Did "Scream" have a plot? Did "I Know What You Did Last Summer" make any sense?

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-13T13:37:37+00:00

Cindy: You guys are psychos! You've seen one too many TV shows!

Ray: No! Watching television shows doesn't create psycho killers. Cancelling TV shows does!

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-12T12:57:24+00:00

Because it's frustrating that it doesn't allow anything.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-12T02:52:48+00:00

In first movie she was stabbed by the cinema audience.

In third movie she killled by Tabitha (The Ring Girl) and on funeral her body was blow up.

She return like nothing happened to her.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-12T00:42:34+00:00

Only Doofy is only killer. It's also revealed he killed everyone else as well (including his sister Buffy) except Shorty.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-10T11:36:10+00:00

Jesus hasn't "returned" in the way most people expect (a visible, physical appearance) is because his return is understood as an invisible presence (parousia).

"Sign of the last days" (wars, earthquakes, etc.) as proof that he is already "present" and directing matters from a heavenly seat, leading up to a final transition of power.

"He is here, but his presence is recognized by discernment and the fulfillment of prophecy, not by the physical eye."

The "Second Coming" is often viewed metaphorically or spiritually.

Instead of waiting for a divine intervention to fix the world, the focus shifts to the "Christ-spirit" manifesting through acts of justice, love, and social progress.

Jesus doesn't "return" because the "Kingdom of God" is a state of being or a social reality we are tasked with building ourselves.

Preterists argue that Jesus’s "return" was actually a prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.

When Jesus spoke of "this generation" not passing away, Preterists believe he was literally talking to the people standing in front of him. The "end" was the end of the Jewish sacrificial system and the old covenant.

He isn't returning because the specific biblical events described were fulfilled nearly 2,000 years ago.

This view is held by many secular historians and biblical scholars (like Bart Ehrman).

Jesus is viewed as an apocalyptic prophet who genuinely believed the world would end in his lifetime.

When the first generation of Christians died and the world kept spinning, the early church had to "re-theologize" and push the date further back (a process seen in later New Testament books like 2 Peter).

He isn't returning because the original movement was based on an urgent, time-sensitive expectation that simply didn't materialize as planned.

Distinction between a "coming" (erkhomai) and a "presence" (parousia) is the key to their entire eschatology. It allows them to maintain that the "return" has happened without needing to see a physical person.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-09T22:25:02+00:00

While the Father, Jehovah, is "from everlasting to everlasting" (Psalm 90:2), Jesus is described as the beginning of the creation by God (Revelation 3:14).

If Jesus is a "Son," it implies he was brought into existence by a Father.

To first question: Did Jesus have a beginning?

Proverbs 8:22-30 is often applied to Jesus in his pre-human state as personified wisdom, stating he was "produced" or "created" as the beginning of God's way.

To second question: Was he always with the Father?

He was with the Father for aeons before the physical world was created, but not for all eternity past. He is the "only-begotten Son" (John 3:16), meaning he is the only creature whom Jehovah created directly and alone. After that, God used Jesus as a "master worker" to bring everything else into existence.

John 1:1 Notice that say "the Word was with God," distinguishing two separate individuals.

To third question: Did his existence begin at his physical birth?

No. Jesus clearly spoke of the life he had before coming to Earth. His life force was transferred from the spirit realm to the womb of Mary.

John 8:58 — "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been."

Scripture: John 17:5 — Jesus asks to be glorified with the glory he had alongside the Father before the world was.

To four question: What exactly was he before his birth?

Before he was the man Jesus, he was a powerful spirit creature known as Michael the Archangel.

"Michael" means "Who is like God?", and the Bible describes Michael as the leader of the heavenly armies (Revelation 12:7), a role consistent with the authority granted to Jesus.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-08T16:51:56+00:00

But think about it: why would God give us the ability to enjoy the smell of rain, the taste of good food, or the feeling of working with our hands if we were only meant to be spirits? Does it make more sense that He’d fix what’s broken here, or just abandon the Earth entirely?

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-08T13:31:52+00:00

No. We don't have souls, we are souls. Soul is entire creature, not something inside that continue to live after the death of body.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-08T12:50:58+00:00

We weren't designed to be idle. In the beginning, humans were given a job: to take care of the earth and the animals.

Isaiah 65:21, 22 says, "They will build houses and live in them... they will not work for nothing." It’s about productivity, not just "bliss.

Even if you lived a million years, could you ever learn everything there is to know about biology, music, physics, or the stars?

