Abraham1st said:

John addressed the book of John to the world, you see that at the start, just like you mention James and where he addresses wo he is writing to at the start, right ?

For anyone reading, and this is fairly straight forward, but just in case, i highlighted some, and I left separate other below..


John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; AND THE LIFE WS THE LIGHT OF MEN.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

John 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

John 1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

Click to expand...

And since you believe that John is for the BODY. of CHRIST , how will. you explain John 3:5. I say unto you , UNLESS

one is BORN. of WATER and of the SPIRIT. , he cannot enter the Kingdom. of God ?? BORN of WATER. ??

and BORN OF THE SPIRIT. and means you born TWICE. ??

AND where is that KINGDOM GOING. TO BE CENTERED AT ??

dan p

Apple Sky said:

Of course not, I know this.

I know that God didn't mean literal doors or there is a literally a tent in the sky for the sun, we know this as the sun is set in the firmament.
I know that the sea bursting from a womb doesn't represent a literal womb.
I know that Jesus isn't a door or a lamb.

Click to expand...

Well then why do you insist that some parts of Scripture ARE literal, when they are also poetic?
The literal dome of Genesis 1, for example, which is made of solid material - all because there is a verse somewhere which says it is LIKE molten glass?

There is now fierce debate over these Ho equations. The Vera Rubin telescope operators are also on the case, and will produce Ho information soon, done by their measurements. If those agree with my calculated Ho value of 71, you will have to accept my equations as truth. Then, the concept of a dynamic Aether will become necessary to accept the basis of my equations. It looks like the big bang hypothesis will soon fall. BB has misled too many for far too long. We cannot know the age of the universe.

bling said:

I agree πίστις comes from God after regeneration, but regeneration must be accepted by man, with accepting God’s Love (Charity) in the form of forgiveness.

Click to expand...

When you say, "but regeneration must be accepted by man," are you assuming that a person already regenerated, having the Holy Spirit in him speaking to him, could actually have such a rotten attitude (hate toward God) that he rejects the regeneration given? If God is merciful toward someone enough to reveal Himself, does He not reveal His love as well as His wrath? Does He not also change the disposition of the person's heart so that the person has hope to reconciliation with God that he did not previously have? "We are saved in hope" says Paul in Rom. 8. This is why there is the idea of "irresistible grace," because although grace was resisted at first, when a person is regenerated, their heart is changed toward God, having faith and hope, there is no more resisting it. There is only surrender, resulting in peace and rest from the consternation of being at odds with God. Then peace with God becomes a precious treasure that no pleasure of sin could ever steal.

bling said:

This “Kind of believe” you talk about can be directed toward your creator in the acceptance of charity from your hated enemy (God) and prior to obtaining πίστις.

Click to expand...

The "kind of belief" in the NT, also called "saving faith," is of a kind that only God can give, through spiritual quickening and illumination. After this, the "hated enemy" becomes "precious friend." This is the nature of grace. This kind of belief is the faith described in the NT. There is no such thing as belief in Christ that is different than faith in Christ, it's the same thing. There are different kinds of belief and different kinds of faith, but only one kind is the belief/faith of the child of God.

When you say "can be directed toward your creator," the only true faith is always directed toward God. The implication is that if faith is not directed toward God and Christ, it is not true faith, that is, not the NT kind of faith, and therefore not "saving faith."

bling said:

Everything hinges on the definition of “Spiritually dead” and if the person that is spiritually dead can do something for himself (selfishly). We know the “spiritual dead” person can still physically feed himself, so what else can he do for himself?

Click to expand...

Someone naturally alive but spiritually dead cannot do anything for himself spiritually. This is the point. A person physically alive but spiritually dead is called "natural man" by Paul in 1 Cor. 2. The nature of a spiritually dead person is "by nature a child of wrath," because the law of God requires real altruism, in which there is nothing selfish or self-centered in it. This is why people naturally loathe to obey God's commands, because God's commands "crimp their style" - that is, one must "deny self" - for example, set aside sinful pleasures - in order to obtain something much greater, something unseen, like the saving of another person's soul. But the "natural man" according to 1 Cor. 2 and Rom. 8 will never give up his sinful pleasures, not unless he is regenerated and made into a "spiritual man." How does a "natural man" hear the gospel? Jesus often said, "he who has ears to hear" - God must quicken a person's inner ears to hear it. But a spiritually dead person will always turn away.

bling said:

How do you get around Jesus explaining to us that a person spiritually dead like the prodigal son can turn to the Father?

