Відео

That's a thoughtful question. I don't know if I can answer that completely. That said, there are things that Joe Moss has said and done that I can find to be commendable and should be encouraged. There have been a couple of missteps. I will say that we should seek to openly honor the LORD, to righteously use governmental authority to establish justice and suppress evil. To that end, I think we need unapologetic Christians who seek to openly do just that. Did you have something specific in mind?

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv Nothing specific. I heard about Joe from Matt Trewhella. I think Matt is good people. I wanted to hear what a local like you had to say. Thanks again. 1 John 4:10,11

@@markrademaker5875 Pastor Matt is definitely good people!

Praise God! 😀

Would expect nothing less. :)

Thank you for your wise suggestions, encouragement and feedback brother! Much appreciated!

I understand that you are in a rough position potentially, brother. I would be remiss if I didn't ask if you hadn't already discussed this, potentially at length, with the church? Ideally it would be an opportunity to call the church to repent and maybe even seek the help of other congregations until you have a qualified elder. But it is definitely an option to leave for another church if none of the above will happen after reasoning with them. Sadly, there's many brethren that will have to make hard choices in this area, especially depending on where your church is.

True. All of those are sins and are deadly to any man or woman. Thank you for commenting!

How do you know that we haven't done this? Also, we try to honor all of God's commands, but occasionally you find times when you have to sort through which is the weightier matter of the law and then unravel the complications until you are able to follow all of the commands if any two become in conflict. I'll readily concede that that is a rare occurrence. I would also say that some commands are given to civil magistrates to uphold and not necessarily to everyday citizens, even if we must petition our rulers to uphold them. And finally, I would want to ask you questions about your first question and assertion: 1 - Do you think that physical evidence in rape kits is circumstantial or is it reliable witness when combined with eyewitness testimony (the victim, people who saw the victim and the perpetrator together, people who heard the victim scream and fighting, the doctor that investigated the injuries, etc.)? While you can't apply this recklessly, certainly most rapes other than gang rapes (where the perpetrators would be testifying against themselves?) usually there are not other eyewitnesses to literally every part of the ordeal. 2 - To that end, would not people who saw the woman go to the clinic, friends and family who she confessed to, clinic staff, medical personnel who knew that she was pregnant, etc. all be able to give testimony that may or may not work towards a conviction?

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv Thanks for responding. I want to think this through; i intend to get back with a God-honoring response. 1 Thessalonians 5:21

​@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rvJeremy, thanks for responding. Let me begin by saying this...i think The Lord of lords Is for fair play. (Would that be a synonym for justice?) I, therefore, think that the accused has rights. I think that is why Scripture speaks of two eyewitnesses, the eyewitnesses throwing the first stones, perjury, cities of refuge and so on. (I may be bouncing around a bit, please, bear with me.) Are you thinking, "We first need to pass an equal protection law then we can work on other things."? I think that is reasonable. I also think that that is incrementalism. You used the phrase, "the weightier matter", should we lie in certain situations? It's a challenging call. Hopefully, i will either tell the truth or keep my mouth shut, knowing that God, Who Can Not Lie, Is In Control. In the movie, "The Hiding Place", the ten Boom's were hiding Jews and Dutch boys from the NAZI's. (By the way, i think the ten Boom's theology about the Jews being God's chosen people was and is wrong; a true Jew is anyone who trusts Jesus/God.) In chapter 7, we learn, the German soldiers entered a house, Dutch boys, from the house, went into hiding under a trapped door under the kitchen table. The soldiers, angrily, interrogated everyone right there in the kitchen, with the boys there, in hiding. Long story short, they asked one of the girls, "Where are your brothers?" She was scared, she told the truth, she said, "...under the table." The soldiers looked under the table. She, in fright, laughed. A soldier said, "Don't take us for fools!"; they left the house. She was able to tell the truth and no one got hurt. Is this paragraph relevant? 🙂 In regards to your 1....i think rape kits are circumstantial in that no one would be under oath, facing perjury laws, as far as i know. What do you think? Granted, if there are two eyewitnesses and rape kit evidence as circumstantial evidence then that's good, sufficient etc. (The two eyewitnesses would be facing Deut.19:16,19 (and maybe the one who did the test?).) In regards to your 2....Whoever takes the stand must realize that God's perjury laws [Deut.19:16,19] are on them if they lie, yes? And, they must be the first to throw the stones [Deut.17:7], yes? If not, why not? We must fight for equal protection from the moment of fertilization on. But, if we, as a nation, are not playing by all of God's Law in regards to all relevant matters, for example, the witnesses responsibilities, the defendants rights, the accusers' authority, the judges authority, the community etc. then, well, what is "the weightier matter", and, why is that the case? Jeremy, if you think this response is beating around the bush then maybe ask me the same questions a second time and or further questions; don't let me off the hook. Granted, i may not even be a fish. 🙂 Jeremy, on another issue that i have been struggling with is Deut.22:8, putting a guard rail around a flat roof. This, to me, implies that regulations have a place in civil government. But, at the same time, we know that civil authorities can make evil laws [Isaiah 10:1]. Do you have material on this? 🙂 Thanks for the dialouge. 1 John 4:10,11