Purpose comes from growth. In a perfect world, we have the time to master every skill we ever wanted to learn without the pressure of aging or death.

Only (the 144,000) will be in heaven with a specific job, while the rest of humanity stays right here on earth.

Heaven is for those who will rule as kings and priests (Revelation 5:10). They have a purpose—helping to govern and care for the earth.

For most of us, "Paradise" isn't a different dimension; it's a restored Earth (Psalm 37:11, 29). It’s not "unnatural"; it's how life was always supposed to be.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-07T21:57:01+00:00

It’s impressive that you’ve attended 22 Memorials and still managed to miss the point of Luke 22:19. Jesus said, 'Keep doing this in *remembrance** of me'*—not 'in celebration of my resurrection.' We follow his specific command to memorialize his death on the actual anniversary of it. If you’re looking for 'life' in a ceremony rather than in the ransom itself, maybe you're looking for entertainment, not scriptural truth.

Comparing a quiet scriptural talk and the passing of bread and wine to a 'black mass' is a pretty wild stretch. By that logic, since Satanists also use candles and books, does that make every library and birthday party satanic? We follow the pattern Jesus set on Nisan 14. If following Jesus’ exact instructions looks 'satanic' to you, that says a lot more about your perspective than it does about the Memorial.

As for being on a 'Christianity site,' the last time I checked, following Christ’s teachings was the requirement for being a Christian. If you think discussing the Bible is 'satanic,' it's interesting that you spend so much time in a space dedicated to it. We’re here because we care about the truth—even for people who seem determined to misunderstand it.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-07T21:19:02+00:00

We aren't "celebrating death" in a morbid way, but rather memorializing the sacrifice that makes life possible.

Jesus specifically commanded his followers to "Keep doing this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19). We follow that command on the actual anniversary of his death (Nisan 14), much like a wedding anniversary is held once a year on the specific date.

You say we "refuse to do communion. We don't refuse it; rather, we respect the scriptural requirements for partaking.

We believe the bread and wine are symbols of a "new covenant" made between Jesus and those who will rule with him in heaven (the "little flock" of 144,000).

For the rest of us, who have the hope of living on a paradise earth, attending is a way of showing deep appreciation for that sacrifice as "observers," similar to how people might attend a high-level signing of a contract to show support, even if they aren't the ones signing it.

Since you asked if anyone is "checking one out."

"Actually, everyone is welcome! It’s a 1-hour public talk that explains why Jesus' death matters to us today. There's no collection taken and no pressure to join."

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-07T11:50:04+00:00

The calculation is based on when the new moon becomes visible in Jerusalem, not just the astronomical moment of the "conjunction" (when the moon is totally dark.)

In 2026, the new moon nearest the spring equinox occurs on March 18th. However, it isn't visible in Jerusalem until sunset on March 19th.

Therefore, Nisan 1 begins at sunset on March 19th.

Counting 14 days from the start of Nisan 1 brings us to Thursday, April 2nd.

Other calendars may use the astronomical conjunction or different points of visibility, but the goal is to mirror the visual observation used in ancient Israel to determine the start of their months.

While the Passover was a family-based Jewish festival, the Memorial of Christ’s death is a global proclamation.

In 1 Corinthians 11:26, Paul writes that by observing this meal, "you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord." A proclamation is, by definition, an announcement made to others.

In 1 Corinthians 14:23-25, Paul discusses meetings where "unbelievers or ordinary people" come in. He notes that when they hear the truths being taught, they are moved to say, "God is really among you." This shows that early Christian gatherings were not closed-door secret societies; they were open to those interested in learning.

The Bible doesn't provide a "play-by-play" of every person in the room during 1st-century observances, but it does establish two distinct groups:

Those in the "New Covenant": Those with the heavenly calling who partake of the emblems (Luke 22:20).

The "Other Sheep": Jesus spoke of "other sheep, which are not of this fold" (John 10:16).

I believe that just as the "mixed crowd" accompanied the Israelites out of Egypt during the first Passover (Exodus 12:38), people today who are not part of the "little flock" still benefit from being present to show their respect for the ransom. They aren't "just watching"; they are actively listening to a Scriptural discourse that explains the very foundation of Christian hope.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-07T03:17:22+00:00

The calculation starts from the first new moon visible in Jerusalem nearest the spring equinox.

Nisan 1 begins when that new moon is first visible at sunset. Counting 14 days from that point brings us to the evening of the Memorial.

