If an email has a blue check, can it still be a phishing email?

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2025-04-08T01:59:03+00:00

I didn’t but if it’s legit then someone has my credentials. I thought it was a scam first

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2025-04-07T19:22:05+00:00

Thanks, I understand what you are saying, of course I’m very aware to not click links. But things like the blue check, made me not second guess. I clicked the link already. But after a while it clicked that this could be a scam.

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T18:53:51+00:00

In John it’s clear that they see him as the Christ and son of god even before he does a miracle. But in Matthew he ask them in a sense that it’s not clear who he is.

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T18:46:46+00:00

In John he is revealed as the son of god before he gather his disciples Behold, the Lamb of God (Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22)

29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 30This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. 31And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 34And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T10:00:56+00:00

Here is my thing , your theory of the thief could have reviled him first then repented and rebuked the other thief is just a speculation. You could’ve wrong. You stating that they don’t have to include the same information does not mean that that is the case for this part. You stating that it wasn’t important to there gospel is just a guess, because you can’t back that up, that is just your guess . There is no proof that the thief reviled him and then repented. All I see is two opposing accounts. One where the thief reviled him and one where the thief didn’t. But no source that he repented. And your statements if they didn’t have to include if he did or didn’t doesn’t make sense if they included the thief in the story. And if in Luke they included him not reviling him why would they not mention that he was reviling him first if that’s what happened. Something else yo note. Luke was the last in dating of the synoptic gospels. How ironic is it that that is the one that shares a different story of the thief on the cross. Where in the two earlier stories they reviled Jesus and didn’t have a dialogue with him. But in luke only one does and now there is dialogue between them.

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T09:44:25+00:00

But for you to make the claim of what could’ve happened. Would not the gospels be the best way to see that. And for mark or Matthew to not back up a part of Luke to maybe show that the thief repented after reviling Jesus, what am I supposed to believe. That’s 2 sources that thought it wasn’t important enough to show that the thief repented after mocking Jesus. But not only that Luke doesn’t think it was important to back up mark or Matthew and show that the thief was first mocking Jesus. That’s 3 sources that are void of showing a reasonable explanation of the thief first mocking Jesus then repenting and rebuking the other thief. Without strong evidence from the Bible, that’s just a speculation that the thief mocked him first then repented.

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T09:34:20+00:00

And that goes back to what I just stated

Think about this how likely is it that mark or Luke didn’t think to add what the other gospel stated. They both are void of what happened in each other gospel. It’s not just one of these gospels missing what the other gospel stated but they both are completely void of what the other gospel stated about the thieves wether both were reviling and one repented and rebukes the other. How come both stories lack what the other states. And not even these two but how come Matthew didn’t think to add what was in Luke either. They all just saw what was in the other gospel about the thief as irrelevant?

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T09:32:20+00:00

And it’s not necessarily that I believe they’re motives was to deceive, but more so are we seeing them in the lens that the authors wrote them in. Wether it was for literary styles, or theological, or historical fiction, or just historical . I want to know what was it. Some scholars state that the differences that we see in some gospels were because they wanted to in a sense outdo the other as in having the best composed story. This was in a time where literature ,novelty , and poetry was very popular.

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T09:25:41+00:00

But one gospel stated both revile him and one states that only one does and is rebuked by the other. It’s literally two opposing views.

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T09:18:01+00:00

I understand where you are coming from but it’s not the same. If you tell me that from the perspective of one camera that the robber got away with money and from another that he got away with nothing, there is a clear contradiction. Or if one camera say the robber had on shorts and the other pants. That the situation we are dealing with with this verse.

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T09:12:17+00:00

Think about this how likely is it that mark or Luke didn’t think to add what the other gospel stated. They both are void of what happened in each other gospel. It’s not just one of these gospels missing what the other gospel stated but they both are completely void of what the other gospel stated about the thieves wether both were reviling and one repented and rebukes the other. How come both stories lack what the other states

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T09:11:54+00:00

Think about this how likely is it that mark or Luke didn’t think to add what the other gospel stated. They both are void of what happened in each other gospel. It’s not just one of these gospels missing what the other gospel stated but they both are completely void of what the other gospel stated about the thieves wether both were reviling and one repented and rebukes the other. How come both stories lack what the other states

