Comet 3I/ATLAS is not expected to get very close to Earth; the closest it will come is approximately 1.8 astronomical units (about 170 million miles or 270 million kilometers)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3I_ATLAS_animation3.gif
Comments (66)
sorted by:
There's the very long-running Blue Beam thing so there's no downside whatsoever to hyping anything that goes on in the skies, but I would say that the actual reason is that "They" are getting very desperate in the information war and need everyone to pay attention to anything--anything at all--other than what's actually going on.
The counterpart to that is that very few conspiracy theorists are actually trying to figure anything out for themselves. They're just looking for something to react to. Even there, anything will do as long as it meant they were "right all along".
"but I would say that the actual reason is that "They" are getting very desperate in the information war and need everyone to pay attention to anything--anything at all--other than what's actually going on."
Something something Epstein files. Something something space rock. Something something look at my right hand, can't see what my left hand is doing. Something something did you hear about Charlie Kirk?
It was reported that it's 33 billion tons in weight.
That should tell u what this is.
Just to distract you. An extraordinary amount of money is put into distracting everyone. The "hype" is not always real. A large percentile of hyped up users you see online are just bots.
Because it's only the third intergalactic object ever discovered and because it's going so close to Mars while behind the sun that it could swing suddenly (but won't) so there's hypeability.
The real conspiracy is that intergalactics prove young universe simply by their low count. Nobody's talking about that! Everyone's trying instead to get ahead of how intergalactics can prove a crazy Oort cloud or dark matter or other invented gods to patch gaps in the astrophysical model.
Elaborate
Well, first let me apologize for the haste, because I often dash off quickies for the benefit of c/Conspiracies to see who's interested. In this case I meant interstellar but miscalculated and said intergalactic instead.
Since young-earth proponents favor the accretion hypothesis of star-planet-satellite formation, they have no problem extending this to comets. Old-earth proponents are stuck arguing that all these things existed for billions of years and didn't wear down, leading to numerous difficulties (e.g. Oort cloud); in this case their presupposition requires that the interstellar comet arose from a star system sometime rather than accreting like a rogue planet did. Similarly their assumptions require that stars are constantly being newly born but that the first stars were stuck with being H-He only, except that we don't really have any stars of that nature so it's a (yet another) imagination created to fill in a gap in the theory. And of course this relies heavily on the greatest god of the gaps of this age, dark energy and dark matter!
Anyway, if we did have 10-20 billion years then there should have been many more collisions and escapes that would free many more interstellar objects. In terms of rogue planets, the mainstream is estimating that the number of rogue planets per star is somewhere between 0.25 and 100,000. Quite a margin of error there, indicating that the model for formation of material outside solar systems is thoroughly unsettled. It's my prediction that as we discover more of both rogue planets and interstellar objects, we will see numbers heavily weighted toward one end, I believe paucity, and this will force the mainstream to revise their picture once again.
It turns out that NASA is already on top of resolving such questions (despite its bias), planning to launch the Roman Telescope in 2027, which will produce very interesting information about "extra-solar planets ... chronology of the universe and growth of cosmic structure, ... dark energy, the consistency of general relativity, and the curvature of spacetime." Looking forward to it surprising the mainstream!
Looking more into 3I/ATLAS, it turns out to be the first (of 3) to approach from the sun's south, which basically means it's overtaking the sun as they both travel around the Milky Way core (Sagittarius A*). This was thoroughly unexpected and it either means 3I is an outlier that should've been rare or (yet again) the model was wrong to start with and southern approach is more common than predicted. Well, with so much that is unknown about interstellars and rogue planets, it's safe to say that I think there's a high likelihood that southern approach will continue to be detected more often than current models predict.
While much of that is new to me, my initial comment was based on the fact that whenever I peel back the Tyson-Nye facade of modern science I find guesswork upon imagination upon horror movie. (Yes, I literally just discovered that Fred Hoyle based his steady-state theory upon a horror movie, Dead of Night 1945, based on Hindu cyclicality.) So I could confidently predict that such anomalies appear when I look at this one, and there they are. People want interstellar objects to mean evidence of an origin other than Yahweh, but other classes of objects keep testifying of their true Creator instead, and so it will be seen with interstellars.
So the Bible is true and the universe really was created recently for the purpose of humanity developing an internet where they could argue over the Jews.
u/commanderofcheese Thoughts on this one?
It's true that what we understand about star/ planet formation is still very much in a hypothesis phase, but it's not pure spitballing -- we do have quite a bit of data on star formation.
