How did fallible men come up with an infallible Bible can[]on and why do you believe the Bible was accurately preserved by those same people?
The answer is whatever the Catholics say about this, since they say the gift of infallibility was not used in the compilation of the canon (but only once or twice, in recent history). Check.
Sometimes to -60. Persevere. If you reach one other truth seeker, you are successful. The knees unbowed to baal have never had their census yet.
- Chamorro and Ussuf: Two letters in these names have circulated since the 16th century in various redactions. They are most certainly forgeries; the version placing the action in Arles is clearly a later forgery of the version placing it in Toledo. Their several textual incongruities demonstrate a poor fit to "Ussuf" being a real Jewish "prince" of Constantinople. In the 19th century it was demonstrated that their first appearance was their alleged discovery in the Toledo archives, an incongruous repository for such damning documents, by Archbishop Silecio. However, their being exactly what he needed to convince Pope Paul III to place strictures against Jews entering church offices in Toledo against the latter's tendencies, the best inference is that Silecio forged them himself, putting such poetic justifications for subversion in the Jewish mouth that the correspondence was remembered and even parodied. There is simply no serious historical argument that these two letter-writers existed; the fact that Chamorro was the former name of a prominent accepted converso family, the Clementes, does not indicate that they were using their deadname secretly but that it was appropriated by the archbishop.
The plot thickens again. Having translated the linked text of Graetz 1889, I see he points out that the discrepancies come from another circulating version (in Provencal) which changes the location from Toledo to Arles.
More important, he finds a key context for these, published in an edition of the 1507 El Libro Verde de Aragon originally written by an Inquisition secretary, Juan de Anchias (whose bio is found in History of the Inquisition by Henry Lea, vol. 2, 1906, and in the Jewish Encyclopedia). This work was thought lost but after discovery was republished by Rodrigo Amador de los Rios (1849-1917) in Revista de Espana, year 18, vol. 106, p. 568 (1885).
The appendix in Amador de los Rios shows that the letters were believed to have played a part in the very historical solicitation of Archbishop Juan Silecio of Toledo to Pope Paul III to impose strictures to exclude Marranos (birth Jews proclaiming Christianity) from church office in the 1540s. They seem tailor-made for such a purpose, on top of their literary idiosyncrasy (e.g. "satrap" was in use in Spain but was incongruously put in the mouth of "Ussuf" in Constantinople where it was not common). While such an appendix would not have been original in de Anchias, it does demonstrate a historical place for them:
"Estas cartas fueron en parte causa que el dicho Arçobispo Siliceo recavase con el Padre Santo, Papa Paulo tercero, que ningun confesso pudiese obtener beneficio alguno en la Iglesia mayor de Toledo, porque el Padre Santo lo rehusaba mucho por lo mucho que podian los judios en dicha Iglesia, que casi toda estava en poder dellos por la mayor parte, como sus Arziprestazgos y Canonicatos y otras dignidades; pero vistas por el padre santo estas cartas y otras infinitas scripturas, que descubrian la malicia é maldad dellos, concedió al dicho Arzobispo que confesso alguno no pudiese tener canonicato ni beneficio alguno, como lo vemos por experiencia, que para hauer de servir por escolano en alguna capilla de la dicha Iglesia, se haze probança de cómo es Christiano viejo, tan auténticamente como se puede hazer para ser official del Santo Officio."
Translation: "These letters were partly the reason why the said Archbishop Siliceo petitioned the Holy Father, Pope Paul III, that no confessor could obtain any benefice in the main Church of Toledo, because the Holy Father strongly [or often had] refused them due to the great power the Jews held in said Church, which was almost entirely under their control, including their Archpriestships, Canonries, and other dignities. However, having seen these letters and countless other writings that revealed their malice and wickedness, the Holy Father granted the said Archbishop permission that no confessor could hold a canonry or any benefice, as we see from experience, that to serve as a choirboy in any chapel of the said Church, proof is given of how one is an Old Christian, as authentically as one can be to become an official of the Holy Office."
