Apple Sky said:

Because there is no curvature & this has been proven.

Click to expand...

It has not been proven, this is a lie you repeat over and over.

A2SG said:

Well, who came up with the plan the ACA was based on? The Heritage Foundation. Who tried to implement it once before, back in 1993? The GOP.


And who is that designer again?

And why is for-profit health insurance so expensive? Why, so it can generate billions in profit every year, a lot of which goes into various campaign contributions. "Follow the money" indeed.

-- A2SG, but I do agree with your basic point...eliminate the ACA and replace it with a more comprehensive, far more cost-effective single payer plan!

Click to expand...

Is that why so many Republicans voted for it?

Oh, wait, not one did.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Even if he is, it may well be in his interest to close the borders to stop any more from coming in.

Click to expand...

Its in the interest of the country to:

1. Put a stop to illegal immigrants
2. Send illegal immigrants home
3. Restrict who is coming in.

The restrictions would be based upon the needs of the country, combined with who the immigrants are.

Psychologists can get it wrong.

Larniavc said:

Psalm 137:9 "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

A bit grim.

Click to expand...

"Praiseworthy is he who will take and dash your infants against the rock."

Those who`s plans and schemes are to outwit the ways of the rock will be dashed against it. (will be shamed)

For who or what is the rock?

Servus said:

Here's the thing with that, and I'm surprised others don't see it.

God was not inside of the Ark of the Covenant. God in the form of the shekinah glory, hovered above the Ark. The Ark of the Covenant was the seat of God, not a vessel that housed God.

Click to expand...

This doesn't seem to understand the connection being made, because the Ark of the Covenant bore God in the OT, Mary bore God in the flesh. It's not about housing God, but carrying His glory. So the specific details aren't relevant to the analogy.

JimR-OCDS said:

Yeah it was proven. Homan wasn't even in office when this was supposed to have taken place. Accepting
money was not against the law for him, if in fact it happened.

MSN

George Stephanopoulos has been caught lying twice so far, and it is well known that he worked in the
Clinton administration and is a staunch democrat and hater of the republicans, especially trump.

Click to expand...

Proven is a big word. Only God knows below you have news agencies that have not been sued for libel. If you never did this why would you not sue? Homan does not seem like the soft type that would never sue. Trump would sue in a minute. But still it is speculation. Probably not a crime because either the Trump administration dropped it, or it was entrapment and/or too hard to prosecute. Could be he did not take the money but the: not being in office is invalid because anyone close to Trump could influence contracts and therefore be a target of the FBI.

In my lifetime, I have watched some massive scandals unfold:
"Scope: The federal investigation by the FBI and IRS resulted in convictions or guilty pleas from approximately 240 people, including 110 sitting county commissioners and numerous suppliers across 60 of Oklahoma's 77 counties. It was, at the time, the largest public corruption case in U.S. history." Source google ai

From the 2003-2007 Operation Tennessee Waltz,
Here 11 people were convicted including 4 state legislators.

"The Scheme: FBI agents created a fictitious electronics recycling company called "E-Cycle" and, posing as corrupt businessmen, offered bribes to lawmakers in exchange for favorable legislation and contracts."

So here we have Trump who pardons convictions involving bribery and fraud. Trump seems to make light of these cases. he also "temporary halted the DOJ from charging under the Foreign Corrupt Bribery Act.
Donald Trump pardons former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich (ill. Governor

So proving innocence in the Trump administration comes very difficult to me. I am glad you have faith, perhaps later you will be more realistic. The Epstein files will show you what power can do to leaders. Many are not there to serve. Homan, I can't say either way but I imagine we might find out more when the democrats are back in power. Unless he sues, he can never prove innocence, and of course he does not have to "prove" innocence.

"WASHINGTON, Sept 21 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's border czar Tom Homan accepted a $50,000 bag of cash from an undercover FBI agent last year in a since-closed U.S. Justice Department bribery investigation, two sources familiar with the matter said on Sunday.
In the alleged scheme, Homan promised immigration-related government contracts when he joined the Trump administration in exchange for the money, the sources said, speaking anonymously to discuss nonpublic investigations."

