Bookmarking for later. You'd think anthroposophy would be the opposite of theosophy, but nein!
I still say Elon is Francisco d'Anconia, willing to look really evil so as to help the white hats. Everything still lines up.
If the white hats fail, it's Jesus's turn.
Barbra Streisand de Rothschild. Look him up.
GPS just wants an excuse to keep subscription costs rolling in, I presume?
Okay, I'll take that; but I learned everything I needed to know about the deluge from Gish's and Morris's flood geology.
I know rise and fall. Certainly Anak Krakatau has risen and fallen four times. So would you reject the idea that the Californian Ring of Fire moved 100 meters west between 1927 and 1983? They say Antarctica moves 10 meters a year due to ice shift.
Doesn't the Bible call the land we stand on the equivalent of "earth"? What history should I be informed about as to earth vs. crust? Like I said, the earth-land appeared (day 3) and I thought that was always crust ever since.
Nice. I think you mean the Mid-Ocean Ridge (MOR) rather than the Ring of Fire, because the ridge does match the tetrahedral coordinates you gave.
Well, looking at how various asteroids and plutoids have similar seams according to the PTB (powerz that be), I would have no problem with theorizing that the earth came together from four plasma formations of relatively equal size that then led to dry land appearing in a more tetrahedral formation than ordinarily assumed (the ICR has also been working on alternatives to Pangaea). If you cut the two opposite surfaces of a baseball each in half, the cuts plus the stitch lines make a very similar pattern to the MOR. This also simplies tectonic theory.
For the record, you have peak "corners" at South Pole, Japan, the Caucasus, and Central America. That could be Mt. Vinson, Mt. Fuji, Mt. Ararat, and (adjusted) Mt. Whitney. That's not a perfect tetrahedron at all but perfection would not be assumed either in the original or in the drifted state; and other mountains might be supplied as better information warrants.
That's a very nice projection, one of my favorites. But that was devised to put the map border entirely in the ocean (like Buckminster-Fuller), whereas I'm told the firmament entirely touches the land and not the ocean (not sure if that's Enoch or otherwise). Do you think we should take the four corners of the land and fix this projection? The border would still fall partly in the ocean, though. Not sure if that solves the problem that the Antarctica ice wall was intended to solve.
Water menisci are water surfaces that can be either concave or convex. My context was sufficient.
the Christ is found in between Lucifer and Satan
your masters
Doesn't sound like Christian "flat earthe" to me. He is my one master.
A rounded tetrahedron fits the bill exactly .... The earth is special.
Like in Inception? I like it! It accords with the cube in the heavens, Rev. 21-22, and I'm no fan of oblate spheroids when I have an alternative. Some gravity and curvature math is needed, of course, and ordinary measurement should answer those. I'll need to go dig out the guy who found the four corners (vertices) of the tetrahedron.
But I don't think I was mistaken, you can call me out specifically if necessary.
c/Conspiracies. If there's no topic ban "we" have no need to pussyfoot.
Barbra Streisand de Rothschild
The irony seems lost on you. Menisci are curved water (convex or concave) that I've observed and anyone can observe. Globesmacking would mean silencing flat earthers. Gobsmacking (already exists) means silencing anyone. Flat earthers shouldn't be arguing flat water, it's too easy of a fail for them.
My alt, u/SwampRangersAlt, really is a flat earther. So, since your most immediate contribs don't make your position clear without reference to convoluted links, I'd certainly be interested in what you think or have observed or have concluded. We didn't ban flat earthers here yet, did we?
So globesmacking is a thing when I talk about menisci? I'm globesmacked!
they could try start from sincere and tribe-wide repentance for all their crimes against humanity starting from genocides and usury, including killing Jesus and renunciation of their "choosen" status
Great approach! Very much Romans 11. Notice, in Acts 3-4 the very same crowd that called for Jesus's death did repent and become many of the first 5,000 Christians; but most of the rest of the ethnic Jews at large still need to do the same, just as Gentiles do. So evangelists to Jews exist, and will not give up.
So I agree that it's silly to say "Jews are not Jews". But then I note that Jesus honors the Hebrew Scriptures and agrees they are a testimony of the many faithful covenant people over the millennia, which includes many of the Jews (which Paul says were enlightened ahead of the Gentiles for a time). So despite the many infiltrations, our covenant runs right through Israel before it gets to all the nations. It seems that God was saving some humans out of the Jews over all that time. Plus, since this synagogue will bow at the Christians' feet (as some actually did in Philadelphia), it doesn't seem like they will be all destroyed.