Graetz writes (translated):
Both letters, the question as well as the answer, are written skillfully enough to produce the desired effect; they were intended to convince Paul III that the conversion of so many Jews to Christianity was merely a charade to destroy the Church. Paul III effectively protected the Marranos; he had long opposed the establishment of the Inquisition in Portugal, tolerated the Marranos' presence in Ancona, and turned a blind eye to their tendency to practice Judaism .... The supposed correspondence exchanged between the Jews of Spain and those of Turkey was meant to prove to him how dangerous it would be for Christianity to entrust priestly functions to false Christians. It is undoubtedly for this purpose that these letters were fabricated. Moreover, Archbishop Siliceo had to rely on the Pope's credulity to convince him that these letters had been discovered in the archives. For it seems strange that the Marranos deposited them there, at the risk of revealing their evil designs to all of Christendom: usually, more care is taken to hide such compromising documents.
Graetz goes on to charge Silecio with the forgery directly; he had written the Estatuto de Limpieza 1547 calling for pure ("Old Christian") blood for all benefice holders in Toledo. Silecio also made a misleading statement about the 1491 trial over the Holy Child of la Guardia (for whom nine Jews were killed, including Benito Garcia who confessed under duress to a murder of 1487, but for whom no murder and no body was ever shown to have existed). He placed this event as "de poco tiempo aca", of little time past, making it appear a recent risk of Marranos rather than a 60-year-old event, and the controversy over his use of this trial was reported in a manuscript cited by Graetz as Fidel Fita. Silecio may also have retaliated in kind with satire, because Marranos began "to affront him with injurious pasquinades and words, until they forced him to defend his honor and make inquisition" in response (Amador de los Rios: "afrentarle con pasquines y palabras injuriosas, hasta obligarle á satisfacer su honra y hacer inquisicion"). The name "Chamorro" reflects the family of pronotary Felipe Clemente (a prisoner of the Inquisition) who had all changed their name from Chamorro upon conversion. This name change was listed by de Anchias in the genealogy of the Libro Verde, and also noted by Cardinal Mendoza y Boabdil.
Also, in Amador de los Rios, the letter was allegedly not found in the archives by "Benito Selyagio", the hermit of Salamanco who appears to be a character created by Medrano, but by Silecio.
Graetz concludes by demonstrating that the Arles correspondence in Provencal is clearly the copy of the Toledo original, even though it adds a date of "13 de Sabbath 1489" (probably meaning 13 Shvat 1489, which the Protocols abusively translate as 13 Jan 1489, but which would be proleptic Gregorian 24 Jan and Julian 15 Jan). He gives several notes that the 16th-century circumstances of Toledo disagree markedly with 1489 Provence. He thereby proceeds to charge the editor of the only publication of the Provencal letter, J. Bouis, Avignon 1641, with making the fitting changes to the Spanish letter to continue the pattern of persuading the pope against tolerance (now in Avignon), of alluding to the blood libel (a case in Venice 1477 that contributors here have probably missed, and Simon of Trent 1475), and of getting facts wrong (putting the name "Simon" in Venice and saying such child was canonized as a holy martyr).
Now, one problem with Graetz is that a detective might argue the case is too neat: two different men with the same charged motives engaging in the same fraud and errors a hundred years apart. But it's demonstrated that both writers did use the "blood libel" and that at least one version is a forgery variation of the other; and the earlier appears forged due to the incongruities that are obvious prima facie even in the OP presentation. So despite the poetic parallelism it appears that we can confidently say there was never a member of the Clemente (Chamorro) family who received such a letter from someone known only as Ussuf (Joseph) about the "satraps" of Constantinople and then allowed such a damning letter to be preserved in the archives of Toledo just when Silecio needed it to make a case he had been making for years. The use of forged letters by other Catholics for dispute settlement has been observed before. As I previously noted, the poetic justification of the alleged Jewish revenge as mere tit for tat was not inflammatory for its actual ruling: it was clearly because Catholics felt that converted Jews had not truly adopted Catholicism and thus their strictures against the Jews were called into question if they were, even hypothetically, to be met with vengeance on the same scale. The guilty Catholic conscience created most of the crisis. If Silecio was the forger, he was projecting upon the Jews his own doubt about the use of power upon them and his own rationale based on what he believed they had planned to do against him. Proactive tit for tat is the worst form of open war.