Hans Blaster said:

It is not arbitrary. @Bradskii specifically was speaking of the Bill of Rights. (I thought he'd also directly mentioned the Constitution itself, but my point is not weakened by just the Bill of Rights.) The Bill of Rights was not imposed by force. Writing and approving it did not require violence. As @Bradskii stated, it was voted on by the Congress and the states. No violence. (The same is true of the Constitution, but it was not actually mentioned.) Even the other Amendments I mentioned (13th and 26th) were not imposed by force, but by Congress and the votes of the states. The same is true of even the Articles of Confederation. It was not imposed on the states or the people by force, but created by the Continental Congress and ratified by the states willingly.

Click to expand...

There was no real transfer of power involved in the transition from the articles of confederation to the constitution, because the articles of confederation offered no real power to the federal government. The necessity of the constitution was clear because of the failures of the AoC, and the relevant transfer of power was seated in the revolutionary war(as well as Britains attempt to re-establish colonial power in the war of 1812)

Pam Bondi is said to be conspicuously silent about Epstein in 2018. What was she silent about when he was arrested within a year of what must have been an ongoing investigation? I doubt Bondi is a fool, knew Epstein was a flight risk, & was appraised of Epstein’s situation.

Is California Governor Gavin Newsom a “Christian nationalist?” Considering his speech at a press conference two weeks back, the answer could easily be yes.

Speaking alongside California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Health and Human Services Agency Secretary Kim Johnson on October 28, Gov. Newsom announced legal action against the Trump administration as the federal government’s shutdown began to impact SNAP benefits.

The record-breaking shutdown lasted 43 days. As a result, funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program had expired on November 1, the first funding lapse in the program’s 60-year history, impacting the roughly 42 million Americans who receive SNAP aid.

Thankfully, President Trump signed a continuing resolution (H.R. 5371) on November 12, reopening the government through January and restoring the program’s funding.

At the press conference, Gov. Newsom pointed to his time at Santa Clara University, a Jesuit institution. He was raised Catholic.

“I spent a little time at a wonderful Jesuit university. If there was anything I remember about my four years with Fr. Coz, is that the New Testament and Old Testament have one thing dominantly in common,” Newsom contended, citing Matthew, Isaiah, Luke and Proverbs in particular. “It’s around food. It’s about serving those that are hungry.”

“It’s not a suggestion in the Old [and] the New Testament. It’s core and central to what it is to align to God’s will. Period. Full stop.”

“These guys need to stop the B.S. in Washington,” Newsom continued. “They’re sitting there in their prayer breakfasts. Maybe they got an edited version of [President] Donald Trump’s Bible, and they edited all of that out … Cruelty is the policy.”

Continued below.

CoreyD said:

The Greek word hekousios - meaning free will, is the neuter of a derivative from hekon; voluntariness -- willingly, which is (an adjective, a primitive term) – properly, willing; "unforced, of one's own will, voluntary" (J. Thayer), i.e. acting on one's own accord. The root (hek-) emphasizes intentional, deliberate action (choice), i.e. "of free-will" (J. Thayer).

Click to expand...

It doesn't mean free will, the noun.

CoreyD said:

A "carnal minded will" is not an adjective, but a noun.

Click to expand...

Carnal minded is an adjective describing a type of will, <- will here is a noun. Are you saying the carnal will is a free will?

CoreyD said:

You aren't talking about the same thing I am talking about.

Click to expand...

I understand that you're talking about a philosophical meaning of free will. In the moral/immoral context, I'm talking about the scriptural meaning of a free will -> free from sin -> the positive layer of the neutral philosophical free will you're talking about. In reality the free will you're talking about isn't a will at all; it's the circumstance of choosing between one's own carnal will and God's will.

CoreyD said:

"pertaining to self, or of his own." is not THEIR OWN WILL qualified as OUR OWN way
Satan... When he lies, he speaks out of his own character. That is... pertaining to self, or of his own.
You did not read own will there, as in a noun.
Hence, you did not understand what you read there.

Click to expand...

Will means desire in scripture. Our own will is descriptive of our own way according to our own desire, a noun. I quoted Isaiah 53:6 to express what I mean by our own way and further qualified it as NOT God's Way. It's right here -> All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Our own way is our own will because we willed to go our own way.

