Unironically.

Yea, if thou desirest to continue I recommend thou learnest early modern english:

when thou moanest

doth keep (or) keepeth

ye/ye (or) thee/thou

thou hast (or) ye have

thy sins

one's own

Good comments here. I predicted the first twist before skimming the transcript, but there's quite a bit more here. This begins with just the 1988 CIA Project Sunstreak asking a psychic what is seen to exist at a certain location by "remote viewing", and of course the psychic describes the mainstream narrative of where the Ark is. Well, even James Randi would say that it's very easy for the psychic to get backchannel intel on what they want to hear and then feed it to them, especially when many psychics are being consulted; but we also know that it could be spiritual too.

This description agrees with Ron Wyatt's, who said he was underground and saw the whole thing but couldn't remove or photograph it due to time and circumstance. Wyatt was sometimes right, but he also knew when an unverifiable belief could be sold to get him more followers. He also made claims about that other Ark (Noah's), which I politely disbelieve (compare John Morris), and the two claims of lost arks seem to have some tied destiny to them.

Video very considerately compares three other claims. (1) 1983, Yehuda Getz and Shlomo Goren dig under Temple Mount, claim to have seen the ark, Israelis covered the entrance with concrete. (2) Edward Ullendorff investigated Axum, Ethiopia, ark in 1941, declared it medieval. (3) Wyatt, 1982. Thumbnail also uses the Trump reconstruction; IMHO this relatively standard artistic position of the angels, and the details of the rings, are not accurate, since I have counterevidence from Ezekiel and from the practice of Moses.

Spoiler: The conclusion, after lots of good Biblical explanation, is that the author believes the ark was literally moved into heaven according to Rev. 11. Fine, tenable theory; I think the ark on earth is the copy of the heavenly one and so it's likely that it will once again figure heavily. Since this is Conspiracies, I'll add that, unlike the misdirection created by releasing a psychic story, the real IC has been concerned since before the Raiders 1940s that the blood of Jesus might be on the ark and might be clonable; that's also why the Holy Prepuce disappeared, and many cross relics, and the Shroud is under constant watch, and why Hitler was obsessed with the Sword of Longinus. Why do you think satan has been experimenting these thousands of years on so many unwilling subjects, it's to get the gnosis as "right" as possible before the final antichrist is revealed, the one whom all the enemies aspire to be. All the stories about such artifacts are just cover for the masses to give alternate reasons about why the nations rage over these things instead of admitting the deeper Power concern.

The good news is that the blood of Christ is already flowing through my veins, he's my blood brother and he can be y'all's. So I don't have to worry about what it takes them to mimic a fraction of our power.

u/Jalapeno_gringo u/Luke1940

Thank you Jacobin, I really appreciate your letting u/Graphenium and u/Thisisnotanexit draw you out and your being more transparent with them, because it appears my brasher style didn't have the good effect their appeals did.

I empathize with and respect your explanation about your mother and it's very understandable that your experiences would lead you to regard the Christian Bible with doubt. Without belittling that experience at all, I repeat that one of the best cures, and best paths to hope in this time, is to go back to foundations, instead of grappling with the highly specific moral questions that the detailed text also confronts in passing: the details are probably too close to you to handle first. For foundations, you say e.g.:

Even if YHWH is as the gnostics believe then the ultimate god above him still appointed him over the earth and so is equally as uncaring/evil or equally as ignorant.

Good thinking! That's similar to my point about how, even if Jesus didn't exist, the system in which his narrative became popular still has the same characteristics as Jesus himself. So you're rightly looking at the whole tree all the way to the root and doubting that it's the best theodicy (i.e. a defense of good given the existence of evil). There are a few insightful people here who generally have asked the similar question, and when the questioner is patient then good discussion can be engaged!

