IS JESUS' SACRIFICE ETERNAL?

[michaelvpardo]

not entirely true either I guess, The amazing name Joshua: meaning and etymology

Sorry, I'm having some difficulty responding to posts. I just bought a new laptop and my hands keep hitting the mouse pad while I'm typing, activating the most peculiar functions, and relocating my cursor, deleting sections, and other unanticipated actions.
The Apostle John declares in the NT that no one has ever seen God. That statement would appear to contradict quite a bit of the Old Testament scripture, not the least of which are the passages in the law of Moses which describe "face to face" meetings with the Lord. The same God who says no one may see my face and live, meets face to face with Moses. This suggests that men interacted with the angel of the Lord, or with the preincarnate eternal Son of God (who is mentioned in those precise terms although somewhat indirectly.) See Proverbs 30:4 (we also see Moses rename his assistant Oshea to Joshua, so that his full name becomes Joshua son of Nun. You like Strongs concordance, look up Joshua and Nun.)

 

[bbyrd009]

Which I'm still not meaning to disagree with you ok @michaelvpardo, just that any words quickly become inadequate around Einstein I guess?

And fwiw I'm less interested in the discussion of time in the video than I am in the payoff,
"Why we suffer," explained at like about 52:00 I think? Brb
Yes, 52, but unfort what precedes that on our perceptions of Order and Entropy pretty much have to be understood first. Fortunately the guy makes an elegant case, I only had to back up a couple times...

 

[michaelvpardo]

Albert Einstein Quotes. The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion

If you understand the English language, Einstein called the distinction an illusion, not time which he fully accepted as a mathematical and physical reality or his theory would have been entirely meaningless and non functional (C in E=MC squared is a time constant).

 

[CoreIssue]

Ha what does Eternal mean though

You actually asked that?

 

[bbyrd009]

You actually asked that?

still asking it, yes, but I already know your answer, which will not comport with Scripture's wadr
as I believe you already know on some level

 

[CoreIssue]

still asking it, yes, but I already know your answer, which will not comport with Scripture's wadr
as I believe you already know on some level

It is 100% in line with Scripture.

By your thinking God and everything else will come to an end one day.

 

[bbyrd009]

It is 100% in line with Scripture.

By your thinking God and everything else will come to an end one day.

Ah, no, sorry if I have ever conveyed that impression

and if it is in line, why not say it?
Strong's Greek: 166. αἰώνιος (aiónios) -- agelong, eternal

 

[CoreIssue]

Ah, no, sorry if I have ever conveyed that impression

Your problem is in the past you denied my and others definition of eternal.

 

[bbyrd009]

Your problem is in the past you denied my and others definition of eternal.

Strong's Greek: 166. αἰώνιος (aiónios) -- agelong, eternal

are you sure it was me?

 

[CoreIssue]

Strong's Greek: 166. αἰώνιος (aiónios) -- agelong, eternal

are you sure it was me?

Absolutely. You tried to equate eternal to an age.

 

[bbyrd009]

If you understand the English language, Einstein called the distinction an illusion, not time which he fully accepted as a mathematical and physical reality or his theory would have been entirely meaningless and non functional (C in E=MC squared is a time constant).

yes, so iow words just start getting in the way I guess.
The distinction is what we call "time" right

 

[bbyrd009]

Absolutely. You tried to equate eternal to an age.

Um pardon me, but that was right outta the Book bro

 

[michaelvpardo]

yes, so iow words just start getting in the way I guess.
The distinction is what we call "time" right

My understanding would be that the distinction Einstein was talking about was not time, but "past, present, and future." These mathematically coexist and their meaning is only relevant to our perception.

 

[bbyrd009]

Ok

C in E=MC squared is a time constant)

don't think so wadr

 

[michaelvpardo]

Ok
don't think so wadr

Then you don't understand the math or educators have been teaching the wrong meaning of the term for the last 70 years.
C is the speed of light, a scalar quantity held constant for the purposes of the equations used in describing general and special relativity. The actual constancy of the speed of light has been disputed, but the equations worked well enough to give us the atom bomb and then the Hydrogen bomb (and who knows what else).

 

[bbyrd009]

Then you don't understand the math or educators have been teaching the wrong meaning of the term for the last 70 years.
C is the speed of light, a scalar quantity held constant for the purposes of the equations used in describing general and special relativity. The actual constancy of the speed of light has been disputed, but the equations worked well enough to give us the atom bomb and then the Hydrogen bomb (and who knows what else).

um, I have a good lecture for this, by Fermi or someone, but you might note that "time" is not considered at all in the function of C as applied by physicists, but rather astronomers (as a measurement of distance however, not time!), or iow time is merely the device we use to calculate C, and it might be seen that "minutes" and "seconds" are completely arbitrary quantities, although I agree that "C = the speed of light" is prolly the best place to start, sure.

one q that springs to mind from the fairly dense lecture is
"What is C right now, in this moment?"
Or iow "C does not need any time at all to be C; we need to employ time to express C"
I think it was, something like that

 

[bbyrd009]

but again imo the takeaway here is "Why do we suffer?" much more than "time" ok

 

[michaelvpardo]

um, I have a good lecture for this, by Fermi or someone, but you might note that "time" is not considered at all in the function of C as applied by physicists, but rather astronomers (as a measurement of distance however, not time!), or iow time is merely the device we use to calculate C, and it might be seen that "minutes" and "seconds" are completely arbitrary quantities, although I agree that "C = the speed of light" is prolly the best place to start, sure.

Um, one q that springs to mind from the fairly dense lecture is
"What is C right now, in this moment?"
Or iow "C does not need any time at all to be C; we need to employ time to express C"
I think it was, something like that

If C were a measure of distance it wouldn't be constant. Einstein knew this. Distance varies with velocity according to Mr. Einstein's equations (time dilation effect).

 

[bbyrd009]

Absolutely. You tried to equate eternal to an age.

Um pardon me, but that was right outta the Book bro

so, we done?
If you find "Eternal = Immortal" or "forever," lemme know ok

 

[Nancy]

well, thing is imo for most of us time really is an illusion, but I agree that that is inadequate without explanation, and "perception" is prolly a better lead-in there, ty. Unfort that suffers from some inadequacy too tho right, "time is a perception" is after all not very meaningful by itself either.

We are the time machines...not much better i guess huh. Prolly make more sense after watching the vid, which I don't really expect anyone to do

"...which I don't really expect anyone to do" I'm thinking you threw that in there because you knew it would prompt some to actually watch the video?
He is trying to "Italianize" me, lol. Too late, I'm half there . Only about an eight through and will watch for a few more minutes or if I can follow it, lol, then till the end.