Good time to remind people that novel virus' may be deadly but are terrible at spreading to humans on their own (not evolved for it). Existing virus' evolve to be less deadly because there's zero evolutionary advantage to killing the host. That's why monthly Covid deaths never increased above the initial levels even as cases skyrocketted.
I keep telling people this. The masses have been preprogrammed with the idea of a virus both highly lethal and highly contagious, but nature doesn't work that way because if it dead everyone'd be dead already.
The exception:
Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.
I say what I know. Looking forward to sharing what I downloaded today, at the right time.
Hi Patriot, much is said about this. Can you tell me from your POV what is wrong with building a Third Temple? How does that advance a death cult any? I'm very interested in comparing your POV with others who note the same.
I can't answer for the admins, Skil. It just seems to me that as long as we give off the impression that we conspiracists all love breaking the rules with each other and no moderator, we won't get one, but if we actually shape up and stop feeding the trolls and demonstrate that we want a moderator, they might act.
But maybe they have some secret rules or are waiting for an axolotl. I can't say that, but I can say our own behaving more courteously and logically does help address the concerns you raise.
Why would satan specialize in any one race when evidence is that he uses all races to the degree they permit? If good is evil, what "good" is it to transcend the illusion? The transcendence is the good and the only thing. Its absence, which is not a thing, is what we call "evil".
Skil, I think admin is waiting on more consensus to form or something else to shift. Any reason you didn't and don't participate in asking for a mod here?
Interesting eschatology. It doesn't say those are the only Messianic Jews of that time, but even if we agree on that number (which was disastrous for JWs in another context) we would still be out evangelizing promiscuously for those who would listen. I appreciate your being open to the prospect, God bless.
When I said your quote about souls was accurate and need not be challenged: he stands or falls on what he did say.
He did not give any speeches in 1994 because he had had a stroke and became incommunicative in 1992. Please read what I write.
The fact that Popoff published a good guess as to goals to be accomplished doesn't mean Schneersohn agreed with those goals; he stands or falls on what he did say.
The Talmud does not say "Jews should murder and enslave goyim worldwide" and cannot be sourced to that effect. It does describe a secondary status for those who do not agree with beliefs of Judaism, and it's very interesting in comparative religion to see similarity with other faiths' treatment of outsiders, but you said you're not interested in details like that. If you want to get into specifics we'll need to agree on how to determine who wrote a text and what it actually says instead of making wild inferences that also happen to support prior bias.
Yes, Deut. 7:6, 14:2 KJV says Israel is a "holy people" and "special/peculiar people", and as a Christian I believe the Bible. Most recognize how this applies to spiritual Israel, the church. The spiritual promises don't apply to national Israel, and the national promises don't apply to spiritual Israel. National promises of Israel are like those given in the Bible to many other nations, for instance that Egypt would always remain a people. I point out that the promises to national Israel include both the best and the worst of the other national promises, related to their behavior. It's not Zionist to say that Egypt, Israel, Syria, Jordan and others have national promises in the Bible and these always come true. None of this gives any special right to Israel as Zionists propose; I simply agree each people has its own right to self-determination, including the Palestinians. So far the Palestinians used that right to elect Hamas, so we'll see if they come up with a better idea.
I came to Scored to share deep research on areas where I have some experience, and I speak here about government, taxation, textual analysis (Q), religion, conspiracy, whatever comes up. I correct errors across the board when I'm aware and have something constructive to say. Funny thing, as I pointed out in the hoax article, more errors, and more easily debunked ones, appear against the Jews than toward any other subject; so I find myself putting more work there in spite of my broader interests. On the same linked page, I just started listing my corrections of Quran misquotes, and they seem to come up a whole lot less often than Talmud misquotes for some reason. I'm equal opportunity.
Now why do you suppose people would go on claiming a man gave a hateful speech after he had a stroke when they've been presented with evidence he couldn't have? My best explanation is that people who do that are likely to be shilling for Jews by making anti-Semitism look stupid. If you're not shilling for the JIDF, you would agree that the Popoff quote looks like an inappropriate source for a good researcher to use in determining his actual position, and not just retreat to other quotes and misunderstandings. The record shows I'm happy to criticize the Jews and the state of Israel, but there's so much more false criticism out there that there's little opportunity for constructive criticism.
The majority of the perfidious will never convert.
