Jan001 said:

I don't think the inspired scriptures were suppressed or hidden.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Click to expand...

Yes they were hidden by God. I made a post about How God hides things. Ask chat GPT to show all the bible verses about God hiding things, and why. It is so only wise people come across it not swine/unworthy. The word apocrypha means hidden. Thanks for the positive comment.

My son Jakeb is having another bad night. Please ask God to heal him mind and body, give him joy and keep him safe. I pray that the doctor will help him on Monday. Oh please pray there is nothing seriously wrong. I ask in the name of Jesus. Thank you and God bless you.

BrotherJJ said:

We agree Rev makes many symbolic points. Having said that, your reply leaves no room for any literal interpretations.

The OP made no reference to 666. So, I'll leave that rabbit hole for another discussion thread.

Literal vs symbolic scripture's examples:

This verse ALL literal
Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; & every eye shall see him, & they also which pierced him: & all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen

This verse symbolic
Rev 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
(NOTE: NOT wool or snow or a flame. BUT: "like wool" "as snow" "as a flame". We must pay close attention, CONTEXT is always KEY.

Rev text often announces symbolism with phrases like: sign, like or as, I saw, having the appearance of, which represents or which is...

Examples: Rev 12:1: "A great sign appeared in heave", "a woman". Rev 13:2: The beast "was like" "a leopard". When text signals a symbol we should interpret symbolically.

In Rev, #'s tied to counts of people or time are consistently literal.

Examples: 7 churches, 7 seals, 7 trumpets, 7 bowls, 42 months, 1,260 days, 12 TRIBES, 12K from each tribe etc...

Rev cites literal places. Examples: Jerusalem, Euphrates, Armageddon, Patmos, Zion etc. Unless symbolic its noted. Example: Rev 11:8. "spiritually" called Sodom & Egypt.

When Rev cites earthly judgments, they are literal. Examples: earthquakes literal, darkness literal, famine literal, plagues literal, war literal etc...

When symbolic is signaled, interpret symbolically. If not, interpret literally.

How this applies to the 144k. John gives numbers → literal tribes, literal names, literal genealogical bloodline categories. When no symbolic signal given → interpret literally!

So again I submit the 144k mentioned in Rev 7 & 14 are literal OT Israelites. Men redeemed from the earth, a firstfruits/resurrection wave soul harvest offering made unto The Father & Son. Amen

Click to expand...

Apocalyptic literature is often symbolic so it is difficult if not necessary to take it literal.

timothyu said:

The Kingdom gospel was replaced with the salvation gospel. There was no longer another Kingdom to rival the Empire and the Empire no longer needed to serve God or each other including enemies. It was free to carry on, business as usual. So it wasn't the Empire that changed to serve God but the religious institution that changed to serve the Empire and follow the traditional ways of man. Like I said it accepted all this can be yours rather than reject it as Jesus had done.

Click to expand...

The notion that the kingdom might be fully realized here on earth by God working through His people had its day for many years. Ain't gonna happen; no heaven on earth. It's what we should strive for nonetheless, while understanding that eternal life beings here but is only fully consummated in the next life.

camille70 said:

For it to be a conspiracy, the number of items the Trump administration has completed is amazing.

https://www.project2025.observer/en

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call the claims about Project 2025 a "conspiracy" exactly, but a bunch of people definitely did exaggerate what it said or just plain made claims that weren't even true when trying to attack Trump with it. One can find more commonality between Trump's policies and Project 2025 when one is comparing the actual content of Project 2025 rather than the exaggerations.

However, the idea that Project 2025 (actual Project 2025 or exaggerated version) was some kind of secret blueprint for Trump has problems with it. Project 2025 was a manifesto by a Republican-aligned group (the Heritage Foundation) and Trump, guess what, is a Republican. One can find a bunch of commonality between the Green Party platform and stuff Biden did, it doesn't mean Biden was following the ideas of the Green Party, it just means that because they're both liberals you're going to find some crossover.

As is well explained here (this was from much earlier this year, but the general points still hold up), footnotes omitted:

...many point out that Project 2025 suggested things that President de facto Trump later commanded through executive order—often using language that closely echoes language from Project 2025—so we are already living in a Project 2025 regime (and it sucks!). Hence Politico’s “37 ways Project 2025 has shown up in Trump’s executive orders.” These articles are used to vindicate last year’s conspiracy theory that, despite Donald Trump’s repeated repudiation of Project 2025, Project 2025 was nevertheless the secret blueprint of his administration. (I wrote about these and other P2025-related conspiracy theories last year.) Yet the presumption of all these articles is that, if Project 2025 suggested doing something and Trump subsequently did it, Project 2025 must be where the idea originated. That’s not remotely the case.

In fact, for some ideas, it’s exactly the opposite: the first Trump Administration had an idea, then Project 2025 adopted it into their framework! Even though Trump later did these things, he obviously didn’t get the idea from Project 2025. In most cases (like DEI rollbacks), he actively ran on these ideas, and the American people voted for it.

