something jumped out at me that i never paid attention to while reading further into matt 26...in vs 28, he tells them his blood is to be poured out for the many for forgiveness of sin.
but note vs 29 but i say to you: i will no menas drink again any of this product of the vine until that day when i drink it new with you in the kingdom of my father.
cross reference luke 22:18 for i tell you , from now on, i will not drink again from the product of the vine until the kingdom of god comes.. what is the point of all of this: matt 26:29 " i drink it new with you " mark 14:25 " drink new in the kingdom of god.
Wine has never been considered Chametz.
--Not trying to be argumentative. I'm just a guy who lives in a climate comparable to Palestine, who grows grapes and makes half-way decent wine sometimes.
It takes pasteurization, glass bottles, and refrigeration (After the bottle is opened) to prevent fermentation. Otherwise, the window for unfermented grape juice is pretty narrow.
something jumped out at me that i never paid attention to while reading further into matt 26...in vs 28, he tells them his blood is to be poured out for the many for forgiveness of sin.
but note vs 29 but i say to you: i will no menas drink again any of this product of the vine until that day when i drink it new with you in the kingdom of my father.
cross reference luke 22:18 for i tell you , from now on, i will not drink again from the product of the vine until the kingdom of god comes.. what is the point of all of this: matt 26:29 " i drink it new with you " mark 14:25 " drink new in the kingdom of god.
The JW's are correct in pointing out that Passover in Palestine is 6 to 7 months after the grape harvest in a climate comparable to Tucson, Arizona.
The SDA's might not approve of wine, but it tastes a helluva lot better than vinegar
i got a message that my password on this site has been part of a leakage.
is this known?
where can i change my password?.
What sort of a message? Did it originate from a legitimate source, (Like Google's password manager, for example) or was it a random pop-up?
i hadn’t heard of this guy, andrew tate, until a few days ago, when he was mentioned on novara media (which is practically the only news i watch).
then i saw a clip with him where he explained why he moved to romania: he said he ‘likes romania because the police are corrupt and you can pay them off’.
(practically a direct quote) i thought to myself at the time that sounded a bit complacent!
The exchange between Tate and Greta Thunberg (On Twitter) where he posted the picture with the Jerry's Pizza box in view was priceless. Especially her response: "This is what happens when you don't recycle"
i was looking at the (mostly) wrong answers to a riddle that's making the rounds on social media and thought it was a good example of how something simple (in this case, grade school math) can be distorted with words.
the riddle goes like this:.
i bought a cow for $800.. i sold it for $1000.
Good answers
Both riddles attempt to trick the reader into committing an accounting error.
Here's an actual example (From Facebook) of how the "I bought a cow" riddle does that:
----------
First, the riddle says I bought a cow for $800. Thereafter I sold it for $1000. So I make $1000-$800 = $200.
Now the 3rd statement says I bought it again for $1100. Here if you see, I have bought the same cow again for $1100. So I had a loss of $100 as previously the cow was sold for $1000 and bought again at $1100.
Next statement of the riddle says I sold it again for $1300. So now I have made $1300-$1100=$200 in this transaction.
So I made $200 – $100 + $200 = $300.
----------
On an actual balance sheet, you would have Sales of $2300 and Expenses of $1900, giving a bottom line of +$400
The misdirection in the second riddle is entirely in the last line, where the manager adds the $2 to the $27 to arrive at a completely meaningless figure.
$30 was collected, of which $3 was given as change and $2 was kept as a tip leaving $25 as the actual cost of the meal. The order in which the $3 and $2 are subtracted doesn't matter as long as they're both subtracted.
The point here is that even the simplest of things can be obfuscated. Math cuts through bullshit like a machete, but misdirection takes many other forms.
i am a historian and the period of english history from henry vii to elizabeth i is my specialist area.. i was talking to an ex-jw about the time when tyndale first translated the bible into english with his intention that everyone from the ploughboy upwards would be able to read and understand the scriptures.
it dawned on us both that this was a significant point in english history.. just having access to the bible in hi their own language allowed the common man to understand what god wanted him to understand.. it was and is, so simple.. why then oh why then do jehovah's witnesses think that they need a fds to explain it to them?
when in the 1600s just having a bible written in english was enough for people to understand the word of god?.
Because there's more to religion than moral lessons and ancient history
Nearly all religions (Not just the JW's) invoke a claim to authority that doesn't automatically follow from a plain reading of the Bible
i was looking at the (mostly) wrong answers to a riddle that's making the rounds on social media and thought it was a good example of how something simple (in this case, grade school math) can be distorted with words.
the riddle goes like this:.
i bought a cow for $800.. i sold it for $1000.
I was looking at the (mostly) wrong answers to a riddle that's making the rounds on social media and thought it was a good example of how something simple (In this case, grade school math) can be distorted with words
The riddle goes like this:
----------
I bought a cow For $800.
I sold it for $1000.
I bought it again for $1100.
I sold it again for $1300
How much did I earn?
----------
Here is a more subtle example of the same thing:
----------
Three people split a lunch tab of $30. Each of them pays $10
On her way back to the table, the server realizes she's overcharged them by $5.
It's not possible to split $5 evenly between three people, so she returns $1 to each of them and keeps $2 for herself
When the manager finds out, she asks:
"Okay. The three customers ended up paying $9 each and you have $2. That's only $29. Where's the extra dollar?"
----------
Following the semantic flow leads to a wrong answer in both cases and there's probably a lesson in there somewhere
i saw jim cameron's avatar sequel last week.. right off the bat re the avatar franchise, i believe that there are two types of viewers.. firstly, there are the fans.
the people who see the pretty visuals and immediately conclude that avatar is the greatest film franchise of all time.. then there are the rest of us - people who can appreciate the world-building and stunning visuals but do not use them to cover over the flaws, more of which later.. the plot - jake sully, neytiri and their children have to leave their idyllic arboreal existence and seek refuge among a green-skinned tribe which lives a semi-aquatic lifestyle.. bad guy quaritch is back ... in avatar form.
that's some great imagination - nice one, jim.. so the humans are back because the earth is dead.
Nice little windfall for Stephen Lang, I guess.
i saw jim cameron's avatar sequel last week.. right off the bat re the avatar franchise, i believe that there are two types of viewers.. firstly, there are the fans.
the people who see the pretty visuals and immediately conclude that avatar is the greatest film franchise of all time.. then there are the rest of us - people who can appreciate the world-building and stunning visuals but do not use them to cover over the flaws, more of which later.. the plot - jake sully, neytiri and their children have to leave their idyllic arboreal existence and seek refuge among a green-skinned tribe which lives a semi-aquatic lifestyle.. bad guy quaritch is back ... in avatar form.
that's some great imagination - nice one, jim.. so the humans are back because the earth is dead.
Bad guy Quaritch is back ... in Avatar form.
Seriously??? Oh, gawd....
I could have sworn he was pierced through the heart and lungs with not one, but two spear-sized arrows that in his words were, "dipped in a neurotoxin" and then left for dead in an atmosphere incompatible with human life on a world teaming with creatures that apparently find human flesh delicious.
Killing a villain that decisively and then resurrecting him for a sequel screams lazy writing
so last night me and hubby got round to watching love actually for the first time .
seemingly everyone says that it's a must see christmas film , people watch it numerous times .
sorry to say l was underwhelmed and won't bother watching it again.
So please don't be put off by me
I'll probably end up seeing it whether I want to or not. (Wife and I take turns picking the movie)
I do enjoy Rom-Coms when they're actually funny.
