who was eventually returned to the U.S. in October, was slated to speak at the conference on Friday, but the livestream was unexpectedly cut. Organizers sent a message to viewers saying they needed to edit out “sensitive data,” and links to videos of the session have since been disabled.

President Trump prays with American pastor Andrew Brunson in the Oval Office of the White House on Oct. 13, 2018, in Washington, D.C. Brunson returned to the U.S. after nearly two years of detention in Turkey. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

At least one speaker saw God’s hand at work in American politics as the gathering was going on.

On Friday, speaker Rick Ridings interrupted the proceedings to tell attendees he had just been in the hotel atrium, watching news coverage of former FBI director James Comey’s testimony about the Russia investigation on Capitol Hill, when Trump attorney and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani walked in and sat down near him.

“It just seemed like a sign from the Lord,” he said before reading from Psalm 35:4-9, in which the psalmist calls on God to destroy enemies by making them “fall into the pit, to their ruin.”

Hamill also said prayer helped Brett Kavanaugh become a Supreme Court justice earlier this year.

“Just hours after we prayed … we saw Brett Kavanaugh get into office … the vineyard was secured,” Hamill said. “The justice of our time (is) shifting from a covenant of death empowering a future of death to a covenant of life empowering a culture of life.”

Organizers of the event believe God’s involvement in American politics began long before the Trump administration.

Hamill claimed the American Revolution was rooted in the rallying cry “no sovereign but God and no king but Jesus” — a phrase popular in stalwart Christian nationalist circles but the origin and significance of which is debated by historians.

He also said that at times, America fell short of its divine calling. “Our forefathers and founders got something wrong,” he said, by allowing the institution of slavery to persist.

Hamill argued the end of slavery and the civil rights movement were a sign of the nation’s spiritual progression toward Christian freedom.

“What Abraham Lincoln began, Martin Luther King brought to fulfillment,” he said. He then shortened the phrase to stress its Biblical overtones, again blurring the literal and the metaphorical: “What Abraham began, the king brought to culmination.”

This Christian-centric understanding of the United States was often paired with references to the importance of the state of Israel. Hamill gave thanks for Trump “realigning” America with God’s “covenant nation of Israel.” Leaders also often showcased an affinity for traditionally Jewish traditions such as Hanukkah and placed a menorah on stage.

The layering of these two ideals was made literal on the second day of the conference when organizers stood at the front of the room and placed an American flag underneath a Jewish prayer shawl, also known as a tallit. Volunteers then held both objects aloft together as participants walked beneath them to receive an anointing for commissioning into “the freedom movement.”

As they passed, some collapsed in ecstatic revelry.

Chuck Pierce praised Trump for recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel earlier this year.

“I think the world sees us a lot better than we see us. I think Israel sees us a lot better,” he said. “And when it all boils down to it, that’s all we really care about, isn’t it? Because that’s where it’s all going to end up.”

About the author

Jack Jenkins

Jack Jenkins is a national reporter for RNS based in Washington, covering U.S. Catholics and the intersection of religion and politics.

339 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • How funny. “Prayer warriors” defending a thrice-married serial adulterer who brags about groping women, peeks in on unsuspecting women while they’re getting dressed, talks about his adult daughter in sexual terms, skips town after stiffing his employees, bankrupts his companies, creates bogus “universities,” lies worse than Pinocchio, and is generally unappealing in every way humanly possible. All I can say is, their Jesus and mine bear no resemblance whatsoever.

  • What a load of bunk. Maybe it’s time for these “Christians” to take notice of all the innocent, weaker people that are getting crushed under Trump’s foot. Are they praying for that to continue? Or maybe they haven’t stopped to bother with these non-political people. Jesus bothered.

  • No doubt the spiritual warriors are being supported in their efforts on behalf of the Godly Trump by love offerings from their followers, perhaps with a little left over for their personal use. Very likely, shearing the sheep is the tie that binds them to the Godly Trump.

  • Looks like it’s fruit cake season at Trumpville.

    These deluded fools are beyond the reach of reason. But that doesn’t mean they should be ignored. They are not benign.

    They are the reason church and state must remain forever separate.

  • It doesn’t matter to these folk that the Groper-in-Chief isn’t a true Christian. That’s actually irrelevant, and they’ve even cooked up a rationale to explain it: They’ve decided, you see, that he’s a latter-day King Cyrus. That was the warlord and Persian monarch who defeated Babylonia after that country decimated Judea. Even though Cyrus was a committed pagan (a Zoroastrian, to be exact), he proved himself a champion of the Hebrews and their YHWH, sending them back to their land and helping rebuild their Temple. As a result, he’s counted as “righteous” and a hero of the Old Testament, even though he never worshiped YHWH. 

    Of course, the fundagelicals had a completely different opinion of another president they claimed wasn’t a Christian. That, of course, would have been Barack HUSSEIN Obama. They derided and condemned him as “a secret Muslim” and a foreign usurper whom many of them believed was going to turn their precious “Christian nation” over to the Muslim Brotherhood assisted by UN commandos. In their eyes, Obama he was the opposite of “righteous,” and certainly no latter-day King Cyrus. 

    But hey, you’ll have to forgive them for this blatant hypocrisy. The poor little things just can’t help themselves, you see. They’ve only had over a 19-century history of justifying and cultivating hypocrisy, in spite of their own Jesus’ clear, unambiguous orders never, ever to hypocritical, at any time or for any reason

    At any rate, don’t be deceived by these people. They know exactly what they are doing, and that is — they hope! — constructing a Christocracy they can call their own. If the Groper-in-Chief can help them get it, they’ll take it happily, support him up the wazoo, and praise him endlessly for it. 

  • Whilst they eat the leaven of Herod and the Pharisees?
    ““We need to repent of drinking the cup of the media, because it is a false cup,” “

  • A religious movement which relies on a fraudster to be its ideological leader, its power, its hero, its mouthpiece, is itself a fraud.

  • They and/or some of their peers claim Trump as a type of King Cyrus.
    Is he perhaps more of a Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, a statue with a head of gold and feet of clay?

  • At some point, Christians gotta do more than just shoot the political breeze with Haters, Negaters, Alt-Leftists, Media-Assassins, and assorted DNC Zombies. This Lamplighter group has come up with something very timely and worthwhile.

    On top of his own faults, Trump has been under constant, crazoid attack since Election Day 2016. He needs what Lamplighter is offering — serious, concerted prayer for him.

    Everything from WaPo to Witches, Demo-crats to Demon-rats, have constantly been ragging & sniping on Trump. (And make no mistake: When Trump goes down, the Christians — at least the Bible-believing versions — are seriously next on the Hit List.) This Lamplighter group understands that you fight spiritual battles with spiritual weapons, and that’s refreshing.

    Do I agree with absolutely everything these Lamplighters say? Maybe, maybe not, I don’t care. THESE folks are getting serious about praying for the one Prez who still has half a clue what “Religious Freedom” means. I’ll buy that much, thanks.

  • Since atheists know that there is no Supreme Being, there’s no reason why a bunch of people talking to their imaginary friend should upset everybody here so much.

  • Well Trump certainly loves wh0res and I guess the favor is returned.

    These conservative Christian types are still hoping for a handout and a little pandering towards their undemocratic agendas before Trump gets bounced out of office.

  • Funny how you are far more trusting and loyal to Trump than anyone who has worked with or for the guy, lived in the same city or his even family members.

    Your anterograde amnesia is overpowering. You are apparently unable to form new memories after 2016.

    He is an ethical and moral sewer who demands underlings to break the law on his behalf. He fired at least two cabinet members who refused. His pick for new Chief of Staff turned him down flat in no time.

    But I guess if you never had morals or ethics from the start, it is easy to throw your support for him. Liars, Revilers, and Bigots for Jesus take any support they can get..

  • Because these losers actually form a political support base. One which apparently prefers their agenda to rule of law.

  • “the one Prez who understands”

    He is the one president who understands that promising to Make America White Again will reel in a lot of fish.. Of course, the catch wasn’t so good this last election. It might not be so good in 2020 either. If the president is doing the work of God, God has about two years to get the work done. Of course right now the president is busy waiting for the check from Mexico that he promised so that he can build the wall that he promised.

    Maybe the president can start doing the work of God by deporting the undocumented workers that are on his payroll.

    If the president is doing the work of God, then if he is not reelected in 2020 we can safely and happily know that God’s work is completed. A job well done by Trump and God.

  • Could you imagine if a Democratic President did 0.0000000000000000000001% of what Trump does and has done? These bigots hiding behind religion would be apoplectic about Satan in the White House, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

    Sorry guys, you’re invisible sky daddy does not exist, but your hypocrisy is glaring.

  • Well, OF COURSE they had a different opinion of Obama! What did you expect?

    Obama was all in for promoting LGBT sin, allowing boys to use the girl’s locker room and showers, turning a blind eye to illegal aliens, and a number of other malignancies that infest our country like a loathsome cancer.

    Makes perfect sense that they wouldn’t support him.

  • “The embrace of Donald Trump in 2016 by most white evangelicals was just the latest sign either of the bankruptcy of evangelicals or the meaningless of the category. To the extent there is a real thing called American evangelicalism, it is deeply damaged by now. I wrote this in my journal not long ago: It is hard to imagine how any single religious community could so often be so consistently wrong. One would think that they would get an issue right even occasionally and by accident.

    To the extent that the whole (white) evangelicalism thing was just a rebranding of Protestant fundamentalism and never a real thing at all, the rebranding has now failed.”

    ~ David P. Gushee, Still Christian: Following Jesus Out of American Evangelicalism (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2017), p. 146.

  • Of course they would be upset if a Democratic President did only a minuscule fraction of what Trump does and has done! They support his policies, and would be upset with any President who was not trying to enact them.

  • The President was not elected as “a true Christian” but as Chief Executive.

    In fact if your posts are to be believed, electing “a true Christian” would be a violation of the “wall between church and state”, speaking of blatant hypocrisy.

    The last time “a true Christian” was elected was Jimmy Carter, and THAT certainly did not pan out well.

  • Have Trump-supporting Christians ever considered the fact that, since his adult life has been an unrelenting cesspool for half a century, he might not be sincerely devoted to Christ? Behavior DOES enter into your relationship with Christ, you know.

  • I can’t wait until the government stops giving tax breaks to people who don’t practice what their scripture preaches. Simply announcing that you’re religious shouldn’t be an automatic tax break.

  • The word is “hypocrisy” – they are really not into their beliefs but into critiquing other peoples’ beliefs.

  • It isn’t gay people seeking social justice and dignity in our daily lives, refugees seeking asylum, or transgender people using public restrooms that is the “loathsome cancer” infesting this country, but rather unchristian, uncharitable, unyielding people like you.

  • Not only can I imagine a Democratic President doing it, I have seen two do it right in front of the public.

  • The blaming of the election of Donald Trump on “evangelicals” is right up there with “she won the popular vote” in whining by the losers.

    All this falderol is intended to disguise the facts that Hillary Clinton was one of the most disliked polarizing presidential candidates in the last one hundred years, and that sucking up to every special interest – including your LGBT propaganda clique – is not a winning hand in national politics.

    It was the Democratic Party’s election to lose, and it did with full knowledge.

    It has learned nothing from it, either.

  • And just how would the government “stop. giving tax breaks to people who don’t practice what their scripture preaches”?

    Wouldn’t that require the government to set up an office of religious belief and sit in judgment on the value and validity of religious beliefs?

  • Of course they have. Most I have spoken to do not find him at all admirable, and not a serious believer. That’s kinda the whole point of the Cyrus analogy. But they support his policies, and certainly weren’t going to vote for the candidate who condemned them and everything they hold dear as “deplorable”.

  • Okay. My house is a temple. I’m not paying any more property taxes. My interpretation of one verse in the Bible justifies this.

  • “’They really think God installed Donald Trump to then install other people in the government to have what they call “kingdom values,”‘ Christerson said, speaking generally of the movement.”

    If this is what evangelicals expected, they ought to be disappointed because, aside from a handful of people at the top (where turnover has reached epidemic proportions), Trump’s administration has left hundreds of government positions unfilled. Not filled by Democrats or even by Republicans lacking the proper “kingdom values,” but unfilled, period. If he won’t (or can’t) act to install evangelicals with their “kingdom values” into control of the government, there’s a simple explanation: they got played by one of the biggest con-men in the world, just like millions of other boobs.

  • Re: “Obama was all in for promoting LGBT sin …” 

    There’s no such thing as “sin.” That word only means “stuff other people do that I subjectively dislike.” 