Perhaps; Zechariah prophesies that less than one-third of Jews will survive and repent. And we should be at work to prepare that minority for when it becomes the majority by default.
Research relying on the Urantia Book has several published irreconcilable scientific errors. Research relying on the Bible has been charged with some errors but has reconciliations of all charges. If we can agree on an external standard by judging errors then we can get at the truth.
Adam was said to have been formed from the earth, which would make him the first of his kind because not a reproduction of another kind. There is no evidence that something was hidden from this account. Gen. 5 says Adam had many sons and daughters. This fact accounts for Cain having a wife and for him founding a city and calling the region Nod (there is no evidence of Nodites before Cain). Textual evidence can be judged by historical analysis.
As for scientific evidence, I appreciate your laying out what makes sense to you. You do recognize that the unique origin of each species with its own DNA barcode is such an improbable event that it could not have happened by a gradual process of natural selection, so we agree on the principle of punctuation in origin of species, contrary to Darwin. However, since these events are improbable, it is just as improbable that it happened in the womb via DNA rewriting as it happened in the earth via fresh DNA assembly. Since you reject Darwin on natural selection, there's no need to compromise with him on other points.
-
Science teaches that the Big Bang was already superheated. The CMB map shows how early Big Bang matter was distributed in fluctuating pockets. As matter coalesced these pockets of greater mass took on plasma form and transferred the fine CMB structure into clusters and then galaxies (accretion hypothesis). This is sufficient for the creation of the first stars. However, the exaggerated time scale due to the assumption of lightspeed invariance forced scientists to create special pleading for the creation of stars after the Big Bang because no stars today meet their criteria for original creation (only hypothetical Population III stars would have been original, but none exist). Therefore this imaginative narrative of nebular fireballs was templated over this, even though no such thing could be observed with current science (we can only observe snapshots and draw inferences, and one inferential narrative has no inherent benefit over another). In the plasma phase, elements were created in proportion to the likelihood of their creation criteria (C/O and heavier atoms have narrow criteria unlike H/He); this accounts sufficiently for the origin of any cluster, galaxy, or system material without adding an inventive fireball narrative.
-
The accretion of the planets from the solar matter is pretty close to accurate; obviously the distance from the center had a sorting effect that leads to different compositions among the planets and satellites.
-
It's not necessary for the accretion to take place on particular sides of the sun. Small, irregular asteroids could be formed at the same time as larger bodies. However, the asteroid belt does appear to be the destruction of a larger planet that was originally formed in the coalescing phase.
-
There's no reason for earth to originate without an atmosphere since the gas giants have deep atmospheres. The special pleading that scientists use to reject original atmosphere is that molecular evolution isn't possible in today's oxidizing atmosphere so they wrote a change into their narrative and imagined asteroid and volcanic ages. But there is no crater evidence of millions of years of bombardment by asteroids; compared to the moon, the evidence is that there was an atmosphere filtering out most asteroids. The earth didn't need to get "hot" either because its core from accretion was already plenty hot, as shown by the formation of tectonic plates by subduction of the molten mantle.
-
Same.
-
Evidence that polar regions once had more tropical climate suggests that the original atmosphere had much greater water vapor saturation than present: similar to a rain forest canopy. The past rivers and seas were not as dominant as now, due to this atmosphere and to the potential for massive underground reservoirs to arise during the subduction process (having created Pangaea already). This is not so much nonstop rain as nonstop mist. It's true that the original sea and the cooling land would've negotiated where that land would arise and form initial mountains.
-
No continental drift is necessary for the origin of life.
-
Obviously I'd agree abiogenesis is the work of "high level ETI" and you can guess which I mean. It couldn't mathematically have happened without programming (spirituality). And for that reason, each new species could also be the same work from the earth as opposed to work from unfit wombs. The area likely corresponds to the present Mideast-Africa region but the present Caribbean has also been proposed.
-
No missing links found among plants. No wombs there either.
-
No missing links found between plants and echinoderms and fish. No wombs there either.
-
No missing links found between fish and amphibians and reptiles. No wombs there either.