But just because numbers of interstellar objects aren't exactly what one particular model predicted doesn't mean that you roll back to a YEC model that doesn't actually make any predictions.
His point about numbers of interstellars is... well, pointless. They're really hard to see. Heck, it's only recently we're even seeing some of the stuff that's in our own solar system.
Long story short this guy is talking out of his ass and you're eating it up because he's saying (without real evidence) that it supports your view of a young earth.
" Why the Standard Definition Masks the Lack of Functional Innovation
.. defining evolution as changes in allele frequencies oversimplifies the concept and ignores the need for new functional genetic information. It critiques common examples of genetic change—gain, selection, and loss—as insufficient to explain creative biological innovation, favoring a design-based interpretation instead.
One of the most commonly cited definitions of evolution in modern biology is simple: “Evolution is a change in the allele frequencies of a population over time.”
(Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (3rd ed., 2013), p. 5) Textbooks echo this idea widely: “Evolution is defined as a change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations.” (Campbell Biology, 11th ed., Urry et al., Pearson, 2017, p. 488) At first glance, this seems harmless—perhaps even intuitive. Populations change over time, and those changes involve genetics. What’s the problem? The problem is this: such definitions are tautological. They define evolution as “change,” and then treat all change as proof of evolution. They collapse a deep explanatory question into a mere operational description. And most importantly, they mask the actual nature of those changes—whether the change adds new biological functions (actual evolution), merely shifts existing traits (design), or degrades what already exists (design). 2. Three Categories of Genetic Change The standard definition obscures a crucial distinction: not all allele frequency changes are created equal. We must ask: what kind of change is taking place? Genetic variation can be divided into three broad categories: 2.1 Supposed Gain-of-Function Mutations (i.e. evolution) These would be truly evolutionary in the Darwinian sense—mutations that add new, specified functional information to the genome. If evolution is to build from bacteria to Beethoven, it must do this countless times. However, no clear examples exist of this in observed microbial evolution. Several case studies often cited as gain-of-function collapse under scrutiny: Nylonase (Flavobacterium): Arises from a frameshift mutation of a pre-existing gene. Function is crude and inefficient. (Source: Negoro, S. (2000). Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology) Rifampin Resistance (Mycobacterium tuberculosis): Point mutation in rpoB alters binding site for antibiotic. Results in degraded specificity and reduced fitness. (Source: Telenti et al., Lancet, 1993) Penicillin Resistance (Staphylococcus aureus): Production of β-lactamase, usually through gene acquisition (not mutation). Mutations that do occur only increase expression. (Source: Livermore, D. M., Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 1995) Tetracycline Resistance (E. coli): Caused by overexpression of efflux pumps or loss of repressor function—none of which introduce new functions. (Source: Levy, S. B., Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 1992) Vancomycin Resistance (Enterococcus): Resistance arises from horizontal gene transfer of the vanA cluster. No novel mutation involved. (Source: Arthur & Courvalin, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 1993) In summary, no known mutation in these examples introduces a truly novel function. All involve degradation, overexpression, or acquisition of pre-existing information—not innovation. So let me translate this – there is currently NO CLEAR DNA EVIDENCE SUPPORTING EVOLUTION. 2.2 Selection Among Existing Variation In some cases, allele frequencies shift due to selection pressures favoring certain pre-existing traits. For example, an organism may already carry alleles better suited to high temperatures or antibiotic exposure. The environment then selects these alleles. This is genuine adaptation, but not evolution in the creative sense. It merely shuffles or amplifies existing options. No new functionality is introduced into the genome. It’s like picking your warmest coat on a cold day—you haven’t invented anything new, just chosen from what you already had. 2.3 Loss-of-Function Mutations By far the most common mutations are loss-of-function mutations. These may confer short-term advantages by disabling or breaking existing systems—especially under artificial laboratory pressures. Examples include blocking membrane channels to prevent antibiotic uptake, disrupting metabolic genes, or deactivating regulatory systems. “The great majority of beneficial mutations are loss-of-function mutations… They adapt an organism by breaking or blunting a pre-existing system.” (Michael Behe, Darwin Devolves, 2019, p. 182) “Most real mutations are deleterious, and only a very few beneficial mutations represent a gain of new functional information.” (John Sanford, Genetic Entropy, 2005, p. 23) 3. The Design Hypothesis Explains the Data Design theory predicts exactly what we see: Genomes were originally rich in functional, specified information. Over time, mutations tend to degrade that information or repurpose existing parts. Natural selection fine-tunes what is already there—but it does not create new, integrated systems. Far from supporting evolution, the data points toward degeneration over time—a slow erosion of original function. This explains why beneficial mutations are overwhelmingly destructive and why observed changes never add genuine complexity. “Evolution has become in many respects a theory driven by its definitions. It is one thing to say that species change; it is another to define that change as evolution.” (— David Berlinski, The Deniable Darwin, 2009, p. 16) 4. Conclusion Yes, allele frequencies change. But unless we ask what kind of change, we are only playing with semantics. The standard definition of evolution—“change in allele frequencies”—is an operational metric, not an explanatory mechanism. When all change is labeled “evolution,” the term loses explanatory power. Most importantly, the types of changes we observe—selection among existing traits and loss-of-function mutations—do not support Darwin’s vision of ever-increasing complexity. They support a design-centered model of descent with degradation, not ascent with innovation"
Which means that trilobites must be the highest, purest forms of life and we're all just degraded trilobites.
