Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

Hmmmm, four posts in a row. Glad I'm ignoring you.

Maybe the last one.

Which means the sun would have to be at an altitude of 10,000 feet.  Which is stupid because all evidence points to the sun being in space

Projected from inside the Karman Line through areas of atmosphere below.  The Karman Line has an atmosphere but is different from the layers below it. This allows interaction with the atmosphere, but also to project itself across the Earth. This why it appears to show up multiple latitudes and multiple timezones (the hour before and after noon are so similar as to be irrelevant, yet this would require a semi-omnipresent sun in order that different latitude shows the same sun, and different timezone only show minor angle differences.

 "All evidence points" thete, my ass. It is an impossible thing for it to be, what 96 million miles away? As a nearsighted person, I can't even read the bottom line of this. From like 20 feet away.



When our eyes are that sucky, boasting you can see even a big object from a million miles away begins to sound like...


Just a little like an exaggeration. Maybe.

Knowing what I know about eyes work, I find it very hard to believe we can see any object, no matter how big or bright from that distance. Bullcrap. And if we could, it would appear the size of just some star despite how big it's supposed to be.

The evidence instead points to the sun being in a location where it directly interacts with the Earth's atmosphere, since heat doesn't conduct well in a vacuum of space.



In fact, the temperature of space is nearly absolute zero, as we discover from this.



This is due to the fact that heat is scattered over a large area, with no air to hold it.

https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-high-could-icarus-fly-his-wings-melted

Aptly named the thermosphere, this layer in the atmosphere, between 50 to 440 miles, can reach temperatures as high as 4,500 F. The sky-high temperatures in the thermosphere are due to the unfiltered light the layer gets from the sun.

So, is this Ovid, 1; hater, 0?

Not so fast.

Let's understand the difference between temperature and heat.

Just because something is hot doesn't mean it carries a lot of heat. For example, you can hold a popsicle in a 400 F oven, and it would melt, sure, but not nearly as fast as it would if you dipped it into a pot of boiling water at a much cooler 212 F.

That logic applies here as well. There are so few air molecules left at this altitude that the ambient temperature does not mean much when heating and cooling is concerned. Instead, the heat exchange is dominated by radiation.

Without air molecules, heat doesn't really transfer!

heat can transfer:



conduction
direct touch

convection
carredi by the lfow of fluid
coudl be air
could be a liquid

radiation
infra red
aka light
requires no medium for transfer

Hmmmm, four posts in a row. Glad I'm ignoring you.

I’m not going to tolerate your ignorance.  You’re posting shear and complete nonsense. 

This picture…

Shows an optical illusion explained by this.

https://flatearth.ws/clouds-behind-sun

Let’s go through and analyze this picture again.




The clouds in that picture are around 10,000 feet.  Those clouds at the most are only twenty miles away.  That means any aircraft at an airport beyond the twenty miles  of those clouds in the oncoming path of the sun in your delusion would literally be able to fly to your sun.  At 10,000 feet, your sun would literally run into mountain ranges around the world.

When I fly.

One.  During the day, once above the clouds. the sun is literally above the clouds and still above the jet.  The sun hasn’t grown in size at all from gaining more altitude.

Two, If I fly during sunrise, the sun doesn’t “come at the horizon”.  It rises above the horizon.  This is known because the sun stays the same size. It travels its arc through the sky at the same rate.  If the sun for sunrise was coming at the horizon, the sun would appear to gain altitude at varying speeds.  Off in the distance, the sun would appear to come straight at you with little change in altitude.  When it got close enough, it would to appear to pickup speed to climb in altitude.  The reverse for sunset. 

And you still have no explanation why the sun, being the brightest object in the solar system where a telescope can bring much fainter objects into view, would every physically be blocked from view for flat earth.

The sun is literally blocked from view by the moon during a solar eclipse.  The moon is a physical object . What altitude does that put the moon if you think the sun is hanging out in clouds only 10,000 feet above the flat earth?

Your nonsense can’t even be remotely taken seriously at this point.  It’s just right out ignorant and delusional.  If anything you posted was true. The sun and moon hanging out in clouds.  It would literally show up in weather and airport radar.  Any airplane that can fly up to 30,000 feet could literally fly to the sun and moon in your delusion.  Your sun and moon wouldn’t be able to make it over some of the mountain ranges in the world. 

heat can transfer:

conduction
direct touch

The medium is metal. And ultimately you, if you touch the coils instead of instead of a pan.

convection
carried by the flow of fluid
could be air
could be a liquid

Also a medium. Gases or liquids are a medium.

radiation
infra red
aka light
requires no medium for transfer

Actually, nowhere on Earth is there a complete absence of media.  Sometimes the media is metal or even soil.  Only outside of Earth could such a thing happen completely, and there are problems with that, which I will elaborate below.

Now, the party line is that radio and light are basically the same thing (they aren't, difference wavelength) and both travel at the speed of light, and both travel infinitely far.

But light and radio do break down in a vacuum, and the people showing it continuing infinitely are supplying more energy to the process by adding electromagnetic stuff (they're got the power on, in other words).  That is, it's a magic trick. Should I pull the plug on their little project, light goes out as instantly as when I switch off a flashlight.  Light in a vacuum requires energy to persist in a vacuum.



See all these wires? What happens when I power down the phone? How long do you think the inside of this stays lit? You know the answer. Light does not travel any faster in a vacuum, and cut off from energy, it behaves as all light does. It breaks down.

Because we know this, we can also know that fuck no, the sun cannot be outside the Earth. Within the Earth, the heat energy from warming its local atmosphere self-supplies energy to keep a stable reaction going where it fails on all perpetual energy devices we've ever made (this is because the One who created it knew what they are doing). 



In a vacuum however, heat is not perpetual reaction, but a regular exothermic reaction. Heat moves outward through empty space and loses thermal energy until like the lightbulb, it browns out forever. The sun can stay ablaze if it is constantly warming itself by warming the air around it. But that's even assuming it's a source of heat and light.  I think it's projecting both of these things like a glorified mirror.

In the burning bush video above, yes you can see radiation rather than conventional thermal energy, but there is a distinction between that and manmade radiant energy. Namely that the Source of this flame appears inexhaustible. That is, we are looking at something that is its own source of energy. That violates the laws of thermodynamics blatantly. In fact, when God gets angry in the clip, energy is added into the system, which is impossible under existing rules of thermodynamics.

See this is the real reason you guys believe in RE. You can make up all this nonsense about the Heat Death of the Universe, basing it on the fact that you can't get fires to stay lit, or lights to radiate without energy input.  The fucking gloomy Germans came up with all of these morbid secular worldviews. Yet the sun has stayed lit for billions of years. The odds against such an occurrence are steep, unless it was made specifically to remain as long as there is an Earth. 
Maybe one day the Earth will die (if that is what God wants), but until that day, the Earth is made as a well-oiled machine. The tides work, the sun and moon work, the sky works, the weather works, and the seismic motion presumably works. While we humans have utterly failed at all attempts of perpetual energy, the sun and moon continue to work eons after they first appeared.

https://kk.org/thetechnium/there-aint-no-h-1/

The sun is a familiar example. As the sun loses energy by radiation, it becomes hotter and not cooler. Since the sun is made of compressible gas squeezed by its own gravitation, loss of energy causes it to become smaller and denser, and the compression causes it to become hotter

If the sun becomes hotter as it gets smaller, then within an atmosphere, heat will cycle. It eventually gets hot enough to ignite the air around it, in turn making that air part of the sun. Then it loses energy by radiation, becoming hotter as it gets smaller, then igniting air around it...

The sun, if it has lasted for billions of years, cannot be in outer space.