Click to expand...

What makes you think the son was spiritually dead after he returned home? The story is a parable, so there is not necessarily a point-by-point comparison to the spiritual; it's a case of "the kingdom of heaven is like..."; there are similarities.

So here's the deal: the son was "spiritually dead" (i.e. dead to the father and the family) when he had no hope in the home and his future there. His sights were on the pleasures of the world. But after expending all his resources, he finds himself in the lowest hell he could be while still alive. In that place, he realizes what a waste he has made of his life, and then looks to his home for some hope for his future. At that time that he hopes in his father and his home, his life is "regenerated," so he actually goes home. He is then "spiritually alive" even though not realizing yet how much he is loved by his father.

Jesus said, "blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." It's like the prodigal son who recognizes his spiritual bankruptcy and looks back to his home for hope.

bling said:

(Luke 15: 32) Christ has the Father explain what it meant to be dead and calls the son dead (not meaning dead physically) when the Father now knows he is alive: “…because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.”

The prodigal son in a dead state (by Jesis’ own words) could turn to his father for selfish reasons, but undeserved salvation was from the father. The young son did not excising some “Godly ability”, but selfishly (sinfully) wanting to humbly accept pure underserved charity.

Click to expand...

The son was not yet mature enough to exercise altruism (selfless helping others). It is true that at first there is a selfish desire to accept undeserved charity. Is this not the same way we begin our relationship with God? There is first hope that God will accept us into His family, and give us eternal life as promised. Then after being equipped for service, we begin helping others.

bling said:

You are right for I am not talking about “believe in Christ”, but “trusting” in God unbelievable illogical Love.

Click to expand...

Yet, people can trust in God loving them without believing in Christ, but therein is a false sense of security. Since we know Jesus said He is the only way to the Father, then through belief in Him is the only way to receive the Father's love. 1 Jn. 5:10 says that whoever does not believe in Jesus is calling God a liar. There is a sort of trust in God in a natural sense that is inadequate to be accepted and reconciled to God. This kind of "trust" (which is not real and spiritual) is the kind the world does, but still hates the only true God, and loathes His commands.

Daniel Carlton said:

The Reformers went back into Christian history and recovered the true doctrines, like justification by faith alone. That had been buried under centuries of Roman heresy.

Click to expand...

Too bad they only went back to the 5th century. Personally I think the 1st & 2nd century theologians had a better idea of what the apostles taught because they were actually disciples of the apostles and disciples of the apostle’s disciples. Don’t get me wrong they had the right idea to get out of the Roman church but they still ended up with a heretical theology.

Lady Bug said:

If I eat sugar after eating proteins, I don't crash. I crash if I eat sugars in isolation.

Click to expand...

That is why sweets are supposed to be for dessert not to be consumed alone


I hate to be a broken record but what you are describing, emphasis on the senses, obsession, feelings of being hated… etc
Sounds like you are being manipulated by forces of which you are unaware. After communion pray the Anima Christi prayer and meditate on the words until you can really imagine inviting Christ into your heart


Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O Good Jesus, hear me.
Within your wounds hide me.
Permit me not to be separated from you.
From the wicked foe, defend me.
At the hour of my death, call me
and bid me come to you
That with your saints I may praise you
For ever and ever. Amen

Apple Sky said:

Yes & mostly helicopters & none of these bases are very far in plus they have coincidental names to them such as 'Dome' & Byrd.

Click to expand...

What? These bases are from different countries and the distances are much further than what a helicopter could fly. In addition, a properly configured plane can carry a much larger payload than helicopters. Also the names mean absolutely nothing but simply the names they chose.

