What is gnosis if not every person's experience including their judgment of reports of every other person's experience? If something is "secret", it can be revealed and tested; if it can't be revealed and tested, it isn't a thing. No gnostic ever succeeded in passing on his experience to another, every gnostic that we know of had a different take that none of his students ever took up the same way. So if gnosis is just individualism then there is no external standard by which experience can be tested. You do believe in subjecting gnosis to external tests, don't you?

The fact they are analogous names doesn't speak to the historical question of whether they are or are not also historical characters.

The robust history of resurrection, as I alluded, stands in spite of the Maccabean redirection (in fact during Maccabean times you begin to see the apocrypha drifting people more toward a focus on the intermediate state than on the resurrection that had taken hold so strongly in prior years).

"Primitive" means focused on primal roots. I don't use Roman changes to discover roots, I judge Roman changes by their support from roots.

Since chrism and mashach are the same word in two different languages, whatever applies to one applies to the other unless there is cultural difference; but I don't know of significant Greek cultural addition to the Semitic concept. "The chrism was the word for the result of the process that produces the 'christ' or one who takes the chrism": yes, and that included the fleshly and the spiritual both.

A primary text on Sophia is Proverbs 8 and it indicates what it first meant long before Plato or anyone else commented, so as a primitive I go back to that. I also go back to much history to determine the right use of a sacrificial messiah (anointed) versus the abuse of the concept. Obviously if one is going to get chrism one gets dedicated to a sacrificial lifestyle in every scenario, so I don't see why chrism would speak against the sacrificial concept.

Thank you for linking the entire text of Jesus Christ: Sun of God (brief intro). David Fideler appears to be a Seneca-Adler stoic who approaches the subject by investigating philosophical strands, and it is not immediately clear that he comes to some conclusion that favors or disfavors any modern strand. I take book links seriously when I can, so I will continue to keep it open for thought. It doesn't seem to have much relation to OP and only a little relation to the concept of sharing of spirit.

So I appreciate your thoughts, but I'm not sure that there is anything for us to "debate", unless you wish to take a solid position on something. You seem to be answering u/guywholikesDjtof2024, who says there is no transmigration, by supplying the concept of gilgul instead when it is quite different and was only linked with transmigration much later. So a little historical clearing of definitions and data is all that is needed.

This is off topic, Brain. Would you like analysis of how the 11 textually marked divisions of Genesis demonstrate oral tradition reasonably attributable to eyewitnesses who successfully passed that tradition down unbroken until a final written form? As with all my data, I rely on evidence. If you are interested, please invite me to a separate post on the subject.

A moment ago you said you were done talking about YEC and my point that all science agreed on it for millennia until the new weeds of the 19th century, and that scientists today are still unsettled. My starting point, as I showed in my post to atheists, is existence followed by reason, and I build from those toward special revelation; but evolutionists' starting point is their materialism and denial of intelligence beyond themselves and they cannot sway from that presupposition, so they oddly are more subject to the criticism you raise against me. But let's please take up that subject in the linked thread or elsewhere as it's not about OP at all.

No, reincarnation into an amnesic zygote is completely different from Jesus taking up his own flesh again. That flesh received immortality and that is why its form was different (1 Cor. 15); if it had been a different body then the original body would have been findable contrary to all testimony. Pretty important to consult majority historians on this point.

Thanks for sharing. First problem, they didn't say Jesus was Elisha but Elijah (Elias, Matt. 16:14 ff.); nobody thought Jesus was Elisha. However, reading through a second time it appears your meaning is that there was a connection from Elijah to Jesus via Elisha and so you call it Elisha when it was historically called Elijah.

Second, it's true that "reincarnation" was an idea floating and competing with the mainstream-Jewish view of general resurrection (Dan. 12:2); but Jewish "reincarnation" at the time was gilgul and differed from the Greek transmigration of OP by emphasizing affinity within soul prototypes rather than identity. This is seen by Jesus participating in a reappearance of Elijah (Matt. 17) and then teaching there are two aspects, Elijah himself, and John being in the spirit of Elijah (affinity), and both are true. That is, Elijah was a firstfruits of a resurrection generation that would also include Moses (so it's not "ridiculous" that resurrection was also in view), but Elijah also shares his spirit (this is not commonly called "reincarnation" though). This is not the Urantia-Book reincarnation that u/LightBringerFlex speaks about, which is classic transmigration, so it's a bit off topic. I see that you're intending to talk more about gilgul than transmigration (though this is obscured by the OP you replied to), so we should separate that topic out before deeper analysis.