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 01, 2023, 07:42:18 AM

heat can transfer:

:smh:

conduction
direct touch

The medium is metal. And ultimately you, if you touch the coils instead of instead of a pan.

convection
carried by the flow of fluid
could be air
could be a liquid

Also a medium. Gases or liquids are a medium.

radiation
infra red
aka light
requires no medium for transfer

Actually, nowhere on Earth is there a complete absence of media.  Sometimes the media is metal or even soil.  Just removing

Now, the party line is that radio and light are basically the same thing (they aren't, difference wavelength) and both travel at the speed of light, and both travel infinitely far.

But if that were actually true, there would be no reason to update radio towers once built or to build more high tech stuff. 5G is at an actual higher frequency than 4G or 3G, and some people say it's dangerous because it's close to microwave frequency. Literally you would not need to bombard yourself with that more dangerous frequency if all wavelengths moved at the speed of light. 

But here's what some actual physicists who defied the party line said. They managed to get individual
https://physicsworld.com/a/structured-photons-slow-down-in-a-vacuum/

I would go still further, and say that light and radio do break down, in a vacuum, and the people showing it continuing infinitely are supplying more energy to the process by adding electromagnetic stuff (they're got the power on, in other words).  That is, it's a magic trick. Should I pull the plug on their little project, light goes out as instantly as when I switch off a flashlight.  Light in a vacuum requires energy to persist in a vacuum.This is why there is static. Static is electromagnetic latency, or when particles of EM are having a lag of it.



See all these wires? What happens when I power down the phone? How long do you think the inside of this stays lit? You know the answer. Light does not travel any faster in a vacuum, and cut off from energy, it behaves as all light does. It breaks down.

Because we know this, we can also know that fuck no, the sun cannot be outside the Earth. Within the Earth, the heat energy from warming its local atmosphere self-supplies energy to keep a stable reaction going where it fails on all perpetual energy devices we've ever made (this is because the One who created it knew what they are doing). 



In a vacuum however, heat is not perpetual reaction, but a regular exothermic reaction. Heat moves outward through empty space and loses thermal energy until like the lightbulb, it browns out forever. The sun can stay ablaze if it is constantly warming itself by warming the air around it. But that's even assuming it's a source of heat and light.  I think it's projecting both of these things.

In the burning bush video above, yes you can see radiation rather than conventional thermal energy, but there is a distinction between that and manmade radiant energy. Namely that the Source of this flame appears inexhaustible. That is, we are looking at something that is its own source of energy.

Radio and 5g
Its all about the bandwidth.


And regards to heat transfer?
Aaaah you just a whole lot of nonsense there.
Lets just await jackB to aaaken from his australian slumber.

And regards to heat transfer?
Aaaah you just a whole lot of nonsense there.
Lets just await jackB to awaken from his australian slumber.

Jack Benny?



If you bothered to listen better, maybe you'd get it.

1. The sun releases radiation as heat and light into the air.
2. This causes it to shrink as it loses energy.
3. This causes it to become more densely hot, which in turn radiates greater heat around it.
4. If this were all there was to it, the sun would snuff itself.
5. However, because heat is not in a vacuum, this heat ignites the medium (the air) causing it to combust.
6. Which in turn restores it to its original size.
7. The cycle repeats...



It's a perfectly stable energy equation that manages to slightly produce heat and light outside itself (light and heat are conserved, because it never leaves Earth, just spreads around).

Because of #5, the sun cannot be in space. It would lose energy.

Is the sun in front of the leaves and limbs?



Is the sun on my finger?



Is it in front of the power lines?


In front of the power poles?




Sad bulmabriefs144 you literally fall for flat earth illusions and propaganda. 

Now the matter you’re so desperately trying to avoid.

You still have provided no means how the sun, the brightest object in our solar, becomes physically blocked from view in your delusion.  With no evidence in that the sun, which stays the same size as it travels the sky, would have to get father and father away at sunset in your delusion.  And the sun would get smaller and smaller.  And the sun’s approach to the horizon would get slower and slower.  With the sun not quite reaching the horizon.

Because of #5, the sun cannot be in space. It would lose energy.

WTF?  You mean the sun that is literally consuming its hydrogen fuel radiating into space with a small fraction of the earth receiving that energy.  Life on earth exists as we know it because the sun is losing energy to the earth.

it.

1. The sun releases radiation as heat and light into the air.

Just heat and light? No other type of radiation?  Or charged particles.

By what process? This magic mirror of yours.  From what source?

Hmm

 It's a glorified mirror reflecting the actual brightness of God nearby.

Look.  I can put your god on my finger😂😂😂😂😂

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 30, 2023, 06:32:20 AM

Is the sun in front of the leaves and limbs?



Is the sun on my finger?



Is it in front of the power lines?


In front of the power poles?




Sad bulmabriefs144 you literally fall for flat earth illusions and propaganda. 

Now the matter you’re so desperately trying to avoid.

You still have provided no means how the sun, the brightest object in our solar, becomes physically blocked from view in your delusion.  With no evidence in that the sun, which stays the same size as it travels the sky, would have to get father and father away at sunset in your delusion.  And the sun would get smaller and smaller.  And the sun’s approach to the horizon would get slower and slower.  With the sun not quite reaching the horizon.

You're only embarrassing yourself. That's called glare, and it's the underlying principle of why the sun can appear in multiple timezones and multiple latitudes.

But it's the fact that the sun interacts with the sky that proves it is within the atmosphere.

I have literally answered this question. You pretend not to hear the answer. But it's on my own signature.

The sun reaches the point that it set, but you keep subtly trying to push the conversation into "the sun sinks into the horizon" where you can strawman it away. Sorry, no that's not what happens on either RE or FE.
Deal with it.

 If it did that on RE, the sheer size of the ball would instantly incinerate everyone. The FE near sun model has a much smaller and friendlier sun, but all the same, it's in a fixed position in the sky (up in the Karman Line, as I've said before). The horizon however, moves with your vertical position (it's formed by lines of sight). Try it out, and climb a mountain today!

My dad's a priest. He'd occasionally encounter people from the woke Marxist crowd. He could usually pick them out, as they were the people checking carefully what he said to be sure it didn't defy Commie Party line (yes, they are in America). He mostly just ignored them and preached the Gospel, which is about the Gospel, not about political or social change.
Anyway, he got one family where their friend was as dumb as a post, or at least she came across this way. She kept being like "I don't understand, could you explain it?" What she really wanted probably was either to trick him into saying something that could be reported back to the Party or try to mentally exhaust him by having him repeat everything. But it just made her look dumb. One day, I think he said something like, "Everyone else here understands it just fine, and I wasn't speaking in riddles. Why aren't you understanding it?" Sorry lady, maybe you're just that out of it, if you can't understand what I've explained. And it wasn't his job to serve the Party anymore than it's my job to humor your questions. If you don't understand, that's on you.
As for you, I quite literally have the answer to your question in my signature about perspective. Why don't you waste an hour of your own time instead of mine?

And what's with that unusually reflective sun? I've never managed to get the sun on my finger.

You're only embarrassing yourself. That's called glare,

Hmm.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 30, 2023, 06:32:20 AM

Glare, clouds of different density, over exposure.

Where it’s explained by this..

https://flatearth.ws/clouds-behind-sun

And the effect is reproduced here..



And here…


And the poles, cables, and limbs are solid.  And not as susceptible to the illusion of glare as translucent clouds.


Where you posted this..

Where the clouds are probably around 10,000 feet. You ever look up the cloud data for the time of the picture.  Where if the sun was in the clouds at 10,000 feet, the sun would be a menace to aircraft.

And doesn’t explain why when I fly during the day, and the jet gets above the clouds.  The sun is above the clouds and higher than the jet. 