So, while they need this salvation, that's not what Rev. 3:9 is talking about. "των λεγοντω̅ εαυτουϲ ιουδαιουϲ ειναι και ουκ ειϲιν αλλα ψευδονται". Plaintext: They're not Ioudaious, it's a lie for them or anyone to say they are. The implication is that Jesus says true Ioudaious is a good thing. So it gets back to a conclusion I've stated before: either today's self-identified Jews are not true Jews and ought to be, or they are true Jews and are not the subject of the passage. That is, if self-identified Jews are the synagogue of satan then they're not true Ioudaious but they ought to be. We can't take Jesus's words, the synagogue of satan is not Ioudaious, and then make them mean the synagogue of satan is Ioudaious.
I'm going long because I never see the logic. It always seems like this: someone interprets from observation that those who say they are Jews are almost always evil; that one sees Jesus warning of a synagogue of satan that says they are Jews; these two logically connect. But then it should logically follow that they're not Jews (which is why people argue for Khazaria and Edom). But when one allows those saying they're Jews to actually be Jews by virtue of their self-determination and all polity, one creates the logic disconnect because Jesus's words (not Jews) don't apply anymore. So I can only conclude such a one is crossing two contradictory streams of logic that always result in contradiction.
I don't understand. If ethnic Jew is "Ebraios", and that doesn't appear in the passage, why do you assume they are ethnic Jews? Did you see my link showing that the letter of Ignatius to Philadelphia gives all the context necessary for the local definition of the term as certain Gentiles? Obviously there are other prophetic definitions, but they involve adding to the text.
"Ioudaious" would be Judeans, not Judaists, so Judaists defined as commandment-followers is also not in focus there.
It also doesn't mean what Paul means by "Jew in spirit", because those are not binding themselves to follow the commandments.
It refers to people, in two cities only and not in the others Jesus wrote to, who say they are "Ioudaious" and are not so. I don't see how you're getting the meaning out of it that you do.
Hi Lump, thanks for the data!
Okay, thanks for identifying. "Jesus" is the most common English attempt at transliterating the Aramaic name Yeshua' (not Yeshuah, which is feminine). His cult has many successors today claiming continuity with it, the truth is very interesting to investigate.
For OP purposes, though, the point is that the closest students of Yeshua' affirmed, as those billions of followers today uphold, his teaching that the world agrees on basic moral laws like rejecting murder and adultery and animal abuse. If you have no spiritual leader, you make your own way in spiritual matters, so you should be able to recognize this universal moral law like Hammurabi or Moses or everyone else does who makes their way for any length of time. So the issue is not "Noahide laws" per se, but the way in which rabbis twist these laws to manipulate discussions that are proper to all students of morality around the world. Noahide laws are not two-tier by themselves, but shepherd-sheep systems built around them often become so.
I like this. It's not too inconsistent with a chronology I previously wrote. The Islamic mahdi as the antichrist is a good circulating theory; the Saudi family now has the Jewish/Christian/Islamic connections to serve as such a man of peace. I'm going to list quibbles to see how much rework my brain needs to get to OP.
(1) Dollar destruction is not the actual trend; short-term dollar pumping is, but unless redirected bigly the trend is movement back to gold/labor standard (crypto is labor). If the plan is for Trump to be "interrupted" then dollars are likely toast; if Trump is "interrupted" by accident then the US will still attempt to continue the dollar's rehabilitation in a hostile market; but the latest effort to destroy the dollar has now failed and can only be retaken by a new zeal if it has snuck in insidiously during the failing process. So that's a watch item.
(2) Remember the Protocols, like the many other playbooks, are just vague, amorphous plans in plain sight that can be used as touchstones later regardless of how well or ill they planned. Their nominal tie to the human shields doesn't reflect any commitment by the actual multiethnic deep state. Paul Harvey's "If I Were The Devil" is a sample playbook for the enemy but written by our side; however, their imaginations are of exactly the same caliber and thus are just fictional callouts of hopes without true basis. Movies.