You act as if reincarnation is the older and resurrection the newer, but the oldest Biblical poetry on the subject refers explicitly to resurrection (Job 9:30-35, 19:25-27). Still older are the Dumuzid legends of return to the same body from the underworld, leading to annually resurrected Canaanite harvest gods. Reincarnation in any form is relatively modern, not evidenced before 1000 BC, and of Indian origin where it took a long while to influence the Semitic world via Pythagorean thought. Also, reincarnation presupposes a steady-state universe (scientifically disproven in the 20th century) and resurrection presupposes an expansive universe, and the notion that the universe is designed for growth rather than stagnant cycling is the opinion of basically all ancient texts; it's not until Jainism (after 1000 BC) that you really get a cyclical view of history as stagnant. So reincarnation could not take hold until one removed the philosophy that the world is designed for growth (and that man is superior to brute beasts, which the first proponents of reincarnation also denied). Your reference to the much later Roman propagandization seems to ignore the robust history of millennia of reverence for the corpse as something to be reclaimed later (cf. mummification).

You also bring in gnostic concepts of preexistence, which AFAIK are wholly different from either school and have Greek tinges. I am unaware of any gnostic who taught preexistence as if it were either transmigration or gilgul, but I could become better informed on that point.

A to B is 'all things. Ra is the emanation of life, and ham is protection

I always appreciate gematric argument, whether it relates to true etymology (A-B is indeed connected to Hebrew 'ab) or just synchronicity (H2346 chomah protection is synchronous with H0085 -raham multitude); because I believe that echoes still have communicative power that can often be gleaned scientifically. So you raise an interesting point about Abraham's name because evidence of its root is lacking and can be gleaned by thorough search, meaning your hypothesis is as good as any. Of course this is not evidence of reincarnation, as it can be used to prove anything including resurrection as well; that is, indirection only useful when one has found the state of affairs by direct evidence.

So, when you come to the data, you show that resurrection to immortality was indeed a significant doctrine (evidenced by "resurrection" to this mortal life), while there was also a doctrine of partaking of another's spirit that grew into the gilgul theory. The Christian testimony is that Elisha and John both partook of Elijah's spirit (nobody called this reincarnation and it's a bit confusing to use the word for this process). I have no problem with you (and others) taking up the mantle of Elijah (we have millions wanting to take up the mantle of Charlie Kirk, whose name means "church"). What I don't see in your approach yet is the revelation of secrets that Elijah did when showing the times (e.g. 3.5 years' famine) or preaching the Lord (e.g. calling down fire at Yahweh's pleasure). I only see that you're hinting at something about chrism that remains secret by your approach so far.

To that point, indeed there were improprieties in Christian religion introduced in the 300s by Rome, but as primitive Christians we have enough knowledge of history to get past that. We find that chrism was just the Greek translation of mashach, anointing, and that anointing by oil represents the real Anointing, the presence of Holy Spirit (Gen. 1:2, Ps. 51:10-12; yes, in Hebrew/Aramaic this usage did in fact originate in the Middle East). Jesus possessed the Spirit beyond measure, the same Spirit that had also anointed all kinds of people before him. And in one sense by partaking of Jesus's Spirit we support the view of soul prototypes that some people want to call "reincarnation"; but with no loss of identity or individual responsibility as OP speaks of.

You seem to imply there is something misunderstood about Jesus Christ. Most everything that could be misunderstood about him was debated within 300 years of his death (and resurrection), so we can simply reference those debates and point out where the mainstream went right or wrong, and find those proponents who had the real truth. The truth can be discerned by those who pursue it at all costs (we can obtain truth at no less a price). Though it's not about OP, was there some revelation of former secrets that you wanted to share about this?

u/guywholikesDjtof2024

The problem is sourcing. All your insider jawboning comes from sources that can't be verified, are sus, and are part of an agenda to change perception away from what has already been working on earth. Until you come to grips with your reliance on and your trust in your sources and consider the possibility that they are feeding you a little poison along with their narrative, you won't be able to think critically about them.