And you so desperately keep trying to change the subject from…

  You still have provided no means how the sun, the brightest object in our solar, becomes physically blocked from view in your delusion.  With no evidence in that the sun, which stays the same size as it travels the sky, would have to get father and father away at sunset in your delusion.  And the sun would get smaller and smaller.  And the sun’s approach to the horizon would get slower and slower.  With the sun not quite reaching the horizon.

"Woke marxist commies"?


Hahahahahahaha



Google woke Jesus
Google republican Jesus

There's also a Korean Jesus. Your point?



Jesus was there for all people. But the woke Commies decided he was an enemy.

32Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father in heaven. 33But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven.

If you who are woke, decide Christ is an enemy of your agenda, then your agenda will always be against him. If however, you regard Christ as your friend, then even if you have to kill people as your job, Christ will provide grace even to assassins.

Jesus had a Zealot in his group. The Zealots were basically freedom fighters against Rome. But Jesus didn't insist Simon the Zealot fight anyone. His job was irrelevant to God's grace.

The point being that dense people will always be dense, and it's not up to me to provide them with shocking clarity or persuade them.  I write how I write, and I'm not speaking in riddles. If you don't understand, that's on you.

There's also a Korean Jesus. Your point?

Hello,

The meat of the thread is..

You still have provided no means how the sun, the brightest object in our solar, becomes physically blocked from view in your delusion.  With no evidence in that the sun, which stays the same size as it travels the sky, would have to get father and father away at sunset in your delusion.  And the sun would get smaller and smaller.  And the sun’s approach to the horizon would get slower and slower.  With the sun not quite reaching the horizon.

 and it's the underlying principle of why the sun can appear in multiple timezones and multiple latitudes.

You mean this?

The current tilt of Earth’s orbit. More solar radiation is absorbed by a square meter of Earth's surface near the equator than a square meter at high latitudes as a result of the curvature of the Earth.
Credit: National Park Service(link is external). (NPS)

Which explains day and night.  Why the sun arcs through the sky at a constant size and speed? 

Where on the flat earth the sun would have to turn north once over California instead of the witnessed westward path.

There's also a Korean Jesus. Your point?



Jesus was there for all people. But the woke Commies decided he was an enemy.

Quote

32Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father in heaven. 33But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven.

If you who are woke, decide Christ is an enemy of your agenda, then your agenda will always be against him. If however, you regard Christ as your friend, then even if you have to kill people as your job, Christ will provide grace even to assassins.

Jesus had a Zealot in his group. The Zealots were basically freedom fighters against Rome. But Jesus didn't insist Simon the Zealot fight anyone. His job was irrelevant to God's grace.

The point being that dense people will always be dense, and it's not up to me to provide them with shocking clarity or persuade them.  I write how I write, and I'm not speaking in riddles. If you don't understand, that's on you.

The point is

Jesus is everything the repubs hate.
Socialism
Communism
Woke
Charity
Being kind
Etcetc


Thats the point

Hmmm

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 30, 2023, 09:09:14 PM

In addition to the clouds should be obliterated by the heat of the sun.  What was cloud cover altitude at that time?  10,000 feet.  That makes the sun only two miles above the earth in your delusion.


Flat earth is stupid.

How does a sun only two miles above a flat earth wrapped in clouds light up multiple times zones.  Always appear to travel straight west day to day.  No indication of a north turn required by flat earth for a sunset off California.  And travel the sky at a constant speed and size.  Where on a flat earth, the sun while “setting” would go away from the viewer getting smaller.  And it’s descent towards the horizon would get slower and slower.  And never appear to go below the horizon. 

Actually, it's about if the sun is no longer in view (RE says because the Earth has rotated to face the opposite direction), but the moon can still cast light, it's kinda unclear how exactly that perfect angle that shines so brightly can work.

I admit it's a fucking dumb picture, with the scale of the sun and moon all weird.

But Data can't address this, so he pretends not to listen.

Again, it is about you entirely ignoring how the RE model works, to set up a strawman to knock down.
Because you can't refute the RE, you need to lie about it.

Again, the alignment isn't perfect except during rare periods.
During these rare periods, we get a lunar eclipse.
Outside of these periods we get a full moon.

Sun is no longer visible because it has set. Moon is still visible. You're all like "aha, I trapped you! The sun has to be behind an obstruction!" like two pages ago or whatever. But you clearly tell me that (1) the sun must cast light on the moon, (2) sunlight doesn't diminish ever but just continues infinitely if there's a straight line, but (3) the sun cannot be seen because of an obstruction in curvature.

Therefore, the angle of the moon would naturally also be obstructed, at least from being a perfect full moon.

And notice the key part there: "PERFECT full moon".
We never see a perfect full moon.

The sun can be hidden from direct view, while you can still see things illuminated by it.
We have been over this countless times.

Here is a nice simple thing for you to do. Go get a ball and hold it up between you and the light in your room, quite close to your eyes.
The ball blocks your view of the light. But does that make the entire room magically dark? No.

Full moon is supposed to be because the moon is in a direct angle to have full sun. Not only is this impossible for any length of time with the Earth rotating

Earth rotating is entirely irrelevant. The shape of Earth is entirely irrelevant.
A perfect full moon is impossible unless you are entirely transparent.
This is because it would require the light to go through you, to reach the moon to then go back to your eye.

If you are happy with an offset for a FE, then you should be happy with an offset for a RE.
Doing otherwise is just you being incredibly dishonest; using whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend Earth can't be round.

If you wish to disagree, then try providing a diagram of how it magically works on a FE but can't on a RE.

but now that I call you out on a light behaving in just such an unexpected way

You don't.
You just blatantly lie about what is happening.

As you continue to walk away, the tree fades into the landscape.

Fade/shrink or sink?
The 2 are drastically different.
What perspective on a FE does is make objects shrink, with the angle of elevation approaching 0.
It has no way to make objects appear to sink into Earth like the sun does during a sunset.
It is clearly NOT perspective.

To say the sun goes behind the curvature or below the horizon means you really do not understand either!

No, it means we understand it quite well and accept reality.

When the sun has set, it is not visible. This is accurate. If you will pick my words apart, so too for you.

The question is why?
What magic means it is not?
It is clearly not perspective as it disappears while still resolvable, and does so by appearing to sink into Earth, and doesn't appear to shrink.
It is clearly not it getting too dim, as it is incredibly bright when it disappears and we still see indirect light from it after it sets.

The only explanation that actually makes sense is that something is blocking the view. And the only thing available to block the view is Earth.

We've been over this.
The longer the distance, the lower the angle at the same elevation.

Yes, we have been over this.
The further away it is, the closer to 0 the angle will be.
It will NEVER actually get to 0, and it will NEVER get below 0.
And importantly, it would also shrink.

At some point (called the vanishing point)

Which is infinitely far away and would have it appear as a literal point.
So again, not relavent.

What about that is coherent? You would have eclipses all the time!

No, we wouldn't, as the moon does not orbit in the same plane as Earth's orbit around the sun.
So eclipses would be restricted to certain times of the year when it aligns.

On a flat Earth model, the orbits of the sun and moon must overlap over a specific region. The actual eclipse proper would only last a few minutes. As it does.

No, eclipses last quite a while.
The region of totality for a solar eclipse is small and passes over a region in a few minutes, but the eclipse itself lasts quite a while.

You're using math based on assumptions.

No, we are using math based upon evidence and logic.

Since FE ppl are not mainstream science, I will wager not one of them have given measurements of the Earth.

Plenty have.
e.g:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Eratosthenes_on_Diameter

We do not know even that there is not some sort of Truman-show screen all around us.

Yes, you can go along the path of outright rejecting all of reality.
You can even claim you can just be a brain in a jar.
But that wouldn't get you a FE either.