@@markrademaker5875 Thank you for your engagement and sincere dialogue about the Scriptures. This is indeed the spirit in mind when we discuss iron sharpening iron. I do have material and a response for your questions/objections. However, I am a bit preoccupied currently and so it might take a couple days. I wanted to acknowledge your response and let you know that I do intend to get back to you on this. Blessings!

​@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rvLooks like Bradley Pierce may be delving into some of my concerns in his upcoming October conference. Hopefully he posts the messages for public viewing.

I appreciate your response. So what is a stance on an issue that makes someone worthy of your vote, in your mind?

​@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv Trump supporters will quickly say that Harris is just as immoral as Trump. But Trump has committed the ultimate sin of turning Christians into his cult sycophants. Trump bragged about the loyalty of his evangelical followers saying he could shoot someone in public and not lose any votes. The world sees these Christians as hate filled mockers, hypocrites who praise Trump's love of revenge, excuse his lies, his distain for forgiveness. Perhaps Harris is as evil but she doesn't hold a candle to the power to do evil that Trump has.

Hi Jaleel, Thank you for your input. Who is the racist goofball? Are you referring to me, or to one of the two men whose video I am commenting on? Also, what is the exact perspective that is poor? And why do you believe that?

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv I feel like Webbon indicating that race correlates with qualification, that interview has gone viral by now, is an awfully big red flag.

I was wondering if you could think of a circumstance where it would be acceptable for one person to own another person as their property ?​@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv

@@jaleelkahn7032 qualification for what? I've seen a lot of Joel Webbon, and I've found that many people delight in refusing to understand him. The only sermons and interviews that I have heard wouldn't lead anyone who listened honestly to believe that he thought that ethnicity in terms of skin color would disqualify someone from anything...however, he does acknowledge that there are some cultures that are superior, because you evaluate a culture on its values and practices and how well they line up with Scripture and the historical church throughout the ages (especially correlating with the Reformation to Puritan eras). And in that sense, a man whose values are predominantly shaped by an unChristian culture should be considered disqualified from certain things. So what are you referring to?

I know that I mentioned this in another comment, but Rahab and Ruth are a couple of prominent examples of why this is not true. God definitely made a path for unbelievers in the pagan nations/tribes to become Israelites.

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv And I explained in the other comment that neither Rahab or Ruth were accepted as Hebrews.

@@cygnusustus yes, they were accepted as Israelites. They were even in the lineage of Christ. You must take the Bible on its own terms and accept what it says, especially on the other things found within the Bible.

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv "yes, they were accepted as Israelites." Nope. There are no verses which state this, or imply it. Stop making up lies to cover your Bible. "They were even in the lineage of Christ." That does not mean they were Israelites. Learn how genealogies work, dude. "You must take the Bible on its own terms and accept what it says" Then why don't you? What compels you to lie about what it says?

@@cygnusustus I don't lie about what it says. In fact in a number of places here in these many comments on numerous subthreads between you, myself and others I have directly quoted the Scriptures, given the verse references, etc. You are dishonest in your interactions and not a person of reason. And so you demonstrate more and more that instead of wanting to reason through the Scriptures you simply want to launch attacks, make false assertions, mischaracterize either the Scripture or others discussing it with you, and just a general commitment to not understanding. Why would anyone want to attempt to reason with you? It would be one thing to have disagreement, but see the conversation progress. But it really doesn't with you. You just make assertions or look for opportunities to either twist people's words.

