Technically speaking, Biglino didn't work for the Vatican but for the publishing house Edizione San Paulo, which handles almost all the Pope and cardinals' work. He steers wide of the Church and it's doctrine, since he's aware of how people get so easily wrapped around the axle with all that. Watch any of his videos and you'll see he's is just all about linguistics and deep etymology. It'd be boring a hell if it wasn't for the actual subject matter. Oh, and when he started talking about this stuff, they flushed him right quick.
You know, you touch on the whole concept of morality, Jesus' teachings, other Biblical teachings, Church doctrine, etc, etc. As you know, the debate is endless. But in the course of this area of research, I stumbled onto a conclusion about the nature of morality and human consciousness that would necessitate a fundamental reconsideration of that entire debate.
Bold claim, to be sure, and I wouldn't make it unless I was sure. There is, as you might guess, an extremely long story that can and should be told to back it up. Guess I'll have to write a book one of these days.
Just as the tip of the iceberg, I'll mention that the penny finally dropped when I closely read the Garden of Eden narrative. Not to explain everything I found, but what I realized was that everyone else had been misreading it. And I mean everyone.
Another tall claim, but do the experiment if you don't believe me. Write down ten (or however many you like) facts about the story that you "know". Then go back and find them in the text (and technically, remember the real text is in Hebrew, not English). Waving your hands around about "what it means" is not allowed.
You'll be shocked how far off you are. If you think you got it all right, send me a copy and I'll put metaphorical red ink all over it just like in school, but no one likes that. Remember, it's not a test for a grade, it's an exercise for learning.
Strangely enough, I saw a confirmation of what I thought were my most esoteric ideas on this in the first season of "WestWorld". That was both startling and reassuring. And if you're wondering how I could possibly wrap this all back to WW, well, I told you it was a long story.
As for the 1152 dating of the Nativity, you'll find it here in Chapter 1 of TSAR OF THE SLAVS by А.Т.Fomenko, G.V.Nosovskiy. These guys are academics, so you may find it rough going when reading it. But that's just the point: it is, as we used to say in mathematics, "closely reasoned". You also find out the Shroud of Turin is real, unless you can convince yourself it's all one big coincidence!
So, I listened to a couple hours worth of content from Biglino. And I am down with a lot of what he's teaching. I can buy the Annunaki and people, hybrids, living thousands even tens of thousands of years in the distant past thing. But I don't know that I agree with the theory's core nature.
Let me give some examples. Biglingo really emphasizes this multiple gods idea. But that teaching isn't really new. I thought there'd be a bit more to it. But I've heard this multiple gods theory repeated by Christians, specifically those who have developed a genuine/independent interest in their faith. Hell, I've actually heard through the Bible teachers talk about this (granted, it's not a subject they tend to linger on). The biblical idea, as I'm sure you're aware, is that the world is given over to Satan until Jesus comes back. There are powers and principalities over areas and peoples, demonic influence of sorts. And there's one Elohim above all others. A Christian who's just reading their bible should know this. Biblically, there's real power in the demonic, but it's only a fraction of what God wields. I tend to think this is what the Annunaki were, essentially Pagan gods/fallen angels. I tend to think even Enki and Inlil (spelling?) were in this boat, whether they represented themselves that way or not.
There was also this notion of a "savage" God, which I find pops up when you get into this sort of conversation with folks who study the Bible but don't believe it (referring to a video I saw of Belingo here. It was in this series I linked below). And that's a little bit of a red flag for me, just because it's evidence of a fair bit of emotion surrounding the argument, a sort of hatred or anger towards God. Like you can grasp the concept of an almighty being, beyond time, one who spoke the universe into existence, eternal... And what's going to hold you up is a judgement you placed on this being based on your super tiny moral perspective? Seems like a small, kind've pointless argument in the scheme of things. And stuff like that gives me pause.
It's the same thing with arguments like the one linked below. It's weird to me when people substitute in stories of creation that make no sense. At least with the theory of divine creation you end up at a mystery, "the mystery of God." I can at least accept that I can't grasp the full nature of creation. Meanwhile, one explanation in this little clip is just "maybe string theory is responsible for creation." What? Which part?
Below, he is unironically talking about ancient aliens (And don't get me wrong, still down). But notice, he can’t wrap his mind around the idea that this biblical passage could be literal. If you can consider alien demi-gods as potential creator beings, but can’t fathom that maybe there’s also a different realm/dimension we can interact with in a limited fashion, even though it's an idea presented in some of the same texts… I think this calls into question some of the logic you’re operating under.
Like I said previously, I don't discount all of what Belingo is saying. Most of it seems to be pointed in the right direction. I don't know the whole body of his work, and I'm not trying to setup strawmen here. But I get the impression he's missing the mark on the spiritual nature of this story. I think there probably were/are Annunaki or something close to them. But, in Mathew 10:8, Jesus told the disciples to heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, and cast out demons. I think this is real (I'm not saying I understand everything about it), and without the spiritual side, you (the royal you, not you you) only have part of the story. I tend to believe there's a blindness in part people contract when they ignore that.
In one of your previous posts, you asked what I really want to know. I think the most important question we should attempt to answer is what comes next. All said and done, our lives are short and purposeless independent of anything else. And I think that speaks to what existence is. I tend to think that we weren't created randomly at all, and it would make the most sense in the world if life was a test of sorts.
Lol. It's funny you mention westworld. By whatever the last season of that was (5?) I was cracking up about the messaging. "Oh, this is what they want for us," referring to the total control through sound waves and the disposable nature of the people who were left. What did you see in season 1? (I'm not even sure how well I remember that)
You should write a book. Get all of this in one coherent place, and present whatever evidence there is. I'll buy a copy.
