Waiting for evidence. I gave mine.
Also, Kenites are not sons of Cain or Cainites. They are close, but are distinguished both in meaning (Cain, acquisition; Kenite, smith) and in genetics (if Cainites continued, the theory is they came through Ham; the Kenites were identified among the Semitic-Abrahamic Midianites, Num. 10:49).
Synagogue of satan, Cainites, Kenites, Khazarians, Edomites, and Amalekits are now six different things.
Those descended from or naturalized into the family of Judah ("Jews", "Judeans") had dealings with all the above but that doesn't mean the modern self-proclaimed Jews lost title to the name related to Judah at some historical event. Nobody has shown me a historical event where that happened.
Jesus was a son of Judah by both birth and adoption. Both he and Paul refer to the Jews as their brothers, but like earlier prophets point out that they are not doing what their father did. So he affirms the historical continuity and he ought to know.
The Pharisees were one party of the multipolar Judeans that had a known historical lineage from Ezra and Nehemiah through a number of teachers known as Zugoth, the last of which were Hillel and Shammai, who would have been present among those that Jesus met at age 12. Jesus also cites Hillel. From there the rabbinical Jews have a heritage through Johanan ben Zakkai and a continuous series of leaders since then. There is no point at which another race subjugated these people even though there are significant intermarriages that do not lose rights in the name of Judah as if there are no descendants of Judah or as if somebody else has better birth rights. (The church has spiritual rights to be called "Jews" but they are never to hold this as being birth rights.)
So when you propose that all these historically different groups are the same and allow non-Jews to deny the name "Jews" to those who claim that name, that's othering (exonymy) and is just as bad as, say, Jews claiming to decide who is "white".
That's why I keep asking for evidence, and I think I know why I keep getting denied.
This is about YEC.
See Expelled by Ben Stein.
I posted here about how British bankster money funded the Solvay Lectures and got everyone in the same box, with the exception of Einstein. Now people believe in "quantum physics" that is about denial of a quantum, their certainty in the "uncertainty principle", and the simplicity of the sum of infinite possibilities.
The goal is to keep everything in lockstep and to shut out the millennia of science that was based on learning the laws of God. I learned that John Draper declared war on religion in the 19th century on behalf of the new Darwinian-Huxleyan "science" and the establishment has continued ever since.
But God reveals his secrets to his prophets.
Using the wrong language. Your title refers to four different things. Want to give us a summary so we can unmix the strands of history?
Thanks Mephisto, I larp as high-IQ in the hopes of making it someday.
why post the Ten Commandments of the old covenant? I think it would be much more effective that the Beatitudes were posted
Great question! It sounds cultural as if there's something about America that likes the Ten Words more than the Eight Blessings. I will bookmark that unanswered because it's probably a valid criticism that American churchianity is more comfortable putting Moses forward than Jesus in many circumstances, when you'd think they'd be willing to put Jesus first despite offense.
I will note though that we were literally constituted "in the year of our Lord" 1787, and by putting that clause in the Constitution the founders were all giving Jesus authority to lord this land indefinitely. Not that we're doing a great job, but better than some, with more to come. Since you find yourself stuck in a country with us constitutionists, I encourage you to make a lifelong pursuit of finding out the real law that transcends the Ten Words (many atheists like the Golden Rule as all-inclusive) and then directing people to that, as it would be better than larping.
Do you wish to debate? I insist on having commitment to truth pursuit and use of straightforward binary propositions in that case.
Yeah, Hammurabi is sublime too (he's about the only one that qualifies for "all the laws before"), but somehow Moses got the cut and Hammurabi mostly didn't.
Yeah, a half-half balance between responsibility toward man and toward the holistic intelligence of the cosmos known as God is an excellent Self-Other paradigm. The cosmos must be upheld as unique and not divergent for any basic philosophy or theology to succeed, so its representative (Yahweh) would be naturally "jealous". (You could go from there into the ordinary atheist tropes about misunderstanding the cultural context of certain specific laws, but I'd rather you did that at c/Atheist and pinged me, so that we wouldn't be derailing u/LightBringerFlex.)