    Re: “… allowing boys to use the girl’s locker room and showers …” 

    Well, no, that was not what was going on. But sure, you can claim it was, and rage and bluster and fume about it all over the place, if you like. It is, after all, a free country, and you’re free to lie about stuff if it makes you feel better. 

    Re: “… turning a blind eye to illegal aliens ….” 

    Obama deported people at a higher rate than other presidents. In fact, a lot of Leftists complained about it, calling him the “Deporter-in-Chief.” But sure, you can go right ahead and lie about that, too. I guess. 

    Re: “… and a number of other malignancies that infest our country like a loathsome cancer.” 

    You mean, like, the “loathsome cancer” of militant Christianism? 

  • So you support Trump because he is discriminatory, malicious, and has no regard for rule of law or democracy’s institutions,

    It’s telling you support someone so obviously corrupt and unfit for public office.

  • Because Democrats apparently have an appreciation of rule of law, liberties and honest discourse.

    You do not.

    You throw yourself in front of one of the most corrupt, dishonest, malicious and incompetent presidents we have ever had. Wh9res need a sugar daddy I guess.

  • You mean the one where SCOTUS never ruled on the phony religious freedom arguments and whiffed it on technical grounds.

  • That’s ok Philosemetic appeals are largely bull crap anyway. It is not support for the welfare of Israel or its people. It’s support of further discord there for Christian eschatology

  • Thanks 4 your reply. Also, my understanding is that you’re not one of those semi-Hamas BDS types, so despite any differences, we probably aren’t totally far apart on Israel.

  • So they believe that he will grants them the power, money and dominion they crave. Thank you for admitting it.

  • I’m so wounded by this comment. You left out gay Goliath, gay steamroller, gay Nazis, and all of the rest of your bogeymen.

    Boo!

  • I have some Tums with me. They’re really great for an Upset Stomach, but I dipped them in Holy Oil first so that you will get the full taste!!

  • Pretty funny stuff, alrighty. It gives me a bad case of deja pu— I’ve heard this crap before.

    Trump is the new Cyrus— nope, he’s the same old Donald trump. You trusted a grifting lying adulterer, and you got what you paid for.

    Cavanope will be the True Warrior for Christ— and yet, at the first opportunity, he failed to deliver. You trusted a grifting, lying adulterer, and you DIDNT get what you paid for.

  • Odd – the words “power, money and dominion” did not appear in his comment.

    You support candidates who favor your positions.

    Does that make you a believer in that candidate “grant(ing) (you) power, money and dominion”?

  • I am a member of the “LGBT propaganda clique” as you call it and I am also a follower of Christ. I try to practice what Jesus taught “about doing unto others, as I would have them do unto me.” I pay my taxes, serve on my church board, volunteer and give to the needy. But as a member of the “LGBT propaganda clique” all we ask for is to be treated equally in the US as a full citizen. Please don’t tell me how to live my life, who I can love and marry, how to worship or where I can get service in the public marketplace and I will do the same for you. Jesus weeps for his church in the United States. If he was here today, want to guess where he’d be hanging out and who he would be chasing out of the temples dedicated to him? And he just might also have a little different view of what it really means to be pro life.

  • Right. That’s why Democrats just tripled Clinton’s 2016 popular vote margin.

    The GOP learned the wrong things.

  • The notion that “… all we ask for is to be treated equally in the US as a full citizen.” is undermined by:

    The Masterpiece Bakery case and its antecedents and follow-ups;

    the fact that Obergefell v Hodges was decided by imposing the will of five on the Constitution and the will of the people.

    “Please don’t tell me how to live my life, who I can love and marry, how to worship or where I can get service in the public marketplace and I will do the same for you.”

    As it turns out, this is a nation intended to form a society in which most people want to live, not a Libertarian construct where everyone gets to do whatever it is they wish.

    Taken literally, you favor dismissing the bans on incest, polyandry, polygamy, and bigamy.

    Most people don’t happen to agree with you.

    Jesus said he came to change not one tittle of the Law, which proscribed same sex physical congress.

    Be honest: you are really not in favor of the democratic process, you just know what you want and work to obtain it.

  • Mark: Over 60%+ Americans in every major poll now support gay marriage. Also in the US, the Constitution protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority in “democratic rule”; civil rights issues and equal treatment under the law have almost always been decided at the US Supreme court level, otherwise segregation might still be legal in a few US states. As for masterpiece baker, it was narrow ruling only saying that the baker was treated unfairly in the hearing in CO, not a sweeping “religious liberty” ruling. If at some point if SCOTUS does allow private business to claim religious liberty as reason for refusing service to anyone, then we are done as nation; because then any business could deny serve anyone, not just discriminate against gays. Also, how does my marriage affect you in any way? Jesus gave two commandments that did super succeed all other laws (When asked which is the greatest commandment, Jesus replied, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. … Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

    And since you brought up a law of of the Old Testament that did say, a man laying with another man is an abomination and should be put to death…. BUT what to do with all those other pesky abominations in the Bible??!!!What other abominations does the Bible specify? Of course, adultery (Lev18:20), sex with animals (Lev 18:23), remarrying one’s wife after she’s had
    another husband in between (Deut 24:4), or approaching any woman during the
    time of her “uncleanness” (Lev 18:19). Cross-dressing is out (Deut 22:5),
    and that includes Halloween costumes, slacks on women, bib overalls on
    little girls, or a wife wearing her husband’s favorite Oxford button-down.
    Other abominations include tarot readings, glancing at your horoscope,
    trimming one’s beard, and getting a tattoo (Lev 19:26-28). Haughty eyes
    (Prov 6:17) and telling lies (Prov 6:17, 12:22) are big abominations. Being
    untruthful also includes false weights and measures (Prov 11:1), or any
    other dishonesty in business. “Everyone who acts unjustly is an abomination
    to the LORD your God” (Prov 11:16). What do abominators have for dinner?
    Rare steaks off the grill (Lev 17:10), Lobster and shellfish are out (Lev
    11:10. And our whole financial system is an abomination: Charging or paying
    interest are abominations. Bankers and anyone with a mortgage, car loan or
    credit (Psalm 15:1-5, Jeremiah 15:10). But my personal favorite abomination
    is wearing blended fabrics. Deuteronomy 22:11, forbids wearing a material
    made of wool and linen, but Leviticus 19:19 says it’s an abomination to wear
    any blended material, period. Hence a woman in a man’s button-down can be
    doubly abominable if it’s a no-iron, easy care blend of cotton and
    polyester. And my all time favorite, Leviticus 20:9 says, “If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him.”

    It is easy to cast the first stone at others and be a “cafeteria Christian”, picking choosing on what to ignore in the Bible, or we can follow Jesus and his two commandments…. If loving your neighbor as yourself justifies discrimination against the LGBTQ community and other minorities, then you are worshipping a different Jesus. Peace.

  • King David was a murderer and an adulterer, but God still used him. Moses was a murderer, as was Paul. The key question is whether the individual has repented, and is seeking to mend his ways.

  • If he is attracting all this opposition, the chances are that he has to be doing something right, and challenging the odd vested interest.

  • Since you’re new here I’ll offer you a little advice about this one: save your breath. It’s not worth it.

  • Like maybe the presidential candidate whose dissertation topic when she was at university was Machiavelli’s “The Prince”?

  • Thank for the data dump of LGBT propaganda.

    It summarizes how far off from the facts you are dancing to the tune of the Gay Goliath.

    Had the majority of Americans supported same sex marriage, for example, Obergefell v Hodges would have been unnecessary.

    At this point a bit over a majority accept the status quo, which is quite different than supporting it.

  • I’m sure I read somewhere that what gave the Presidency to Mr Trump was the number of people who had previously voted for President Obama, who abstained from voting at all in the last election, rather than a blue collar or religious vote.

  • ‘God’s dream for America’?
    His purpose toward all of man’s governments is stated clearly at Dan 2:44 and Rev 16:14,16.

  • A book characteristically characterized as evil and underhanded by people who neither read it or understood it. it was practical advice at the time.

  • The Old and New Testaments need to be read in conjunction with each other – in Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council of the early church was asked to rule on which parts of the Jewish Law were binding on Gentile converts to the Christian faith. Here’s the letter they wrote to the Gentile converts (Acts 15:22-29, NIV)

    22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:

    The apostles and elders, your brothers,

    To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

    Greetings.

    24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

    Farewell.

  • I worked as a psychiatric nurse for thirty years, and never came across anyone who spoke in tongues as part of a psychotic illness. You might be thinking of the phenomenon of neologism in schizophrenia – but, unlike the symptoms of psychosis, charismatic ecstatic utterance is always under the control of the speaker, who chooses whether s/he wishes to give free rein to this particular gift of the Holy Spirit at a given time, or not.

  • So you are saying you are wh0ring yourself out to a severely corrupt, dishonest and malicious leader just to get what you want. Any pretense of moral values is a sham. As is the demand that others abide by your take on moral values.

    Evidently morals are what you demand of others, but do not expect of yourself or anyone who can be useful to you.

    “The key question is whether the individual has repented, and is seeking to mend his ways.”

    As the Magic 8 Ball says, “All signs point to no”

  • Nope. Because “preborn infants” do not exist. Infants are born. Plus one is not a person until they are born.

  • Shorter Fotine:

    The Old Testament is invoked when a Christian wants to talk tough and be malicious to others but the New Testament is invoked when they demand mercy for themselves.

  • This particular brand of evangelical — and please note that I’m not lumping them in with all evangelicals — loves their conspiracy theories. They can’t get enough of casting themselves as pure, innocent victims of a sinister, demonic, mustache-twirling entity of some sort. The villain’s name changes from time to time. It used to be the Trilateral Commission, now it’s the Deep State. But it’s always out there, just waiting to sabotage the godly work that the current president is doing (provided he’s Republican.)

    I’m tolerant of people’s religious beliefs. Truly I am. But when paranoia is seen as an acceptable replacement for logic and common sense, it’s time to call it what it is — moronic.

  • There’s a plump old grump (or frump?) named Trump
    Whose brain’s a small lump in his rump
    With his numbers in a slump
    He should hump down to the dump
    And take a big jump. Thump.

    —Edd Doerr

  • Supporting candidates and politicians whose policy positions you agree with makes you a whore? What rubbish!

  • “technical grounds” = the original adjudicaters sitting in judgement on the value and validity of the baker’s beliefs.

    Yeah, that one.

  • Yes.

    Especially when you hold yourself to be a “Values Voter”. Someone who claims to vote in line with their personal values and demands such values of others.

    Rubbish is trying to make an “ends justify the means” argument while pretending to have some semblance of morals and values. A big steaming pile of dookie is making such arguments and demanding morals and values of others. To attack the sinfulness of others while reveling in it yourself.

  • Which they did not do. You should try reading the decision instead of the Lifesite News digested version of it.

    Justice Kennedy even said that if he had to evaluate the baker’s claims he would have denied them. He never got that far.

  • I’m disappointed.
    You left out The Gay Steamroller, operated by Gay goliath, who is actively persecuting Christians world wide with its god-like powers, flattening them into pancakes for expressing their True Christian beliefs.
    I demand to be included!

  • Yes X 100!

    Usually they are not as pointlessly long winded a dwcole, and limit themselves to the old “shellfish and two fabrics” canard.

  • That’s a really nice trick, eliminating whole classes of human beings from personhood.

    Just like slavers used to do to black slaves.

  • It’s easy for those with power and choice to do that to those without it.

    Mrs. Legree has already been schooled on that. She will counter by reiterating her opinion often and loudly.

  • You may be right. My view of the modern state called Israel is deeply affected by the sufferings of a number of Palestinian Christians I have known.

  • You can add that to the list of excuses for the Democratic Party’s failure to connect with the voting public in most states.

  • “Obama was all in for promoting LGBT sin” Well, he was just as soon as a majority of his party decided he should.

    That’s called “evolving beliefs.” AKA lying.

  • It is most remarkable how you can be wrong on all counts!

    Then again, it is what I have come to expect from you.

  • The only problem is that he omits the rationale behind the Jerusalem Council’s decision, which was the Noahide law.

  • Because personhood is premised on birth. When one has autonomous existence and is not physically attached to the bodily systems of a person. There is no analogue for gestation among people.

    One can act on behalf of a baby without affecting the personhood of anyone else.

    “Protecting” the unborn really means reducing a pregnant woman into a non-person. Property of the state. A being with no legal control over their own bodily systems or consent.

    “Just like slavers used to do to black slaves.”

    Nope. Slaves were born as well.

  • Nope. You are quite incorrect.

