Jacques More

3 days and 3 nights The sabbath at the Passover is a “high sabbath” (John 19:31). This means another days was held as the Sabbath - the Thursday” as well as the normal “Saturday” sabbath during this feast. The Friday was thereby okay to prepare the spices in. Jesus died on Wednesday. He arose Sunday morning. See here: eaec.org/bibleanswers

I’m sorry, genuinely asking but i thought Jesus died on a Friday afternoon. Going by that and the fact that he resurrected 3 days after, aren’t we meant to be celebrating Easter on Monday and not Sunday?

I am happy that we are going to the moon again. I am excited that the disposable rocket system being used now has not much longer to live as a system: so wasteful! But we have to get out there and do so safely. Artemis 2 is our first attempt at doing it again in too many decades,but it is being done visibly. Not just robots, but real humans out there now: good. I can’t wait for Starship to fly again on the next step to full re-usable rockets for amazing progress in space.

@AdamMerrivale @samhailes 🙂

I think the best response to this update is to pray earnestly for a revival that's so noisy that we won't need a YouGov survey to tell us it's happening

-76.4C in Antarctica yesterday! The coldest ever recorded there in March. Wow!

When Jesus was crucified I remember reading of the women who cried in the crowds on his way there and of the women present and of the men that mocked him there.  But I was struck today by how a great many more were upset overall and not just the centurion who recognised this was a righteous man. “And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned.” Luke 23:48 KJV “And the whole crowd who came together to that sight, seeing what had been done, beat their breasts and returned.” Luke 23:48 NKJV “And all the crowds who came together for this spectacle, after watching what had happened, began to return home, beating their chests.” Luke 23:48

@CherylSchatz My view on Romans 9:15 in context Definitely not Calvinism jarom.net/unrighteousnes…

Regarding Romans 9:15 It is unwarranted to assume that Paul is speaking about election to salvation in Romans 9:15. The verse clearly echoes the Old Testament moment when Moses asks to see God’s glory. God denies him a full view of His face, yet mercifully allows him to see His back as He passes by. The point is not salvation, but God’s freedom to show mercy and compassion according to His purposes. This includes choosing individuals or a nation for specific roles in His redemptive plan, such as participation in the lineage of the Messiah. As Jack Contrell notes, given the wide range of meanings these terms carry, many unrelated to salvation, it is presumptuous to assume Paul is using them here to describe election unto salvation. Rather, the emphasis is on God’s sovereign right to deal with Israel as He wills, including sparing them and continuing to work through them in His redemptive purposes. "In view of the broad array of meanings for all the words involved here, including many that are not related to salvation, it is presumptuous to assume that Paul is using them in Romans 9:15 to refer to election to salvation." Cottrell, J. W., Pinnock, C. H., Reymond, R. L., Talbott, T. B., & Ware, B. A. (2006). Perspectives on election: five views (C. O. Brand, Ed.; p. 130). Broadman & Holman Publishers. "Such an analysis shows that, when God says in this text that he will be gracious to and show compassion upon whomever he chooses, his statement has nothing to do with choosing anyone for salvation, temporal or eternal. Rather, he is declaring his right to do as he chooses with the nation of Israel. In this case he is exercising this right by sovereignly choosing to spare them as a nation and to continue to use them in his redemptive plan.215 215 See Forster and Marston, God’s Strategy, 65–66." Cottrell, J. W., Pinnock, C. H., Reymond, R. L., Talbott, T. B., & Ware, B. A. (2006). Perspectives on election: five views (C. O. Brand, Ed.; p. 131). Broadman & Holman Publishers.

@ReformedDoc Nope, little ones and babies have innocent blood the scripture is clear on that. “have filled this place with the blood of the innocents” Jeremiah 19:4b

People don't choose to go to hell. We are all born on our way to hell. Jesus is the off ramp!

@ReformedDoc Dead men are in graves or cremated, etc. Living men however also have a spirit from God: all of them, so a measure of living spirit life is in every man (Job 32:8; Isaiah 42:5; et al)

@ReformedDoc Except for the fact that every man already has been given a (living) spirit by God: “But there is a spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty gives him understanding.” Job 32:8

Nope, it is the departure from the scripture read in context and well translated that is the reason for hate; nothing more. The early church certainly did not believe in this warped view of sovereignty (as per Calvinism): they universally taught free will. See here: jarom.net/greekdad.php

The most hated doctrine is the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God, because it asserts that free will does not exist.

The scripture is clear that Jesus’ blood paid for all right here: “For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.” Colossians 1:19-20

Jesus did not die for all men, but all believers. No verse includes all men. That is conjecture not scripture. Died for His Sheep

@AnomalyBlessed Actually EKLEKTOS is mistranslated as “elect” and as “chosen”. See here: m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gak1AX…

Did you know? There is no verse in scripture that uses: • “non‑elect” • “nonelect” • “not elect” • “not chosen” (as a theological category) • “the unelect” • “the non‑predestined” The Bible never labels a group with a term that is the opposite of “elect.” Scripture does use these terms frequently: • ἐκλεκτός — “elect, chosen” • ἐκλογή — “election” • ἐκλέγομαι — “to choose” Examples: • Matthew 24:22, 24, 31 — “the elect” • Romans 8:33 — “God’s elect” • Colossians 3:12 — “elect of God” • 1 Peter 1:1–2 — “elect… according to the foreknowledge of God” But Scripture **never** uses the opposite term. Even when describing unbelievers, rebels, or the perishing, the Bible never says they are “non‑elect.” Election is always: • corporate (“in Christ,” Eph 1:4) • vocational (chosen for something) • covenantal (belonging to God’s people) Never: • a label for who is excluded And even ἀδόκιμος (“disapproved,” “reprobate”) in passages like Romans 1:28 is: • moral • experiential • descriptive of behavior It is **not** the opposite of “elect.” The NT consistently frames election as: • a status found only “in Christ” • a group identity • a purpose‑driven calling Don't you find that interesting?