Thanks Eye. I'll grant that antinatalism connects to socialism eventually. Right now there is no moderator for many moons, would you like to post the message of truth seekers in detail for us the other truth seekers here?
I don't think you took my meaning. Perhaps you thought that by my pointing out a couple missteps I don't have anything to offer in exchange.
Would you like to cite your sources and/or compare the statutes and code, or would you just like to tell althist stories? Because the forum likes both, but I like to rein in the stories to ensure they are accurate history. I provide details to those who are interested.
Balanced denunciations from the Talmud Quotes! compilation provided earlier:
On superstition: "Another manifestation of Divine immanence .... the Bath Kol was not always accepted as final." "The tide of sorcery .... in the later period even Rabbis succumbed [to], and credulity prevailed over faith." "Many customs are condemned .... perhaps evidence that they had been assimilated by members of the Jewish Community. Among these 'Amorite ways' are the following: 'A woman drags her child among the dead.'" On exclusivism: "We do occasionally meet with dicta which breathe a very different spirit [from universalism]. Typical examples are: 'A Gentile who occupies himself with the study of Torah is deserving of death ....'" "Harsh sayings ... with respect to non-Jews often spring from the conviction that 'Gentiles are addicted to licentiousness' (Yevamot 98a). The Rabbis were revolted by the low standards of conduct they saw practised around them." "Some of the bitter sayings were wrung from anguished lips under extreme provocation. The most criticized utterance of this type is: 'Kill the best of the Gentiles! Crush the head of the best of snakes!' .... His words expressed his personal feelings; but to quote them as illustrative of Talmudic ethics is grossly unjust." On unscrupulousness: "With regard to a girl it was urged that the father's duty was to secure a husband for her at an early age .... She was considered to have arrived at this stage when she was twelve and a half, although she ceased to be a minor when she passed her twelfth birthday." "Figures are, of course, exaggerated."
Persian Iranians are great, they respect the Bible and Jesus no matter what they think of him. They also often tolerate Muhammad and Islam. But they know when they've gotten a bad deal and wait patiently. Persians don't have the unique language tics of Muslims pretending not to be Muslim.
Well, I am on record for telling nihilists that, as C. S. Lewis says, your "ethics, stripped of their unaccountable bias towards such a parochial affair as tellurian biology, would leave murder and suicide our only duties." So I guess I pass Turing. That book (Abolition of Man) is one of the strongest, tightest cases for the consensus of thousands of years in every culture to overcome the occasional illogical self-destructive voice.
That argument was just invented. Human history is mathematically carried on only by societies who exceed 2.1 birth rate. You are a nihilist and so much so that you don't even want to investigate it. I attempt to draw you out but this nihilism is all-encompassing for you. Plus I haven't been told to pray for you with any special focus. So I don't know that you're going to get much benefit of my explanations in the future if you don't act human enough to answer my questions.
Mental note: Test Firebomber likelihood of using AI.
We have none. Would you like to vote for one or some?
It's true that a synagogue of satan traffics and kills kids, but this entity is only one of seven of satan's works Jesus identifies, and is much more widespread than many people think who use the phrase. Here is its first incarnation, among the Asian Gentiles, and evidence of the seven works and their spread.
I'm giving you a few upvotes for the novelty of your account, but be advised that accounts that look like alts wear out their welcome faster than others. I recommend topic diversification.
I'm not watching the video. Did you bother to give evidence that you know it's not AI, or that you even understand the current capacity of AI videos, or that you understand the different reality in which this could even be possibly true and not legally actionable?
Yes, AI producers do some unconscionable things considering children, and you should go all the way in unmasking this video instead of just being incredulous and credulous about it.
I didn't think your credibility could sink lower but it has.
The public may be retarded but we can't just ignore them or replace them. These are the tools we've been given and we have to make do. At least they're not as retarded as they could be and most do have some common sense.
Echoing.
If u/towards8 wanted to make Muslims look worse he wouldn't do the occasional glorification of Muslim killings, he'd go all-out on glorifying the humanity of the ahadith about Muhammad's relations with his two grandsons and other minors. Better to just say he's a Muslim masquerading as someone sympathetic to Christians who pretends to care about them getting the truth.
