New Posts

Phil G · 2025-11-14T14:21:53-0600

Apple Sky said:
Nothing is impossible for God - Therefore every thing must be the truth, even F/E

Touché

But that also means globe earth is also the truth

CoreyD · 2025-11-14T14:20:40-0600

JohnClay said:
Genesis just talks about Adam and Eve facing death as a punishment for their sin. I was wondering what would have happened after that? Would they be resurrected and judged by Jesus? If they are saved I wonder what about Cain? Thanks.

Good evening John.
The Bible is silent on the answer to this question.
Though many will form opinions, by putting texts together, I would say we cannot be dogmatic about those conclusions.

Already, a quarrel has broken out, but the primary focus of this forum is Christian evangelism and discipleship, not to debate Christian Theology or challenge, attack, or argue against, Christianity.

I'm curious to know why this interests you though.
Does it have anything to do with Gods character?

sjastro · 2025-11-14T14:16:52-0600

stevevw said:
But its a justified one. Unlike the testers I am linking the peer review or they provide detailed tests and analysis with sections laying out methodology, testing and results with calculations in a formal format and not on an informal social media thread.

You may have qualifications and so do most of the researchers. You challenge on precision tooling and engineering and I give you two experts with over 50 years experience. I give you Petrie one of the worlds greatest archeologists.

If we are playing teh game of ad hominems then I win lol. I don't think you have better qualifications. At the very least they are as good that their opinion should be taken with as much credibility as you.

This is silly. I know some random individuals have on sites like these devalued experts according to their less knowledgable claims. Are we going to have a qualification of everyone who speaks. Or is it that if anyone says something that aligns with the skeptics is an expert and those who don't are not.

Let me ask you do you think there is bias and some without the knowledge or expertise are making claims beyond what they can know. That is motivated by personal beliefs and assumptions rather than fact or truth. Can you assure than none of that is happening. I already know your answer.

Here it is again. You have qualified the suggestion that stones were molded or softened as idiotic obsession before we have properly investigated it. I know there are at least scientific articles that support stone softening or molding. So already you have shown the bias and taring everything said as stupid and idiotic.

By the way regardless of who is right or wrong on the facts when people use such emotive and moral language over what is just a factual matter shows they are the ones injecting personal feelings and beliefs into the equation. That in itself is usually an immediate disqualifer as its a signifier that the person is more supceptible to being influenced by their feelings.

Individuals who have responded in this thread do not operate at your limited intellectual and educational levels, so stop projecting.
Since you are incapable of understanding the problems in your so called experts ‘theories’ don’t assume everyone else cannot either.

Your arguments are based on confirmation bias while your take on images shows pareidolia which is the psychological condition of seeing things that are not there. Only you can see the softening of stone while everyone else sees irregular surfaces.

stevevw said:
Ok I must have missed that one as well.

Then how do you explain this. Do these scientists also have an idiotic obsession with moulded limestone.

After extensive scanning electron microscope (SEM) observations and other testing, they found that the tiniest structures within the inner and outer casing stones were indeed consistent with a reconstituted limestone. The cement binding the limestone aggregate was either silicon dioxide (the building block of quartz) or a calcium and magnesium-rich silicate mineral.

The stones also had a high water content--unusual for the normally dry, natural limestone found on the Giza plateau--and the cementing phases, in both the inner and outer casing stones, were amorphous, in other words, their atoms were not arranged in a regular and periodic array. Sedimentary rocks such as limestone are seldom, if ever, amorphous.

The sample chemistries the researchers found do not exist anywhere in nature. "Therefore," says Barsoum, "it's very improbable that the outer and inner casing stones that we examined were chiseled from a natural limestone block."

More startlingly, the presence of silicon dioxide nanoscale spheres (with diameters only billionths of a meter across) in one of the samples. This discovery further confirms that these blocks are not natural limestone.

The Surprising Truth Behind the Construction of the Great Pyramids

"This is not my day job." So begins National Science Foundation-supported researcher Michel Barsoum as he recounts his foray into the mysteries of the Great Pyramids of Egypt. As a well respected…

www.nsf.gov

Were the casing stones of Senefru's Bent Pyramid in Dahshour cast or carved?: Multinuclear NMR evidence

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

Ancient organo-mineral geopolymer in South-American Monuments: Organic matter in andesite stone. SEM and petrographic evidenc
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272884219300288

Microstructural Evidence of Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in the Great Pyramids of Egypt
https://ceramics.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2006.01308.x

Well let me put my forensic scientist cap on, I have had to analyse SEM results and have sometimes been led astray as SEMs are very good at detecting contamination.

It is a well known fact the Giza plateau sits on a water table which rises and falls and the Sphinx which is made from limestone has been affected by groundwater penetrating the limestone via capillary action. Dissolved salts such as silicates recrystallize in the limestone creating the impression of geopolymer cement defined by a high water content, the presence of silicon dioxide, calcium and magnesium-rich silicate minerals.

This my theory and I asked GPT-5 to find evidence of the same effect on pyramid casing stones.

✅ Can the high water content and silicates in low-level pyramid casing stones be explained by groundwater and capillary rise?

