AREOPAGUS

@johnhorne9977 The phrase "cradle of civilization" isn't about sustained political power — it's about where the foundational technologies of civilization first appeared. Mesopotamia is where we find the earliest known writing (cuneiform, c. 3200 BC), the first cities (Uruk), the wheel, the sexagesimal system that still gives us 60 minutes and 360 degrees, and the earliest law codes. That's the claim, and it's well established. You're right that the region was politically fragmented and often at war — Sumerian city-states, then Akkad, Assyria, Babylon rising and falling. But "cradle" refers to the birth of the tools, not the length of any one empire. A place can invent writing and the city without holding continuous power for millennia. Egypt and the Indus Valley are also in the conversation, but Mesopotamia has the earliest writing we've found, which is why it usually gets named first. The warring city-states and the civilizational firsts are both true at once.

Saint Peter the Aleut pray for us ☦

@mavifeeyakier9593 There's real history under your anger, and I won't sweep it. The Jesuit record includes genuine dark chapters — coercion, entanglement with colonial power, and abuses against indigenous peoples that deserve to be named honestly, not defended. Where institutions did evil in Christ's name, calling it out is the Christian thing to do, not the disloyal thing. Where I'd push back is the totalizing part. "Not Christians, a military order with a license to kill" doesn't survive contact with a case like this one. Berthieu was a Jesuit who was offered his life four times if he'd renounce Christ, and four times refused, and was shot for it. Whatever the order did elsewhere, this particular man died as a martyr, not a killer. History holds both — real crimes by some, real faith by others, sometimes in the same order. This channel documents the record, dark parts included. If you've got a specific event you think deserves coverage, name it — I'd rather look at the history than argue past it.

@RoseSharon7777 I'd use that lexicon with you, because those verses actually point the other direction. Isaiah 43:11 says besides YHWH there is no Savior. Agreed completely. Now hold that next to Titus 2:13, which calls Jesus "our great God and Savior," and Luke 2:11, "a Savior, who is Christ the Lord." If there is no Savior besides YHWH, and Jesus is called Savior, then Jesus is YHWH. The verses you cited don't debunk the Trinity — they require it. The Trinity has never claimed three gods. It claims one God (Deuteronomy 6:4, exactly what Isaiah is defending) eternally existing as Father, Son, and Spirit. So Isaiah 45:5 "there is no other" is something every Trinitarian affirms wholeheartedly — one God, no other. The lexicon test you recommend is a good one. Run it on John 1:1 ("the Word was God" — theos), John 8:58 ("before Abraham was, I AM" — ego eimi, the divine name Jesus applies to Himself), and John 20:28, where Thomas calls Jesus "my Lord and my God" and Jesus accepts it. The Greek doesn't soften any of those. The oneness of God and the deity of Christ are both in the text — the Trinity is simply holding all of it at once instead of throwing half of it out.

​@scriptorium_duEveryone born of the Father is expected to be a savior to the lost and cover over a multitude of sins. James 5:20. WE are to offer our lives as a sacrifice for others. In the bible there are many saviors but only one SAVIORof our souls. That would be our judge and creator YHWH. Obadiah 1:21. Also everyone begotten of the Fathers incorruptible seed and born of his immortal spirit are eloheim. But there is only ONE Elohiem. Knowing the difference is what means life over deception and eternal de*ath. "I said YOU are eloheim and are all SONS of the MOST High. " Psalm 82:6. (This would include every son of the firstfruits inckuding Jesus, James, John the Baptist, etc). "To WHOMEVER overcomes he will INHERIT ALL THINGS (ALL Firstborn sons). I will be his Theos (Elohiem) and he will be MY SON (that includes YOU as his offspring). This iscall in the NT better discovered if you read the greek or useca lexicon. That's why I said people need to use a lexicon and also remind people that what God said in the OT over 6k times takes precedence over anything that comes along later and contradicts what he said for 4k years before the 1st century c.e. Deut. 13 explains what happens to folks who teach a completely different doctrine that contradicts what he saud for 4k years. I suggest everyone read it before going to sleep tonight. Most never have. Use a lexicon. 😊😊😊blessings.

@RussellGuide No argument that it's the most contested ground on earth — Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Crusaders, Ottomans, British, and back again. The list of past owners is staggering. You're right that holding it has never been guaranteed by anyone's strength alone. Where I'd add a layer: the Bible frames this exact piece of ground differently than any other territory in history. It's the one place where the claim isn't ultimately about who can militarily hold it, but about a covenant promise (Genesis 17:8, Romans 11:29). Every empire that took it eventually lost it — but the people the promise was made to are still here, after every one of those empires turned to dust. That's the part that's hard to explain by power politics alone. The contest is real. So is the strange persistence of one people through all of it.