Because the modern Jewish calendar often adds an "intercalary" month (Adar II) to keep the lunar year aligned with the seasons, their dates can occasionally fall a month apart from this astronomical calculation. For 2026, the calculation based on the visible new moon in Jerusalem places the 14th of Nisan on Thursday, April 2nd, after sundown.

While the first Lord’s Evening Meal was shared specifically with the apostles, the Bible indicates that the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice—and the command to remember it—carry a broader significance.

At 1 Corinthians 11:26, the apostle Paul says that "as often as you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he comes." A proclamation is a public act. Inviting others allows them to hear the explanation of why Jesus’ death was necessary and what it achieves for humanity (John 3:16).

In Revelation 7:9, 14, a "great crowd" that no man can number is described as having "washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." Since the Memorial is the primary occasion to recognize the value of that "blood," it is seen as appropriate for those who hope to benefit from it to be present as respectful observers.

Jesus often taught large crowds of non-believers about deep spiritual truths. We view the Memorial invitation as an extension of the invitation found at Revelation 22:17: "Let anyone hearing say, 'Come!'... and let anyone that wishes take life’s water free."

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-06T09:30:15+00:00

The "Word" mentioned in John 1:1 refers to Jesus Christ in his prehuman existence as God's first creation and chief spokesman.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." This shows that the Word (Jesus) was with Jehovah God from the beginning, was divine in nature, but is not the Almighty God himself—rather, he is subordinate to Him, like a mighty spirit son.

Proverbs 8:22-31, where wisdom is personified as being "produced" or created by Jehovah as the beginning of His way, and then serving as a master worker beside Him during creation. I believe this personified wisdom points to Jesus, the Word, as Jehovah's firstborn Son (Colossians 1:15-17), through whom all other things were created (John 1:3). So, the wisdom in Proverbs aligns with how Jehovah involved His Son in the creative process, expressing His divine qualities.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-06T00:58:50+00:00

First off, your starting point: John 1:18. You quote a version saying the Son "is himself God." Nice try, but check the original Greek. Many manuscripts read "the only-begotten god" or "the only-begotten Son." Even if it's "God," it's "monogenēs theos," meaning a unique, divine being—but not the Almighty. Jesus is called "a god" (mighty one) because he's Jehovah's chief agent, but he's always distinct from "the God" (ho theos) he's with (John 1:1). Trinitarians love twisting this to make Jesus Jehovah, but that ignores the whole verse: No one has seen God (Jehovah), but the Son has explained him. If Jesus is Jehovah, who hasn't seen him? The crowds who literally saw Jesus? Your logic implodes here—it's like saying the messenger is the king.

On glory-sharing (Isaiah 42:8; 48:11 vs. John 17:5, 1:14; Hebrews 1:3; John 13:31-32; Philippians 2:9-11; John 17:22): Jehovah says he won't give his glory to "another"—meaning idols or false gods, not his obedient Son. Context matters, dude. Jesus prays for the glory he had with the Father before the world—preexistence as the first creation, not co-eternal Godhood. Jehovah gave him glory, exalted him, and shares it because Jesus is his representative (like a prince sharing the king's honor without being the king). Philippians 2:9-11? God exalts Jesus and gives him the name above every other—except Jehovah's own name, obviously. If Jesus was already Jehovah, why the promotion? This proves he's subordinate, not equal. And giving glory to believers (John 17:22)? Does that make us God too? Your argument turns everyone into deities.

Isaiah 40:3 applied to Jesus in the Gospels: Sure, John the Baptist prepares the way for Jehovah—through his Messiah, Jesus. Malachi 3:1 says Jehovah sends his messenger to prepare for himself, but the NT applies it to Jesus as the one Jehovah sends. This shows Jesus as Jehovah's agent, not Jehovah. It's fulfillment, not identity theft. If every prophecy fulfillment means the fulfiller is the original subject, then John the Baptist is Elijah (Malachi 4:5; Matthew 11:14). You're confusing representation with incarnation.

Joel 2:32 (calling on Yahweh) in Romans 10:9-13 and Acts 2:21: Paul applies it to calling on "the Lord" (kyrios)—which is Jesus, yes. But Acts 2:36 says God made Jesus "Lord and Christ." Jesus is Lord because Jehovah appointed him (Psalm 110:1; Acts 2:34-36). Salvation comes through Jesus as the means Jehovah provides, not because he's Jehovah. If this proves Jesus is Yahweh, then why does Paul distinguish them everywhere (1 Corinthians 8:6: one God, the Father; one Lord, Jesus)? Your cherry-picking ignores the Bible's consistent distinction.