Yes — and there is direct geological, archaeological, and hydrological evidence that the lower casing stones of the pyramids interacted with groundwater and capillary moisture for long periods.

This interaction can fully account for:

Elevated water content
Amorphous silicate coatings
Silica spheroids in SEM images
Mg–Ca rich cement patches
Chemical compositions different from “fresh” limestone

Below is the evidence.

1. Evidence that groundwater reached or influenced the pyramid bases

1.1 Geological surveys show historical high water tables near the pyramid base

Multiple geological studies (Egyptian Geological Survey; Hassan 1949; Gauri et al. 1988; Abdel-Mota'al 2010) show that:

Ancient groundwater levels across the Giza Plateau varied significantly.
During wetter periods (Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom), the water table was several metres higher than today.
In some recorded phases, the water table approached or overlapped the lowest courses of the pyramids.

The lower portions of:

The Great Pyramid
Khafre’s pyramid
Menkaure’s pyramid

all show moisture-related weathering distinct from upper courses.

2. Evidence of capillary rise in the Giza limestones

2.1 Tura limestone (the casing stone material) is highly microporous

Petrographic and porosity measurements (El‐Aref 1987; Kamel & Kamal 1990) show:

Tura limestone has very fine micro-porosity (0.5–2 μm pores).
Such pore sizes maximize capillary action, enabling water to rise 2–5 m above the water table.

This means even if the water table didn’t physically touch the casing, moisture could still wick upward into the lower courses for centuries.

2.2 Field observations confirm capillary staining on casing blocks

Archaeologists who documented the few remaining original casing stones (especially on the northern and eastern sides of the Great Pyramid) note:

A distinct “tide line” or discolored band on the lowest casing stones
Crusts of evaporated salts, including halite, gypsum, and silica
More porous and friable texture on the bottom 4–6 courses

These are classic signatures of prolonged capillary wetting and evaporation cycles.

3. Evidence that groundwater altered the geochemistry of these stones

3.1 Silica precipitation and amorphous coatings on lower stones

Geochemical studies of the Great Pyramid casing remnants (Harrell 1991; Klemm & Klemm 2001) show:

Silica-rich amorphous films on lower edges
Microcrystalline and colloidal silica deposits in pore spaces
Mg-enriched carbonate alteration in lower zones
Dolomitization features in moisture-influenced areas

These match exactly the silicate and Mg–Ca textures that the geopolymer hypothesis cites as “artificial binders”.

But they are well-known groundwater alteration products in limestones.

3.2 Identical alteration is documented in the Sphinx enclosure

The Sphinx’s lower limestone shows:

High water content
Amorphous silica gels
Clay mobilization
Salt crystallization
Recrystallized calcite

These effects arise from the same groundwater regime shared by the plateau.

The lower pyramid casing stones exhibit the same signatures, though less extreme.

4. Evidence of long-term moisture cycling affecting the casing

4.1 Salt efflorescence recorded on lower pyramid blocks

Salt crust analysis by Gauri & Bandyopadhyay (1999) shows:

Halite, gypsum, and sodium carbonates
Crystallized in patterns indicating evaporation from upward-moving groundwater
Found primarily on lower courses, decreasing upward

This is diagnostic of capillary rise.

4.2 Mechanical degradation patterns align with moisture flow

Weathering profiles on lower casing remnants show:

Preferential subflorescence damage (salt crystallization inside pores)
Zones of higher porosity created by dissolution
Breakdown surfaces consistent with wet/dry cycling

These are not seen in upper courses, which stayed dry for 4,500 years.

5. Why this matters for the “reconstituted stone” hypothesis

Everything that Barsoum’s team attributed to artificial reconstitution has a well-understood natural explanation:

Feature observed	Geopolymer claim	Well-established groundwater explanation
High water content	Reconstituted limestone stored water	Capillary rise + long-term groundwater wetting
Amorphous silicate binder	Artificial geopolymer	Silica gels from groundwater evaporation
Silica nano-spheres	Manufactured nanoparticles	Natural colloidal silica precipitates
Mg–Ca rich phases	Artificial binder formulation	Groundwater dolomitization & ion exchange
“Unnatural” chemistries	Human-added mix	Groundwater alteration + diagenesis

In every case, the natural geological process explains the data without requiring synthetic casting.

✅ Conclusion: Yes — groundwater and capillary rise completely explain the features observed in lower casing stones

The combined evidence shows:

The water table rose high enough to influence the pyramid bases.
Tura limestone actively wicks moisture through capillary action.
Groundwater introduced silica, magnesium, clays, and carbonates.
Evaporation cycles created amorphous silica phases and silica spheres.
Weathering patterns on lower casing stones match known capillary processes.

Therefore, the high water content and silicate anomalies are geological in origin, not evidence that the blocks were cast.

stevevw said:
To claim its beyond doubt is an absolute claim that theres no chance thats its possible. I think thats a bit unreal and flies in the face of the evidence above.

Real evidence trumps confirmation bias and pareidolia.

stevevw said:
Who knows. Whats your point. It may have been for many reasons.

