Funturistic, none of these indicate foreknowledge or narrative control. They are just random citations of two common terms, "six million" and "Jews", in close proximity. The people who compiled these took any such reference, including even one to $6,000,000; their cites "proved too much". When the stats were run with different numbers, it turned out three million had a higher correlation than six million. So this is statistically meaningless. There was nobody prophesying six million Jews would be killed in eastern Europe. Details, hoax #3.

FYI archon (ruler) is from Greek archein (reign); arcane (secret) is from Latin arca (ark, chest), no relation.

the holy serpent Yahweh

But don't you reject this interpretation, Dot? Why speak of it favorably?

Thank you for not pinging me with your accusation. I don't know what you think I'm doing to "manipulate votes" that anyone else is prohibited from doing, or what past you're referring to. Accusations without ping and without evidence and without specifics that can be pinned down by the accused amount to chilling speech, especially from a banning mod.

"you decided to tell...". I haven't "decided" anything

Yeah, people who tell have decided to tell, that's just logic.

I don't have an agenda. I believe you do and to you if it's not in the canonical gospels is not proof.

I have one agenda, namely Jesus. Something not in the gospels might well be proof. But if you contradict every fact of history on a subject, in or out of the gospels, that requires extraordinary evidence. Jesus 100% upheld Hebrew Scripture, no historical evidence teaches that he told his disciples secretly that Scripture was wrong, there would be no movement without dedication to Scripture. That's why your narrative on that point is just a narrative. Nothing in Nag Hammadi has your narrative.

my story mentioned by early Christian theologians and evangelists like Marcion of Sinope

Nope. No text mentions such an imaginative retcon as you propose. If you had said you're just Marcionite, it would've made more sense, because he did teach that, but he didn't say that Jesus and the Apostles taught it (as you did): he implied that the Apostles worked for the Demiurge (WP); his Scriptural canon still included details contrary to the Demiurge theory, against his edit attempts otherwise; and his work on antitheses is now lost, and does not even appear in the newly uncovered documents. So what you're doing is imagining something that could've happened if only Marcion was totally right in his view and had a perfect tradition from Jesus's time and every other indication of history is wrong. No historian would view this as a workable theory of what actually happened.

So yeah, when you double down on apparently rejecting facts of history instead of interacting with them, my tone does tend to change.

For 2,000 years, we have been told that God is love, that he is the father of light. Yet, open the Old Testament, and you meet a different entity entirely.

The evidence is that Jesus's teachings made headway among the Jews because they agreed with the God depicted in Hebrew Scripture. All the apostles and evangelists emphatically used Scripture as a final authority, and several times they recognized that each others' works were Scripture too. The fact that Marcion invented a duality narrative, or based it on other gnostics, doesn't mean that narrative existed in primitive Christianity.

Could it be that our so-called official New Testament might have actually been deliberately reassembled later to counteract Marcion's version? IMO, that's exactly what happened.

Marcion admitted that confirmed evangel and confirmed apostolic writings were Scripture. The difference between the NT and Marcion's canon is entirely one of degree. Because Scripture is holistic, you can prove any core tenet of traditional Christianity with reference to Marcionite Scripture alone. If you admit the Marcionite canon, you would have no reason to reject other gospels or epistles that say the same thing (just as I do not reject all the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, but only hold them to a lower standard of authority).

They took his challenge so seriously that they constructed a new cannon, four gospels, Acts, and everything else in such a way to police his ideas.

The books of the canon were already circulating, nothing was constructed anew, even as your own (liberal) dating would prove. His ideas may have been "policed" (though there was no political power to force anything for another 200 years) but only because all other churches but the Marcionite "church" recognized the internal contradictions of the system early. You say the Marcionite church was regarded as very widespread, so without arguing that either way I'll note it, but if it were "coherent" Christianity it would have survived instead of essentially disappearing in the 3rd century. The orthodox arguments and texts stand, and Marcion's works didn't survive, which is not an indication that Marcion was so much better but an indication that he had nothing to say that wasn't expressed by his canon and the quotations of him that survived. Althist is fun, but must be admitted as such.

Scholars like Adolf von Harnack

Didn't I say 19th-century German unbelievers? Harnack was counted as a Christian but he rejected the Apostles' Creed on Jesus and rejected the Bible.

So the inclusion of say Acts and the Old Testament cannon came in as a sort of counterpoint.