However, it does look like you just threw numbers at a wall, hoping something would stick.

No, they didn't.
It is a simple fact that with the common FE claims, the sun should never set. It should remain quite high in the sky.

But let's use timezones as the real indicator ...

That is not an alternative theory. That is just wild speculation, based upon nothing, which isn't even thought out at all.
It also doesn't make any sense when you actually think about it.

Firstly, you entirely ignore that time zones are also quite long going north-south.
Why should the sun be seen over the entire time zone length, but just a tiny sliver wide?
The other issue is the border of a time zone.
With multiple suns, one of 3 things will happen as you go from one time zone to another.
Either pure magic will cause the sun to just vanish and another replace it as you cross the border between.
Or, there will be a point where you can see both suns.
Or there will be a point where you can see neither, while other locations in the time zones can't see any.

So you don't have anything which even comes close to matching reality or making sense. So there is nothing for you to calculate.
But if you do pretend Earth is flat, and try to calculate the elevation of the sun from multiple locations, you get an inconsistent answer, because Earth is not flat.

e.g. doing it on the equinox on the equator and 45 degrees north, you end up with 5000 km.

Or it's just above where the stratosphere ends.

And that would mean it would go overhead very fast and slow down and shrink dramatically as it moved away,

this is as good a guess as any

But no where near as good as actually thinking about it, and using known observations to determine it.

It's unlikely that it's beyond the Karman Line though.

Given the fact it does not significantly change angular size, regardless of where you are, or how long you observe it for; it must be VERY far away, far enough to make the change in distance insignificant.

My extrapolation based on trips ... it appears to be flat.

No, you don't, as you have nothing showing it is flat.
You have views of tiny portion of it showing peaks and valleys, but nothing to suggest that on the large scale it is flat.

I also believe in the non-distant sun model.

Which as above cause so many problems it isn't funny.
Your beliefs are clearly wrong.

Since outer space propulsion is increasingly improbable

Yet no one can explain why.
Instead all they can do is spout blatant lies which are trivial to refute and try to claim that all footage is fake.

This is because I also accept that light only has a limited course in a vacuum before its own energy runs out.

That isn't acceptance. That is just boldly asserting delusional BS without any justification at all.
Light can't just magically lose energy.
Instead it needs to be reflected or absorbed.
The closest you get is it spreading out.

no medium means no motion, which also means no visible light.

No medium means no resistance to motion.
And that has no impact on light.

Recall that we do not in fact know what we are seeing with regard to the sun.

We know quite a lot.
The best you can get is basically claiming all of reality is fake.

It appears to be asynchronous, since it appears for half the daily hours ...

Or, the vastly more likely option, you are spouting pure BS like always and ignoring the vastly simpler option.
The sun illuminates roughly half of earth.
You can even try this with a simple ball and light.

There is nothing magical or "asynchronous" about it.

We are not looking at something light years away, we are looking at something however that is roughly five times as distant as any other object except for the moon.

Firstly, the sun is not light years away. But plenty of stars are.
But as for the rest of your BS, based upon what?
And do you not realise just how stupid such a claim is?
5 times as distant as any other object?
My screen is roughly 1 m from me. So the sun is 5 m?
I can see a plane as it flies overhead at an altitude of roughly 10 km. So the sun is 50 km away?

we have an orbit and size problem

No. YOU have the problem, because you keep on ignoring what the numbers actually are and what this should cause for the model, and instead you just start spouting pure BS.

You tell me that the sun and moon are completely different sizes and just so happen to look the same size because distance shrinks the sun to a manageable level.

They aren't the same.
They are approximately the same. And because of Earth's elliptical orbit, and the Moon's elliptical orbit, the apparent sizes vary.
Some times the moon appears larger than the sun, other times it appears smaller.

the sun or moon should look strange in comparison to how the other moves

Why? Because you say so?
If all you have are visual observations, then you can't tell which is which.

If you set up a camera, looking an object, with no other reference visible, you cannot tell if the camera is circling the object, or the object is circling the camera.
The observations are equivalent, because these visual observations just depend upon the relative position of the objects.

But they aren't the same.

The main component of the motion is quite similar, where they both appear to move around once per day. This is because the majority of the apparent motion comes from the rotation of Earth. Something I notice you wish to ignore; and something that also affects the stars.
But the moon completes an orbit in roughly 1 month, so the sub-lunar point (and the angle of elevation for the moon when it is due north/south) cycles over a period of 1 month, from 1 extreme to another. Conversely, the sun takes 1 year.
So there is that difference.

The sun is within the atmosphere because it reacts to the atmosphere

No, that is not seen in the pictures below.
Instead, what is seen in the pictures below is the light from the sun interacting with the atmosphere.

e.g. we see it scatter of dust such that we get the appearance of beams of sunlight.
It can be blocked by clouds, either entirely or just partly.

There is no basis to conclude that clouds are behind the sun.
You do not have sufficient contrast in those images to tell.

Sorry, but... yeah, you're crazy.

We aren't the ones repeatedly lying about reality and the RE model to cling to a delusional fantasy which cannot be explained at all.
We aren't the ones continually ignoring criticism of our claims and simple questions which show a massive problem.
That is entirely you.

In actual fact, just tonight, I saw a sunset. On the way over, we had clouds in front or behind the sun as we drove back, and even one line of clouds that literally split the sun in half by a vertical line.

Again, you do not.
What you have is insufficient contrast to see the slight diminishing of light passing through a thin section of a cloud.

But all you can say is, "Maybe it's over-exposed." It's time. Cya.

And all you can do is ignore simple logic which shows your claims are garbage.
You are happy to spout whatever BS you can think of, with no concern for the truth at all; all to pretend Earth is flat.

The sun's actual name is Yata no Kagami.

No, it's Sol.
And it has nothing to do with your delusional cult.

then it cannot become "overexposed".

For someone who claims to understand photography, you sure seem to present yourself as someone who has no idea at all.
Any light source can be overexposed on a camera.
And even without using a camera, your eyes adjust to the brightness.

e.g. if it is night and you are outside seeing relatively well with the moonlight, and then someone shines a torch right in your face you can no longer see the faint stuff around you.
In each piece of garbage you appeal to, the sun is vastly overexposed.
It is reaching the limit of the camera, so if you cut down a bit on the light, it will still appear the same.

Whenever Youtube has to put a disclaimer on "misinformation", we know the Powers That Be are in on the act.

Or we know that dishonest scum are trying to con people into believing pure BS.

Youtube doesn't want people to use their platform to try to con others.

I'm sorry, but yes, it is proof.

No, it isn't. It doesn't even come close.

The sun should not be able to interact with atmosphere outside the atmosphere

But the light, which has travelled through space and went into Earth's atmosphere, CAN!

It also should not give the appearance of being surrounded, since it should appear far above all clouds in the sky.

You are viewing it in 2D, without any semblance of depth.
You have no idea which is in front of the other.

You were even given an example with film and a light.
Now you are just blatantly lying to everyone. You have no excuse.

I don't believe her either.

Of course you don't, because you don't care about the truth at all.

no amount of overexposure forces the clouds in front away

Yes, it does. By making it so you cannot discern those clouds cutting out a tiny bit of light from the sun vs the sun itself.

The sun and moon are not objects.  You can't drive past them, they don't get closer or farther as they rise or set, and no matter what time zone/elevation/latitude the sun is equally visible from rise to set provided no obstructions.

You didn't need to put in the qualifier of "rise to set".

All this demonstrates is that the sun is incredibly far away, and Earth blocks the view.

this would require a semi-omnipresent sun in order that different latitude shows the same sun, and different timezone only show minor angle differences.