I understand that Jesus is talking about Satan's Character. On that we agree. His character is described as lusting, a murderer, and a liar not abiding in truth. Hence those descriptions show his own character/will/desire.

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

CoreyD said:

You read own will here... Jesus thus makes clear that the angel that became Satan the Devil, acts according to his own will, or desire.
The acting on one's own will, is free will. The word 'will' as a noun. is not free will.

Click to expand...

The acting on one's own will, is free will? Before you said freedom to choose was a free will. That's two distinct meanings.
Freedom to choose -> Here “free will” = the ability to make a decision between alternatives. <- That’s about choice.
Acting on one’s own will -> Here “free will” = following one’s own desire without interference. <- That’s about desire.

Have you ever heard of the equivocation fallacy? Because the terms will and free keep morphing, and we end up reasoning upon an equivocation. I expect you to next claim the opposite -> NOT acting on one's own will/desire, is free will.

I'm not saying the devil doesn't act according to his own will or desire. I indicated that in post #74--> "This we can agree on --> the children born of the devil have the same character as their father --> evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual immorality, thefts, false testimonies, slanders".

The children born of the Spirit of God have the same Character as their Father. --> The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control;

CoreyD said:

To act according to one's own will or desire refers to the capacity for self-directed, purposeful action, a concept known as volition. Volition involves the ability to make autonomous decisions and act upon them, distinguishing conscious beings from purely deterministic systems. It is considered a key component of free will, as it emphasizes personal agency and freedom of choice.
The term "volition" originates from the Latin velle, meaning "to wish" or "to will". When someone acts "of their own volition," they do so voluntarily, driven by their own desires or intentions.
The idea of acting according to one's own will is also linked to autonomy, particularly moral autonomy, which involves the capacity to give oneself moral laws rather than simply following external commands.

Hence, we are not on the same page.
You haven't understood.
Therefore...

Click to expand...

Do you understand this definition above is describing secular Humanism? It excludes God as the Eternal power and the Light of the soul and replaces Him with human autonomy.

Volition as neutral capacity is real; we all have desire and the ability to act. But in the moral/immoral context, scripture shows that desire is never neutral: The Spirit of agape Love, and wisdom, flows from our father. The children of the devil desire according to his character, which is sin. The children of God desire according to His character, which is righteousness. That’s why John says those who abide in Christ do not sin, while those who sin are of the devil. Volition is shaped by nature, not autonomous neutrality.


Volition (neutral layer)
Desire + ability to act.
Example: “I had the volition to stand up and walk.” <--This is not moral in itself — it’s simply the capacity to act.

Autonomy / Moral Self‑Determination (philosophical)
The claim that humans can give themselves moral law, independent of God.
Example: “I decide what is right or wrong for myself.” <-- This is philosophy, not biblical theology.

The problem with the above definition is that it starts with volition (neutral desire + action). Then it sneaks in autonomy and moral self‑law, by calling both “free will,” hence it equivocates; sometimes meaning neutral capacity, sometimes meaning moral autonomy.


I'm trying to establish that the negative desire comes from the carnal will, and the positive desire comes from the Spirit of Christ. To reiterate, my point is that the children of God, will/desire according to the Character of their Father, and the children of the devil will/desire according to the character of their father. So, in the moral/immoral context the volition of the children of the devil is inclined to sin while the volition of the children of God is inclined to not sin.

6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

CoreyD said:

A negative desire can be acted upon, or against.
What do you call an "action" or "choose to act" on either... whether acting upon that desire, or acting against that desire?
Is it deliberate "action" or "choose to act"?

Click to expand...

I would first call it freedom of action. I can move or not move my fingers. Hence there is a choice/option = act/not act. I would then note that the choice to act is precipitated by a carnal desire, and the choice to not act is precipitated by a higher desire that overcomes the flesh. In the Moral/Immoral context God's Word is the Light and Life of every man.

CoreyD said:

I have a feeling we are not agreeing on the same thing.
We did not agree that "acting on one's own", is commensurate with having a will... as in has their own way, their own will.

Click to expand...

