James Ash

Bullish data centers. Bullish $CRWV $NBIS $IREN

@Dr_Crossroads I pray every company gets FOMO from their success and builds on Ethereum

$HOOD This has been an incredibly successful start for the Robinhood Chain.

@DudeWhoInvests $CRWV

If you had $5,000 to BUY THE DIP on Monday at market open… What stocks are you going out and buying?

@FunOfInvesting $CRWV is the right answer

Fun fact of the day: $CRWV and $RKLB are the same valuation. Two very different names in very different sectors with no overlaps other than they're both retail favorite names. If you owned neither, which would you want to own here? Is there even a correct answer to this?

@Dr_Crossroads There are so many amazing companies to invest in right now - not enough money to put everywhere though. $CRWV and $BMNR are my top two conviction plays for the next 3 years though

$HOOD The Robinhood Chain is not only killing it in TVL, volume, and users, but also printing money. Since June 10th, they've not had a single day under $100k in fees and just made $261k yesterday. Since June 10th (small sample size warning since the chain just launched), that's an ARR over $60m. Already. And this is during crypto winter.

@TJTheWheelDeal $ETH $BMNR $NBIS $CRWV

If we sold $SOFI at say $20 to make the community happy, where would you move the $?! Where would you put $5M for the surest double in 2 to 3 years?!

@Dr_Crossroads @wallstengine

$CRWV Me as a CoreWeave investor: "Nice reversal! Let's go!" Them: "Zoom out." Me: "I don't want to."

@MrBeast 17,123,456

First person to reply with the exact number of pennies in this room win $10,000

@Badie912 @hamptonism I’d add one of the neoclouds to this list as well

@hamptonism $pltr $hood $bmnr

Palantir.

@TJTheWheelDeal I buy monthly. Mostly $ETH though

All of these $BTC posts, but I only see me and Valerie buying daily still. Mike Alfred owns a lot of $BTC supposedly as well. Why is everyone else so excited?

@BMNRTracker I disagree. Max pain until 5% is achieved. Then we worry about buybacks. It makes the most sense - just need shareholders to understand the vision

I’m honestly not that worried about the mNAV recovering. We have seen $BMNR climb from 1.00 mNAV to 1.20 in a single week in the past. We have also seen it go from 0.90 back to 1.00 in the span of 2 days. If this $ETH run is real, it will take $BMNR much higher. There will be plenty of 10-20% days ahead if this is truly the start of our next run. But I still think it would be great to get some shares off the market at this level regardless. For the shareholders. Buying more $ETH does not help the shareholders. We are already heavily leveraged toward $ETH. At a 17% discount to NAV, buying back shares would be significantly more valuable to us shareholders. Taking shares off the open market for a 17% discount sounds a lot better than buying more $ETH at this point. We can buy more $ETH and reach the alchemy at a later date when mNAV is 1.30 and $BMNR is $50 a share (accretive). By that point we would barely need to issue any shares to raise the remaining capital. It is much easier to raise capital when the value of a single share is $50 than when it is $15. Just my thoughts.

@TJTheWheelDeal I’m buying more $BMNR tomorrow

Bought $AMZN, $BMNR, $BMNU, $MSTR and $PLTR shares today bc I love pain and the desire of Gain!! Did you make any moves today or just hide under a rock?

@TedPillows $ETH

Bitcoin or Ethereum?

ChatGPT told me to invest in the Anthropic IPO over OpenAI. I had the same thought.