Death is not merger; NDE analysis shows people don't consistently experience what they "expect"; there is no continuity of personhood or "you" if memory is wiped clean so the connecting of a "you" with another "you" is nonfalsifiable (identity means continuity); we don't need Book-of-Dead rules for beating the ultimate boss after death because we can beat him before death and have no trouble after. But those things are irrelevant unless there is agreement on sourcing so as to determine truth best. Because I could just write another 2,000 pages and become the next source and why would I be any more trustworthy than the last?

The lore for millennia was that Yahweh is uncreated, and Sophia is uncreated and one with him. When the word Demiurge was invented it meant "public servant" and was the job title of a city works manager ("demos" is people, not half). The first time Demiurge is used in a spiritual context, it refers to Yahweh and not to his creation, Heb. 11:10. Therefore every attempt to move Yahweh to a subsidiary role and name it after Yah Sabaoth is a distortion of the original lore, and we know when and how these came about: it was intended to separate Yahweh from Jesus instead of the keep them in unity. Don't be fooled!

The Secret is taking what the Christians always knew is directed by Yahweh and rearranging bits of it to claim others are directing it. The reality is that aspects of the secret are allowed to be used in any direction just to make it fair, because nothing against Yahweh can stand. Yahweh is the Monad from which any monad takes its name; it's essential that he be Personal, because our personhood must take its name from somewhere.

It's "natural consequences" that a consciously unloving person gets unlove in return. It's not that the uninformed person gets unlove because babies are uninformed but get tons of love.

We also know the general gameplan of how natural consequences are distributed: they are withheld until "iniquity is full", i.e., unlove is proven and mature. We might argue that unlove sends out a wave that is to be received and/or reflected at a later date according to discoverable laws. The illustration of records as being a wave field is accurate: for instance, when DNA needs to reproduce, it just finds all the right bases rapidly as they self-assemble "from the cloud" because they are just attracted to the original chain without a movement mechanism other than their better fit compared to alternative bases. In the same way, the secret accesses "the cloud" for good karma.

The Secret itself is another alchemy trap; I had to listen to Scored awhile before I realized how those work. Alchemy was never about finding a physical philosopher's stone to create gold: alchemy was always about creating gold by transferring it to yourself out of the pockets of idiots who will listen to your chemistry rants. When they encoded their language in chemistry they were making fun of their sponsors and supporting themselves, until a sponsor dug far enough to realize the game and join in as another "finder of the philosopher's stone". That's how self-help books work too. Yet there is a real secret (just as physicist Glenn Seaborg proved by experiment there is a real way to transmute base metal into gold and did so); the original law of attraction that redirects the quest for truth into a return of love. When you visualize, submit your vision for approval and then actualize whatever vision the Monad is revealing to you at the moment. Someday your vision and the Monad's vision will be one, maybe today, but the Monad's vision is the core and yours is part of it that must go through that reception/reflection process before it manifests (which might be immediate or very rarefied). HTH.

The two-house theory is not true and rightly debunked here. There is no continuous genetic identity between Israel and any major non-Jewish ethnic group.

However, the DNA of the myriads of Israelites who assimilated in Babylon after 720 BC under Sargon the Great is likely to be very widespread, so that lots of individuals today would be 1/1024 Israelite when the smoke clears. That doesn't count for matrilineality or culture any more than the Cherokee Nation accepts Elizabeth Warren's mail-in results.

Wow, I was writing my comment when you said this, without seeing yours.

Okay, we've got a partial match, that Parsons and Hubbard conducted rituals called the Babalon Working, from Dec 1945 to late Feb 1946 (or from Jan to Mar 1946), the last in the Mojave Desert, and this sought something called a "moonchild"; and Trump's birth 1946-06-14 was during a full moon with a reddening eclipse visible the night of the 14th to 15th. However, Trump was born too early to be affected by the rituals if they had been aiming at effecting an immaculate conception as Parsons claimed. There is not an explicit connection between Crowley's term "moonchild" as a generic otherworldly name, and a specific full-moon eclipse; they could not have anticipated that the child would be born under a full moon with or without eclipse. Maybe the Thelemic messiah is elsewhere?

I have no problem with a demon from a portal being transferred into a moonchild at conception. I'm checking sources but not favoring the idea that that kind of portal would remain open; it would seem to be a separate operation for each moonchild. Like a volcano, it usually seals up when it's released its contents; it's the narrow minority that continuously flow for years, and they eventually dry up. Getting multiple demons to cooperate together is very ticklish! I don't think Parsons's summoning power was as great as Nimrod's.