For many ideas, Trump and Project 2025 were both drawing on long-standing conservative commitments. For example, it is true, as Politico alleges in a scandalized tone, that Project 2025 recommended Trump impose the Mexico City Policy to block U.S. subsidies for international abortion providers… and Trump did! However, it’s perfectly obvious Trump didn’t do it because Project 2025 suggested it; he also imposed the Mexico City Policy at the start of his first term… and so has every other incoming Republican president since Ronald Reagan. This is just something Republican presidents do. Treating this as proof that Donald Trump is secretly following Project 2025 is just as silly as treating it as proof that George H.W. Bush was secretly following Project 2025 more than thirty years before Project 2025 was written!

This gives us a fairly simple heuristic you can use to see whether it’s even plausible that Trump got one of his ideas from Project 2025:

1. Did he do it in his last term, before Project 2025 existed? If yes, then it obviously didn’t come from Project 2025.
2. Did he actively campaign on it in 2024, the same campaign where he repudiated Project 2025? If yes, then it obviously wasn’t a secret he foisted on an unsuspecting public, and he probably didn’t get the idea from Project 2025 at all!

When you go through the 37 executive orders Politico cites as “evidence” that Trump was lying on the campaign trail, this simple heuristic eliminates 35 of them.

What’s left? What Trump policy proposals may have actually originated from Project 2025? Spicy stuff, believe you me:

• Closing the OFCCP (Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs)
  
  • I doubt President Trump knew then, nor knows now, what OFCCP is. It’s an anti-discrimination enforcement office, so it was in trouble no matter what, but it’s plausible that the idea to close it came from P2025.
• Shifting FEMA burdens to the states, with FEMA playing only a support role
  
  • Note that Trump already hated FEMA, and it’s easy to imagine Trump asking the office, “Hey, how can I crush FEMA under my heel,” and a P2025 staffer saying, “You know, I wrote down some ideas about that.”

I did always say that, since Project 2025 is very much a part of the (very small) conservative policy wonk world, it was inevitable that Project 2025 would have some influence in the Trump White House, as one faction among many. These data points seem to bear that out.

camille70 said:

The democratic process was not bypassed to promote Harris. The DNC followed their policies to elect someone at the last minute. The DNC electors had people who submitted their intent to run with the required signatures and they were voted on. Not everyone voted for Harris via a virtual roll call. She was also not the only one with delegates, but the others did not have enough to win.

People were expecting a 50 state primary all over again. That's not what happens. There was also not time for it as deadlines had passed in all the states and my state of Ohio was threatening not to have the dem candidate on the ballot at all if not submitted by a certain date. They were unwilling to provide exceptions granted to candidates in the past, including GOP candidates.

See Adoption of early virtual nomination vote here.

2024 Democratic National Convention - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The GOP would have had to do something similar had they lost their nominee at the last minute.

Click to expand...

The Democratic process (or, at least, the primary process) was bypassed to promote Harris. It might have been unavoidable to not bypass at that point (there was absolutely no time to do primaries), but it was still bypassed.

I do think that, with the hand the Democrats were dealt with Biden dropping out, quickly rallying around Harris was the decision that made the most sense. There was no time for a primary, they didn't want the convention to get taken over by arguments over who the delegates should vote for (especially because the convention wasn't planned to be a contested convention), and it made the most sense to rally around the person who was the Vice President. In hindsight we can see that didn't work out, so maybe it would've been better to do it differently... but with the information available at the time, and the situation they were in, I think quickly rallying around Harris was the best decision.


Of course, while I said "it might have been unavoidable to not bypass at that point" we should put emphasis on the words "at that point". Because if Biden hadn't run for re-election, they could've had a real primary (they technically had a primary but as is normal for a sitting President, Biden was so strongly favored they might as well not have). I can definitely see frustration for being told endlessly "Biden's actually totally fine, ignore all claims that he isn't! No need for any real primary!" only to then later on be told "okay, Biden actually isn't in that great of a shape, but there's no time for a primary now, so it's Harris whether you like it or not."

JM said:

It knows your bias, it already knows you are an Adventist...that's who AI works.

Click to expand...

I ask questions in the AI example, I don't tell it what to say. And it starts off telling me the adventist view is wrong.

Start by noticing the details

NxNW said:

Correct, and the fixtures represent the decade, not individual years

Click to expand...

Those individual years are part of that decade.

NxNW said:

Because you misinterpreted the figures?

Click to expand...

No

Can Jesus be found in other religions though not explicitly?

Raising Arizona

Of course we do.

FaithT said:

If others were veiling at the Latin Mass then I probably would too.

Click to expand...

Makes sense to me! As they say “when in Rome…”

d taylor said:

No person knows what heaven is like, so how do they know that they are experiencing heaven on earth.

Click to expand...

I think the expression "heaven on earth" can be pretty straight forward - like being about feeling like you're in a paradise or utopia in your everyday life. There is also the expression "hell on earth".