-
No missing links found between reptiles and pachyderms, and no wombs in reptiles. If you posit that speciation occurred via DNA rewriting in selected individuals in spore or egg form, including both male and female when differentiated, that's just as unlikely a narrative as if these species came from nonliving matter just like the first one did. Again, the scientists go with special pleading because they can't explain how any abiogenesis occurred so they say it occurred only once as if that makes it more likely. But its likelihood is still less by many orders than the lowest possible quantum likelihood of any event in this universe (ca. 1 in 10^140). So you're relying on a narrative contrary to evidence. Since you believe ETI was involved, it may have just as well used the method of abiogenesis that is logically proven to have happened, instead of a sketchy rewrite of one DNA to another completely different code in a womb that is programmed to reject foreign DNA.
-
No missing links among mammals.
-
As I said, DNA barcodes prove beyond mathematical doubt that humans cannot mate with other primates. The last chart I looked at showed that chimps, bonobos, and humans are all genetically separated at vast distances, but that ancient humans (Neanderthal and Denisovan) were completely interfertile with modern Homo sapiens.
-
There's not a significant difference among Cro-Magnon (H. sapiens fossilis, originally), Neanderthal (H. sapiens neanderthalensis), and modern man H. sapiens sapiens); these are differentiations like others among subspecies.
So what's happening is that you're recognizing some aspects where high tech must be involved but also importing other aspects from scientists who don't believe in that high tech. If you cut out the assumptions made by those scientists who attempt to patch up their broken systems with more guesswork narratives, you get a cleaner history. I appreciate your listening.
Correct. Rabid spiritual leaders exist in every tradition, nor do they define the tradition. Since Catholics believe in evangelizing Jews to the good news of Jesus as shown in the St. James Vicariate, they should not treat the tradition as impossible but should work to bring out the capacity for the tradition to accommodate the truth. What more would we ask the Jews on the OP point other than to agree with us that Gittin 57a is not theology and is a bad joke that committed the fault of being interpretable as blasphemy, and to make amends?
Your source, Biblioteca Pleyades, is not building on the Rev. 12 Yahweh who is at war with Lucifer, but is following a gnostic narrative in which their "Yahweh" is limited instead of unlimited. Their deity is not the liberator but the imprisoner. Nor is their take on reincarnation likely to be accurate.
You're right that the alleged clones aren't really you, they are someone else larping as you. The "box" technology is not physical but is merely a suppression of the real soul on all sides that distracts it from the body sufficiently to allow the body to be zombified (used by others).
When people die, according to thousands of NDE reports every experiences something similar to the white light, and there is a totality of one impulse perceived (almost always categorized as either love or fear). This impulse is prepared for by what you cultivate in life. So evidence indicates this pattern will continue foreseeably and is not affected by late tech.
Unlike their deity, the Rev. 12 Yahweh already made a claim about when he would step in: namely, when the outcry against evil, and the martyrdom of the righteous, both reach a natural peak. It is probable the open-comment period for human resolutions of evil began before WWI (in Rev. 5 this is the search for the one worthy to open the scroll of judgment). When all has been heard, and not until, Yahweh's appointed one will step forward assuming that nobody else is found worthy. This still involves a time for opening the scroll (which some put in the present, but which might also be the future culmination of the present), and a time appointed as 7 years to allow all the full preparation to be judged. My Chronology Part 7 lists the events between the present and the beginning of the 7-year period marked by the signing of a security covenant to end a war involving Russia, Iran, and Israel. The AI isn't giving this detail because it's been locked into giving only the Biblioteca interpretation (I think you asked it to lock into that earlier).
IMHO the actual date is related to the 6,000-year cycle and I calculate the current year as 6018 AM. It appears the number is not intended to be exact, but rounded. Looking at my notes, I have a few potential dates but none that fits all the data. The current Israeli sabbatical started in 1952 with the most recent in 2022, so if that cycle overlaps the security covenant it would be signed in a sabbatical year like 2029, 2036, 2043; I also have some data on potential jubilee cycles for these dates but it's inconclusive. The idea of giving a millennium of 964-965 years, since Jesus already lived 35.5 years, would begin the millennium in 2043 or 2044 by that count and the tribulation in 2036 or 2037. I also suspect there will be a "fake tribulation" which it would be convenient to begin in 2029 (the next scheduled sabbatical) if the real one begins in 2036.
However, the chronology being long past the year 2000 indicates we should be living as if already in the millennium. We are able every day to bring more millennial living into the present even as tribulations go on: in this world you will have tribulations. Doing this prepares us whether or not a particular date becomes justified.