Yeah, the principles of respect for authority, regulation of marriage, and true testimony are enshrined through American and most other laws. If you want to nitpick about coveting, that one is a necessary demonstration that the internal (which is not generally covered by law, Mosaic or not) must still be cultivated as part of getting the external right.
If you object to how our government posts them, I suggest you take it up with them where they've discussed the matter in great detail, the Supreme Court. At risk of misquoting them, their position appears to be that upholding public morality for every citizen and resident is a proper function of a state that guarantees freedom of religion, and this is rightly done by recognizing the greater influence that some methods of upholding morality have historically had within our nation.
You brought up Horeb, so it's on you to advance discussion rather than to snark in AI echoes.
Getting back to OP, I was merely responding to OP by citing a supportive source and implying that the Biblical authority, such as it is, is a strong argument against the philosophy of pharmacy as a whole. For people who discount that authority, it would be a simple matter to cite recent science, starting with the person appointed to regulate that, Bobby Kennedy, and going back through such names as Kary Mullis and Linus Pauling. Since you have not expressed a single position relevant to OP, but were only triggered by a citation supportive of it to go on a tangent, I repeat that if you want to debate something then indicate your willingness to pursue truth wherever it leads and to select a meaningful binary proposition to see if I disagree.
I was citing a cultured Roman resident who resisted the empire for 60 years without change, enough to understand its view on pharmaceuticals. The Bible is not monolithic, learn history. And nobody has come up with a better explanation for how Horeb could have rumbled with words that are so sublime as to be still engraved on government halls today.
φαρμακεία pharmakeía, far-mak-i'-ah; from G5332; medication ("pharmacy"), i.e. (by extension) magic (literally or figuratively):—sorcery, witchcraft.
Why would anyone work in pharmacy given what the Bible says about it?
My comments are responsive to OP. You can produce your high horse anytime anywhere. I'm just saying it undercuts your entire high horse to step in on an unrelated post to bring its nose in. If my comments are about something tiny then by your comparing them to your high horse you make your horse tiny too. If I take a moment to reply to something where I see an important, relevant truth warning, your fixation on an unrelated warning, when you've faced criticism for not disseminating it well, does yourself a disservice. But we can continue pursuing truth each in our own idiom and it'll work out.
This comment being about wise use of resources, I'll play the game of seeing whether I can avoid being baited by your reply.
See, Graph, it's so insidious you don't see it happening because of the other part that you do see happening.
I promise you that there are Muslims out there speaking to Christians in Christian language to try to shift Christianity into sharia and to weaken it by putting it in tension with Judaism. They always have the marker that they can't help speaking in Islamic terms and idioms when it comes to their tenets; they are happy to speak against Christian tenets but they can't say a thing wrong with Muhammad or with sharia.
From the start here, I said be alert to all the satanists, there are many psyops of different kinds. In the same passage where Jesus warns of the synagogue of satan I found six other works of satan that he warns against with equal force (search "real synagogue"). To point one out is not a sick inversion of those pointing another out.
Thanks dude, sometimes I write like that for conspiracists.
Ezekiel 37:15-28 prophesies that two houses of Israel and Ephraim will be united in the hand of God. The two-house movement interprets that as saying all real Christians are genetically Israelite and this will be revealed as part of the unification (similar to British Israelitism). Then they latch on to those who are restoring Christianity to its apostolic roots (which requires understanding Hebrew thought) and they act like this restoration is a legalist movement like their own. But reconciling anyone to Jesus is always contrary to legalism, because what really happens is we keep Jesus's new law (whatever it is for each of us) by gratitude at his rescuing us.
I also joked that in the past 10 generations it's very likely that very many people have a Jewish/Israelite ancestor, but nobody counts that as being Jewish alone.
John Parsons is very reliable on the subject. Here's Wikipedia, which also quotes Parsons approvingly. It looks like the proponents of two-house have regrouped lately as "commonwealth" theology because the original version may already have been defeated by a resounding agreement from Christians, including most all the Messianics.