No, the Hebrew canon had been getting closed in the 1st century BC and 1st century AD. All the Hebrew books were recognized as Scripture, and taught to be so by Jesus and the Apostles, with the exception of a couple late disputes persisting for a time over books like Esther. The only reason Marcion could reject the OT utterly was that he was in a Greek milieu where reliance on the Hebrew had begun to wane (but was still extant throughout 2nd century patristics). It wasn't about the OT "coming in", instead the NT shows that it was the NT books that were slowly coming in to join the OT.

These became deliberately essential to the new narrative

No, they were not regarded as essential until late 4th century. They were regarded as inspired, useful, beneficial, and sufficient, but there was no argument of essentiality. Look, if the church has Luke-Acts for 100 years, and then suddenly Marcion says only most of Luke is good and none of Acts, it's clear to everyone that he is innovating on received tradition, and it's clear from history that they continued to preserve the whole Luke-Acts because Marcion's version didn't have a slate of dedicated copyists throughout the known world like the established tradition did. There is no althist available where Marcion's Luke existed as Scripture, and Acts, which was written by the same man around the same time to the same audience, was accorded universally as useless until somebody got it to be thought of as inspired as if it counteracted Marcion. It's Luke, it's the same author! Did you know that Papias, quoted by Eusebius, mentioned and named the four gospels around the 120s, long before Marcion or Irenaeus step up?

many modern scholars argue that the NT was published as a collection specifically constructed against Marion's challenge

Nope, nobody published the "NT" until Constantine, much later. Nor was his canon "constructed" but it consisted of all Greek Scriptures that rose to the level of inspiration and acceptance that other works (including some verses added by Marcion) didn't.

the comforting narrative that the canonical Bible just dropped fully formed from the heavens

I agree with you in rejecting that narrative. All mature Biblical Christians recognize and admit the same.

So, if history is written by the winners, then perhaps our understanding of early Christianity is missing, has deliberately omitted a whole perspective.

I'm very empathetic to Romanism omitting perspectives and have consistently appealed here for primitive Christianity. Gnosticism isn't primitive Christianity and never had approval from Jesus's apostles or their appointed successors at large. When gnosticism is tested as a theological system (as it was), it fails logic, history, and inspiration.

Now, in all our conversations I've been attempting to find out how you know what is true. I don't see that answer. I see you sticking to a storyline, even imagining what Jesus might have said that totally contradicts what history shows he did say. If you had quoted Gospel of Thomas, I wouldn't object because Jesus may have said everything in there in context, and there may be an echo of apostolic tradition in it. But you're coming in with Marcion whose only tradition, if any, comes from either part of the holistic Bible (which was accepted along with the rest), or Valentinus or Simon or Menander before him, who were never accepted. It was apostate (standing aside from Christianity), never something that acted as if part of the same Christianity as everyone else kept. So you don't seem to be committed to seek the truth wherever it leads and to accept the facts of history. You're free to show me otherwise.

Hey Apex, you have an excellent doctrine of purism, I had to wrestle some time in the past to come to a similar understanding. If you are convinced in your heart and mind that any woman in any leadership is sinning, you do have a duty to separate from those (like me) who profess Christianity but also advocate for what you think sin, under Romans 14.

What I discovered was that each being fully convinced in his own mind means that those who are separated from must also continue in their convictions. Over time either one party will be revealed as false by true apostasy (to the point of the group shriveling up and the Lord removing its candlestick), or both parties will find a reconciliation (revealing both concerns as legitimate and harmonizing them).

So I'd appreciate your keeping discussion lines open as part of the duty of seeking to understand other views well enough to make the most refined and complete case to judge them.

Practically, in this case, since it sounds like you've held for some time that all women moderating any forum here are sinning (except maybe a women's and/or children's forum), it's surprising that hasn't come out, and only arose in this forum (that you don't frequent) because of your recent awareness. You didn't notice on Meta a couple months ago when this was discussed, nor have I seen you comment on any forum about how important it is for you to give this warning about female mods. So I'm not convinced it's your actual view rather than something performative that you use to feel good among others you work with.

The actual debate is rather simple, and could be engaged anywhere, but it requires us both being open to being transformed by the Lord through Scripture. On this topic and the one I raised to you a moment ago, I'm not certain you wish to practice that openness: so I merely note that one path to it is submitting both your position and the concerns of others to the Lord for adjudication. This willingness and submission is reflected in dialogue. The fact that you lay out your case in detail is a great first step, but is not always a signal that one wants to undertake the journey.