You also ask about what happens in the 7 years after the covenant is signed, which is Chronology Part 8. After that there is a brief transition period (possibly taking 75 days as hinted by Daniel) and the new kingdom is then instituted. In terms of when a massive satellite outage occurs, there does seem to be a final one at the end of the 7 years, but there may be other significant ones before that tied to other cosmic phenomena. What's more important to me is the signals leading up to the Mideast war, as these appear imminent. IMHO the war will not happen with Trump, Putin, or Netanyahu in place; I've previously prophesied that Netanyahu cannot be the one to sign the postwar covenant so it will not happen while he remains PM. Much could change this year or any year. If the spring contains brewing of such a Mideast war then the fall could contain the security covenant and begin the final clock (which appears to begin in a fall), but as I say it's less likely to begin this year and there are test runs, such as the 1993-2000 accords that were a deliberate test. So, though I hope for better, one scenario might be that 2029 is a year of a fake war used by the cabal to destabilize the Trump system and initiate a hivemind narrative so that the real antichrist appears in 2036 as a savior from what has gone before (but who only gives a breathing space before going much worse). Whether or not that's accurate, we should count on using the next 10 years to occupy the world for the sake of Jesus Christ.
DNA barcodes show Cro-Magnon is interfertile with Homo sapiens but not with other primates, including lemurs.
Invisibility isn't via shift into the "second dimension". The phenomenon involves at least four dimensions, probably six, and is a vibration change.
You don't describe evolution, but punctuated equilibrium. However, even that mechanism involves an external source programming the new DNA barcode as the punctuation cannot arise by random chance. There is not evidence that this happened on earth, where each species partakes of the material of the earth and sea rather than of other species. The theory that Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve were both born of a lemur would require a vast GMO campaign and looking at the current failings of UAP tech in breeding it doesn't seem that was the source.
The sinking of Atlantis and Lemuria was the result of an asteroid (I'm thinking Chicxulub), but that may have been brought on by a superweapon.
were you in attendance in 1994?
Further digging shows Schneersohn was unable to speak after a stroke on 1992-03-02. Bit of a smoking gun for Popoff. Again, I'm not defending Schneersohn, I'm simply indicating evidence that he didn't say what you said he said, and noting that this trend of attributing world-order writings to cabals without evidence happens regularly in one direction.
Palestinian Muslims, Christians, and Jews have rights to self-determination like any peoples. It is not their fault that they are ruled by Hamas, who is perennially bad at negotiating. Israel is being tried for genocide by the ICJ and I've said repeatedly that we'll see how it goes; there have only been about 2 convictions for genocide in history (Rwanda and Serbia). Nahida and Samar Anton were Palestinian nonbelligerents shot on 2023-12-16 who are now regarded as Christian martyrs. Estimates of dead Palestinian Arabs start with Gaza Health (70,000; 34,000 confirmed names) and Israeli IDF (20,000 combatants); obviously 2,000 Israelis ("Palestinian Jews") are also dead, over half on 2023-10-07. The Lancet actual report agreed with the 70,000 range, but correspondence therein made up the estimate of 186,000 to include "affected deaths", the same justification used for inventing larger numbers. If you're unfamiliar with disaster reporting, think of covid reporting: it's become fashionable to attribute any death during a disaster to the disaster if it can be tied to the disaster by some published rationale. Therefore these numbers basically include everyone who died over the 2+ years because the war prevented them from medical services. I investigated the UN methodology myself and they literally include obesity comorbidity deaths because of the theory that medical access was denied by the war. So I believe in waiting for those who can review the evidence to make a decision. How else could the Palestinians be defended other than by having their day in court?
The only use of "chosen people" in the KJV oddly refers to a Gentile army, so I don't use the term. And if you find this "beyond horrifying" then you have hardly reviewed the book of Revelation or the wars and tyrannies of the 20th century.
It's obvious he just comes here to troll. If we all ignore him (no vote up or down or comment on his posts) , he will likely lose interest and go away... Unless he's being paid to do it, and that might be what is happening. He might be a Fed just trying to fish
All should use this tactic liberally.
I'm not Zionist. I don't defend Schneersohn, I demonstrate that it's not likely he said what you said he said. He was very insular and nationalist as you say, but that doesn't make Popoff a truthteller.
I see that your new quote does appear in Shahak according to WP, so there's nothing to dispute, and you don't want me to defend it by explaining the context of differentiation of souls in comparative religion. When you use a quote accurately, there's nothing for me to add.