Thanks dude! Looking forward to review in detail later.
OP talks like a Muslim and has never denied it. Note the distancing from Christian testimony mixed with the use of Christian language, and the immense selectivity without personal connection. Case study. Some Muslims admittedly whisper in Jewish and Christian ears that they should fight each other ....
The five horsemen of the apocalypse are conquest, war, famine, death, and hell (Rev. 6). Because the text is about patterns of fours, hell is usually not counted. Their jobs are to oversee different kinds of plagues at many times in history. Death (thanatos) is in charge of "sudden death" by plagues (usually hot viruses).
This passage is not isolated but draws on many prophetic passages prior, which allow us to be certain about tracing the history of these entities. Zech. 1 and 6 are the beginning and end of a single dream sequence where these same forces are seen, and in Zech. 6 we see the same concept of four colors of horses going in four compass directions and again a fifth color is mentioned with the fourth ("grisled and bay"). This shows that these horsemen have been roving on similar missions for 2,500 years.
Ezek. 14:12-21 describes the decisive four plagues of the LORD to emphasize their totality and uses similar categories: famine, beasts, sword, and pestilence. Beasts and sword are associated with conquest and war respectively in Rev. 6, and pestilence is clearly death plague. Older still is the fourfold incantation of Ps. 91:5-6 that ties these plagues to the four cardinal times of day, and gives them as terror (conquest), arrow (war), pestilence (death), and waste (famine). Tracing the words used through numerous other passages shows they are a deliberate tetrad and gives a variety of insights into their specifics. I first did this study about 10 years ago.
Thanatos the rider is seen as part of a team, not independent, and only permitted to take that which the LORD decrees, as the other team members are. His destiny is the lake of fire, Rev. 20:14, which we know because hell is also mentioned and these are not abstractions but references to the same final entities of Rev. 6 as representatives of the others. Thanatos is not the angel of death, who is identified with being the special angel of the LORD (Ex. 11:4, 2 Sam. 24:16, Is. 37:36, etc.); the angel of death is also the reaper (not "grim") and is an aspect of Jesus's appearance to the wicked.
References to comets are usually misguided because the allure of comets is 99% what earthlings make of them and only 1% what they can actually do to earth physically. Typically a scientific report is hyped and then the hype is further hyped to become unrecognizable as science. Some tie everything to Nibiru, which is said to be a physical entity or planet, but which doesn't act like a planet at all but like a spiritual entity, moving and influencing at will. So the reality is how humans are influenced instead of how the gravity actually affects us. There are exceptions, such as past catastrophe (deluge), meteorites, and the prediction of the fallen star Wormwood (Rev. 8:10-11, cf. 9:1). Just as the deluge was predictable long in advance, a future catastrophic physical heavenly body will be predictable in advance and will only come in a time of mass upheaval already underway due to earth being unsettled. Wormwood doesn't cause a heavenly blackout but instead a significant water pollution.
However, there are three blackouts predicted by Revelation when the stars go dim, each for different reasons. Joel in 3 chapters mentions all three blackouts so Revelation is merely drawing on his topical description. The first is Rev. 6:12 and Joel 2:18-22, a "blood" blackout caused by pollution and refraction (probably nuclear), that was also anticipated by a partial fulfillment at the time of Christ (as the apostles preached at Pentecost). The second is Rev. 9:1-12 and Joel 1:1-2:17, an "abyss" blackout caused by a volcano (possibly Anak Krakatau, which had similar effects also in the 19th century); this may be assisted by a large meteorite (Joel mentions this one first because its prior partial fulfillment by an army invasion is closer to his day than the partial fulfillment of 2:18-22 is). The third is Rev. 16:10-11 and Joel 3, a "fog" blackout caused by a surgical, tactile smoggy pollution probably arising from massive fires in many quarters (compare 9/11). Revelation enumerates 21 plagues in all in a pattern that amplifies the 10 plagues of Exodus, so these are three of them.
My full timeline was published serially at c/Christianity: you'll probably want to begin with the internal textual-marker outline of Revelation for background. The future is described in chronology parts 7, 8, and 9.
