peter2 said:

Why not, thanks. i shall have a try. Actually, i, lastly and above all, wondered whether the intention of protecting Jesus was relevant, not from Jesus chilhood or Mary's motherhood.
Rather,
as regards God's centered reasons or plan to let him die on the cross :
Was it God's will to use the protecting feelings of Mary and Joseph to spare the baby Jesus life, or did they both flee to Egypt without caring for such feelings, but already at that moment, and may be they as well, being concerned by God's centered care about Jesus' doom on the cross ?

Click to expand...

In the infancy narratives, the Bible presents both things happening at once:

• Mary and Joseph act with the very normal protective love of parents.
• God is also actively guiding events so Jesus lives to fulfill his mission.

What the text actually emphasizes​

In Matthew 2, Joseph doesn’t “reason it out” from a long-range plan about the cross. He’s repeatedly warned in dreams (“take the child… flee to Egypt… Herod is about to search for the child to destroy him”), and he obeys quickly. That’s the narrative focus: obedient protection under divine direction.


So the flight isn’t described as “they didn’t care about feelings” or “they were already thinking about the cross.” It reads like: God warns; Joseph protects; the child is preserved.

Did they flee because of feelings, or because of “God’s plan”?​

Most Christian readings would say: both, but not in the same way.

• On their side (human level): they protected Jesus because that’s what faithful parents do—fear, urgency, love, responsibility. Those “protecting feelings” are not treated as a distraction from God’s will; they’re part of how God normally works through people.
• On God’s side (divine level): God wills that Jesus not die as an infant at Herod’s hand, because Jesus’ death is meant to happen at the appointed time, in the appointed way—publicly, voluntarily, and as part of the saving work the Gospels later describe.

So God’s will isn’t “use their feelings instead of his plan,” but “use their love and obedience within his plan.”

Were Mary and Joseph already thinking about the cross?​

The texts don’t suggest they had a fully formed, detailed concept like: “We must save him now so he can die on the cross later.”


They do have hints, though:

• In Luke 2, Simeon’s prophecy includes both Jesus’ destiny and a coming sorrow for Mary (“a sword will pierce your own soul”), which Christians often connect to the passion.
• Mary “treasures” and ponders, but that’s not the same as having the whole script in her head.

A simple way to put it:

• They knew enough to obey and to trust.
• God knew (and intended) the whole arc.

The core theological idea​

Classic Christian theology calls this providence through secondary causes: God accomplishes his purposes through real human decisions, real emotions, real obedience—not by bypassing them.


So yes: it’s very reasonable (and very “biblical”) to say God intended Mary and Joseph’s protective care to be one of the means by which Jesus was preserved—without implying they were coldly calculating “his doom on the cross” from the start. ( chat GPT )

timothyu said:

Says them. Yet the Kingdom often takes a back seat to the affairs of man.

Click to expand...

That may be true of some churches, but not all.

stevevw said:

Because publishing work in appropriate journals does not make it science or good science. This can happen without publishing in particular journals. Are you saying the tests done were not good science. If you think so then show how. Don't just reject it because it doesn't meet some gatekeepers criteria.

Click to expand...

If it is good science is to be determined by the their peers.

stevevw said:

Thats why I link the images. This is the most fundemental science of observation. The first step in science is to observe and record what is seen, heard, felt ect lol. You don't need a journal for that. I am asking you to be the scientist. To give your initial assessment. You cannot dent the observations.

Click to expand...

To determine that I would need to test the hypotheses against each other.

stevevw said:

If someone claims the observations are not from human made softening or melting then they need to explain why this is not the case.

Click to expand...

First we would have to look at the supposedly vitrified stone, to make sure it actually is vitrified stone. Then we have to make sure that the vitrification isn't the effect of some other process such as a lightning strike

stevevw said:

Someone mentioned it was natural, caused by lightening or some natural cause. Then they need to explain this and not just claim it.

Click to expand...

I think that was me, mentioning that vitrification happens in nature from time to time due to lightning strikes and fires. That would have to be excluded as a possibility of at least be shown to be much less likely.

stevevw said:

I linked clear images of vitrified stones within the Temple and on walls. Close up images of melted stone. Tests showed it contained minieral unnatural to the stone. If those tests are wrong then this has to be shown with additional tests. Not just demand journals.

Click to expand...

Tell them to get it published.

stevevw said:

This may be the preliminary work to create the paper. How is the tests and analysis in the paper verified before it is made into a paper. They have to do the preliminary work first. This is it. Why can't you comment on that.