Okay. We're in a moral/immoral context. Would you agree we first have to have a will/desire (noun), in order to be willing (adverb)? If that will/desire is coming from our flesh, would you agree it is a carnal will? According to Isaiah we all went our own way. I interpret that as serving our own carnal will. There may be other ways to describe a will that is not going God's Way. But fundamentally I see scripture tying the carnal will to the impetus of pride, rebellion, worldliness, and the prince of the power of the air who works in the children of disobedience. Can you agree with that?

CoreyD said:

Whereas, you are describing possessing a will, as in having a desire, or want... i.e. "I have a desire/will... I want to eat some chocolate.", acting on one's own accord, or will, involves the freedom to make an independent choice or decision to do one thing or the other.
For example, having a strong desire/will/a wanting for chocolate is not the choice to act on one's own accord to perhaps resist that wanting... doing so intentionally, deliberately, unforced, willingly, voluntarily, of one's own free will...

Click to expand...

I am talking in the moral/immoral context. In that context, I don't think I possess a will, but rather a will is going to possess me, hence the language of scripture speaks of servitude to either the carnal will or God. One of the fruits of the Spirit is self-control.

CoreyD said:

Willingly, which is (an adjective, a primitive term) – properly, willing; "unforced, of one's own will, voluntary" (J. Thayer), i.e. acting on one's own accord. The root (hek-) emphasizes intentional, deliberate action (choice), i.e. "of free-will", is not the same as having a will.

We evidently are referring to two different things.

Click to expand...

We have to agree what terms mean to communicate; that's for sure. Previously, you were referring to free will as freedom to choose emphasizing the decision being voluntary. Meanwhile I'm referring to the will/desire, emphasizing that desires are not voluntary..

If I'm willing, then I have a will/desire. I didn't volunteer to have desires of the flesh, I'm forced to deal with them, and therefore I didn't choose for them to manifest. When we move to the deciding whether to fulfill carnal desires, it's an opposing desire that overcomes the flesh. God's Spirit would be articulated as the goodness that Loves others as oneself. I don't think Light resists darkness. It casts it out just like the Truth casts out lies.

So, carnal desires arise spontaneously and involuntarily. At first, as a believer I must consciously put them away by abiding in Christ. But as the carnal mind is renewed into the mind of Christ, the putting away of carnal desires becomes less frequent, and the goodness of God begins to arise spontaneously. I'm convinced that this transition — from impulsive flesh to spontaneous Spirit — is the transformation Scripture calls the renewing of the mind.

CoreyD said:

Why? Adding free to one's own will, emphasizes the voluntary nature of an action, indicating that a person chose to do something without coercion or external pressure, which is different from possession of a personal desire, or intention - having a will, or want... a wanting, or desire to do something.

Click to expand...

Okay. But scripture does not present moral/immoral decision-making as “voluntary” in the secular humanist sense of free, neutral choice. It presents it as either the spontaneous impulse of the flesh or the transformative work of the Spirit.

Romans 8:13 — “If you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.”

CoreyD said:

A desire or want, does not have to be acted upon, because the ability, or capacity to choose not to, is in one's possession. It's called free will.

Click to expand...

Before you conveyed "The acting on one's own will, is free will". Now you're conveying not acting on one's own will is free will. You're definitely talking out of an equivocation. The equivocation takes two contrary positions making it the philosophical neutral layer.

If you were talking about not acting on a carnal desire that leads to sin, then you're talking about being free from sin. One of the fruits of the Spirit is self-control. Like I said free from sin is the only coherent meaning of free will in scripture. But the worldly neutral freewill denies God as the power of goodness in mankind, reducing it to the discretion of the carnal will.

Therefore, I deny the worldly neutral “free will” outright because it is an equivocation, not a will/desire. Scripture shows that desires arise involuntarily, and choices are determined by whether one is in the flesh or in the Spirit. To call this “free will” is to confuse desire with decision and to deny God as the source of goodness in mankind.

Romans 8:7–8 -> The carnal mind “cannot” submit to God’s law.
Romans 6:16 -> We are slaves either to sin or to righteousness. -> No neutral “free” will exists; only fleshly desire or Spirit-led obedience.

