The argument why they're not the Church is not about this.

How do Protestants got it though?

Rome apostatizing has nothing to do with them excomunicating anybody. You hold wrong assumptions and applying an arbitrary made up standard.

Well, at least you answered my first sincere question by explaining what's not different. But the Orthodox have a slogan of majoring in what is .... and yet search doesn't turn up an Orthodox distinctive or uniqueness relating to being the "trunk" and everyone else being either branches or nothing. So it seems to me any theory today in which "trunk" and "branches" are to be distinguished is subject to arbitrary trunk reassignment.

For instance, it might disappoint you, but Michael I and Luther seemed to be in exactly the same status: Rome excommunicated them and they picked up the pieces with people who stuck with them and God blessed it as a professing church. A difference is that Michael had ready-made churches already aligned with him that were hard for Rome to reach, and Luther had to find churches the hard way under Rome's thumb, but that being considered I think what God did is amazing in both cases.

It seems the early church is a trunk because it had no schisms; it started with easily adjudicated dismissal of heretics, but by Novatian in 251 it got to schisms that did persist alongside the church for a long time before they withered. The first event I can find where we might attribute continuing schism is when the Roman bishop created a separate hierarchy structure for himself because he had been gifted the Lateran Palace in 312 and inherited the Roman staff. I selected that because before then the church had avoided property ownership but trusted individuals to do it. Joint ownership means new structure and that structure was the root of the uppitiness. We might argue that the other pentarchs were already excluded at that point, and it took more form during the Easter controversy when supremacy was first tested, and it led to the Great Schism. But I find no way to judge between Rome and Byzantium other than their actions being different, which you seem to exclude.

Ultimately the Protestants are the same except they're exploring the "minimum" of what they can do to still be a church, which is much riskier but still demonstrates that "what is a church" is a fluid judgment. That's why ultimately my question of what's the difference doesn't seem answered.

They don't have bishops. They don't have laying of hands

Yeah, they do, bishop and elder are synonyms. They mostly don't have "archbishops" because they're not in the Bible but bishops are. Many do lay on hands. The individual responsibility leads to some abuse but this is believed offset by its advantages, just as central authority leads to some abuse but is believed offset by advantages.

They literally believe the Church defected for 10-15c.

No, you're thinking of Mormons. That sentiment doesn't last long among Protestants; the whole "protest" is that excommunicating Luther was wrong and Rome "stood off" (apostasized) from the Lutherans like Melanchthon who protested as a group. There are probably people in the 16th who said Rome lost it in the 4th, but that wasn't the loss of the church to them but became called the "captivity" of the church (the righteous in the past Roman system). And Jesus says all seven types of churches have infiltrators among the righteous; and the wicked sometimes seize power.

They don't have shit

...

This inevitably means that He leads some to falsehood

No, it means that some who believe they have the Spirit are wrong, so belief must be continuously tested. Heretics from Orthodoxy also believed they had the Spirit and thought themselves continuing to be Orthodox after they were excommunicated. So failure is not a theological corollary, it's an endemic risk that attacks the Protestants more easily (just as the risk of tyranny attacks central hierarchies more easily).

What's the standard for that? "Well, those who agree with my take have the Spirit because I obviously have Him". Yeah, that's a circle.

Correct if held; but ultimately then the answer is I constantly test my experience against Word and Spirit, and have substantial (possibly fluctuant) assurance of salvation, not perfect assurance. And Spirit includes tradition speaking through the Church, albeit Protestants often lose sight of some of the tests.

A logical issue is that you're making charges against "Protestant theology" when it's a myriad, and I too am defending "theology" when it's still a myriad. We have many official practices that are "best", and "worst". It seems that we must both retreat a bit to "what Protestant theology should be" and when we do that we find it very harmonious with Orthodoxy. In that case I'd agree on most all your charges that Protestantism shouldn't be that, and I'd disown sects that do teach that (and you might agree with some of my statements what Protestants should be and occasionally are). We might then only disagree on why the two don't rejoin, which is good because then we could give steps for both sides to advance union in Christ that would address current concerns (as the Orthodox have lately done with other groups), without being "ecumenicalists".

What it seems to you has nothing to do with the actual cases.

The actual cases as they seem to whom? God, or someone else? Epistemology.

