The Bronze Age collapse ca. 1200 was the fall of Canaanite pedophile culture under its own weight allowing lots of Semitic (many), Japhthetic (Caphtorite, Athenian), and Hamitic (Egyptian) tribes to control regions of the Levant. We have all the idols and temples to prove it. The Sea Peoples were Phoenician and were one of those many tribes who benefitted but there were many others. Satan is usually behind all nations that collapse and most nations that replace, so no surprise there. You're right it's not talked about enough, but most of the replacing nations left records of their conquests that modern history thinks are too dull to review. The fact that "bad guys" run most nations at most times isn't a surprise either. I look forward to your thoughts on this.
I'm not as interested in the thoughts of OP "Dr. Professor Eric H. Cline, Ph.D." or the "National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS)". When he sells his book on the idea that in 1177 "with their end came the world’s first recorded Dark Ages", he's kinda ignoring the fact that Egypt had a strong New Kingdom from ca. 1540 to ca. 1070 with no interruption due to the nearby Bronze Age Collapse. I suppose you could make a case that Egypt was somehow "subjugated" to priestcraft in the latter of those days but that is a highly speculative theory that doesn't indicate a historical trajectory or a connection to Canaan or Israel. The House of Ramses and the priests worked together throughout the whole later New Kingdom. So I doubt OP is worth it.
the 5th Common Era; the Jews put it and all of the Hellenes and Philosophers with it to an undignified mass death and terraformed all of Europe and the Middle East into a prison continent.
Name two such Jews. For Real. Should be easy, no?
It goes way back. Chester Arthur had three false stories released about his birth IIRC to hide the fact that he had Irish citizenship at birth through his unnaturalized father (i.e. he was not a natural-born citizen and knew it but reigned anyway at the hands of an assassin supporter).
Attacking users implies intent.
This is a good point. At the same time intent cannot be directly gleaned but only inferred, so it's not that objective. We might say objectively your sarcastic tone in the subject comment means you didn't intend to insult another, but then I infer you did intend to caricature an identifiable collective third party as insulting another, which does attack the collective by implying they use slurs and are illogical. If you were to say for instance "Greenblatt says", you'd be Naming The Jew For Real and wisely moving the criticism from a nebulous collective to a known violator. Perhaps more to the point even though riskier, "Judith Resnik and Ilan Ramon say". (They have been the subject of conspiracy research.)
In my moderation experience I might let your version go as you edited it, because it's isolated, indirect, and self-moderated by repunctuation; but c/Thisisnotanexit makes the calls at the pleasure of admin and the community. The real question is to what degree you want to interact without getting hung up on meta about restoration of the forum's original honor code. I've noticed that virtually everyone claiming "censorship" here has no idea what real censorship is or has been.
If we were to be very gracious and exempt a million Jewish people who believe Jesus is the Messiah, even though they consider themselves Jews and the rest of Judaism does not reject them unless they are judged individually as having "converted" (which isn't the same as merely believing Jesus is the Messiah), that hypothetical definition would only get us so far as to define "Jew" by religion and not ethnicity and would not implicate all such "Jews" (men, women, and children) as being either nonethnic or criminal.
In particular, Ashkenazi Jews have Jewish heritage dating back to Temple Jews (Ioudaioi) even if there was some immixing. If Americans can tell Jews they're not Jews, then Jews can tell Americans they're not Americans (which is exactly what you imply you don't want them doing); so your argument "not Jews" contains seeds of your own destruction at the hands you claim to despise. That is you're arguing exactly as you say a Jew argues.
So the evidence that the Ashkenazi arose at some point in history from a people without any Jewish birth/conversion integration is totally missing. At the same time, simple surname evidence indicates that most all named any form of Cohen (note, Khazarian "Kagan"), Katz (Kohen-Tzedek), Levi, or Sacerdote have heritage back to the Biblical Levi, and several names have heritage back through second temple Judah to the Biblical Judah, such as Abravanel, Berdugo, Charlap, Dayan, Epstein, Horowitz, Luria, Shaltiel, Spira, Yahya. Netanyahu and Schneersohn claim heritage from gaon Elijah Zalman, others from Rashi or Isaac Luria. Obviously many Ashkenazim do not have such extensive genealogies handy, and many with the best surnames don't have the genealogy handy either, but this much would suffice for any nation to claim continuous heritage against the claims of outsiders. DNA evidence agrees.
1 Thess. 2:15 "contrary to all men" is spoken by a Jew to other Jews about a different subset of "the Jews" "in Judaea" (14), not about all Jews, nor even about all unbelieving Jews. Here are some Biblical descriptions that don't and that do apply to all Jews generically.