Look, I was right, now you're just getting dogmatic and sectarian. You decided to tell everyone a "narrative" without any backing about Jesus and his disciples, and you're now backing it by the "narrative" of Plato's cave, without any respect to whether things happened or not.

Since you're not getting my own allegory but supplying your own, Frakes hosted a show where elaborate urban legends were acted out to let the audience determine which actually happened and which were entirely fabricated. Your idea that Jesus rejected Scripture, when there is 100% testimony (even at Nag Hammadi) that Jesus affirmed Scripture more than anyone, is unhelpful to your moving forward. You're stuck in a story someone told you that you believe in telling others as the only way to validate it.

I told you that I refuse all those titles upon the satan and you continue to pretend I accord them to him. The satan is not self-existent (Yahweh) or architect (demiurge) or environment molder or divinity or wise (Sophia-spawned). You're not listening to that.

If our past was erased (as to emanations, although it wasn't), then you don't get to write a new past about Jesus rejecting Scripture. We must inquire together. I haven't objected to the parts of your gnosticism that speak of awakening and theosis, but they cannot proceed in the escape you desire without a firm recognition that what happens happens and cannot be lied about. Jesus on earth had a particular character shown in all sources and if we reject that character we reject our best Guide.

Funny how the self-ID'd troll handshakes are the primary ones to fail to understand that censorship is about content and enforcement is about objective behavior.

They're not any one person's rules, they're the objective rules all users accepted by commenting here (as incorporated by reference in site policy).

You even have freedom of speech to propose alternative interpretations of the rules (I tried to get the community to do that for months). But you don't propose a better interpretation here, do you?

Whoever you are, if you were here earlier you could've stood for modship and gotten popular approval. But I doubt you did.

When there are no trollers there is no need for con-trollers. Think about it!

Covid Planning

Upvoted!

Alien Encounter Strategy

Absolutely.

Let me tell you a story

No thanks. Jonathan Frakes said, "Never happened."

story

Hmmm, don't you govern yourself and accord yourself the right to control yourself? And didn't you grow up needing that right accorded to your parents and caregivers? It seems that somewhere between Self and Other there must lie a claim of greatest right to govern.

I actually like that idea. So Enmendurana reigns and then at some point they decide his reign "was" 72,000 years long because that's easier to remember than the actual number of years. I could see that being approved by the caste as a "necessary" alignment recalculation.

so tell us what it stands for already

Yeah, welcome back. I don't recall if you ever answered why you named your account after the people you claimed to hate (Jacob/Israel). It's almost like you're revealing who you are in your alleged anti-Semitism. But don't mind me, I won't make a big deal about it.

When the Biblical god is eradicated then pushback to freewill begins, and that's a good thing why? Fatalism or something?

I don't bot, Apex, thanks. I do know people who have a habit of reading the entire comments feed as I do.

So you're censoring your own thoughts about censorship, I understand; and you're not interested in explaining your own actions. Anyway, I appreciate you taking time out from your censored fora and visiting us in these uncensored waters, and I always look for good things.

I have autodiagnostic autism. I diagnosed myself so that nobody will trust the diagnosis. That sounds like what you're describing.

Conspiracy: The "spectrum" increasing is just another aspect of Big Pharma defining everyone to be sick because to be sick is to be controllable, just like being under 18 or being "elderly" or being "disabled" or being minority or LGBTQ+ makes you controllable. By autodiagnosis, I control myself. Wait till I get started on autodidacticism.

a conspiracy forum that's moderated by people who censor stuff on behalf of the people in power

Hi Apex, I'm really not upset at you for nuking all my ConPro content over a misunderstanding, but your having said that suggests there may be an open question. You seem to think "censorship" is happening here but not at forums like ConPro. Now, I understand modern censorship to mean viewpoint suppression, while behavior suppression is the ordinary good purpose of forum rules across the board and is viewpoint-neutral. I've been auditing TINAE, and she is disciplining based essentially on viewpoint-neutral rules like disrespect and trolling (disruption). On the other hand, I got nuked because I helpfully answered a sincere question about what Jews existed who defended the oddities of the Talmud (I wasn't even defending it myself in that response). That seemed viewpoint-related and/or related to viewpoints I had previously taken in an attempt to sincerely interact with the forum's (unstated, evolving) purposes.

