TLDR: Celestial Seasonings founder and CEO until 2002, Mo Siegel of Boulder, was also president of the Urantia Foundation (and is still their trustee).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jeannie_Saffin
Skeptic Joe Nickell is quoted with pertinent facts and plausible theory; he loves finding flaws in cases like this. "Spontaneous human combustion" has never been proven, primarily because by definition you're talking about someone who caught on fire for unknown reasons and usually didn't live to tell about it.
Now spontaneous combustion directed by humans to other materials is indicated by the Bible and may be replicable in the present day. Our friend u/Graphenium would love to inform you more about that.
But a single image of a debunked ambiguous case isn't going to carry the day.
Please comment on mine. I have the original 10 world regions list.
I was rereading this old comment suggesting that one meaning of the seven churches of Revelation was seven world regions (Russia, Africa, India, Latin America, China, America, Europe). It was interesting that it corresponded with the 1974 Club of Rome document, which I summarize as the three market centers (US-UK-Japan), the BRICS, and pan-Africa and pan-Arabia (see OP).
Since these divisions continue under other names today (help me out anons), and since we're all reviewing the early 70s suddenly, is it possible these regions still have application to global governance?
If so, the idea that the antichrist will subdue three of ten world leaders in very interesting. And Daniel 11:43-45 may hint that these three are first the Egypt-Libya-Ethiopia region plus one east of that and one north of that. If we subtract the hinted regions of the typology in the link from the Rome list, we get the Saudi Arabia bloc, the oceanic bloc regarded as Australia-Israel-South-Africa, and Japan. Could these be the three world regions that are suppressed by market collapse in the globalists' plans? (I'd previously said Russia instead of Australia but link makes me rethink!)
What have you heard about the ten global regions? The ITU phone regions don't count!
You're mostly right, except where you make statements about my motive. In this post I was indeed telling a story rather than advocating a theory: the story was that scientific inquiry is so often tainted by political control rather than free expression. It was my own story and research and presentation, though I admitted that some events were taken from McEvoy. I proposed generic solutions so that my story would have an ending rather than a complaint.
If I were to speak more directly of theory I would align with your thoughts. Many of us had conquered central math, psych, and physics in 6th grade. The simple explanation is to refer to the harmony of the totality of the cosmos. Any phenomenon is an expression of that, and when interpretations conflict then each one is incomplete and organically growable. I've already alluded that the new measurement of W boson mass is not the starting point for solving the observational problem, the starting point is the holistic picture of the cosmos in which the alleged discrepancy was observed, and having pursued that method since yesterday I already have new rippling conceptual models, to flow toward solving the present discrepancy.
If I were to characterize my seeking it would indeed be to spill off the mistakes of any theory so that its truth can remain in the cup. The truth will continue to resonate with the cosmos while the lies fail. Then everyone will see that they are holding the same Platonic cup.
Sounds good. Yang-Mills theory is running simulations, so why not God too? The published free-energy experiments are mostly charlatans, the problem is that when free energy and extradimensional access are really used they look like "miracle". Last night I was picturing the "particle" as having an associated 3-brane in a higher dimension and that might well lead to results.
I am inclined to believe in entanglement, but locality is so weakly defined that we don't get to say Einstein was wrong about it. More accurately, locality should be defined in such a way that apparent nonlocal action is still a L'Engle local folding event that does not involve FTL.
Newton was a very spiritual guy, not the materialist Dubay's first paragraph makes him. Did you not post these to c/FlatEarth yet? My alt is interested but gets no time.
I completed my historical evidence for the Exodus. The exodus is simply one facet of the well-known Hyksos expulsion of the 16th century. The primary reason people claim to find no evidence for it is that they claim it was the 14th or 13th century for spurious reasons. But this discounts the testimony of Judges, Solomon, Manetho (in Josephus), and Ptolemy of Mendes (in Tatian), who all refer to Moses; and the testimony of the exodus event from contemporaries like Ahmose I, Ahmes the mathematician, Hatshepsut, Ramses II, and the Hearst Papyrus. The exodus was one big part of the sudden historical change from the contemporary 15th and 17th dynasties to the New Kingdom of the 18th.