I appreciate that you are mostly moderate and not stretching the criticism to those who are innocent of it (e.g. children). You are mostly keeping good pace and not falling into traps that others have who deal with this subject. If you were able to offer historical evidence comparable to the above to advance the thesis that one nationality (yours) has the right to deny the nationality of another ("Jews'"), you might get somewhere; but seeing as nobody ever does then it might be wiser to tone it down and stick to actual facts.
Do you propose to have some demonstrable fact about my ethnicity simply because I'm a covenantalist Christian?
Do you propose to have some demonstrable fact about Jews not being descended from Judah (whether or not there was also intermarriage) and about being solely "dysgenic turkomongoloid"? The Bible says they were Ioudaios in the 1st century, by the 10th century Judaeus was shortened to Ju, there was never a point at which Ioudaioi/Jews ceased to exist with someone else picking up the name.
David, you're quoting a false report that was literally debunked 100 years ago: the meme version is source 4 in my list. In 1920 it was reported there exists no "Libbre David", and assiduous search for such quotes in one of several books called Dibrei David has not turned them up. So the first two quotes are too distorted to find any originals; the others are false interpretations that don't appear in the texts as such. I could present evidence in more detail if you didn't demonstrate yourself predisposed to reject it.
My level of evidence is, you look at a text (like from sefaria.org), you see what it says, you do like a sociologist and interpret it according to its culture. If you want to quibble with anything in the link on a fact basis, go ahead. But it may be simpler for us to do a test case to see what meets your level of evidence.
To your quote about lying, there is no such findable reference as "Schabouth Hag. 6d". However, I invite you to read any of many books called "Shavuot Haggadah" to see if you can find such a reference; I haven't found one. Now, you might bring the medieval source Zohar, Vayetzei 27 which is Google-translated as: "With tricks you will make war for yourself." But this is just an inference from Pr. 24:6 (KJV), "By wise counsel thou shalt make thy war." So it only applies to wartime and is similar to Christian (or most nations') views on use of deception in wartime.
If you wanted to go back to the actual Talmud, you could cite Bava Kamma 113a, which says, "Rav Ashi said: With regard to a Gentile customs collector .... one approaches circuitously; the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: One does not approach circuitously due to the sanctification of God's name." Two contradictory views are stated, then the ruling is given that Akiba is correct (even if the Name is not in consideration due to Lev. 25:48 prohibiting robbing a Gentile, as quoted in Sanhedrin 57a). Talmudists use context to show which of two contradictory statements is the majority ruling (i.e. Jewish practice), and here it's that marketplace deception or "circuitousness" is not permitted. But if you wanted to call out Ashi and Yishmael by name for a harsher minority approach, you could do so.
TLDR: When you go to the actual Talmud like a comparative religionist, you generally find reasonable judgments that are similar to other contemporary sources (e.g. church fathers on when to "reserve" information). I'd be happy to agree with you on an evidence standard such as I suggest above, and then to judge evidence, but you'll need to come to it without prejudice.
Well, the video title is trying to clickbait; in journalism that's called good headline writing.
What I'm wondering is where you take it. Are you a gnostic? What would gnostic mean then? Why would knowledge of archons be important for daily living? From the contributions of others: Do you have a problem with Jesus affirming a god who likes to sacrifice animals and enjoy the scent of their blood poured on a burning hot altar (we now call that BBQ)? Do you have a problem with Jesus affirming the "I AM" of the Hebrew Scriptures? Do you have a problem with the Bible calling God the Father a "Demiurge" (public servant) in Heb. 11:10?
Thanks for your consideration. I may have started with too much snark.
Umm, that would suggest Gab is not that much "free speech" because with free speech you do get a lot of criticism. Let me know here what Group you post in, please.
I told you I could explain the Day of Atonement vow. You don't seem interested.
Your interpretation of it is not in the Talmud.
If you've heard of the Talmud you should be able to post folio and paragraph. Since you don't, that implies you're playing hearsay down a telephone game of people, including some German skeptics, who had no idea what they were saying.
You're speaking Yiddish and refusing to name the Jew for real. I'm just replying to you and naming names. The community can tell the difference.
Tremendously clickbaity. Maybe we all already know it? Wanna include a submission statement, fren?
Do you mean "Paranormal and Conspiracies" #6875? That forum seems a lot deader unless you have something more live in mind. Plus, Gab is not free speech but is specifically known for image restrictions and other unwritten rules that are not operative here. Scored permits all legal speech and local subs can carve out additional restrictions. (That's why I stay at Scored, because it's better to have as near to free speech as one can get, and then the prurient and gory can be counseled by community rather than restricted by tyranny.) The founders of c/GeneralUncensored and c/FreeSpeech here have a standing disagreement about which of the two better expresses the total rights of free speech; and you would be better off taking up there than at Gab in terms of reach, content alignment, or general freedom.