Parsons (whose birth name was Marvel) didn't die then, but declared the last ritual successful and continued collaborating with Hubbard, dying in 1952 in a mysterious explosion at home after experimenting on explosives for a film.

I don't discount the need to watch Babalon activities, since they go back to Dee and so have a little pedigree. Jack Cashill, an excellent critic, finds Parsons an important bridge figure.

I will bookmark your other claims (Trump associating with thousands of Masons in a European castle; the English Round Table directing the CFR and seeking to recruit Trump), but they are worth their own elaboration, aren't they?

Here's a completely biased list of people born in Nov-Dec 1946:

• 1946-11-04: Laura Bush (first lady)
• 1946-11-04: Robert Mapplethorpe (photographer)
• 1946-11-06: Sally Field (actress)
• 1946-11-16: Terence McKenna (author-shaman)
• 1946-11-17: John Spencer (mayor)
• 1946-11-20: Samuel E. Wright (actor-singer)
• 1946-11-22: Gary M. Hilton (serial killer)
• 1946-11-27: Richard Codey (governor)
• 1946-11-30: Marina Abramovic (performance artist)
• 1946-12-02: Gianni Versace (designer)
• 1946-12-09: Sonia Gandhi (politician)
• 1946-12-12: Gloria Loring (singer-actress)
• 1946-12-14: Patty Duke (actress)
• 1946-12-14: Michael Ovitz (businessman)
• 1946-12-17: Eugene Levy (comedian)
• 1946-12-18: Steven Spielberg (filmmaker)
• 1946-12-20: Uri Geller (illusionist)
• 1946-12-20: Sonny Perdue (governor)
• 1946-12-20: John Spencer (actor)
• 1946-12-23: Susan Lucci (actress)
• 1946-12-24: Brenda Howard (bisexual activist)
• 1946-12-25: Jimmy Buffett (singer)
• 1946-12-31: Dianne von Furstenburg (designer)

I know who I'd pick to investigate further. It's not either John Spencer.

I celebrate 13 months. What's the video summary?

He's following the Roaring 20s version of the webs addict, an anon whom researchers believe is Wilfred Kellogg, businessman and nephew of Will and John the Cornflake Kelloggs. The anon dictated (most of) the 2000-page public-domain book in his sleep in many intervals between 1911 and 1955, to a group admittedly led by William Sadler and Lena (Kellogg) Sadler, Wilfred's sister. The book is heavily insulated with near-impenetrable language of physics and meta so as to constitute a robust defense. Followers merely need to parrot "You haven't read the whole thing" in response to any claim of confusion, which I note followers of the Bible have no need to do because of the difference between opacity and transparency. The links of several of them being kicked out of the SDA, associating with eugenics, and making billions out of corn waste via government partnership indicate to me some of the provenance of the theology.

CRI writes, 'Eventually, [Martin] Gardner comes to the science of the UB. If the UB really were an extraterrestrial revelation, it should accurately describe our universe. It fails this test miserably. The UB claims the universe is over one trillion years old; most scientists date it at about 15 billion years (186). The temperature it assigns to the sun’s surface is off by thousands of degrees (190); it falsely says that Mercury keeps the same face towards the sun (196). The UB teaches that humans have 48 chromosomes; it should be 46 (217). Atoms supposedly cannot possess more than 100 electrons; this “limit” was broken in 1955, as any periodic table will confirm (214).'

Basically the Sadlers realized that if Jesus's little group could write a bunch of manuscripts that change the world (NT), they could too (UB). The degree to which this change is bearing fruit is what is to be tested.

Oh, I should've suspected Urantia, I started reading that once but didn't get far. I'll be frank with you. Aside from the origin among a group who kept the subject anonymous but got a lot of notoriety from having a self-proclaimed deep secret, which is hard to sell to a skeptic like me, my biggest takeaway from the book is that it lays out a universe and salvation that makes it highly competitive with traditional Christianity in the sense of seeking to have an answer for everything and to establish the Biblical texts in a wholly different context from that usually received. It's not laid out to agree with traditional Christianity but to overpower its cosmogony by rivalry. If I could see it in a way other than setting itself up as adversarial, I would; and perhaps since I've been nurturing a personal c/Unspoil mission for years I should.

Urantia reads like it was written by a group of spirits who know the Bible inside and out and had been practice-narrating a system that they could promulgate in Christian America as if it might deter the tradition, and finally decided to share that vision. The Bible has an answer for everything, and Urantia has an alternate answer for everything. So the fact that it's not an originator but a responder is another difficulty.