Other notes: Thank you for mentioning Mot and Yam, because while I was familiar with their Hebrew meaning I didn't know the Ugaritic history behind them. They deserve investigation too. In terms of tying to a spring festival, there was no connection demonstrated (same for the earlier Dumuzid/Neti saga where Inanna gets denuded trying to recover Dumuzid); there was only a late theory that Baal's connection with the rain cycle was recalled in spring, which was not accepted as mainstream. So they're more in a mythopoeia limbo where the whole story is incomplete but people are trying to weave what parts they have.
The problem with JEDPR is that there is no disunity in the MT where a knife can successfully be inserted between Yah and El, they are never treated as separate gods. You could divide El from Baal while at other times identifying El with Baal, but that's because they are both titles in the earliest Hebrew (apparently the names are more personalized in Ugaritic so they're always separated). There's just no Tanakh text or forebear text that speaks of any equal-opportunity pantheon at all. So to claim that the source is polytheist honors neither the text nor polytheism nor the legend of Abram as iconoclast.
I also found an Egyptian Iah, who appears to be a syncretization of Yah that makes him primarily the moon god as squeezed into the pantheon. This too will reward study.
I already knew the OP site was biased, but it needs to be rejected on sight. It gives an entire one-sided story with no context and then its ad says every story has two sides and the Palestinian side needs more focus, which are two contradictory angles.
Reuters at least gives the other side in the subleads: "Israel on alert after recent deadly Arab street attacks." OK, so it's Ramadan Bombathon, there's a series of killings by Arabs, and Israel responds by cracking down on worshippers leading to injuries for those who resist.
People who don't provide context are sloughing the job onto other anons. Too many times and they will get reported for propaganda rather than just downvoted.
Grumbling, as I had an excellent writeup of Pharaoh analysis that vanished into cyberspace. Will need to wait. I now believe Apophis, 15th dynasty, is the pharaoh of the exodus, with cartloads of evidence.
Yes, Yahweh was a worldwide cult predating the Jews by thousands of years. You won't find that out by splitting the text into JEDPR though; but even as a fundamentalist I can work within those terms. It wasn't trying to get the story consistent, it was people sowing doubt on a consistent story by deliberately misinterpreting it to avoid its implications. To the fundamentalist, Ex. 12:41 and Gal. 3:17 prove that Gen. 15 is the anniversary event, and Abram was working from earlier Hebrew and Chaldean tradition.
Isis and Osiris-Seth-Baal are important, and go back to Inanna and Dumuzid, and I was just discovering the importance of Seth-Baal to Pharaoh Apophis. But when did they become associated with a spring festival? That's the catch. Perhaps on the Egyptian side (my evidence suggests) Seth was seen as responsible for the exodus chaos and thus was the origin of the king's practice in taking an Ishtar-Inanna priestess in spring as protection against a similar chaos in the first full moon of spring? This new data would require deeper review of Kramer.
I have a little separate data on the Yah and El names, suggesting that the Sethite line deliberately chose names afterward to contravene negative messaging from the Cainite line. Thus would also explain why the name Israel was given much later than Ishmael was, as it needed a generation for the connection to be recognized as a responsive improvement rather than a duality. There's no independence to Yam, as it always derives from Yah. And there's no time when Yah and El were ever separate or ever became merged; it was only liberal criticism that attempted to unmerge them. Gen. 1 introduces a deity title El, and Gen. 2:4b repeats 1:1 but adds the name Yahweh as the scope changes, using that personal name with the title afterward, like a deliberate monolithic account rather than a hodgepodge.
So I'll probably need to rewrite the amazing study I just concluded today and post it tomorrow separately and link you. I really appreciate your inspiring me to get through it, I just don't have the text written now.