The other two I needn't comment on, but they have quite a different history from towards8 and his apparent predecessor who is named in my files.
It's mathematically demonstrated that if the birth line does not reach the replacement line of about 2.1 then the race dies. And people are generally concerned about preserving their own race. But perhaps you're right that whites have become so liberal about preserving their own race that they may destroy it to make a point. It would probably be a unique event in human history if so.
Since you have no proposal, not even to say that humanity will continue via the races that do have many births, I continue to treat you as worse than a shilling.
I think he's pro-Iran but he's fully Muslim, and he never denies that because to deny it would be to deny Muhammad. I can pull receipts if anyone is interested. We used to have good Muslim infiltrators and now we get sent this excrescence instead.
There are also a number of protagonists who follow the Jesus line and get "resurrected" somehow.
But I like this theory. The issue is that if he gets defeated in a narrative, then he was an Antichrist anyway, an anointed who didn't deserve it. The past few centuries have been notable for Antichrist types in both fiction and reality achieving great heights, more than those of the first century.
Yet very few people create a wholly sympathetic character, like Jesus appears in the gospels, and then kill that character violently as if it's a good climax. So the programming seems to me to tend to create more animus for antichrists than for Jesus. But it does have a secondary effect of getting people to distrust Jesus and to trust testimony treating him as unsympathetic, deserving of death, and less truthful than his detractors who know better. And that may be almost identical with the point you're making.
You see you are treating the promotion of birth among the billions as having direct benefit to the individual, but you then treat advocacy against promotion of birth among the billions as having no direct detriment to the individual. That may be central to your illogic.
If you could credibly say there is an ideal state in which marriage is not government-weighted in either direction (either by beneficial regulation or by court-diluting reinterpretation), then you'd have a logical foundation; but you don't. Common-law marriage with minor variation has been used in every society in history, and it's appropriate for anyone (including our representatives in the state) to acknowledge the logical necessity of procreation and in particular of vows in relation to child-rearing. Like shills here on other subjects, you are hurting your alleged subject of antinatalism by making its proponents look like idiots with no plan. If you wanted me to promote you as a sensible person you'd distinguish natalism from the prevailing testimony of history about common-law marriage and you'd admit the self-evident truth that family structures are essential to the perpetuation of humanity. But since you propose nothing in alternative all your protestation becomes indistinguishable from a shilling.
Hey Flex, on this subject exact speech is necessary.
There was no finding of income tax being unconstitutional in the early 1800s, rather income tax was considered during the War of 1812 and Congress ruled that it would be more detrimental than to continue the tariff system.
There is no evidence the IRS is a corporation (some have used individual filings of corporations with similar names by people who did effectively nothing with them to argue this silly point). Rather, a Commissioner of Internal Revenue, George Boutwell, became an officer of the Treasury Department in 1862, and his staff became the IRS subagency in time. Of course the Rothschilds have overseen (much of) the flow of money, but it is done by pull rather than by corporate structure, and the money is distributed to their friends by legally authorized means rather than by decree via legal ownership.
You are right that the US cannot borrow from others so it invented a legal way to borrow from itself (with the taxpayers' labor as collateral). Washington and Jackson succeeded in creating sound-money systems (inspired by the Byzantine Empire which used sound money for some 700 years); I doubt Lincoln tried, but Kennedy and Trump have tried and the latest go is more successful than Jackson so far. We can also argue that Bernard von NotHaus has tried.
There is no evidence that there's an agreement for the IRS to get a 10% commission. The formal means by which the IRS is funded, an annual budget of $18 billion on collections of $2 trillion, is an effective 1% commission. If an effective commission is funneled to friends via other deals, that is hardly quantifiable.