As I reflect on this, it occurs that a good way of testing the competition might involve seeing how historical inquiry supports the two ideas (Christianity, unfolding of revelation among humans until culmination in Christ; Urantia, a hidden structure known by many spirits all along but not revealed significantly to humans until the 20th century). A second test would be how things have fared since, namely, has the real omnipotent God caused the Urantia revelation to have difficulty afterward (I don't know the other 20 books), or allowed new discovery to date the Urantia book; or has new discovery improved the veracity of Urantia and the unity of its students? I say this because I'm trying to keep an open mind rather than use the reflexive dismissals so many of us were taught in churchianity.

So that answers my initial questions about this post, for which I'm thankful; that suggests where I should pray and meditate on this point as well. I'm not confident that the two of us will find it an easy path to conduct a fully open-minded inquiry together on the details. But we can continue to hope because the basic path forward, unity of knowledge, revelation of light, etc., is very similar in both our minds! The devil is in the details.

Thanks. So classically that's in the category of "conditional immortality" (some not being immortalized). Sounds like you are also talking "transmigration" (one soul, multiple bodies). Of course Jesus didn't pick up a new embryo when he returned, he picked up the old flesh that had not decayed; so it seems like transmigration would work against that because the soul's original DNA is still there waiting in the earth. So I'm still not sure how you fit in that old DNA. Most everybody believes they're on their first life, not that they're a soul (or many souls) who has been around before and is currently riding upon a new DNA that didn't have a new soul attached, so the logic problems still remain for me. I could understand if you wanted to be like Mike, but being Mike as a holiday is quite removed from the idea of fixing everything on earth including the DNA you left behind. It seems to me that the plan is for the DNA to testify and bring forth the perfected body it always encoded, and Ezekiel saw this when bones developed muscle and flesh and breath. It also seems that the perfected body then has the capacity to change its own DNA at the macro programming level, so that the goal of being like Mike would already be subsumed and available; thus Jesus appears as a lamb.

So I appreciate the explanation even as it still seems problematic to me. It's probable you're being called gnostic because your sources for some of these specifics are not easily forthcoming; are you getting a lot of this by immediate personal revelation, or is some of it mediated by sources that others can review as well? Test the spirits ....

The whole universe eventually reaches heaven status and then ir all mixes up together.

So would you agree with George MacDonald that this will purify even the lead devils and eventually "save" them from their rebellion and make them angelic?

Because Origen tried that and (due to some of his followers who were infiltrators) it led to a lot of feeling that if it'll get straightened out in the next life then there's no need to work on it in this life. I'm wondering if you've worked that angle.

There's also the resurrection of the flesh, because I'd think the idea of a pit stop is so that the dead body can be later restored to natural life (thus DNA research), so I'm not sure how you fit that in.

This makes a mockery of God who supposedly made imperfect humans just to punish us for being imperfect and then had his Son killed to forgive us.

Thanks for explaining! I see how you'd be concerned about gnosticism. Yet I trust you're, like me, on a path of learning more. There's certainly a lot done to twist the death of Jesus into something else that supports some other narrative. For instance, in the twist you mention, we hear the unbiblical thought that God makes imperfect humans instead of making perfect humans. See, Adam and Eve had the full power you describe to create wonder and upgrade earth by bringing heaven. In beginning to carry out that mission, somewhere between that infinite potential and today there was the choice before humanity (and other sentients) to embrace freewill despite its power for evil, and humanity got caught in the deathtrap for an unknown era (I don't think it's that many thousand years comparatively) as they are learning jointly to carry these things out. (I hope there's not too much problem in my presuming the order of events in the origin story, because if we find there is then we can work out why that order matters to us nowadays.)

The reason the death of Christ (and the cross) comes about as a motif is, in part, that it's a perfect example of how to bring the real light. Nobody in history has affected and changed the lives of so many people for the better than Christ has. He did such a great job that the enemy stopped trying to fight the followers of the light (as he had for the millennia before) and had to shift more and more strategy to infiltration. That means that we must make every effort to have all the right teachings about Christ and his death and resurrection; and in part even that crazy Vatican hill even needs to be approached with recognition for what that they got right despite all the views they get wrong (we approach them with grace as part of the earth-healing process).

In your vision of future light, do you have that universalism where everybody gets some kind of heaven sooner or later (even those now dead), or do you have some humans or devils who never make it out of their self-imposed darkness?