Because the Exodus story happened on the anniversary of the full moon of spring that had been kept in Abrahamic tradition. The crucifixion happened on the anniversary of the exodus too, and Christians often forget the exodus for the resurrection, but Jews often forget Abram's covenant for the exodus, and what came before Abram is mostly lost in familial tradition. What Abram celebrated in Gen. 15 in great detail demonstrates a developed cult of a monotheistic god who had five known clean species for sacrifice and who set the equinox and full moon as appointed times to meet with him and who called people to cross over into a covenant of life. Passover builds on all these factors without supplanting any.
I'm all for studying any strand of history if it can shed light on covenant and conspiracy. It's very hard to prove the negative that there was "never" any exodus of slaves; I deliberately haven't reviewed the pharaoh list in recent years because I need another touchstone or two before tackling Egyptology in full, but I remember there have been two good pharaoh candidates proposed whose timing meets the criteria of a year of crushing defeats (only obliquely acknowledged by inscriptions) and a voluntary depop that took a generation to recover from. Nomads don't leave archaeological traces! Obviously a good coordination of Egyptian records with the Bible would shed more contextual light on both, and I hope to get to that in time.
Last year I found a seven-year gap in Nebuchadnezzar's records (592-586) that corresponds nicely with his madness according to Daniel. You don't expect the king to keep annals those years evidencing his madness, though! In this case a gap is sufficient evidence, and the pharaoh records have been read the same way.
I'd love information about the Scottish princess legend, because it may have a valid root even if she weren't called Scots at the time. The fact that the Bible portrays a constant humbling narrative and the obelisks require constant paring back of exaggerations is one factor that gives the Biblical narrative greater weight. Both are very specific about dates, and if we recast the exaggerations of the Sumerian King List we may be able to harmonize the dynasty list sufficiently as well.
Why does English even have a different word for "Easter" when many other languages generally call it "Passover"?
From Eostre in Britain, which was a strong enough association to retain when Anglic languages received the Semitic traditions.
Why does Easter sound so close to Esther/Ishtar/Eastern Star
Easter, Esther, Ishtar, Eastern, and Star all have rarefied etymological connections, but they are complex enough that distinctions are necessary before any dogmatic statements are made. The "Eastern Star" of Freemasonry is a very recent attempt to reimagine Biblical history and to pretend antiquity.
One cannot say that Easter is older than Passover unless the word is so far changed from its modern meaning as to be thoroughly unrecognizable, and if we were to do that we'd have to offer the same rights to the word Passover too. The question would be whether a spring festival were kept to a goddess under a name and meaning like Easter, and further back than Passover.
When I look, it appears Ishtar was first a tree goddess in Ebla (of the desert poplar), before she was syncretized with the broader goddess Inanna. I don't see a particular spring festival association until about the 20th century BC according to Samuel Kramer, where a night of the spring barley festival may have been dedicated to Inanna, though some consider this a later invention attributed to past kings of Uruk.
On the other hand, Moses specifically states that Passover (which I date to 1539 BC) was the 430th anniversary, to the exact day, of a particular covenant, namely when God "passed between" the sacrifices of Abram the Hebrew in Genesis 15 (1969 BC). This is a different word for passing, "abar", which goes back to Eber (b. 2269 BC) and all his descendants, which were called Hebrews (the word is now much more narrowly defined) and probably Habiru as well, because they were known for passing or crossing over into Eber's covenant.
Therefore, since Abram had the title Hebrew, and knew from Eber that he could hope for God to pass by on the full moon of spring, and he set aside a ram and other offerings with preparation comparable to the Mosaic preparation of the tenth of the month, we would claim priority for him, assuming the documents are not challenged (and challenges have never succeeded).