The angles are different across a time zone as you go north and south. It isn't just east-west.
The is 100% consistent with a RE and a distant sun.
There is no need for any magic.

If the sun was close, it should be vastly different.

It is an impossible thing for it to be, what 96 million miles away?

Why?
What magic makes it impossible.

As a nearsighted person

We have been over this.
You even admitted to being able to see objects much further away.

Your vision is not magically limited.
The larger an object is, the further it can be resolved from.

When our eyes are that sucky, boasting you can see even a big object from a million miles away begins to sound like...
Just a little like an exaggeration. Maybe.

Or, like the truth. Which you hate, so you need to find pathetic excuses to dismiss it because you cannot come up with any rational objection.

Knowing what I know about eyes work, I find it very hard to believe we can see any object, no matter how big or bright from that distance.

And that is another blatant lie.
If you actually knew about how our eyes work, including that it is based upon angles, you would recognise that regardless of distance, there will be a size where you can see it, as long as it is bright enough and there are no obstructions.

it would appear the size of just some star despite how big it's supposed to be.

WHY?
Again, you just assert pure BS with no justification at all.
You are looking for whatever BS you can to reject reality.

The evidence instead points to the sun being in a location where it directly interacts with the Earth's atmosphere, since heat doesn't conduct well in a vacuum of space.

No evidence shows that.
Instead, it just demonstrates your lack of understanding of energy transfer.

Without air molecules, heat doesn't really transfer!

No, without air molecules it doesn't conduct or convect. But they are not the only methods of heat transfer.
Radiative heat transfer does not need air.

Now, the party line is that radio and light are basically the same thin (they aren't, difference wavelength) and both travel at the speed of light, and both travel infinitely far.

You mean REALITY.
That isn't any party line.

But light and radio do break down in a vacuum

Yet you cannot provide a single example of this.
Instead, you look for cheap tricks.

Light in a vacuum requires energy to persist in a vacuum.

Wrong again.
Light in a vacuum IS energy.
In order for it to stop existing, that energy has to go somewhere.

You literally provided a video showing light going through a vacuum while sound does not.

What happens when I power down the phone? How long do you think the inside of this stays lit?

You would turn off the phone, which stops any additional light being emitted, so the light continues through the vacuum and travels outside the container with no extra light being produced.

Light does not travel any faster in a vacuum, and cut off from energy, it behaves as all light does. It breaks down.

No, it doesn't.
You are acting like the light propagating out of the container magically means it breaks down because nothing is there to replace it.
It is pure BS.

Because we know this, we can also know that fuck no, the sun cannot be outside the Earth.

Again, quite the opposite.
As the experiment demonstrates beyond any sane doubt that light can propagate through a vacuum we can say the sun can be in space.

In a vacuum however, heat is not perpetual reaction

If you are going to appeal to magic, with your magical god magically making perpetual motion work, why would it need to be in the atmosphere?
Why couldn't it be outside?

loses thermal energy until like the lightbulb, it browns out forever.

And it will, eventually.
But that will take several billion years.

See this is the real reason you guys believe in RE. You can make up all this nonsense

You are the one making up nonsense about a magic sky fairy.
So don't go throwing around the idea that we are making up nonsense.

Heat Death of the Universe, basing it on the fact that you can't get fires to stay lit, or lights to radiate without energy input.

It is actually far more fundamental than that.
It is the second law of thermodynamics.
Any time you carry out a process, entropy will either remain exactly the same in the perfect case, or it will increase.

If you want to appeal to magic to try to circumvent that, go ahead.

The sun, if it has lasted for billions of years, cannot be in outer space.

Why?
It is massive. It has a massive stockpile of fuel.
There is NOTHING to show it can't be in outer space.

1. The sun releases radiation as heat and light into the air.
2. This causes it to shrink as it loses energy.
3. This causes it to become more densely hot, which in turn radiates greater heat around it.
4. If this were all there was to it, the sun would snuff itself.

After how long?
1 second?
1 year?
1 billion years?
1 quadrillion years?
Do the math and show us.

Because of #5, the sun cannot be in space. It would lose energy.

Wrong again.
Because of #5, the sun, as it is losing energy from radiating heat, MUST necessarily run out eventually unless you have a magical unlimited source of energy.

You're only embarrassing yourself.

Quite the opposite.
You are just showing your own dishonesty.
It clearly demonstrates your argument that the sun must be in front of clouds is pure BS.

I have literally answered this question. You pretend not to hear the answer. But it's on my own signature.

No, you haven't.
You have had the BS in your signature refuted so many times it isn't funny.
But because you don't care about the truth at all, you just keep on repeating the same lie.

Again, if perspective is making it sink, it needs to shrink. And no amount of perspective will make it sink into the ground. It will only ever get closer.

If it did that on RE, the sheer size of the ball would instantly incinerate everyone.

It sinks BEHIND the horizon.
Not physically into Earth.
But if Earth was flat, that is what would be required.

The horizon however, moves with your vertical position (it's formed by lines of sight). Try it out, and climb a mountain today!

Yes, just like you would expect for a RE, and nothing like what is expected for a FE.

If you don't understand, that's on you.

The difference between us and your possibly fictional woman is that we are explaining what is wrong with your BS and you just ignore it.

If you who are woke, decide Christ is an enemy of your agenda

Jesus is fictional garbage. That doesn't make it an enemy.
But religious nutjobs that want to reject reality certainly are.

But Jesus didn't insist Simon the Zealot fight anyone.

Instead, he flipped tables and chased people out with whips?

The point being that dense people will always be dense

Is that your way of saying you will always be dense and never accept the truth?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 02, 2023, 06:11:06 AM

There's also a Korean Jesus. Your point?



Jesus was there for all people. But the woke Commies decided he was an enemy.

Quote

32Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father in heaven. 33But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven.

If you who are woke, decide Christ is an enemy of your agenda, then your agenda will always be against him. If however, you regard Christ as your friend, then even if you have to kill people as your job, Christ will provide grace even to assassins.

Jesus had a Zealot in his group. The Zealots were basically freedom fighters against Rome. But Jesus didn't insist Simon the Zealot fight anyone. His job was irrelevant to God's grace.

The point being that dense people will always be dense, and it's not up to me to provide them with shocking clarity or persuade them.  I write how I write, and I'm not speaking in riddles. If you don't understand, that's on you.

The point is

Jesus is everything the repubs hate.
Socialism
Communism
Woke
Charity
Being kind
Etcetc

Thats the point

You've got Republicans conflated with some sort of Rockefeller ideal. It would probably surprise you to find out that between Democrats and Republicans, Republicans are bigger givers to charities.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-lefts-idea-of-generosity-11549228822
The left on the other hand, would like to use my money for charity. They don't like spending their own cash.

And many of the businesses that run on sweatshop labor? They also encourage unions so they can nuke their local business. Yup, they're leftists. Leftists are the slave party. Always have been.

Jesus was an anarchist. Not a socialist.

He supported:
- Not paying taxes

However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take it and give it to them for you and Me.

-Owning a weapon

Then said He unto them, "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it and likewise his pack; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.

-Personal charity, not state charity
(He told the disciples, "You feed them" when they had five loaves and two fish not "go to Rome and ask them to help us with this food shortage")

Republicans believe in small government, and the right to defend oneself. They also generally oppose the idea of a centralized system like communism. Pushed to its logical extreme, Republicanism would be Ayn Rand anarchist society like they show in Atlas Shrugged.
Pushed to its logical extreme, we have already seen the bloodbath that is socialism.

Forcing people to share their wealth at gunpoint is not generosity. It's theft.

Jesus didn't teach theft. Nor did he say that the rich man must share his wealth, only that if his goal was to make right by God, he should get rid of what is getting in the way of God.