    At no point did they evaluate the baker’s claims for validity. Only for their existence and his alleged belief in them. They never ruled on the merits of the religious freedom claim for discrimination. Kennedy went out of his way to suggest he would have denied such claims.

  • Apparently so.

    Given the support coming to Trump after a week of news involving Federal prosecutors saying he committed a felony, convictions of his staff, and talk as to how to indict a sitting president.

    Republicans have left any semblance of caring for rule of law, never cared for civil liberties and currently are in “alternative facts” mode in response to issues.

  • Nope. He did not suggest he would have denied the baker’s claim. The claim he would have denied was not the baker’s claim, and he noted that.

  • No. The values one votes for are reflected in the policies positions of the candidate, NOT on the personal worthiness or unworthiness of the candidate him/herself. If the later were the case, one would not be able to vote for anyone.

  • That is not what what “values voters” have been saying up to 2016. They have demanded their candidates be “Good Christian Folk” and attacked others for personal worthiness/unworthiness.

    I guess lying like a cheap rug is a Christian value as well. Trump sure does a lot of that as well.

    What is the point of a “values position” if you are not promoting values at all in any sort of action? A desire to attack others. Nothing more.

    “f the later were the case, one would not be able to vote for anyone.”

    Because there are no ethical or moral Conservative Christian politicians? Are you sure you want to go there?

    It would be a confirmation of what liberals have been saying for decades. That your “Values” are a pretense. A sham for what amounts to a naked power grab.

  • The values one supports are reflected in the policies one supports. Just because you don’t agree with somebody else’s values doesn’t mean they are not values for that person. They are hardly a “pretense”. –

    As for the ethics and morals of politicians, I have an equally low opinion of all of them – .conservative and liberal, Christian and atheist, etc. After shaking their hand, count your rings, and wash thoroughly.

  • “The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws. ”

    while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable
    public accommodations law

    (“Provisions like these are well within the State’s usual power to enact when a legislature has reason to believe that a given group is the target of discrimination, and they do not, as a general matter, violate the First orFourteenth Amendments”).
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

    You are wrong. You already knew that.

  • Again, your judgment in such matters is impaired if not completely unreliable. You are unable to spot the sex perv in your own midst. You even support him in a wh0rish way to get benefits from him.

  • I am not the one who considers a person property and demands control of their body. That is all you. Projection is strong there.

    Personhood at birth makes sense. Fetus worship is a morass of immoral demands on people, s1utshaming, blatant lying about obvious facts and flinging insults when pwned.

  • No, it’s not lying, it’s called being flexible enough to overcome childhood prejudices instilled by the church and be willing to change one’s opinion in light of new data, new experiences, or both.

  • You are trying to lie about how “Values Voters” comported themselves since inception of the term until 2 years ago. No amount of excuse making will cover up the whole idea that your “Christian values” are complete and utterly fictitious. Something you demand in others but will never hold yourself accountable for. Complete dishonest hypocritical garbage.

    They are hardly a “pretense”.

    They are when they are not even believed by their proponents. When you conveniently drop them in order to shill for power, money and control.

    “I have an equally low opinion of all of them – .conservative and liberal, Christian and atheist, etc. ”

    Yet you go out of your way to make excuses for the rather shameful behavior of Conservatives and fling poo at the actions of liberals. I take your statement there about as seriously as you really take Christian values. 🙂

  • “As a general matter.” Background. Summaries of the opposing arguments. None of it addresses the petitioner’s claim, as Kennedy noted:

    Petitioners conceded, moreover, that if a baker refused to sell any goods or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a different matter and the State would have a strong case under this Court’s precedents
    that this would be a denial of goods and services
    that went beyond any protected rights of a baker who
    offers goods and services to the general public and is
    subject to a neutrally applied and generally applicable
    public accommodations law. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 4–7, 10.
    Phillips claims, however, that a narrower issue is presented.
    He argues that he had to use his artistic skills to
    make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation. As Phillips would
    see the case, this contention has a significant First
    Amendment speech component and implicates his deep
    and sincere religious beliefs. In this context the baker
    likely found it difficult to find a line where the customers’
    rights to goods and services became a demand for him to
    exercise the right of his own personal expression for their
    message, a message he could not express in a way consistent
    with his religious beliefs.”

    Do you know what “petitioners concede” means, dear? It means “that ain’t what we’re talking about here.”

    As far as what IS being talked about…”The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts”

    What I already know is that you wouldn’t know judicial review from a pay-per-view. And so does everybody else.

  • The historical texts say what they say about him, quite apart from -and a millenium and a half before – I had anything to say about him.

  • Your ability to discern the quality of character of others appears impaired or non existent. It’s what happens when ones professed values are a mere pretense for a handout.

  • In a flash — once the polls turn.

    Nobody was fooled by that. Obama was simply a politician/salesman like they all are.

  • Nice try, but I have not dropped any of my values. They remain exactly the same as they were pre-2016. I am, however, glad that we have a President who generally supports policies that reflect my values – such as on immigration.

    Give me one example of how I go out of my way “to make excuses for the rather shameful behavior of Conservatives”. And don’t start talking about some imaginary straw man you have dancing around inside your head.

  • You have to have them first to drop.

    You have been consistently lying and playing revisionist to the last 40 years of conservative Christian rhetoric and actions.

    Your values apparently are bigotry malice and corruption.

    Your support of a serial adulterer, bigot, compulsive liar, cheat, likely felon with an autocratic streak while holding yourself out as a Christian voting for their values is proof enough of shameful behavior. It’s amazing what excuses you make for what amounts to wushful thinking for a handout.

  • Re: “It is most remarkable how you can be wrong on all counts!” 

    I invite you to refute — logically, and based on compelling, objective, verifiable evidence — everything I said. 

    Re: “Then again, it is what I have come to expect from you.” 

    And I expect nothing but sanctimonious, childish, irrational sniveling from you. 

  • I find it funny that you gave me the exact thing you were allegedly decrying with my quote. We had this conversation before when the case was current news. You were far more honest about it back then.

  • You need they too. I am not the one demanding control of people and their bodies. That is all you.

    Funny how some people use the Bible to justify keeping women as chattel property.

  • Hey Fotine: Are you aware that fetuses aren’t defined as human beings in the Bible?
    Exodus 21:12, where it is written: “He that smiteth a man so that he dieth shall surely be put to death.”
    Exodus 21:22‑23, where Scripture states: “When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other misfortune ensues, the one responsible shall be fined as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on judges’ reckoning”.

  • Sure we did.. but you conveniently left out the key phrase “petitioners concede.”

    And refused to admit to it.

    Which told me one of two things — either you were deliberately misrepresenting the opinion or you were copying and pasting from some lib website trying to do the same thing. I lean toward the latter, for you aren’t knowledgeable enough to edit out the relevant language by yourself.

  • That is indeed the key point! You’ve put your finger on it. I ask this sincerely, as a fellow Christian: do you think he has?

  • evangepublicans: please open your bibles and admit in your heart of hearts that just about everything dishonest donald says and does is the antithesis of everything jesus said we should do. then pray that your man trump sees the light, has a moral, spiritual, and intellectual conversion, repents and changes his ways — rather than praying for old testament curses to fall on your political opponents, although the above example taken from ps.35 isn’t as vile as your bumper sticker of a few years ago (pray for obama – ps.109.8).

    “They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds…” — trump in a nutshell

  • The passage actually reads “…so that her offspring come forth.” Same word the scripture uses for any other offspring

  • If you want to be technical about it, human beings are called “nefish” in Hebrew. They become “nefish” as soon as they take their first breath. A baby whose head is outside the mother but whose body is inside is considered “nefish” because it’s possible he/she has inhaled some air (thus, God has breathed into his/her mouth). Until this point they are part of the mother and damaging them incurs a similar fine to damaging the mother’s arm or breaking her leg.

  • Yet you are still describing claims made by parties.

    You are playing revisionist here and quote mining in an obvious way.

    Even that concession was rather weak. Especially in light of precedent and Kennedy’s reference to his own rulings on such issues. Even more telling is how at no point even in the summary of the decision is there mention of the bakers claims being evaluated here.

    Been there already, did that.

  • David is held in extremely high regard in Christianity.

    Next step up will be comparing Trump to Church founders and apostles.

  • Later on, religious leaders decided that it wasn’t cool to hang or stone a woman once she had sat on “the birthing stool” (i.e.-labor was advanced). Before that– no problem because the fetus was part of the guilty mother and had no individual being.

  • Christians are so hilariously.
    Good luck with that heaven stuff. Too bad you need to die first to redeem your coupon. Oh right, but you get to live “forever.” No wonder you could care less about climate change. Thankfully, the White Evangelicals and Republicans are all dying out soon. Oh right. Forgot about that heaven stuff. And eternal life. LOLOL! Saying it loud always makes me crack up. Just like when I say “Bangkok.”

  • He’s not worshiped. Interestingly enough, the low point of his moral career (adultery covered up by murder) was expressly reiterated in Matthew’s genealogy of Christ. It was an everlasting stain upon his house.

  • The ancient Greeks were even creepier. They believed that the soul entered the body 60 days AFTER birth.

  • You started the quote-mining, Einstein. You just aren’t any good at it.

    Of course the baker’s claim wasn’t evaluated. He left that to a later and more conservative SCOTUS, with his own boy on the bench. That way he could retire with his status as the patron saint of gay intact but without sullying the First Amendment by handing the alphabet club another weapon to attack ordinary businesspeople with.

  • Big deal. That is not the word used here. The word derived from yeladim, the same word used in the book of 1 Samuel to refer to Penninah’s born children.

  • That is how the Bible defines things. Getting mad and ranting won’t change that, Rick. If you don’t believe in abortion, find a wife who feels the same way and don’t do it (I wouldn’t do it BTW). But don’t claim to have Biblical justification You don’t. The rules were defined by a very literate and very precise civilization. It was written down and ancient Hebrew has not “disappeared in any sense of the word. Many religious scholars can read it. The manuscripts have not deteriorated either. The Middle East is a desert and these manuscripts are preserved in the original.

  • I get so sick of seeing hard right people play around with what the Bible says. It’s disrespectful.

  • Then why do different rules apply for babies who have been born? Yeladim means something like “passed forth”. It just refers to the fact that the subject matter has been admitted from a hole. If they considered fetuses as “nefish” the rules pertaining to human beings would have been applied.

  • Well, if she says it often and shouts, I guess it qualifies as truth in the minds of the hard right.

  • I’m sorry that I wasn’t more “inclusive” in my post, Ben. I should have honored you by including the phrase “Gay Goliath” right next to “DNC Zombies.”
    (Both phrases are 99% synonymous these days!! )

  • The first breath was regarded as God breathing into the new body and making it a person. Before God’s breath it was a growth attached to the mother.

  • No, yeladim means children/offspring.

    If the Talmud added some extraneous details I’m not concerned about that. Jesus has some strong words for those who would nullify the commands of God to follow the rules of men.

  • They’re really lucky because when their third-grade-drop-out preachers fall on the floor, roll their eyes and produce gibberish syllables they are instantly on a par with people who have studied scripture their entire lives. Speaking gibberish… an instant PhD.

  • So, no actual examples of me going out of my way to make excuses for shameful behavior. Got it.

    My values: better border security, deportation of illegal aliens, renegotiated trade deals, more conservative judges and justices with an originalist take on the Constitution, renunciation of Neocon foreign policy, rejection of LGBT/genderist ideology, etc. If you consider progress on those goals to be “handouts”, I really don’t care, and will be glad to accept them.

    Your understanding of what constitutes a values voter is both quaint and outdated.

  • “I am not the one demanding control of people and their bodies.”

    …says the one who demands the right to rip little children’s bodies apart, suction them up, and discard them as “waste”.

  • Are you serious? Both the Bible and 2000 years of Christian teachings condemn abortion.

    “If you don’t believe in abortion…don’t do it.”

    If you don’t believe in owning slaves…don’t do it.

    Your advice doesn’t work when dealing with problems of moral evil.

  • Not a refutation. Try again. With logic, this time. 

    Oh, and … not to mention … You never “lost” me at all. You knew damned well what I was saying. There was nothing indefinite about it. In fact, that you claimed to have “lost me” at that point, illustrates that you understood me perfectly

    So — not only should you try using logic this time, I suggest you also stop being disingenuous. 

    Or did your Jesus tell you that disingenuousness is fine with him? 

  • Re: “My values …” 

    I note you don’t mention reverence for the institution of marriage. So I guess that means you can lavish praise on a thrice-married philanderer. Right? 

