Israel.
- Thread starter Gideon300
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
I won't link to the post because it's so graphic.
"The traitors that were under the orders of the a IDF, who have been stealing aid, killing their brothers and selling information to the ZionistS only to be abandoned by them.
"Were executed today!!! DEATH TO TRAITORS!!!"
So you believe hamas should be left in power, that the Palestinians should take over Israel, and that these so called non jews of Israel should vacate or be killed? That's what I get from your responses.
I guess you form those conclusions because you are so emotionally invested in a certain outcome for the place. I think they should all do the civilized thing and get along with each other.
Well that seems to be the problem. Chosing a terrorist organization to be your governing factor as Palestine did and allow generations of children to be indoctrinated to hate all who are not on board with Islamic ideology is a hard fit for any modern civilization.
Having the all or nothing mentality as demonstrated in the once 2 state solution causing civil discord in not only Israel but in neighboring Arab countries seems to speak volumes to all in that region.
As the old saying goes....fool me once shame on you.....fool me twice shame on me.
My heart goes out to those that live in fear of this terrorist organization so both Israel and the so called Palestinians are in my thoughts and prayers.
There comes a time when you reap what you have sown. Even God chose to chasen his own with a desert trip of 40 yrs and allowing captivity of his people to correct there understanding and rebellion.
Living among rocks and ruins for centuries should be a wake up call for these and others while other Arab countries thrive who chose to live peacefully or at the very least tolerant the existence of Israel. The blessings of Abraham's sons.
Brotherhood of a false God generating hate has been the down fall of a great many of people in the middle east for centuries.
Gods word does not just extend to his people but to those who are its neighbors.
The example is set before them all. The choice is before them.
A Person can be a national jew by blood, a physical descendant of Abraham, and yet spiritually have hagar as their mother, and a believing gentile that belongs to the Body of Christ spiritually has Sarah as their Mother, for Sarah is the Mother of the Church, the Body of Christ Gal 4:22-26
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman[Sarah].
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman[Sarah] was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother[Sarah] of us all. 8
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman[Sarah].
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman[Sarah] was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother[Sarah] of us all. 8
That’s the same hyper-dispensational error he’s been pushing elsewhere: separating Peter’s “kingdom gospel” from Paul’s “gospel of grace,” as though there were two valid ways of salvation. Scripture consistently refutes that.
Scripture shows one gospel, not two. Peter and Paul both preached salvation by grace through faith in Christ’s finished work. At the Jerusalem Council, Peter himself said, “We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they” (Acts 15:11). Paul affirmed the same message in 1 Cor 15:1-4. The audience differed—but the gospel never did. “There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Eph 4:5)
Grace and peace.
That’s the same hyper-dispensational error he’s been pushing elsewhere: separating Peter’s “kingdom gospel” from Paul’s “gospel of grace,” as though there were two valid ways of salvation. Scripture consistently refutes that.
Grace and Peace
Given that you have given yourself over to compartmentalizing me under some labeling you seem to gleefully use against others, it seems we are at an empas.
The word of God says what it says, and analytical labeling only poisons the wells of discussion rather than to stick strictly to the topic and the scriptures. You choose to not recognize the distinctive elements of the gospel as it passes from one dispensation to another. The term dispensation was used by Paul, by the way, and that somehow renders me, in your mind, to exist on some inferior level of standing? Is that your meaning in how you phrased that?
At any rate, the lack of any rebuttal rooted strictly in the scriptures concerning the differing elements and the silence in other regards within those dispensations, I get it. Many a modern Evangelical today despises that term, using it as a smear tactic against those who see that differentiation of divisions throughout the progression of the gospel, it's generally a dead end road, just like talking with those Evangelicals who have given themselves over to replacement theology. As an Israeli, I naturally stand opposed to that wicked doctrine in all its manifestations.
I don't know where you precisely stand in relation to those doctrines, but it appears that we will simply agree to disagree on what has been discussed thus far.
Grace and peace.
MM
He’s doing a strategic retreat wrapped in pride — a pattern that’s very common in pseudo-intellectual or sectarian debate threads.
1. Playing the “victim of labeling” card
“Given that you have given yourself over to compartmentalizing me…”
He’s framing my biblical correction as a personal attack. This deflects attention away from Scripture and toward tone or motive, implying moral high ground (“I’m just being biblical; you’re being dismissive”).
2. Invoking Paul’s “dispensation” terminology to justify his system
He name-drops the word dispensation (Ephesians 3:2) to sound scholarly — but he’s using it to support ultra-dispensationalism (dividing Peter and Paul into separate salvation programs).