I believe there is no T at the beginning of every life. All have a measure of the Spirit of God in that God gives a spirit to every man. But this spirit is embryonic and not fully formed. So that we read that God forms the spirit of man within him (Zechariah 12:1). As to all being given a spirit there are a number of passages like Job 32:8, Isaiah 42:5; et al See here: jarom.net/SpiritInMan.php (btw Ephesians 2:1 says the opposite in the Greek than “dead in sin”; it is dead whilst sinning) All are afore prepared as vessels of mercy (Romans 9:22-23)…

Question for those who are not Calvinists. Not a debate, please. Just trying to gain clarity. I am reading some anti Calvinist works that talk about prevenient grace. A specific type of grace that draw people to God, more of a “cooperating” grace with human will. My question is: does God give the same measure of grace to all people? Because I’ve heard “I pray for my lost friends so that God will continue to draw them.” I find this interesting because wouldn’t that mean God is more intentional with some people in dispensing grace? I also don’t understand why this doesn’t lead to universalism, because if God is actively drawing people (I understand it’s not irresistible) but, why would they reject Gods calling? If man isn’t totally depraved, are some people just more prone to evil than others? And then how does this not fall back on God who created them this way? I’m just feeing stumped and not understanding.

@Math_files I love this. I was recently musing about such a type of experiment just for the sake of learning more about gravity. I am so glad to learn it has been done already…

In 1798, a scientist effectively “weighed” the Earth — without leaving his laboratory. The English scientist Henry Cavendish designed an incredibly sensitive experiment. Inside a quiet wooden shed, he hung a horizontal rod from a very thin wire. Two small lead spheres were attached to the ends of the rod. Nearby, he placed two much larger lead balls. Because of gravity, the large spheres slightly pulled the smaller ones. The force was extremely tiny — so small that the rod twisted by only a minute fraction of a degree. Yet that tiny twist held a big secret. By carefully measuring this small movement, Cavendish determined the strength of the gravitational attraction between objects. From this, scientists could calculate the mass of the entire Earth. His estimate was remarkably close. Cavendish calculated Earth’s mass to be about 6 × 10²⁴ kilograms, while modern measurements give 5.97 × 10²⁴ kilograms. Sometimes the biggest discoveries come from measuring the smallest forces.

@elonmusk Good job.

To support the people of Japan and show that it was safe to visit. Most people in America at the time were afraid to travel to Japan, due to a misplaced fear of radiation.

“But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.” James 3:17-18

No Hannah, You have not answered. I have asked several times questions you have not replied to. I have hijacked nothing. Presentism involves open theism (if you wish to call it that modern term). It was called divine nescience in the 19th century. Thoroughly part of the whole counsel of God in scripture.

I answered you already, you may scroll back. I am no longer interacting. You are throwing proof texts out, and I have made clear I won't be cornered to accept Open Theism simply because you think you have a "gotcha verse" I lean on the whole counsel of God's words, not just one proof text. When I present my beliefs, you accuse me of leaning on ideology outside the Bible. You are not interested in a conversation with me, you are interested in spreading your opinions in regards to God not being immutable, not being sovereign, and being responsive to humanity rather than in control of it. You have completely high jacked this whole thread, I wanted a conversation about externalism vs presentism and you decided to have a conversation about Open Theism. While Open Theism could be explored within the philosophical realm of presentism, you did not go that route.

I have always been very fascinated by the scientific theories surrounding time and have read some books on the subject. I’m not an expert, but I have been thinking a lot about time this week. Eternalism (block universe) is supported by relativity this view suggests all points in time (past, present, future) are equally real, existing within a 4D spacetime continuum. Presentism: This view argues that only the current, passing moment is real. Quantum Perspective: At the quantum level, some theories suggest that time does not exist in the conventional sense, as fundamental equations do not depend on it. I have always leaned towards time being an illusion, but I also find block theory to make a great deal of sense that the past, present, and future are all existing at the same time. (There’s plenty of other theories, some more supported than others, with what we know about relativity, I do find eternalism to fit the best.)

@EruditeTogether @rootcausesleuth So Hannah, Did God choose a king (before the exodus) or not?

@EruditeTogether @rootcausesleuth He doesn’t (referring to psalm 139:16) Check out here as you are quoting a mistranslation: jarom.net/ps139.16.php btw I never mentioned nor alluded to Adam in any part of our exchange (if I am recalling accurately)

@EruditeTogether @rootcausesleuth As for dying before their time: “Do not be overly wicked, nor be foolish: Why should you die before your time?” Ecclesiastes 7:17 “wicked men . . . cut down before their time…” Job 22:15-16 “Bloodthirsty and deceitful men shall not live out half their days” Psalms 55:23