@AZbroker @DataDInvesting I never used AI. You never answered my question

You didnt answer, you pasted AI slop. I can do that too...and this info on Marys Hymen debate is top notch, why dont they teach this in sunday school? We are not talking Sumo we are talking anatomy. If your Jesus cant break a Hymen and the Mormon Jesus can it seems they are different Jesus, is that what you are saying? -- I think that is the lesson, you cannot know if heresy or not. The centuries following show what great errors were perpetuated? =========================================How Mary's Virginity in Childbirth was Defined The Core Motivation 1st - 2nd Cent.Literal, physical verification via apocryphal midwife examinations.Proving Jesus had a real, physical, fleshly birth against Gnostics.3rd - 5th Cent.High-level philosophical debate over the "opening of the womb."Elevating celibacy and monasticism as the ultimate spiritual states.6th - 16th Cent.Absolute, dogmatic law ("Light passing through a window").Institutional consolidation of Marian devotion and papal authority.20th - 21st Cent.Shifting from biological "intactness" to spiritual, painless metaphor.Protecting ancient dogma while attempting to survive modern medical science.The timeline of the "Mary's hymen debate"—known formally in theology as virginitas in partu (virginity during childbirth)—is one of the most intense, visually graphic, and polarizing controversies in Christian history.While the general public is familiar with the idea that Mary was a virgin before conceiving Jesus, the debate over whether her hymen remained structurally intact during the physical delivery created a massive battleground over the mechanics of the Incarnation. Here is the chronological timeline of how this debate transformed from a 1st-century graphic biological proof into modern psychological and metaphorical re-interpretations.📜 Phase 1: 1st to 2nd Century – The Biological Proof & The Midwife Tests In the earliest decades of Christianity, the focus was strictly on the miraculous conception (virginitas ante partu). The New Testament Gospels (Matthew and Luke) are completely silent on the physical details of the birth itself. However, by the mid-to-late 2nd century, early Christians felt immense pressure to prove that Jesus didn’t just look human, but was actually, physically born, while simultaneously protecting Mary’s ultimate purity. c. A.D. 145 – The Protoevangelium of James: This highly influential, apocryphal text introduces the physical debate with jaw-dropping, graphic detail. It tells the story of a midwife named Salome who refuses to believe Mary gave birth as a virgin. Salome performs a physical, internal pelvic examination on Mary to test her anatomical intactness. The text states that upon doing so, Salome’s hand physically catches fire as a punishment for her doubt, confirming that Mary's hymen miraculously survived the birth completely unaltered. The Function: At this point in history, the hymen was treated as a literal, physical "seal of security." Early apologists used this narrative to beat back Gnostic heretics who claimed Jesus was just a phantom spirit who didn't have a real, fleshly birth.🏛️ Phase 2: 3rd to 5th Century – The "Opened Womb" Debate & The Magic Window As theology became more professionalized and influenced by Greek philosophy, church fathers began arguing over whether a perfectly intact hymen was logically compatible with a real physical birth. c. A.D. 230 – Origen’s "No Hymen Required" Stance: Origen, the brilliant Alexandrian theologian, hit a major snag. He noted that Luke’s Gospel quotes the Old Testament saying, "Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy." Origen argued that Jesus did physically "open" Mary’s womb, meaning the birth was a normal, physical delivery that disrupted her physical intactness. For Origen, Mary’s virginity meant she never had sex, not that her anatomy was magically frozen. c. A.D. 390 – Ambrose and Jerome Retaliate: St. Ambrose and St. Jerome fiercely rejected Origen's view. With the rise of monasticism and the exaltation of lifetime celibacy, a broken hymen—even via a holy baby—was viewed as a physical degradation. Ambrose popularized the metaphor of the "Closed Gate" from Ezekiel 44, arguing that Jesus passed through Mary like a spirit, leaving the gate locked. A.D. 390 – The Synod of Milan: Organized under Ambrose, this council formally condemned a monk named Jovinian who argued that Mary’s virginity was lost during the physical tearing of childbirth. The council ruled that declaring Mary’s hymen was broken compromised the perfection of Christ. The "Light Through Glass" Metaphor: By the 5th century, the dominant orthodox consensus was that Jesus left Mary's body "ut lumen per vitrum"—as light passes through a pane of glass without breaking it.👑 Phase 3: 6th to 16th Century – The Infallible Dogma of the Middle Ages During the medieval era, the biological preservation of Mary's hymen during birth shifted from a hotly debated topic to an absolute, unassailable dogma enforced by the highest echelons of the Church. A.D. 553 – Second Council of Constantinople: Formally granted Mary the title Aeiparthenos (Ever-Virgin), locking in her virginity before, during, and after birth. A.D. 649 – The Lateran Synod: Pope Martin I explicitly defined the "threefold" physical character of her virginity. To deny that her physical integrity remained undisturbed during delivery was now a punishable heresy. The Protestant Reformation (1500s) Exception: Fascinatingly, the early Protestant Reformers—including Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Huldrych Zwingli—did not fight the Catholics on this. They completely accepted the medieval status quo, with Luther affirming that Jesus was born without altering Mary's physical anatomy.🥼 Phase 4: 17th to 20th Century – The Scientific Enlightenment and the Vatican Crackdown With the advent of modern anatomy and medicine, the concept of a "miraculous, non-stretching, unbreakable hymen" began to clash violently with medical science. The debate shifted from a public theological dispute into a quiet, internal crisis for Catholic theologians trying to harmonize faith with biology. 1950s – The "Mitterer Crisis": A prominent Catholic theologian named Albert Mitterer published works arguing that the traditional view of virginitas in partu was trapped in an outdated, unscientific, medieval worldview. He argued that true motherhood requires the normal, physical, biological reality of labor and delivery. He suggested that trying to preserve Mary's hymen made her birth a weird, artificial magic trick rather than a true human birth. 1960 – The Holy Office Intervention: The Vatican grew deeply alarmed by theologians trying to "biologize" or dismiss the physical intactness of Mary. The Holy Office (now the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a strict warning, ordering theologians to stop publishing theories that doubted the traditional, physical integrity of Mary’s virginity during birth.🧠 Phase 5: 21st Century – Metaphor, Moral Purity, and the Protestant Shift Today, the debate has split into two completely irreconcilable camps: The Modern Protestant Baseline: Modern Evangelicals and Protestants have entirely abandoned the historical views of Luther and Calvin. They view the entire "intact hymen during birth" debate as a bizarre, unbiblical, medieval fixation driven by an unhealthy obsession with celibacy. They believe Mary and Joseph went on to have a normal, active sexual marriage with other children. The Catholic/Orthodox Re-framing: Modern traditionalist theologians (such as those published by Word on Fire) have shifted away from graphic gynecological descriptions. Instead, they frame virginitas in partu through theology and psychology. They argue that because Mary was born without Original Sin (the Immaculate Conception), she was immune to the Genesis curse of "pain and trauma in childbirth." Jesus’s birth is therefore described as perfectly natural, painless, and peaceful—an icon of what human birth was supposed to look like before the fall of man.📊 Summary of the Shift

