Avatar
SuperDave
d21ad291d9aba6466198c1f3a506d8a908c92d0635b74a89ee3e2991d346c853

Yeah, coin joining can really enhance privacy. Not sure what the crypto regulations are going to be in a year, but I bet someone will squawk about illicit activity and pull another samurai wallet case. I also like the idea of lightning batching the transactions, as well, vs just on chain. I’ve told him to just stack for now and watch the layer 2 privacy solutions emerge.

Intel slush fund, still doing its job. BTC can move like that, but we lose privacy. I was talking to my Dad (that I am orange-pilling) and talked about this issue. Can’t move money to people that need it in closed countries without a note from your mom, but BTC fixes that. We lose privacy as a trade off for permissionless and transparent. He’s intrigued, but the privacy thing is still a hurdle.

Caramelize those onions! Sweet flavor that enhances almost any meat. Little roasted garlic never hurt anyone, as well. Enjoy!

GM, from Lake Pontchartrain!

Well, then extend to him a laurel, and hardy handshake.

To be fair, the rise of higher criticism from Europe infected the great seminaries like Princeton in the late 1800s, and along comes a system that promised to return to a time of taking the Bible seriously by focusing on a very literal hermeneutic. Men like DL Moody were fighting a battle, and they were desperate for allies. Not excusing them, but it was clear some powerful forces took advantage of that. (Read Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism for a better way to fight that battle).

To this day, a critique of dispensationalism is received as an attack on the veracity of Scripture. And I have friends who are convinced that if you have a consistently literal interpreation of the Bible, you naturally arrive at dispensationalism. That is a tough conversation to have, even if you trust each other.

I think if they would consistently let the New Testament interpret the Old, you naturally reject the dispensational system.

Replying to Avatar Dikaios1517

To expand on this a bit, one of the particular passages used for why Christians "must" support the current state masquerading as "Israel" is Genesis 12:2-3, in which God says to Abram, before his name was changed to Abraham:

> "I will make you a great nation; I will bless you And make your name great; And you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

Therefore they see a danger in cursing Israel, since they are presumably Abraham's descendants, who inherit the promises made to him, and those who curse them will themselves be cursed.

This, of course, ignores two important principles:

1. Inclusion in God's covenant with Abraham has ALWAYS been on the basis of sharing the same faith Abraham had, and not by birthright. Consider Ishmael and Esau as pointed out by Paul in Romans 9 and consider Christ's words to the Pharisees and Sadducees in Matthew 3:8-9:

> "Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones."

While there is definitely a generational inheritance aspect to the covenant of God, it is NOT an automatic and universal inheritance that disregards faith, and especially since messiah has come, it is not without submission to and faith in Jesus Christ.

2. Those unfaithful who were descended from Abraham by blood were specifically called by Christ "children of your father, the devil" in contrast to their claim of being children of Abraham.

We see this very plainly in Jesus' teaching in John 8. Here he says to "those Jews who believed him" (verse 31):

> "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Shortly thereafter, in verse 39, some unbelieving Jews answered him saying, “Abraham is our father," as though that should be the end of the matter. What is Jesus answer to this? He tells them they are no children of Abraham, and they prove it by their actions.

> "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this."

He goes farther, telling them who their true father is in verse 44:

> "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do."

So, the Jews who reject Christ, like the ones who put him to death, have no rightful claim to be called "children of Abraham," or heirs of the promises made to him. Rather, they are children of the devil, according to Christ himself, whom are later called "the synagogue of Satan" in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.

True Israel, God's covenant people, is synonymous with the Christian church, firmly holding to the teaching of the Apostles and the Prophets, and none other. The rest are no sons of Abraham whatsoever, but are of their father, the devil.

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpde8f55w86vrhaeqmd955y4rraw8aunzxgxstsj7eyzgntyev2xtqyghwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsqgyhxpltury3j5xrsg83tj2ets4n5mswtvgjcqztsd8w2hjk22gsl54rtzu7

Gal 3 supports those points, as well. It is those who are of the faith of Abraham who are the children of Abraham (v. 7). But the real kicker is that the promises were made to Abraham and his seed, meaning one, who is Christ (v. 16). It is Christ who inherits the promises, and anyone in Him are then Abraham’s offspring. Heirs with Christ according to promise (v. 29). By faith only and not by lineage or blood. Therefore, it is inappropriate for Christians to use Gen 12 (bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you) as justification for supporting the modern state that calls itself Israel. Anyone in Christ by faith, whether Jew or Gentile, is heir to the promises of Abraham. And, more to the point , if Christ as the heir is all that Israel is supposed to be, then you are blessed if you bless Christ, and cursed if you curse Christ.