and also afterward
they will mingle with the seed of men
Bravo! The list in place. Now I call it BRICS on the left foot and America on the right big toe.
Thank you for your honesty! I asked "What well-defined entity do you worship and why would you have any traffic with Yahweh worshippers?" and you seem to imply that you don't care about worship. That was an attempt to find common ground. Most everyone has a central core where their innermost views are stabilized, where the thing that is unchallengeable resides. Ultimately there are only two possible answers, nihilism or morality: either nothing exists to be challenged, or morals exist and are the arbiter of all challenges. That's why it often works to frame it in terms of "worship" (upholding as worthy of centrality), although nowadays we have other words to mean the same thing too.
So what is your central tenet that you find unshakeable, that you have no qualms about sharing in public because you've made it your core? Because if you're not buying what I have, it'd help me to know what you have already for yourself.
Your statement was "Yahweh and the Father are two incompatible concepts", your reason being "Jesus never refers to his father as Yahweh." However, the Greek for "Yahweh" is "Ego eimi", the name Jesus uses for the Father in Matt. 22:32, which is a quotation of Ex. 3:15 that uses the name "Yahweh". Mark 12:26 translates this same speech more indirectly as "Ego", and Luke 20:37 uses the title "Kurion" (Lord), indicating the true name "Yahweh" is intended because "Kurios" was a common euphemism used in place of the name. But since Jesus is quoting a Hebrew passage, while his spoken language was Aramaic in which the spelling is also "Yahweh" (and in which "Lord" or Adon is absent), it's clear that Matthew 22:32, Mark 12:26, and Luke 20:37 are representing that "Yahweh" is the word he actually used on that occasion.
This is not isolated, because in Rev. 2:23 Jesus is seen quoting Jer. 17:10, translating "Yahweh" as "Ego eimi" again, thus applying to both himself and the Father what Jeremiah applied to Yahweh. Again, John is representing in Rev. 2:23 that he heard Jesus speaking the word "Yahweh" in quoting this verse about the Father.
In Mark 14:62, Luke 22:70, John 8:18, 24, 28, 58, 12:26, 13:19, 14:6, 15:1, 17:24, 18:5, 6, 8, Rev. 1:11, 17, 21:6, 22:13, Jesus uses the family name "Ego eimi" to refer to himself as the Son in relation to the Father, thus claiming Yahweh as his father as well. In Luke 22:70 in particular, Jesus's answering the question under oath "Art thou then the Son of God?", with words that would have been understood as containing the thought "You said it, Yahweh", indicates that he intentionally used the name gravely as the God of which he was the Son; the same applies to the double-amen oath of John 8:58.
Therefore the historian would conclude there are multiple lines of fertile direct evidence that Jesus indeed spoke of his Father God as being named "Yahweh", not to speak of indirect evidence.
Very nice. So much easier to know the one who is Truth and to constantly recalibrate oneself according to Him. Men of good will never clash over that. The shadowy work of others is only a counterfeit of our true, transparent, light-filled work of building up God's kingdom.
Begins with 20 minutes of claims that MH370 videos had good chain of custody and showed abnormal activity. Proposed hypothesis, ZPE teleportation (wormhole) from Indian Ocean to Diego Garcia. Not convincing to the skeptic, but definitely worth a bookmark.
Jump to cold fusion, evidence of suppression of discovery. The claim is that random scientists have theories that agree with oddities observed in the videos. Schwinger limit (haven't looked into). Salvatore Pais, who works for USSF and has 5 fascinating patents. So at about 23 minutes we start talking about accurate description of ZPE as curved in the 5th dimension and massive. Then back to speculation based on the video. Casimir effect explained as ZPE consequence, possibly good, serves as well-researched (though less practical) example that might tie into the proposed science.
Magnetic motor overunity at 33 minutes? He shouldn't mix language of "free energy" with overunity because that's the sci-fi spin, not the science. But he uses that for example of Casimir cavity microchips, again tantalizing. Quantum tunneling. Hints of Elon.
At 39 minutes, plasma propulsion, also interesting. Plasma holds charge density better? Changing permittivity to change lightspeed; condensed charge research as code name for cold fusion.