  • A fetus is still not a person.

    But a woman is.

    A fetus in her body, its her sole physical burden. Its none of your business in any way. Your distaste for the procedure does not translate into authority over her body in any way. Don’t like it, tough luck she is not your property, Slaver.

  • Marriage is not a policy position about which one votes for a candidate, unlike the values I mentioned.

    I do not lavish praise on any philanderers. Three marriages is not necessarily a problem, depending on the circumstances, of course.

  • Re: “Marriage is not a policy position about which one votes for a candidate, unlike the values I mentioned.” 

    Yes it is — according to militant Christianists who oppose gay marriage. 

    Oh wait. You’re one of those folk, now, aren’t you? Hmmm. 

    Re: “I do not lavish praise on any philanderers.” 

    Yes you do. You praised your Groper-in-Chief. He’s a philanderer, and by his own admission, a serial groper. 

    Re: “Three marriages is not necessarily a problem, depending on the circumstances, of course.” 

    Of course, when “the circumstances” are “my sacred idol married three times.” If it happens to be someone else, well, then obviously those are different “circumstances.” Right? 

    How convenient for you! 🙂 

  • Really?

    OK, we have your shameful call for discrimination as a start under the phony pretense of calling it religious freedom.

    You want a useless boondoggle of a wall, use of ICE to harass people of color and flagrantly violate all manners of laws to do it, trade deals to make the rich richer at your expense, and judges who do as you want demand and attack civil liberties. You want to attack people under color of law for being gay without consequence. Pretty corrupt, reprehensible and boneheaded set of “values” there.

    Which works well for supporting a corrupt, reprehensible bonehead in charge. No wonder you fundies wh0re yourself out to Trump.

    “Your understanding of what constitutes a values voter is both quaint and outdated.”

    Yeah, they have dropped any pretense of morals, ethics and values and have gone full bigoted scumbag corporatist shill!

  • Relegating children in the womb to non-personhood, denying them their humanity, is of ,course your necessary fall-back position, missus.

    My greetings to the mass’ah now, ya hear!

  • You asked for a quote. I not only gave it to you, but the full citation to the source. Your need to misrepresent facts and conflate it into something in line with your agenda is not unexpected here.

    Fact is, Kennedy’s decision was entirely based on what he perceived was the conduct of the CO Civil Rights Board and not at all an evaluation of the claims of the Baker. The closest you have to a precedent there is one should be a tad more respectful to hearing claims of religious freedom. (Even though by all measures they were bullcrap pretext demanding something the law forbids for good reason)

  • No. A candidate’s marital status was not a policy position in any party recently.

    No. I have never praised Trump for his character, which is not commendable in the least. Where did you ever get that idea? But I LOVE many of his policies.

    No. Although the ideal is one, three marriages has been canonically acceptable since the Tenth Century AD. Gee, doesn’t sound like that had anything to do with Trump, now does it?

    How INconvenient for you! 🙁

  • Wrong. Children are born. People. Just like their mother. A fetus is not.

    Your need for conflation undermines any moral pretensions of your position. Its all about lying about the difference between born and unborn and pretending a mother has no significance in the discussion.

    A fetus simply can’t be considered a person. They have no existence beyond their mother’s will. It also doesn’t help you that doing so means removing the personhood of the mother. Turning her into a slave.

    Your position is nonsensical and apparently dependent on flinging poo, malice towards people and lying. Mine is based on common sense, respect for people and being honest.

  • Until its plain stated text inconvenient to one’s selfish and malicious motives. Then it is whatever you want it to be.

  • Re: “But I LOVE many of his policies.” 

    There’s a word for this assessment: “Praise.” You just “praised” your Groper-in-Chief. Sure, you can say you merely praised “his policies,” but in truth, in doing so, you praised him … period. 

    I get that you don’t want to admit it. But, you very clearly did it. Either you’re mature enough to own up to that, or you’re not. 

    Re: “Although the ideal is one, three marriages has been canonically acceptable since the Tenth Century AD.” 

    That’s not the position of most Christian denominations, which condemn divorce in almost every case. Especially Right-wing versions of it, as well as Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Just to name a couple. 

    So your “divorce is no big deal for Christianity” position is noted, but dismissed as completely the opposite of most sects’ teaching. 

  • Oh, here it comes at last! I was wondering how long it would take you to play the race card.

    Raaaaacist…….Homophoooobe!

    How tired….. and predictable.

    Oh – and you forgot: Islamaphooooobe!

    People don’t take your name-calling seriously anymore.

  • Re: “People don’t take your name-calling seriously anymore.” 

    There’s a really easy way to not be called names: Stop doing the things that earn those monikers! 

  • “play the race card”

    Meaning you are annoyed I am calling out racism but not bothering to refute it. Meaning you are just lazy and thin skinned about it. There are stupider arguments coming from conservatives. It really is more of an admission I am correct here. Such a snowflake.

  • I can’t help it my point makes complete sense and doesn’t require lying, nor flinging insults.

    You can’t babysit a fetus. You can’t “protect” one without attacking its mother as a person.

    You have to constantly lie and pretend born and unborn are not real distinctions

    The idea that life is only worthy of respect in gestation but not after birth that you have is immoral garbage and nonsensical.

    I see you have no cogent response except making ridiculous quips.

  • “Evolving beliefs” results from religious decision/freedom of conscience.

    Evolving opinion, on the other hand, results from exposure to new information and insights, resulting reflective thinking, and the humility to acknowledge one’s need/obligation to embrace the new. (The word ‘humility’ stems from a root concept meaning *to stand on firm ground*.)

    In either case, one may need courage to face one’s critics, too many of whom are likely possessed by FEAR.

  • Of course the ruling was based on the conduct of the COCR

    And what YOU originally asserted is nowhere to be found in it. As is usually the case with your assertions.

  • Your estimation of politicians mirrors mine, Rick. Which is why all this foaming at the mouth from the usual-usuals here is only so much background noise.

  • The Christian Didache, which dates from the 1st century, forbade abortion.

    Before that, Josephus wrote that “the Law has commanded to raise all the children and prohibited women from aborting or destroying seed; a woman who does so shall be judged a murderess of children for she has caused a soul to be lost and the family of man to be diminished”

    I looked up your “nefish” nonsense— it has to do with instances where the mother’s life is being endangered by the pregnancy. Study up on your stuff before you jump in, for crying out loud.

  • The first breath was breathed into an adult male at the time of creation. It has nothing to do with human birth.

  • Indeed she does. You also couldn’t deprive a REAL person of his slaves without removing his personhood — his right to his property.

    All these arguments are old hat. The slavers created them all.

  • Pfft. All Graham said was that Trump is defending religious freedom. And that’s everyone’s religious freedom, not just Christians’. A far cry from “speaking for Christianity.”

    Why can’t you libs simply stick to facts instead of telling everybody else what they “really” think?

  • The Supreme Court of North Carolina used the exact same line of reasoning in 1829 to absolve a slaver of punishment for shooting his runaway slave in the back — that the slaver’s control over his property is absolute and his privacy could not be breached by holding him accountable for destroying it. Although someone else other than the owner could be.

    IOW, it was “nobody’s business” to interfere.

    Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

  • Anyone who calls out Daddy Trump must be liberal, right?

    Trump “defends” the Christian faith. The Christian Trump die-hards hear this and rejoice. Check out the weak Breitbart writers and their disciples. When has he ever defended the faith of Christians? Maybe the Muslim registry?

    Nothing conservative about this president.

  • Anyone who goes around telling people what they “really think” is more likely than not a liberal. I’ve yet to encounter one who could debate without it.

  • Yes, world powers were foretold by the prophet Daniel through the image of a man (Daniel, chapters 2 and 7) with a head of gold (Babylon); chest and arms of silver (Medo-Persia; Cyrus); abdomen and thighs of copper (Greece); legs of iron (Rome); and feet partly of iron and clay (Anglo-America).

    The time is almost here for God’s kingdom, or heavenly government (Daniel 4:17) to put an end to and replace all human governments (Daniel 2:44).

    It will then start its millennial rule over all meek mankind (Isaiah 11:1-5), by its King, Christ Jesus (Isaiah 9:6, 7).

    Its rule will provide worldwide peace (Micah 4:3, 4), as well as end all sickness, disease, old age, and even death on earth (Revelation 21:3, 4).

  • Nothing was “foretold” anywhere in the Bible. It predicts nothing. All “Biblical prophecy” is B.S. Some of the explicit predictions made within it, have not only failed to come true, it’s now no longer possible for any of them ever to come true: 

    “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” (Mt 16:28) 

    And Jesus was saying to them, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.” (Mk 9:1) 

    “But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.” (Lk 9:27) 

    At some point, people really need to stop lying about the Bible. 

  • The chapter divisions in the Gospels are not part of the original text. So Matthew 16:28 is as likely to refer to the Transfiguration, at the beginning of chapter 18, as to the prediction of the Second Coming in Mt 17:27.

  • “Innocent” in the context of Kajsa’s comment above means that the people concerned have done nothing to warrant maltreatment by politicians. This description surely includes preborn infants – though, BTW, I don’t believe in “original sin”.

  • I think that he may well be a sincere seeker, but for me, the jury is out on whether he is a new convert or not. What I do think, though, is that if/when he does turn to Christ, he is likely to do it properly – people who have been overt non-believers have to count the cost, especially if they are in the public eye, so they tend to be wholehearted when they do become Christians.

  • Actually they refer to the FIRST coming of Christ, which most people who don’t study the whole scripture completely forget about.

    The Kingdom of God officially came on Palm Sunday AD 32, when Jesus arrived in Jerusalem as the promised Messiah:

    “Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” Zech.9:9.

  • Meaning that your brain dead resort to meaningless name-calling is oh-so-predictable. It is really tiresome, being basically an admission of failure on your part.

  • Those slaver comments really seem to have hit close to home!

    Don’t like facing the ugly truth, do you?

  • PsiCop – The guy so ignorant about Christian teachings on marriage that he didn’t even understand my reference to the Tenth Century. Yet he continues to opine on the topic, making himself look even more foolish!

  • Very true. It’s almost like the droning of one of those white noise machines that put people to sleep!

  • I can’t help it if you are support flagrantly racist policies and are thin skinned about it. You aren’t refuting what I am saying, just showing you don’t like hearing it.

    You are such a snowflake.

  • Trump is an atheist, with zero class. All those prayers end up in big black hole, forever. Maybe they can visit him in prison.

  • Excrot mine uses common sense, consistency and honesty To me all people are born and are always people.

    To you a women stops being a person at pregnancy and becomes property of the state. Makes no sense whatsoever. Wildly contradictory and immoral.

  • Slavers said the same thing, except they replaced “born” with “free.” Made perfect sense to them. In fact, it made perfect sense to the entire world for all of recorded pre-christian history, just like infanticide.

    People with power will always try to dehumanize those without it where it benefits them. It is the most effective way to neutralize the conscience.

  • No they didn’t. Slaves had to be born first. You are trying to deflect from your contradictory, arbitrary and frankly immoral definition of personhood. Somehow a fetus is worthy of consideration but it’s mother is not.

    I consider no person property. All those born have rights to their bodies to decide as they see fit. No aspect of personhood is conditional or involves denying it to others. All people have autonomy in that they are not physically attached to any other person.

    Yours is a mess. Hence straw man nonsense, insults, dishonest language and general malicious posturing to justify it.

  • Pay attention, Mrs. Legree. To you people must be born to be people. To them people had to be free to be people. Those with the power to call the shots have always crafted their own definitions of “personhood” to their own maximum advantage. It always “makes sense” to them. And it’s always a mess.

  • Your need to make up crap about my position is noted as is the projection here. You accuse me of being akin to a slaver in thinking but you actually advocate stripping the personhood of a woman and reducing her to property by becoming pregnant.

    They literally belong to the state to you. You can’t be more full of crap here if you tried. You keep ignoring how a woman is reduced to insignificant status in your position.

    Personhood being conditional, transitory and arbitrary to you. That is morally repugnant.

    To me you are a person at birth and remain a person at all times. You are never property of the state. No person is.

    Since you can’t do anything to a fetus without affecting its mother, I don’t have to consider them separately for any practical concerns. The fetus has nothing without its mother. So it has no rights outside of her as well. It can’t. So no need to bother. It’s her concern, but ever yours.

  • Not making anything up. To you personhood is conditional and relational — not intrinsic to the nature of human life. It was for the slavers as well. Conveniently their definition benefitted their pockets and yours benefits yours. Dehumanization always benefits someone.