I can also welcome you into the brotherhood of those who accept a good Creator:

I would agree with you that nature and everything in it only points one way - towards a creator. Nothing else makes any sense to me and I highly doubt it ever will .... I don’t think it can be contained within the bounds of human characteristics

That's all I was trying to get you to say! Again I apologize for not being able to elicit it. Not only that, this good Creator has the foresight to give us good things like mushrooms, and channels to high planes of experience, and this affirms a concept of good. It's my belief that building on the foundation of what this Creator is like will get us to a concept of God that remains transcendent but also helps us live our lives in this strange world.

What I'd linked previously establishes that if the Cosmos contains things like meaning, life, and personality, science shows that these don't arise of themselves but must have been hard-wired at some event like a Big Bang from some containing or transcendent source. Whether we call that an Anthropic Principle or a Multiverse or whatever, it must have meaning, life, and personality because we have them, and these things do not arise out of nothing. Theists don't feel they have to define what that personality is like, as long as they recognize that it informs (or creates) the fact that we have personalities, and so we're not it, it remains transcendent while also being experienced in spacetime (immanent).

TLDR: Working from a common foundation, would you be willing to share ideas about why evils happen, so as to compare notes toward finding the best explanation, without bias toward any particular solution? Because that's why I'm here.

As to your OP concern, now that I understand better, please feel free to ping me about any evangelizing that looks to you like it perpetrates a deceptive conspiracy within Judaism and/or Christianity. I'm all for exposing the deceptive networks, while yet balancing in the sincerity of those who want truth and still have adopted various of those systems; so I'll be happy to question specific Jews, Catholics, Orthodox, or Protestants alongside you.

How can I acknowledge that when you say in OP the existence of Jesus is a psyop? If I wasn't trying so hard to keep you on the correct one point at a time, I'd explain that Jesus told his disciples to repeat his words to all his followers; but the point is that you have given no epistemology for how to determine whether Jesus or anything exists. If there's one true God, then we should focus on his/its nature rather than argue about dogs and serpents. It's silly to major in minors.

As I said above, if Jesus were an unpleasant racist deceiver then we should abandon him in the search for truth; but then there's nobody admittedly better in world history than the conceivers of the Jesus narrative, as otherwise we're all just unpleasant racist deceivers ourselves. That seems to be the best point following the one you raise.

Canada 200,000-260,000 km

I'm linking you again then. Still the first comment under the OP. Evidence is that there exists one true God and that anyone who doesn't acknowledge him faces the natural consequences of self-delusion. Jesus's words only reinforce that, and if they didn't then we might attempt to insert a wedge between the true God and Jesus, but you give no guidance as to how or why you would insert such a wedge.

I totally agree that the search for the one true God has been hijacked by all kinds of hangers-on, of many stripes including Jewish and Christian. Those are indeed the subject of c/Conspiracies. The difficulty as with any other conspiracies is sorting signal from noise. When someone obscures the hijacking by blaming all of a certain group or movement, without making distinctions, that's usually noise. If all of a group should be blamed, it should be because enough of the key formal agents of that entity have taken unconscionable actions, for instance the Church of Satan entity. The same is not true of Jesus or Christianity, despite all the blame we can throw on Constantine or Ben Zakkai.

So I see no distinction between Jesus's claims about the one true God, and the natural law that those who reject God die without God.

You're free to name Jews for real, such as Samuel Untermyer, who may have latched on to Christianity as a vehicle for carrying out Jewish interests. But that's a far cry from the idea that Jesus himself and Christianity itself are corrupt to the core. When you are capable of making those distinctions, you don't get pushback like you do for the high noise ratio.

The OP topic is Christianity in Jesus, not dogs.

If you have taken Jesus advice and rendered yourself childlike and naive and accepting these things purely on the say so of the book itself then, fair enough. That is your prerogative

I accept with simple faith all the 66 books that Jesus's people have recognized as his Word. Since you are at peace with that, then you should have no OP objection to those who do the same. If you were to return to implying that simple faith in that Bible is intellectually inferior, then my question would return as to what ground you stand on from which to make that decision. Whatever moral high ground you use, I can meet you on, and we can work from there rather than act at cross purposes. Either there's no such ground (all being meaningless), or there is (true natural law), and in either case there's not any indictment of simple faith that seeks truth and nothing else.