Ok well your the one making absolute claims in spite of the counter evidence. I would not be so quick to claim anything at the moment. Further tests are needed. But so far from the evidence above they were moulded.

Not just that. Do you not see with your own eyes that the signatures clearly show stone softening or moulding. Why is it so bad that these ancients were smart enough to create artificial stones. They worked with it everyday for 1,000s of years. Of course they got to know natural minierals and chemicals and how they worked.

Your not giving them enough credit.

Let me ask. Do you think the obvious signatures that look like softened stone only look like that and are actually pounded or ground into those shapes that happen to look like they were soft or melted.

Once again only someone as deluded as you, completely paralysed by pareidolia can see evidence of stone softening or moulding in the images.
Seriously it is breathtakingly stupid.

Belk · 2025-11-14T14:12:06-0600

Oompa Loompa said:
It addresses your comment about wondering how many would be fooled. I said likely very few would change their opinion for the better or worse. They will just take the money and go along as usual.

OK, noted

RocksInMyHead · 2025-11-14T14:10:08-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
If you notice in those articles, that power is pretty broad... to use a SQL analogy.

It may not be as broad as
SELECT *
FROM Accounts

But it's as broad as
SELECT *
FROM Accounts a
JOIN TransactionHistory th on a.AccountNumber = th.AccountNumber
WHERE th.TransferTarget = 'Bank XYZ'

--which is still very broad. When they leveraged a John Doe Summons to go after people making coinbase transactions, their criteria was broad enough that it ended up handing over the bank account information for nearly 20,000 people on one fell swoop.

In the late 2010's they leveraged the same types of "broad criteria search" aimed at people who transferred money to Swiss banks, and people who transferred money to financial institutions in the Caribbean.

...which is still in the same realm/mindset of the "patterns based on historical behavior & incidents would dictate that people who do X & Y are more likely than others to be committing infraction Z -- so just give me all of the people who are X & Y and we're bound to turn up some Z's"

And per the kiplinger article, their powers extend to family members and the vaguely defined "associates". Which means if they feel they have reason to believe that one of my relatives or perhaps a co-worker or neighbor has been getting into some tax shenanigans, they can grab my info when they grab theirs.

That's still quite a bit different from your original claim:

As it currently stands, they go to my bank, demand all transactions and account balances for every bank customer, and then start sifting through looking for things to use against people without a warrant and with consent

Dale · 2025-11-14T14:05:37-0600

Vambram said:
What facts?

I quoted CNN, MSNBC and the Associated Press. Do you believe anything any of these sources say?

essentialsaltes · 2025-11-14T14:02:15-0600

Postvieww said:
Anyone else smell a rat here?

Yes, and he's a convicted felon, too.

Michie · 2025-11-14T13:57:42-0600

While the Vatican issued new guidancethat encourages limits on the use of certain Marian titles out of a concern that they may overstate the Blessed Mother’s role in redemption and mediation, the intra-Catholic debate on the subject has continued.

Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, prefect for the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), issued a doctrinal note with the formal approval of Pope Leo XIV that reaffirms Mary’s “unique cooperation” in God’s plan for salvation but expresses worry about two titles sometimes employed to communicate her role: Mary as Co-Redemptrix/Co-Redeemer and Mary as Mediatrix/Mediator.

According to the doctrinal note, using the title “Co-Redemptrix” to explain Mary’s role “would not be appropriate.” The document’s language for the title “Mediatrix” was less harsh but says “if misunderstood, it could easily obscure or even contradict” Mary’s role in mediation.

The beginning of the document lays out a biblical foundation of Mary’s cooperation in salvation, beginning with her “yes” to the archangel Gabriel at the Annunciation through to her presence at the Passion and standing before Jesus Christ at the foot of the cross.

Continued below.

Vatican guidance discouraging Marian title ‘Co-Redemptrix’ sparks debate

Intra-Catholic debate on the use of certain Marian titles has continued after the Vatican issued guidance encouraging limits on their use.

www.catholicnewsagency.com

NxNW · 2025-11-14T13:49:41-0600

DaisyDay said:
It's hard to reconcile 2% inflation with consumer prices dropping.

Prices are only rising if you're overly obsessed with money like a Communist.

keras · 2025-11-14T13:47:23-0600

Christians are not the "replacement of the Jews" as the chosen people. But the Bible says that Christians are added into God’s people, by reason of their faith.
It was prophesied:

Genesis 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh comes and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
Jeremiah 31:36 If those ordinances depart from before me, says the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

Jesus came and they rejected Him:

Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Apostles later confirmed:
Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

Acts 15:14-17, Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, says the Lord, who doeth all these things. KJV

It was prophesied long ago in Amos 9:11-12 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, says the LORD that doeth this.
Most fail to realize that it was prophesied that those "outside the camp" would become worthy to seek the Lord. Even Jesus touched on this in His parable regarding the wedding feast in Matthew 22:1-14…... For many are called, but few are chosen.

Many Jews claim Jesus never spoke of the Jews as deserving of replacement. When this parable is shared they mock it. But, the parable of the vineyard clearly says the Jews KNEW He was talking about them. It says this in Luke 20:9-19….. What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.

