NickyLouse

17 “Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished! 19 Therefore, whoever nullifies one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17-19 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Matthew 5:17-19&version=NASB The word rendered as ‘fulfill’ in English is better interpreted as ‘make fully known’.

I don’t think that is necessarily true. I think Omicron is typical - a more contagious but less severe variant. https://worthy.watch/omicron-christmas-present

It is not easily manipulated since it is a distributed network that relies on a consensus for new blocks to be written. However, if more than 51% of the miners collude to manipulate the blockchain, then they could rewrite the history of the blockchain. As mining becomes less and less profitable, you could see some powerful people take over the mining and be able to rewrite the blockchain, which could steal from people's accounts. As for being a worldwide payment system, blockchain has a problem with speed that will grow exponentially slower as it tries to become adopted as a payment system. There are complicated second layers such as Lightning Network that are trying to address that problem, but are running into problems of their own. The other looming issue is quantum computing that will affect not only passwords of blockchain accounts (and all current bank accounts), it also has the potential to annihilate the mining by solving all of the remaining coins almost immediately and making future transactions exceedingly expensive (since nobody will be willing to do it).

TaNaKh stands for Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim. Torah is the instructions (often labeled as the Law). Nevi'im is the Prophets. Ketuvim is the writings that cover the remainder of the older covenant. I guess you could divide the Brit Chadashah (newer covenant) into Gospel accounts of Yeshua's life, the historical acts of the Ruach, and the epistles. I'm not sure you could correlate them to the divisions of the TaNaKh though.

Please ditch FascistBook. Every click enriches the ones who seek total control over society.

The exchange rate is still quite volatile so beware. It is operating more like a stock than a currency. That's why I say that it is primarily based on speculation. Speculation really has nothing to do with real value.

It is in most part due to speculators. However, there is intrinsic value to the system that is not controlled by corrupt governing authorities.

It is not legal tender in the USA. It has been defined as a security by the SEC though and must be declared as such for tax filing. Only El Salvador has adopted it explicitly as legal tender. Some countries have banned it and trading it is illegal. Other countries allow trading but not for sales and other countries require sales to be registered. https://cryptonews.com/guides/countries-in-which-bitcoin-is-banned-or-legal.htm

About whether it is good or not, I agree with the following reply. It is a tool that is neither good nor bad.

This thread appears to be the closest to having a discussion about digital currencies and I would like to continue the discussion even though it has been dormant for quite awhile. My first thought is about whether the blockchain-based digital ledger technology (DLT) is suited for currency or not. A discussion of "what money actually is" is also beneficial. Money has come in a variety of forms throughout history. I refer specifically to the time after the trade and barter system subsided. At that time, a medium was agreed upon that would make trading goods with one another easier. It was something that identified what a person's financial worth was based on their contribution to that society. It had to be something that could not easily be counterfeited. It also had to be something that was rare so that the minting or discovery or creation of "new" money would not overwhelm the system. *A sidenote to this about inflation by an unfettered increase in money supply is dooming the financial world over the past 100 years that has come about by authorizing central banks to have control over the creation of money.* In addition to being rare, it had to be something that could not be easily stolen. It had to be something that was easily exchanged between ordinary people. It had to be something that people would accept and trust. There are other aspects to money, but these define the general concept. With all of that said and with respect to digital currency systems, the world in large part is already on the digital system that is governed by the central banks. Paper cash is still being introduced, but the exchange of money is mostly through digital means. People buy with credit cards at stores that "magically" credit and debit accounts that are linked to those cards. They buy online either with a credit card account number or even their bank account number. They do that without thinking that it is something nefarious. It is just the progression of a system that they have gotten used to and trust. Now, in regard to blockchain-based digital ledger technologies (DLT) upon which Bitcoin and other "coins" work: the main difference is that it is distributed, meaning that there are no central governing authorities controlling it. It is a ledger that is distributed to thousands of computers around the world that agree on every account holding and every transaction that occurs between accounts. That operates similarly to how central banks function except that with the banks they own the account and trust one another with the transactions. With DLTs, it is trustless or in other words, you have to prove that you own what you say that you do. You do that by getting confirmation from all of those thousands of computers that all a majority agree that you have enough assets to make the exchange. The other thing is that you do not have a bank per se' that confirms your assets. Your assets are discoverable by all of those thousands of computers. There will be no building that people can go to where they can exchange funds in an account for a piece of paper that they can hold in their hand or take home and shove under their mattress. Paper is dispensed with. Everything is digital. And that is where my first thought resides. Will people accept and trust a DLT to effectively manage their financial worth?

There are pros ands cons to bitcoin and other blockchain-based digital ledger technologies. I will begin to elaborate by saying that the first pro is that it is distributed and therefore cannot be easily manipulated by a centralized governing authority. The first con is that the general public does not have a grasp on what it is and could be easily duped to lose what they might have.

Hebraic gematria defines 12 as government and a multiple of 10 is divine. A multiple of 1000 is 10 to the 3rd power or perfect divinity. Therefore, the New Jerusalem "size" may refer to perfectly divine government (led by Yeshua). If the size is literally 12000 stadia, the height will rise to the equivalent of 25 earth atmospheres into space.

I have a hard time trusting anything the WHO says.

Food for thought: Suppose that the kingdom of heaven mentioned in the parable of the sower as well as the ten virgins parable is not referring explicitly to salvation. Then, all ten virgins could be saved, but lacking in certain rewards related to the kingdom, rather than being apostates bound for Hell and the lake of fire. We would have to examine what is meant by "outer darkness" in Matthew 8:11-12 where sons of the kingdom were thrown for lacking faith. Perhaps this is a different kingdom principle than that of the ten virgins - or - perhaps the foolish virgins are apostate.

I have to be forthright with you. This is the first time anyone has said to me that the ones locked out were not the foolish virgins. I will consider what you've said. I am skeptical when I hear something for the first time, but don't hold that against me. I am diligent about discovering the truth.

I appreciate your insights. Thank you for responding as kindly as you did.

This then is the cryptic meaning behind the phrase, “I do not know you.” The foolish virgins without faith didn’t love God. That is a beautiful answer. THANK YOU!

This view seems reasonable to me. It is interesting that this view admonishes those who have been saved to not take it lightly. I hear people who believe salvation can be lost say that the foolish ones were not really saved when they thought they were. This parable is probably the most interesting of all of Jesus' parables to me.

I don't want to misunderstand, but I think you are saying that they are not saved.

This seems confusing.

So some saved believers may miss the wedding banquet. That also is interesting to me.

Thank you so much for your answer.

I assume you are saying that all ten virgins are saved and that they lost their salvation by not having the oil. I'm not trying to trap you in your words. I am just trying to understand whether the foolish virgins are saved.

Please help me, if you can.

I appreciate your responses, but nobody has answered in a straight forward manner. Are all of the virgins saved or not?