    Don’t stamp those little feet so hard, snowflake. You might hurt your “personhood.”

  • Of course you are, projectionist. Person who declared a women, a person born to be property if the state.

    My position is easy. Born = person. People have rights.

    Yours is a mess. Fetus = person. It’s mother = property. Born are people when I feel like it. People have rights unless I deem them unworthy of them

  • Born = person. Free = person.

    Dehumanization is always easy. Especially when the alternative presents the empowered one an inconvenience and the dehumanized has no voice.

  • THESE CHARLATANS MAKE ME SICK TO MY STOMACH AND I DO NOT HEAR NOR SEE THE JESUS THAT I LOVE IN THEIR ACTIONS NOR THEIR WORDS.

  • Considering you are reducing a woman to property when she becomes pregnant, I would say you are quite adept at dehumanizing. It goes well with your dehumanizing of all sorts of people. You are at least consistent there.

    So a fetus is given a voice but its mother’s is taken away. That makes no sense. A fetus has no independent existence from its mother until it is no longer a fetus. So your “voice for a fetus” amounts to nothing more than just taking one away from a woman. Because you are not actually protecting a fetus nor can it physically have its own rights to speak of. The whole attached thing makes your posturing look so dishonest and silly.

  • Nobody is reducing a woman to property. A woman has all the power and choice here. She makes the decision that initiates the life. She also has a power to vote in such a way as to preserve the dehumanization of that life to her advantage.

    Exactly like the slavers made the decision to create the slave condition, and decided that they would define personhood in such a way as to preserve their constitutionally protected “property” rights at the expense of the powerless.

    How long are you going to stamp and yell, Mrs. Legree? Neither reiteration nor increased volume strengthens your argument in any way.

  • We’re about to see the 5 stages of GRIEF from right wing losers over the next few months:

    1) Denial: “Trump didn’t commit a crime”
    2) Anger: “Why is Mueller not going after Hillary and Obama”
    3) Bargaining: “Okay he committed crimes, but look how great the economy is”
    4) Depression: “We won’t take this lying down… we will revolt!!!!111!!”
    5) Acceptance: “Oh well….at least he nominated some judges”

  • Of course you are. A person whose body is no longer under their own control is property. A slave. A person whose body is at the mercy of another without their choice or consent. You have even tried to argue that becoming the property of the state is perfectly reasonable. There is nothing moral about your position or what you use to justify it.

    Your whole spiel is about reducing women to non-personhood. You can’t even bother to address their existence in this discussion except through indirect s1utshaming garbage. As if claims of personal moral superiority somehow grant power over the lives of others.

    Your refusal to acknowledge the material difference between birth and gestation, between autonomy and attachment just shows what dishonest lengths are needed to support your views. Your entire position is nonsensical because a fetus’s attachment renders any claims of personhood a complete farce. Nothing more than a pretext to attack the mother.

    its why you go straight to attack and empty rhetoric. You have nothing which remotely makes sense. You have nothing remotely moral. Its just fetus worship and disregard for people.

    Worst still you are easily grifted by corporatist hucksters to vote against your own economic and political interests if someone pretends to take your view seriously. Notice how quickly a Republican controlled presidency and Congress was able to get a tax law passed which looted the resources of the middle class, but didn’t move an inch on fetus worship agenda.

  • “A person whose body is no longer under their own control is property. A slave. A person whose body is at the mercy of another without their choice or consent.” That does not describe a pregnant woman. In all except cases of rape, a woman chooses the actions that create a human life. She has all the power.

    “Moral superiority” does not enter the equation at all. Nor does “s1utshaming.” What gives? Did somebody bash you in the girls’ locker room for stealing her bf?

    “Your refusal to acknowledge the material difference…blah blah blah” Nobody refuses to acknowledge a difference (the difference between black/white and slave/free was obvious to your predecessors too). What we don’t acknowledge is that the difference is sufficient to justify dehumanization and killing.

    “a fetus’s attachment renders any claims of personhood a complete farce.” So did slave status.

    “Worst still you are easily grifted by corporatist hucksters to vote against your own economic and political interests” We will all decide what our own economic and political interests are, thank you very much. We need no assistance from foul-mouthed movie-watchers and coffee-makers.

    “its why you go straight to attack and empty rhetoric.” You have written literally reams of attack and empty rhetoric today alone, probably on your company’s time. How long are you going to stamp and yell, Mrs. Legree? Neither reiteration nor increased volume strengthens your case in any way.

  • “She has all the power”

    She is a person. Personhood occurrs at birth. Its her body. You have no say in her decisions concerning it. Any claims of such reduce her to property, a slave.

    That was the only part of your rant which was cogent and addressed the issues. Too bad you could not be more honest about that point.

  • Says the dude that wears a thong, and then thinks it’s just fine to compare his with the prayerful.
    See you in hell Rick, and you will be working for me bitch.

  • “Personhood occurrs at birth.” Yes, you have made that assertion of your opinion numerous times.

    “You have no say in her decisions concerning it.” The Supreme Court of North Carolina held pretty much the same thing about the master-slave relationship in 1829, Mrs. Legree.

  • “”Personhood occurrs at birth.” Yes, you have made that assertion of your opinion numerous times.”

    It happens to be true, makes sense, is consistent, and easy to apply in an honest manner.

    You clearly have nothing of value in response Again, I am not the one declaring a woman property of the state because they are pregnant. That is all you. A slaver.

  • ROFL! Slavery arguments are not to my taste, for I don’t believe in the dehumanization and dismemberment of the powerless for the personal advantage of those with power.

    You’ve used ALL of them from A to Z.

    How long are you going to stamp and yell, Mrs. Legree? Your preferences have already been communicated loudly and clearly, and they are of course well-rooted in the more ignoble portions of our history.

  • OK. You have nothing but poo flinging.

    Pretty common for fetus worshipers. Like this one recently
    “Pro-Life Man Indicted for Vile Murder Threat Left on Senator’s Voicemail”
    https://lawandcrime.com/crazy/pro-life-man-indicted-for-vile-murder-threat-left-on-senators-voicemail/

    BTW Kermit Gosnell is the result of fetus worship agendas. He is your guy.

    https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04/15/how-the-kermit-gosnell-case-is-an-indictment-on/193623
    “the case illustrates the horrible alternatives that rise up in the absence of safe and legal abortion services. “

  • What an absurdity. Those delusional evangies have been duped, but they’re willing to lie, cheat or steal as long as they get their religious agenda pushed through.

  • Getting desperate now, Mrs Legree?

    The only one endorsing killing here is you. Actuallly you’ve been doing it for several days now.

  • Poor snowflake whines about name-calling while calling names. 😀

    You say fetus-worshipper, and the rest of us hear n****r-l***r. What with all your other arguments for dehumanization and all.

  • Seriously, Law and Crime? What a garbage site.

    I can’t Imagine a more perfect setting for your characteristic vulgarity.

  • Whining about me is not a refutation. Keep trying. Someday you might come near refuting me, but first you’ll need to get over your sanctimonious rage at my insolence.

  • Ok, tell us all about the relevance of my reference to the Tenth Century, or you will be admitting your ignorance about Christian teachings on marriage.

    No rage on my part, silly, just amusement as we all see your lack of real knowledge exposed. You blustery deflections aren’t hiding it, LOL.

  • I’ve found myself lately questioning the idea of “original sin”. Thanks for your clarification. I approach discussion of the term ‘innocent’ from a different perspective.

  • You’ve given me nothing to refute. What would you have me refute?

    But your failure to answer is actually a solid refutation of your claiming to know anything about the topic.

    Come on, cough it up, let’s have your answer about the Tenth Century. Cat got your tongue?

  • She pretends to a lot of expertise she doesn’t actually have. And she calls everyone “childish” for the same reason that the Tater Tot calls everyone a liar. Ignore.

  • So…God put Hitler, Pol Pot, Pinochet and Stalin in power then? Remember that God, being omniscient, knew exactly what they would do when they assumed power. How can anyone give respect to a God who enables destructive dictators?

    As a side note, I believe that 1st and 2nd Maccabees are also part of the Catholic Bible. Those books tell of the Jewish people’s revolt against their Greek rulers (who, according to Sirrach, were put into power by God.) Why would the Bible honor those disloyal people for revolting against the ruler that their God had placed over them?

  • I’ve said specific things which you could’ve refuted. But instead you got all incensed that I dared say anything and vented your sanctimony at my insolence. 

    By your refusal to refute me, you’ve effectively proven me right. Thanks! I couldn’t have done it without you … literally! 

    It’s been nice trying to converse with you, but has proven impossible. Sayonara, Christianist! 

  • Re: “The chapter divisions in the Gospels are not part of the original text.” 

    That’s true, but it’s irrelevant. 

    Re: “So Matthew 16:28 is as likely to refer to the Transfiguration …” 

    No, it doesn’t. Just before that, in 16:27, Jesus explains what he’s referring to: 

    “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.” 

    There’s no way 16:28 can be said to describe the Transfiguration … because during that event, Jesus did not “repay every man according to his deeds.” 

    Nice try. This is actually a common apologetic response. But it falls apart, and is a lie. 

  • Re: “No. A candidate’s marital status was not a policy position in any party recently.” 

    Not when Bill Clinton’s extramarital affair was used to try to remove him from office? Hmm. 

  • Your argument hinges on the assumptions that:
    1) Matt 16:27 and 16:28 are part of the same speech;
    2) That, if they were, the Lord Himself intended to refer to the same event throughout, and;
    3) That the writer did not himself see the Transfiguration narrative as a fulfilment of 16:27, but positioned it at this point accidentally or for some other reason.
    Mark 8:38 – 9:1 is similar to Matt 16:27-28, and is also followed by the Transfiguration account, and Luke 9: 26-27 is equivalent to Mark 8:38 – 9:1 and is followed by the Transfiguration story in Luke 9:28 onwards.
    My comment about the chapter headings is relevant because they stop us from reading this part of the Gospel in Matthew and Mark as one continuous narrative, which is how it is presented in Luke.
    It is also worth noting that Jewish prophecy never has only one fulfilment – the themes are revisited again and again, each time more fully. Thus Isaiah 53 can describe Jeremiah, and be a picture of the Passion.

  • Re: “Your argument hinges on the assumptions that: 1) Matt 16:27 and 16:28 are part of the same speech …” 

    It is. The one follows the other. See how easy that was? 

    Re: “That, if they were, the Lord Himself intended to refer to the same event throughout …” 

    They do. The one follows the other. See how easy that was? 

    Re: “That the writer did not himself see the Transfiguration narrative as a fulfilment of 16:27, but positioned it at this point accidentally or for some other reason.” 

    The writer wrote what he wrote. Not something you’d rather he’d have written instead. That’s all there is to read. If you don’t like what he wrote, take it up with him instead of whining at me about it. 

    Re: “My comment about the chapter headings is relevant …” 

    It’s not relevant at all. No matter how fiercely you insist to the contrary. I did not quote any “headings.” I quoted the text of Matthew and used verse citations so that others could find them and verify those words are there. That’s traditionally how one quotes scripture and is a courtesy to readers. It doesn’t affect the content of what one says. 

    Re: “It is also worth noting that Jewish prophecy never has only one fulfilment …” 

    Irrelevant. Jesus made a specific, clear prediction — as seen in all 3 synoptic gospels — which, on its face, not only is not true, there’s no longer any possibility of it ever coming true in the future. 

    That’s obvious. I get that you don’t want it to be so — but too bad so sad for you, it is! And there’s not Thing One you can ever do about it! 

  • Still no iteration of “specific things”, just a nonspecific nothing. Name one. You won’t.

    AND STILL NO ANSWER ABOUT THE TENTH CENTURY.

    YOU GOT NUTHIN’, LOL!

  • Clinton was neither recent, nor was his marital status a policy position of either party in either election.

    Some people, of course, did not want a Harvey Weinstein type sexual predator as President. (Many of them now support Trump). Others were fine with that (but now they condemn Trump for it). Plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

    Personally, I condemn both for their sexual ethics (or more like the lack thereof.). So for me it boils down to whether or not I support their policies on issues like immigration, foreign affairs, etc.