When there's a contradiction it has to be resolved and that's done in councils where the correct teaching is affirmed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Protestants agree with Orthodox Councils entirely! Yet our contradictions have never been resolved in Council, have they? Let's get one going, you and me and whomever comes along, I can wear a bishop hat. :) Isn't that how Orthodox Councils are called? I mean, I'd love to have as much hierarchical support for one as possible, but if the hierarchy doesn't act then the contradiction waits patiently, doesn't it? (In a Protestant theory, the two of us have already begun convening a Council just by our collegial discussion, and it remains to be seen whether our august words will "take" in the larger church, just as Tradition decided which were Orthodox Councils and which were just friendly synods.)

No one taught this prior to Luther.

Not many, but because there were several schisms and many extinct heresies by that point the theory was already established. Namely, Orthodox claimed the mantle, so did Catholics, so did OO and Nestorians and Armenians. (The early church had unity but each congregation was still recognized as distinctive, such as when Paul and Peter split their strategies, or when Paul and Barnabas (more roughly) did the same.) So the distinctiveness of individual congregations is still held even when there's also schism among them. The issue with distinctives isn't the distinctives, but whether they are false as shown by them withering and dying (Jesus removing the candle). That's the only final test of the heretic or cult (dying in sin); the excommunication is just a preparatory formal declaration that may or may not be healed.

Furthermore this doctrine assumes a criteria for judging which parts of the faith are essential.

When I first realized as a youth that all churches proclaim the same essential but all have a different way of framing that essential (starting with three creeds, e.g.), it showed that the essential is ineffable and all our statements of it are just instantiations. So it's still possible to hold to the ideal and then to make mistakes in implementing it. Killing another sect is usually a mistake. I've found ways to resolve most all Protestant distinctives, which is why I'm working on Orthodox and Catholic distinctives too. But I'm not finding many Orthodox distinctives that I don't already appreciate as a Protestant.

Now we could select a form of "infallibility" as a distinctive, the Orthodox Church Will Never Fail. Hmm, I dunno. I'm confident what God calls his Church will never fail; now how can I be certain of what God calls his Church? Because of the circular argument risk, I can only be sufficiently certain. That means it's theoretically possible that any Church organization could fail (stand lest ye fall), but while a Church stands strong it's sufficiently likely that it won't fail anytime soon. We extend the hand of fellowship (a token of our sufficient understanding). So I can't say that even infallibility pertains necessarily to the Orthodox and nobody else, because any definition of it applies to all, or none.

TLDR: (1) I'm so grateful you've given occasion for me to work through this, and hopeful it's helpful for you too. (2) I still see any schism as producing branches of equal character unless one dies. (3) Therefore the trunk is only the primitive church for the first ~300 years, which only has the character of being a branch like the others but without other extant branches at the same time. (4) Query: I'm still looking for something that makes Orthodoxy "truer" than anyone else. (5) If I could, I'd join the Catholics and the Orthodox Church at the same time and also retain my Protest until it is resolved, to get permission from all three to continue being identified among them. (6) That is, I believe any dispute can be resolved by cautious definition: I like to say Luther and Leo just talked past each other and missed their chance. (7) So comparing what Protestants and Orthodox should think we will ultimately find the same thing on any point, unity of knowledge of the Son, Eph. 4:13.

Do you pay slavery reparations then? Because collectivism teaches that white Americans today are "the same people" as slaveowners. You do see the problem?

And when the OT prophets call humans animals (metaphorically), you're saying that's different from when the Talmud quotes the same OT prophets? You approvingly quote Jesus referring to people as animals, and then you fault Talmudism for doing exactly the same? That's projection, Patrick!

I would be happy to dialogue with you about the history of the Two-Seed movement and its unique philosophical challenges in Christianity, but I dialogue with people who use facts, logic, and reason. If you have trouble with questions like this you may not be interested.

Add: I see you are also antiheliocentric. Maybe my alt should talk to you instead, for everyone's safety; he's a mod of c/FlatEarth.

Thanks for sharing Nick's position from standard Catholicism. I note that tradition is essential, and yet every man judges both Scripture and tradition. The Catholic position has been characterized as suspending all judgment into the hands of capable leaders, except those leaders do not lift a finger to help you with the one decision that you can only make by yourself, to suspend your judgment to them in the first place. And you're just as responsible for it if that one decision is wrong as if you make the thousand small decisions yourself right or wrong. To meme it, something similar is called the "presumptive close" in sales and the "revelation of the method" in satanism.

Aren't you glad I listed the counterpoint to the mainstream interpretation for you? What I said about the mainstream, which is not the subject here, is that pedophilia is not treated as adultery but as sexual injury so it has different penalty clauses.