Hosea 1:9, 5:5, 6:8, 2:4, 9:15-17 Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God. And the pride of Israel doth testify to his face: therefore shall Israel and Ephraim fall in their iniquity; Judah also shall fall with them. They shall go with their flocks and with their herds to seek the Lord; but they shall not find him; he hath withdrawn himself from them. Israel shall cry unto me, My God, we know thee. Israel hath cast off the thing that is good: the enemy shall pursue him. They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off. All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters. Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. My God will cast them away, because they did not hearken unto him: and they shall be wanderers among the nations.

Romans 9:30-31 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

In other words, shall we now have a problem that the unchosen Gentiles that became chosen and the chosen Israelites chose to become unchosen by blatant apostasy?
Romans 11:1-2 I say then: Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. KJV
Paul makes a good point here. So many people say replacement theology is a lie. But as Paul makes clear in this passage, he never left his Jewish roots. The only difference between him and the lost Jews is that he chose to believe Jesus. So in actuality, God never replaced them, they left Him all on their own and now every Christian has been grafted into the ‘olive tree’ of the righteous Israel of God.

CoreyD · 2025-11-14T13:44:10-0600

concretecamper said:
It's actually #18, I automatically used 19 because you did. Anyway #18, you say this.

"That is the key. Being able to examine the scriptures, and know the ring of truth, because of seeing it."

That's is subjective.

Yes, it's 18, sorry.
So, in Acts 17:11, 12 those Bereans who examine the scriptures, and were able to identify the truth, because of seeing it for themselves, did not have an objective way of knowing the truth... you think it was subjective?
You don't think the truth can be acquired that way?

Would that view not make Hebrews 4:12; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17; 2 Peter 1:21 and all the scriptures invalid?

fli · 2025-11-14T13:42:38-0600

Dan Perez said:
And 1. John 3:22. and 23 witten to thwb. BODY. of CHRIST and ONLY PAUL. , the Apostles to GENTILES has written

to. the BODY. and Peter says that. Paul writes things that are HARD to. be understood and Peter is not our Apostle

You say that only Paul wrote to the body of Christ therefore we are the body and not the Jewish believers,

Colossians 1:24 I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church, NKJV

Paul said that His body is the church.

Matthew 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. NKJV

Jesus told Peter that he would build His church on Peter's statement. Then He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Giving Peter the keys means that He made Peter the chief steward over His entire church, which is His body. The rest of His disciples were lesser stewards over His kingdom. Peter and the other disciples were in charge of His entire church.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. NKJV

The 11 apostles were told to make disciples in all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They were to teach the nations to observe all things that Jesus commanded them. Everything that they (Peter, Mathew and John) taught, they were to teach to the church composed of all nations.

Dan Perez said:
And we were CHOSEN. // ELECTED before the OVER THREW. OF THE WORLD in Eph 1:4. !!

And we were PLACED INTO CHRIST. in 1 COR. 12:13. !!

AND IN. 1 Cor. 12:15-17 we. are CHRISTS FEET , HIS HANDS , WE ARE HIS EYES , ARE HIS EARS , His SENSE OF HEARING

and his SENSE OF SENSE ''

It mes we are CHRIST !!

Christ is God. Are we Gods? Will we sit at the right hand of the Father?

Dan Perez said:
AND 1 JOHN 3:22 and 23 IS NOT THE BODY OF CHRIST as 1 John is. WRITTEN to ISRAEL. and not to the

BODY OF CHRIST. and I will say you. are following , what yet in. the FUTURE , like the GREAT. TRIUBATION !!

Just wondering , just. who. taught you about. 1 John 3:22 and 23 , just. asking. ??

The word of God has been my teacher. I do not hold to your doctrine that the only apostle that I am to be taught by is Paul. So, you say that gentile believers do not need to obey 1John 3:22-23?

I find it almost impossible to read and understand what you write?

Dan Perez · 2025-11-14T13:37:42-0600

Abraham1st said:
John addresses the book to the world, then a division is also made, because the world dd not know Him, and He came to His own, (according to the flesh. Romans 1:3.) and His own received Him not.

But as many as received Him, (which is when the Spirit was given, after that Jesus was glorified.) to THEM HE GAVE POWER TO BECOME THE SONS OF GOD, EVEN TO THEM WHICH BELIEVE ON HIS NAME, not born of flesh and blood, not born by that will, of man, BUT OF GOD.

John Baptist testifies how we ALL RECEIVED OF HIS FULNESS, and grace for grace. The law given by Moses is not the fulness, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
As no man which includes Moses, ( Exodus 33:20.) has seen God at any time, the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, which is IN THE BOSOM of the Father, He has DECLARED Him. (THIS IS THE RECORD OF JOHN, when the JEWS SENT PRIESTS AND LEVITES FROM JERUSALEM TO ASK HIM, WHO HE WAS.)

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.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Exodus 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?

Now Nicodemus a ruler of the Jews comes to Jesus by night calling Jesus Rabbi, and that they know through the miracles Jesus did, that He was A TEACHER, come from God, and that God was with Him. ( which is not faith)

Jesus immediately answering tells Nicodemus that unless a man is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. ( which is faith)

Jesus speaks the words of the Father (which is in Him) that a man has to be born of water and of the Spirit, to enter the kingdom of God.