So none of the forums we're discussing have ever been "free speech", at best they've been legal speech. You're free to bail due to a very minor interpretive principle from the mod here, but I don't see another method as better achieving your stated goals. But let us know specifically where on Gab you're headed, thanks.
Flex, I apologize if my very minor concern led to a misunderstanding. I've accepted your statement here that you're defining "Smith" as something like a sinful nature that asserts itself in people including yourself, sometimes to the point of overtaking one's better judgment, so you don't intend it as a personal attack but a warning about behavior. If u/Thisisnotanexit is willing to consider your definition in that light, she might be able to give you a reasonable assurance.
The issue is whether you act like a person who intends to call names or not, judging intent based on the whole of the communications. I could see a judgment that your calling out "Smith" is a personal insult or a judgment that it is a constructive criticism of a behavior, so I can't comment on what response she would make to my suggestion for consideration. But by speaking to the personification of behavior rather than to the person running the account, you engage confusion in others' minds, and initially that included me until you explained yourself. This is not c/FreeSpeech, this is a legal-speech forum with an honor code that I believe predates all of us coming here.
Incidentally, the solution to symmetry breaking is that the antimatter is trapped in blackhole event horizons.
Today, in a world first, a team of scientists from the BASE experiment at CERN successfully transported a trap filled with antiprotons in a truck across the Laboratory’s main site. The team managed to accumulate a cloud of 92 antiprotons in an innovative portable cryogenic Penning trap, then disconnect it from the experimental facility, load it onto a truck and continue experiment operation after transport.
Who you gonna call?
That is an incredible anecdotal evidence, Primate.
There will always be places like this where we have each other's backs.
"Human tomorrow" contains surprises. Practice today.
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is (1 John 3:2 KJV).
I guess I'll copy out Plato's advice from the myth of Er as well (Republic 10.618-619). Though in Greek form, like Atlantis it was modified, according to Pythagorean metempsychosis and coming from an Armenian original (the myth of Ara, likely Arame of Urartu in the time of Shammuramat/Semiramis), with a probable old Zoroastrian morality story thrown in (the book of Arda Wiraz) due to Persian influence in Armenia. In the oldest version, Arda sees people choosing future heavenly lives based on past earthly lives instead of future earthly lives. Plato doesn't speak directly of future lives either but of "genii" (connected lives). Anyway, Plato puts in Socrates's mouth, supporting my point in a way I wasn't aware when I wrote it:
And here, my dear Glaucon, is the supreme peril of our human state; and therefore the utmost care should be taken. Let each one of us leave every other kind of knowledge and seek and follow one thing only, if peradventure he maybe able to learn and may find some one who will make him able to learn and discern between good and evil, and so to choose always and everywhere the better life as he has opportunity. He should consider the bearing of all these things which have been mentioned severally and collectively upon virtue; he should know what the effect of beauty is when combined with poverty or wealth in a particular soul, and what are the good and evil consequences of noble and humble birth, of private and public station, of strength and weakness, of cleverness and dullness, and of all the natural and acquired gifts of the soul, and the operation of them when conjoined; he will then look at the nature of the soul, and from the consideration of all these qualities he will be able to determine which is the better and which is the worse; and so he will choose, giving the name of evil to the life which will make his soul more unjust, and good to the life which will make his soul more just; all else he will disregard. For we have seen and know that this is the best choice both in life and after death. A man must take with him into the world below an adamantine faith in truth and right, that there too he may be undazzled by the desire of wealth or the other allurements of evil, lest, coming upon tyrannies and similar villanies, he do irremediable wrongs to others and suffer yet worse himself; but let him know how to choose the mean and avoid the extremes on either side, as far as possible, not only in this life but in all that which is to come. For this is the way of happiness.
(And while I'm at it I should mention this reference to child sacrifice for the forum's sake, also in 619: "And when he had spoken, he who had the first choice came forward and in a moment chose the greatest tyranny; his mind having been darkened by folly and sensuality, he had not thought out the whole matter before he chose, and did not at first sight perceive that he was fated, among other evils, to devour his own children.")
Kellogg's Corn Flakes are not an external source?
The recipe came to John Kellogg in a dream. Will Kellogg began marketing them with appeals to matriarchalism and pyramidology. They were failed Adventists. It's quite the Conspiracies post but I don't think I'll write it right now.
I was giving you a suggestion for increasing good vibes and harmony among truth seekers, and you reacted this way.
I honestly only call Feds Agent Smith when I know they are paid to defend the deep state matrix.
Interesting, this side comment relates to the main point.
Also the flood of Noah and great flood were mixed up somehow as being just 1 flood. There are 2 separate floods.
In both cases you set yourself up as the standard by which true knowledge is known. Your source and authority for me being a fed is the same as your source for Noah's flood being local.