I've got a lot. Let me keep your comment open and get back to it a bit later to see if I can hone in on the most salient aspects.
Exactly right.
This is good evidence, NewFun.
There's a categorical answer that covers most cases.
Every edit we see is an ordinary human process by which the particular version that was inspired, inerrant, and infallible was arrived at by God working through (fallible) human means; they are not evidence against inspiration of the originals.
Every book mentioned by the inspired text, or every book considered as possibly inspired that didn't rise to the level of being received (recognized) as inspired by the covenant people, are ordinary human books that don't have the same degree of inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility, even if they may be what humans would call relatively inspired. This is also not evidence against inspiration.
Many more could be added. The AI omits the first draft of Jeremiah, which was burned up by King Zedekiah (see Jeremiah 36 in the second draft). There's also evidence that Matthew wrote two drafts, first in Aramaic and second in Greek, with the Greek one being inspired but with some Aramaic copies being taken as a translation rather than an earlier draft. The fact that God allowed Scripture writers to draft their works before they achieved a final inspired form shows that he used human processes instead of performing some magic upon a particular manuscript. Rather, in every case centuries of godly people recognized the particular manuscripts as God-breathed by a continuous testing process.
Hi NewFun.
The original of the reaper is Jesus: Rev. 14:14 ff.
The original of the black death is the death that Jesus prophesied over Pergamum (the church which corresponds to the Middle Ages): Rev. 2:23.
The original of the danse macabre is the 14th-century dance of the Maccabean martyrs (130s BC) known to Jesus: 2 Maccabees 7.
The extra stuff has been added to hide the fact that Jesus is the one who deals "Death" the deathblow: Hosea 13:14.
This subsidiary "Thanatos" figure is not hooded or scythed but does ride a horse: Rev. 6:8.
The fate of this subsidiary "Death" is to be cast into the lake of fire by Jesus: Rev. 20:14.
So Jesus is the real Angel of Death: Ex. 11:4, 2 Sam. 24:16, Is. 37:36.
Final off-topic note: Jewish filmmaker Aaron Russo, who later exposed the Federal Reserve and income tax in America: Freedom to Fascism, had been approached by David Rockefeller with some proposition to see if he was interested in leveling up among the elites. Russo stated the following in an interview, and this is a transcript the way I heard it because I haven't found the interview again: "I told him that as a cr-- as a person of faith I couldn't do that." Russo interrupted himself beginning to say a word starting with the sound of "cr", and corrected himself. Could he be half-admitting that he had become a Christian? Just another illustration of how the Rockefellers were globalist marketers in the late 20th century and still into this century.
Rabbit trail for my notes: I must not have read anywhere that Edward House was reputedly at Jekyll Island too! People remember House's ability to be everywhere and nowhere, a regular Susie Wiles kind of guy?
House's father Thomas emigrated from Somerset to New York 1835, got a job in New Orleans, and then set up business in Houston 1838 (fast mover), becoming a private banker in 1840. A trained confectioner, he partnered with Charles Shearn to bring the first ice cream to Houston, and was a hub for all kinds of business; Shearn became his father-in-law, and also county chief justice. Thomas House, university founder William Rice, and others boondoggled investors of $150,000 promising to build the Houston Plank Road, which couldn't be built. House and Rice naturally churned their record profits from these many ventures into the Confederacy's war chest, which as we know was an external plan to decimate the US. Disembodied quote: "Thomas House may have been implicated in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln when President Lincoln threatened the banking interests. See the article in [Chuck Missler's] Personal UPDATE, February 1995" (that article does not appear available).
That's the environment that Edward House grew up in, planning extreme practical jokes and imagining his future novel about a quiet global "administrator" who pulls power levers secretly, complete with a fully prophetic "graduated income tax, excess profits tax, unemployment insurance, social security, and a flexible currency system" (Eustace Mullins). The now-defunct archive link I copied had the intriguing:
Col. House, on the other hand, was a Texan "connected" to the London banking establishment by virtue of his father's Civil War exploits as a blockade runner for the Confederacy.