Jesus, ( according to what was already told in John 1:12-13.) separates being born of the flesh, from being born of the Spirit.

(By faith) so is every one that is born of the Spirit, as we ALL hear the sound of the wind ( as we ALL received of His fulness/heard the words. John 1:16-17. Romans 10:18.) but cannot tell ( cannot believe) where it comes, and where it goes.

Nicodemus cannot HEAR the words of faith, and Jesus, TRULY, TRULY, said unto him, that they SPEAK THAT THEY DO KNOW, and TESTIFY WHAT THEY HAVE SEEN, and they RECEIVE NOT THEIR WITNESS. ( He came unto HIs own, and His own RECEIVED HIM NOT. John 1:11. But as many as received Him, to them He gave power to become the sons of God, even to them that BELIEVE ON HIS NAME, which were not born of the flesh, but of God. John 1:12-13.)

Jesus testifies that Nicodemus DID NOT BELIEVE, (of the earthly testimony) and then how shall they BELIEVE if He tells them the HEAVENLY TESTIMONY.

No man has ascended up to heaven, BUT HE WHICH CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN, EVEN THE SON OF MAN, which IS IN HEAVEN.

And as Moses LIFTED UP the serpent in the wilderness, EVEN SO MUST THE SON OF MAN BE LIFTED UP, that WHOSOEVER BELIEVES ON HIM, should not perish, but have eternal life.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

John 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Peter and the apostles speak to Israel, and tell them how they are ALL WITNESSES, and they speak freely to them of the patriarch David, BOTH DEAD AND BURIED.

David knew that God had sworn to him with an OATH, that of the fruit of his loins ( ACCORDING TO THE FLESH) He would RAISE UP Christ to sit on his throne.

David SAW THIS BEFORE, speaking of the RESURRECTION of Christ, for his sou not to be left in hell, neither his FLESH TO SEE CORRUPTION.

Peter and the apostles being witnesses of the RESURRECTION of Jesus by God, testify how He being by the right hand of God exalted, ( ASCENDED ON HIGH. Psalm 68:18.) RECEIVED OF THE FATHER THE PROMISE OF THE HOLY GHOST.)

For David IS NOT ASCENDED INTO THE EHAVENS, ( no man has ascended up to heaven, but He which came down from heaven, even the SON OF MAN WHICH IS N HEAVEN. John 3:13.) but said, THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, SIT YOU ON MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES YOUR FOOTSTOOL.

THEREFORE, let ALL THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL KNOW ASSUREDLY, that Go has MADE the same Jesus, WHO THEY CRUCIFIED, both LORD AND CHRIST. ( the Lord saying to my Lord/BOTH LORD AND CHRIST.)

Wherefore He said, When He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, and GAVE GIFTS UNTO MEN. (NOW, THAT HE ASCENDED, what is it but that He ALSO DESCENDED FIRST INTO THE LOWER PARTS OF THE EARTH?)

(HE THAT DESCENDED IS THE SAME ALSO THAT ASCENDED UP FAR ABOVE ALL HEAVENS, THAT HE MIGHT FILL ALL THINGS.)

Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Psalm 68:18 Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: THOU HAST RECEIVED GIFTS FOR MEN; yea, for the rebellious also, THAT THE LORD MIGHT DWELL AMONG THEM.

Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

Jesus in the last day, that great day of the FEAST, stood and CRIED, IF ANY MAN THIRST, LET HIM COME UNTO ME AND DRINK, he that BELIEVES ON ME, as the scripture HAS SAID, out of HIs belly shall flow RIVERS OF LIVING WATER. ( this He spoke of the Spirit, which they that BELIEVE ON HIM SHOULD RECEIVE, for the Holy Ghost was given when Jesus was glorified.)

When they came to Jesus and SAW THAT HE WAS DEAD ALREADY, they BROKE NOT HIS LEGS, but one of the soldiers with a spear PIERCED HIS SIDE, and right away there CAME OUT BLOOD AND WATER. (THESE THINGS WERE DONE, THAT YOU MIGHT BELIEVE, THAT THE SCRIPTURE SHOULD BE FULFILLED, A BONE OF HIM SHALL NOT BE BROKEN, AND AGAIN, THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHO THEY PIERCED.

Psalm 34:20 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.

Isaiah 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Zechariah 14:8 And it shall be IN THAT DAY, that living waters shall GO OUT FROM JERUSALEM; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

John 19:33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

Luke 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

Apostle Paul likewise addresses the faith AMONG ALL NATIONS, of God, concerning HIs Son Jesus Christ OUR LORD, made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and DECLARED TO BE THE SON OF GOD WITH POWER. ( GAVE POWER TO THOSE WHO RECEIVED HIM TO BECCOME THE SONS OF GOD, EVEN TO THEM WHICH BELIEVE ON IS NAME.) whom they RECEIVED GRACE ( GRACE FOR GRACE) and apostteship for OBEDIENCE TO THE FAITH AMONG ALL NATINS FOR HIS NAME.