Thanks, but it looks like you focused on the minors and ignored my primary questions. You don't get to critique the Christians using what you think is Christian interpretation and then not propose your own moral system, because by denying Christianity you have no right to proclaim judgment about its interpretation. That's othering.

Are you committed to follow truth wherever it leads? If yes, we can investigate where in my 50 linked points you think the truth diverges from my conclusions; that would allow us to judge questions about meaning of "dog", for instance. If no, then you're the one in bad faith and you're projecting that on me. I ask that question of people because it separates those interested in persuading me, at the risk of learning something new, from those who aren't mature enough to accept that risk.

Your OP ball is that Yahweh is not to be worshipped but you have no better alternative. That's the ball I'm playing. If you want to run from that ball it's on you.

Did you have a better teacher than Jesus?

Your methods here are not following logic. (1) "Not general advice" is your assumption; (2) Jesus told the apostles to speak his words from the rooftops, and they did, contrary to your assumptions; (3) "Purposefully deceiving and confusing" is your assumption, as there is no deceit and the parabolic style is not confusion; (4) "Dogs" and "swine" didn't mean Gentiles per se any more than "sheep" or "serpents" meant Israelites, they were metaphors; (5) Jesus praising the woman's great faith and her receiving healing after he tested her sincerity are contrary to your narrative.

But let's imagine your "thoroughly unpleasant, hateful, racial supremacist literary figure posing as a good guy whilst deceiving even his fellow Jews with unfathomable parables but hoarding his real secrets for his inner crew - just like all secret societies since .... not a purveyor of truth, but a gatekeeper of it" for a moment. As I linked from c/Atheist, someone had to have written out the life of this character and to plot out such distinct moral teachings and claims of divinity as were hardly conceivable in those days. It would take a Jesus to invent a Jesus. Someone is there with great truths, and the simplest truths there are not hidden but are clear to children. And when I compare this to every other religious etiology in existence I find this one the best, the fullest, and the incomparable, by many objective standards. The Bible's Jesus requires us either to accept his ways or to despair of finding anyone whose ways can be accepted. That's the choice I ask you when I redirect you to whether you are willing to pursue the truth wherever it leads.

Well, thank you for this fresh meat and I hope u/Thisisnotanexit doesn't mind my stepping in first, as we agree on a lot but not perfectly.

If you start with natural law, that rapidly leads to necessity for capital punishment for the incorrigible, and then to the possibility of just war against the incorrigibly belligerent society. If you have a problem with the idea of defending your nation with force when attacked, that's probably a separate discussion because most moral codes allow protection of the innocent.

The question turns to when to judge that a nation is sufficiently belligerent (hardened), and the degree of collateral risk against noncombatants. This is also a very detailed moral dilemma but is closer to the objection you are staking out. It seems that you're not objecting to the principle that nations have the right to judge that war against one of their number is better for all, and to judge who is included in that war; you're objecting to the loose application of this principle as many read it into the Bible. If we could never declare war against an attacking nation or determine for ourselves who constitutes combatants or what collateral risk is acceptable, that would be quite a difficult pacifism to walk.

It's my experience that the Biblical accounts indicate principles in this moral minefield that are at least as good as those of any other comparative system: this requires reading them in their context the same way as any other historical document, of course.

Your first passage, 1 Sam. 15:2-3, states the rationale directly, that Amalek had attacked Israel without cause (Ex. 17:8). In context Amalek "smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary", so grave an attack against a people on pilgrimage as to require continuous remembrance (Ex. 17:14-16, Deut. 25:17-19). They hadn't changed any later, as cited by the independent witness of Balaam, who also judged the people worthy of death (Num. 24:20); this is unlike the Kenites, who had been among Amalek but accepted terms of peace with Israel, 1 Sam. 15:6. Now, as with Egyptian justifications for its many wars, you could object that the history is wrong or exaggerated, but we don't have an objection that there are times when a nation should be judged for crimes against humanity, and attacking the feeble among a wearied people en masse is one such crime.