I've debated for a couple days about whether I should post anything about the current ongoing discussions as to whether members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are Christians. There are a few things I'd like to say that I haven't seen in the discourse, so I'm going to wade into the quagmire in hopes of helping to bring understanding to both sides and help bridge the divide. The reason that it stings when people say we aren't Christian is because we have a deep and abiding faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior and Redeemer of the world, in the reality of His Atonement and His Resurrection, and because our relationship with Him is the focal point of our faith, worship, and religion. At baptism, we covenant to take Christ's name upon us and to stand as witnesses of God at all times, and in all things, and in all places. We pray in His name. We believe His teachings. We study them devoutly. We seek to emulate His example, follow His commandments, and live His gospel. That is the core of our identity, both as a church and as individuals. If the definition of Christian is someone who believes in Christ's divinity and saving grace and strives to live Christ's teachings, which I personally think is the most accurate description of Christianity, we are absolutely and emphatically Christian. We are, above all else, believers and followers of Jesus Christ. He is dear to us and so it is hurtful when others seek to distance us from Him whom we believe is the author and finisher of our faith. It strikes at the core of our identity to not be known as Christians when one of the most important promises we make is to take the name of Christ upon us. On the other side of the argument, it is also true that parts of our doctrine are distinctly at odds with the creeds that were formalized by the ecumenical church councils established between the 4th and 6th centuries. We have teachings that directly contradict those that were formalized by the Nicene Creed. If being a Christian is defined by strict adherence to the doctrines of those creeds, then we are decidedly not Christian. And so the matter comes down to semantics and definitions and most people are talking past each other. No, we are not creedal Christians. Yes, we are believers and followers of Jesus Christ. We recognize the differences in our teachings, but want others to understand and acknowledge the depth of our devotion to Christ. We simply ask that other believers do not seek to estrange us from our God.