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

And will quote on only on. Rom 1:1 Paul a called. apostle having SEPARATED. //. APHORIZO. and this GREEK word'

means means that PAUL was LIMITED to only PREACH Gods GOSPEL. ONLY. !! The rest does apply. to Paul. !!

dan p

Jermayn · 2025-11-14T13:36:37-0600

MOD HAT

This thread.....is clean

Please be sure to read the SOP for this forum and refrain from calling
members of political parties communists, fascists, or any other label
that they do not publicly identify themselves as.

SabbathBlessings · 2025-11-14T13:21:40-0600

Bob S said:
Why is it that God didn't reveal the seventh-day Sabbath command to any other nation? There is no historical indication that the Aztecs, the Aborigines, the Asians, the Celts, and all others were ever instructed to observe rituals given to Israel. Could it be that the seventh-day Sabbath was only for Israel???? I believe we have scriptural evidence that it was only for Old Covenant Israel.

In the Sabbath commandment there was always a provision for everyone (stranger within your gate) Exo20:8-11 The Scriptures recorded as being given directly from God said that the Sabbath was made for humanity (including Gentiles) Mark2:27 Isa56:6-7 which we see the fulfillment in the NC with both Jews and Gentiles coming together every Sabbath, as Jesus said His house is for all nations- those who keep His covenant Isa 56:6 and we see this clearly in the NC almost all cities coming together hear the word of God Acts 13:42 Acts 13:44 Acts 18:4

If the Sabbath is only for Jews, means only they will be saved, but according to Jesus He says all flesh will come before Him to continue in the New Heaven and New Earth for Sabbath worship Isa66:22-23. God made the Sabbath at Creation for all humanity Exo20:11 Mark2:27.

Sadly, not everyone accepts His blessings Isa56:2 and sanctification Eze20:12 and He won't force it on us. But I do not see how we can sanctify ourselves, its not something Scripture says we can Isa66:17 we need God Eze20:12 Eze20:20 Exo20:11

RamiC · 2025-11-14T13:16:56-0600

calicocat said:
FDR (who was tied to weird Jewish beliefs by buddy Stephen Wise**) did four terms.

It is difficult to study this man without wanting to strangle him.

I believe FDR was the reason that the people of the USA decided to restrict the number of times a person could run. He was in office at the time, and therefore the two term limit did not apply.

Here it is "The amendment has its roots in concerns raised after President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to four terms in office between 1932 and 1944. Roosevelt went against an unwritten precedent set by George Washington that limited presidents to serving a maximum of two full terms, or eight years. Roosevelt cited the need for stabile leadership during the World War II era to justify his additional terms." The 22nd Amendment and Presidential Service Beyond Two Terms | Constitution Center

Richard T · 2025-11-14T13:14:06-0600

Larniavc said:
Chiropractic is based on the idea that mystical energy called Vital Intelligence is guided by the manipulation of the spine as the practitioner directs this energy with twists and cracking motions.

The actual supernatural entity chiropractic appeals to is never disclosed.

Yes, there are some that have some kind of spiritual base and it is not jesus. There are some Christian Chiropractors though and I think the school and personal beliefs may be different for some? Studies have shown that lower back pain is significantly helped by chiropractors. Since a Few D.O.'s treat patients similarily with adjustments, I doubt they have the mystical notions as they study as much as a M.D.

Leaf473 · 2025-11-14T13:09:32-0600

FredVB said:
Leviticus 23 is about the appointed feast to Israel. Involvement requires being made ritually clean, and for some things in it being circumcised in the covenant with Yahweh is needed.

The seventh day is a day of complete rest, so I see that is to be encouraged. Some gather and that Sabbath day is good for it, including the end of Friday at evening. However with being vulnerable as I am, I only go online to watch and hear biblical teaching being done then.

Sounds good! Now... Is it an instruction in the New Covenant? Or more like a suggestion, as it looks to you?

Richard T · 2025-11-14T13:09:14-0600

Michie said:
Podcast weighs pros, cons of reported Trump administration plan

Is a half-century investment in owning your home worth it?

Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte announced this week that the Trump administration is working on a novel approach to the home affordability crisis: a 50-year mortgage.

The still-unofficial proposal builds off of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s introduction of the 30-year mortgage under the New Deal and could offer more homebuyers the opportunity to qualify for financing.

Still, critics point out that given the average U.S. life expectancy of 78.4 years, the average 32-year-old homebuyer is more likely to leave the mortgage for their children to pay off than to leave them a home free and clear.

Pastor Mark Driscoll, senior pastor of Trinity Church in Scottsdale, Arizona, took on the topic in a Nov. 11 episode of his podcast titled “Trump 50-Year Mortgage is a GREAT Idea,” in which Driscoll and Landon Chase, real estate agent and CEO of Driscoll’s Real Faith Ministries, talked about the merits of such a proposal.

Continued below.

I think it is a terrible idea both biblically and practically. The borrower is slave to the lender. So a 50 year mortgage institutionalizes this even further. Longer duration mortgages command HIGHER interest rates. A 15 year mortgage is cheaper than a 30 years by a half percent. By extending the mortgage to 50 years, it will qualify more buyers at current prices. However, sellers will raise prices. so they will likely pay more for the house.