  • So, from your perspective, the variant readings of Mark and Luke are not significant, and do not add anything to our understanding of Matthew 16:27-28. And the Transfiguration narrative has nothing at all to do with Matthew 16:27-28, or with the equivalent verses in Mark or Luke, even though, in each case, it follows immediately after the verses in question. However, what you hold to be certain is that Matthew 16:28 has the exact meaning that you attribute to it, no more and no less. Why? – because it can then be argued that a prophecy of Jesus was not fulfilled, and therefore that He was not Who He said He was.
    Here is what a writer on Hermeneutics Stack Exchange has to say on the matter. Although it was written in response to a question about whether it was the Transfiguration or the events recorded in Acts that fulfilled Matthew 16:28, it covers a lot of what we have been discussing. https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/28181
    “Three gospels contain that statement, and all three are immediately​ followed by the transfiguration, and all three use language that connects the two events.

    Matthew 16:28-17:1: “”Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves.”

    Mark 9:1-2: “And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.” Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John, and led them up on a high mountain apart by themselves…”

    Luke 9:27-28: “But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God.” Now it came to pass, about eight days after these sayings, that He took Peter, John, and James and went up on the mountain to pray.”

    This language connects the two events as part of one train of thought. Remember: The authors, while recording real historic events, weren’t writing history books, but theology books, to communicate points (in the big picture, each of the four gospels communicates and underlines different aspects of Jesus’ nature). History books say “x, then y, and later z”, but if a theological book says “X then later Y”, they are explicitly tying the two together, in the same way a Chemistry book saying “put a drip of acid into the beaker, then it foamed over” is implying a connection between the two, not unrelated events mindlessly recorded.

    John 1:14 possibly references the same event: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”

    2nd Peter 1:16-18 for sure talks about it: “For we […] were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.”

    A popular alternative view is that Jesus was talking about John, because John “saw” in a vision Jesus coming with His kingdom and angels a few decades later when he wrote the book of Revelation. I think my explanation about is much more straightforward and the likelier explanation, though.”

  • Re: “So, from your perspective, the variant readings of Mark and Luke are not significant …” 

    No, because the variations don’t matter. None of the overt predictions any of them makes, turns out to have come true, nor is there any way they ever might come true in the future. 

    Re: “However, what you hold to be certain is that Matthew 16:28 has the exact meaning that you attribute to it, no more and no less. Why?” 

    Because those are the words that are there. 

    Re: “This language connects the two events as part of one train of thought.” 

    This is not evidence that the latter event (i.e. the Transfiguration) is a “fulfillment” of the former (i.e. Jesus’ false prediction). The evangelists might have viewed them as related, but a topical relationship doesn’t necessarily mean what you say it means. 

    Re: “Remember: The authors, while recording real historic events, weren’t writing history books, but theology books …” 

    I’m more than aware that the gospels are not “history” books, but theological ones. I absolutely get that. Even so, that doesn’t take the evangelists off the hook here. They put words in the mouth of Jesus which were a prediction of the future — one which not only didn’t come true, not even in their own time, but it no longer can ever come true at any point in the future. 

    That’s what they did. I didn’t make it up. They did. It’s not unreasonable of me to point this out. What’s unreasonable of you is to insist they actually had meant to say something they didn’t write, or that what they wrote doesn’t mean what they wrote. 

    Re: “A popular alternative view is that Jesus was talking about John, because John ‘saw’ in a vision Jesus coming with His kingdom and angels a few decades later when he wrote the book of Revelation.” 

    Yeah, I suppose someone could say that the “some of those standing here” whom Jesus mentioned, was the one apostle John … and that it wasn’t actually a reference to “the Son of Man coming in his power,” but just John’s vision of that occurring. If one really needs to go with that, I suppose one could. But that would mean Jesus was tricking his audience — one that included many more people than just one (i.e. John) — at the time he made his prediction. I’m not sure that’s a flattering portrayal of the Almighty. But hey, it’s none of my business if you want to worship and slaver over a trickster deity. 

    I won’t even get into the problem of Revelation’s authorship and the reality that the “John of Patmos” who wrote it was almost certainly not Jesus’ apostle John. But that’s actually beside the point. 

    Re: I think my explanation about is much more straightforward and the likelier explanation, though. 

    I think your “explanation” is a transparent and ridiculous effort to rationalize believing the Bible’s “predictions” have validity. In reality, they do not. Period. End of story. 

  • Re: “So, from your perspective, the variant readings of Mark and Luke are not significant …” 

    No. Why would they matter? 

    Re: “And the Transfiguration narrative has nothing at all to do with Matthew 16:27-28 …” 

    No, it doesn’t. I already explained why. Among other things the Transfiguration didn’t include Jesus judging every human (see v. 27). 

    But you already know this, so I have to ask why you continue lying? Why beat this dead horse? 

    Re: “This language connects the two events as part of one train of thought. “ 

    Two events being “part of one train of thought” does not make them the same event. Also, as I explained to you, at least Matthew makes clear the Transfiguration, and the Son of Man coming “in the glory of His Father,” are two different events. 

    Re: “A popular alternative view is that Jesus was talking about John …” 

    Popular views are not relevant. The words of the gospels are. 

    I’m going to tell you this clearly: You are lying when you say Mt 16:27-28 has anything to do with the Transfiguration. V. 27 itself makes this utterly and brazenly clear. You can rage and fume and bluster at me all you like, but you know damned well that you are lying when you insist Jesus “prediction” of the Son of Man coming “in the glory of His Father” was “fulfilled” by the Transfiguration. You and I and everyone who’s capable of reading words knows otherwise. You may as well try to tell me the sky is red, not blue — no amount of your insistence on that will ever convince me of your contention, when it’s simply not true. 

  • Since you cannot read my mind, you do not know whether I am lying or not. If your perfect faith that Jesus’ prophecy was unfulfilled is justified, then someone who believes otherwise might be said to be deluded. And if it is my faith that has the more solid basis, then I might argue that you are deluded.

  • Re: “Since you cannot read my mind, you do not know whether I am lying or not.” 

    Of course you are! You have to be lying. Mt 16:27 quite obviously describes a future event which absolutely is not and cannot be the Transfiguration! Jesus did not judge all of humanity during the Transfiguration, which is part of his prediction in Mt 16:27. It’s not even a matter of debate — that’s simply how it is. And for you to insist otherwise, repeatedly, makes you a liar. And a rather blatant one, at that! 

    Re: “If your perfect faith that Jesus’ prophecy was unfulfilled …” 

    My conclusion that Jesus’ prediction never came true and cannot ever come true, is not something that’s a matter of “faith.” It’s a matter of fact. It’s objectively true. 

    Re: “And if it is my faith that has the more solid basis, then I might argue that you are deluded.” 

    Nothing accepted on “faith” can ever have a “solid basis,” because there’s absolutely nothing “solid” about “faith” itself. 

  • If I say what I believe to be true, then that is not lying. My motivation and attitudes are only half the story in this discussion, though – why are you so desperate to disprove the words of Jesus? Could it be that, if He turns out to be Who He said He was, then that requires you to review your priorities?

  • Re: “If I say what I believe to be true, then that is not lying.” 

    I don’t buy that. You know the words involved here. You’ve even quoted them at me. 

    Re: “My motivation and attitudes are only half the story in this discussion, though …” 

    I don’t really care what “motivates” you to lie. I just know that you’re doing so. 

    Re: “… why are you so desperate to disprove the words of Jesus?” 

    I’m not “desperate” to “disprove” anything … and it’s not “the words of Jesus” that are even my point. My point, in case you missed it, is that people like you are lying about “the words of Jesus.” His reported words are what they are, and can be read as such by anyone. Their meaning is plain, and his “prediction” quite obviously not only failed to come true, but now cannot ever possibly come true. 

    No, my point is that folks like you lie when you contend those words are “prophecy” which remain valid. They are not “prophecy” and they are not a valid prediction that came true. They simply aren’t. 

  • We will have to agree to disagree on this one. For me, integrity dictates that I cite only references that I believe to be truthful. And, if I cite something that I believe in, then I am telling the truth.
    It seems to me that the critics of the Christian faith sometimes play a double game. On the one hand, they denounce “fundamentalism” as the ultimate evil, without taking into account the likelihood that the nature of the beliefs that are handled in a fundamentalist way will shape such actions as are based on them; on the other, they fail to recognise the presence of poetry, metaphor and word play in the Scriptures, and demand empirical proof of everything that the Bible says. I am hoping that you would not be at one with the theological student who said that if God wanted the trees to clap their hands (Isaiah 55:12), then He would give them hands with which to clap, but I have this horrible feeling that there will be a PsiCop post in the near future that will say “We just have to stop lying about whether the trees can clap their hands”.

  • Re: “It seems to me that the critics of the Christian faith sometimes play a double game.” 

    Ensuring Christians know what their sacred scripture actually says … rather than what they’d like it to say … is not a “double game.” In reality, it’s a way of exposing Christians’ own “double game.” 

    Re: “On the one hand, they denounce “fundamentalism” as the ultimate evil …” 

    It IS an “evil.” 

    Re: “… they fail to recognise the presence of poetry, metaphor and word play in the Scriptures …” 

    When these things are present, there’s evidence for it in the text in question. What you’re doing is inserting extrabiblical information into it and then reinterpreting what’s there in a way that’s not supported by the text. On the other hand, the wordplay elsewhere (e.g. in John 3) is clear because it’s evident within the text itself. 

    Re: “… and demand empirical proof of everything that the Bible says.” 

    I’m not “demanding” anything of you. What I said was that Genesis reports Noah did get drunk on at least one occasion. That was my sole point. Since then you’ve gone on a tear, attacking me for having said that, accusing me of all sorts of crap in the process. 

    But what you do not comprehend is that I did not lie! Genesis says what it says. I did not misstate what’s there. You’re the one who’s doing that … and you’re coupling your inventions with personal attacks on me because I insolently dared report what the words of Genesis are. 

    Grow the hell up, whiney crybaby. 

    Re: “… I have this horrible feeling that there will be a PsiCop post in the near future that will say ‘We just have to stop lying about whether the trees can clap their hands’.” 

    So you think it’s OK to lie about the contents of your own sacred scripture? Good luck with that. And thank you for making your lack of integrity crystal-clear to one and all. You’ve lived down to all my expectations of fundagelicals. 

  • First of all, I don’t remember any mention of Noah in our discussion, nor can I recall having accused you of lying (the boot has been somewhat on the other foot); secondly, the material that I copied and pasted from Hermeneutics Stack Exchange regarding the connection between Mt 16:27-28 and Mt 17:1 included the following:
    “This language connects the two events as part of one train of thought. Remember: The authors, while recording real historic events, weren’t writing history books, but theology books, to communicate points (in the big picture, each of the four gospels communicates and underlines different aspects of Jesus’ nature). History books say “x, then y, and later z”, but if a theological book says “X then later Y”, they are explicitly tying the two together, in the same way a Chemistry book saying “put a drip of acid into the beaker, then it foamed over” is implying a connection between the two, not unrelated events mindlessly recorded.”
    This again refers to the differences between the ways in which the Bible writers used language and constructed narratives, and the way in which a historian would do so.

  • Sorry, I got this mixed up with another discussion. 

    Back to what we were talking about: Listen, you can blather at me all day long about this, but there is NO WAY that Mt 16:27 foretold the Transfiguration. It’s not possible. And you know it’s not possible. The Transfiguration did not include Jesus judging all of humanity, which is clearly and specifically mentioned in 16:27. 

    So please, by all means, keep beating your dead horse of “trains of thought.” Really, none of your B.S. matters, because details do. And those details (i.e. the Transfiguration not involving Jesus judging all humanity) DO NOT MATCH. Period. End of discussion. 

    One thing I will continue to criticize from you is your sanctimonious outrage over my having said what I said. Well, guess what, dude … I live in a free country. I can say anything I want to say — and you have no power whatsoever to stop me! Getting your knickers in knots because I said things you dislike, is immature, and immaturity is a hallmark of religious fundamentalism. Really, I understand your outrage … but I just don’t care and am not impressed with your sanctimony. So grow up and get over it already. 

    The bottom line is, nothing I have said is untrue, whereas what YOU have said (i.e. that Mt 16:27 is a prediction of the Transfiguration) absolutely IS NOT true. At all.  YOU are the liar here, not me. 