In those days it was also argued that one who attacks the weak (i.e. including the children) deserves to have one's own children attacked; the fact that we are (often) more sensitive nowadays is a further moral development, but still isn't an objection against the morality as it had developed that far. The fact is that the adults were all judged worthy of death by Samuel and Saul, and for the children in this case death was judged more merciful than alternatives (including their remaining alive to revive the rebellious nation). I believe that anyone seeking morality should be able to accept that the Creator, through the Cosmos, allows many unexplained deaths of children or "innocents" through many secondary causes, and that if we're not atheists we trust that there is a good reason for this. So it's not impossible for the Creator to communicate that a certain nation is so far gone that its children are better off spared from growing up in that nation, due to the secondary cause of war. Since that's possible, I don't have a problem with the theory that it may have happened on a couple occasions. When genocide occurs for any reason, I trust that the Creator knows who are truly dying in innocence and who are dying for their sins, and judges rightly.

The cattle are a separate issue, as the victor in a just war has the right to dedicate its spoils to its god rather than use it for other purposes. Saul's issue was that he agreed with the dedication and then didn't follow through. Samuel called this out publicly and said that Yahweh had said "It repenteth me" about it, which means not that he changed his mind but that Saul's kingship had turned away (repented) from him. Yahweh didn't leave Saul in that sense, Saul left.

Now you ask if this is a good, all-loving God. That's a moral question that I'll just allude to briefly. God being Love cannot mean rewarding the evil: sooner or later Love draws a line and allows justice and judgment. The complex transactions of God in the Bible demonstrate a very developed sense of how to draw those lines, and when I compare it to other systems I find it superior. Many who speak of omnibeneficence haven't thought through what it would actually mean as an attribute of deity.

Deut. 7:1-6 is similarly a judgment against various Canaanite tribes for their evil practices, well-documented in the Late Bronze Age archaeology. One reference to these evils, aside from idolatry itself being connected to many shrine immoralities, is that they bring diseases (7:15), including sexual; another reference is the Deut. 2 giants, several nations of which had already been dispossessed by other Semitic tribes, which was regarded as a judgment against their sexual immorality (Gen. 6), a judgment in which Israel had much precedent from which to participate. This is not about genocide against every other nation, but is surgically selected; the rules of just war require offering terms of peace, allowing coexistence. Also, Moses gives laws of war by which captives can be spared and naturalized, which apply in all these cases (Amalek being a specific exception).

Now, if a national god was in fact the true Creator it would be natural to affirm that all nations should come to know him; but this aspect is claimed by several gods, so we need not choose a priori, as it remains for them to continue competing in history as we study truth claims to determine which of them is correct.

You then regard Christianity as some kind of Jewish plot ("parasitisation") to subvert all these nations. Well, again, American Christianity today is great at hearing all competing truth claims and allowing discussion, so if this were true then the way it exists today as upholding rights of conscience is one of the best vehicles in which to discover any errors! I'm happy to discuss faults of Jews and Christians, but that is a separate matter from whether the true Creator is actually on Jesus's side and speaking truth through him.

Ps. 110:5-6 is of course warlike, though you have an exaggerated paraphrase and in the KJV it reads more rightly and generically as "He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries." If a king is unable to defeat enemies and wound heads when called for, yeah, that wouldn't be my Savior forever. It doesn't come close to implying that every Gentile will be killed. I don't see a problem with the psalm itself, or other multifaceted Messianic literature, unless racism is attributed to Jesus contrary to the historical record.

Is. 49:23 could be taken as Gentiles serving Israel, but the same passage (6) says "It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth." Salvation and light to the Gentiles alongside Israel, where both are given to the Messiah "servant", means that all are equally serving the Messiah as the true representative of what Israel or any nation was supposed to be. I'm a love-slave of Jesus, sold to him unless truth should be otherwise. So I don't have a problem with the idea that all nations, including Israel, serve him in his kingdom, as he's proved his worthiness for it. I know that it's been said Talmudists take this triumphalistically, but that hasn't been demonstrated and doesn't inform the idea that they have any power to do so via Christianity apart from Jesus.