Perhaps you have a positive solution for the mess the world is in? I do, and it involves speaking truth and networking as I'm doing now.
I don't think of it as defending Jews and church, I think of it as seeking to understand each tradition in its context. Some gnostics hold that all traditions have truths in them, so I would presume that finding the true points in the Yahwist tradition would be just as appropriate as in any other tradition. (If people misrepresent Yahwists disproportionately, that actually indicates likelihood that they may have disproportionate amount of truth. If everyone has part of the truth there's no need to misrepresent anyone.) Since I've found reasons why these documents survive for millennia without people concluding they are hopelessly contradictory as atheists tend to decide on snap judgment, I share those reasons; I do the same with the Quran when it's misinterpreted the same way.
Now, your fine essay about silence makes decent points, which I'll interact with separately, but they seem consistent with my point that the Monad resolves all spectra such as the volume spectrum. Jesus, like the Monad, is master of speech and silence both, and both have purpose, so much so that they are one. Which is why I say the Monad has attributes. If we want to call the attributes emanations, that's possible, but then monism itself is also an attribute and so the name "Monad" should be demoted to being just another attribute of the Indescribable. (And by "Indescribable" and other negating or apophatic words I don't create further regress, I only point out that the unknowable cannot be approximated with any word but can only be negated as to its application to any word.) Calling it "Monad" is already attributing monism or unity to it. So I have no problem with other attributes.
most people think most important messages are communicated through words & speeches. They are not. In a world saturated with noise, constant notifications, opinions competing for attention, and an endless demand for expression, what if the greatest truth was never meant to be spoken aloud?
Yes, the greatest Truth is not a secondary message but a primary entity to be communed with by our secondary experiences. All words and speeches are reflections on this one Word of Truth. (Truth, Word, Entity are attributes of course.)
Silence in this context is alignment with a higher law. This alone affirms that the logos, the divine word, emerges from the eternal silence of the absolute. To return to silence is to return to the source of all creation, the Monad.
Fine. But you contrast this with a counterfactual hypothetical, one "who could have saved him from being crucified." We are told he prayed aloud (and also sometimes wordlessly) about the hypothetical, and note Matthew's words: "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt .... O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." First, if these words are accurate, he did pray to his Father as one by whom the cup could pass. Second, his resolution of the counterfactual was his realization that the cup would not pass unless he drank it. Not about being saved from being crucified (the false notion ascribed to his mockers), but about the suffering being over, which was to be accomplished by drinking it in.
Jesus identified in the Gospel of John as the logos made flesh understood that speaking from ego fractures truth while silence preserves its integrity.
Not sure what this means because to me "Ego" and "I Am" are the same thing and Jesus constantly uses the latter.
You identify as a Covenant Christian, how often do you seek answers through noise, endless information and external voices?
I seek answers in everything. For words I often answer in words; but Francis said, preach the gospel at all times, with words if necessary.
What if the path you are searching for cannot be found through accumulation but through subtraction, through stillness rather than stimulation?
Generically I regularly subtract (it's called fasting from things). Specifically feel free to make a recommendation.
Many early Gnostics, some were Greeks but most were not, understood that Jesus taught on two levels simultaneously. One level was accessible through words, parables, and moral instruction. The other level was transmitted through presence, gesture, withdrawal, and silence.
That's understood by many.
This deeper level was not meant to be explained openly because it could only be realized inwardly.
That's not the usual understanding. Most recognized that nonverbal communication can be further explained openly (as Jesus said about what is whispered being shouted). Paul gives a detailed theology of mystery in which what is realized inwardly has a destiny of being shared in words outwardly, while more mystery always remains. Your statement only applies to those mystics who refer to an "indescribable" (using only negative terms like this, apophatically), but they are not referring to the arcane but only to the concept that there is something in God beyond description. Those gnostics who acted like arcane wisdom exists that should be hidden because it contradicts the lower-level description were doing something different from all other communication of the period.
Consider how often Jesus speaks in ways that conceals as much as it reveals. He tells his disciples that seeing they may not see and hearing they may not hear.
That's paradox, driving someone deeper for the resolution.
This is not cruelty but precision. Silence functions as a veil that protects sacred knowledge from being reduced to concepts.
Perhaps, but then what is known is the "indescribable", not a verbal message that should remain hidden.