Romans 9:8 -> “It is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.”
Romans 9:16 -> “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”

Romans 8:13 -> “If by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” → The Spirit is the opposing will that makes resistance possible.
Philippians 2:13 -> God works in us “to will and to act.” → The will to resist is God’s, not autonomous free will.

CoreyD said:

Sin does not hinder a person's choice.
"Someone's own will/way/want to steal from you or interfere with you, is that one's desire, which James says, 'a man is tempted, being drawn away and being enticed by the own desire'. James 1:14
Only 'after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.' James 1:15

The desire does not have to conceive. Why?
Each person can freely choose not to give into the enticement, or temptation, because they have free will.
It's that free will that allows you to act on your own will, to not get a gun and shoot the person.

If that will, or desire is your want, you don't have to allow it to give birth to sin.
Sin therefore cannot hinder free will. However, your will/want/desire, can breed sin.


Let's see if you get it.

Click to expand...

James 1:14 was not the context of scripture I was responding to in your post. I was responding to John 8:44 as the context. In John 8:44, Jesus uses causal and identity markers (“because,” “of his own,” “is”) to show that the devil’s lying is not a matter of free choice but of nature. Since there is no truth in him, when he speaks, he inevitably lies. His will is bound to his nature, not free to choose otherwise. <- This is why I didn't know what you meant by free will here --> "So, sin cannot be claimed as a hinderance to free will."

The context of James 1:14, is emphasizing that we are tempted by the lusts of our flesh not God, just like elsewhere scripture is speaking about the carnal will.. He is not saying the capacity to resist a desire to sin and act righteously come from human autonomy. He's saying they come from faith. ->James 1:8-9, My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.

God enables both will and action
Philippians 2:13 — “For it is God who works in you to will and to act according to His good pleasure.”
God provides the way of escape
1 Corinthians 10:13 — “God is faithful… when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.”
God circumcises the heart
Deuteronomy 30:6 — “The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts… so that you may love him.”
God’s Spirit opposes the flesh
Galatians 5:17 — “The flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit… so that you are not free to do whatever you want.”

Feather pillow

I accidently stumbled upon this guy called Ren. I spotted a street performance and thought this guy has got something. I like alternative music, and music as an expression of art or self and the world.

Sometimes you get sick of the same old algorithms played all the time and you need something different. Something that makes you stop and listen as it is different and yet provokes you into taking more notice.

But music is a matter of taste and it may not be everyones cup of tea.

Login to view embedded media
Login to view embedded media
Login to view embedded media

We feel great, truly refreshed.

RFRSH

stevevw said:

I guess you were not paying attention. This is a few and there are more.

Electromagnetic properties of the Great Pyramid: First multipole resonances and energy concentration

Resonant response of the Great Pyramid interacting with external electromagnetic waves of the radio frequency range (the wavelength range is 200-600 m) is theoretically investigated. With the help of numerical simulations and multipole decomposition, it is found that spectra of the extinction...

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

Click to expand...

Already commented on it, it is a simulation study, it is also mentioned in the post you quoted.. Nothing have been measured or verified experimentally. Stop just posting links without reading them.

stevevw said:

https://www.isis.stfc.ac.uk/Pages/SH25_Piezoelectrics.aspx

Click to expand...

This is the actual paper, there is no connection to ancient technology and lost knowledge. Don't post links that are not related. It is tantamount to lying.
Phase transformation in lead titanate based relaxor ferroelectrics with ultra-high strain - Nature Communications

stevevw said:

URL unfurl="true"]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2307187725007217[/URL]

Click to expand...

Investigating the potential of using human movements in energy harvesting by installing piezoelectric tiles in Egyptian public facilities
No connection to ancient Egypt at all!

stevevw said:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167577X10008979

Click to expand...

Also mentioned in the post you quoted, from the abstract "A comparison was made of the solid-state 29Si, 27Al and 43Ca MAS NMR spectra of the outer casing stone from Snefru's Bent Pyramid in Dahshour, Egypt, with two quarry limestones from the area. The NMR results suggest that the casing stones consist of limestone grains from the Tura quarry, cemented with an amorphous calcium-silicate gel formed by human intervention, by the addition of extra silica, possibly diatomaceous earth, from the Fayium area."