The Code of Hammurabi was taken from God's Law, which incidentally can be seen to have been known in Genesis and not merely in the time of Moses after the Exodus. And it was different in ways that show that Hammurabi did not understand the punishment fitting the crime. Since God dictates and defines what justice is and no other can do that, no other nation has an actual standard of justice...the just have varying standards of injustice. So unfortunately, it is you who are just plain lying here, my friend. Don't fall into the foolishness of thinking that God's people ever just took from the religions of the other nations. It always has been and always will be that pagans steal from God, but imperfectly and then pervert and twist the truth.

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv The Code Of Hammurabi PRECEDED the Mosaic Law, fool. The Babylonians worshipped different gods. "It always has been and always will be that pagans steal from God" Paganism, and polytheism, precede monotheism, fool. The Israelites were polytheistic originally. Have you studied this at all?

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv "The Code of Hammurabi was taken from God's Law" The Code of Hammurabi PRECEDED Mosaic law, fool. And in many cases was more progressive than Mosaic law. If you have to lie to protect your beliefs, it is time to get new beliefs.

@@cygnusustus I don't lie. And I'm not the fool here. Whoever denies the God of the Bible, His goodness, and the goodness of His law and His gospel is the fool. God and everything that He does is THE original, whether codified in writing or not. And so God doesn't copy anyone or anything...they all copy God and pervert what He says and does, including oral traditions and cultural practices that may not have been codified. God's Law preceded Hammurabi, period. Also, everything "progressive" is actually regressive and is worthless. Anything that veers to the left or to the right from God's law is injustice and is unjust to whatever degree that it veers from the absolute perfect plumbline of justice that is known as God's Law. His laws are perfectly righteous. His restitution standards are perfectly righteous. His penalties are perfectly righteous. And any differentiation becomes unjust to the degree of separation from God's Law. God is the one who gives the perfect standard. He defines what it perfect and just authoritatively for all. We have zero right, wisdom, intelligence, or moral standing to even hope to judge God, His actions, His decrees, or His laws.

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv "I don't lie." I've pointed out a half dozen lies. "Whoever denies the God of the Bible, His goodness, and the goodness of His law and His gospel is the fool." Nope. Whoever believes the rambling mythology of ignorant superstitious barbaric bronze-age goat herders is the fool. Whoever looks for wisdom in a book with a talking donkey and a man who lived in a fish for three days is a fool. "God and everything that He does is THE original...blah blah blah..." Go on, fool. I accept your concession that you cannot defend your claim that surrounding nations had no standard of justice. That was a lie.

Well now I now you are insincere and just looking to misrepresent and find fault with God's perfect word. Yes, God specifically enumerated the nations immediately surrounding them. And if you look at the details of the WHOLE of Scripture and don't fall into the error of looking at one verse and jumping to wrong conclusions you would see that God didn't have them destroy all from those nations and actually redeemed some of those people. Learn what the whole of Scripture says and then if you want to be a critic make sure to have the integrity to represent things accurately even if they don't go with your narrative. Blessings

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv "Well now I now you are insincere and just looking to misrepresent and find fault with God's perfect word. " Because I proved that your understanding was completely backward from what the verses say?

For starters, I mentioned many people and never specifically focused on the Midianites. It's dishonest of you to say otherwise. That said, if you've read Judges 6-8 you would see how the Midianites would oppress the Israelites by taking all of the sustenance of the land, including all of the livestock and laid waste the land. The text says that as a result of this "Israel was brought very low because of Midian. And the people of Israel cried out for help to the LORD." I'll give more information on this.