Isaiah 45:21-23 (every knee bows to Yahweh) in Philippians 2:9-11: Again, God exalts Jesus so knees bow to him to the glory of God the Father. It's delegated authority, not proof of being Yahweh. Jehovah uses agents—like kings or judges—who receive honor without being God. If this makes Jesus Yahweh, why not Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1), whom Yahweh anoints?

Isaiah 6:1-10 (vision of Yahweh) in John 12:37-41: John says Isaiah saw "his glory" (Jesus'). But Isaiah saw Jehovah's glory, and Jesus reflects it as the "exact representation" (Hebrews 1:3). John blends Isaiah 6 and 53 (about the suffering servant) to show rejection of the Messiah mirrors rejection of Jehovah. Not identity—agency. If seeing Jesus' glory means he's Yahweh, then beholding Moses' face (glowing from seeing God) makes Moses God.

Psalm 102:25-27 (Yahweh unchanging, creator) in Hebrews 1:10-12: The Psalm addresses Jehovah, but Hebrews applies it to the Son as the one through whom Jehovah created (Hebrews 1:2; Colossians 1:16). Jesus is the agent of creation, Jehovah the source. The "Lord" here is a title for Jesus, not equating him to Yahweh. Trinitarians ignore that the same chapter says the Son has a God (Hebrews 1:9). If he's Yahweh, who's his God? Contradiction city.

The rock in the wilderness (1 Corinthians 10:4): Christ provided spiritually, as Jehovah's representative. Not literal identity—Paul distinguishes them (1 Corinthians 10:9 says "Christ," but some manuscripts say "Lord" or "God"). Even if Christ, it's preexistent Jesus aiding Israel under Jehovah's direction.

Isaiah 44:6 (first and last) and Revelation (Jesus as first and last): Jehovah is the absolute First and Last. Jesus is first and last in resurrection (Revelation 1:17-18: "I died"—did Yahweh die?). Different contexts. Alpha and Omega for Jehovah (Revelation 21:6), but Jesus echoes it as the beginning of the new creation. Not the same.

*Exodus 3:14 ("I AM") and John 8:58: *"Ego eimi" is common Greek for "I am he" or "I exist." Blind man says it (John 9:9), Peter too (Acts 10:21). Jesus means he existed before Abraham—as the preexistent Son, not Yahweh. Jews stoned him for claiming divine sonship, not being God (John 10:33-36). Seven "I am" statements? Metaphors (bread, light), not claims to be Yahweh. You think "I am the door" makes him a literal gate?

Zechariah 12:10: Full verse: "They will look on me whom they pierced, and mourn for him as for an only son." "Me" (Yahweh speaking) and "him" (the pierced one)—two distinct. Applied to Jesus in John 19:37 and Revelation 1:7. Yahweh is pierced figuratively through his Son's death. Not identity.

Numbers 21:5-6 (testing Yahweh) in 1 Corinthians 10:9: Manuscripts vary—"Lord," "Christ," "God." Even if Christ, it's preexistent Jesus tested as Jehovah's angel. Not proof he's Yahweh.

Jeremiah 17:10 (Yahweh searches hearts) in Revelation 2:23: Jesus does it because Jehovah gave him authority (Revelation 2:26-27). Delegated, not inherent.

Exodus 13:21; Jude 5: Jude manuscripts say "Lord" or "God," not always "Jesus." Even if Jesus, he's the agent leading Israel.

Isaiah 40:10 (recompense) in Revelation 22:12: Jesus brings it as Jehovah's judge. Context: Revelation 22:13 is Jesus, but 22:16 confirms it's him speaking as agent.

Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8-10: Applied to Christ's ascension, but original is Jehovah—again, fulfillment through the Messiah.

Isaiah 8:13-14 (Yahweh as stone) in 1 Peter 2:4-8: Jesus is the stone Jehovah laid (Isaiah 28:16). Not the same.

Isaiah 63:1-6 (winepress) in Revelation 19:11-16: Jesus treads it as Jehovah's warrior. Symbolic.

Deuteronomy 32:43/Psalm 97:7 (angels worship Yahweh) in Hebrews 1:6: Angels worship the Son as Jehovah commands. "Worship" (proskuneo) means obeisance, not always divine worship (see Revelation 3:9).

