St Robinson

asking Questions You’re Not Supposed To Ask™️, just know, those get you blocked. but:words mean things.

[St Robinson @PeterStepped]

@orielforex @TheSeanEsposito Here

[St Robinson @PeterStepped]

Interesting that @chris_blodgett brings up Ephesians 2:8-10.

Watch how the MacArthurs of the world teach a variable, dynamic definition of “works”, in one passage:

“For it is by grace you have been saved,through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by **works**, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good **works**, which God prepared in advance (“foreordained” elsewhere-StR) for us to do.”

And of course this is Shaul (also happens to be called Paul), commonly said to teach against the customs Moses taught, ie, the false charge brought against Stephen and Jesus Himself in Acts 6:13-14 (the NIV soft pedals the KJV’s and the even-older Spanish RVA’s “false witnesses” part and it’s not clear why…)

Well… let’s see.

Everyone knows the first “works” in the passage above: remembering the 7th day sabbath, following dietary instruction, etc. it is said that’s been nailed to the cross, done away with, fulfilled, or some variant thereof, the end result of which is the teachings of Moses having no role in Christian life today. Because, see, that’s legalism, which might give way to boasting…that one’s easy.

So far so good.

Then there’s the second “works”. Same word.

God, at some point in the past, ordained the works for His people to perform. Well, we can discard what that DOESN’T mean, right? Well, the second “works” CANNOT possibly mean what’s been nailed to the cross, done away with, etc. Right?

But hold on: let’s not torture the King’s English, nor standard pedestrian hermeneutic practice. Having the second “works” mean something different from the first would be taking the second >>out of context<<.

Because of the CONTEXT (which is king, we repeatedly hear elsewhere) it is therefore quite safe to conclude the second…means the same as the first: those “works” which could result in boasting…c’mon, it’s not possible that those could have been ordained at one point, as GOOD…??

(The thing to remember is anyone observed eg keeping the seventh day—-and I’m not referring specifically on behalf of SDA or any other denomination even though they do—-is immediately JUDGED by outside observers to be doing so because they are earning their salvation. While this is spoken against WIDELY—and rightly so—two things become apparent: no one has the skill to look in hearts to determine whether that’s indeed the case, despite the soi dissant judges pretending to be able to do so. And simultaneously, apparently it is IMPOSSIBLE to follow an instruction God gave simply because….yeah, like, He just, like…gave the instruction? Yeah. Such a thing appears to be impossible in most of the Christian seminarian-led world.

Now what?

But there’s more. God foreordained the works in question that Shaul references in his letter to the Ephesians. At some point in the past, God said “these are the paths My people walk in, where the good way is, and they will find rest for their souls in those paths”. Since He did so in the past, it’s a good guess it was long ago. Ancient paths they might be by now, even.

Jer 6:16

“Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the **good** way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls.”

No great leap of logic to conclude the good way is decked out with **good works**.

The seminarians don’t seem to be interested in this question: WHEN…did God set out the works for His people to do?

Moral of the story: don’t take things out of context.

Consider.

[St Robinson @PeterStepped]

@Enchantingforr1 @sasha_latypova @NOtoCBDCuniID That’s another related question.
And note: questioning natural history of Lyme disease is not to be taken as consenting to assault on medical freedom by novel genetic vaccine vehicle experimentation

[St Robinson @PeterStepped]

@PhilHelsel https://t.co/d0gcgXfxip

[OutbackJon @OutbackJon]

@NBCNews In what clown world would they be expected to have oxygen and a mask in an *EXECUTION* chamber?

No wonder no one respects the mainstream media anymore. You are absolute clowns.

[St Robinson @PeterStepped]

@godspillerofroc @jabaroky @BaT_MaN_23 @grok Have you not read? When Adam and Eve found themselves naked, some animal died and spilled its blood to provide coverage for their nakedness.

[St Robinson @PeterStepped]

Interesting that @chris_blodgett brings up Ephesians 2:8-10.

