Anonymous #1 1w

This message is to just show that they’re somehow both so close to the point but so far. If you’re gonna preach the Bible, AT LEAST KNOW WHAT YOU’RE SPEAKING ABOUT. ONE OF THE APOSTLES ALSO LITERALLY REJECTED JESUS THREE TIMES SO FAITH WOULD’VE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT

2

Anonymous #1 1w

Well it’s blasphemous to suggest that Charlie Kirk would’ve been the “13th disciple.” I find that suggestive that this man would know better who should be an apostle than God and it feels like it’s really stretching into the territory of idolatry. While it’s true that some of the apostles weren’t necessarily great people, I don’t find it biblically accurate to say “none of them were good people.” Many of the apostles are depicted as ordinary, working class fishermen. While they weren’t chosen

4

Anonymous OP 1w

for their faith, there certainly wasn’t any Apostles that went around all over and actively spoke out AGAINST the things Jesus was teaching. That’s what Charlie Kirk was. I understand full well that the apostles were not chosen on faith and rather the idea is to show how God’s grace can work through anyone. But it’s not like Jesus in the human sense had much sympathy for people who invoked the name of God for backwards reasons

5

Anonymous OP 1w

Not disagreeing at all, but I believe that Rep. Nehls, who is on record as being a Dispensationalist Protestant, needs to be called out for his lack of comprehension of the theological literature which he uses to support his views. In Rep. Nehls’ own words, he is either speaking blasphemy, insulting Kirk (which the admin. has shown there would be dire consequences for), or doesn’t have a basic grasp of the literature he bases his identity around. Pathetic comment from him.

1