Harold "Hal" Puthoff, whose name I've seen before in his research into mind-reading being debunked. Wikipedia implies he has a patent that was permitted because the examiner failed to prove it was pseudoscience, i.e. nobody knows if it would work. Not similar credentials to other names.
TLDR: Ashton Forbes is not crazy. The cutting edge exists, the scientists are discovering structures the spiritual already knew about but didn't have measurements for. The clickbait headline is accurate enough, about the permitted forms of time travel, as I said, which are not what the mainstream thinks. (For influencing the past and seeing the future we don't use time travel proper as scientists know it, we use harmonious resonance.) The science about lightspeed, Casimir, ZPE, plasma, etc. is largely accurate at the basic level, but has not been proven successful at the detail level (i.e. nobody knows if govs have it for real, which is what the govs want). I suspect the cold fusion data is also in the right direction. Best practice: stick to Jesus who knows all and will share.
Cool! You're making me revisit the psychedelic David Dees days.
Looking forward to reviewing this. Despite naysayers I'll know if there's a point to it or not.
Yeah the clownery is basic old transhumanist aka furry narrative. Demons are jealous because they don't know how to make winged leopards like God does so they claim to anyway. Normalization of inhuman faces opens the door for imagination and then visualization of giving them the keys to their abductive research. True humanity is looking upward toward more beauty instead of downward toward loss through exaggeration.
Totally sympathetic on the birthday point, but don't have material at hand. Here's a lot of background on the exceptionality of Jesus. Luke knew Jesus's birth year because the death of Herod was famous, but didn't seem to have the day detailed because he says "about 30" in chapter 3.
Yes, thanks Winston, but five people on this thread questioned that, and one of them knows better.
The deep dive into paganism has been worth it! It isn't always.
Did you want me to understand this? Do you reject that Jesus spoke Hebrew and Aramaic and he said "I am" ("Yahweh") dramatically on many occasions? Do you reject that everybody worships something, i.e. places something as highest good in the universe? Why do you work so hard not to come to the point?
Very good, and I used to take Hislop for 100%, but nowadays I somewhat adjust his work via later discoveries. I think, for good etymological and historical reasons, that Nimrod was Naram-Sin of Akkad (amazing sculpture), 2275?-2218. His triad with wife and son didn't refer to his real unnamed wife and his heir Shar-Kali-Sharri, but to the extant gods Inanna and Dumuzid (later Tammuz). Nimrod claimed the attributes of the powerful Dumuzid when alive, and Tammuz represented the attributes of the impotent Dumuzid (Orpheus) in the underworld. From the link by Terry M. Smith: "Nimrod would greatly refine the blasphemous hoax of pagan religion and enshrine himself as lead deity and savior in a false trinity. He would attach to it a system of mystery rites and filthy carnal sacraments that would serve as the religious actions and conduct for 'Mystery Babylon'. Like a chameleon this system could be adaptable to the vain imaginings of man and the particulars of any culture so as to suit the customs, climate or agricultural needs of any peoples anywhere."
Gilgamesh traditional builder of Uruk, Sumerian Bilgamesh, was probably a prediluvian who was popularized and deified in 2000s Sumer; since he allegedly fought with the son of Mebarasi of Kish (the oldest ruler verified from the Sumerian King List), he is placed in the 2600s. It would be natural at that time to overlay this Sumerian legend onto the Akkadian Namar-Sin legend.
The historical Shamshi-Adad (called Ninus for subduing Nineveh), 850?-811, and Shammuramat (Semiramis), 850?-798, solidified the extant cult with their young son Adad-Nirari, 811?-783, who Semiramis substituted for Tammuz. Obviously also worshippers of Hadad the storm god. (The 19th-century idea that Semiramis and Nimrod were married is an unnecessary mistake, arising from the similarity between Nimrod and the extant Ninus legend associated with kings like Shamshi-Adad, plus Nimrod's wife being anonymous.) Semiramis's work gets you directly to the ladies-first Isis-Horus-Serapis triad.