Watch how the MacArthurs of the world teach a variable, dynamic definition of “works”, in one passage:

“For it is by grace you have been saved,through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by **works**, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good **works**, which God prepared in advance (“foreordained” elsewhere-StR) for us to do.”

And of course this is Shaul (also happens to be called Paul), commonly said to teach against the customs Moses taught, ie, the false charge brought against Stephen and Jesus Himself in Acts 6:13-14 (the NIV soft pedals the KJV’s and the even-older Spanish RVA’s “false witnesses” part and it’s not clear why…)

Well… let’s see.

Everyone knows the first “works” in the passage above: remembering the 7th day sabbath, following dietary instruction, etc. it is said that’s been nailed to the cross, done away with, fulfilled, or some variant thereof, the end result of which is the teachings of Moses having no role in Christian life today. Because, see, that’s legalism, which might give way to boasting…that one’s easy.

So far so good.

Then there’s the second “works”. Same word.

God, at some point in the past, ordained the works for His people to perform. Well, we can discard what that DOESN’T mean, right? Well, the second “works” CANNOT possibly mean what’s been nailed to the cross, done away with, etc. Right?

But hold on: let’s not torture the King’s English, nor standard pedestrian hermeneutic practice. Having the second “works” mean something different from the first would be taking the second >>out of context<<.

Because of the CONTEXT (which is king, we repeatedly hear elsewhere) it is therefore quite safe to conclude the second…means the same as the first: those “works” which could result in boasting…c’mon, it’s not possible that those could have been ordained at one point, as GOOD…??

(The thing to remember is anyone observed eg keeping the seventh day—-and I’m not referring specifically on behalf of SDA or any other denomination even though they do—-is immediately JUDGED by outside observers to be doing so because they are earning their salvation. While this is spoken against WIDELY—and rightly so—two things become apparent: no one has the skill to look in hearts to determine whether that’s indeed the case, despite the soi dissant judges pretending to be able to do so. And simultaneously, apparently it is IMPOSSIBLE to follow an instruction God gave simply because….yeah, like, He just, like…gave the instruction? Yeah. Such a thing appears to be impossible in most of the Christian seminarian-led world.

Now what?

But there’s more. God foreordained the works in question that Shaul references in his letter to the Ephesians. At some point in the past, God said “these are the paths My people walk in, where the good way is, and they will find rest for their souls in those paths”. Since He did so in the past, it’s a good guess it was long ago. Ancient paths they might be by now, even.

Jer 6:16

“Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the **good** way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls.”

No great leap of logic to conclude the good way is decked out with **good works**.

The seminarians don’t seem to be interested in this question: WHEN…did God set out the works for His people to do?

Moral of the story: don’t take things out of context.

Consider.

[St Robinson @PeterStepped]

@jabaroky @BaT_MaN_23 @grok Actually in the story of Adam, God was already telling the world about His Son.

[St Robinson @PeterStepped]

@sasha_latypova @NOtoCBDCuniID So what’s the role of the antecedent tick bite observed so many times and associated with this phenomenon?

[St Robinson @PeterStepped]

@ArthurMacwaters @elonmusk https://t.co/wW9Obzjy0Z

[🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸 @Real_RobN]

And here 👇👇 it is 👇👇

The Federal Reserve CONFIRMS how NGOs end up increasing the number of homeless people they manage, because the only institution on the planet, in all of human history, capable of amassing $14.2 trillion is the single greatest racket empire on the planet—the U.S. Congress.

U.S. NGOs have combined assets totaling $14.2 trillion of your tax money.

[St Robinson @PeterStepped]

@ThinkingCC Tell it to CMS…JC…then St Healthcare…(you see where this is going)

[St Robinson @PeterStepped]

@KellyGoodmanPhD @ImMeme0 Isn’t that medical info protected information?

[St Robinson @PeterStepped]

@BlueTimeFairy @TheSeanEsposito “‘Decalogue’, like ‘Pentateuch’, does His people a disservice.”

You: “Fluff. Useless drivel…”

Also you: “apologize for attacking me scornfully!”