In terms of Midian helping, you might mean when Moses fled the wrath of Pharaoh, he traveled to Midian (Exodus 2:15). Jethro specifically helped him. The fact that Jethro was “a priest of Midian” (Exodus 2:16) indicates that the Midianites, at least during Moses’ time, still retained the knowledge of the God of their father Abraham (cf. Jethro’s words and actions in Exodus 18). Remember that this problem was much closer to home for Moses than for us, since he was married to a Midianitess and had lived for forty years in Midian. Moses was likely grieved in his spirit to the point of pouring out streams of tears in Numbers 31 when the Lord tells him to kill the Midianites who had rejected the Lord and turned their backs entirely on the One True Faith of their father Abraham. Moses's own sons were half-Midianite. Also, when the people of Israel traveled through the wilderness, they employed the services of a guide familiar with the desert-Moses’ Midianite brother-in-law, Hobab (Numbers 10:29). However, the relations between the Israelites and the Midianites began to sour when the Midianites joined forces with the Moabites in order to hire Balaam to curse Israel (Numbers 22). Later, when Israel fell into idolatry and sexual sin with the Moabite women (Numbers 25), we find that a prominent Midianite woman was also involved (Numbers 25:6). The Lord then told Moses to wage war against the Midianites: “Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them. They treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the Peor incident involving their sister Kozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader” Moses did lead a successful military campaign against the Midianites but he did not eradicate the Midianites as a people. The Israelites did eventually attack the Midianites, meting out divine retribution against their enemies (Numbers 25:17-19/Numbers 31). Five kings of the Midianites were killed, as was Balaam (Numbers 31:8). This battle was one of the last things Moses accomplished as leader of the Israelites. We know that the Midianites were not entirely wiped out as a people. Judges 6-8 demonstrates this and all of the trouble that Midian once again brought on the Israelites. Also, we see later, in the period of the Israelite monarchy, Midian seems to have occupied a tract of land between Edom and Paran, on the way to Egypt (I Kings 11:18). Killing the Midianite males involved in Numbers, and the adult married women - especially those who enticed the Israelites to idolatry and sexual perversion - would have the effect of wiping out the Pagan idolatrous culture of Midian that was in the midst of the Israelites at the time of Moses in the book of Numbers. Normally, total annihilation was reserved for the Canaanites. Midian was not in Canaan, but they fell under the curse of Canaan for these reasons: 1) their idolatry; 2) their hiring of Balaam to curse Israel; 3) their luring of Israel into sin (idolatry and gross sexual immorality and likely child sacrifice); and 4) their alliance with the Amorites, a nation slated for destruction (see Joshua 13:21) - who had for a time also recieved mercy. Seven centuries earlier, the Lord had told Abraham in Genesis 15:16 that “the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure”. Let us also keep in mind that they were involved in the unrighteous chattel enslavement of Joseph in Genesis 37:28 and 37:36 - "28 Then Midianite traders passed by. And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. They took Joseph to Egypt...36 Meanwhile the Midianites had sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, the captain of the guard." When someone objects to the judgment which the Lord decreed for the Canaanites, Amorites and Midianites in the final chapters of Numbers, they simply prove that they have not yet fully grasped the message of Leviticus that sin is serious and has massive consequences. We may forget that these people groups were gang-rapists, baby-murderers, drunkards, idolaters, manstealers (slave traders) and incestuous sexual perverts (and practiced bestiality and sodomy as well). The Lord tells us in Leviticus 18 that such practices defiled and polluted the land. And the land was vomiting out its inhabitants. The Lord also tells us that innocent blood not only pollutes the land, but also invites God's judgment. This was not ethnic cleansing, as is demonstrated by the opposite fates of Rahab and Achan in Joshua 7. Rahab the prostitute converts to Yahweh and is saved, whereas Achan the Hebrew chooses idols and must die. We should be moved by the annihilation of the wicked Canaanite nations. It is a picture of a God's judgment and wrath upon unrepentant sinners by casting them into the lake of fire. Unless we repent and turn away from sin and put faith in Christ, we will have an even greater problem with God on the day of our judgment. Perhaps that’s why Moses is sure to fill these chapters of judgment with plenty of reminders that the LORD our God is a kind, gracious, and merciful Savior. And that God exalted the humble, while opposing the proud. God forbids the Israelites from fighting the Edomites in Numbers 20, despite their rudeness, because he still had plans to save many of Esau’s descendants in the future. He forbids them from fighting the Moabites in Numbers 21, because he had similar plans to save many of Lot’s descendants too. He only commands them to destroy the Amorites after they choose to respond aggressively to Israel’s kind overtures, and He tells them to destroy the Midianites in Numbers 31 when they conspire with King Balak of Moab to corrupt God’s holy People. And again, we know that the Israelites didn't annihilate every Midianite in existence. Instead of complaining about God's judgment, we should note the inclusion of Hobab the Midianite, Rahab the Canaanite and Ruth the Moabitess among God’s people. And we should note God's patience with nations that immediately deserved God's white hot wrath. And the fact that God was much more swift to judge His own people.