Currently a 30 year mortgage is running around 6.3 percent. So after the fees and the likely rise in the 50 year spread, you would need 7% on your investment to break even . That is possible to beat over 50 years but it would take discipline and it is not guaranteed.

I think too that 50 year mortgages are going to require even more government backing. Why? because banks don't trust the federal government to hold inflation and interest rates down. that is why even now many mortgages are run through Fannie Mae, USDA, and HUD. So more government intervention in the market is a bad idea as well.

Though I do not always agree with Dave Ramsey a Christian financial profession, (not a Pastor with a degree in communications) I checked his sentiments and they mirror mine though he goes into even more detail.

What Is a 50-Year Mortgage?

What is a 50-year mortgage? Why are people taking them out and what are the pros and cons?

www.ramseysolutions.com

RamiC · 2025-11-14T13:08:10-0600

"You’re warmly invited this November, for the International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church (IDOP), to stand with the persecuted church in a dedicated 12 hours of prayer."

Date: Saturday, 15 November
Time: 8am-8pm - GMT (drop in for any session)
Location: Open Doors UK&I Headquarters, Witney, Oxfordshire
Online: One-hour prayer session (7-8pm) GMT

link - UK Open Doors for Persecuted Christians - IDOP Prayer Vigil

2PhiloVoid · 2025-11-14T13:04:35-0600

johansen said:
i'm not sure its foolishness at all.

yes, there will be unforeseen consequences. being born on this earth is bad enough, but being born and finding out at say, 20-40 years of age that you're sterile because your parents did some genetic experimentation on you to make you smarter, well, you're going to have to go take anger management classes...

I'm actually surprised I didn't get totally banned for a mild but interesting argument with an old man on reddit who felt personally offended in a thread where I predicted that the ever increasing number of vaccines are going to cause significant unforeseen consequences on the order of 100 to 200 years from now.

Personally, I assess all forms of Trans-humanism as another form of religion, and they are 'designed' to compete with the Christian faith.

Of course, as with most things, I await the entrance of the futuristic brainiacs who think they're going to prove me wrong.

The Barbarian · 2025-11-14T12:57:45-0600

o_mlly said:
So you have not observed a speciation event but now claim others have.

I've never observed nuclear fusion in the lab, either. But like macroevolution, scientists have observed it.

o_mlly said:
Certainly words mean things. But words that tell us nothing new are meaningless tautologies.

"Macroevolution" means the evolution of new species. If that seems meaningless to you, we've located the problem.

2PhiloVoid · 2025-11-14T12:52:27-0600

dms1972 said:
What is the difference between these two groups? I've been in churches, and had elders trying to instruct me, and they claim to be Evangelical, but I think they are closer to Fundamentalist.

Here a couple of things that makes me think they are fundamentalist, they seemed to not agree with and tried to steer me away from modern paraphrases like JB Phillip's Letters to Young Churches. They try to steer me away from pop/rock music, and some CCM. In their favor I suppose I could score them for showing an interest to get me on the what they believe to be the right path as it were. But its their claim to be evangelical? Maybe they are and maybe JB Phillips is questionable for some in the evangelical community? But I get the feeling a lot of stuff is going to be off limits for me if I submit to these churches. I like to know where they are coming from, what in their view can and can't do, listen to, read etc. as some groups can be extreme in what they regard as worldly.

Is there anything in particular that distinguishes Evangelicals from Fundamentalists?

Yes. One point of difference is that Fundamentalists tend toward a sort of interpretive reductionism resulting in a more legalisitic or rigid form of literal theologizing.

By contrast, Evangelicals, while also tending to hold firm to certain theological ideas that Fundamentalists hold to, tend toward a more contextualized sensibility, and this sensibility can loosen up the process of theologizing and places evangelicals on a small spectrum or range of interpretive readings of the inspired Bible. Like Fundamentalists (e.g. Church of Christ, Independent Baptist, etc.), Evangelicals will vary with each other in their general readings between denonominations, but overall will still hold a conservative political position and still see the Bible as inspired or even inerrant and do so without 'selling out' to much more liberal tendencies.

The Barbarian · 2025-11-14T12:47:40-0600

9Rock9 said:
Mytho-history is a theory that claims Genesis should not be understood literallt (or at least not literally in the modern sense.) instead, it is largely a figurative account that expresses important theological truths and to establish Yahweh as the one true God vs the pagan religions of the Ancient World.

That makes some sense. The literary structure of Genesis 1-3 is polemic. It's an overt rejection of a bits-and-pieces creation by various deities, instead acknowledging one Creator.