So London banks (Missler and Mullins say Rothschilds) were relying on their own Thomas House to ensure cotton was bought from the South! And Thomas obligingly kept all his gold at Barings Bank (Morgan). They also ensured Edward was schooled in Bath and then joined ΑΔΦ at Cornell. He picked up the family business, built a mansion in Austin with the money, and got four or five people elected Governor of Texas, starting by setting up the famous Hogg millionaires (whom the fictional Boss Hogg was named after), regularly also crossing paths with the Morgans as he diversified into railroads. It was Gov. James Hogg who made House an honorary Lt. Col., a title he used indefinitely. In 1902 House had established what was called "Our Crowd" in Texas and was ready for New York; but there he continued working to support the progressivism of the UK's Lloyd George. On 1911-11-25 (or Mullins says on 1912-05-31) he met and fixated upon a former Princeton president and New Jersey governor to see if he could be inspired to move on to greater things, and the rest is history. House, a manipulator from his youth, said in a letter about meeting Wilson, "I would rather play with him than any prospective candidate I have seen." The candidate, of course, was also funded by Bernard Baruch.
Remember that TR successfully predicted that Taft would become both president and chief justice? After the Panic of 1907, Taft (a Skull and Bones grad) and Senator Aldrich engaged some theater leading to the 1909 release of the 16th Amendment for ratification and also the corporate excise ("income") tax of 1909. Getting the corporations taxed as an excise and getting the amendment rapidly ratified were essentials that would allow the folks at Jekyll to ensure they could keep the Fed under control, because they could look forward to a personal income tax that started at 1% and, when the Great War broke out immediately no thanks to House, could be revised at will literally to 90%. So it was natural that the TR-Taft-Wilson "progression" was a smooth oligarchy in the hands of the Aldrich-Rockefellers.
House also became a charter member in Paris of the Institute for International Affairs, which birthed the CFR in 1921. Influential in Fed policy once it got started, House said on Wilson's behalf that 10-year Fed chair terms "would give stability and would take away the power of a President to change the personnel of the board during a single term of office." He also made sure Warburg got to (essentially) rewrite the Glass bill that became the FRA so that it satisfied the banksters. However, I don't actually find proof that House was on Jekyll Island in 1910, before he met Wilson, despite the link above (plus a second). That idea might come from a misreading of Eustace Mullins, Secrets of the Federal Reserve (PDF). Mullins emphasizes House's role in keeping Warburg informed since Wilson was elected (with a first House memoir on his conversations with Warburg dated 1912-12-19). Mullins quotes Elisha Garrison, Roosevelt, Wilson and the Federal Reserve Law, as saying "The mastermind of both plans [Aldrich and Warburg] was Baron Alfred Rothschild of London." Rockefeller and Morgan also trusted House to help shepherd the system largely designed by Warburg (Daddy Warbucks, another Annie reference besides Morgenthau). Incidentally, FDR made a pilgrimage to the aging House and accepted advice and, of course, carried out the remaining social reforms House had outlined in his Marxist novel of 1912.
Conclusion: It appears Rockefeller (with Aldrich) eventually saw the reasonability of working with the European banks, rehabilitating his "family" with theirs. The Fed, the personal income tax, WWI-WWII, the League-UN, social security, and all hell flow through these planners, with the areligious practical-joker Edward Mandell House as a central brain trust. If we assume that Rockefeller was established to support the Northern bank, House was established to support the Southern bank (the one Europe preferred and manipulated), and he personally invaded the North in 1902, succeeding in the central victory of passing the FRA in 1913 just after the 16th amendment was declared ratified.
Perhaps we must conclude that House did not divert from New York to Georgia, but that he did cast about (with others) to find out who could lead the Democrats, and he had a spiritual unification with Wilson on first sight. That would mean Jekyll Island presumably also included the question in 1910 of who could succeed Taft, and somehow Warburg and House knew in 1912 they could start talking freely after the election; so the mystery of who put out feelers to whom to prepare for that "advice-consent" relationship might not need to be settled.