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv I never said you focused specifically on the Midianites. It's dishonest of you to say otherwise. "the Midianites would oppress the Israelites by taking all of the sustenance of the land" Maybe that had something to do with the Israelites taking Midianite land and slaughtering the inhabitants?

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv Thank you for conceding that the Midianites did provide assistance to the Israelites in their flight from Egypt. "Killing the Midianite males involved in Numbers, and the adult married women - especially those who enticed the Israelites to idolatry and sexual perversion - would have the effect of wiping out the Pagan idolatrous culture of Midian" Thank you for conceding that you find genocide, slavery, infanticide, and rape to be perfectly moral actions when applied to people who hold different religious beliefs than yourself. You are in the close company every Christians who have been committing atrocities for 2000 years. "Let us also keep in mind that they were involved in the unrighteous chattel enslavement of Joseph" Let us also keep in mind that the Israelites were involved in the unrighteous chattel enslavement of thousands of people. "When someone objects to the judgment which the Lord decreed for the Canaanites, Amorites and Midianites in the final chapters of Numbers, they simply prove that they have not yet fully grasped the message of Leviticus that sin is serious and has massive consequences. " Or we have fully grasped the message of Leviticus. "This was not ethnic cleansing, as is demonstrated by the opposite fates of Rahab and Achan in Joshua 7" That is still ethnic cleansing.

They did and were commanded not to. And God judged them for that. God judged His people FIRST, as I demonstrated on one of your other comments. You need to represent things accurately and not seek to be triggered and reactionary, my friend. These pagan nations, by virtue of their actions, and by virtue of God's good and perfect and sovereign decree earned their destruction, displacement, judgment, etc. And it doesn't matter what ANY other people group have done. You don't get to obfuscate that fact. That's not how it works. God gets to have mercy on whom He has mercy. He gets to judge who He judges. And He is good for doing so. And we are obligated to accept it as good and be reverent towards God and submissive instead of having the unmitigated arrogance to think that we can judge the Almighty God, Creator, Lawgiver, Judge, and King of all.

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv "They did and were commanded not to." Nope. Show me where they were commanded not to sacrifice children to Molech. Molech, by the way, was not a god, but was in actually a method of sacrifice by fire, such as the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter to Yahweh. "God gets to have mercy on whom He has mercy. He gets to judge who He judges. And He is good for doing so." So mindless acceptance and obedience is the Christian way. We are not supposed to use the moral senses your God supposedly gave us?

The error here is intentionally not understanding the text and intentionally misrepresenting it #1, and #2 thinking that you have any right, authority, or understanding to judge God. God has all rights that man does not. He possesses all wisdom. His plans and ways are inscrutable. We are obligated to recognize our inferior position before Him and take a humble and submissive attitude towards God in all things.

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv "The error here is intentionally not understanding the text and intentionally misrepresenting it" Yes, this seems to be a chronic problem for you, as well as all other Christian apologists. "thinking that you have any right, authority, or understanding to judge God. " I have every right and authority to judge your imaginary friend. Use the words "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing", because that is what it was.

Yes BUT only if they chose to not be a part of the covenant just like with Jews.

@@Apollogetics Nope. There were no provisions for escaping chattel slavery by converting to Judaism. Judaism was a matter of heritage. But thanks for conceding that Christianity condones chattel slavery.

@@cygnusustus if you consider that chattell slavery then you are Redefining what it means

@@Apollogetics Chattel slavery is defined as "the enslaving and owning of human beings and their offspring as property, able to be bought, sold, and forced to work. Another definition is: "The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control, especially in involuntary servitude." Leviticus 25 explicitly describes and condones chattel slavery. "44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." Satisfied, kid?

You lie about Judaism being exclusively a matter of heritage, or you just are unaware. There were provisions for foreigners to become Israelites. The males had to be circumcised, they needed to have fealty to Yahweh alone and abide by God's Law. Examples of this would be such as Rahab, Ruth, and others.