For me the standard of Truth is Truth itself: I am not capable of discerning Truth perfectly, but Truth is perfectly capable of communicating itself to me. I could be wrong, so I must trust the Truth to manifest itself for me to know whether I'm right, or whether you're paid to defend the matrix.
You've told me your standard of truth on such points as the flood includes the Urantia Book. Have you considered that the book was promoted by a cell of students led by Lena Celestial Kellogg and William Sadler that relied on the Kellogg money that came directly from deep-state-aligned efforts to convince Americans to buy a flaky corn-processing byproduct as a new "breakfast cereal"? You don't just know these folks were paid to defend the deep state matrix?
But, more important, is there an external means of testing Truth that we can both agree on? How would we know how many floods there are, or who was paying us, without an agreement to proceed? I offered you a means to finesse the question by your not raising it, which in the past has been good enough for you to work with. But instead of taking my suggestion you called me a name and your source is yourself, your knowledge. Let's see if there's something to agree on.
No, but there's not an underground movement going around to discredit the Pseudepigrapha, so most critical editions are trustworthy. If anything there's an underground movement to amplify them out of proportion; and of course to write new ones (a fanfic canon can never be closed).
You can stop it with the multiple cataclysms, those are a myth created by the deep state to continue their governance over free information. The Bible speaks of two only, flood and fire, and if people think the Bible is wrong on this they won't absorb its energy and will be fighting among themselves. Better not even to bring it up when the rest of the message is sound, it really dilutes the signal.
The best resource I have on all Jesus's teachings in the Bible is stepbible.org where you can see almost every variant that's ever been logged. The best resource I have on other information about Jesus's teachings, besides the brief secular accounts, is the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha edited by Charlesworth. Most people find that comparing those words across multiple translations, without special study notes except for neutral info about language and culture (again across multiple interpreters), is enough to undo any bias created by Scofield consulted alone.
Thanks, blessings on you two too!
Random thought: seems the chronology works better if we celebrate Palm Monday instead (four days before Jesus's death). But I could be wrong!
Get a photo, fren. Often reported by groups, rarely documented.
If it's a spiritual event, get an exorcist, they can produce good documentation for that.
First, you're using the 1611 translation and Early Modern English uses words quite different than we do.
"Happy" was unrelated to emotion but was related to fortuitous chance, for instance. Forms of "happy" and "hap" still appear 58 times, but the then-common word for what we call happiness was "blessing", forms of which appear 522 times.
"Fun" didn't exist in 1611 with the modern sense of amusement, but simply meant "hoax", so naturally doesn't appear. However (contrary to the misread in the OP title), forms of "joy" and "enjoy" appear 216 times.
"Freedom" was a very technical word still, which is why its two KJV usages relate to citizenship. Even so, forms of "free" appear 101 times and of "liberty" and "liberal" 38 times.
Forms of "laugh" appear 40 times and forms of "cry" 434, so the ratio is not as bad as depicted; and laughter was then associated with mocking and foolish mirth (as an OP quote shows) and crying with any emphatic expression, including many positive ones (2 Sam. 18:25-27), so neither the KJV nor the Hebrew context had used the Greek tragicomedy duality to contrast these. "Isaac" the father of Israel, whose name means laughter, appears 132 times. But more to the point, in the root emotions, forms of "pleasure" have 240 appearances and forms of "sadness" 13, so it's all in the word choice.
"Birth" and "death" have many forms so the simplest comparison is between the Hebrew "yalad" "bear" (500) and "muth" "die" (839). So about a 40-60 split, nothing like OP.
Forms of "friend" have 107 cases and of "enemy" 380, again not the ratio projected. But in those days when you were close to someone you called him not "freed" (the meaning of "friend"), but "brother"/"brethren" (975 cases for both biological and adoptive).
The meme also uses some of the deliberate paradox language of Ecclesiastes without getting its point (that negatives have their purpose and place), which ironically reinforces its entire tone-deaf thesis. It digs in to Lev. 19:20 without seeking to understand the cultural context, namely that when evidence indicated a rape victim fought back then she was not punished (Deut. 22:25-27, which was canonically read alongside the Levitical law), but if there was no evidence she fought back then, instead of being executed as an accomplice to adultery, due to her social position she was mercifully punished without execution. In context it is only about a bondmaid who willingly breaks and adulterates her engagement, and it deliberately stops short of making it a capital offense.
So the entire meme reeks of failure to seek context for historical documents but instead to interpret them (even their antique translations) in Modern English only, with PC overtones. This is a local peak of Amerocentric bias that refuses to accept our Lord's dictation that the Word is fully inspired in its original text. Scripture readers will be familiar enough with the Biblical use of these contrasts to need no examples be supplied, but I'll just suggest one that I find inspiring:
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage .... For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another (Gal. 5:1, 13).
110% voter turnout in 1860