Micah 7:16-17 isn't really even an applicable passage, it comes in the midst of shepherding, compassion, and pardon (14, 18-19) for all who have the faith of Abraham (20), which precedes that one grandson Israel. Generic charges against the nations generally refer to whether they accept God's offer of peace or remain belligerent against him (hmm, returning theme), not to race.

TLDR: It takes eyes to distinguish advocacy for child murder from a wartime accepted risk of collateral death to children. The Bible gives hundreds of examples of moral decisionmaking and the couple times it discusses collateral damage appear to me to be some of the best guidance on the subject, compared to any other analyst. Child murderers write in a completely different way. Your difficulty blurring the two indicates you have some other objection, possibly founded in some other (European?) religious code that you haven't shared with us. By all means, teach us Odin and Yggdrasil if that has a better morality, but don't deconstruct one morality disingenuously without setting up something better in its place.

You should absolutely maximise all of your critical faculties in order to be able to spot nonsense and deceit and to discern good advice from bad.

He also said be wise as serpents. I agree with your statement, but also his. See my longer comment.

You brought up influencers. Their statements can be tested by truth.

On a quick review I see a little history of force such as against the Saxons by Charlemagne. This was done by kings or by mobs, not by church officials, so it would be in the category of government persecution, not of forced conversion by the Catholic Church. So we could list wrongs done by religious rulers or emperors, but I don't see the connection. We are free here to discuss and apprehend truth together, including the truth that lots of people have been bad at that in the past, but their bad example doesn't affect what the truth is.

The evidence that Jesus is one of the best-attested men of antiquity has considerately been pinned by the mod of Atheist for several years. If you'd like to discuss that in the search for truth, please proceed. You seem to accept the existence of Paul, so if you'd like to discuss differences between the two in the search for truth, that's good too, but be prepared for the idea that they don't disagree.

I claim the name "Christian" but restrict that to whomever the true Creator really is and not to whomever I think he is at any moment. The truth is greater than myself and I'm dedicated to the truth and not to myself. For me everything is on the table except that I am sold as a slave to truth. If you see differences between the true Creator and Yahweh in the search for truth, that too is good discussion.

c/Christianity has already investigated genocide passages, but going into that detail isn't useful unless we know what and why we're seeking. Since you didn't get specific, I didn't reply specifically as I did with the next passage.

Ps. 137:9 is a poem rather than a history, calling for vengeance on the occupying nation of Babylon, not in reference to any historical event in which that vengeance occurred. The author proposes the hypothetical that, due to its immorality and guilt, its conquerors will be "happy" even if babies are destroyed in the chaos of war. It is not speaking of a judicial punishment per se, it speaks of a cruelty that may happen by the judgment of individual callous soldiers, and it's not saying this happens in time of peace but it's saying the natural consequences of war are rightly determined upon Babylon by the Creator. The word translated "happy" is closer to its English equivalent "fortuitous" or to the more literal "blest", indicating that the soldier who makes that judgment is, unlike at any other time, "happening" to accord with a greater justice upon the people, and with the natural consequences upon the individual child and the family. In short, it's a brief explanation of a deep principle that has merit, and it's not at all a teaching justifying force in matters of conscience.

TLDR: Evils of religious kings, nature of Jesus, nature of Paul, nature of the Creator are all good topics we could develop. If there were a "Jesus psyop" then these would be good pillars to attack. What's interesting is that so many people who are free to study and choose truth come to find that truth in Jesus. I repeat, "Do you actually want logical, robust answers as a conspiracist would require, or is your mind made up already?" If you commit to follow the truth wherever it leads, as I do, we can have fruitful discovery together, and you may even be able to disabuse me of errors I've made.

anointing (singular)

Anointing suggests on-ointment, joining oil to flesh. Oil represents flow, flesh represents form. Jesus holds onto oil, and sets apart from non-oil.