The source is not a congregation, it's a publisher. I'm hard-pressed to find "they" publish more than one author. I trust that you understand that there are contrary opinions in any organization of a hundred people, or two Jews. (That's a Jewish joke so I can quote it.)

My dare continues, that any of us find an actual congregational rabbi or rabbinical org that unequivocally rejects Jesus. In four or five years we found one ambiguous video in Hebrew, I'm looking for something that is clearly a halakhic ruling and not someone mouthing off.

I disproved your position

I don't see that our disagreement about how to interpret a complex discussion amounts to "disproof". I stated how I would judge a similar case, and it's meaningless to "disprove" another person's statement of intent or thought or state of mind. De gustibus.

Yes, at the right time God will strike down Facebook if it remains evil and we don't do it as his agents first. We are to occupy until he comes and he is to do the finishing that we can't. If you're saying that position decreases likelihood that we'll get done what we need, when applied back here I've learned that I focus on what is local to me and everyone else does the same and God ensures it's sufficient. Since he hasn't revealed to me a War Plan to Right Great Wrongs at Conspiracies, I don't. What he did reveal to me at Christianity has borne much fruit.

If you're saying that infiltrators' power of outlasting good mods is an unexpected tactic, I already have that as their tactic if I decide to declare war of some kind. Sticking around at Christianity for 5 years with the same people might count for something like successful prosecution of a particular campaign. Once I recognized how Scored worked overall, 4 years ago I made a nice post at ConPro Defining The Relationship and emphasizing the statement (now nuked), "My boss taught Sun Tzu the art of war. Speculate as you please, my statement stands, if I declare war it will be epic and unnoticed." So I am very comfortable with the wars I've planned, and prosecuted. I'm a Swamp Ranger. If you don't like my victories you're not who I won them for.

Now then, you refer to a "question" without elaboration. Presumably you mean how the mod(s) should moderate to win some war and carry out some community vision. If I haven't answered, then ask directly.

I'll disprove you every time.

I merely analyzed to help you understand my impression. You decline it, I have nothing more to argue with you about an unimportant interpretation that is a bete noire in your bonnet. Non est disputandum.

I bet that every time you are caught in a lie, you use this argument.

If a brother in Christ charges me with lying and refuses to negotiate with my explanation, I suggest that he hasn't learned much about Matthew 18:15-17 yet. Why should I waste time trying to defend myself against your charges when I gain nothing from it?

Your ego betrays you. Do you know how I know this? Because it did the same to me.

If some admission of wrong agrees with my conscience and is helpful to the other person, I offer it. Clearly I am generically in the wrong somewhere because you are unsatisfied. I can guarantee you I will work with your reasonable appeals to me about my alleged wrong and any reparation, but I cannot guarantee that you will be satisfied by your own standard, only by the commonsense standard.

Then tell me of another user, who upvotes a post that they clearly don't agree with. I will wait.

That's a wonderful dare! Votes being so public and all. Okay, let's play face value. Yep, there's one or more users here, Christian, who has/have admitted to upvoting posts though disagreed with, whether it's because of affirming the right to speak, affirming the person and not the content, or for other reasons. Both for privacy reasons and because searching said comments would be prohibitively time-eating, I refuse to elaborate further.

I can nitpick all your points,

Jesus said not a fraction of a letter of the Bible would be altered. We must use both Word and Spirit to have two witnesses to what his way is, otherwise we go astray with a false word or false spirit. I respect that you have another book and that you are trusting what your spirit is receiving; but when I pointed out what look like falsehoods in that book I don't recall getting a response. So part of the unity might involve judging all books and spirits wisely to determine which are from God, and to trust God to give the ability and wisdom because we can't generate it alone.

A warrior must be sure in his action

What does the "side" of c/Conspiracies mean to you in this war, other than just "fairness and transparency"? What is the enemy side, other than violation of published rules?

Should we delete all contributions that are not objectively transparent or fair, all attacks including indirect, all obfuscations including those clearly adopted to evade censorship? That sounds easy to abuse, especially if the mod(s) should be tempted against fairness and transparency personally in the process.

Should we ban everyone whom we can quickly label unfair or opaque?

When I do mod I give transparent objective criteria and enforce them evenly and usually swiftly. I gave you evidence that I've done this with Will before and kept him restrained without needing to ban him because he honored the boundaries given after being told.