Sorry I didn't mention Parker or Salem, but I think you'll find a connection anyway.
I'm picturing Gandalf discovering the inscription of the One Ring from Isildur's manuscript, u/crashdaddy.
Thanks as always Primate, this was a better romp than usual. So you're saying (convicted witch) Sarah Averell Wildes, and (five-greats-grandfather of JD Rockefeller) James Avery, may have grown up together in 1530s Salem knowing they were second cousins. "It's a theory, anyway!"
Note, Godfrey's parents were third cousins (maybe she was Christina Rockefeller Rockefeller?), so they might be in the loop too. The two Rockefeller grandfathers who were first cousins migrated separately, his to Philadelphia and hers to Germantown, but they met up again by the marriage of ca. 1780. So they have a Godfrey who's a sometime sheriff fond of drink and sex (ten kids); and who can be manipulated, against her parents' stated wishes, to marry Lucy Avery and give birth to con artist Devil Bill, JD's dad (the skeleton Hearst sought but could never find). Sounds like a sleeper family to me.
In particular, old money had been flowing from the Rothschilds through Baltimore icon George Peabody to the established Morgan family. The notability is that the ultra-shrewd JD Rockefeller was set up quickly during the Civil War as a competitive money interest to the Morgans, probably also cutting deals with the US government to set up an oil monopoly in the 1860s too. (By Jekyll Island you had several poles infighting but all agreed on selling the American citizens a central bank; obviously organized by the same Senate leader Nelson Aldrich who had his daughter marry JD's son, with the outstripped Morgans begging for a seat at the table for their rep Henry Davison.) That means that if witch bloodlines were looking around to see who to prop up in the 1860s with the war directing hefty US spending on favored corps, they would easily spot a bookish Salem descendant right out of business school, son of a literal snake oil salesman.
Great work.
He changed his hair color and skin glow. Same as Moses did in the movie.
What source can be verified according to you? CNN? Wikepidea? College textbooks? Which one of these Zionist machinations should we trust?
Ultimately, everything is filtered by human experience, which can't be trusted, so I can only trust the One who is able to speak clearly despite human experience.
All humanly experienced sources follow rules of evidence that have the same capacity for testing and rating. That also means they all have the same capacity to be manipulated by any powerful bloc (and there are many manipulating these sources. I would hate to disappoint you by looking into Sadler and finding Jewish eugenics money.
So when the UB says something accurate that checks out with other sources, good for it. If we trust that the God of the Universe is able to reward our search for truth, we fear no evil. If we don't trust him to work through those secondary causes, we stay in fear of the powerful.
To illustrate, on the OP point, proponents of transmigration remain hard-pressed on the same points as always (zero-sum game of a static universe, convenience of lethe as a gap explanation, etc.). Transmigration simply lacks the explanatory power of individuality of soul and gives no benefit (aside from shirking a little human responsibility) and many risks (sourcing). Further, the idea that we must prepare for a postmortem test that involves distrust and fear of loss seems to cast the wrong light on the present, and makes us like Book-of-Dead gamers that must memorize how to pass each illustrated obstacle in turn. So when we deal with those weaknesses we can then compare the explanatory power against other scenarios.
u/2EyesOpen, I'm transmigrating our convo because it's more applicable to this OP and this OP might actually be more interested in it too.
I skimmed chapter 1 of Jesus Christ: Sun of God by David Fideler and, first, was surprised to find a strong developmental theology tying gnosticism to earlier and later thought, and particularly in its notes on the exact OP subject. An Orphic inscription (p. 318) states, "To the left of the house of Hades under a graceful white cypress a well offers spring water. Don't drink there. Find the well by the lake of memory." TIL truth (aletheia) is literally unforgetfulness (it is the opposite of lethe). It's interesting that both OP and the gnostics are radically concerned with this life being predicated on particular gnoses that are intended to assist one with a migration after death. This obviously recalls the Book of the Dead and its Egyptian fascinations, and earlier Inanna in the Underworld and her progressive denuding as a set of performative sacrifices (an edenic echo).
