It's an important and critical topic, imo. So I recommend you consider (think about, reflect on, pray) the following
So much hinges on historical Christian belief. But
Jesus explained that he had many things to say, but could not because his disciples were not ready or could not digest them...
Paul explained that "now we see dimly, as through a dark glass, THEN we shall know even as we known" - that his own understanding and perception of God and Jesus was limited
A core belief that has been carried until today is that Christ came to die on the cross. But what if his true purpose was to live, be accepted, and teach?
Jesus explained "all the prophets prophesied until John..." indicating that all prophecies in the OT were ONLY about the times up until John's time (advent of the messiah).
Two types of prophecy were given about the coming Messiah.
A. that he would be the king of glory, sit on David's thrown, and that "his kingdom would not end"
B. that he would be rejected, persecuted and be the king of suffering
Why? because which way things went would depend on whether the Israelites fulfilled their responsibility to unite with God's purpose
Prophet Samuel explains "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice"
if the people were to obey, then sacrifice would not be necessary. If they disobeyed, then sacrifice becomes necessary to rectify
For 2 years of Jesus ministry, he taught that the Kingdom was at hand, and that the people should receive him. Only after the MT of transfiguration did he begin to talk of death and suffering.
Does it make sense that Jesus first priority mission, the reason God sent him, was for the people of Israel to receive him, lift him up, and in unite with him?
Yes. But if they failed to fulfill, as they often did during the 2000 years from Abraham onwards, then a sacrifice would be necessary, and that would mean Jesus would have to suffer.
There are many indicators in the scripture that Jesus wanted people to believe in him. He never once said, "please reject me and crucify me, because that will fulfill God's will".
how does this relate to your question?
God chose the decedents of Abraham as his one chosen people on earth to send the Messiah to, and prepared them to be righteous and receive him. But always humans have their own responsibility, to unite with God's wishes. If they fail, they unite with Satan.
Parable of the vineyard - shows that Israel lost the blessing as chosen people when they rejected Jesus.
Who are the new chosen people? Christians. Christians are the 2nd israel, spread worldwide (not just one nation). But Jesus also warned that when he returns, Christians might also make the same mistake as the Jews: persecute and reject him. "Begone from me you evil doers"
How is this possible? Only if Christ returns as a man to complete the original mission, to be received, to complete the full mission. Jesus sacrifice opened the way for spiritual salvation through faith, but our flesh is still under Satanic dominion. (Paul - wretched and that I am! Mind - I serve God, but flesh, I serve evil)
Christ returns to complete all salvation, in flesh as well in spirit. So he must return as a man, not as a supernatural phenomena. We already have the example of a "return" or second coming in scripture. John the Baptist was the second coming of Elijah. Jesus himself told his disciples this.
Does this mean reincarnation is real? No. It means that Elijah in the spirit was working with and through John Baptist to complete his mission, the mission of "making straight the way of the Lord" i.e preparing Israel to receive (and not reject) the messiah.
But John never followed Jesus. In the end, he actually doubted him. John failed in this mission.
The important point is, the Israelites lost God's blessing as the chosen people when they rejected Jesus and forced him to take the way of the cross to atone for their sin of rejection. Through that sacrifice, Jesus opened the door to spiritual salvation. But remember, Jesus could forgive sins before the cross.
Congrats. But "proof" it ain't. Meaning the photo and/or the relationship between Kinzinger's wife and pence. Low threshold. Proof requires a lot more than that, imo.
Obviously proof that Trump is corrupt.
Sarcasm. Because its not proof.
Neither is what is presented by OP proof.
Regardless of the photo, what you consider to be proof is flimsy at the very best.
It appears that you have set yourself an extremely low bar for proof and evidence and just abandoned altogether the option for critical thinking.
Lifestyle choice, I guess, but not one I'm keen on adopting.
Yeah, and that photo with Epstein is proof that Donald Trump is a Cabal stooge, right? /sarc
<Facepalm>
If you consider this proof, you'll swallow anything.... .
I don't know why so many here, have trouble
Because they use their brains, apply logic and critical thinking
It is not just you. I am needing practices.
Excellent points.
I should have been more specifics. I was addressing specifically the situation where someone has been harrassing some people on GAW via direct message, never posting in the daylight, as it were.
Perhaps 'Troll" was not the best word. Possibly 'stalker' would have been more applicable.
Apologies for not being clear, but getting your Discourse on Trolling is a great outcome!
It would be rational and realistic to consider that you and I probably know less than 25% of the reality that goes on in that world, in the political sphere and in Wash DC. All we get to see is the surface narratives, those that come through on the propaganda media, alt media and social media. Unless you are an intern over there at DC, in one of the parties or even in the office of an independent. In which case, you probably know up to 28% of what actually goes on.
It makes no sense to gainsay the person you put there to represent your interests when you have only a fraction of the information they have, and they have mountains more information (and experience) than you.
Nothing wrong with having a different opinion (i.e. to Trump), but a modicum of situational awareness seems likely to inspire reflection and a big swing towards 'benefit of the doubt', when I "doubt".