If I'm changing community rules I get community buy-in. It looks like you didn't weigh in on my attempt to assist the eventual mod(s) here with objective rules.

Oh yeah my reputation has been shot, I've been banned from ConPro and some NatSoc fora. I've modded and by God's grace maintained a prayer and Bible community with many of the same people for 5 years. I've alluded to some of the strategies I used, but it's not my job to commend myself.

There is no decisive action I can take as a contributor that is different from action anyone else can take. I've posted threads like others have. I can't force consensus but I can work to help coalesce it. We have a lot of indications here that a lot of people silently agree to not being interested in consensus-building. By God's grace I know how to redirect this with objective moderation if he wants me to. But it's not been evidenced that that's where I should go, so when you and others raised concerns with me I backed down from more direct action, the same action you are now using to check my temperature.

I downvote for a number of reasons, including personal taste, which incidentally is unrelated to moderation via objective behavioral criteria. Sometimes I upvote what I've deleted! If you have specific questions about my voting I give general principles and sometimes specific answers. I've upvoted and downvoted you when I think you've been helpful or unhelpful to advancing the forum goals; you may be hinting that you want more info, so you're free to ask. I also don't sweat what votes I get. So I'm upvoting you on this one because it's rational though I have concerns and questions.

To the degree you want to see a broader, transparent, fair community here, I trust you'll also be active in consensus-building and critical mass toward a moderation "mandate" (i.e. clear consensus). The fact that many contributors like anarchy makes it difficult to decide among everyone when competition arises; that is why clearly promulgated rules are so important. So we can keep looking forward to each other contributing more, or more wisely, to the better future.

1. Lucifer is not evolved, this is important because he claims great age but he's only days older than Adam.

2. It doesn't matter whether Lucifer, Moloch, or Baphomet are on top, or whether a lead change has happened or not, because the lead still takes the title "satan" from the prior lead and the situation remains the same.

3. The manipulation didn't involve man's evolution either but new gifts directly God-given.

4. Important, your list of cataclysms is fictitious and I have already debunked Randall Carlson's version of it. The scientists also like to lie about the past to get control by having people believe their narrative. Most cataclysm evidence points to the same events and I don't take anyone's Atlantis for certain without hard evidence.

5. The Torah does teach God as love (Shaddai, nurturer), and it's revisionist history to say that Moses taught tyranny when he rescued from tyranny.

I will unite with you on the Great Awakening as you describe, while I also take a role at Scored of contextualizing parts where unity will not resonate because of incompletion. So I emphasize points where you give unintentional glory to the enemy by repeating narratives of his power and antiquity or of God's impotence or immaturity. The reality is that the satan is a black hole, an entity incapable of interacting with this world except by destroying it and turning into smoke (radiation). Since we are in fact awakening and are overcoming the great feint of 2008 and thereafter, much as you describe, we can ridicule the enemy instead of attributing any conquests or power to him.

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord .... Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it."

Great, you spoke freely! Others don't, which is why I ask directly. I don't block.

That says the class is "many Pharisees and Sadducees" and "scribes". That logically implies by speaking to those individuals he's not speaking of any other generation. Plus we have the part about how you or I have a special revelation, which you're very probably subsuming under your recognition of the inspiration of Scripture and the Spirit's guiding you to interpret it. (Plus the text doesn't say "won't help", it says they were then "fit for hell" and "fleeing wrath" without any finality. I collected 45 Scriptures that are unambiguously about the final and irrevocable state of the wicked, so I'm surprised you didn't use that kind of language in reference to the Jews.)

Given that, it would appear that we do not have grammaticohistorical license to assume this text does speak about "collective mortal sin" or that it condemns every man, woman, and child among Talmudic Jews today without hope.

In context, the Church has power to exorcise anyone and to convict them in case God will change their hearts. I believe in evangelizing everyone and I often work with good news to Jews so that they might repent and accept Jesus like anyone else in the church. I don't believe any seed doctrine is capable of stopping God's power (funny how you defended seed doctrine not with genealogy but with party affiliation). You mention Edom, but those Edomites who joined the Jewish people intermarried so that the next generations remain Jewish, they didn't stay as an enclave until all the original Jewish people were dead or something. So I asked because I was interested, but it seems your Scriptures and personal revelation don't actually carry the case or meet the special burden of proof that we would need for such a sweeping assertion of irredeemability. Thanks!