Awesome, this archaeological discovery CONFIRMS Catholicism.

Dikaioumenoi said:

What other interpretations are plausible? What is the syntactic argument for their plausibility?

Where have I been unclear? Can you specifically quote what portion of my argument breaks down and fails to produce the conclusion I offered?

Click to expand...

Where I find lack of clarity is when phrases like "the grammar itself provides the reason" or "so there's the reason" are used, since that language sounds like a claim of textual necessity rather than interpretation.

I’m not equipped to engage at this level of technical detail you are asking for, so I’m going to step back for now.

RDKirk said:

The problem here is your use of the word "sin."

I don't think Paul had any intention of implying that Emperor Nero respected the concept of "sin" as Paul himself did.

Click to expand...

No one is above the Word. Emperor Nero would do good to keep the commandments.

RDKirk said:

And not "sins" that the Body of Christ should expect worldly governments to punish.

Click to expand...

The concept of a worldly, or secular government, was foreign at the time. This grew out of the Reformation, where one first started to question the definition of Caesar, and then culminated in the French Revolution I guess, where the concept of Caesar didn’t even matter anymore and could just mean any government at all, and especially that of wicked men governing themselves.

There is no authority that is not from God means just that, if the authority is not from God then it is not an authority. We do not have an obligation to follow the whims of wicked men. Honor to whom honor is due.

YeshuaFan said:

well, jesus stated that Genesis was a literal historical account

Click to expand...

Can you cite a verse?

essentialsaltes said:

After they get through with studying vaccines and autism, they'll get on this hypothesis.

Click to expand...

We obviously need to start drafting pirates now.

DragonFox91 said:

Me too. You used to whine about it too? I never would’ve guessed. I am trying not to anymore tho I want to

Click to expand...

There are other sources of unhappiness beyond being single that gnaw at me more these days. If you have the rest of your life in a good place, then being frustrated as single would really weigh one down because it's the biggest void.

JSRG said:

There actually was some strategy to this. If they didn't indict in time, then that was it; it was over due to the statute of limitations. By indicting in time, even if it was rushed and sloppy (hence the dismissal), they'd have an extra 6 months to bring a new indictment (probably--there is an argument that the initial indictment might have been botched so badly it doesn't actually count as an indictment, and that it therefore wouldn't fall under the statute that grants the 6-month extension for re-indictment after a dismissal if it's now past the statute of limitations).

Granted, the case against Comey is by all appearances so weak I have doubts they can even bring it to trial, and I'd be absolutely amazed if they could actually convict; it would've made more sense to just not bring it at all, hence why they notoriously had to fire the prosecutor who didn't want to bring it in and bring in someone who had no experience prosecuting to do it instead. Still, if your goal is to convict, however slim your odds are, and your choices are "do a rushed and sloppy indictment and keep the case alive or don't indict at all and you lose it forever" the former is obviously the better one.

Click to expand...

There is also the issue that they botched this one so badly they now have to throw out a lot of the evidence. I don't think they were planning on using the six month extension, I think they lucked into that.

I spent Christmas Eve once driving 1200 miles 955 miles to be home with family arriving at 230 AM That was decades ago and was the last time I missed the Midnight Christmas Eve service Which to me IS celebrating Christmas

Hentenza said:

This is irrelevant regarding my question to the other poster. Nothing in my question about shadows.

Click to expand...

The part where the covenant is broken. Dietary laws belong to that covenant.

rockytopva said:

The human spirit can have a sensation of warmth (E),

Click to expand...

warmth, is a sensation derived from a positive thermal flow ( dQ > 0 ) from another object or being.

rockytopva said:

frequency,

Click to expand...

Humans don't have a "frequency".

rockytopva said:

and vibration (c2).

Click to expand...

Vibrations do have a frequency, f, and they have amplitudes, but "c^2" has nothing to do with them. Period.

These are all physics words that people abuse, and you do so in almost every post I see from you. Please stop, or at least learn what you are talking about.

rockytopva said:

Unknown, unseen, not measured in pounds or kilograms... But is somehow very pleasantly there..
Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

For those kinds of vibrations, you need a theremin.

A New Dawn said:

Many scholars debate that the water baptism in verse 5 equals being born of a woman and born of the spirit is the baptism from above. He equates the two in the next verse. So I believe he is equating being born again as the spirit baptism (regeneration).

Click to expand...

In. EPH 4:5. it reads ONE LORD , ONE FAITH , ONE BAPTSM. and HEIS in the GREEK MEANS ONE

# 1 THERE IS BAPTO

#2 THERE IS BAPTISMO

#3. THERE IS BAPTISM

#4. THERE IS BAPTIZING

#5 THERE IS BAPTISMA

# 6 THERE IS SPRINKING

# 7 THERE IS SO CALLED IMMERSION

# 8 RHER IS SUBMISSION

So . which. one is THE ONE BAPTISM. ??

dan p