For some reason I haven't seen you around much. Do you actually want logical, robust answers as a conspiracist would require, or is your mind made up already? We all seek truth together here. Besides your need to take u/Thisisnotanexit seriously, I'm pointing out some quick takes so you know that it's credible to recognize that the answers exist.

1. If you see several influencers turning to Christ, that would be answered by whether Christianity holds the best truth claims or not.

2. I've never seen Christian bots. Please point any out by pinging me directly.

3. c/Conspiracies has for many years allowed civil Christian and anti-Christian debate. You might rather investigate how Conspiracies was created (wasn't it absorbed from Reddit?).

4. If someone had taken over Rome to force Gentiles into worshipping Yahweh, that would be interesting and intriguing; never heard of this, so what is your evidence?

5. You're going to play Jesus not existing against Jesus teaching Gentiles to be enemies? That's illogical.

6. If we pretended Christianity used some ineffective legend about a questionably extant anti-Gentile individual to convert billions of Gentiles, that would be more miraculous than what happened.

7. The Bible says Israel is also a "goy" (nation). Most religions hold that those who don't accept their truth will perish, regardless of whether the truth community is called by a national name (like New Israel) or another name. Nothing to see there.

8. Yes, Christianity is about the destruction of all gods except whomever the true Creator is. Any truth seeker would want to know who the true Creator is and to determine if anyone else had any deity at all, and we propose that Yahweh is the best candidate and no other has any claims on deity.

9. Genocide calls are pretty consistent with just-war principles in any religion: they only apply to belligerent nations that have rejected truth formally and governmentally. A couple passages have been taken out of context to claim otherwise, but they're not difficult in context.

10. You allude to Ps. 137:9, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy [Babylon's] little ones against the stones." Again, this refers to a nation that has abrogated its social place in seeking truth and upholding human relations. One reading is that innocent children are spared a worse fate in a war situation, another reading is that the culture has poisoned even its children into conscious participation against human morality. Without your proposing some better moral system there's no high ground for you to object to this verse; Viking poetry is far worse.

11. It sounds like you want to play a gotcha out of the God of Israel not being accepted prior to Jesus as the God of any other nation (like Armenia). Many "God so loved the world" verses could be brought to bear but you might still argue that you're not seeing what you claim to see. Therefore the question is what you intend to prove. Should I line up everyone from Dumuzid to Jupiter to determine whether they have a fair shake on being God of all the earth? I think that's exactly what Yahweh is asking us to watch happen in world history and so it wouldn't prove anything until the decisive contest that some anticipate. So it's unclear what assertion you wish to make about what could be better than Yahweh starting his group revelation via a single nation.

In short I'm not seeing useful conspiracy discussion advancing here for the most part, I'm seeing a mix of individual perceptions of some kind of brigading, a couple hackneyed objections to Christianity without any superior alternative, and a unique proposal that the Hebrew roots of Christianity must somehow invalidate it, as if the true Creator would never work by progressive revelation that passes through a people-group for a significant period. Would love to know if you're interested in discussion toward establishing truth.

"The LORD delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God."

Greetings. Sometimes all affects one in ways one does not comprehend.

(OP just posted and deleted this one and ignored my reply as follows:)

OP is an uncritical quote miner. The alleged Herzl quote comes from an English transcription of a Hebrew video and appears only in Hebrew sources before that, going back to 2002 from a polemic book and author that can be translated as David Shalem, The Germany File. But the evidence is strongly against it originating from Herzl's pen in German. However, Raphael Patai's book says "Herzl was generally censured for having caused articles preaching nationalism to be published in the Deutsche Zeitung", so he may have been connected with the sentiment of those who actually wrote for that paper at that time ca. 1900 rather than globetrotting like Herzl.

OP also blurs the point that Ford published rather than wrote The International Jew, which was not written in his voice but was written primarily by his secretary.