  • I suggested agreeing to disagree before, but you preferred to continue the discussion. You are reading emotions into the things that I say which I am not actually experiencing – I’m not outraged by your comments, I simply disagree with them. My posts do not seem to me to be as vehemently expressed as yours.
    The position of a believer in relation to a disputed text is that, since s/he trusts the Source, the matter can be put in a mental pending tray until further information emerges – the key thing is that we obey what we do understand whilst waiting for the rest to be made clear. Trusting the Source (i.e. God) means that we believe that there is some sense to be made of references which appear oblique, because we believe that God’s words are true. And since this is what we believe, it is not lying to say so.
    When you are in love with someone, as I am in love with God, you trust them. If they say that they will do something, and it doesn’t seem to happen, you still trust them. And when other people suggest that you would be better off with someone else or with no-one at all, continuing to make that same choice may be argued to be the action of a fool – but scarcely that of a liar.
    I do think that the fact that the Transfiguration account follows the statement about “coming in the Father’s glory” in Matthew, Mark and Luke suggests that the writers of the New Testament thought that the two were connected. However, I’m open to the possibility that the explanation is other or more than this – the essential difference between us is that I expect there to be a fulfilment, because I know that the words of Jesus are reliable. When you have sampled the goodness of God, you know that the bit you haven’t sampled will be of similar quality to the bit that you have – but if you have never tasted what He gives, it is tempting to conclude that this goodness is illusory, and that those who claim to have experienced it are deceiving themselves and/or others. In the same way, a woman who has been abused by her father may find it very difficult to understand why other women would think that getting married is a good idea.
    Although I am not a Preterist (as I’ve indicated before, I hold the Jewish view that prophecies may be fulfilled more than once), this article seems worth considering:
    Vince Krivda: Exegesis of Matthew 16:27-28 and Preterism (2011)

    The disciples did not see Christ come in His kingdom while they were living on earth, for His kingdom is not of this world. Nonetheless, some saw His coming in some sense. They actually visibly saw Him when they witnessed His ascension.

    Exegesis of Matthew 16:27-28 and Preterism

    By Vincent Michael Krivda, Jr.
    Preterist-Realism
    2011

    2011: Vince Krivda, Exegesis of Matthew 16:27-28 and Preterism
    Introduction

    Don Preston recently débuted video series on a popular video hosting site. The series is a Full-Preterist comparative study on Matthew 16:27-28 with some practical applications from his conclusions. In response to Preston’s first seven videos, I posted a three part series in critical review of some of his points. In my video series I take objection to several of his arguments and his overall methodology. I argue that Preston’s opinions have no exegetical warrant and that he abstracts the verses from their immediate context. Although Preston made a video response addressing my objections, it was clear he did not exegetically support his particular assertions any further.
    One contribution that Preston does make, is affirming that verses 27 and 28 of chapter 16 cannot be separated from each other. This is true, but this is not unique to his position. I also hold that the verses cannot be separated. Further, I hold that the “coming” in the verses was fulfilled in the lifetime of most of the disciples. Preston’s video response to objectors is thereby not aimed against me.

    In an online exchange, a proponent of “Fulfilled-Eschatology”, Jerry William Bowers Jr., argued that I do indeed separate the last two verses of Matthew 16. Further, he argued that particular applications of my interpretation are not supported by the text. The purpose of this paper is to defend my Preterist interpretation of the passage with exegesis.

    ~Focus~

    Matthew 16:27-28ff does not allow for the Full-Preterist to interpret it as a decisive reference to a local judgment on Jerusalem or any of the events associated with the historical occurrences of c. ad 70. However, it does agree with my Preterist-Realist interpretation.

    ~Method~

    I will exegete the text and give some commentary with relevant applications to support my thesis. By giving attention to the basic rudiments of the text, it will be demonstrated that the text gives no more aid to support the Full-Preterist position than it does any other interpretation.

    “For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” (Matthew 16:27-28)

    ~Exegesis and Commentary~

    This text addresses the re-compensation for the sacrifices of the faithful (cf. Matthew 16:23-26ff). There is nothing to gain in this world which is worth the eternal cost of one’s own soul. Jesus assures His disciples that He must be killed and raised, and that they must mind this operation of God because He will be made King and will thereby reward them according to their faithfulness and loyalty. Christ is teaching them that the Gospel will benefit them if they accept it and follow Him. He assures them also of the nearness of the realization of His kingship.

    “For…is about to…”

    The first clause begins with the main verb for “about to be” (mellei) to express something expected to soon be realized. The verb is in the present active indicative, to express what was then presently about to be. The word is commonly omitted for diction in English translations; understandably, many confuse the infinitive “coming” (erchesthai) as a main transitive verb—sometimes affecting the interpretation thereof. Yet the syntactical position of the leading verb is emphatic enough for the infinitive to be colored by the indicative mood.

    The main verb, from the word mello, has the force of a necessary and impending realization for an intended purpose. Yet just because the events of Matthew 16:27-28 were to be realized soon, does not necessarily entail that they would be realized in c. ad 70. It is possible that such events could be realized much earlier that ad 70.

    The verb coupled with the conjunction “for” (gar) carries the force of explanation. It subordinates the verse to the preceding one to show continuity of argumentation. Indeed the preceding two verses use the same particle to show continuity of argumentation. Therefore, verse 27 must be dependent on the context of verses 24-26.

    “the Son of man shall come”

    The complete subject of the first clause is the noun phrase “the Son of man” (ho huios tou). There is no doubt that this was a title the Lord Jesus called Himself in the third person. The infinitive “coming” describes the intent of the Son of man being about to be in the glory of His Father. The verbal must show a correlation to the immediate context for it to make sense within the argument. It describes why the disciples must diligently mind the operation of God, i.e. because the Son will ascend to glory. His soon glorification was an incentive for faithfulness, a deterrent against vanity, and a pronouncement of His authority and power. His “coming” demands their pledge of loyalty.

    One common error in the interpretation of this text is the mistaking of the infinitive as a transitive finite verb depicting Christ’s return, whether the return is a spiritual presence or visible second coming. However, the infinitive describes the leading verb with reference to Christ’s being.

    “…in the glory of His Father”

    The prepositional phrase “in the glory of His Father” describes the first part of the indirect object. The preposition “in” (en) usually refers to a set position; it does not imply motion. That which Christ comes into is the object of the preposition, viz. “the glory” (tE doxE). The text does not refer to this category of coming as a return or entrance to earth, or Jerusalem, or within the hearts of people, or any nonsense like that. The verbs describe the [then] future destination of Christ with regards to His glorious estate in heaven.

    The genitive “of His Father” (tou patros autou) modifies the object of the preposition. The glory that Christ was then presently about to be coming into was the esteem of the Father. This has no direct reference to the historical events of c. ad 70.

    “…with His angels”

    The phrase beginning with the preposition “with” (meta) depicts either that the angels are with the Father or that they will accompany the Son of Man’s coming. Because the genitive personal pronoun “His” (autou) usually refers to the subject of the sentence in the normal reading, the antecedent likely is “the Son of Man”. The persons of the Godhead are clearly distinguished here to account for the theological significance.

    The angels are with the Son where the Father is. The syntactic structure of the phrase suggests the angels are less important that the subject (see Hebrews 2:5-10), but their idiomatic reference serves an apocalyptic function to address the heavenly majesty of Christ’s rule. The angels of the Son are never said to come into glory in the active voice as the Son is, who they are glorified with. Rather, they are pictured as a company of invited guests or perhaps an army under command. In Matthew 24-25ff, the Son is said to come in glory and in the angels who are with Him (Mark 8:38). Yet Matthew 16:27 deals not with their positional glorification, rather it deals with their collective union with Christ whereby He rewards individuals.

    “…and then”

    The second clause is coordinated with the first to show the logical correlation of events and timing. The simple conjunction “and” (kai) coordinates the subordinating ideas of the dependent clause while the adverb “then” (tote) directs the timing of the action.

    “He will reward”

    The verb “shall reward” (apodOsei) is in the future tense, but it is understood within the restrictive context of that which was “about to be” of the preceding clause. In Preston’s video series, he suggests that the word “reward” is synonymous with the word “judgment”. He appeals to Isaiah 40 and 62 to suggest that those passages define the word “reward” as “judgment”. Yet, such passages do not share the same central theme as Matthew 16:27-28ff. Therefore, they do not constitute the kind of parallel passage that one could make such applications from.

    One could argue that the usage of the word “requital” in Isaiah 59:18, and “reward” in Romans 2:6, carry enough similarity to Matthew 16:27 to interpret the meaning of reward as compensation and judgment in Matthew 16:27. However, these texts do indeed have a different central theme than the verse in Matthew, Isaiah 40, and 62. The accusative singular feminine “praxin” of Matthew 16:27 when contrasted from the accusative plural masculine “erga” of Romans 2:6 shows a distinction between the Christian practice of the believer with the wages of the rest of mankind’s work. It is not that Christ does not judge the wicked from His throne—He certainly does! Nonetheless, the judgment part (spoken of clearly in texts like Isaiah 59:18, Romans 2:6, etc.) is not directly correlated with the participle “coming” of Matthew 16:28, a verbal modifying the accusative.

    If the Son of Man’s entering into glory was realized at the ascension, then in aeviternity Christ’s rewarding is fulfilled. His operation was then not fulfilled because in all reality He had not yet entered into His kingdom to perform His duties granted unto Him. Thus, Christ speaks in the text of a future fulfillment whereby He has since accomplished from aeviternity. Because His operation outside of time is not spoken of in the progressive tense, it is prophesied as a definitive act. Yet for the elect who are scattered throughout all ages in history, the subjective realization of their going to be with Christ is progressive in time.

    The actual work of rewarding is fulfilled from aeviternity; the reception of rewards in the intermediate state is immediate upon physical death and lasting. There is virtually no way to determine precisely what the nature of the rewards for the just are, nor how they are enjoyed. The text simply does not entertain the idea, reserving such knowledge for the elect in the rewards themselves. Yet the Bible does indicate that they will be proportional in some regards to the work they sanction. This is enough to satisfy a meditation on the central theme to formulate doctrinal principles to govern practice and instruction. Yet this text is also commonly appealed to by Full-Preterists to support their claim that this text teaches that Christ’s Second Coming and final Judgment occurred in that contemporary generation before some of the disciples died physically.

    “…in the glory of His Father…”

    Like Matthew 25:31, the preposition “in” (en) modifies His coming to express what the Son of Man does. It expresses the same theme: that Christ assumes glory. In Matthew 25:31, the Son of Man comes in His glory which was given to Him by the Father. The text of Matthew 16:27 reveals from whom the glory is of and Matthew 25:31 reveals who has assumed the glory. The same glory is unto God: unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Spirit; but the Son’s glory proceeds from the Father.

    “…He will reward each according to his works.”

    The explicative pronoun “He”, implied by the verb, refers to the antecedent “the Son of Man” which is the subject of the previous clause. Thus, it is not the Father who personally does the rewarding, but Christ. The Lord is speaking in the third person to depict what He will accomplish. Although rewards could be either positive or negative, rewards in this usage refers to the sanctions of the Covenant in the blessing of the faithful.

    Because the measure of the reward is in some respect proportional to the works of each one, the reward’s benefit is dependent on the receiver’s conduct and faithfulness. The substantive adjective “each” (hekastO) could refer to each of the angels. But much more likely, the antecedent is the subject of the previous verse, i.e. the “man” (ei tis anthrOpos). According to the central theme in verses 16:25-26, which accounts for the loss and gain of individuals according to their own works, the possessive pronoun “his” of the last clause of verse 16:27 would make no relevant application if it referred to Christ or the Father. Therefore, the normal reading of this text in context depicts Christ’s rewarding to every individual of people in general, but especially the faithful.

    “Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

    Don Preston argues that the phrase “assuredly, I say to you” (amEn lgO humin) shows an emphasis and connexion of this verse (v. 28) to the preceding verse (v. 27). This is no doubt true.

    In verse 16:28, Jesus declares to His disciples (v. 24) that they can be assured by His testimony that some would even live to witness Him come in glory. The immediate audience is firmly established first by the clause “I say unto you” and secondly by the clause “there are some standing here”. The crux of their assurance is not of things that were remote and abstract, but that Christ personally and directly spoke to them of things that would soon be realized in history.

    The notable prepositional phrase “in His Kingdom” correlates with the previous verse’s “in the glory of the Father”. This but confirms our interpretation. The object of the preposition also functions as the indirect object of the clause. The coming describes Christ being in His Kingdom. The Kingdom is not earthly Jerusalem. The preposition “in” (en), again, does not mean “from” or “out of”. Nor did Christ have to wait until c. ad 70 to assume the right hand of God. Scripture is very clear that Christ went to His Kingdom at the time of His ascension to glory.

    The disciples did not see Christ come in His kingdom while they were living on earth, for His kingdom is not of this world. Nonetheless, some saw His coming in some sense. They actually visibly saw Him when they witnessed His ascension. The present participle “coming” (erchomenon) functions as an object of the verb “see” (idOsin). It is in the accusative singular masculine to describe the Son of man who will come. The disciples may not have lived to see the Son of Man reward all the souls of men from His kingdom while they were on earth, but they did see Him assume glory at the right hand of God when He ascended into heaven.