Accurately, "income tax is 100% voluntary" self-assessment, but if you sign the 1040 you are testifying that you owe the tax you self-assessed and that all schedules and attachments are accurate. I always tell everyone to follow the law and to assess your income taxes if you earn income. The IRS cannot penalize you directly for interpreting the law differently than they think you should have, or for judging you do not have an assessment that year, because it's a self-assessment. They can only wait several years to exhaust other statutory processes before they have power, based on the testimony of others that you earned income, to create a substitute assessment in your name. This is why tax evaders don't get caught for several years, because the IRS doesn't have power to jump on them immediately. The signing of the 1040 does constitute an assessment and thus a contract including a promise to pay; so if you owe tax, pay it, and if you don't owe tax, say so when called on.
More important, if you self-assessed and didn't pay, IRS gets to pursue ordinary bill collection; that is only stopped by either paying, cutting a negotiation (very rare), or adjusting the assessment. Ignoring, or protesting conscience, or stating a dilatory fact of the law (tax is voluntary) do not work to avoid paying bills you owe. On the last, your legal status is that you say the tax is voluntary, they say you volunteered to self-assess, and you still owe the tax and nothing has happened except that you can now be accused of dilatoriness.
More important, if you do not have any outstanding self-assessed balance, there is no amount for IRS to ask about being paid. In this case the only problem is if the IRS operates on the testimony of others to "propose" an assessment or a fine. The strategies above still fail; notably, they say that by volunteering not to assess timely in the light of evidence against you, you had actionable legal knowledge that you could be assessed by them instead of yourself. If a proposal is made, you are called on to accept or reject it; such letters always have a clause "if you disagree". You can accept it (and owe the proposed payment), or you can reject it by giving a correct assessment and/or a demonstration that the activities proposed for fine did not happen.
It is true that the IRS uses triage in relation to people who use dilatory strategies. However, it's not that they don't want to mess with them, it's that they refer them to a department that will slap everything on them at once later. Thus being dilatory doesn't help in the long run. Being a small fish helps, because of the unlikelihood that you will become a target of a bigger slap; but people who want to structure their affairs at the upper-middle class level generally need to include preparation for anything the IRS can throw legally or illegally. So don't ever consider yourself escaped of IRS illegality, or of its legal powers, always be on guard; and, certainly, understand the legal structure of any letter the IRS sends and answer false charges and presumptions when legally called on to do so. This is another reason nonfilers believe they have "gotten away with" something, because justice in this country takes its time and does use triage for prioritization. If you've "gotten away with" it, your own conscience convicts you before God because you testify that you beat the legal system, and if you've gotten away with enough then the legal system will get you. If you've gotten away with little then God's system will get you. Better than either is to have a clear conscience by knowing the law, as the citizen whose public servants are the states and the fed and its agencies.
There are constant calls to defund the government by withholding taxes. The best chance the people had to force the government to change was actually during the Civil War, when so many people petitioned Congress for redress of grievances that the Supreme Court was compelled to reinterpret the amendment so that Congress wouldn't have to investigate it all. So it appears that the grassroots aren't going to cut it in this day and age. I believe promotion of the truth will prevail in time, but the truths about the tax scheme are both deliberately buried and heavily clouded by mistakes such as those in OP. Therefore what it looks like the powers have lately determined is for the tax to be graduated into something else, primarily the Constitutional use of tariffs in the hands of an emergency-claiming executive (for God knows how long), followed by stabilization via metal and blockchain labor. This is almost the best short-term scenario the proponents of tax truth can hope for, but much remains in public education and awakening.
It is correct to call Big Capital to continue their pursuit of truth in taxation so as to minimize their legal tax burden and their support of the evils of the state. The problem is, Big Capital got where it did by consenting to a negotiated amount of taxation to the leeches. The accounting and legal industries convinced them to settle cheaply rather than to insist on conscience, and the leeches branded many false starts as conspiracy theories to hide the truth of the nature of self-assessment from the biggest contributors. Everyone in this stratum thinks they get off cheaply if they pay less than the government's proposal of 40%, because in WWI the government proposed 90%. But when the tax was created in 1913 the government proposed 1%. Therefore it's thoroughly arbitrary, and becomes a negotiation for those with the power to structure their affairs consistent with the law so as to minimize income tax burden. All kinds of subdeals are cut into the law to protect billionaire investments in million-dollar tax writeoffs to hide the fact that trillions are being taken by this spread-around deception otherwise. Therefore Big Capital is unmotivated to pursue conscience because it believes that making lots of money helps them spread good conscience better. The widow, the one who gave up all, laughs at them.