Common elements are (1) the sun, moon, and 5 visible planets testify of hierarchical transhuman entities; (2) right unique relations with such entities are held essential to the present and future life; (3) "salvation" comes essentially through good gnosis in this life about these entities (mentally) and has little to do with action (physically) or morality (spiritually).
To that I would state that the risk is imbalance. Paul says, beware pseudognosis (1 Tim. 6:20)! The gnostic must be able to manage this physical life in order to perpetuate his gnosis (or it becomes a consumptive uroboros); and he must be able to sustain morality (or he is undermined by betrayals and other natural consequences of this neglect). I daresay all classical gnostic schools fell prey to one or both risks, except insofar as Tertullian rehabilitated some of them.
So, there's more grist for OP. If we are to prevail in the future life, we are to balance the body, soul and spirit in the present life and not merely plan for a future confrontation with the archons. For this I really like Fideler's archetypal ascription (12-13), "According to Plutarch, a priest of Apollo and a contemporary of Jesus, man is composed of soma (body), psyche (soul), and Nous (divine intellect), derived from the earth, moon, and sun respectively." I also believe that it's possible to have a single master key that unlocks all the secrets at the moment their specific unlock is needed. That key is of course the Name of Yahweh (self-existence), by which I include experience of the power, concept, and person of the Creator. For this reason many Christians take the same view Fideler finds in the philosophers, namely that pursuit of Logos makes analysis of specific archon names a very secondary, subsumed quest.
Now, getting to the concepts of the book proper, I find he begins with a healthy, solid overview of developmental theology, up until taking a sudden turn from 17 to 18. He then describes "Paul's belief in an entirely spiritual afterlife" as the reality of the case, and rejects Irenaeus's belief that "our own physical bodies would be miraculously transformed into an immortal state". The problem there is that he supports this view by appeal to 1 Cor. 15 passim (quoting only (320) verses 40 and 50), but neglects Paul's emphatic point that the physical body is to be transformed (allasso, verses 51-52) into immortality (athanasia, verse 53). [We have a contributor here who wants to use 1 Cor. 15 to speak of the spiritual reality only, but even he admits that this must come from the physical reality we presently see, not neglecting it as past.] The resurrection of the physical body remains in place as a touchstone of comparative religion from the earliest days, even as the transference of spirit is also present in some ways in complementary shape.
Another difficulty is the statement (19), "Some of the earliest and most important Christian writings--including one used by the authors of the New Testament--portray Jesus exclusively as a teacher of heavenly wisdom, with no mention whatsoever of his fate by crucifixion nor of belief in his subsequent resurrection." By this his footnote indicates that he means merely Q, which is one attempted reconstruction of tradition at the time of the synoptics. (We recognize that the Gospel of Thomas, perhaps a century later, does indeed exclude the death and resurrection of Jesus, very similarly to Marcion I think, but this does not undo the primitive testimony of the resurrection, which Paul indicates, 1 Cor. 15:3-8 again, was received (paralambano), a technical term indicating oral tradition that could not have begun later than the same 30s in which Jesus died.) The problem is that Q does not exist and there are several competing theories solving the synoptic problem, including the fascinating Lucan priority thesis that imagines about 6 nonextant oral/written traditions that completely contradict the Q reconstruction and the hypothesis of no early resurrection data. However, I don't follow Lucan priority, as I favor what scholars generally call Syriac Matthew, a theory in which the resurrection is more prominent at the first than the wisdom teachings, which agrees with the history of the traditions taught as well. Therefore Fideler's reliance upon other texts to discount early resurrection teaching is belied both by the primary text he does use, 1 Cor. 15, and by the assumptions that led to the creation of a Q text in the first place in the 19th century, assumptions which presuppose that Q wasn't interested in resurrection. In short Fideler is unwittingly relying on circular argument via dependence on prior authorities who didn't check the theory's origin.