That's the human side. On the deified side, Marduk son of Enki was the Old Babylonian Amarutu, 1800s, identified with Hadad, the Eblaite Hadda, 2300s or earlier. Osiris is also dated 2500-2300, of which I favor the last half-century (5th dynasty). Ninurta (agricultural, 2600s, Nippur, temple built by Mebarasi) and Ningursi (military, 2100s, Lagash, temple built by Gudea) were merged together easily as the son of Enlil. Because of the extreme rivalry between Enlil and Enki, I have to separate Ninurta-Ningursi out from the rest of the list Nimrod-Marduk-Gilgamesh, despite the claimed lingual similarity, because Nimrod became Zeus-Jupiter, but Ninurta became Cronus-Saturn. You are right (thanks) that Serapis was the Greco-Egyptian syncretism of Ptolemy Soter c. 300, originally Wsjr-Hp (Osiris-Apis), but I note this also appears calculated to bring in a title of Enki/Ea as well, Sar-Apsi (which we could call "czar Abzu", lord of the abyss), found in the Talmud as Sarapis.
Of all these names, Dumuzid seems the likeliest to go back the farthest, into the fourth millennium BC, given the SKL. See, there are several layers before Nimrod's Babel, even though Babylon is a convenient name for them all. From the link: "False religion, and therefore Mystery Babylon’s foundations, were laid as early as the Garden of Eden and the expulsion that took place there and the subsequent Satanic conspiracy of the fallen angels of the Antediluvian Era which nearly provoked God into destroying the entire human race. From passages in Genesis six we understand that some of the fallen angels had left their first estate in heaven and had taken on the likeness of human flesh so they could cohabit with the daughters of men and create a dominant race of half‑man, half‑god supermen who would rule on earth as 'gods'. As studies in comparative religion show, a belief in false religion was imbedded in the hearts of Man and established world‑wide."
When we get to Christianity, of course there's a heterodox segment that gives Mary-Miriam full divine worship; the rest of the church is left with the very interesting (Jesuitic) question of how much hyperdulia can be given to a human, seeing as humans get dulia (service) all the time without it counting as full divine worship (e.g. the NT's words for "worship" to baby Jesus are all used with respect to other humans). That is, it must be judged whether the casuistry of how to serve Miriam is sufficiently separated from logolatry such as offered to Zeus and Hermes. For our purposes, though, more important is to judge the degree to which the true Creator's pattern (in forming mothers and children) is partially revealed in advance of corruption and the degree to which counterfeiters guess ahead or copycat behind that true pattern. (Which is why I'm tracking whether IHS has any real connection with Jesus.)
Thanks! The reason I asked is that S is said to be supposedly Seb or Set, but these sound like modern theorizing when Serapis would be the natural completion of the pantheon. Yet all three are speculative. There is both this pagan route and the very obscure macaronic Christian route that later became "IHS XPS", and it seems the conflation didn't favor the Christians.
"Oserapis" is confirmed 666 with omicron, I've seen it as Osoroapis; "O" would be elided as sounding like an article. Alexander worship is probably derivative from the Great; I can imagine true Christians countering by titling Jesus "Defender of Man", but I wouldn't phrase it as above. Any interpretation of IHS plus cross as "IHTIS" meaning ichthus would be very specious and probably late derivative, not from the primitives. I'm less interested in the pre-Nicene revivalists and Masons.
The smoking gun would be some demonstration that IHS was in pagan use and flowed into Christian use, or alternatively some demonstration that Christians had a legitimate route to abbreviate Jesus as IHS before the pagans got to it. Neither of those have turned up.
When John Paul Jones won the Battle of Flamborough Head after allegedly declaring "I have not yet begun to fight", the ship he seized from Britain was the Serapis.
So you let my assertion stand that everyone worships, you've provided no evidence for your nebulous charge of a psyop related somehow to "desert child sacrificers", and you pretend that because you state it as an implied syllogism then it isn't an appeal to the mass hysteria here (i.e. of denial of Yahweh). I wonder what you think people should have said to Jesus when (evidence indicates) he said "I am" in Hebrew as "Yahweh".
Ya gotta serve someone, said Dylan. If you think my question is mindless spam when five people assert similar responses to OP that the same question refers to, there may be a cognizance gap.