If we were to hypothesize that "Easter came first", namely that Abram received his unique worship from Sumer under a name of Easter rather than from Eber whose name he bore, all of the following would need to be met. (1) The Akitu spring festival must be pressed backward into the third millennium BC rather than from Sennacherib's Akitu house in Assur (683), as the spring barley harvest common to many cultures is insufficient in itself to count as an origin for Easter in particular. (2) Kramer must be regarded as correct, saying that the kings of Uruk celebrated Akitu, rather than Pirjo Lapinkivi, who cogently evinces it as a later literary backformation to attribute antiquity to it. (3) Kramer's theory that the king of Uruk may have slept with the priestess of Inanna on the tenth festival night (13th or 14th of the moon) would need sufficient documentation, which is not in evidence. (4) We would also need to prove that Inanna here was connected to Ishtar in the consciousness, as her loose connection to the sunrise is insufficient to connect the sunrise with an alleged intercourse ritual on an equinoctial full moon. (5) We would then need to connect this event with the wholly different practice of Abram, laying out clean beasts without eating them, having a vision in a dream rather than staying awake, meeting a creator God as a firepot and torch rather than an underworld goddess in the corporeal form of the mundane priestess, receiving a covenant of protection as an obscure tribal leader rather than putting on a show as a king of an ancient city.
This all seems so tenuous that I cannot accept the idea that Abram's Passover came from Easter without further data. The fact that man had celebrated the annual barley harvest for much longer does not indicate that the well-developed practice of Abram was a neologism and the backward-attributed theoretical sex narrative of certain legendary waning kings of Uruk was a continuous established root of Easter tradition. One can always argue the Bible is unreliable, but that side argument has not worked whenever the history is tested.
It seems to me rather that, once God established to Abram that the first full moon of spring was important to him, the devil started planting various theoretical seeds into his preformed religion of Dumuzid and Inanna in an attempt to anticipate what God would do next and prepare to claim that the devil had it first; this trend is visible at many points in religious history. The messy roots of "Easter" are so variegated and promiscuous ("rising" can mean anything, not just sunrise) that all four of these words come from it: eastern, western, australian (southern), and auroran (northern). So when we have theorizing from secular historians about unknowables and compare it to the firm testimony of Scripture and its historical integrity over time, there's not enough to support a claim that Easter is older.
TLDR: Certain things are older than both, like Dumuzid and barley, but the spring festival was associated with "passing" (Pascha) long before it was associated with "rising" (Easter). A theory exists that puts an Ishtar festival around the same time as the first passover rituals from Eber to Abram, but it has no provable connection and is rejected by later scholars as a literary invention. Certainly the Romans syncretized Christian Passover (the annual Lord's Day) with other elements (Eostre, sunrise, fertility), but tying these to a spring festival is less ancient than tying Passover to it is.
I agree with the moderate action. If it had come to c/Christianity I would judge it to be on the borderline of incitement of violence (he only calls to "anhilate anyone who stands in our way"), but I would relocate it by deleting it from the main view and moving it to an index we keep in our sidebar for such interesting rants. For me, locking would depend on how the flow of discussion went.
I've been advised by c/ConsumeProduct that under USSC it's legal free speech to call for generic, undated annihilation of individuals and even of races, and it appears the OP reflects knowledge of this limitation against specific actions and specific timeframes. There are several racist statements by the ordinary decision, but racism is allowed in subs like c/FreeSpeech, though it would be a criterion for deletion here or at Christianity (as would the pejoratives and obscenities). But the post text actually reflects a white nationalism that might be dialogued with productively (haven't reviewed the replies), and that is fine fodder for all opinions to be heard at ConsumeProduct.
But your statement applied to conspiracies.win is absolutely correct and all should heed. The why is because moderators have full discretion to set civility standards and FreeSpeech is right next door anyway.
Yes, and the padlock doesn't appear often because we mods don't have to use it often because we generally have a moral populace. A constitution with reasonable mod locking privileges would be wholly inadequate to any other kind of people.
To know borders, AMA about mod privileges at Scored (but reply to this comment directly please).