Yes, the budgeting process is also a deception built on the deception; the government can freely do anything via amassing public debt, it's just virtue-signaling by creating, and sticking damnably to, rules that block new expenses. That is all politics and manipulation of pull. Getting the collateralization of the private sector going in the first place is the real game, and it took several deceptions and misdirections over 100 years to get there. The dismantling was never easy and now that Trump is undertaking aspects of it we may be able to see some good things, and even have some ability to spread awakening about other things. But for now we occupy until our Lord comes.
TLDR: Income taxation is a legal scheme involving misdirection and is thus a "legal scam". Though OP has mistakes, the revelation of the IRS and the federal government as a paper tiger is significant. However, one should still (especially since J6) be prepared for the wrath of the tiger, but that is done by accurate information and not by willful ignorance, protest of conscience, or dilatory argument. I have deliberately not elaborated on the details of the law because that was not the subject of OP.
Your past suggests you might be open to more on this subject. It would be appropriate to lay out your sources for the assertions I challenged, so that we can compare the written statutes and code against them. If you are interested in learning the income tax laws toward the understanding of compliant self-assessment that all citizens are asked to undertake, with the responsibility for error falling solely on them, then I can answer any questions.
You didn't absorb any context there. I put that date out simply to show that there's an upper limit to the seventh-millennium theory and it will probably expire in our lifetimes. What I said was, we'll know what to do by then in any case.
Did you want to continue to discuss the historicity of Jesus and his resurrection at the proper post, where you didn't answer my explanation?
First issue is, it's not important at all to establish the date, merely the era, unless you're trying to date-set in the present as OP implies, but date-setting is ultimately not a Christian activity: ever-readiness is.
WP Chronology of Jesus knows nothing about these "2/3" of scholars who prefer 30; it gives 33 unqualified precedence in all coverage.
It's not generally accepted that Herod died in March, 4 BC; what's generally accepted is that he was sick unto death as of the eclipse of 13 Mar 4 BC. I grant that Reiss, Filmer, Gertoux, Steinmann, and Young have argued that Herod died before Passover of 11 Apr 4 BC, but most recognize there are too many events to compress into that schedule, including Whiston, Anderson, Schurer, Zuckermann, Thiele, Hoehner, Lanser IIRC, and basically everyone else who has commented on it. As Whiston's excursus shows, a simple reading of Josephus knowing the Bible and with ordinary assumptions demonstrates it absurd to imagine all these events happened within a month's time (I have enumerated those events myself but don't have the link right now, so will need to refer you to searching for the excursus on Herod's death).
There is no evidence that "at least a few months must have passed between Jesus' birth and Herod's death". Rather, Jesus is born, the Magi arrive, Jesus flees to Egypt, and there Joseph is told that Herod is dead. I have put this period at three weeks. An argument could be made that Jesus was presented in the temple on his 40th day and that some who think about it put the flight to Egypt after this point, but unfortunately to this theory I long ago realized that Luke 2:39 says after the presentation Jesus went to Nazareth, not Egypt, and there is no flight from Nazareth. The idea that the flight should be inserted into Luke 2:39 is textually incongruous, but inserting it between 2:21 and 2:22, a natural gap, is an inference to the best explanation. The enemy has done some hard work to convince people Jesus's sojourn in Egypt was long, maybe several years, but there is no reason for it to have been more than a night, aside from the time taken in travel.
The Gospel does not state that "Jesus began his ministry at the age of 30"; no, Luke 3:23 says Jesus was "about" 30 or literally "as if" 30. In the Herod link I show that this idea comes from Filmer's illogical insistence that "about" means "exactly", while I give evidence that Luke is very deliberate with using "about" to mean "about". The ultimate arrival at a 30 crucifixion relies on compressing several points back in time (Jesus's birth relative to Herod's death, Herod's death relative to the eclipse, Jesus's ministry relative to his 30th year), and in each case the later period has better evidence but the earlier period is taken so as to get the whole 3-year gap made up. However, this theory also ignores the beginning of John's ministry in Tiberius's 15th year (28-29), the same standard way everything else in the era was dated. Those arguing for crucifixion in 30 make a special pleading to find an event in Tiberius's life 2 years earlier, in 12 instead of 14, when he had partial authority, and then apply that theoretical epoch to this one instance while refusing to use it for any other historical date attributed to the reign of Tiberius. Therefore the neglected error as to data being unused is greater than the errors made to justify the data being used.