    ~Conclusion~

    For Bowers and Preston to argue their position, he would have to grammatically show that the “judgment” is limited to the time whereby some of the disciples would live to see the ends thereof. However, the grammatical and syntactical structure restricts their “seeing” (v. 28) of the direct object’s state of being [becoming at the right hand of God] to be realized before they die. The rewarding is not restricted to their seeing. This is critical because Bowers and Preston aim to make a direct correlation between judgment being exhausted and the lifetime of the disciples. However, exegetically, this is not possible—which is why Bowers, Preston and others must abstract whole verses, stripping them of their grammatical form and contextual relevance, and isolate them into parallel events to make undue inferences from.

    In summary,

    1) The Full-Preterist interpretation which holds that Matthew 16:27-28 were fulfilled in Christ’s coming in judgment against Jerusalem does not make sense of the immediate context.

    2) The conjunction “gar” in verses 25-27 demonstrates continuity by argumentation. Verses 27-28 are explanatory conclusions of the preceding section which is centrally themed about the re-compensation for the sacrifices of the faithful. The interpretation that this pericope is about judgment is unsatisfactory.

    3) The emphasized imminence of the realization of the Son of man’s coming into glory (v.27) is delayed until c. ad 70 in common Full-Preterist interpretations. The transfiguration would be too near, but the time of the ascension makes better sense.

    4) The infinitive “coming” in verse 27 does not make sense of the context in common Full-Preterist interpretations.

    5) The text does not refer to this category of coming as a return or entrance to earth, or Jerusalem, or within the hearts of people, or any nonsense like that. The verbs describe the [then] future destination of Christ with regards to His glorious estate in heaven. Jesus said, “I go to the Father, and you know the way…”

    6) The verb “reward” in verse 27 does not mean “judgment” in this context. The rewarding is said to happen at the time He enters the Father’s glory (which was at the ascension). The rewarding of all the faithful must be both outside of time and comprehensive of all Christians in due time.

    7) The coming of verse 28 is said to be in His Kingdom, not earthly Jerusalem.

    8) Christ ascended to glory in His Kingdom long before ad 70.

    9) The disciples, if they indeed fled into the mountains, cannot be said to have actually seen the judgment upon Jerusalem.

    https://www.preteristarchive.com/2011_krivda_matthew-16-and-preterism/

  • Re: “I suggested agreeing to disagree before …” 

    Gee, wasn’t that nice of you? In truth, that’s NOT what you did! 

    No, what you did was to castigate me, personally, as a “critic of the Christian faith” who “played a double game.” You proceeded to generalize about me — and other “critics of the Christian faith” with a number of accusations. None of them are true of me, of course, but then you’d have no way to know that, since the only thing you know about me is that I’m an insolent, profane “critic of the Christian faith” whose motivations, therefore, are vile. 

    Re: “My posts do not seem to me to be as vehemently expressed as yours.” 

    They’re nevertheless littered with invective and condemnation — with the implication being that “critics of the Christian faith” have nothing to say and are even inventing crap to use against your precious, holy religion. 

    Re: “The verb coupled with the conjunction ‘for’ (gar) carries the force of explanation.”
    – and –
    Re: “The preposition ‘in’ (en) usually refers to a set position; it does not imply motion.” 

    Do not lecture me in the nature of κοινη Greek. I taught it to myself back in my own fundie days and understand it quite well. I also know that what you’re doing is an old apologetics trick that, in reality, is irrelevant — here, and in most other places apologists use it. As I said, Mt 16:27 predicts Jesus will judge humanity, which DID NOT HAPPEN during the Transfiguration. Hence, Mt 16:27-28 cannot logically be called a “prediction” of the Transfiguration — because it’s not. 

    Remember, details matter, dude. In this case, those details DO NOT MATCH. At all. 

    I intend to remind you of this astounding and obvious difference in detail, repeatedly, until you grow up for the first time in your sniveling life and acknowledge it like a grown adult. No amount of your drivel about κοινη Greek matters when the semantic details in question do not match. Period. End of discussion. 

  • My main concern is the fact that you insist that Christians who don’t take your exact view of Matt. 16:27-28, or who think it comparable with Luke 9:26-27 or with Mark 8:38-9:1, or who think that the positioning of the Transfiguration account immediately after each of these three readings means that it is linked to them, are thereby lying.
    The only response that seems to be acceptable to you is a decision to become an atheist on the basis of your take on this one Scripture.

  • I posted a full reply to you but it’s hung up in moderation. I have no idea why. I guess RNS is protecting precious snowflakes like yourself from information they dislike.

  • Elagabalus & PsiCop – so glad that Hitlery was not elected as everything said about trump in these posts of yours describe her to a T as well. what a vile individual she is. supporters of Hitlery are supporters of child rape. how? because Hitlery in her career as an attorney knowingly defended a scum bag who gang raped a little girl. Hitlery not only KNEW he was guilty, she LAUGHED and BRAGGED about getting him off the hook! what kind of greasy green anal slime bag DEFENDS the filthy low life who does that kind of thing to a child? she is worse than the rapist himself! what kind of slime bag supports and votes for someone who defends gang rapists of children?

    and before you start ranting…no, I dd NOT vote for trump either.

  • Elagabalus& PsiCop – so glad that Hitlery was not elected as everything said
    about trump in these posts of yours describe her to a T as well. what a
    vile individual she is. supporters of Hitlery are supporters of child
    rape. how? because Hitlery in her career as an attorney knowingly
    defended a scum bag who gang raped a little girl. Hitlery not only KNEW
    he was guilty, she LAUGHED and BRAGGED about getting him off the hook!
    what kind of greasy green anal slime bag DEFENDS the filthy low life who
    does that kind of thing to a child? she is worse than the rapist
    himself! what kind of slime bag supports and votes for someone who
    defends gang rapists of children?

    before you start ranting…I dd NOT vote for trump either.

  • Elagabalus – so what you are saying is that Christians must give up their beliefs about the filthy lifestyle choice of homosexuality but gays dont have to give up their beliefs about Christianity? hypocrisy much?

  • spuddie – people who voted Hitlery are supporters/defenders of child rape like she is….thats as perved as you can get….and no I did not vote for trump.

  • spuddie – you should really think about the violent sex perv (hillary) you probably voted for…she defended a child gang rapist who she KNEW was guilty then LAUGHED and BRAGGED about it when she got him off the hook. wake up and smell the perv in your own midst.

  • Gaypsicop – no such thing as sin? oh my, have you got a huge and very unpleasant surprise coming.

    I think he was referring to the lothesome anal cancer of homosexuality.

  • Re: “so glad that Hitlery …” 

    Wow, was that clever! Yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk. 

    Re: “supporters of Hitlery are supporters of child rape.” 

    That’s a lie

    Re: “because Hitlery in her career as an attorney knowingly defended a scum bag who gang raped a little girl.” 

    Hillary was, then, a Legal Aid clinic attorney who’d been selected by a judge to represent someone. She didn’t actually laugh or brag about getting him off the hook, because she never did so — he pled guilty. Details of this case can be found at Snopes, in case you’re interested … but given you’re a Groperphile, I assume you’re not. 

    Re: “what kind of greasy green anal slime bag DEFENDS the filthy low life who does that kind of thing to a child?” 

    A legal aid attorney who’s selected by the court, that’s who/ 

    Re: “she is worse than the rapist himself!” 

    Whether one wishes it to be the case or not, defendants in the US are entitled to representation. All of them … all the time. Being a defense attorney, particularly one who hadn’t set out to take a case, but was told to take it by a judge, isn’t the same as committing crimes. 

    Re: “and before you start ranting…no, I dd NOT vote for trump either.” 

    You’re talking just like a Groperphile, so barring any compelling, objective evidence to the contrary, I assume that’s exactly what you are. 

  • Re: “Gaypsicop – no such thing as sin?” 

    First, I’m not gay, but if it makes you feel better to think I am, then by all means, please, continue acting like a toddler and assume I am. 

    Second, yes, that’s what I said: There’s no such thing as sin. I said that, because it’s true. And you can’t prove — using compelling, objective, verifiable evidence — that there is! 

    Re: “… have you got a huge and very unpleasant surprise coming.” 

    Ooooooh, I’m just SO afraid of your threats of eternal perdition inflicted by your almighty cosmic tyrant! Why, I’m all aquiver with fear! What shall I ever do!? 

    </sarcasm> 

    Re: “I think he was referring to the lothesome anal cancer of homosexuality.” 

    Lots of things are “cancer,” like sarcoma and leukemia. Homosexuality isn’t one of them, however. That there are gays in the world, causes you absolutely NO harm whatsoever. 

  • elagabalus – no, its called lying. which obama did in a regular basis both before and after his election.

  • PsiCop – LOL hahaha! you are one IN DENIAL biblically illiterate dude…hehehe.

    do you ever read before or after to get the context??? try checking the very next verse which is chapter 17:1…

    Mat 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

    Mat 17:2 And was TRANSFIGURED before them: and HIS FACE DID SHINE AS THE SUN, and HIS RAIMENT WAS LIGHT AS THE LIGHT.

    Mat 17:3 And, behold, there APPEARED unto them MOSES and ELIAS talking with him.

    Mat 17:4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be
    here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee,
    and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

    Mat 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a BRIGHT CLOUD OVERSHADOWED THEM: and behold a VOICE OUT OF THE CLOUD, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

    Mat 17:6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.

    Now, my biblically illiterate friend, look at all those SUPERNATURAL things that happened to them just six days after Jesus said that some of them standing there would SEE the KINGDOM of God come with POWER?. now are you going to try and tell me that those things that happened were NOT a demonstration of Jesus promise to them just 6 days earlier????

    now YOU need to stop LYING and claiming you know anything about the bible, because you dont know a thing.

    the only thing you know is that you are gay, you enjoy being gay, and you want desperately to believe that God and the bible are not true so you can continue in your disgusting lifestyle choice without guilt and fear. good luck with that.

  • PsiCop – the only liar here is you. you speak for the supreme liar, your father the devil who has twisted your brain until you think sodomy is actually a good thing.

  • Re: “do you ever read before or after to get the context??? try checking the very next verse which is chapter 17:1” 

    You’re referring, of course, to the Transfiguration. Which, I hate to break it to you, does not “fulfill” Mt 16:27, which reads: “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.” At no point during the Transfiguration is there anything about Jesus judging humanity. Not one speck of it. 

    So prattle on, numnutz, and call me your “biblically illiterate friend” … but if you think Mt 16:27 was “fulfilled” by the Transfiguration, then YOU are the one who’s proven yourself “Biblically illiterate.” 

    Way to go, dude! 

    Re: “now YOU need to stop LYING and claiming you know anything about the bible, because you dont know a thing.” 

    I can read the NT in the original Greek, and the OT in the form of the Septuagint. Can you say the same? If not, you have no basis for telling me I don’t know your Bible better than you do … because I do. 

    Re: “the only thing you know is that you are gay …” 

    No, I’m not gay, but as I told you already, if it makes you feel better to say I am, then go ahead, act like a toddler, and keep calling me gay. After all, your feelings are more important than anything in the universe, right? 

  • As I said to you twice already, I’m not gay. But also, as I said twice already, you just keep calling me that if it makes you feel better, because your pwecious widdle feewings are just soooooooo important. Aren’t they? 

  • That was a big grab bag of wingnut assertions and fictions.

    You are giving me deflections to justify support for someone far more corrupt, criminal, and incompetent.

    11 convictions and counting of Trumps staff within 2 years provides a far greater impression than 30 years without so much as an indictment.

    Obviously you are far too spineless to come up with its any reason to defend the incompetent in chief in his own merits.

  • Deflecting m0ron has to refer to people who are long irrelevant to any discussion of current events.

    Why are you so scared to discuss the merits of the president and his lack of moral fiber?

  • Of course, the millennial reign of God’s kingdom, or heavenly government, as Jesus, God’s Son, called it when preaching on earth (Matthew 4:17), will take place over all meek persons on earth, after God’s heavenly government puts an end to and replaces all human governments (Daniel 2:44), and destroys all wicked ones on earth (Isaiah 11:1-5)!!

    The earth, mankind’s forever home (Genesis 1:28; Psalm
    115:16; Isaiah 45:18), will never ever be made desolate.

  • That dual world power came into existence in 1914, with the First World War, followed by the Second World War, according to human history.

2019 NewsMatch Campaign: This Story Can't Wait! Donate.

ADVERTISEMENTs