(3) "Israel nukes Iran": was not on my bingo card. But you made me look carefully! Ezek. 38-39 has Gog personally inside Israel and getting attacked with fire, but it's emphasized that Israel stays clean except for the corpses of Gog and the birds are able to eat from the corpses. So in my mind I did not have Iran getting nuked either, but I must now consider that it's possible due to compatibility with Ezek. 38:22b-23, 39:6, Joel 2:30, Rev. 6:13-17. Other surgically selected cities (or nearly-surgically) might be included. Remember, Nagasaki wasn't on the original top 5 list for bombing but was selected in-flight due to bad weather.
So the watch party includes: Efforts to thwart Trump dollars; the five seals and horsemen (the fifth being martyrdom); the alliance makeup (one theory being Russia, Iran, Germany, Armenia, Somalia, Ethiopia); the ground invasion of Israel; a specific earthquake and a polluting blackout; the internal breakup and killing each other among the alliance; a pandemic (possibly as warfare) among the alliance; and, if these are fulfilled or on the verge, a brief nuclear attack. I hadn't put all this on the same page before.
(4) Is WW3 designed to bankrupt the US? I don't see that. The silent, undeclared war was so designed, but it has failed, and it would not usefully culminate as such now. The elites never wanted a massive destruction of the land of the US because it's their biggest collateral; they wanted to reset the terms of slavery under more demoralizing conditions while retaining the population. The pandemic was designed for a different timeline that has failed to manifest, and that's where WW3 could've worked; but WW1-2 didn't do everything the Fabians wanted either, so the UN being the rebooted League of Nations is only piecemeal work to them, and the UN is still off-balance at this moment. A narrative where the US is compelled to fight Russia-China-Iran just isn't working out for Biden; 1941 was the last time something that big worked, and 2001 didn't successfully measure up. So MbS is certainly time-biding and jockeying, but he would rather align with US more than bankrupt US. I can't comment on whether the EU will survive its own fifth-column national immolation, as NATO seems pretty interested in WW3 itself; so perhaps buying the EU would lead to teardown and absorption of the US after, but that sequence is sketch to me. If we look to Africa, its banker teardown has already occurred and now the UN "owns" it, so the EU's ownership would likely move toward the UN also, more than to Saud.
Monetarily, the game will be good crypto (BTC-ruble-Musk) versus bad (CBDC-NFT-Rothschild), and Gresham's law favors bad once it gets going, thus a new ascendancy of red shields or their chosen successor. This seems to give us a little time. The Bible indicates both deceptive prosperity and destructive impoverishment in the same runup period. For the short term USD will come out on the good side if uninterrupted. Post-2026 the cracks in the new tension will become evident. Exceeding much will depend on how the IRS is replaced, and while I will continue to affirm the no-tax (tariff) option I see the temptations upon the citizenry to put on the new manacles instead, and that will be the undoing, possibly of the majority. America and Russia remain feet of clay and their roleplay over Israel will become "accidentally" violent, and the puppeteers will succeed that once, but it doesn't look feasible with the current deck-chair position.
This part is relatively sound!:
The Cabal's real goal is spiritual. The Cabal wants to ban the old religions, by blaming them for nearly causing nuclear WW3. In their place the Cabal will reinstitute its Babylonian cult of god and goddess worship – directed towards the emperor and his consort, who will be "possessed" avatars thereof. Sacrifices of "heretics" and demon worship will become state policy again. If you suspect a connection between demons and aliens/NHIs, this is when those demonic entities would be revealed as the secret "allies" of humanity. They would discredit the USG for covering up the NHI presence, and "expose" mainstream religions as fraudulent. The Pope would release documents from the Vatican archives exposing the coverup, and endorse a new unitarian "humanist" religion involving worship of… humans. MbS would be the new Solomon, where "Solomonic magic" means summoning demons
TLDR: Don't read this as critical but as extra puzzle pieces to be fit in. It sure looks like House of Saud is well-positioned for mahdi wannabes. Several steps likely need implementation yet that would indicate against the nuclear exchange happening this winter. Thank you for making me rework my own views!
Thanks again, Primate. Good solidity, looking forward to more.
In 2004 Dino Rossi's transition work moving into the governorship of Washington was derailed many weeks in, when his victory was overturned on the third recount, in the closest gubernatorial election in US history (133 votes "final").
In 1860 there were many precincts with voter turnout over 100%.