I appreciate you interacting here my friend. You are incorrect on a couple of assertions here. So I want to show you from the Scripture. First, you are thinking of Joseph, not Jacob. Joseph was a slave of Laban, for the bride price of Rachel (and Leah unintentionally on Jacob's part). Laban was one of Jacob's people, even though Laban was an idolater. That said, I want to show you where Hebrew slaves got paid a 50% wage, and where they could become wealthy and buy themselves out of slavery. Deuteronomy 15:18 shows that at half the cost of a hired worker (50% wage) he (servant/slave) has served you six years. This is at the point where the Hebrew master was ordered by God to not only free the Hebrew slave in the seventh year, but he was ordered by God to not let the slave go out empty-handed. Rather he was to be furnished liberally from the flock, threshing floor, and wine press (Deuteronomy 15:13-14). In Leviticus 25:49, under Israel's slavery or indentured servitude structure, after a man was sold, he could grow rich and redeem himself. This comes after the instructions towards family members redeeming him if they can. In Leviticus 25:50 the passage goes on to say that he and his buyer were to calculate from the year when he sold himself until the year of Jubilee, and the price to buy himself free would vary based on the number of years. His time was rated as that of a hired worker (day's wage x # of days/years worked).

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv You are correct. I meant Joseph, not Jacob. Joseph was a slave of the EGYPTIANS, not the Hebrews. Joseph was under Egyptian law, not Mosaic law. There are no examples of non-Hebrew slaves becoming wealthy under Mosaic law. There were no provisions for slaves buying themselves out of slavery. You are just plain lying. Deuteronomy 15:18 does not say Hebrew indentured servants should be paid 50% wages. It says "he hath been WORTH a double hired servant to thee", not that he should be paid half wages. Caught you lying once again. And of course, this applied only to HEBREW indentured servants. Not to non-Hebrew chattel slaves who were never freed. Levitucs 25:49 is about HEBREW indentured servants of NON-HEBREW residents. Read verses 47-49.

Deuteronomy 15:18 shows that at half the cost of a hired worker (50% wage) he (servant/slave) has served you six years. This is at the point where the Hebrew master was ordered by God to not only free the Hebrew slave in the seventh year, but he was ordered by God to not let the slave go out empty-handed. Rather he was to be furnished liberally from the flock, threshing floor, and wine press (Deuteronomy 15:13-14). In Leviticus 25:49, under Israel's slavery or indentured servitude structure, after a man was sold, he could grow rich and redeem himself.

​@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv Deuteronomy 15:18 does NOT say that indentured servants had to be paid 50% wages. Stop lying. Leviticus 25:49 simply does not say that after a man was sold, he could grow rich and redeem himself. It says that is a FREE non-Hebrew grows rich and a HEBREW becomes his indentured servant, the HEBREW has the right to be redeemed by his brethren. You really need to take your god-glasses off before you read the Bible, if you want to understand the truth.

The only time an indentured servant was forced into service was if he had stolen, damaged, or otherwise defrauded his neighbor of property and could not repay it nor could work out terms with the victim. Then, and only then, would an Israelite court get involved. Usually, the indentured servant sold himself into slavery. Leviticus 25:39, 25:47, 25:50. Even the Egyptians at the time, who were wicked, and had a far crueler form of slavery initially started with Egyptians choosing to sell themselves into slavery and it devolved into the wicked form of slavery that existed when the Hebrew people cried out to the LORD. (Genesis 47:19-20; Exodus 1:12-14; Exodus 2:23-25)

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv "The only time an indentured servant was forced into service was if he had stolen" Liar. Cite your support for this. Of the three verses you cited, only 47 suggest that SOME Hebrews could elect to sell themselves to non-Hebrews. It does not say that no Israelites were obligated to serve as indentured servants to other Hebrews. "Even the Egyptians at the time, who were wicked, and had a far crueler form of slavery initially started with Egyptians choosing to sell themselves into slavery and it devolved into the wicked form of slavery that existed when the Hebrew people cried out to the LORD" LOL. You don't know your Bible very well. The Israelites were not chattel slaves in Egypt. They were more akin to serfs. They had individual dwellings Exodus 2:1: "And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi." They owned valuable jewelry: Exodus 3:22 "But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians. Exodus 11:2 "Speak now in the ears of the people, and let every man borrow of his neighbour, and every woman of her neighbour, jewels of silver and jewels of gold." They owned property: Exodus 9:4-7 "And the Lord shall sever between the cattle of Israel and the cattle of Egypt: and there shall nothing die of all that is the children's of Israel. And the Lord appointed a set time, saying, To morrow the Lord shall do this thing in the land. And the Lord did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died: but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one. And Pharaoh sent, and, behold, there was not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead. " Exodus 10:26 "Our cattle also shall go with us;" The chattel slavery described under Mosaic law was far more cruel than what was described under Egyptian captivity.

