Ted Cruz on Iran @ Tucker Carlson

[unknown]

 

[unknown]

 

[unknown]

 

[unknown]

 

[jmdrake]

So this person wants to impeach Ted Cruz over the big beautiful bill? I'm pretty sure senators can't be impeached. They can be expelled. But you know who CAN be impeached? Donald J. Trump! It's time to direct the anger at the real source of the problem.

 

[unknown]

"Fox News is wall to wall with dead-eyed politicians telling you that Iran is a dangerous “sponsor of terror.”

Softening up the base for a war.

But what exactly does that phrase mean, and how does it apply to the United States?

Here’s one measure: over the past twenty years, how many Americans have been killed by Iran on American soil?

Try to find that number, and then compare it to the number of Americans killed by drug ODs. Or suicide. Or illegal aliens. Or carjackings, diabetes and the Covid vax.

Still think Iran is the greatest threat?

How about we focus on our own country for a minute."

 

[unknown]

 

[unknown]

Explains it a second time:

 

[acptulsa]

Speaking of Trd Cruz...

 

[Anti Globalist]

Speaking of Trd Cruz...

Sounds like Cruz is telling us he's a pedophile without telling us he's a pedophile.

 

[ClaytonB]

Explains it a second time:

No.

1) The New Testament does not "supersede" the Old Testament, it isn't even "primary". The Old and New Testament are just ... Scripture. It's completely continuous, just as your body is completely continuous, even though it has parts. The head is symbolically primary over the body, but it is not actually primary in the sense that the head could exist without the body. Obviously, it can't. Jesus said, in essence, "If you believe the Scriptures (Old Testament), then you must believe in me, because I am sent by the Father." (John 10:30, 5:39, etc.) Therefore, the New Testament (the teachings of Jesus) flows from the Old Testament, it does not "supersede" it.

2) The church does not in any sense "replace" God's chosen people after the flesh. The amount of confusion on this point is staggering, even though the New Testament is pretty clear on it (read Romans, Galatians and Hebrews). Rather, we learn in Romans 11 that Gentile believers are "grafted in" to the covenants, along with Israel, which is the trunk of the olive tree. The natural branches must also be grafted back in (they must believe in Jesus to be saved, John 14:6), nevertheless, there is one distinction remaining --- that they are natural branches, rather than wild. This distinction does not mitigate against our oneness in Christ (Gal. 3:28, etc.) Nevertheless, it is an actual distinction, just as skin color is an actual distinction, even though we are all one race as children of Adam. This distinction matters not in respect to salvation, but in respect to prophecy -- see again Romans 11 and all the OT prophets.

It also matters in respect to the identity of Jesus the Messiah ---- we know who the Messiah is in part because we know what Jews are. Jesus was prophesied to come from the line of David, a Jew, and this is part of the historical and logical foundation for Jesus's claims about himself. Take away the natural/wild distinction, and you take away the claims of Jesus. Thus, hidden within the supremacy of Jesus is the natural/wild distinction in respect to the eternal covenants of God. This is why, even though salvation is only in Jesus, the Old Testament covenants are all eternal covenants. Jesus is what makes them eternal, but they ARE eternal, that is, they are eternal covenants with God's chosen people. If we say that those covenants no longer apply to the chosen people after the flesh but, rather, to the church instead, then we make God into a word-gamer and a deceiver. That would be blasphemy, so it is impossible. Stated another way, if you believe heaven is forever, then God's covenants with his chosen people after the flesh are also forever because that's what he said. It's both or neither...

1Chr 16:15,17; 2Chr 13:5,21:7; 2Sam 23:5; Deu 7:9; Exo 31:16; Eze 16:60, 37:26; Gen 17:7,9,13,19, 9:12; Isa 24:5, 55:3, 59:21, 61:8; Jer 32:40, 50:5; Josh 4:7; Lev 24:8; Num 18:19, 25:13; Psa 105:10, 8, 111:5,9

 

[unknown]

"Tucker's view is the one that prevailed without challenge in Christianity since its inception. In contrast, your view dates to the Scofield Reference Bible reinterpretation (1909), and is an aberration only found in America.

It makes no sense to call on Christians to serve and elevate those who reject Christ. If you believe Jews are the chosen people and not Christians, you should convert to Judaism."

 

[unknown]

 

[unknown]

 

[Snowball]

Sounds like Cruz is telling us he's a pedophile without telling us he's a pedophile.

Does he look like a smart kid you could trust? Or neither........

 

[Invisible Man]

No.

1) The New Testament does not "supersede" the Old Testament, it isn't even "primary". The Old and New Testament are just ... Scripture. It's completely continuous, just as your body is completely continuous, even though it has parts.

I generally agree. I do think there are things in the OT that are now obsolete in light of the progress of revelation given in the NT. But the caricature Fuentes gave is not true to what Jesus or the apostles taught about the OT.

 

[ClaytonB]

I generally agree. I do think there are things in the OT that are now obsolete in light of the progress of revelation given in the NT.

Obsolete in a theological sense -- God never changes, so when Paul (for example) says that the law is now obsolete, he doesn't mean that God messed up before, and corrected his mistake, rather, he means that God intended the law to bring the Israelites to Messiah (Gal. 3:24) and, once it fulfilled that purpose, it is obsolete, like a caterpillar's cocoon is obsolete once it has served its purpose. The plan of the cocoon was always that it would dry up and become a husk, once it served its purpose. This is how Paul describes the Law in relation to the New Covenant in Jesus.

PS: I'm not correcting what you said, just clarifying further.

But the caricature Fuentes gave is not true to what Jesus or the apostles taught about the OT.

Personally, I don't care about anything having to do with Fuentes at all. Just seems like controlled-opp to me.

 

[acptulsa]

Obsolete in a theological sense -- God never changes, so when Paul (for example) says that the law is now obsolete, he doesn't mean that God messed up before, and corrected his mistake, rather, he means that God intended the law to bring the Israelites to Messiah (Gal. 3:24) and, once it fulfilled that purpose, it is obsolete, like a caterpillar's cocoon is obsolete once it has served its purpose.

I prefer to think of it a little differently, as usual. I don't doubt what you said at all, but I think my theory applies part of the time. Maybe it's just my instinct to be a pain in the ass of theologians, but I can't help but observe that though God may not change, we do. The Law is for our benefit, not God's, and we have (for example) learned a whole lot about how not to get trichinosis from pork.

Human dads drop rules as their kids outgrow the necessity for them, and you'll never catch me saying God's incapable of something a human can do.

 

[ClaytonB]

I prefer to think of it a little differently, as usual. I don't doubt what you said at all, but I think my theory applies part of the time. Maybe it's just my instinct to be a pain in the ass of theologians, but I can't help but observe that though God may not change, we do. The Law is for our benefit, not God's, and we have (for example) learned a whole lot about how not to get trichinosis from pork.

Human dads drop rules as their kids outgrow the necessity for them, and you'll never catch me saying God's incapable of something a human can do.

I can agree with that... two sides of the same coin.

 

[unknown]