ETA: Forgot to add that Antartica has an area of over 5,400,000 sq. miles which is larger than the US (3,800,000 sq.mi.)

Strong in Him said:

Jesus said "The Son of Man will return ......" , not "the 6th seal event will be ........."

Click to expand...

'return' is not in my Bible, in that Parable.
The Lord will come unexpectedly on His Day of wrath. Which is not and cannot be the same Day as the glorious Return.

Strong in Him said:

You believe what you like. If you believe you will be alive in 15-20 years time, able to move to Israel and take part in animal sacrifices, you hang onto that. But even if you are around, this forum probably won't be so you will never have to give account to us for your erroneous teaching.

Click to expand...

It is possible for me to live for another 36 years. I do expect to be in the Holy Land when Jesus Returns.
EVERYONE must give account for their deeds. I will stand before God; knowing I have done what God asked me to do.

Strong in Him said:

But you may be watching these things from heaven.

Click to expand...

Again; the 'going to live in heaven', fixation.
JESUS SAID: No one goes to heaven - except for the One who came from there.

But thanks for thinking I might just be good enough to go to heaven.

Hentenza said:

Here is a map of all of the permanent research stations that are all over Antartica. Obviously airplanes fly all the way across Antarctica because the bases need to be restocked and scientists moved in and out.

Click to expand...

Yes & mostly helicopters & none of these bases are very far in plus they have coincidental names to them such as 'Dome' & Byrd.

Aristarkos said:

Funny that you take Luke 16:23 as if it is proof. When you start reading Luke, you will see that in chapter 15 the lord Jezus starts to talk in parables.
First the parable in vs 4 about the man who lost his sheep, then the parable in vs 8 about the woman who lost a piece of silver. So it's not one parable, but more parables. In vs 11 about the man who had two sons, in chapter 16 in vs one He says: "And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man..." so He continues to speak in parables chapter 16.

Sometimes AI can learn us a thing or two:

No, a parable should not be taken literally because its purpose is to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson through a story, not to be a factual account. A parable uses a fictional, relatable scenario to make a deeper point, and the details of the story are not meant to be taken as literal truths, such as Jesus not literally being a rock or a door, as noted in The Bible Speaks to You.

• Parables are allegorical stories:
  They use symbolic language and characters to convey a message. For example, a parable about a sower scattering seeds is not about farming but about how different people receive different messages.
  
  
• Focus on the message:
  The core of a parable is the principle or spiritual truth it aims to teach, not the plot. The details are just a tool to help the listener understand that message.
  
  
• Literal interpretation misses the point:
  Taking the story literally would mean missing the whole point. For instance, the parable of the talents is not about literal money but about using one's abilities and resources wisely.
  
  
• Context is key:
  Understanding the context in which a parable was told is essential to grasp its intended meaning. The story is a means to an end, and that end is the lesson being communicated.

Aristarkos

Click to expand...

And in 1 Cor. 5;1. WE A SON WHO IS A believer

In vertse. 2 many. in. that ASSEMBLY are PUFFED up with PRIDE. and. there are. that say , WHO are we to judge

In verse 3. being absent JUDGES that son

In verse r. , Paul delivers that son to SATAN for the DEATH. of. the flesh. . in order that the SPIRIT be saved

in. the. DAY off. the LORD JESUS !!

# A God does punish BELIEVERS

# B. Is this PARABLE. ??

# C That son body. is in. the GRAVE

# D. So all believers and those not saved , all go to a GRAVE

# E Where does a believers SOUL. AND SPIRIT GO AT DEATH !!


dan p



And that is why try to always give the Greek word and the English words and give. the TENSES , MOODS

And there are reasons why Christ spoke in PARABLES , BECAUSE ISRAEL were to be set aside in. ACTS 28:25-28

and in. Isa 6 ; 8-13

dan p

Valletta said:

Democrats wobble as pressure to end shutdown ramps up

Senate Democrats are taking a close look at a Republican proposal to pay all federal employees — including essential and furloughed workers — as they’re under new pressure from the nation’s largest federal workers union to pass a clean continuing resolution to reopen the government. They also...

www.yahoo.com

No way was the GOP going to allow more illegals to received taxpayer funded healthcare nor support a 1.5. trillion dollar new spending package including trans, LGBTQ, or DEI funding in foreign countries.