God began with families, then migrated worship primarily into one nation ("people"), the true Israelites (to whom any foreigner was required to be accepted as a full citizen if he served God too), then developed this into a family of nations, and is now about to reveal the next phase of development.
Anyone who joins God's covenant is of his special people above all other people on earth. We are triumphalists, if you please; Muslims have nothing on our triumphalism. We are covenant supremacists, and the covenant people is above every other people-group. And this last fact has nothing to do with whites or Jews as a separate concept.
This is exactly the plot of Atlas Shrugged. Government-bedded rail deliberately creates arbitrary restrictions that have no benefit but coincidentally destroy harvesting ability. They specifically set an arbitrary limit on how much each train could carry. I used to think Rand was off by making railroads the backbone, but she was more prophetic than we give her credit for!
OK, I appreciate your opening up. On this sub I'm a bit more freewheeling and so I'm glad you worked through the initial introductions to get to the real point. I'll take a look into these folks and get back to you on it, the names sound like I've encountered them before. (My testing of every word of the Bible as being historical truth has moved long past the time when I took it for granted and I can now explain that every point is based on greater historical authority than any other fact of history; charges of error have always fallen aside and the Bible retains its consistency and integrity; but that's not relevant because you've heard it. What's relevant is that testing of others has the potential for falsifying this report, and so far it never has.) The issue is whether achievement of "Christ consciousness of sorts" restores us to the teaching of your youth that it's all literally true too. We have someone on c/Christianity who asserts this state of himself regularly, and depending on definition I might claim it for myself too, so it becomes something of a less testable term, while the claims made by Jesus in the Bible are much more testable. You haven't said what about the Bible offends you, but that need not be answered right now.
any disagreement about who christ was would be semantics.
OK, now we're talking. I'm talking about a Jewish guy who died by getting hung out on a stake by the human government on charges of opposing it, about 33 CE. He said he and the Father-Creator of All were one, and he accepted being called God and receiving the worship due only to God. Either he was right (and thus he made the sun to reflect himself), or he was wrong (and thus deserved worse than he got). I have some respect for eastern paths but there is only one goal a path to God can lead to if there is only one God: there is no both-and about inherent contradictions. But you're still not spinning me your own fairy tales (perhaps you think I'm not open-minded).
If I don't link up fast I still hope to return to the subject this Good Friday.
Bro, I just called out the alchemists. OP is all about getting the timing wrong, and I just explained that falling for that trick is just as bad research as accepting the pastor or priest uncritically. The reality is that the sun is an allegory of Christ.
So did you find the real God or are you still searching.
Sure there's some immaturity and manipulation in the ranks, every org is infiltrated. But you're not providing anything better with "it's a fairy tale". If you want to talk tonight, tell us what's real and how you know, and I can affirm anything you say that is of truth. But don't start with criticism of others, start with what we can know positively for sure about you and your Creator.
St. Nicholas of Myra was also a great one, he physically assaulted a man for denying the deity of Christ. Much better than the fables now told about him.
What's the truth of the story for developed, sophisticated people? I've tested all the alternatives and found that Christianity is also fully satisfactory for every awakened sovereign and independent responsible thinker.
Then why do you treat us like a repository of fairy tales? And what is the basis for your judgment to be true, if it is not a basis smuggled out from within Christianity?
They do continue reinvention because they're such constant failures but their leaders are stuck in an eternal mortality and have nothing better to do. What's very important is that all their claims to great antiquity are just more of their lies. We covenant believers had everything first, everything they have is corrupted, and I can prove it in any instance. They seize upon ambiguous seeds of falsity that they left here and there along the path of truth in history, and then when they know which way to steer the narrative they claim that the unintelligible seed was the reality all along and that we counterfeited them. So don't take their own word for their antiquity. God's Word doesn't even say we go back much more than 6000 years.
You must be referring to the new board c/Reptilians, where u/LightBringerFlex should repost this. However, TLDR for now, may read later, IDK.