The thieves paint him as one of their heroes, until someone points out that's not what he said at all. Then they go back to hating him. Conflating people who want to decide how they spend their money with greedy captains of industry is a nice trick, but that's all it is. Upon figuring out what the Democratic party is really like, most former Dems switched sides, only to discover the RINO phenomenon. Those same establishment crooks are there, so the system is rigged.

I also love how you unironically claim the word woke as if it's something to be proud of. Woke is being a moral hypocrite. Most of the population wants blacks and whites equal, women and men to have decent wages, and for people like me (have I mentioned I'm genderfluid today?) to have human rights.
Woke people make it a taxpayer responsibility instead of the far cheaper option of making murder a crime whether it's against someone gay or straight, and then act like they're doing some incredible thing (only the decent thing), while deferring most of this to big government. Republicans that care at all about LGBT ppl want them to have the right to be successful financially. Woke Democrats want silly privileges (e.g. fining people for misgendering) which in turn creates BACKLASH against them (thanks, btw) and for them to be on welfare. Oh and btw. Removing the faces of black women and men from products isn't "fighting racism." Mr Clean hasn't been removed from his products. Black Erasure.

Posing private charities but in reality are legal money laundering for tax avoidancr and PAC influence.

A billionaire spends 1M to buy a politican is a small price to pay.

or hide his other 1B in a trust for his heirs to live work free for 100 generations.

Its a scam.

And you think billionaire bezos owned wsj putting out a "report' saying poor leftists are out chartied by the rich hoarding rightists is not by any "progpagandist plan"?

Interesting your tinfoil hat only comes out against for circles and triangles but when blatant nonsese like this

Wow

Wwoooooww


You are an amazing person.

Repubs beleive in small govt only when it suits big corp agenda

But they love tax funded fema saving them from the ever increasing natural disasters

They love deregulating banks for private profit then using tax funded bank bail outs wjen inevitbale hits.

They love hooking the countries middle class on opiods then dumping the burden of borders amd healthcare on the public and buying off prosecttors so they can settle while keeping the bulk of the profits.

Love privatizing water for big corp use and drying up wells for the locals.

Cool
Repubs do love small govt.
Apparently they also love socialism.

Unfortubately for you, you and i are of the population class thar benefit from neither.

Wow

Way to mis quote Jesus


"Give to caesar what is caesars."
Sounds like tax to me..

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 01, 2023, 05:29:39 PM

Now, the party line is that radio and light are basically the same thin (they aren't, difference wavelength) and both travel at the speed of light, and both travel infinitely far.

You mean REALITY.
That isn't any party line.

When something is so official it is called REALITY, you're just mentioning a party line. In reality (lowercase), light and sound have a limit to range. Typically, you can't hear a concert ten blocks away even if it is deafening closer by. You can't see a car's headlights infinitely. Radio is only successful bevause thete are towers everywhere.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 01, 2023, 05:29:39 PM

But light and radio do break down in a vacuum

Yet you cannot provide a single example of this.
Instead, you look for cheap tricks.

Cheap tricks is how you roll. For instance...

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 01, 2023, 05:29:39 PM

Light in a vacuum requires energy to persist in a vacuum.

Wrong again.
Light in a vacuum IS energy.
In order for it to stop existing, that energy has to go somewhere.

You literally provided a video showing light going through a vacuum while sound does not.
Yes, and what you failed to notice was the whole time, it was supplied with power.
It is pure BS.

When you turn on a flashlight, the particles of air are lit up. When you turn it off, you don't see energy "going somewhere", you see light immediately shut off. This tells me that if you say light is energy, that you're really wrong. Rather, light NEEDS energy, because the wavelength is so short as to be instantaneous. If you flicked on a radio hooked up to a huge microphone, and it screamed "Hello!" and broadcasted across a canyon, the echo would continue even though you shut off the radio, microphone, and sound system immediately. If you flick off a flashlight, however,  the light immediately breaks down its effect on the environment. The energized air particles return to their original state. This is because the wavelength (literally the length of the wave) is longer for sound than light.

Yes, light works in a vacuum, but only if it has energy to do so. Without energy, breakdown is instant.

Now as to range of light, I was able to brighten my palm by placing it ahead of the Kindle. When I put it above the Kindle, it got dark again immediately. I was also able to move my hand far enough away from the Kindle to not appear illuminated. Yes, light has a range limit, especially the weakass light of a Kindle on low light settings.

https://mises.org/wire/render-unto-caesar-most-misunderstood-new-testament-passage
Since people never read links, here:

I. INTRODUCTION

Christians have traditionally interpreted the famous passage "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s," to mean that Jesus endorsed paying taxes. This view was first expounded by St. Justin Martyr in Chapter XVII of his First Apology , who wrote,

And everywhere we, more readily than all men, endeavor to pay to those appointed by you the taxes both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Him; for at that time some came to Him and asked Him, if one ought to pay tribute to Caesar; and He answered, Tell Me, whose image does the coin bear?' And they said, Caesar's.'


But by His enigmatic response, did Jesus really mean for His followers to provide financial support (willingly or unwillingly) to Tiberius Caesar — a man, who, in his personal life, was a pedophile, a sexual deviant , and a murderer and who, as emperor, claimed to be a god and oppressed and enslaved millions of people, including Jesus' own? The answer, of course, is: the traditional, pro-tax interpretation of the Tribute Episode is simply wrong. Jesus never meant for His answer to be interpreted as an endorsement of Caesar's tribute or any taxes.

This essay examines four dimensions of the Tribute Episode: the historical setting of the Episode; the rhetorical structure of the Episode itself; the context of the scene within the Gospels; and finally, how the Catholic Church, Herself, has understood the Tribute Episode. These dimensions point to one conclusion: the Tribute Episode does not stand for the proposition that it is morally obligatory to pay taxes.

The objective of this piece is not to provide a complete exegesis on the Tribute Episode. Rather, it is simply to show that the traditional, pro-tax interpretation of the Tribute Episode is utterly untenable. The passage unequivocally does not stand for the proposition that Jesus thought it was morally obligatory to pay taxes.

II. THE HISTORICAL SETTING: THE UNDERCURRENT OF TAX REVOLT

In 6 A.D., Roman occupiers of Palestine imposed a census tax on the Jewish people. (Cut for length) Thus, payment of the tribute conveniently encapsulated the deeper philosophical, political, and theological issue: Either God and His divine laws were supreme, or the Roman emperor and his pagan laws were supreme.

This undercurrent of tax-revolt flowed throughout Judaea during Jesus' ministry. All three synoptic Gospels place the episode immediately after Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem in which throngs of people proclaimed Him king, as St. Matthew states, "And when he entered Jerusalem the whole city was shaken and asked, 'Who is this?' And the crowds replied, 'This is Jesus the prophet, from Nazareth in Galilee.'" All three agree that this scene takes place near the celebration of the Passover, one of the holiest of Jewish feast days. (Cut for length)

Jewish law forbade both the creation of graven images and their introduction into holy city of Jerusalem. Pilate averted a bloodbath only by removing the images.

In short, Jerusalem would have been a hot-bed of political and religious fervor, and it is against this background that the Tribute Episode unfolded.

III. THE RHETORICAL STRUCTURE OF THE TRIBUTE EPISODE

The Gospel of Matthew states:

[15] Then the Pharisees going, consulted among themselves how to insnare him in his speech. [16] And they sent to him their disciples with the Herodians, saying: Master, we know that thou art a true speaker and teachest the way of God in truth. Neither carest thou for any man: for thou dost not regard the person of men. [17] Tell us therefore what dost thou think? Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? [18] But Jesus knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt me, ye hypocrites? [19] Show me the coin of the tribute. And they offered him a penny. [20] And Jesus saith to them: Whose image and inscription is this? [21] They say to him: Caesar’s. Then he saith to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s. [22] And hearing this, they wondered and, leaving him, went their ways. Matt 22:15–22 (Douay-Rheims translation).