Instant creation... sorted into layers with each layer having a different and unique set of fossils in it, to trick man into thinking that it was formed over time.
Everything about the instant creation hypothesis hinges on a single Hebrew word "bara" which only ever refers to creation in one place; elsewhere it refers to clearing and deforesting. Further, the B in Hebrew is often proclitic, adding "with pleasure" to the rest of the word -- making the correct way to see the word as "b'ra'a" which would mean "look down with pleasure on" consistent with the rest of the account in which each phase God sees that it is good.
Heck, if you go back and retranslate the whole account of creation without recognizing it and inserting your own beliefs, the whole thing looks more like a story of a bunch of shining people (yes, plural) coming down from a high mountain to reshape the lowlands and assemble creatures.
I'm not subscribing to that translation, but what I'm saying is that your own understanding of the Bible does not come from a plain reading of the Bible at all, but rather from a bunch of assumptions that you've inserted into it.
The origin of the idea of creation ex-nihilo is in a debate between a follower of Plato and a Christian. I don't know why the Christians cared so much about having the approval of the philosophers, but they screwed so much with their beliefs just to get approval that Paul wrote a lot to tell them to stop (and when Paul wasn't there to stop them anymore, guess what they turned the religion into?). Anyway, creation ex-nihilo was invented on the spot because the Greek argued that resurrection couldn't be a good thing because the flesh is corrupt, so the Christian made up on the spot that God will just make new flesh because he just creates everything from nothing. Creation ex-nihilo was never taught before then. They'd rather make up new doctrine in the absence of their apostles than deny the Greek premise of physical matter being inherently icky.
Thanks for contributing!
That's a pretty fair point. I grant that sometimes I do speak boldly to get people's attention so that the actual facts can be digested more readily, but I don't say thing without cause and I back out my occasional errors. The fact is that because of the weak observational evidence, everyone is speaking hot air to the issue, so I'm just getting in that fray. (Add: If you want to compare predictions made by YEC/OEC models, we can certainly lay those out comparatively.)
I appreciate u/GuywholikesDjtof2024 chiming in with some hard data (less so that some of it appears unchecked AI), and I would certainly affirm Behe and Berlinski in that list as some of the brightest in their fields.
No, trilobites only became "index fossils" (circular arguments) because they were discovered so early, but we now realize that the Cambrian explosion involved virtually every body plan in existence appearing in the same geologic period (Darwin's Doubt, Stephen C. Meyer). So trilobytes are pretty complicated in themselves but all complicated life forms appeared in the same period ("stratum" they call it as we laugh). Would you like to hear about why Klee diagrams prove incontrovertibly that each DNA barcode refers to a different kind of lifeform that is genetically separate from all others?
That's the dogma because if it were true it'd have a little evidentiary value. But unfortunately, real field work shows that it isn't true, the index fossils are chaotically arranged, there are many polystrates bridging multiple layers and supposedly tens of millions of years, there are many complex fossils at the lowest "strata" that contradict the theory and are ignored, etc. However, hydraulics demonstrates that a chaotic but relatively sorted set of specimens is very consistent with catastrophism such as the 4.6kya event.
Fascinating, and I'll agree with you that bara also means creating clearings, and I'll also affirm that repointed it might mean "in pleasure" (no verb then). Unfortunately, your argument affirms both these meanings at the same time ("the correct way" and what it "looks more like" are schizophrenically opposed to each other). So it sounds like you found two in-language reinterpretations and uncritically accepted them both. Well then, you can accept ours too.
