B–Blossom🌻

Jesus is king

[Adam Sandler @AdamSandler]

We missed you!

[AndyJnr ° Umaru  @AndyjnrUmaru]

This is how to Pray to scripture, she went from 0-100% 🔥🔥

[blitz @blitznotinspace]

They don’t make superhero movies like this anymore

[Lifted 🌏🌟 @Mayowa_is_sent]

Bringing this back to your TL, you might need it again 🙏🥹

[Best of Marvel @BestMarvelU]

We’ve never seen Peter take a beating like this since, Goblin really bullied him

[Gideon Odoma @gideonodoma]

REPENTANCE

I think some of you are missing the context of the story, per Luke 15.

The allegation against Jesus was that He received sinners & ate with them. Well, did Jesus think the people making that allegation were righteous & truly didn't need to repent, as they implied? This issue alone should settle the status of the 99 & the possible interpretation. Whoever the 99 were, they were not Angels, since the lost sheep was one of them. And since there are no persons who do not need repentance, the 99 can't be considered to be saved persons. Also, if they were saved, it means, the one sheep was simply a back-slider & not a 'sinner' per se, since it used to be in the flock of 100 sheep, before getting lost. But, the charge was about Jesus receiving SINNERS & eating with them.

Secondly, to insinuate that Jesus did not mean for His interlocutors (The Pharisees & Scribes) to locate themselves somewhere in His response is strained & completely out of pattern, with Jesus. In fact, He would tell a story sometime & the Pharisees would be livid, believing Jesus told the parable "against" them (For instance, see Luke 20:19, but for context read from vs 1).

Thirdly, and this amplifies the second point: Jesus is said to have responded with A Parable. Not 3 parables. (Read the text). Meaning He told a parable containing 3 stories. In fact, you can tell that the lost sheep & the lost coin are clearly the same point being made in two ways. In the KJV, the stories are framed (in vs 4 & 8) like this: "What man of you, having... Either what woman having..." It is in vs 11 that the narrator makes a brief comment to introduce Jesus' telling of the story of the 2 boys.
Since it is one parable, it means each story is supposed to both reinforce & complement the others, & you'd need to consider all three together to get Jesus' overall point.
In the final story, Jesus contrasted the attitude of the Pharisees & Scribes on the one hand with the attitude of the SINNERS, on the other hand. The older brother was so self righteous that one, he said he had NEVER done anything wrong in his dealing with his dad (vs 29), making him the (self)righteous one needing NO repentance. Nobody then, hearing that story, believed he never did wrong. Also, he was ANGRY his brother was home. Wait, was that righteous ANGER?

But more. Fourthly: the allegation was 'this man receives sinners & EATS with them'. The final scene of the 3-stories-1-Parable is the father trying to get the older son to the feast. So, the older son is clearly OUTSIDE the house. This parallels the 99 sheep that were left in the desert, separated from the venue of the celebration. The inference about the 99 is warranted by this last scene.
What is both humbling & indicting is that, just as the father went out to bring the younger boy home, he also went out in the middle of the feast, to bring the older brother to the feast too. The genius of Jesus' story telling here is unmatched. He concluded the parable without resolution. Did the father succeed? Did the older brother make it home? We are not told. We are not told because Jesus is saying the answer to that question would be somewhat "determined" by the older brother (Pharisees/Scribes). Yet, what is clear is the father wants them both at the feast. But, only the younger brother, the obvious sinner, is at the feast when the curtain closes on the parable.
The Pharisees said: "This man receives sinners." Yes. Point however is, all are sinners, & so, if anyone refuses God's diagnosis of their situation, they forfeit God's help. In implying that they were not sinners, these Pharisees forfeited salvation, which those obvious sinners were earger to embrace at the time.
So, there were sinners, there were the self-righteous, & there was The Saviour. But the self-righteous did not accept the one who accepted them & therefore were not at the feast

Jesus' point is: "My feast is on. I want all in, but if you reject me, you exclude yourself"

Could go on...

[.. @BodegaaCat]

This goal is straight gas

[KAT @reallKAT]

Unemployed at 23.
Broke at 25.
Starting over at 27.
Millionaire at 30.

Don’t underestimate what God can do in your life.

Philippians 4:13.

[KSI NEWS @ksinews_]

Shank was surprised when he realized KSI and Deji were able to understand him speaking Yoruba to the waitress 😭🇳🇬

[B–Blossom🌻 @jexcele]

😂😂

[#1 Merino fan @Afc_gus99]

Stop begging it mate you ruined my childhood with this and gave me an irrational fear of pianos

[Gideon Odoma @gideonodoma]

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SAINTS

But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.
Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.
For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient.
Therefore do not be partners with them.
For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light
– Paul of Tarsus, Apostle extraordinaire

*** *** ***
If I were the one preaching and I said, as in the last line above, that believers should LIVE as children of light, & that they should not just confess they are children of light; If I said so, some deluded hypergracer would start convulsing and accusing me of advocating for Legalism.

If someone is angry when you repeat what the New Testament teaches, is that person an apostle or a fraud? Please, tell

[B–Blossom🌻 @jexcele]

Fabrizio explaining his “HERE WE GO” lol the end might be here

[Fabrizio Romano @FabrizioRomano]

@mouhkay88 I’ll always say here we go if a player goes for a medical. Napoli authorized the medical as clubs had a verbal agreement. Then problems emerged right after the medical. Have a nice day. 🤗

[B–Blossom🌻 @jexcele]

😭😭😂😂

[autist @litteralyme0]

not tryna be funny but bro is that...

[aether @bluewdrift]

quitting your worst habit will change your life faster than starting your best habit. stop the leak before you fill the bucket

[EMDG @EmanDaGoon]

I'm crying 😭. Pay the Arsenal editors whatever they want man, they got everything !

[HandofArsenal @HandofArsenal]

🚨 EXCL : Arsenal Football Club have personal terms agreed in principle with Vinicius Junior. Roc Nation will go armed into negotiations with Real Madrid with a monstrous offer from the English Champions…….over to you Vinicius Junior. Story W/ @MrArsenicTM

[ferit 🧟‍♂️ @sonofbrucewayne]

Filmi bırak, hiçbir süper kahraman uyarlaması 22 yıldır bu afişin dahi üzerine çıkamadı.

[SIR CHUCHO 🎖️ @SirChucho]

Next season go long

[biggFred 🗣 @Rozzinho_732]

Niggas be smiling with a whole war going on inside

[𝓫𝓸𝔂𝓡𝓲 @Boyravee]

You try to blend in with rich kids and they suggest the next pool party will be at your house