A. THE QUESTION

All three synoptic Gospels open the scene with a plot to trap Jesus. The questioners begin with, what is in their minds, false flattery — "Master [or Teacher or Rabbi] we know that you are a true speaker and teach the way of God in truth." As David Owen-Ball forcefully argues in his 1993 article, "Rabbinic Rhetoric and the Tribute Passage," this opening statement is also a challenge to Jesus' rabbinic authority; it is a halakhic question — a question on a point of religious law. The Pharisees believed that they, alone, were the authoritative interpreters of Jewish law. By appealing to Jesus' authority to interpret God's law, the questioners accomplish two goals: (1) they force Jesus to answer the question; if Jesus refuses, He will lose credibility as a Rabbi with the very people who just proclaimed Him a King; and (2) they force Jesus to base this answer in Scripture. Thus, they are testing His scriptural knowledge and hoping to discredit Him if He cannot escape a prima facie intractable interrogatory. As Owen-Ball states, "The gospel writers thus describe a scene in which Jesus' questioners have boxed him in. He is tempted to assume, illegitimately, the authority of a Rabbi, while at the same time he is constrained to answer according to the dictates of the Torah."

The questioners then pose their malevolently brilliant question: "Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?" That is, is it licit under the Torah to pay taxes to the Romans? At some point, Jesus must have led His questioners to believe that He opposed the tribute; otherwise His questioners would not have posed the question in the first instance. As John Howard Yoder argues in his book, The Politics of Jesus: vicit Agnus noster, "It is hard to see how the denarius question could have been thought by those who put it to be a serious trap, unless Jesus' repudiation of the Roman occupation were taken for granted, so that he could be expected to give an answer which would enable them to denounce him."

If Jesus says that it is lawful to pay the tribute, He would have been seen as a collaborator with the Roman occupiers and would alienate the people who had just proclaimed Him a king. If Jesus says that the tribute is illegitimate, He risked being branded a political criminal and incurring the wrath of Rome. With either answer, someone would have been likely to kill Him.

Jesus immediately recognizes the trap. He exposes the hostility and the hypocrisy of His interrogators and recognizes that His questioners are daring Him to enter the temporal fray of Judeo-Roman politics.

B. THE COIN

Instead of jumping into the political discussion, though, Jesus curiously requests to see the coin of the tribute. It is not necessary that Jesus possess the coin to answer their question. He could certainly respond without seeing the coin. That He requests to see the coin suggests that there is something meaningful about the coin itself.

In the Tribute Episode, the questioners produce a denarius. The denarius was approximately 1/10 of a troy ounce (at that time about 3.9 grams) of silver and roughly worth a day's wages for a common laborer. The denarius was a remarkably stable currency; Roman emperors did not begin debasing it with any vigor until Nero. The denarius in question would have been issued by the Emperor Tiberius, whose reign coincided with Jesus' ministry. Where Augustus issued hundreds of denarii, Ethelbert Stauffer, in his masterful, Christ and the Caesars, reports that Tiberius issued only three, and of those three, two are relatively rare, and the third is quite common. Tiberius preferred this third and issued it from his personal mint for twenty years. The denarius was truly the emperor's property: he used it to pay his soldiers, officials, and suppliers; it bore the imperial seal; it differed from the copper coins issued by the Roman Senate, and it was also the coin with which subjected peoples, in theory, were required to pay the tribute. Tiberius even made it a capital crime to carry any coin stamped with his image into a bathroom or a brothel. In short, the denarius was a tangible representation of the emperor's power, wealth, deification, and subjugation.

Tiberius' denarii were minted at Lugdunum, modern-day Lyons, in Gaul. Thus, J. Spencer Kennard, in a well-crafted, but out-of-print book entitled Render to God , argues that the denarius' circulation in Judaea was likely scarce. The only people to transact routinely with the denarius in Judaea would have been soldiers, Roman officials, and Jewish leaders in collaboration with Rome. Thus, it is noteworthy that Jesus, Himself, does not possess the coin. The questioners' quickness to produce the coin at Jesus' request implies that they routinely used it, taking advantage of Roman financial largess, whereas Jesus did not. Moreover, the Tribute Episode takes place in the Temple, and by producing the coin, the questioners reveal their religious hypocrisy – they bring a potentially profane item, the coin of a pagan, into the sacred space of the Temple.

Finally, both Stauffer and Kennard make the magnificent point that coins of the ancient world were the major instrument of imperial propaganda, promoting agendas and promulgating the deeds of their issuers, in particular the apotheosis of the emperor. As Kennard puts it, "For indoctrinating the peoples of the empire with the deity of the emperor, coins excelled all other media. They went everywhere and were handled by everyone. Their subtle symbolism pervaded every home." While Tiberius' propaganda engine was not as prolific as Augustus' machine, all of Tiberius' denarii pronounced his divinity or his debt to the deified Augustus.

C. THE COUNTER-QUESTION AND ITS ANSWER

After seeing the coin, Jesus then poses a counter-question, "Whose image and inscription is this?" It is again noteworthy that this counter-question and its answer are not necessary to answer the original question of whether it is licit to pay tribute to Caesar. That Jesus asks the counter-question suggests that it and its answer are significant.

(1) Why Is The Counter-Question Important?

The counter-question is significant for two reasons.

First, Owen-Ball argues that the counter-question follows a pattern of formal rhetoric common in first century rabbinic literature in which (1) an outsider poses a hostile question to a rabbi; (2) the rabbi responds with a counter-question; (3) by answering the counter-question, the outsider's position becomes vulnerable to attack; and (4) the rabbi then uses the answer to the counter-question to refute the hostile question. Jesus' use of this rhetorical form is one way to establish His authority as a rabbi, not unlike a modern lawyer who uses a formal, legal rhetoric in the courtroom. Moreover, the point of the rhetorical exchange is ultimately to refute the hostile question.

Second, because the hostile question was a direct challenge to Jesus' authority as a rabbi on a point of law, His interrogators would have expected a counter-question grounded in scripture, in particular, based upon the Torah. Two words, "image" and "inscription," in the counter-question harkens to two central provisions in the Torah, the First (Second) Commandment and the Shema. These provide the scriptural basis for this question of law.

God Prohibits False Images. The First (Second) Commandment prohibits worship of anyone or anything but God, and it also forbids crafting any image of a false god for adoration, "I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness [image] of any thing…." God demands the exclusive allegiance of His people. Jesus' use of the word, "image," in the counter-question reminds His questioners of the First (Second) Commandment's requirement to venerate God first and its concomitant prohibition against creating images of false gods.

The Shema Demands The Worship Of God Alone. Jesus' use of the word "inscription" alludes to the Shema. The Shema is a Jewish prayer based upon Deuteronomy 6:4–9 , 11:13–21 and Numbers 15:37–41 and is the most important prayer a pious Jew can say. It commences with the words, "Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad," which can be translated, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God — the Lord alone." This opening line stresses Israel's worship of God to the exclusion of all other gods. The Shema then commands a person to love God with his whole heart, whole soul, and whole strength. The Shema further requires worshipers to keep the words of the Shema in their hearts, to instruct their children in them, to bind them on their hands and foreheads, and to inscribe them conspicuously on their doorposts and on the gates to their cities. Observant Jews take literally the command to bind the words upon their arms and foreheads and wear tefillin, little leather cases which contain parchment on which are inscribed certain passages from the Torah. Words of the Shema were to be metaphorically inscribed in the hearts, minds, and souls of pious Jews and physically inscribed on parchment in tefillin, on doorposts, and on city gates. St. Matthew and St. Mark both recount Jesus quoting the Shema in the same chapter just a few verses after the Tribute Episode. This proximity further reinforces the reference to the Shema in the Tribute Episode. Finally, it is noteworthy that when Satan tempts Jesus by offering Him all the kingdoms of the [Roman] world in exchange for His worship, Jesus rebukes Satan by quoting the Shema. In short, Jesus means to call attention to the Shema by using the word "inscription" in the counter-question as His appeal to scriptural authority for His response.