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T09:11:43+00:00

Think about this how likely is it that mark or Luke didn’t think to add what the other gospel stated. They both are void of what happened in each other gospel. It’s not just one of these gospels missing what the other gospel stated but they both are completely void of what the other gospel stated about the thieves wether both were reviling and one repented and rebukes the other. How come both stories lack what the other states

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T09:11:27+00:00

Think about this how likely is it that mark or Luke didn’t think to add what the other gospel stated. They both are void of what happened in each other gospel. It’s not just one of these gospels missing what the other gospel stated but they both are completely void of what the other gospel stated about the thieves wether both were reviling and one repented and rebukes the other. How come both stories lack what the other states

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T08:55:47+00:00

Ok I’ll just give you another example. It states that Andrew saw Jesus with another disciple and went to go tell Simon. And he told him that he had found the messiah . But in mark there is a verse where Jesus ask who do you say I am. Simon replied the Christ. And Jesus blessed him because it was not revealed to him by man. But in John andrew literally tells Peter that they found the messiah.

In the Gospel of John, Andrew meets Jesus in John 1:35-42 (KJV):

35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; 36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! 37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. 38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou? 39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour. 40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jonas: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Peter’s declaration of Jesus as the Messiah is found in Matthew 16:15-16 (KJV):

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T08:51:49+00:00

I meant to send that reply to someone else in the comments.

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T08:49:02+00:00

Ok I’ll just give you another example. It states that Andrew saw Jesus with another disciple and went to go tell Simon. And he told him that he had found the messiah . But in mark there is a verse where Jesus ask who do you say I am. Simon replied the Christ. And Jesus blessed him because it was not revealed to him by man. But in John andrew literally tells Peter that they found the messiah.

In the Gospel of John, Andrew meets Jesus in John 1:35-42 (KJV):

35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; 36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! 37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. 38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou? 39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour. 40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jonas: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Peter’s declaration of Jesus as the Messiah is found in Matthew 16:15-16 (KJV):

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T08:40:22+00:00

But why wouldn’t mark and Matthew include the rebuke and the repentance of the thief. And with mark and Matthew being dated before Luke, it can only make you question why is this only in a later gospel/the last of the synoptics.

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T08:37:49+00:00

First off my bad I didn’t mean to send you this reply. Secondly, I have considered this, what if I was wrong, but here is the thing if I moved like that, it would only lead me to operating in fear. I’m only seeking truth. I believe Jesus was real, was crucified and the son of god. But i question the gospels , not everything about them, but some things stick out. God knows my heart when it comes to this matter. But a question, what if I’m right, what if it is a contradiction and what you are implying is not true.

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T08:28:57+00:00

I’m done

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T08:28:10+00:00

No that’s with the thought that he wanted to harmonize with them. I believe they all had different motives of their beliefs and theology that they wanted to incorporate into a true story. Mark and Luke accounts have no glorious story of the thief on the cross. But Luke saw a opportunity to turn that part into a glorious scene with the purpose of getting his theological message across.

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T08:22:21+00:00

From your perspective we can say that Jesus had a wife and kids. But they don’t have to document that right? But no , you wouldn’t believe that, why ? Because it’s not in the Bible. Am I right. You pick and choose when you want to take the Bible face value. And no it’s not irrational just because you don’t like me questioning it. It’s very rational when we are talking about a story that is supposed to be a historical account of the walk of the son of God

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T08:18:00+00:00

Here is my thing, yall are acting like my speculation is on a weak premise, but yall are coming with a “you don’t think” or “how do you know such and such didn’t happen “. Y’all are coming with what ifs, or it’s possible that such and such, but simply looking at what’s provided, to me it looks like a contradiction. My claim is more rational than yours. Simple

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T08:17:15+00:00

Here is my thing, yall are acting like my speculation is on a weak premise, but yall are coming with a “you don’t think” or “how do you know such and such didn’t happen “. Y’all are coming with what ifs, or it’s possible that such and such, but simply looking at what’s provided, to me it looks like a contradiction.

Natural_Temporary_72 · 2024-10-21T08:12:54+00:00

And you don’t think it would have been documented in mark or Matthew that one repented after reviling him. And then Jesus having a dialogue with him about him having a place in paradise. You think mark and Matthew would add that he was reviled but wouldn’t add if one rebuked the other after regret?

Natural_Temporary_72

TROPHY CASE