So my review of chapter 1 is that it has many useful insights into development and represents a commitment to neutrality in comparison. There is a very slight introduction of an undercurrent, indicated by the two neglected aspects I named, suggesting that the archetypal and essential need not concern itself with redemption of the physical. Christianity holds that whether or not it needs, it does concern itself with the flesh, and gives all the details how and why. So, unless he comes out more vehemently against dogma, he seems to be positioning himself as a pre-Christian stoic, and gnosis enjoyer. If I were to meet him I would have data that might explain things more adequately. I'll continue to take a look at it when I have time.
I shouldn't neglect to say appendices 1-2 have fascinating gematric connections that are worth mathematical exploration, such as 153/265 (a famed approximation of root-3) being taken as a "fish"-shaped number due to its ratio, and 153*8 being the gematria of "fishes" and "the net". These are in accord with right use of gematria, just as when Matthew points out that the son of "David" can be noted by his continuance of a generational pattern of 14 (D=4 V=6 D=4).
I don't know that I'd ridicule someone who wants to take a look at the Bible and leave it open, I've recently said that the one who truly leaves it open is not yet to be judged.
I don't see a failure here, I see a difference of terms. Guy says there is no reincarnation meaning transmigration as in OP. You say there was a concept in Judaism that we now call reincarnation and it has to do with Elijah's transference to Elisha (when they were both contemporary adults). Nobody's contradicting one another there. I think I've affirmed you on the essentials of eternal principles, while pointing out the occasional adjustment, but you might not be receiving what I say as affirmation for some reason that can be explored.
I gave you a quick take on Fideler (spelling) to let you know I'm sincere about looking more into it as you ask. I bring presuppositions to a text so that they can be tested, and here I politely inform you that my presupposition is that it comes from stoicism and impartiality and so is unlikely to communicate a special gnosis to me that you seem to find in it. But I look forward to being pleasantly surprised.
Yes, modern gilgul is a bit rarefied from 1st-century gilgul and was not universal to Judaism at any time. More to your point, gilgul is also Golgotha (a skull being a wheel of the body).
So I will indeed review the book in the time I have and it will come up again. But if there's something specific you think needs debate (Guy has sometimes seen that there is when I haven't), then let me know.
Suggestions:
Add "etc." to the list of "Apostolic Churches".
Add "etc." to the list of "Early Cults".
Add "etc." to the early categories of "Judaism". Change "Judaism", "Pharisees", and "Essenes (destroyed in AD 70)" to black because they remained covenant religions up to that point. Under "Pharisees" add "Talmudic (Rabbinical) Judaism" in red because it significantly modified the Pharisee school.
Add a line from "Sephardic" to join the line under "Ashkenazi" because Sephardic Judaism also contributes to all the succeeding versions.
Change "Pietism (mixed with Lutheranism later)" to "Arndt (German Mystics before Pietism)" because the reforming movement wasn't called Pietism but Pietism descended from Johann Arndt after Lutheranism began.
Change "Quietism" to "Semiquietism" because Quietism was regarded as heretical but the movement didn't involve the heresy and didn't call itself Quietist.
Add a dotted line from "Hussites" to join the line leading to "Moravian Brethren" because this directly continued the Hussite church.
Move the line coming from "Separate Baptist" to come from "Colonial Baptist" instead because the American Baptists and others mostly come through Colonial Baptists without Separate Baptists involved.
Change "Adventism* (Millerism)" to just "Millerism" in red, to emphasize Miller's position being different from any of his successors.
Change "Age to Come Adventist Church of God (AtCACoG)", "(AtCACoG)", and "Church of God of Abrahamic Faith" to red as these assemblies are against preexistence of Christ.
Change "Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPC) (merged with Evangelical PC and Bible Pres. Church)" to "Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCNA)" because the merger in question was with actually with the RPCGS and ended up in the PCA. Add "Bible Presbyterian Church (BPC)" next to "Others".
Change the "Christian Scientist" entry from "(Edy)" to "(Eddy)".
Change "Non-instrumental CoC" to "Non-institutional CoC".
Add lines from "Worldwide Church of God (Armstrong)" to both "Grace Communion International" in black and "United Church of God" in red.