The problem with reading the text as not being creative is that neither its original audiences nor the rest of the Bible regarded it that way. For instance John 1:3 after paraphrasing Genesis adds "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made", which is pretty double-dogmatic on Genesis being about creation. I also showed separately that the first 5 verses of Genesis are clause for clause consistent with the first 24 hours of the BBT; so we're on track, now we just need to get the crazy dating of the rest of it fixed.
Honestly, you're right that calling it creatio ex nihilo is a later Greek concession and (John Gerstner) a literal reading would instead argue creatio ex Deo, creation out of God's own substance, consistent with the Athenian poets' view (two quoted in Acts 17:28). But this weakness of argument isn't in the Biblical text, but in tradition, and the text gives a constant witness, which was agreed upon by science until uniformitarian radiocarbon dating became the fiat standard and the millions and billions could be defended by assuming ridiculous uniformity (despite evidence of catastrophism!). Except that half of the C14 readings are generally thrown out because they give data contrary to the half the evolutionists like. Funny thing, Peter prophesied that in the last days people would assume uniformitarianism to justify atheism, namely the assumption that from creation everything goes on the same as always but forgetting historic and geologic testimony of catastrophism (2 Peter 3:3-6, a real shocker to uniformitarians).
Related, it's true that Christians faced gnostic denial of the physical, but the mainstream Christians didn't fight this so much with creatio ex nihilo as with affirming the resurrection (redemption) of the flesh (e.g. 2 Peter 3:14). This is clear in Daniel 12:2 and anticipated in details throughout the Old Testament that were assembled in their best form by Paul. So there was plenty of "material" about material redemption by the time Greek gnostics came along.
Are you interested in structuring a discussion so that truth can be divined about these things? I know Guy likes to play "Let's You and Him Fight", but I don't mind if the rules are clear and we both seek a common truth about binary yes-no propositions. Don't mind my occasional bluster because I'm pretty amiable about origins, but I do challenge the OEC to explain the many difficulties in the theory, and (to the extent possible) I seek to answer difficulties proposed in YEC.
No, we already know how: instant Creation during Creation Week. Nothing would be pulling the planet material together. The only way for a planet to form is God making them. Natural formation, creation, of planets has never been observed, repeated, or tested.
Yes, Genesis.
And just because you see some holes somewhere in data relating to Earth's mantle doesn't make YEC false, don't roll back to OEE just because you can't explain the mantle radiation.
Actually it does. See here: https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/unexpectedly-strong-argument-young-earth/ , https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2025/04/02/why-tower-babel-significant/ .
And also, we have a much more reliable record of History, the Bible. Bare logic itself neccessitates, madates, that the reliable History Record would override "best guesses".
It is funny how people will trust an assumption from dating that could be changed at any moment over the solid Record of the Bible that has been verified THOUSANDS of times. Old ages (all contraBiblical beliefs, really) has nowhere near this frequent "being proven right" rate and reputation.
And that is ALLLL that long ages is, a best (best for a materialist POV) guess.
Even the very definition of "bio. evolution" is EXTREMELY slippery and whenever I bring up the issue, the definition gets shuffled around, like a magic magician doing the Shell Game. It also doesn't help that people feel compelled to make it unfalsifiable by saying "oh EVERY ANIMAL EVER is evidence" "oh its super slow youll never see it" and stuff.
No. God created all the first creatures. Adam and eve sin. Now genes degrade. Then flood bottleneck. Now the condition of genes get worse. And it only gets worse from there.
We have never observed a different family-taxa evolve from existing family-taxa organisms, for the ~6K years we have been here.
Isn't it amazing how schools prop up Peppered Moths as evo proof, when all it is is natural selection? Until they looked at the moths DNA for gains, if no NOVEL FEATURE has been proven, it's not evo evidence at all.
The genes of those moths only degraded over time, not upgraded.
No, more that man rejects Genesis and wants to think he can determine origins and age APART from the Bible.
Atheists looove evo and gorillions of years. Because they don't need to believe the Bible to belive those beliefs, whilst still maintaining a sense of our origins and age, and a semblance of reason.
Meanwhile, believing Genesis is fully Bible reliant. The world actively hates and censors it. Unlike evo and deeptime which the world loves. The world loves its own. The world hates Jesus, the TRUTH, and the factual Account of our true origins. Atheistic worldview ideas do nothing to scare the worLd at all. So drop them.
the Bible.