Click to expand...

Well good thing no one was asking for illegals to receive it.

As if possible - they are losing even more support than before.

Republican approval ratings are going up.

Put these equations out to the wider science community rather than just posting them here. See what others have to say. If you're right, the truth will out.

Right now, this comes across as a guy yelling into emptiness for not other reason than to shout.

probinson said:

I've been following the thread. I have no idea what you think labeling Trump "objectively unpopular" proves or why you've fixated on it. Perhaps you could succinctly summarize why you're belaboring this point.

Click to expand...

I'm not even remotely fixated on it. It was a general, throwaway statement that seemed pretty not-debatable to me. I stated he was objectively unpopular. Somebody said he wasn't. I cited the metrics I used to arrive at his objective unpopularity, gave links, showed polls. Two people then hyper fixated on it because apparently acknowledging his objective unpopularity really, really bothers them, which is whatever because I'm well aware that this is more about making people who are a little too invested in an unpopular president feel less uncomfortable in being so all-in on an unpopular person. They'd rather just pretend he's great, we're great, they're great, he's a great guy, everybody loves him, blah blah blah. I've talked with enough people firmly down the Trump rabbithole to know a coping mechanism for uncomfortable truths that challenge their comfort level when I see them.

At this point, the only thing that bothers me is that two adults don't seem to know what "objectively unpopular" means.

probinson said:

Isn't that's that what we're talking about?

Click to expand...

No. If you were involved with the thread and following the conversation, you would know that.

probinson said:

Cool. I don't think you're particularly qualified for this discussion either. Look at that! We have something in common after all.

Click to expand...

The difference being that you don't think I'm qualified because you don't like what I'm saying. I know myself to be qualified, however, because I have a degree in statistical analysis and interpretation, worked in the field for numerous years, and have received accolades for my work. On top of that, I've repeatedly proven I know what I'm talking about by citing my work.

probinson said:

You stated that people were "crying in their Cheerios" over how his actions were affecting them. What exactly do you think they're "crying" about if not souring on Trump?

Click to expand...

The answer is in the statement I made:

"It’s a statement that the red state people crying into their Cheerios over Trump doing something that impacts them badly have nothing to cry about as they were warned it would happen." Just because he has done something they don't like or is negatively impacting them doesn't mean they have soured on him as a whole. Obama did things I didn't like, but it didn't mean I stopped liking him as a president. It simply means he did things I don't agree with.

probinson said:

So you don't think people are "crying in their Cheerios"?

Click to expand...

So, again... That statement is explaining why other people have expressed they have no sympathy over those crying into their Cheerios when they have the day they voted for. It was not a statement by me about something I believe that translates into an overall souring of Trump. That poster asked why other people have the "have the day you voted for" mentality, I explained why they do, that's it. I'm not really sure what your reading comprehension disconnect is, here.

probinson said:

My "feelings"? Are you incapable of engaging in an "objective" discussion without getting personal?

Click to expand...

Uh, yes. I've been doing it this whole time. You're upset over a narrative you invented that I never said. That's not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact. And now you're upset that I'm pointing out you're upset by a narrative you invented. None of that is a personal attack, those are all reactions you are having to a totally made-up scenario you've concocted but attributed to me.

probinson said:

Again, what is the point? Stating that Biden was popular twice as long as Trump reeks of playground banter, and I have no idea what you think it proves.

Click to expand...

Stating a fact is playground banter? I said Biden was an unpopular president who, despite his unpopularity which you said was a lot, he was still popular for longer than Trump has been in either of his terms. Therefore, if you think Biden was unpopular for a majority of his presidency, you shouldn't be arguing that somehow Trump is popular when he was less popular than somebody you believe to be unpopular. And since the discussion is ranking popularity of presidents, it's playground banter to point out Trump comes out of the bottom?