Technically speaking, Biglino didn't work for the Vatican but for the publishing house Edizione San Paulo, which handles almost all the Pope and cardinals' work. He steers wide of the Church and it's doctrine, since he's aware of how people get so easily wrapped around the axle with all that. Watch any of his videos and you'll see he's is just all about linguistics and deep etymology. It'd be boring a hell if it wasn't for the actual subject matter. Oh, and when he started talking about this stuff, they flushed him right quick.
You know, you touch on the whole concept of morality, Jesus' teachings, other Biblical teachings, Church doctrine, etc, etc. As you know, the debate is endless. But in the course of this area of research, I stumbled onto a conclusion about the nature of morality and human consciousness that would necessitate a fundamental reconsideration of that entire debate.
Bold claim, to be sure, and I wouldn't make it unless I was sure. There is, as you might guess, an extremely long story that can and should be told to back it up. Guess I'll have to write a book one of these days.
Just as the tip of the iceberg, I'll mention that the penny finally dropped when I closely read the Garden of Eden narrative. Not to explain everything I found, but what I realized was that everyone else had been misreading it. And I mean everyone.
Another tall claim, but do the experiment if you don't believe me. Write down ten (or however many you like) facts about the story that you "know". Then go back and find them in the text (and technically, remember the real text is in Hebrew, not English). Waving your hands around about "what it means" is not allowed.
You'll be shocked how far off you are. If you think you got it all right, send me a copy and I'll put metaphorical red ink all over it just like in school, but no one likes that. Remember, it's not a test for a grade, it's an exercise for learning.
Strangely enough, I saw a confirmation of what I thought were my most esoteric ideas on this in the first season of "WestWorld". That was both startling and reassuring. And if you're wondering how I could possibly wrap this all back to WW, well, I told you it was a long story.
As for the 1152 dating of the Nativity, you'll find it here in Chapter 1 of TSAR OF THE SLAVS by А.Т.Fomenko, G.V.Nosovskiy. These guys are academics, so you may find it rough going when reading it. But that's just the point: it is, as we used to say in mathematics, "closely reasoned". You also find out the Shroud of Turin is real, unless you can convince yourself it's all one big coincidence!
So, I listened to a couple hours worth of content from Biglino. And I am down with a lot of what he's teaching. I can buy the Annunaki and people, hybrids, living thousands even tens of thousands of years in the distant past thing. But I don't know that I agree with the theory's core nature.
Let me give some examples. Biglingo really emphasizes this multiple gods idea. But that teaching isn't really new. I thought there'd be a bit more to it. But I've heard this multiple gods theory repeated by Christians, specifically those who have developed a genuine/independent interest in their faith. Hell, I've actually heard through the Bible teachers talk about this (granted, it's not a subject they tend to linger on). The biblical idea, as I'm sure you're aware, is that the world is given over to Satan until Jesus comes back. There are powers and principalities over areas and peoples, demonic influence of sorts. And there's one Elohim above all others. A Christian who's just reading their bible should know this. Biblically, there's real power in the demonic, but it's only a fraction of what God wields. I tend to think this is what the Annunaki were, essentially Pagan gods/fallen angels. I tend to think even Enki and Inlil (spelling?) were in this boat, whether they represented themselves that way or not.
There was also this notion of a "savage" God, which I find pops up when you get into this sort of conversation with folks who study the Bible but don't believe it (referring to a video I saw of Belingo here. It was in this series I linked below). And that's a little bit of a red flag for me, just because it's evidence of a fair bit of emotion surrounding the argument, a sort of hatred or anger towards God. Like you can grasp the concept of an almighty being, beyond time, one who spoke the universe into existence, eternal... And what's going to hold you up is a judgement you placed on this being based on your super tiny moral perspective? Seems like a small, kind've pointless argument in the scheme of things. And stuff like that gives me pause.
It's the same thing with arguments like the one linked below. It's weird to me when people substitute in stories of creation that make no sense. At least with the theory of divine creation you end up at a mystery, "the mystery of God." I can at least accept that I can't grasp the full nature of creation. Meanwhile, one explanation in this little clip is just "maybe string theory is responsible for creation." What? Which part?
https://youtu.be/mxOfEFPuU5I?t=764
Below, he is unironically talking about ancient aliens (And don't get me wrong, still down). But notice, he can’t wrap his mind around the idea that this biblical passage could be literal. If you can consider alien demi-gods as potential creator beings, but can’t fathom that maybe there’s also a different realm/dimension we can interact with in a limited fashion, even though it's an idea presented in some of the same texts… I think this calls into question some of the logic you’re operating under.
https://youtu.be/ALmXC9oGFSw?t=644
Like I said previously, I don't discount all of what Belingo is saying. Most of it seems to be pointed in the right direction. I don't know the whole body of his work, and I'm not trying to setup strawmen here. But I get the impression he's missing the mark on the spiritual nature of this story. I think there probably were/are Annunaki or something close to them. But, in Mathew 10:8, Jesus told the disciples to heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, and cast out demons. I think this is real (I'm not saying I understand everything about it), and without the spiritual side, you (the royal you, not you you) only have part of the story. I tend to believe there's a blindness in part people contract when they ignore that.
In one of your previous posts, you asked what I really want to know. I think the most important question we should attempt to answer is what comes next. All said and done, our lives are short and purposeless independent of anything else. And I think that speaks to what existence is. I tend to think that we weren't created randomly at all, and it would make the most sense in the world if life was a test of sorts.
Lol. It's funny you mention westworld. By whatever the last season of that was (5?) I was cracking up about the messaging. "Oh, this is what they want for us," referring to the total control through sound waves and the disposable nature of the people who were left. What did you see in season 1? (I'm not even sure how well I remember that)
You should write a book. Get all of this in one coherent place, and present whatever evidence there is. I'll buy a copy.