Elsewhere. So, not in Genesis then. Thanks for confirming. Days are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, guess that means Jonah was in a whale for gorillions of years.
According to your worldview death and suffering and incompleteness were all throughout creation, before sin. That contradicts the Bible, though. And that is not "pleasure-some" at all.
No one believed "13.8 billion years" or "all life from some germs" or "germs from goo" until very recently. Well actually, the ancient pagans probably promoted the former two, while followers of God never promoted them.
Where?
"God couldn't create directly, He is so weak He needs helpers to cobble stuff together"
..... no wonder atheists are wholly unconvinced by compromise-with-atheists Christians.
The ahteistic worldview beliefs about the past sure don't.
Na.
Mabye because plato paid more attention to Scripture than you did.
The pagan myths all involve the gods creating from preexisting matter. Sound familiar??
If I believe Plato, then you believe pagans.
Self awareness levels in the marina trench. Compromising Christians, Genesis doubters, your ilk, all seek approval from the worLd and Big Science TM, which has proven itself to be a FRAUD, GRIFT, LIE, CHEAT, SCAM, ELITE-RUN, TYRANNY-BOOSTER more and more lately.
Since you believe in "new revelation being valid", God isnt giving us any new letters for us to stop believing YEC. So either YEC is true or new revelation is never gonna come.
Thanks for admitting that compromising one's Christian worldview is bad!!
No it wasn't. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible suggesting God made light (Day 1) out of existing matter. There is zero reason to assume He made things ex materia unless the Bible SPECIFIES that He did. Like when He made men from dust (and not from some disfigured monkey-like horrid mutant ugly creature), which was ex materia.
Nope, it's been around since before 300 AD. When was abiogenesis, Family-into-family evo, and long ages invented?
It’s a paid shill. Don’t listen to anything it says.
Who is giving out the checks? What currency? How much money? Does it earn it weekly, monthly, or yearly?
And how can others come to this conclusion?
For what?
Israel.
Whichever; they own all of them.
50¢ per post, per the leaked documents.
White genocide and the eradication of Christendom.
Ok
So how did you determine THAT specific country, out of 100+ on this earth, pays?
So weak and small an amount. SR is typically inactive. he posts un-commonly. If that were true, he'd be a post and comment FACTORY.
He is pro Christian, I see no evidence he wanted either to die..
They publicly admit it.
They pay tens of thousands of shills.
Fallacy.
Never read any of his posts, confirmed.
Quote?
Logical conclusion. Like if a lib said "2020 was stolen is a fallacy".
So "he posts too much for my tastes, hes a shill" he barely posts "uh but guys hes still a shill" is this goalpost moving or no?
He rebutted evolution, he says there's evidence Exodus happened, and he argued with the SeverelyBranDamaged guy who believes really odd things.
“Armageddon” programming for 90’s kids who became burners and are on their way to P. Teal’s Antichrist lectures.
Avi Loeb has a blog now where he writes these short weird articles. People can say hes just being overdramatic to get views, but he is a lead researcher at harvard. Hes not just some peon.
But I do question some of what he is saying.
But there are alot of weird things about this that arent being talked about. Something that keeps giving me the creeps, they should have got pictures of it friday, im waiting to see if they are released today before I start sweating to hard. Its at least 1 other country than america, but there is another one as well I believe. The shutdown shouldnt affect them.
https://avi-loeb.medium.com/
He even admits in his blog articles, and on tv talk shows, that its most likely natural, just something we have never seen before. But my guess is he knows more than hes allowed to say, talking about a black swan event. I dont need to be convinced ufos are real, ive seen things that hover and shoot off in the blink of an eye. Literally if you had blinked it would have just disappeared and youd think it went behind a cloud.
His latest blog post talking about the perseverance photos everyone is talking about. I came to the conclusion its most likely to the moon deimos. It rotates around mars in 7.3 hours or something and is only 12 miles above the ground while being only 3.9 miles in diameter or something. But there is no way to know that without nasa giving the shutter time. Avi loeb says its a time exposure, but I dont think it is.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/multimedia/raw-images/
If you click back to the picture, it has multiple snapshots with the same exact time signature, and maybe the last shot is a exposure, but where is the object in the other pictures with the same time signature. ? Is it a bug?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjGXqk4yVC0
Most likely to be the moon like I explained, but its all just so fucking odd. And this is the kinda stuff I love to talk about but people here are so god damn political and god loving. Most comments seem to be "SPACE IS FAKE AND GAY" lmao.