(2) Why Is The Answer To The Counter-Question Important?

The answer to the counter-question is significant for two reasons.

First, while the verbal answer to the counter-question of whose image and inscription the coin bears is a feeble, "Caesar's," the actual image and inscription is much more revealing. The front of the denarius shows a profiled bust of Tiberius crowned with the laurels of victory and divinity. Even a modern viewer would immediately recognize that the person depicted on the coin is a Roman emperor. Circumscribed around Tiberius is an abbreviation, "TI CAESAR DIVI AUG F AUGUSTUS," which stands for "Tiberius Caesar Divi August Fili Augustus," which, in turn, translates, "Tiberius Caesar, Worshipful Son of the God, Augustus."

On the obverse sits the Roman goddess of peace, Pax, and circumscribed around her is the abbreviation, "Pontif Maxim," which stands for "Pontifex Maximus," which, in turn, means, "High Priest."

The coin of the Tribute Episode is a fine specimen of Roman propaganda. It imposes the cult of emperor worship and asserts Caesar's sovereignty upon all who transact with it.

In the most richly ironic passage in the entire Bible, all three synoptic Gospels depict the Son of God and the High Priest of Peace, newly-proclaimed by His people to be a King, holding the tiny silver coin of a king who claims to be the son of a god and the high priest of Roman peace.

(Cut for length)

D. REFUTING BY RENDERING UNTO GOD

In the Tribute Episode, it is only after Jesus' counter-question is asked and answered does He respond to the original question. Jesus tells His interrogators, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God, the things that are God's." This response begs the question of what is licitly God's and what is licitly Caesar's.

In the Hebrew tradition, everything rightfully belonged to God. By using the words, "image and inscription," Jesus has already reminded His interrogators that God was owed exclusive allegiance and total love and worship. Similarly, everything economically belonged to God as well. For example, the physical land of Israel was God's, as He instructed in Leviticus 25:23, "The land [of Israel] shall not be sold in perpetuity; for the land is mine, and you [the Israelites] are but aliens who have become my tenants." In addition, the Jewish people were to dedicate the firstfruits, that first portion of any harvest and the first-born of any animal, to God. By giving God the firstfruits, the Jewish people acknowledged that all good things came from God and that all things, in turn, belonged to God . God even declares, "Mine is the silver and mine the gold."

The emperor, on the other hand, also claimed that all people and things in the empire rightfully belonged to Rome. The denarius notified everyone who transacted with it that the emperor demanded exclusive allegiance and, at least, the pretense of worship — Tiberius claimed to be the worshipful son of a god. (Cut for length) The propaganda on the coin even attributed peace and tranquility to the emperor.

With one straightforward counter-question, Jesus skillfully points out that the claims of God and Caesar are mutually exclusive. If one's faith is in God, then God is owed everything; Caesar's claims are necessarily illegitimate, and he is therefore owed nothing. If, on the other hand, one's faith is in Caesar, God's claims are illegitimate, and Caesar is owed, at the very least, the coin which bears his image.

Jesus' counter-question simply invites His listeners to choose allegiances. Remarkably, He has escaped the trap through a clever rhetorical gambit; He has authoritatively refuted His opponents' hostile question by basing His answer in scripture, and yet, He never overtly answers the question originally posed to Him. No wonder that St. Matthew ends the Tribute Episode this way: "When they heard this they were amazed, and leaving him they went away." (Cut for length)

If you'll notice from this quote, the priests have the coin. Jesus did not. He didn't pay taxes, largely because his allegiance was to God, while they were in the state's pocket.

Who will you allegiance be to? God or to Caesar? This is what Jesus said.

L
Who will you allegiance be to? God or to Caesar? This is what Jesus said.

Hey, troll.  If you want to preach.  Start a church.

And there are already enough political forums in the world.

Now.  Back on topic.

Hmmm

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 30, 2023, 09:09:14 PM

In addition to the clouds should be obliterated by the heat of the sun.  What was cloud cover altitude at that time?  10,000 feet.  That makes the sun only two miles above the earth in your delusion.


Flat earth is stupid.

How does a sun only two miles above a flat earth wrapped in clouds light up multiple times zones.  Always appear to travel straight west day to day.  No indication of a north turn required by flat earth for a sunset off California.  And travel the sky at a constant speed and size.  Where on a flat earth, the sun while “setting” would go away from the viewer getting smaller.  And it’s descent towards the horizon would get slower and slower.  And never appear to go below the horizon. 

If you'll notice from this quote, the priests have the coin. Jesus did not. He didn't pay taxes, largely because his allegiance was to God, while they were in the state's pocket.

Who will you allegiance be to? God or to Caesar? This is what Jesus said.

You might read the Bible if your going to preach from it..

So, Jesus did not oppose the payment of taxes. In fact, Jesus paid taxes. We turn to Matthew (who, by the way, was a tax collector before being called to become one of Jesus' disciples) again. Matthew 17: 24-27 relates the story of a group of tax collectors asking St. Peter, "Does your teacher pay the … tax?" Peter's answer, "Of course," is followed by Jesus instructing Peter as follows: " … go to the lake and drop in a line. Pull up the first fish you hook, and in its mouth you will find a coin worth enough for my tax and yours. Take it and pay them our taxes."

https://www.southbendtribune.com/story/business/2016/03/27/what-does-the-bible-say-about-taxes/118436360/#

Matthew 17:24-27
New International Version
The Temple Tax

24 After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?”

25 “Yes, he does,” he replied.

When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own children or from others?”

26 “From others,” Peter answered.

“Then the children are exempt,” Jesus said to him. 27 “But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2017%3A24-27&version=NIV

Is Romans 13:1-7 false teaching?

Romans 13:1-7 states, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.

If you’re going to “preach”.

Then you might heed this warning right from the Bible…

James 3:1 says, “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”

https://www.gotquestions.org/teachers-judged-more-strictly.html

This is the true glory of creation.



bulmabriefs144 your the one lying about the true glory of creation. And making it into a cheap imitation by boxing your god in a fishbowl. 

So sad.  Sorry to bring the tread off topic…. But if you want to get all Bible-licious

bulmabriefs144 You might take care of that plank in your own eye…. Before worrying about the speck in my eye.

It would probably surprise you to find out that between Democrats and Republicans, Republicans are bigger givers to charities.

And how much of that is giving to fake charities to avoid tax or other reasons?

The left on the other hand, would like to use my money for charity. They don't like spending their own cash.

No, they would like to use the money of the incredibly rich, those who have gotten rich by exploiting others, some times to the point of those others needing charity.

Since people never read links, here

Just block quoting the link wont help you either.
If you aren't even willing to put in the effort to make the argument yourself, why should I bother with your garbage link which doesn't directly address what was said?

Who will you allegiance be to? God or to Caesar? This is what Jesus said.

Why would I have allegiance to a fictitious evil POS?

And what does your love of this evil POS and abusive relationship with it have to do with the topic at hand? Nothing.
The topic is how the sun magically works on your fantasy.

e.g. how it magically manages to light up an object from below when it is above, and how you see the indirect light from it but not the direct light.

Why would I have allegiance to a fictitious evil POS?

If there is no god, there is no good nor evil.  Just survival.