The opening chapter of the Bible, Genesis 1, is one of the most debated and cherished texts in the Judeo-Christian tradition. For centuries, it has been read as a straightforward account of God creating the universe in six literal days. However, modern biblical scholarship, informed by ancient Near Eastern (ANE) literature and cultural context, suggests a richer, more complex interpretation. Genesis 1 is best understood as a theological polemic against the cosmologies of surrounding nations, a depiction of the cosmos as God’s temple, and a functional rather than material creation account. This interpretation not only aligns with the historical and literary context of the text but also reveals its profound theological purpose: to proclaim the sovereignty of the one true God over creation and to orient humanity toward worship and stewardship.
This article explores these three interpretive lenses—polemic, cosmic temple, and functional creation—while addressing why a literal, material creation reading may miss the text’s deeper intent. By examining the ANE context, the literary structure of Genesis 1, and its theological implications, we will uncover how Genesis 1 communicates timeless truths about God, creation, and humanity’s role in the world.

Genesis 1: A Polemic, Cosmic Temple, and Functional Creation

The opening chapter of the Bible, Genesis 1, is one of the most debated and cherished texts in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

kameronmazurek.substack.com

CoreyD · 2025-11-14T12:46:14-0600

Job 33:6 said:
And what are your thoughts on how the teledoths noted above do not give history, but continue the story? Such as with Noah's children being born, followed by the story of Noah's ark?

Genesis 5:30-32 ESV
[30] Lamech lived after he fathered Noah 595 years and had other sons and daughters. [31] Thus all the days of Lamech were 777 years, and he died. [32] After Noah was 500 years old, Noah fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

So we see the historical geneologies leading up to Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japeth.

Genesis 6:5-8 ESV
[5] The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. [6] And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. [7] So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” [8] But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Then we see the flood story introduced by wickedness of the world.

Genesis 6:9-14 ESV
[9] These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. [10] And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

We have our teledoth. And reference to the birth of Noah's sons as in the end of chapter 5.

[11] Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. [12] And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. [13] And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth. [14] Make yourself an ark of gopher wood. Make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch.

Then the story continues into the future. After the sons were born.

So chapter 6 begins where chapter 5 ends. And chapter 6 is a continuation into the future.

Do you want to bypass Genesis 1, and 2?
No. We will not do that, and run off on a long argument to counter your ideas again J.
Genesis 1:9-13
9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of the waters He called “seas”; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout [j]vegetation, [k]plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit according to [l]their kind [m]with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth produced [n]vegetation, [o]plants yielding seed according to [p]their kind, and trees bearing fruit [q]with seed in them, according to [r]their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

It's not a continuation. for two reason:

A historical or genealogical record is from the distant past right up to the present.
Genesis 2:5, 6 says.... 5 Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant of the field sprouted, for the LORD God had not yet sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But springs welled up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1, by saying that after vegetation and trees... including a fully flourishing Garden, there was no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, because the LORD God had not yet sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
Rather, Genesis 2 compliments Genesis 1, by giving a historical account of some of the events that are reported in Genesis 1.

You'll have to work out Genesis 6:9-14, and the others, on your own.
I can see it's difficult for you, but that's due to your thinking.
What can help, is asking questions, rather than forming an idea, when you read something, and than running with that idea, and basing everything else on it.

One good question you can ask yourself, is.
When did Noah walk with God, and have three sons... prior to Genesis 6:9, or subsequent?
If that still does not correct your thinking, then asking me to do that... I'll have an even harder time.
I had an experience with a strong-willed person, and I can tell you, it's one of he hardest things for me to have a conversation with that person.

New Posts

New Posts

✅ Can the high water content and silicates in low-level pyramid casing stones be explained by groundwater and capillary rise?​

1. Evidence that groundwater reached or influenced the pyramid bases​

1.1 Geological surveys show historical high water tables near the pyramid base​

2. Evidence of capillary rise in the Giza limestones​

2.1 Tura limestone (the casing stone material) is highly microporous​

2.2 Field observations confirm capillary staining on casing blocks​

3. Evidence that groundwater altered the geochemistry of these stones​

3.1 Silica precipitation and amorphous coatings on lower stones​

3.2 Identical alteration is documented in the Sphinx enclosure​

4. Evidence of long-term moisture cycling affecting the casing​

4.1 Salt efflorescence recorded on lower pyramid blocks​

4.2 Mechanical degradation patterns align with moisture flow​

5. Why this matters for the “reconstituted stone” hypothesis​

✅ Conclusion: Yes — groundwater and capillary rise completely explain the features observed in lower casing stones​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

✅ Can the high water content and silicates in low-level pyramid casing stones be explained by groundwater and capillary rise?

1. Evidence that groundwater reached or influenced the pyramid bases

1.1 Geological surveys show historical high water tables near the pyramid base

2. Evidence of capillary rise in the Giza limestones

2.1 Tura limestone (the casing stone material) is highly microporous

2.2 Field observations confirm capillary staining on casing blocks

3. Evidence that groundwater altered the geochemistry of these stones

3.1 Silica precipitation and amorphous coatings on lower stones

3.2 Identical alteration is documented in the Sphinx enclosure

4. Evidence of long-term moisture cycling affecting the casing

4.1 Salt efflorescence recorded on lower pyramid blocks

4.2 Mechanical degradation patterns align with moisture flow

5. Why this matters for the “reconstituted stone” hypothesis

✅ Conclusion: Yes — groundwater and capillary rise completely explain the features observed in lower casing stones