"33"
You don't see the masonic connection/psyop?
Whats the issue?
If you think God is fake I can certainly touch on that point
The issue isn't with belief in God. The issue is how they've allowed charlatan pastors to treat science like Harold Hill treats the new pool table in the billiards hall -- as a lightning rod to instill moral panic in the town and thus sell his fly-by-night services.
2 Timothy 3:5 . You claim being a Christian, yet you wish to deny the Genesis Account's power and truth value.
If evolution were true, explain why atheists typically gravitate toward it and not some other belief. If God used evo, they would be repelled by it. They are super repelled by YEC.
You and I have a very different understanding of that verse. You're pretty obsessed with the outward appearance of devotion and obsessed with enforcing specific marks of belief, but beyond avoidance of the most obvious and egregious sins there's not much to suggest that your inner life is actually godly, and you doubt the power of God to save anyone who might have a different interpretation than yourself.
Why would being true repel them? You act like an atheist would deny that the two of us are communicating in English, because it is true and atheists are allergic to any form of truth.
It is true that many atheists latch on hard to the furthest stretches of what evolution might imply (i.e. pure, unaided abiogenesis) because it allows them to bypass the largest claim for the existence of God (namely that if there is no God, then there is no universe).
But it is not true that just because many atheists latch on to it that it must be the opposite of the truth. Evolution is derived from observation of large amounts of data, which I know you haven't examined in any degree of honesty -- and by that I mean without having AnswersInGenesis at the ready. The only other conclusion if there is no evolution is that God is more like the Norse deity Loki than the Canaanite deity Jehovah, deliberately planting evidence of a lie just to make people disbelieve.
in th.
20 is only mentioning people who were choosing to follow the Old Law. Not that "we" are still under it.
Thanks for ceding the point.
But people are still breaking God's Commands, even though we are under the New covenant. So no. Jesus fulfilled the Old Law, now the New Covenant is what people should be following.
Then you should have said "the Father", not "God".
What? He was always a Distinct Person from the Father.
"That doesn't mean we TODAY are obliged to try to fulfill it. I don't see you sacrificing bulls."
??
Before men. But not before God.
The compromisers!
True
But God also ""lets"" the devil and demons terrorize humanity. Guess you shouldn't oppose them, either.
"And now it has been fulfilled. Thanks for citing a Verse directly proving that we AREN'T under it, and the New Covenant is how we can enter Heaven. No one comes to God EXECPT by Jesus."
"TODAY, it's on humanity to obey the NEW COVENANT. But you do teach that people still should follow the Old Covenant?"
Thks for info.
[....
....
.........]
You mean unto the Father?? Jesus is God, but not the Father.
....
That doesn't mean we TODAY are obliged to try to fulfill it. I don't see you sacrificing bulls.
??
Doubtful. Whether He is "STILL" or not, there's no such implication.
And now it has been fulfilled. Thanks for citing a Verse directly proving that we AREN'T under it, and the New Covenant is how we can enter Heaven. No one comes to God EXECPT by Jesus.
Jesus doing all the work. Thanks for admitting that Jesus followed the Old Law so TODAY, it's on humanity to obey the NEW COVENANT.
"that people still have to follow the 613 Laws"
But you do teach that people still should follow the Old Covenant?
whatever He says*
as He*
P
in th.
Like that Jesus is God and the Resurrection happened?
That's say-able of literally everyone online who hasn't doxed themselves. Useless statement.
"If evolution were true, explain why atheists gravitate to it"
(There are so many bases he is doctrinally sound on. Pretty sure he's sound on all of em.) <-- Outdated, replies in OP thread have now shown why TS believes and says that.
Things can be claimed AS statements of fact, whether the person knows or does not know if the info is false or true.
"No grand conspiracy behind the quote."
Again
The two aren't even comparable or in the same category.
Well that's what others will believe
Case study: this exchange.
Nonexistent.
After how long?
And people are unique, you know.
.. Sorry, but the world HATES Christianity, sinful man would rather go down rather than pay people to spread the Word. .
[You are making your best guesses, AT BEST. I doubt you are 100% sure on your theory.]
P
On what aspects? Is he claiming the Trinity is false? That Jesus didn't exist?
[and more]
P
.
Work implies the internal power of energy...about/abutan (on the outside of) tempts one to ignore that. About inverts work.
A jew suggests aboutism... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism to distract gentiles from work, and "work will set you free" unless ignored.