I see u/guywholikesDjtof2024 has already chimed in, but my take is a little different. Having watched what you write, my feel is "Ooh so close!" I know you work from evidence and don't mean to sound like a salesman.

We create a loving united world as Jesus recommended .... Btw, those wondering why Jesus hasn't come back yet. He is waiting for us to do this first.

Yes! The transforming realization that harmonizes that with the idea of passively waiting on him to do it through us is that these two things are coterminous, the coming of the Christ and the coming of the Bride. He comes "because" we are ready, and we are ready "because" he comes. What's happening today is that he's getting closer and we're getting closer.

197,000 BC (when the rebellion started)

This part sounds arbitrary and unlikely to be accurately sourced. Whenever I look at these older dates I find humanity right alongside any other sentient "race". I don't think humanity is the youngest, and that idea tends to sap humanity of its initiative to love. Rather, the reason that these others appear in giant quantities (like animals do) and humanity appears in a tiny family (Adam or Noah, if you will) is that humanity is destined to become greater from that tinier beginning, while the others are unable to do so without some kind of physical intervention due to their typically nonphysical form. I think part of the singularity is that those that the Christians call "good angels" are longingly waiting for some quantum physical transformation (such as the speed of light jumping to a faster waveband as measurements indicate to be possible) so that they can fulfill a millennial destiny.

Anyway, I'm sure Guy is rather concerned about your state and I would support him in that even though our methods differ a bit. I think you could allay a lot of his concern by letting him know Jesus is your Lord and anything Jesus says goes. That allegiance gives the unity that allows exploration of these esoterica from common oneness.

I am a student of truth, and will remain so

Well, then we can proceed, and we can both drop the facades, invective, misassumptions, and dismissals, and pursue truth together. I'm not touchy, just trying to get past your own bluster to the true you.

I'm disappointed you assert zero positives about your god and your position mainly seems identical to the atheist position of "you're wrong". I had glanced through your writings and found a similar lack of reliance on facts and evidence, so your list of books with perfect ChatGPT formatting suggested it was an outlier rather than something on your shelf. You also didn't use it for any purpose because anyone can make a list of 20 books of any persuasion without that having any truth value out of context. That's why I taunted you, because you didn't bring anything to the table.

not willing to understand it, and stick to your Christian beliefs

I expressed that I've seen this material and understand it, and in my search for truth have sifted what is true and what isn't, in my fallible, perfectible judgment. My beliefs change from time to time, but the one thing I cannot change is that I've been given up to Yahweh's power and I cannot be taken from him unless by a superior power. (As soon as that superior power comes along, it would free me. If.)

Since you don't seem to produce a proposition capable of debate on a fundamental point, I suggested by implication that we discuss a binary proposition like "Yahweh is greater than any other god". I could continue by observations such as Yahweh being defined as All Being and All Being being automatically greater than any subset of being. You might parry that Yahweh in the Bible is not described as All Being but as some Dawkins caricature, and I would reply that that's irrelevant because of my definition. We might then agree that we both would worship whatever god is All Being without yet arguing about his name. That would be productive.

It's not productive for me to argue propositions like "The Bible is by humans for humans" because that gets us nowhere toward discovering whether Yahweh dictated the Bible or not. I hold the Bible is by humans for humans, and Yahweh dictated it, both, so there's no debate there.

It seems to me that as a student of truth you would not (1) run from debate, (2) ridicule generically, (3) make assumptions, (4) fail to define and defend your own perception of truth, etc. Looking forward to your thoughts. So far you appear exactly like someone who has no idea what a student of truth is but who is enslaved to some god that he is afraid to name or explain, who then projects that status upon others. God bless.

Ah, but see, u/factdigger is making himself a subject of ridicule because he demonstrates that he knows not whereof he speaks, he deletes a comment, he appears to rely on UFO/AI as the likeliest gods he refers to. The bluster comes from nowhere personal, but from someone he's attached to, thus some of my strategy. He can't recall consistently if you mean NASB or NSAB!

On the net there's no point in replying to a list of 20 books with summaries that say they prove various crazy stuff because the writer is indicating he's not listening. But what he said about truth was very good and would upend his own whole satire persona if pursued. So every word of mine is chosen and heartfelt.