OP is an uncritical quote miner. The purported Eusebius quote is not in any way his but was, in his own JPost source, attributed to Eusebius rather than put in quotation marks. This one goes back to a very credulous, imbalanced Dagobert Runes, Jew and the Cross, 1965, who in the same breath makes the mistake of converting Eusebius's 90,000 Jewish captives during the Jewish war sold to Romans for their labor, to 90,000 Christian captives during the Persian war sold to Jews for sport killing. With that much misreading it's probable that the summary about Purim was a false memory of the actual quote, separately given here, from Socrates of Constantinople, 5th century. There simply was and is no evidence of widespread simultaneous annual crucifixions in the 4th century by anybody.

Of course nobody else reported any evidence of Socrates's rumor, except if you trace the rumor a warping of generic pagan blood libels against the Jews (Damocritus in the 10th-century Suda, and Apion in Josephus, who credits Posidonius and Apollonius Molo as influencers). But the pagans would have adapted it from the original blood libel against the Christians, who would have received it because obeying Jesus's words exposed them to the charge.

In other words it appears nobody thought of inventing the blood libel until Jesus took it upon himself to talk like a cannibal, didactically, for the purpose of weeding out the skeptics. But by doing this he also set up the deeper layer: he took upon himself all the blame for cannibalism that everyone else laid against any other person, innocent or guilty; he made himself the chief of cannibals so that he could save whoever wanted to be saved. That's an incredible confirm of his mission.

OP is an uncritical quote miner. The alleged Herzl quote comes from an English transcription of a Hebrew video and appears only in Hebrew sources before that, going back to 2002 from a polemic book and author that can be translated as David Shalem, The Germany File. But the evidence is strongly against it originating from Herzl's pen in German. However, Raphael Patai's book says "Herzl was generally censured for having caused articles preaching nationalism to be published in the Deutsche Zeitung", so he may have been connected with the sentiment of those who actually wrote for that paper at that time ca. 1900 rather than globetrotting like Herzl.

OP also blurs the point that Ford published rather than wrote The International Jew, which was not written in his voice but was written primarily by his secretary.

You mean the American chairwoman of the same tiny mysterious cult that Ann Soetoro promoted in Indonesia and whose founder, the Pak, looks amazingly like a recent White House occupant?

Nah, I don't think that was her in the video, for some reason you never saw her face.

My whole existence is in the Mind of the Eternal. Everything else is counterfeit.

The interesting thing about this one is that the document is extant from the 16th century but seems to have accurate, noncoincidental brief descriptions of all popes since then. A couple descriptions could be regarded as vague or gamed, but the overall hit count appears slightly significant. Francis corresponds to the description "Peter the Roman" taken as the last-days pope, and this has been anticipated a long time. However if Francis is ruled an antipope the next one will be Peter the Roman instead! The game goes on.

u/BlueDrache u/ImBillCurtis

The former cataclysms are a lie to muddy the waters about there being exactly one global cataclysm. All the evidence for plural cataclysm comes from captive science.

The moon and earth coalesced separately at the same time.

Jesus always mediates between others and God, so even when he takes the nature of (say) white hats he also has a unique access to God that others don't have. This is the often-unappreciated key to the difference between Jesus and everyone else.

Nibiru is not made of physical material like the moon is, its orbit is more complex than described.

I have no problem with the intelligent races described but the mechanism between them is not captive-science evolution but conscious design. There are perfect and imperfect ways to mix races, and what we see is mostly the imperfect. Thus I suspect there may be perfect sasquatches but they are in the minority of reports.

Yes, the deep state is self-divided and our unity transcends and defeats that. However, here I'm called to the sword to cut away mistakes. I trust that my notes above will be helpful in keeping the narrative most cogent.

You mean World War 0, because it was declared in 1910 at Jekyll Island and isn't over yet. This war's D-Day was the 20th.

All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore .... He that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father .... To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

https://scored.co/search?query=rva&community=christianity&sort=old

I deign to share because I love you all. The greatest unlimitation is to be both limited and unlimited.