Sometimes based on his hints I wonder whether (conspiracy theory) Netanyahu has some bridge idea about Jesus that says more than "only a good man" but that can't be expressed publicly for obvious reasons. But whether or not, my point is that he didn't say "only". It's possible he's an apostate, it's also possible that he thinks he believes in Jesus and is so afraid to speak that his silence is as grave a sin as idolatry.

Because I believe the church should be giving Jews our good news about the crosswork and resurrection of Jesus the Jewish Messiah, I like to give credit to people who are diplomatic enough to say "a good man" and to remain tactically ambiguous about saying "only". There are scoffers who say "only a good man" because they believe it solves the dilemma, and as you and Lewis and McDowell know it only makes it worse. Then there are those who know how to embrace the historical facts without speaking offensively against Christianity either.

Now there are plenty of pages here about how he's only doing it to get Christian billions; the motive is present. But that same motive is what protects Jewish evangelism and that is being used by God for good reasons. Perhaps we should say that via one interpretation of the Kol Nidre nothing he says can be trusted and it's all as bad as Muslim taqiyya, but then the question becomes how the whole of his life indicates his view of the real Creator God who has come in Christ. Since there are plenty of opinions about his actions here already I need not add my own views or judge his silence.

Jews as a whole get to decide who they are and they have methods, and the Ashkenazi have been Jews for many centuries just like the rest. Americans as a whole get to decide who we are and we reject outside claimants too (after a fashion anyway). The fact that the Church is the true spiritual continuation of Israel, which is the true spiritual continuation of the faith of Adam, Noah, and Abraham, is irrelevant to identifying races. I've asked, and received no credible theory that the Ashkenazi today are not among the descendants of the Jewish people.

First video that came up was to Jordan Peterson: "well you you know you're 7:23 familiar with the story of Jesus right 7:25 Jesus was a Jewish rabbi living 2,000 7:29 years ago he was a rabbi from the 7:31 Galilee okay he came to Jerusalem he 7:33 turned the money tables of the uh the 7:35 the the tables of the money changers on 7:37 the Temple Mount where did that happen 7:39 did it happen in Tibet it happened here 7:41 Jerusalem was our capital"

I didn't say he acknowledged Jesus as Son of God, I said he speaks highly of him. Also briefly about Jesus's language mastery to the Pope.

Um, the Jewish people since Judah have had the right to determine who is ethnically Jewish, just like white people who is white. The idea that some external council has sat and stripped the Jewish people rightly of their claims to being Jewish and awarded them to someone else assumes facts not in evidence. It's obvious that when we refer to something continuous we're referring to the phase of it from the local context and not some other phase and no disclaimer should be needed. If our race doesn't want to be othered, we don't get to do it to a separate race. What gives us the right to say we know, and Netanyahu doesn't, that he couldn't possibly descend from Judah or Jacob in any line, or in fact that he denies Jesus whom he speaks highly of?

Rome says they have apostolic succession, Protestants say they have it from Rome, Baptists say they have it from Irenaeus via the Waldensians, and Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Assyrian Church of the East all say they got it from the catholic orthodox Church too. That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

I apologize for the wrong date, I meant 1054. It was formally supremacy and blamed on the extant filioque. But how do I know that adding the word broke Ephesus I canon 7 or not, because the Orthodox say yes and Rome says no? Then (writing so I know what I'm learning) Patriarch Paul II said the Pope was wrong for adding filioque, and Pope Theodore I excommunicated Patriarch Paul II for being monothelite, so how could the catholic orthodox Church (which kept Theodore and not Paul) know that Paul was right about filioque? Then Pope Nicholas I excommunicated Patriarch Photios I (863) and Photios excommunicated Nicholas (867) over the issue, so how could the church know that Photios was right? The back-and-forth bickering with several other unmentioned plots looks like a secretly imposed color revolution to me. See, the council system broke down (and later councils started canceling each other), and filioque was maybe the first sign of it. If everyone agrees the original Nicea-Constantinople is true, then when was it authoritatively decided that filioque was a false addition? And I ask because this is actually deeply interesting to me and I'm learning the history of my Church.

Because the Church's foremost mission is to keep the true faith intact. The Body of Christ can't tolerate falsehoods and contradictions.

Seems like in many schisms both sides claim that mantle and tear it in pieces like Jeroboam. Same for who accepts which councils as rightly called. Reformed Protestants claim the mantle, for instance, believing that all churches should pursue the nonessential distinctives that make them part of the same essential mission. So please pardon my ignorance in not seeing what you see.