Even in 1776 the votes relating to the Continental Congress were rigged in various ways, funded by fiat "continentals". Dozens, like George Mason and William Bradford, were elected but refused to serve. Robert Livingston helped outline and write the Declaration but then got recalled and didn't sign it (New York didn't vote in favor of the Declaration and was even more skittish about the Constitution, pulling all delegates except rump member Alexander Hamilton). We don't know who if anyone signed the Declaration on July 4, the date the text was adopted; the main meeting to sign it was August 2, while the vote that declared independence and actually birthed the nation was July 2, the actual "independence day" that John Adams wanted celebrated annually with fireworks. The quest for the illusion of unanimity was paramount and is preserved by Murrican mythos.
Up to a point. But Christians flogged in sanhedrins or synagogues after c. 130 AD? The next verse (Matt. 10:18) speaks literally of the Gentiles too, including governors and kings. The Bible always balances Jewish and Gentile responsibility.
Jesus is my bishop, he paid his life.
"Bishop" means overseer. Scott Lively serves as overseer of the Swamp Rangers, he paid quite a lot to set up this volunteer organization and got no return on it. I also have a local pastor, he paid a lot to seminary to get a "degree" (small conspiracy theory there), but he was called as a pastor (or bishop) for free by the Holy Spirit and the local congregation.
Do you believe in Jesus? Do you have a spiritual leader on earth?
Grift? "We" means believers who follow Jesus and his apostles. I've never been in the Roman Catholic Church.
Of course Jesus directed there to be bishops, two forms of the word appear 11 times in NT Greek. The fact that billions of people took this in a Roman direction much later doesn't mean that the followers of Jesus all got coopted by this. Don't you follow Jesus in what he said, and had written in the NT? Luke says he set up a "katholou" church with "episkopoi".
As an amateur lexicographer I can tell you something definitive. These two words, and over a thousand others, have been the focus of a campaign for about 40 years to cause all major dictionary publishers to change their entire strategy. You know that the earliest dictionaries just didn't publish any offensive words; then in the 20th century they started admitting they intend to describe the entire language and not just prescribe it, so all offensive words were included. In the late 20th, though, they began falling over each other to add "usage notes" to make everyone afraid to use these hundreds of words labeled pejorative, hostile, and highly offensive. This is a coordinated attack on language and is about causing all major dictionary publishers to listen to the arbitrary offenses of whomever is on the complaining end. I can tell you my records show the ADL has been writing to dictionary makers for over 30 years to protest successfully the categorization of words and senses deemed offensive. Plus, in South Africa simple use of the word "kafir" can be punished as a hate crime. Later implementations of the same strategy are what has led to the industry spinning on a dime when powers demand that the word "vaccine" be redefined despite the new usage being misleading, contradictory, and unused in actual language. Now instead of describing language they are inventing it afresh in their own image.
The issue of which groups use which slurs against which others is largely irrelevant. The complainers claim to want to remove everybody's slurs equally. Naturally, this has an asymmetrical benefit that favors those groups that get the most slurs against them. Even slurs used by a group against members of the same group are hunted down by these central controllers, even if the slurs come from the same group as the controllers. History encapsulated in language can be wiped out with a single cancellation campaign. However, degradation of language by instant adoption of whatever the anons post at Urban Dictionary and whatever Big Pharma invents overnight is ongoing at increasing pace.
When I first heard about "PC" on college campuses I knew it was trouble but I didn't think it would really affect anyone else. But the complainers discovered the Marx-Alinsky power of complaining on behalf of allegedly helpless, nameless, faceless people who have no power to complain for themselves (and thus whose benefit can be completely reinvented by the complainer). Just one complainer claiming to represent a small number of unidentified people is sufficient to cause the entire industry to bend the knee and change centuries of history, and to affect everyone via their reliance on the "unbiased" authorities in lockstep with each other. People may still think they use words as they always have, but there is an insidious Orwellian-Fabian march year by year to change all the authorities people thought they relied on to cause them to doubt, gaslit, whether they were right or wrong all along.
Every slur is a historical marker of some rift between people-groups that requires healing. Healing does not occur by rewriting history and ignoring the wound, but by agreeing on the history and coming together to find unities. Ultimately, this is only done by shared moral foundations, which eventually all resolve in the life of Jesus Christ; but hiding one's sins works in the opposite direction.
What's the rest of the story, fren? Most of the public ban logs refer to gayness or trollness and don't have your current account name. "Merely" often leaves out details; this is a forum that questions claims of "just minding my own business".
My backstory is wild too, so you don't have to answer, but trust needs to start somewhere.