What is the ancient technology or lost knowledge in this case? A quick googling seems that the egyptians had access to early forms of cement.

stevevw said:

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2012/06/epn2012436p28.pdf

Click to expand...

I time out on this one, can you take a picture of the abstract and post it?

stevevw said:

The Role of Abolishing Gravity in Ancient Egyptian Pyramids Architecture

Discover the secrets of ancient Egyptian pyramid construction. Explore unconventional stone lifting techniques and theories of acoustic and water lifting. Uncover the genius behind these architectural wonders.

www.scirp.org

Click to expand...

Ah, that one where gravity is NOT abolished and where hydrolift and acoustic lifting is NOT shown to have been used by the egyptian (it is all speculation).

stevevw said:

https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/articl...-of-the-Great-Pyramid?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Click to expand...

This is the same as the first one,

stevevw said:

https://ceramics.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2006.01308.x

Click to expand...

This is something that is testable and will by time become clear, the author themselves don't want to the exclude possibility that the microconstituents are the results of some natural process. I also seems to conflict with the article above that seems to say that the casing stones comes from the Tura quarry.

stevevw said:

Refer to above.

But its not just peer review. Its the discrediting of experts like King. You don't need peer review to work out that King knows what he is talking about. He virtually makes the same shape parts of the vases. He knows the tooling and machining involved. Yet he is rejected out of hand.

Click to expand...

Why are these articles arguments for ancient technology and/or lost knowledge? Can you form them yourself, using these articles for support?

Vambram said:

That anyone believes and swallows the lies of progressive left wing liberal activists and politicians astonishes me.

Click to expand...

That anyone watches FOX propaganda outlet astonishes me!
That anyone believes a WORD that comes out of Trump's mouth astonishes me.

keras said:

Jesus said that Gods secrets are hidden from the wise and learned - Matthew 11:25

Click to expand...

Been there, done that.
Yet no temple.

You asserted you had ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY because you were the special one.
It was like listening to Jake or Elwood.
"We're on a mission from God."

keras said:

This fact is proved by how 'expert theologians' fail to agree amongst themselves.

Click to expand...

And you futurists REALLY agree!
So evident here on these forums.
However, there is say 80% agreement amongst the Amil theologians I read.

Where there's almost 80 to 95% disagreement between your tribe of futurists.

No matter how stridently you assert you are superior to all other futurists.... you're one of them.
A dime a dozen.

Where's the temple?
Your "Timetable" is running out.
Your original "Holy Spirit" inspired one anyway.
That timetable you defended as an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY as you basically called friends and clients of mine apostate, like the Pharisees.

Also - again you misunderstand most OT prophesies.
Only a FEW are actually about end times events.
Most are about gospel events - or heaven itself.
But in gospel events, they are either about....

The new people of God - the church.
The new river of God - Jesus - the water of life.
The new temple of God - Jesus - as his body crucified and raised again becomes the new temple "built" in 3 days.

All those thousands of hours of debates here, and endless words on your blog.
Wrong.
A waste of time.
Better to stick with the basics of the gospel - and sharing that.

Oh look - I found it! It's in Wonderland - where it should remain.
Jesus is our temple, our prophet, priest and king, our perfect sacrifice, our Moses showing us the new way, our redeemer kinsman, our saviour, our Lord, our brother, our ladder to heaven.

Rebuilding some temple in the middle east would be a blasphemy!




Tick tock buddy.
Your temple is late, late, for a very important date!

We have had decades now of preogressive ideology and enough time has passed for us to see the outcomes of such ideas and beliefs. The many lies told as a replacement for Gods law and order for the world.

A new world order was proclaimed with the revolutions of the mid 20th century. A counter culture claiming true freedom and happiness.

But what we are seeing is chaos and misery. Lies that destroy marriage, the family and society.

Now as these ideas begin to crack and crumble instead of realising the wrong they double down even fighting with violence to maintain the counter culture. Which is primarily aimed at God.

Its a battle between how we order society and the world. About who is God over the world. Humans or the one true God in Christ.

timothyu said:

True. God's truth was already in the OT.

Click to expand...

Yes which means its refected and fullfilled in Christ. Paul brought the gentiles as a pure sacrifice to God Mal 1:11.

Thanks for posting!