I like to be thorough. Most of my stuff I write fresh, like this, but I do point people to postings I've already made. I agreed with you except for where you said your conclusions disagree with mine. I asked what you meant and you didn't answer. Since you stepped in to "correct" my statement to another, and you decline to elaborate further, I continue to commend my respect to Belisarius and to leave it there.

If you had only just said "it's the satanists" you'd be so there. One tweak and the butterfly effect wrecks everything for you.

"Early life" just isn't Every Single Time anymore. I've misplaced whatever data your theory is based on.

We know what the true Church is because it keeps the apostolic faith unchanged in line with the dogmas of the ecumenical councils and the Church fathers.

What about all the other churches who say they do the same and that the other churches left them? See, I don't see that credential for Orthodoxy among the 10,000. The credential I do see is that they had the upper hand in 1066 1054 and they've been well-reserved ever since. The question's logic is that if Rome is out because it excommunicated vibrant professing Christianity, well I find that Constantinople also excommunicated vibrant professing Christianity in 1724. If Rome "defected" by adding filioque (and/or supremacy), then why excommunicate the Uniats when they might be part of God's purpose to reveal the resolution of filioque or supremacy to the Orthodox? Why would the Orthodox take such a firm position on it when they reserve judgment about other matters because (I understand) they don't have critical mass to call ecumenical councils anymore, or they don't out of politeness? Does semper idem forbid new councils?

Because I know the logic of excommunication or of reservation shouldn't be determinative, I don't see what logic would be useful, and I just see the root (Jesus) and the branches (body members). I'm glad this takes the discussion to meatier matters that we're both more interested in.

I'm usually pretty good about those distinctions you mention. How does a "people" "explicitly reject" another person? That could only happen by delegated authority, could it not? You do realize that "Peter I" explicitly said that hundreds of those who called for Jesus's death were among the first 5,000 Orthodox Christians, Acts 3-4? Kind of takes the burden off the collective and puts it on the unrepentant.

Jesus didn't hate "the Jews", he revealed wrath upon that segment of Jews that continued to reject him, most all the Sadducees and Herodians and a hefty group of Pharisees. Essenes and Zealots faded of their own, and there were smaller sects too. And it wasn't "the Jews" collectively who repurposed the temple, it was a handful of bankster Jews who had forgotten how Nehemiah kicked Geshem the Arab out of the temple. We could name the six children of Annas, all six of whom were in the high priest's office (Mrs. Caiaphas by marriage), who were intimately connected with approving merch kiosks for the few unscrupulous. The people (i.e. "the Jews") loved Jesus, shown by approbation, and would have proclaimed him Messiah-King immediately if he had permitted.

So via 70 the ethnic Jews found themselves in the two main branches, the Messianics who were one with the Christians and mostly faded ethnically among them, and the Pharisees who became Amoraim (Rabbinicals). In every century there are individual Jews who affirm and join the Messianic portion of the Jewish heritage. I really don't see how your mostly correct observations discount anything I said. Maybe you're alluding to some "Jesus wasn't Jewish" line that isn't obvious on its face, but I don't think so.

I have before. In that case it's testified that she married at 6 and matured at 9 and only then consummated the marriage. I don't know of any other culture that says to consummate at 9 even if she's sexually mature, so that's an outlier compared to everyone who says wait, meaning it's pretty sus, and distinguishable. It's been called out a lot, not sure there's much I can add uniquely.

This evidence pattern says, if accurate, that at some cusps there's nothing, at some cusps there's destruction of civilization, and (you infer from I don't know what) at some cusps there's awakening. NCSWIC. That's why I get my preparation orders elsewhere.

Honestly man I don't have an interest even in running questionable pyramid talk in the background for 4 hours. I believe I did skim this video once already. When I direct people to long videos (as if ever), I give them quotes and timestamps because it's so easy to do. (In fact I should apply it to myself and add more styling and pull quotes to my own long typing.) So finding the prep talk or the good bits here isn't high priority for me (you are high priority for me as a brother, not your sources); but I still have the tab open.

I appreciate your thoughts, are you saying you intended to unban me at c/Deviance? Or that you just look forward to my data regardless?

Trial transcription: I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

Genesis 2. Then Ephesians 5.

I should go back in the files for the one Jewish source I had that really was promoting pedophilia openly just so I can show you guys the difference. It was such an outlier that I've forgotten how to search for it in the archives.