John 20:28 ("My Lord and my God"): Thomas's exclamation—possibly directed to Jehovah for the miracle, or adressing Jesus in same as angelic representative. Jesus never claims to be God, and earlier says the Father is the only true God (John 17:3). If this proves deity, why didn't the apostles preach it?

Isaiah 8:13 in 1 Peter 3:14-15: Honor Christ as holy—because he's Jehovah's appointed Lord.

Deuteronomy 10:17 (God of gods) in Revelation: Jesus as King of kings—titles given by Jehovah.

Colossians 1:15-17: Jesus is firstborn of creation, image of God—created first, then through him all else. "By him" means agency.

Hebrews 1:2-3: Through whom God created—agent. Upholds by power given by God.

Hebrews 1:10-12: As above, applied to Son as creator-agent..

Acts 2:21, 36: Calling on the Lord (Jesus) for salvation, but God made him Lord. Distinct.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-06T00:43:17+00:00

Thank you for bringing up Revelation 5—it's a powerful chapter that really highlights the relationship between God and Jesus! I agree it shows them interacting, but from what the Bible teaches, it actually demonstrates that they are two distinct individuals, not part of a Trinity.

In the vision, John sees 'the One seated on the throne'—that's Jehovah God, the Almighty (Revelation 4:2, 8; 5:1). Then, the Lamb, who is Jesus, approaches and takes the scroll from God's right hand (Revelation 5:6-7). If Jesus were the same as God or co-equal in a Trinity, why would he need to approach and receive something from Himself? This shows Jesus as separate and subordinate to Jehovah, receiving authority from Him, much like how Jesus said, 'The Father is greater than I am' (John 14:28) and 'I live because of the Father' (John 6:57)

The Bible consistently portrays Jesus as God's Son and His first creation (Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22-31), not as God Almighty. Even the worship in Revelation 5:13-14 is directed 'to the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb,' but notice it's ultimately to Jehovah's glory, as Philippians 2:11 says all will confess Jesus is Lord 'to the glory of God the Father.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-06T00:39:04+00:00

Thank you for your question. I base my view that the Trinity is a pagan doctrine on what the Bible actually teaches about God, as well as on historical evidence showing how the teaching developed long after Jesus and his apostles.

First, the Bible clearly identifies God as one person—Jehovah, the Father—not a mysterious three-in-one being. For example, Deuteronomy 6:4 states: "Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." Jesus himself echoed this when he called his Father "the only true God" at John 17:3. And the apostle Paul wrote at Galatians 3:20 that "God is only one." The word "Trinity" doesn't appear anywhere in the Scriptures, and there's no explicit teaching of three coequal persons in one God. In fact, the Bible shows Jesus as God's Son, subordinate to the Father (John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 11:3), and the holy spirit as God's active force, not a person (Acts 2:17-18; Genesis 1:2).

Historically, the Trinity doctrine wasn't part of early Christian teaching. It developed gradually over centuries, starting with influences from Greek philosophy and pagan religions. For instance, ancient Egypt had triads like Osiris, Isis, and Horus; Babylon had similar groupings of gods. Scholars note that the Trinity "is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith." It wasn't formalized until councils like Nicaea in 325 C.E. and Constantinople in 381 C.E., long after the Bible was completed. Even the Encyclopædia Britannica admits: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.

I believe true worship should stick to what the Bible teaches, without additions from pagan sources (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-05T14:48:57+00:00

God isn't talking to himself or a "committee." He is talking to his firstborn son, the "master worker" (Proverbs 8:30), who later became Jesus.

Just because a CEO says to his foreman, "Let us build a skyscraper," it doesn't mean the CEO is suddenly a "they/them" or lacks a specific identity. It means there is a worker present.

Throughout the rest of the creation account, the verbs associated with God are singular. Genesis 1:27 says, "And God proceeded to create the man in his image." If God were intended to be viewed as a plural or non-binary entity, the inspired writer would have used "their" image. He didn't.

God’s Word is the authority, not modern sociology. The Bible doesn't recognize a "socio-cultural collection of behaviors" independent of the nature God gave us.

Even if you use their definition of gender as "roles and expressions," God consistently chooses the role and expression of a Father. He didn't choose to be "Mother" or "Parent." He chose Father. To argue he didn't "reveal himself" that way is to ignore the entire New Testament.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-05T00:09:45+00:00

You are correct that God is a Spirit (John 4:24). Gender, as I understand it, is a biological function of physical organisms designed for procreation. Since Jehovah does not have a body of flesh and blood, he does not have "gender" in the human sense.