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv "The only time an indentured servant was forced into service was if he had stolen, damaged, or otherwise defrauded his neighbor of property" Nope. They were forced into indentured servitude if they owed money they could not pay. "Usually, the indentured servant sold himself into slavery." None of those verses state that was the usual case. If you have to lie to protect your beliefs, it is time to get new beliefs.

@@cygnusustus wrong again, because you refuse to understand that you must apply the whole counsel of God's word to every passage and understand it in that light. In other words, you must actually want to understand it. Men if they couldn't repay would sell themselves into slavery unless family or others offered to pay their debt...in which case the family (or others) could choose to forgive the debt or the one in debt would become their servant...the reason why these men would sell themselves into slavery, if they couldn't repay or come to terms first (because ALL tort law required that terms were sought before going to the magistrate...again the reason why they sold themselves into indentured servitude was because they had integrity and they knew it was damnable to just walk away from a debt unless the one holding the debt would happily forgive the debt and release them from it. And if they didn't have integrity, then yes, it is good and right and proper for the magistrate to step in and force it...because it is damnable to have a standard that lets people take out debt and walk from it leaving the other party at a total loss. Only an immoral person would ever advocate against this.

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv "In other words, you must actually want to understand it." Then why do you consistently deny what it says, fool? "Men if they couldn't repay would sell themselves into slavery" Possibly, buy more likely they were forced into. YOU made the claim that the ONLY time time an indentured servant was forced into service was if he had stolen, damaged, or otherwise defrauded his neighbor of property. Defend it. Support it. Or concede that you lied. "And if they didn't have integrity, then yes, it is good and right and proper for the magistrate to step in and force it" WHOA THERE, LI'L BUDDY! Force it? Didn't you just say "The only time an indentured servant was forced into service was if he had stolen, damaged, or otherwise defrauded his neighbor of property"? Oops. Tripped over your own lies!

Thank you for your encouragement! It's greatly appreciated.

That's changing rapidly here in the United States. Christian Nationalists and Theonomists and Covenanters are gaining much ground quickly. And we don't have much use for R2K, NCT, and Progressive covenentalism. I'm a member of a Reformed Baptist church.

That's really unfortunate. God will be turning that around, I am quite confident

Right? 😂

Depends on what you mean. Often we WANT different things out of others, and of course God's standards are not subjective like that. What we need to give people is a straightforward truth that was celebrated at one point in time as opposed to seeking affirmation, which ultimately makes us weak and fragile-minded.

Appreciate the encouragement. Thank you!

Not necessarily. I would say that most R2K adherents are some form of statist secular humanist with some libertarian tendencies (usually in specific areas). The only law and government that I ever witness them criticize or be threatened by is one that honors biblical law.

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv My line of reasoning is that R2K guys want the church to leave government alone and government to leave church alone. And Libertarians want government to leave them alone. But I see your point about R2K being an excuse to support leftism.

Appreciate the feedback! Blessings to you.

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv you too! Listened to a bunch of episodes

Appreciate your feedback, brother.

appreciate your feedback

Well, I sorta did...but my goal was to give principles and let people make up their own minds. LOL!!

I give a more clear answer in the video I'm releasing today.

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv that's fair, good principles.

Thank you, brother!

No. Neither one is contradiction. Jesus is the human flesh God. He is 100% God and 100% man. He was indeed a direct bloodline of King David because Mary was related to David. Human laws will never be equal to God's laws. Most laws are manmade and arbitrary. In order for a law to be just and fair, it must protect all of mankind; therefore, the only Laws that are fair and just are the Natural Laws - Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. Natural Laws are also derived from God. These laws include do not murder, do not steal. This includes abortion. It's ironic how you are not thinking critically as your handlename claims you do. You have a lot to learn.