Wouldn't a conspiracist find it odd that an OP directed to Christians attracts five people speaking against Yahwism, including yourself, leaving only OP and myself in the minority? There is no evidence presented that current Yahwism is the psyop here!
What well-defined entity do you worship and why would you have any traffic with Yahweh worshippers?
What well-defined entity do you worship and why would you have any traffic with Yahweh worshippers?
No no, I was asking u/LightBringerFlex. [Who has now answered well, since Yahweh is "I AM".]
What well-defined entity do you worship and why would you have any traffic with Yahweh worshippers?
Noted that you don't want to answer for your inconsistency. You speak as if "the Father" is a good and yet you gutter the conversation immediately upon being asked to defend the good. Perhaps you desire to investigate the Biblical truth before being so quick to dismiss it; truth has no fear of contradiction or need to defend itself, so it'll be around whenever you're ready.
Has anyone published the link between IHS and Isis-Horus-Serapis [exactly]?
those who rebel in evil fall into insanity and rarely ever get out of it
Everyone eventually finds the narrow gate to salvation ... all will eventually find God in the end although some trial and error is involved
How do those two jibe?
The concerns here then are not the psyops but several points on which it's important (but not essential) to have accurate data, so I'll just list them for bookmark reference under their trad names: postmortem salvation, evolution, subhumans, Biblical errancy, higher criticism, antihate, preexistence, pre-Adamites, universalism, Christ consciousness, species hybrids, Nibiru, alternative DNA.
Again these are old SDA sources.
False. Modern sources show the word "Jew" arose in English in the 13th century, and the divergence in meanings of Ioudaios to include both Judean and Jew would necessarily date from the destruction of Judaea and renaming of the region in 135 AD. In the Bible Ioudaios has both meanings at once, as it is much older than Judaea Province but refers to the people before they were given a Roman province.
False. The Talmud was completed in the 5th century AD. Pharisaism in Jesus's time was one of several formal sects of Judaism (including also Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, Herodians, Sicurians, and Messianics). Pharisees and Sadducees leaned heavily but not exclusively upon the oral and written mishnah, a Talmudic source, which is essentially identical with "the tradition of the elders"; since the mishnah was in formation Jesus properly contributed to it as the greatest rabbi of the era.
False. First, for the reasons above. In the time of Jesus, the mishnah, the Sifra and Sifre, the Mechilta, notes in the targumim and qere, and other early legal codes that preceded and informed the Talmud were regarded more like Northwest Ordinances that informed religion. The Torah was the Magna Carta and Declaration, the rest of the Tanakh (OT) was the Constitution including the Bill of Rights, and the oral traditions were like Supreme Court decisions.
False. As should be clear by the quotation marks, this is not Rabbi Kertzer's sentence, but Benjamin Freedman's. Further, Freedman is not familiar with a history of blasphemy of Christ from Celsus to LaVey that includes not only the Toledot Yeshu but also hundreds of anti-Christian governments that have little or nothing to do with Judaism. Having looked at all the key Talmudic passages that might be construed as negative toward Christ or Christianity (compare Peter Shaffer, Jesus in the Talmud), I'm comfortable saying that only one rabbi (Ulla) in only one such passage (Sanhedrin 43a) is actually negative about Jesus, in an otherwise historically accurate passage; every other such allusion whatsoever conflates nascent Christianity with other movements rejected by the nascent Talmudists, and cannot be used as evidence of blasphemy. The many other non-Talmudic sources I allude to are much more blasphemous than this.
False. Again, the phrasing above makes this appear to refer to Kertzer's words, but the quote and the sequel are actually Freedman's words to David Goldstein. Further, because the Khazars converted to and intermarried within Judaism, particularly intermingling with Armenian, Balkan, and Crimean Jews, they were accepted by all Jewry as full fellow Jews and their Khazarian heritage has been lost. There is not sufficient evidence that a non-Jewish Khazarian "diaspora" existed and connected to Ashkenazim by any other route than absorptive intermarriage. We don't get to follow Freedman in othering the Ashkenazim by calling them non-Jews when all Jews accept them as Jews.
The remainder of the post contains good Biblical advice. However, the uncritical reliance on Freedman hampers your presentation.