If u/user20461 doesn't mind us getting offtrack, I'd be happy to shore up any questions you have about textual criticism. Everything he said was so generic and unsourced as to need no real reply. I've noted before that every time I check I find evidence that the copying was by others, not the Bible. The original higher critics, and even more so Hort and Westcott, made clear that they were not searching for truth but were trying to dethrone the Bible, and so when evidence is sifted by minds (especially working together) that seek the truth whatever it is, as factdigger claims, it yields sensible answers not connected to any extreme.

Forgot to add: You, Guy, are already taking up my mantle (if any) by posting excellent bullet-point defenses already, so I don't need to help on that front unless he actually returns with a tactical warhead instead of an AI picture of one.

You mention Assmann without mentioning the great work by one Coomer, namely God and Sex? That's the real Christian porn of textual originality.

I'm 100% sure you've never read a number of these authors, because you asked Grok for a top 20 list and edited his artificial answer. You're not evidencing your claims of ad fontes very well as this is all 20th-century-plus. I've looked into all the great 6-letter authors on your list, Pagels, Ehrman, Vermes, Vallee, also Israel Finkelstein, and been unimpressed by their rants, as is mainstream scholarship which has recently begun pushing back against Westcott-Hort excesses and is readmitting the Textus Receptus gradually.

Instead of fighting, let's try "something completely different":

If you think you are RIGHT and the truth of your God is on your side, you should have no problem going to text outside your small circle ..., as you'd find or at least recognize truth there as well. Because truth, actual truth does not burn in the hottest of fires. If your truth is correct, it will sustain and deflect all these attacks from other sources.

Yes, as edited! That's something I've said here for 5 years. I'm burnished bronze from the exposure to Enheduanna and Ningishzeda.

If you want to read elsewhere, you need to start textual criticism OUTSIDE The small circle of bible study, and go to ACTUAL history research books, from people whose motives are not to try and prove bible right, but to find out the truth, whatever it is. Then, when you get this, you'll develop into the study of textual transmission

Yes, with the proviso that we must by those terms also exclude all textual critics in a small circle whose motives are not to find out the truth, whatever it is, but to try and prove a bible wrong. The German higher critics starting in the 19th century, who birthed Hort-Westcott, introduced this stream of bias in the other direction, and it hasn't let up since.

Factdigger, are you a student of truth whatever it is, or do you stick to a circle that affirms your own biases? Because the truth will break you as I've been broken and will be again. You might not want it, though I hope you do. The evidence that a person is a student of truth, whatever it is, is that, as you say, a person is willing to hear all sides before judging, is patient with those who differ because the truth can defend itself, is able to laugh and admit he's been wrong before and his current apprehension of truth will be strengthened by fresh meat. Would you like to start bearing that evidence?

Add: While we're at it, what's your UAP contact's name? I have a few words for him as well, and I expect he's the same as your god so you should have no fear of naming him.

Oh all right. All right! A man with nine legs.

He ran away.

24-hour rule, I win!

u/guywholikesDjtof2024 has roundly dismembered you. In before you threaten to bite my kneecaps off.

Funny thing, it sounds like you think your nameless data-free god "thing" is older and bigger ("more powerful, longer lived, more capable") than this pitiful Yahweh character.

Sounds like this doesn't call for data but for a contest of deity. Shall we call fire from heaven via tattooed gematria, or see whose relic smashes whose? I would be happy to serve any god that could lick Yahweh in a fair fight.

Because whenever I test narrative memory and cosmic consciousness I keep bumping into him where no other can fit. I was asked here because I've hung with the real Inanna and Dumuzid long before the First Dynasty and have looked into all the forbidden texts I can find. And the guy that keeps quietly asserting himself keeps calling himself Yahweh (Being).

Name the time, place, and referee, and it's on.

u/guywholikesDjtof2024

He's buggered off!

So he has, he's scampered!

Will look at the other thread.

Link says "The Pope cannot have had anything to do with the assassination of Lincoln."

Charles Chiniquy says otherwise. After Lincoln defended Chiniquy against libel charges by an angry businessman (Lincoln's biggest such suit ever), Chiniquy split from the Catholic church and started a new (Protestant) work in Illinois, which blossomed rapidly, and he was convinced that the Jesuit order had it in for Lincoln due to his work in assisting those who were migrating people out of the Catholic church. Fifty Years in the Church of Rome. Just another strand of the puzzle.

Lincoln's casket was reopened in 1901 with photos, so it's likely his body was in it at the time.