😳

[St Robinson @PeterStepped]

@rail_breaker31 @LaNativePatriot So…don’t feel well…test is negative …still go visit the immunocompromised older relative in a NH with all the other high risk people? That’s baffling.

[St Robinson @PeterStepped]

Hebrews is a singularly interesting book. Moses did not use hyssop, crimson thread, nor water to ratify the covenant. Neither did he sprinkle both the book and the people as the writer describes. It seems a conflation at least, in this case of the water of the red heifer process.

In the multiple quotes the writer uses, an air of “the lady doth protest too much, methinks” in trying to pass as an expert commentator. It looks like a pratfall by someone too smart by half. Only book where this happen.

Another example: in making an argument that is nearly 100% used by modern teachers to support the idea that the teachings of Moses have no role in the lives of Christians today, here’s the writer in Heb 10 quoting:

Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:
“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
7 
Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—
To do Your will, O God.’ ”
8 Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the law),
9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second.

That’s quoting psalm 40. But look at the entire passage from Ps 40:

6 
Sacrifice and offering You did not desire;
My ears You have opened.
Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require.
7 
Then I said, “Behold, I come;
In the scroll of the book it is written of me.
8 
I delight to do Your will, O my God,

**And Your law is within my
heart.”**

That last part of verse 8 in asterisks? It was curiously omitted by the writer by selectively quoting.

Then we see this exact passage often being used today to teach Christians they no longer need to have His law within their hearts.

Weird, no?

[St Robinson @PeterStepped]

@BlueTimeFairy @TheSeanEsposito Show where I didn’t speak to an idea but rather where I attacked you personally.

[St Robinson @PeterStepped]

@BlueTimeFairy @TheSeanEsposito Ad hominems accepted.

[St Robinson @PeterStepped]

No one said eating that is abomination.
Well Moses. And Isaiah. But besides those two, no one has said that!

As for uncircumcision being an abomination (besides that being a straw man argument) have you not read? neither circumcision *nor avoiding it so as to not appear legalistic* (ie uncircumcision) avail anything.

[St Robinson @PeterStepped]

@orielforex @TheSeanEsposito You endorse that God, via His Holy Spirit, will guide the changing of definitions concerning things once held to be abominations. For clarity: He is the same yesterday today and tomorrow…except where these definitions come in.

Got it.

[St Robinson @PeterStepped]

The sabbath is (for one) so that we would remember that in six days the heavens and earth were created. Imagine if that was taught at university.

It’s also a test to see if His instruction is to be followed or not.

Also let’s call the Decalogue something else, what it was originally called: covenant.
Deut 4:14

Ask students of the Pentateuch where God first revealed His name.
Ask Torah students who know the original names:

Genesis-In the Beginning
Exodus-Names
Leviticus-And He called
Numbers-In the Wilderness
Deuteronomy-Words,

there’s a higher probability they’d be able to just guess.

Are these things important?

In the beginning—since He tells the end from the beginning, from ancient times things yet to come…seems knowing the beginning looms up big. Is 46:10

Names-His people will be given a new name. Rev 2:17. Names are important. Phillipians 2:9-11

And He called—later we re-learn the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. If He called anyone in Leviticus…would that be set aside now since Jesus came and nailed all that to the cross, doing away with it, having fulfilled it?

In the Wilderness-anyone who is anyone to the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob spent time in the wilderness. Moses before leading Israel; the assembly with Moses ; Elijah; David; Jesus; Paul the list goes on

Words. Words are important. Life and death are in the power of the tongue. Hosea 14:2. “Have these words that I command you be upon your heart”

Decalogue, like Pentateuch, does His people a disservice.

[St Robinson @PeterStepped]

@theluxejungle @TheSeanEsposito Abel kept clean animals. Noah took seven pairs of clean animals and only a pair of the others

[St Robinson @PeterStepped]

@theluxejungle @TheSeanEsposito Bound? Who is bound? Where does this judgement come from that following the instructions given by Jesus to Moses are enslaving anyone?

Psalm 119:45

I will walk about at liberty for I have sought out Your precepts (such as how He walked, ate, worshipped)