Click to expand...

Because it is premature before the researchers have sat down and written their article detailing their findings and have it go through the process

stevevw said:

But when you claim your not convinced and then leave it at that this comes across as a dismissal. Because you are offering nothing. No explanation or evidence why your not convinced.

I could just say "I am not convinced that you are not convinced" lol and also offer nothing. Then where do we stand lol.

Click to expand...

I already know that you believe otherwise than me, that is not a problem.

stevevw said:

I literally just pointed out an example above. I could ask, why are you not convinced. What is it that causes you to not be convinced and yet allows others to be convinced by the same evidence.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Is it a matter of epistemics that you believe that the evidence is not convincing.

Click to expand...

It needs to be evaluated by subject matter experts.

stevevw said:

That the evidence must be within a certain paradigm to be convincing.

Click to expand...

No.

stevevw said:

What about those who believe, who operate from a different epistemics and paradigm and think your worldview is unreal. Is only a surface level knowledge and not true knowledge. How does science refute this lol. By demanding physical evidence and peer review. Yeah sure. It won't even get through the front door as its rejected out of hand based on an epistemic belief and not science.

You literally just did lol. I don't think you realise that this is what you are doing when you demand the evidence and methology for the evidence has to fall within a certain paradigm (worldview) and can only be known by naturalism.

Click to expand...

If any process leaves an impact on the physical it can be studied.

stevevw said:

Have you ever heard of phenomenal belief.

Click to expand...

I have read works by Edmund Husserl. But vitrification is amenable to optical investigations microscopically and chemical investigations.

Michie said:

I won’t know until Wednesday. Thank you for the prayers.

Click to expand...

Continued prayers!

Blessings!

I could not read all of the op and found this:

ThatRobGuy said:

Would the reaction to this be the same had any other non-Trump president went down this path? ...just if you had to take a wild guess.

Click to expand...

Tearing down parts of a house, seen as a symbol of the people, yes I think many would see that as problematic. I'm pretty sure that if king Charles changed the outward appearance of Buckingham palace, there would be a public outcry. Fixing heating, ventilation and electrical system is ok, as is upkeep of the interior and the facade, but making major changes to the outside would raise some eyebrows. Pretty sure it would be discussed with some antiquarian, at least that is my guess.

ThatRobGuy said:

It seems as if (based on a few of the other posts), people seem to assume that because it was a Trump idea, that it's going to be the worst of everything.

To me, it feels like the inverse of the whole "Obama put in a basketball court" outrage.

Click to expand...

Time magazine isn't what it used to be. It's surprising being its person of the year is still supposed to be a big deal. IMO the proper response should be "who cares?".

Rescued One said:

I fell in the yard and couldn't get up. A stranger from one street over helped me get up. That was encouraging! It's too bad he's moving away.

Click to expand...

I hope you’re doing ok! God bless!

PloverWing said:

Suppose Netflix (and similar streaming services) had a more detailed rating system, so instead of just an age, there was some content description, and there was a way to select/screen based on some of these descriptions. "Contains LGBTQ content." "Contains depictions of smoking." "Contains depictions of religious observance" (maybe listing which religion). "Contains teenage romance", etc. Then parents could select for or screen out topics they want their children to be able to see. Would that solution satisfy the CWA folks?

I note that the content that one family might seek out is content that another family might wish to avoid. Surely a computer program could be written to let viewers select content in this way.

Click to expand...

Sounds perfectly good to me! After all we have warnings on games, cds, movies, and other content. That way people can choose what media they want to consume or not! Eh?

Not surprising, sadly.

I will have to watch this later!

Hey! I’m all for it! As the old saying goes, it takes two to tango

AvilaSurfer said:

I’m no theologian, but to me this borders on blasphemy. The Nativity is sacred, not a political poster.

Click to expand...

Amen!

JSRG said:

Lindsay Halligan didn't replace an AG (attorney general), of which there's only one, which is currently Pam Bodi. Halligan was brought in to replace the Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, a lower position. Maybe this is pedantic, but I think it's worth noting.

However, I do not believe the second and third indictments were brought by Halligan. She brought the first, which got dismissed because (correctly, according to my understanding) a judge ruled she hadn't been properly appointed, and since she was the only one who signed onto the indictment, it couldn't fall to another prosecutor. So it wouldn't make any sense to have her go and do it a second time.