I mean, I'm sorry understanding and repeating statistics feels mean to you... I guess? But most people are able to look at facts like this and not be personally offended by it. I'm not sure why you would find it playground insults to point out the obvious, unless you were Trump or somehow deeply invested personally in how his administration performs.

probinson said:

Alrighty then. Maybe you should go help the Democrats. They are clearly in need someone with your higher understanding, since they can't seem to figure out how to win elections.

Click to expand...

Now *that* is playground banter. One small step below saying "well if you like them so much why don't you marry them?"

probinson said:

"Objectively", Fauci was such a great and wonderful guy, he needed a pardon from Biden to excuse him from accountability for more than a decade of his career leading up to the pandemic.

Click to expand...

Ignoring that you've shown, again, your complete lack of understanding on the meaning of the word "objectively" in a statistical application, the reason Fauci needed a preemptive pardon is because our President announced he will be seeking retribution and revenge for everybody he believes wronged him and since he doesn't have to worry about winning another election, that means he has nothing to lose and can behave as erratically as he chooses to (which we are currently seeing).

probinson said:

If you want to keep misleading people on that point, that's certainly your prerogative.

Click to expand...

So, you have no point to make and no means to refute what I said. Noted.

probinson said:

Because this thread isn't about COVID, I'm going to ignore this Gish gallop, but suffice to say if people read your links closely, they'll see that the content at your links does not support your contrived summary of events.

Click to expand...

SO you have no point to make, no means to refute what I said, and to admit as much is difficult for you so you'd rather ignore it. Noted again.

probinson said:

If anyone is "fixating" on it, it's "objectively" you.

Click to expand...

Incorrect use of the word, again. You're just mad I'm not a sycophant for Trump and have the statistics to show that I'm not in the minority.

probinson said:

Actually, he did win the popular vote in 2024.

Click to expand...

probinson said:

Yes, they did, in 2024.



The most recent of which he won the popular vote.

Click to expand...

Again, being intentionally deceptive to make your argument appear stronger than it is. The fact that you'd outright lie to make it seem like you're making a point is just... Sad.

What I said:

"He's run for president four times, yet has only won the popular vote once. Because we don't elect based off of popular vote, we do it based off the electoral college, it means he still got to be president because he won in the only metric that counts, and he did so twice." and then again later in the post I was clearly talking about the election he didn't win by popular vote as your point was that because he won an election twice, he must be popular.

TBH, we didn't agree but at least I thought you had intellectual integrity when it came to these discussions. Now... Not so much.

probinson said:

The polls show that the majority of people think he is unpopular.

Click to expand...

Holy. Cow. All it took was you dissecting my posts line-by-line, adopting COVID denyer ideology, saying I was wrong but not citing anything or citing things you clearly didn't read, and outright lie about things I've said, so that we could land at you FINALLY admitting that, yes, the man is objectively unpopular.

What. A. Journey. Just to arrive at the destination I was at the WHOLE time.

Belk said:

Why would I charge the military? Why would I not charge the ones directing the attack? Are you backing off your claim anything not ruled on by the court is legal?

Click to expand...

Not backing out at all. Just trying to figure out how you would bring charges against those responsible and under what law. In criminal law those that commit the crime are just as guilty as those who command or direct the crime. Even if the person or entity that commanded the crime are not in proximity to where the crime occurred they could still be charged under the jurisdiction of where the crime occurred.

The “crime” occurred in international waters so the “flag” country would usually have jurisdiction although coastal countries could share jurisdiction. So the US has not claimed jurisdiction and the US is the “flag” country and the coastal country in some of the incidents is Venezuela and they have not claimed jurisdiction hence at this time the incidents are legal. This has nothing to do with something being legal until proven illegal but a matter of law.

Always in His Presence said:

Trump in Japan as hopes grow for China trade deal​

Optimism grew Monday that Donald Trump and China's Xi Jinping will end their bruising trade war during talks this week, as the US president touched down in Tokyo on the latest leg of an Asian tour.

Click to expand...