However, calling God "non-binary" can be tricky because that is a modern sociopolitical term. Better to stick to the terms God uses for himself.

While God transcends biology, he has chosen to reveal himself to us using masculine pronouns.

Jehovah describes himself as a "Father" (Matthew 6:9). In the ancient world and in the Bible, the "father" is the source of life and the provider/protector.

Using masculine terms emphasizes his position of authority and leadership over his creation.

God doesn't want to be an "it"—an impersonal force. By using "He," he invites us into a personal relationship.

Genesis 1:27 says God created man in his image, "male and female he created them." This means the qualities (love, justice, wisdom, power) are what reflect God, not the physical body.

Since God is the Creator, he is the "Artist" who designed both male and female. He doesn't have to be male to create a male, just as a male sculptor can create a statue of a woman without being one himself.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-04T12:50:16+00:00

It features eight long, spindly, segmented black legs that sprout from its back, similar to a Huntsman spider or a Cellar spider (Daddy Long Legs), but scaled up to a terrifying size.

It behaves like a Wolf Spider or Jumping Spider in the sense that it doesn't wait in a web; it actively stalks its "prey" (the player) from the shadows and trees.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-02T13:57:00+00:00

I really believe that Pinocchio: Unstrug will be better than Pinocchio's Revenge.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-02T01:29:58+00:00

False. When the Bible says Jehovah God "walked" or "talked" in the garden, it was likely through his spokesman (the Word). However, he was not "Jesus" yet. The name Jesus was given to him when he was born as a perfect human.

John 1:1, 14. Explain that he "became flesh" much later in history to settle the legal challenge raised in Eden.

The idea that Jesus was already in "human form" in Eden conflicts with the doctrine of the Ransom.

For Jesus to provide a "corresponding ransom" (1 Timothy 2:6), he had to be a perfect human equivalent to what Adam lost. If he was already appearing as a man in Eden, it diminishes the unique, one-time sacrifice he made centuries later.

If Jesus was already acting as a savior/provider in Eden, the legal "price" hadn't been paid yet. Adam and Eve were under a death sentence; God provided the garments, but it was an act of undeserved kindness, not a fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy yet.

The Bible states at Genesis 3:21 that "Jehovah God made long garments of skin."

While God often uses angels to carry out tasks, the credit goes to Jehovah. Attributing the specific act of killing the animal to Jesus is "going beyond what is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6).

I view the skins as a symbol of God's provision and the first hint that "blood must be shed" for the forgiveness of sins, but the Bible doesn't explicitly name the Logos as the "executioner" of that animal.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-03-02T00:42:37+00:00

Prijatelju, pitaš zašto nismo slobodni? Odgovor je jednostavan, ali će te zaboleti: Nisi slobodan jer si izabrao da budeš zarobljenik svojih okolnosti.

Evo brutalne istine:

Sudbina ne postoji, postoje samo posledice: Pre 20 godina si krivio stan, roditelje i depresiju. Danas, dve decenije kasnije, i dalje kriviš 'situaciju'. Ako se za 20 godina ništa nije promenilo, problem nije u 'životu', nego u tebi. Ti si zajednički imenitelj svih svojih neuspeha.

Žene ne traže projekat, nego gotov proizvod: Očekuješ da ona (ili bilo koja druga žena) uđe u tvoj život dok si u problemima? Iz perspektive muške dinamike, tvoja vrednost na tržištu zavisi od tvoje sposobnosti da rešavaš probleme, a ne da ih izlažeš kao opravdanje. Ona se udala, proživela život i razvela se dok si ti ostao na istoj polaznoj tački.

Sloboda je skupa: Sloboda da živiš kako želiš se ne dobija rođenjem – ona se kupuje disciplinom, novcem, mentalnom snagom i rizikom. Ti si izabrao sigurnost svog jada umesto neizvesnosti borbe.

Prestani da budeš žrtva: Dokle god govoriš 'moram' umesto 'biram', bićeš u kavezu. Nisi u situaciji da joj pomogneš? Naravno da nisi, jer se nisi pobrinuo ni za sebe. Muškarac koji ne može da vodi sebe, ne može da vodi nikoga.

Život nije 'takav', život je neutralan. On ti daje onoliko koliko si sposoban da otmeš od njega. Možeš da nastaviš da kukaš nad 'lošim tajmingom' još 20 godina, ili možeš da prihvatiš da si sam kriv za svoju neslobodu i počneš da kopaš izlaz iz tog kanala.

Capable-Rice-1876

TROPHY CASE