Where is the historical study of Mary’s hymen? Anyways, you’ve not addressed any of my questions and I’ve addressed all of yours. Who do you say that Jesus is? A new “church” could open up that puts Jesus in the title and claims he was a 400lb sumo wrestler that body slammed Satan so hard he never got up again? Who you believe Jesus is matters

The JW point is that they don’t even claim the Christian title, and Pentagon gives it to them. The only church with Jesus Christ in the name is rejected from the Christians list. Next, you presume the lds Jesus is not sufficient for salvation while simultaneously failing basic theology on the eternal virginity of Mary—namely, that her hymen was still intact after the birth of Jesus. This is basic stuff; it’s clear why evangelicals don’t know their own doctrine. 90% of bible readers don’t agree with the official story of the virgin birth because it doesn’t make sense. The bible is inadequate to settle the question. You can ask your god or grok to walk you through his eschatology.

Show some evidence that Jesus is Michael? It’s simply not true. John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Refute Scripture. The Second Coming already happened? Easily refuted. Mt 24:24-27 - For false messiahs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Take note: I have told you in advance. So if they tell you, ‘See, he’s in the wilderness! ’ don’t go out; or, ‘See, he’s in the storerooms! ’ do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. The parousia will be seen by all - not a select few. Jesus’ return will be undeniable, and when he returns he won’t simply reside with 12 people in an office in NY. He’s not in their hidden store room. The JW claim that Jesus resides with the Watchtower and gives them secret knowledge that they use for their publications. God in his infinite wisdom and foreknowledge refuted this claim in His Word. As for Mary, she was a virgin at the conception and birth of Jesus and that’s all that’s necessary. I do not believe she was a perpetual virgin, nor is their theological need for her to be. Catholics do believe she was a perpetual virgin, but Mary has nothing to do with our salvation. The new pope thankfully affirmed that for the Catholics. I am not a Catholic though, but they make up the largest group of Christians. Who do you say Jesus is? A created being? A mere man born as us and then ascended to godhood? Please back up your statements about Jesus with Scripture so we have a place to debate.

That's not how I see it. JW think Jesus was an Archangel Michael. And Jehovah is god the father. That is a step change. The do believe in the bible they know it better than most christians I talk to except mormons. They think second coming has happened. To lds Jesus and Jehovah are same person. What is your position on Mary's virginity? Did she have a broken hymen after the birth of Jesus, is she an eternal virgin? Bc I guarantee you the answer to that will put 90% plus Christians out side of official theology.

The Bible is minimized in LDS teaching in Articles of Faith #8 which states: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” The LDS belief allows one to shrug off a hard teaching of scripture that goes against LDS teaching simply by saying there is an error in translation whereas it states the Book of Mormon as fully authoritative all the time

Taken as a friend. I respect you deeply. We do not minimize the Bible or treat it like a fairy tale. We believe the Bible is the word of God. I love the Bible. We also don't believe the summarization as contained in the creeds represents the fullness of the truth of the teachings contained in the Bible.

@AZbroker @DataDInvesting Funny enough - the Pharisees issue is the same as JW and LDS. They worshipped a false messiah. One that fit their narrative rather than the narrative of Scripture.

The Pharisees did believe the historical and biblical Jesus to be a heretic. This is different than the belief in a heretical Jesus. The Pharisees had an image of the Messiah that was different than the actual Messiah described in the OT. This Messiah would be later revealed in the person of Jesus. To believe in a heretical Jesus as the LDS and JW do, is to believe in a Jesus that is different than the historical and biblical Jesus. I would love to discuss our differences on how we see the Bible describe Jesus as that is the root matter. Let’s move the conversation into Scripture so that there is more substance