On January 20, 2025, there was no trade war with China or Japan. President Trump's tariff policy initiated these trade disputes, but as usual, he will negotiate a deal, take credit for the outcome, and his supporters will praise his negotiation skills.

7thKeeper said:

Oh? That's why the Republicans don't want to extent ACA subsidies? To help the poor and needy?

Click to expand...

Nope - that's why the Democrats are using the same CR they supported just 7 months ago to negotiate their political agenda - to reverse what has already been voted on, passed by both houses and signed into law on July 4, 2025

They don't care who suffers as long as they get what they want.

Trump in Japan as hopes grow for China trade deal​

Optimism grew Monday that Donald Trump and China's Xi Jinping will end their bruising trade war during talks this week, as the US president touched down in Tokyo on the latest leg of an Asian tour.

Strong in Him said:

There is a poem about the Charge of the Light brigade, for example, and Wilfred Owen wrote war poetry. There can be truth in, or behind, poetry. But that doesn't mean that all the words used are literal or to be taken literally.

Click to expand...

Of course not, I know this.

I know that God didn't mean literal doors or there is a literally a tent in the sky for the sun, we know this as the sun is set in the firmament.
I know that the sea bursting from a womb doesn't represent a literal womb.
I know that Jesus isn't a door or a lamb.

Do you think I'm stupid or what ? And yes we know what @prodromos answer would be

For clarity I will repost the Hubble equations:-

Hubble Constant (Ho) fixed to light speed, C and calculated as 71 k/s/Mpc



Ho is now "fixed" to local light speed, C by this simple Ho equation worked in the old algebra style of Maxwell:-


2 x oneMpc x C, divided by Pi to the power of 21 = 70.9449 k/s/Mpc



In this equation, directly input the values below:-

oneMPC is 3260000 light years

C (local) is 299792.458 k/s

Pi is 3.142..........

Astronomers measuring Ho give the "ballpark" values of Ho, and now we have an Ho equation that "fixes" Ho to
local light speed, C, which has to be much more precise.

Note:- In the numerator, distance (Mpc) is multiplied by speed (k/s), and that is NOT an error in this situation, as the "distance squared" does not affect the numerical value of the Ho redshift by
"spreading out" (as any light source does) when viewing that redshift for Ho along just
one dimension only.

The dimensionless denominator Pi^21 sets the scales of this Ho equation correctly into the Dynamic Aether framework.
The Dynamic Aether Framework is not the static aether that the Michleson-Morley experiment could not detect, but
the Dynamic Aether that Faraday knew caused electrical "reluctance", and that Maxwell used as the basis for his
electric and magnetic "inertia" constants, and used in his Aether equations to calculate light speed. C..


=============================================================================================
Hubble Constant (Ho) Hubble Horizon Distance light years calculated from Ho of 70.9449 k/s/Mpc.



oneMpc X C, divided by Ho, and then divided by one billion = 13.7758 billion light Years



In this equation, directly input the values below:-

oneMpc is 3260000 light years

C (local) is 299792.458 k/s

Ho is 70.9449 k/s/Mpc

one billion is 1,000,000,000 used to give the answer in convenient units of
billions of light years.


Note:- This Hubble Horizon Distance equation prevents falsifying the terminology of
declaring light years as years only.



===========================================================================================

The "Hubble Tension Issue"

Note:- In the "Dynamic Aether Framework" of the Ho calculating equation in which Ho is "fixed" numerically to C,
the "Hubble Tension issue" is caused by the "DISTANT LOCAL VALUE" of C in the observed space regions being
directly affected by the presence of huge galaxies, black holes. or void areas, RELATIVE to the observer.

Download all attachments as a zip file

• 
  
  Hubble Constant (Ho) Using Online Calculator (Screenshot) (2) - Copy.png
  242 kB
• 
  
  Hubble Constant (Ho) Hubble Horizon Distance Light Years Using Online Calculator (Screenshot) - Copy.png
  245.4 kB

Yarddog said:

They just know that if they stroke Trump's giant ego they get anything they want and then laugh at him behind his back. LOL

Click to expand...

All you are missing is proof.