Paul’s “dispensation of grace” refers to stewardship, not to multiple gospels or salvations. I rightly cited Acts 15:11 and Ephesians 4:5, which refute that.
3. Moving the goalposts
“You choose to not recognize the distinctive elements…”
He shifts the argument: instead of defending his “two gospels” claim, he now accuses me of ignoring “distinctive elements.” That’s rhetorical sleight-of-hand — changing the claim mid-conversation.
4. Injecting identity and emotion
“As an Israeli, I naturally stand opposed to that wicked doctrine…”
He’s appealing to identity and moral outrage (“replacement theology”) to discourage challenge. This is another diversion — stirring sympathy and moral tension instead of addressing the text.
5. Feigning closure to avoid further exposure
“We will simply agree to disagree…”
That’s not peace; it’s deflection disguised as diplomacy. He’s exiting before having to reconcile contradictions.
I’m not labeling — just distinguishing doctrine. Paul’s use of dispensation (Eph 3:2) speaks of stewardship, not separate gospels or paths of salvation. The Council in Acts 15 settled this clearly: both Jew and Gentile are saved “through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 15:11). Paul summarized the same gospel — Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again (1 Cor 15:1-4). Peter preached the same risen Christ (Acts 2:32-38; 10:43).
Distinct ministries, one message, one body.
“There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Eph 4:5)
Grace and peace.
So Hamas is now murdering Palestinians.
https://www.facebook.com/510898010/videos/pcb.10158467022548011/10158467022258011
If I didn't know better, I'd think they're terrorists.
https://www.facebook.com/510898010/videos/pcb.10158467022548011/10158467022258011
If I didn't know better, I'd think they're terrorists.
Given the blanket, broad brush stroke covering of your words about Jews, you're also condemning me as well given that I'm Israeli. Had you said "the unbelieving Jews," that would have been different, but to generally state Jews are going to Hell, and then claim, "Well, you know what I meant," you might want to choose your words more wisely if anyone is to take you at your word.
MM
This all is like a broken record. Don't you have anything better in your arsenal?
MM
Those are Sunni Muslims murdering Shiite Muslims. That war has been going on for a very long time now.
MM
Can you tell us which of the twelve ever said to even one soul that they are dead to the Law?
MM
Truth doesn’t need new tricks — just consistency.
If it sounds like a “broken record,” that’s because Scripture doesn’t change.
You haven’t addressed Acts 15:11, Ephesians 4:5, or 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 — all of which refute your claim of two gospels. Until those verses are reconciled, repetition is faithfulness, not redundancy.
Grace and peace.
That’s a clever but misleading question — you are trying to frame silence as contradiction, implying that because the Twelve didn’t use Paul’s exact phrase “dead to the Law,” they must have preached a different gospel.
That’s an argument from silence, not from Scripture.
The apostles didn’t have to use Paul’s exact wording to teach the same truth.
Peter declared that the Law was a yoke “which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” and that both Jew and Gentile are saved “through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 15:10–11).
James affirmed the same at that council, and John later wrote that “the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17).
Different expressions — one message: believers are justified apart from the Law by faith in Christ.
Grace and peace.
Nope. Pointing to silence can also be the means by which we protect against the massive injections into the biblical texts those things that so many perpetrate. The silence in relation to the injections made into the text is a powerful weapon against those injections. That's Systematic Theology 101.
So, trying to write off all observations of the silence in relation to the false injections some make, your words fall dead under their own weight.
Your failure to answer the question is itself telling. I suspected you would resort to ethereal manifestations of your imaginations to try and draw some parallels in support of your chosen beliefs.
Hypocrisy is manifest in claiming to stand on what IS written at the exclusion of the silence. You really need to study logic more carefully. I wasn't creating some new doctrine from the silence. What the silence does is to show that the twelve never stated a belief in the Law no longer holding sway over us. You also should know that the book of Acts shows to us the twelve standing in total support of the believing Jews' observance and living in obedience to the Mosaic Law. Never did any of the twelve gainsay that belief and practice among those of Israel. They even confronted Paul after hearing he had been teaching Jews abroad to forsake the Law of Moses, which he did indeed do in his ministry. Paul also spoke much against the keeping of the Law as some addition to the faith as it being some sort of benefit for salvation and living in the faith.
MM
Last edited:
They weren't theologians like Paul was. They were simple folk who spoke in simple terms.
- Status