What would you say censorship is?

Competition appears

What I said, you go by surface appearance, but there is more data to resolve than that.

actions we consider to be evil. It takes higher order thinking to avoid those

The fact that higher thinking exists out of a world currently obsessed with competition and entropy is of the unresolved data.

We can grant that entropy is a law, but have we seen any type of greater manifestation of it in living organisms?

The idea of evolution that things just get better, by nature and without direction, contradicts the laws of thermodynamics. That's another data point. Since order is observed, evolutionists attribute that order to Blind Chance. Theists, to First Cause. Either way, the assumption is that the world isn't only destructive and competitive. Everyone believes there is good out there somewhere despite appearances; everyone believes that evil is something that will (naturally) be judged. People see it as a natural law, the law of sowing and reaping, what goes around coming around. (A couple deny it, but the honest among them follow atheist Will Provine in admitting that the only alternative is nihilism.)

So wherever you stand, as soon as you use moral language such as evil existing, you logically entail responsibility (which entails freewill). If there were no responsibility nothing would be "evil"; if things are evil then responsibility is defined as actions that avoid evil.

I don't mind that we are out of step, I've said my peace as to the OP. The issue is whether you'd like to find out the truth and the resolution of the disagreement between us, or not. If you don't care and are comfortable remaining in your presuppositions (even though the forum exists to challenge people), sobeit. But if you have committed to pursue truth at all costs, it's not enough to bat away opposition with weak arguments (veganism) or to dismiss arguments as illogical without working through the definitions of the words you use.

Your initial salvo was that evil exists "due to the nature of things", which implies you presume that the corrupted state we observe is the only state this world could ever have had. However, science shows that the formation of the universe was dramatically different from its ongoing phases, and in particular that via the second law the universe was more orderly in the past than it is now (less entropic). How can we weigh the evidence of science and history together to find out the true "nature of things" together? Are you prepared to investigate your presumptions and weigh whether they are capable of nuance? From recent observations we don't have hard proof that the universe began with perfection or that it began with imperfection, either way; so we need to draw inferences from analysis of science and history, not just recent observation. Without getting to that root we wouldn't likely arrive at the same conclusion.

No, the year-month storyline would have Adam begetting a son at 10 years, Abraham at 8, etc. It was just another invention of 19th-century German atheists who hated the Bible and wanted to imagine that people didn't live that long in the past. But the punctuated breakdown of ages across the Bible is just what you'd expect from a degrading universe.

No, eating plants isn't always killing them, you might just be eating their fruit. Yes, vegetarians have worked out safe plant-based diets for cats, although the real issue is adaptation. Since evolutionists believe plant-processing synthesis was adapted in other species, and since creationists believe cats once had it, they should agree that death is not the issue.

they cry out for help when being cut down. And what of decaying organic matter?

Sounds like special pleading.

God cannot create a contradiction, being is not nonbeing. All realities we can imagine (except nihilism) have this logical requirement. If freewill without evil, or evil without freewill, were a logical possibility, then we could talk about it. If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.

We live in a world where essentially every single thing must kill or at the very least rely on death (plants needing decaying organic matter in the soil) to survive.

Scripture and tradition alike tell us that it wasn't always that way and science tells us all these things are designed to live optimally in a world without death, but that the use of death is always an adaptation.

Either there is evil and so there is free will, or there is no free will and so there is no evil. You are free to choose the horrid consequences of the latter.

Dude, I like it but you write so much that even your table of contents exceeds the max. Something to think about coming from me. I get told all the time how much people don't read what I write.

I may or may not have time to do counterpoint. Just remember, all the statements of the future are hopeful with their validity based on the amount of hope the person can muster up for them to happen. Only the person with perfect hope (the One God) can perfectly plan the future. The rest will be surprised! The same is true of the past but with narrative instead of hope.

u/SmithW1984 clarified your statement, noting evil doesn't have a positive existence. Evil in the abstract refers to something else from which goodness is absent. Because of this, the Hebrew word typically refers to evil events (adversities, calamities, disasters). It is not contrasted to good (abstract), but to shalom (physical wholeness).

You have taken "create" and "author" as synonymous, but they are used separately. To create is to bring into physical existence, but to author in this sense is to speak or carry out in reference to actions. So Yahweh "creating evils" isn't incompatible with humans being responsible for doing evil, because Yahweh is not evil when he selects just calamities as part of his created narrative.