@@hoofgripweightlifting6872 No ascending to Matthew and Luke Jesus is descended from King david through Joseph not Mary. The exact father to son is described in each alth they are of course different. In the bible Mary parents are named but not the entire family tree. So to claim Joseph is not the father of Jesus and that he is is a blatant contradiction.. It not about criticism thinking that is what these gospels say. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not natural laws, they are literally uS hamn laws although not necessarily a bad thing. If you talking your word from the bible it literally describes when it is just to murder and when it ok to commit abortion. In the most erible way. The only medical recipee describe in the bible is for a forced miscarriage ie an abortion. But it is with the man giving consent even if it against the woman's will. So please do not use the bible as a claim it is against abortion it is not. It describes how ripping the arms from your enemies children is a good act. Of stoning children to death is a good things. This is not a moral good instruction manual. There are good things in the bible valuable moral lessons but people gloss over the equally terrible things. If you studies the bible, including its develop; read all the gospels not just the ones in the bible.; you would realise that Jesus if indeed he did exist reject the god of the old testament and doubt the existence of any god. Even in the bible there is only 3 claim that Jesus thought of himself as rigorous and only one that claimed he was the son of God. A man to follow and respect probably but nothing more that a man of wisdom and extraordinary enlightenment of the time.

There's a lot that you do not understand clearly. And there's too many issues here for me to have the time right now to address them all. So I'll address the most important. The only books that are canonical and have any impact on doctrine or any authority whatsoever, the only ones that are inspired by God, are the 66 books of the Holy Bible...and they say none of what you claim about Mary. Repent of this and be transformed by the renewing of your mind, through the 66 books of canon in the Bible. What a faith/religion is founded on is completely different than a tenet, principle or command of the faith...it's foolish and silly to confuse the two. The Christian faith is founded on the cornerstone of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His work on the cross. Period. End of story. Nothing else. That said, there are other tenets, truths, and commands of the Christian faith that all must submit and conform to. And God's created order, the hierarchies He established and commands on who may have authority and who may not are all amongst those things that are authoritative and that we are obligated to accept, love, affirm, and submit to. The only people who should be legally punished are those who break the laws that God established. Your heresy is much closer to that than my submission to God's word and orthodox assertion of its truth.

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv 66 books of the bible so you nt catholic but protestant. Yet you claim the bible is the absolute doctrine of christianity but the primary difference between catholic and protestant is church doctrine before the bible - bible -> church -> god,

@@criticalthinker8007 - I'm sorry, but the latter part of your comment did not come across as completely coherent. I'm sure that I'm just not understanding what you're attempting to communicate. Can you please clarify?

You've shown that you don't actually understand anything that I said, nor the definition of love, nor the "golden rule" in Scripture, nor the ethic of Jesus, and so ultimately not the Law of God either. The state always catechizes, no matter how righteous or wicked their laws are. Our obligation is for them to catechize righteous and just laws. That is completely separate from evangelism proper. It is also completely separate from God spiritually changing a person who came in contact with His word (not necessarily evangelism). I don't really care what Liberal Jews think, however, as they have demonstrated that they are one of several groups who have a completely corrosive, corrupt, and outright evil world view that they intentionally try to foist on society. It's the height of hypocrisy for any of them to complain about Christian morality being praised in the public sphere. Thank you for engaging and sharing your thoughts. If anything in my response was unclear or not developed enough, please be sure to let me know and I'll gladly elaborate.

Thank you for the encouragement, brother! You too

Appreciate the encouragement, my friend!

Not 6

You’ve got this wrong and didn’t listen to the argument I was giving Jeremy. The point I was making is the idealism and ideological purity of the abolitionist movement IS the actual thing that in some cases are killing 94 percent of the babies. Why? Because abolitionists opposed saving the 1864 bill in Arizona because it did not call for criminalization of the mother.

This was referring to Samuel Sey's discussion with Jeff Durbin. Thank you for giving me some feedback. Appreciate the conversation that we had on this, brother. Thank you for taking the time to converse on the phone.

Appreciate your take. I do think it’s a fair question though. He’s looking to ensure the same standard that we apply to them is being applied to ourselves.

Amen! Glad you enjoyed it. All glory to God Almighty, indeed!

Thank you for listening and for letting me know!

absolutely

Stupid.

Production elements don't lend to or take away from the truthfulness of the message and only serve as an ad hominem fallacy. That said, I really appreciate your feedback and will continue to consider your words to see if they would be helpful in the future. Blessings!

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv yeah...true...thanx for your response. And remember, I have ONE follower...so...

@@edmcinnis4715 - now you have TWO :)

@@EmissariesoftheGospel-fs8rv and you have 45! Thank you for your kindness to my initial response...and you willingness to follow...you truly demonstrated a Christlike spirit far more than I. Forgive me