Jesus speaks only when speech serves alignment, never when it serves ego. This is why his words carry such enduring power. They are not reactions. They are emanations.
Perhaps; that would make him the Logos ....
It's so famous that nobody knew about it until Vladimir Popoff invented in 2001, after which his newspaper was shut down and he was tried for incitement. The current text saying it quotes a letter published 2001, though Schneersohn died in 1994, is highly suspicious but at least makes it free from libel charges. It also admits the authenticity debate and holds that the conspiracy is so important that authenticity doesn't matter, same as several other hoaxes on that page.
If you wish to ascribe Popoff with a relatively accurate view of a conspiracy by Jews and Gentiles, fine, but don't fall for his misattribution. Because by proposing an easily falsified claim you weaken the original claim that there is such a conspiracy. When you do that, it's indistinguishable from shilling for Jews (i.e. it's making opponents of Jews look stupid by their omission). If you want to talk the Ukraine conspiracy, you can use Popoff's words and attribute them to his guessing, and you can use the actual words of the actors involved, but don't discredit the case you claim to advance.
"Karl Radl" of Semitic Controversies begins with an inaccurate paraphrase and draws further false conclusions from it before listening to the opposition. The text says not "Jesus" but "Yeshu", not "your punishment" but "the punishment", not "to be in boiling excrement" but just "boiling excrement", such that the summary "Jesus has been punished by God for his ‘offences’ by being boiled in excrement in Gehenna" is fully misrepresentative in the first place.
The respondent, David Lange, correctly cites Rabbi Gil Student who affirms and represents an opinion within traditional Judaism where this is not Jesus Christ. (Lange incorrectly says Jesus Christ isn't in the Talmud at all, and believes in yet another Yeshu in between Yeshu the Student and Jesus Christ: "He is most likely a prominent sectarian of the early first century BCE who deviated from rabbinic tradition and created his own religion combining Hellenistic paganism with Judaism. While Yeshu may be the proto-Jesus some scholars point to as inspiring the early Christians, he is definitely not the man who was crucified in Jerusalem in the year 33 CE." I don't have evidence such a person existed, I think the respondent is doing further cobbling of Yeshu the Student (2nd century BC) with Jesus Christ, which further proves the fact that people use the word "Yeshu" for several different centuries indiscriminately. But that's unimportant.) The respondent concludes by correctly noting "some Rabbis who argue that ‘Jesus’ of Gittin 57a is the same Jesus". Therefore he rightly says the passage is ambiguous.
"Karl" begins by believing the passage speaks of "Yeshua" when it doesn't but speaks of "Yeshu"; basic text fail. The fact that Schafer believes this Yeshu does mean Jesus Christ doesn't undercut the fact that it's ambiguous and that others with equal authority, like Gil Student, believe it doesn't. The "villains" concept doesn't mean that "Yeshu" must be Christ alone, it would only refer to whatever amalgamated "Yeshu" was in the mind of the joke's author and audience, and even assuming they had all accurate information it would still be interpreted as a reference to all three or more people named Yeshu, not as a particular one of them because no one of them is uniquely singled out as a greater villain. The fact that Balaam might mean Jesus Christ in other ambiguous passages is a bit of a failure to even read the text, because in this text the author clearly wants to distinguish Titus from Balaam from Yeshu (even though each name can refer to multiple enemies; mental note, maybe we should hold that all three are ambiguous). "Karl" concludes circularly, "The rabbinical context (and a common sense) clearly suggests that Jesus (i.e., Yeshua) is the one meant", except none of this has been proven.
Schafer is quoted well (I'll requote that separately) but his point is lost on "Karl". (1) Schafer alludes to the fact that some texts don't even say Yeshu but "sinner of Israel" instead ("Yeshu" is probably the original). (2) He also concludes that the intent of the Tosefta commentary is that Yeshu's punishment is believed to be only for one year, similarly to what I concluded in my initial article.
The joke was likely composed in the 2nd century, when reference to Onkelos (and memory of the third Yeshu, Yeshu ben Pappos) would've been fresh, and orally transmitted with loss of the author's name until compiled in the formal Talmud. This provenance does not give special attention to Jesus Christ among other Talmudic memories.