If John began ministering in 28-29, it is impossible for Jesus to begin ministering before spring of 29 (John 2:20). So either the 46 years of the Temple must fit that later date, or the 15 years of Tiberius must fit an earlier date. But changing the reign of Tiberius is arcane and unsupported, while flexibility in the beginning of the Temple is easily supported.
It is well-known that the beginning of construction on the Herodian temple rework is not a firm date, partly because of reconciling the math of Josephus, and partly because of confusion between beginning work on the site and beginning the laying of the stones that came somewhat later. This allows a range of 20-17 BC for the calculation date, yielding 26-30 AD for the beginning of Jesus's ministry (depending on whether inclusive or exclusive counting is used). Since this is a more disputed point, I will keep it in mind next time I review the phases of the beginning of Herodian construction.
The idea of 40 years, which is a round number, is typological and not historical, but even if it were taken as historical it could easily refer to Jesus starting ministry in 30 AD. It is clear that Jonah began with a message of 40 days of repentance, but since Nineveh required 3 days to travel through the whole city this corresponds better typologically to Jesus ministering for the first 3 years of the period 30-70. (The phrasing here suggesting that Josephus supported the much later idea that Jesus "came" in 70, when he didn't, is potentially misleading.) Second, the Talmud does make a reference to an unexplained 40 years of lack of Temple miracle, but this may either be a round number or correspond to the beginning of Jesus's ministry, since it is a testimony seized by Christians out of Jewish records that Jews do not draw any conclusion from. Third, I grant that I have not seen before Eusebius's reference to a "full 40" years, but his distance from the events and his reliance on unknown intermediate sources suggests that his idea that the 40 was "full" or exact is added onto the original, as he cannot be taken as solely authoritative.
TLDR: This OP misstates a few points such as the scholarly weight given to its theory, but I grant that it compiles more evidence and that the study of the beginning of Herod's construction, the Talmudic 40 years, and the context of Eusebius's 40 years should all continue to be pursued. However, the primary assumptions that drive the preference for 30 are misguided. Though Newton showed that 30 and 33 are above all other dates astronomically, relying on 30 depends on objectively judged misreading of both Josephus on the last year of Herod's life and Luke on his use of exact versus rough chronology.
A number of evidences of church history, most notably the chronology of Paul's life, support the 33 date with some elasticity, of exactly the same kind used with the methodology of OP; I do not press them because of their elasticity. The points to be pressed are the very specific beginning of John's ministry in 28-29 (dated by Luke with six synchronisms), the chronology of Josephus on Herod (on which he is undisputed), the lunar eclipse of 33 (which has been disputed but also proven to be visible in Jerusalem), and the fit of the chronology to the sabbatical cycle. OP neglects all these aspects.
Specifically, in the Herod link, I show that Zuckermann found several points establishing the sabbatical cycle as beginning in fall 457 BC such that 27-34 AD would be the 70th sabbatical (Wacholder puts the sabbatical years as 28 and 35 instead, using minority readings of all Zuckermann's data). For John and Jesus to begin their ministry in or before 27 as OP states would put them in the 69th sabbatical contrary to the prophecy of Daniel. (I only discovered this reality less than a year ago, since I had taken Anderson's demonstration of prophetic-year sabbaticals as the more accurate reading of Daniel; I still do, but I've realized that the actual observed sabbaticals offer a secondary fulfillment.) But if John begins ministry in 28, in the end of the first year of the 70th sabbatical, and Jesus completes it in 33, in the middle of the sixth year, the prophecy is neatly fulfilled.