This article (by Andrew McCarthy, which argues that both James's case against Trump and Trump's case against James are absurd and partisan) says that the second was brought by a guy named Roger Keller, who unlike Halligan actually has prosecuted cases before. A bit odd that the newbie managed to get an indictment while the actual prosecutor failed, but Halligan might've just lucked out on the grand jury selection. I don't think we know who brought the third indictment--we don't actually have a formal record of any rejection, the information about it is just from "anonymous sources familiar with the proceedings". If it was rejected we'll find out soon enough, but for now we don't know who it was. But it probably wasn't Halligan given, again, that would most likely just get it dismissed again by a judge, so they need someone else to do it.

Click to expand...

Short hand for the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Too long to write.

Wolseley said:

50% of all new marriages end in divorce. 80% of all divorces are initiated by the women. 75% of all suicides annually are committed by men. And society has become "feminized" to the point where male roles are not recognized any more, or if they are such roles are..

Click to expand...

survival of the fittest.

embrace it.

Mark Quayle said:

No. If he caused it, and that is reality, then whatever is real within that reality is caused by God. To characterize something within that reality as uncaused is therefore logically self-contradictory.

Click to expand...

Only if God is unable to make a person or agent who can also be a causer. But if God can cause a causer, one who can affect the cosmos like God can, even if only on a tiny scale, then everything is NOT caused by God.

And if God causes all real things within the reality you speak of, then God is wholly to blame for any real sin. There is no one else to blame. And if blaming God for sin is sinful in itself, blame God for causing me to do it--I can only do what God causes me to do.

Always in His Presence said:

That is the beauty of having personal opinions - they can differ.

Click to expand...

That's a beautiful sentiment, but it comes at an amazingly high cost, because that freedom means that some people are going to have opinions that tear at the very core of your sense of right and wrong, nonetheless you're going to have to respect their right to hold them, because to do otherwise is to judge them for that which you also do.

'Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us'... that's a tough bugger to live up to.

keras said:

This phenomena is Prophesied several times. Joel 2:30, Amos 8:9, Acts 2:20, Psalms 18:7-15but the one which tells us when it will happen is Revelation 6:12.

Click to expand...

You jump around between verses like a hyperactive grasshopper - without slowing down and considering the context of each author.

This is a great example of eisegesis.

Eisegesis​

Eisegesis is the practice of interpreting a text by reading one's own ideas, biases, or agenda into it, rather than drawing out the author's intended meaning, essentially "leading in" instead of "leading out".

It's a subjective approach where the interpreter forces the text to support a pre-existing belief, often by ignoring context, language, and cultural background, leading to misinterpretation and distorted understanding, especially when applied to scripture.

Biblical Theology must be done​

Biblical Theology must be done when reading the Old Testament. We need to slow down, and see what each book actually has to say in the context of the author’s culture, historical concerns of the period, and where we are in the broader unfolding plan of God?

EACH ERA has its own concerns

Have the first humans just sinned? Has the world been ‘uncreated’ and ‘recreated’ in the chiastic structure of Noah’s flood? Is it before God’s promises to Abraham that God’s people would live God’s way in God’s land?
Is it after - during the time of slavery in Egypt?
Is it before or after the great Passover rescue?
Is it when Moses is giving his pep talk to Israel in Deuteronomy - warning them before they even enter the land about how they will be exiled and taken OUT of the land if they ever abandon God? But even then - there is hope of a small remnant returning!
Is it during the period of the judges?
The downward spiralling into sin of the period of the Kings?
Is it before or after the building of the temple?
Is it before the Assyrians cart off Israel into captivity?
Before the Babylonians do the same to Judah - and horrifically - sack and destroy the temple?
Is it just after the Persian Empire let any Israelite or Jew who wanted to go home return to rebuild the temple?
Is it before Jesus?
Is it after Jesus?
Before or after Pentecost?

EACH BOOK has its own structure.
What is the structure of the book? How do different sections of the book fit together, and relate to each other and the historical concerns of the era?
What would the original audience have made of the text?
Was it encouraging or rebuking or a bit of both?
Was it new information, or reminding them of existing prophesies of the past?
What was in the surrounding literature of the time?

Only after investigating all these questions of Biblical Era and Each Book’s Structure can we begin to see how the promises of God are viewed by each author.