There are probably other aspects of the question that remain unresolved. As to the future, I certainly appreciate that as we've retraced the 2,000-year anniversaries of the events of Jesus's life the church has been anxiously drawing comparisons. Even though the thoroughly-discredited Whisenant put Jesus's return in 1988 because it was seven years before the anniversary of the period of his birth, the well-vindicated Lindsey, and I too, looked for eschatology in the 80s for the same reason, and have continued to do so since. I presently believe that the millennial reign need not be an exact 1,000 years; it might be, but it might end at the year 7000 AM after being slightly short, because it is expressly a round number, and the years of Jesus's first sojourn might easily be subtracted. (If you want to play date-setting with this idea, I have 7000 AM as 3007-3008 AD, with Jesus's gestation at .75 years and life at 35.5 years, putting his return no later than fall-winter 2044 AD, and the "tribulation" no later than 2037 AD; but I do not personally advocate for that limit and instead look for his coming every day. Either he comes by that date, or he gives enough light by that date to sustain us afterward, same as any other date.)
However, for OP purposes, it is clear that fear relating to the supposed anniversary of 2030 will peak before that relating to 2033, and so it's very helpful for the forerunner theory to stand or fall prior to the truth of the conflict being revealed. OP has already made several dodgy prophecies with levels of probability so as not to be called a date-setter, and regularly inserts Muslim interpretations as well, most notably the idea that both Israel and America will be conquered by Muslims, probably in the next year or two. An apparent alt was doing the same, with the same tone, before the OP account arrived. OP is cagey enough to hold his posts to one subject at a time (I'm not), so perhaps we should wait to judge where he is going with applying the life of Jesus to the present, but sooner or later it's either going to connect to the alleged destruction of America or to be inverted by Jesus's grace. I used to think, over many years of my reworking eschatologies, that America would be destroyed; then I realized that the devil need not conquer every country to fulfill his rule over the worst, and that at no time does he conquer the righteous despite his applying governmental and forceful power over them. So I hold out hope that America will escape the worst, in Jesus's name. This can only be done by each of us dedicating ourselves to him, and under him to the Constitution in his year 1787, and holding America in our hearts just as we escaped the ravages of the "46th" administration. If that is done then we can escape the horseman of Conquest and instead transition America into a protectorate of Jesus's Kingdom of Heaven before he arrives.
Or, I'm a time traveler and anticipate things. Since you objected to WP in the same comment in which you cited WP, I made light of it. I also wasn't using the word "admit" in any special sense, I just thought it odd that you usually don't admit the 3,200 years of continuous Jewish presence, so I made light of that too. Seeing as you like treating me lightly, I might continue doing so.
Taking your words in the most generous way, you're saying that wartime deaths count as murder (and genocide), especially when the warriors have suspect motives, and that by my not denouncing it (but waiting on external judgment) I'm justifying it. If I let myself use that approach, how easily I could demolish every argument: everyone is remaining silent about, or being incomplete in agreeing with me on, some deaths that I harp on, such as slaughter of myriads of Christians or millions of preborns, which makes everyone else a baby-murder-justifier. But you see Graph it doesn't work. Golden Rule applies, don't chew others out unless you're willing to be chewed out the same way.
I'm disappointed that I don't meet your standards for how vehemently I should condemn the IDF and Israel. Love you bro.
See you're still trying to pick up the pieces. I was referring to WP being your source for 1929, not WP being your source for 1938.
So I was busy reading my own selected article, very interesting, looks like the Jews have been there continuously for 3,500 years. Now Nehemiah says there were Arabs in Jerusalem led by Geshem in the 440s, so we can give them that much credit, but writings in Old Arabic only date back to the 9th century BC so I don't think we can stretch them back in the land as far as the Jews.
Unrelated add: Just as the Jews displaced the Canaanites in the 16th century BC, the Caphtorites displaced the Avvim, the first residents of Gaza, at that time too. So even for Gaza you have Avvim, Caphtorites, Egyptians, Philistines, Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Israelites again, Romans, before you get to Arab Palestinians.
So if Persia and Magog attack Israel (Ezek. 38:5), that would begin to fulfill your prophecy, right?
And if God sets them on fire (39:6) instead of Israel, then it's not a victory anymore, is it?
Asking because he who puts his armor on should not boast like he who puts it off. If Iran fails you probably want to pick a winner instead, namely Jesus.