EACH TESTAMENT has its own concerns and structures.
Then we have to as, how does the New Testament address this issue in any way?
Are they borrowing the images and symbols of the past to remind us of something?
Or are they informing us of the fulfilment of something from the past to challenge our assumptions?
(Jesus did this A LOT - as did Paul!)
Are they using Hebrew apocalyptic symbols from the past in new ways to challenge our thinking about our present reality this side of the gospel, between Jesus Resurrection and his Return?
John did THIS a lot!

Only after we have investigated ALL these questions do we get to ask, “How might this Old Testament message speak to us today, through the lens of the New Testament?”

Just going "That sounds to me like... blah blah blah…” is utterly unacceptable.

1Tonne said:

This might help you with you misunderstanding.
Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

I don't watch videos. The idea that everybody has eternal life by default is rubbish.

Eggs.

Prospector said:

Your not the only person to think that ASL is not a legitimate language. All that i know is sign language has lifted millions of the deaf out of a lifetime of isolation.

Click to expand...

As well as literacy.

Granted, it's more difficult for the deaf to learn to read, especially if one has been deaf since birth, but it can be accomplished.

Strong in Him said:

It was your post; you should know where it is.
It's only two pages back; post #2,835.

Click to expand...

Strong in Him I had a look at Apples post 2835. All Apple writes is ( it depends who they are ) Apple then goes on to use a ( AI OVERVIEW ) meaning not her words. The reason Apple used the AI Overview was to merely point out the connection between Masonry & NASA. and was in no way agreeing with the claim of the AI post that astronauts landed on the moon.. masonry was the topic of discussion and not so much the claim of the astronauts landing on the moon. And we all know that Apple doesn’t believe that astronauts landed on the moon . In your post 2839 you fail to include that it’s a AI overview or you probably missed that it was a AI post from Apples post 2835. Therein probably lies the misunderstanding. It’s a AI overview and the connection to NASA & masonry was what Apple was pointing to, and not so much to what the AI overview said about the alleged moon landings

com7fy8 said:

In the Law is commanded stoning of a woman who lies about being a virgin, in order to get a man to marry her > Deuteronomy 22:20-21.

This is in the Torah. How do you fulfill this?

Click to expand...

The words of Yeshua have to be the go-by, or there is no reason for any further discussion. Various expositors and Jewish Rabbis down through the centuries have tried to encapsulate a summary of the Torah with a core principle including Hillel the Elder, as we know, who emphasized loving your neighbor as the fundamental teaching. Yeshua finally ties it all together, starting on the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:17-18, and approaches the pinnacle, so to speak, when he answers the lawyer regarding which was the great commandment of the Law in Matthew 23:36-40. Basically he gives him (2) commandments will fulfill the entire Torah: Love God and Love your Neighbor as Yourself. On these two commandments hangs (suspends) all the law and the prophets. The final pinnacle is in John 13: 34: "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." Remember that Yeshua's references to keeping the Torah were mainly focused on the moral law or 10 commandments, including the adultery, stealing, lying, murder, honoring your parents, etc., per Matthew 19:16-19. He corrects previous areas, i.e., "Ye have heard it has been said", reversing the eye for eye and tooth for tooth thought process, and emphasizing loving our enemies, if you look at Matthew 5:38-44. In answer to your question, in our day and age it is no longer our responsibility to stone a woman, or actions similar to the account of John 8:1-11 where a woman was caught in the act of adultery and brought to Yeshua and the accusers rehearsed the commandment in the Law to stone her. Per Yeshua, there was no one worthy or sinless enough to stone her, and that point was made clear. So to my understanding, the commandment still exists, but we are not in the position to execute that form of judgement. If you look at the events that will transpire at the end of this age in Revelation 19:11-16, Yeshua himself will judge sin and evil, and the armies in heaven, (believers), will follow him on white horses, but Yeshua himself will execute the judgement on wicked and ungodly people. This relieves us to fulfill the Law of Love in purity and in so doing we have an accurate understanding of sin and evil when confronted by it, but no responsibility to actually engage in the final judgement of sins and wickedness. Thanks and I hope this helps to answer this important question. Bob

rjs330 said:

We Americans decide what is American just like the Irish get to decide what is Irish or the French get decide what is French. Not sure what you don’t understand about that.

Click to expand...

Which Americans get to decide who is an American? Because "We Americans" have a pretty bad track record.

Here are some people who "We Americans" have historically decided weren't American:

Black people
Irish people
Italians
Jews
Chinese people
Hispanic people
Muslims

(shrug) We all know that the mainstream media has about as much accuracy, integrity, and impartiality as Pravda and Izvestiya, circa 1950.