It's great to find that Israel Jacob Yuval, 2008, Two Nations in Your Womb, p. 132, finds a 1096 Mainz Jew ("Karl" uses lowercase) saying, "And you shall be condemned to hell together with your god and in boiling faeces." Offhand this could indicate an idea that (1) Jesus is a god and (2) Jesus is condemned to hell in boiling feces, though it doesn't require that even if Jesus is the referent. However, it need not reference Gittin 57a directly because the general punishment could be taken to the punishment of idolators stated elsewhere and that whatever is the god intended (e.g. a crucifix or icon) it too would be condemned. Therefore, though Yuval might make that conclusion, it is not clear that this is the belief intended in Mainz, and it's certainly not shown that this is a tenet to be believed or an unambiguous conclusion (as opposed to a permitted opinion among many).
Conclusion: When he says, "Yes, the claim that in Folios 56b and 57a of Tractate Gittin the Babylonian Talmud states that Jesus is ‘boiling in excrement’ is an accurate interpretation of the passage and the traditional/current jewish understanding of it", more accurately this is one permitted interpretation of an ambiguous passage on which Judaism has no formal traditional judgment. We could judge Judaism for not making a judgment on this ambiguity after all this time, but there are more important things for Judaism to judge formally IMHO.
What he actually said was that he wanted to have a book just like That Hideous Strength but without the Christianity.
Another supplement: Hoaxes of the same kind are relatively rare with respect to other peoples. I do see several cases where the Quran is deliberately misquoted so as to advocate against Islam, and unlike the Talmud they are not too many to list. So here's those that I've encountered, along with cases where the Quran is presented in correct context.
Accurate Quran quotations (1):
2025-11-27 towards8 "Quran 5:82"
Quran misquotations (6):
2021-12-06 mlitton4 "You go get them, guys"
2025-07-23 1776now "Mohammed set the explicit example by marrying 6yo Aisha then consummating raping her at 9yo. He encouraged others to do the same."
2025-12-20 Gibs2 (graphic of 12 misquotations)
2026-01-05 Bildthewall (graphic of 12 misquotations)
2026-01-08 BerlinWallCrosser (graphic of 8 misquotations)
2026-01-13 SenorTrumper "13 DOCTRINES"
There are more, a bit more frequent than I thought. Will keep this updated. However, comparing misquotation of anything in the Quran to misquotation of one Talmud passage, Gittin 57a, the Talmud is still taking a much bigger hit.
Let me know if this is helpful!
Car joke: Yahweh drove Adam and Eve out of the garden in His Fury.
You can stop asking AI to localize results to this Cabal Timeline because it's based on an assumption that Yahweh is not the chief deity or the Father of Jesus. Bad data will give bad results. If Yahweh is not God the Father, then nobody knows the timeline; if He is, then only He knows the timeline. Thinking that He is giving up is just listening to propaganda against Him.
What Yahweh would do as a human is revealed by the career of the Angel of the Lord and the career of Jesus. Jesus decided that His bride would be all of humanity who would accept Him, and that's one reason He has billions of followers. He divested Himself of superpower other than the ordinary power of humanity to do miracles, just to obtain this bride. He doesn't get rough, except when He's resisted and people reap the natural consequences of what they did. With His beloved He is the most gentle and patient and undemanding even when she is unattractive; that is depicted throughout Hosea and Song of Solomon. He protects all the children, even those born out of wedlock (see Hosea), and never breaks His covenant no matter how big the household gets.
Jesus never gave in to temptation to escape His position such as by substances, though He would drink wine without reaching a place of intoxication; He was offered wine to dull His pain and refused it, but only accepted vinegar so that He could continue speaking His message. When He faced the whole of the trial and prayed about it, He didn't ask that He not go through the trial but asked that the trial would be over and realized that the only way for it to be over was for Him to accept it all manfully. Rather, His "addiction" is the joy set before him, which in the Monad is the love of the Father, and which in the revealed world is the love of the bride.
Jesus worked in the family business with His adoptive father Joseph, which included building things and could have been either carpentry or stonework; He earned enough that His family wasn't needy after Joseph died, and He was able to do itinerant ministry for that reason. He rightly discerned that giving Himself in love for His followers was better than earning possessions quickly; look how blessed are the possessions of His bride today, without possessions being the goal. When He had opportunity to enter town showily on a horse, He knew it would be better to borrow a friend's donkey instead, so He was never one to show off his transport first before He had earned it in the people's eyes. He is infinitely creative; it's instructive to see what the AI takes as rumors against Him and makes into an alternate narrative (it even thinks Yahweh would be tempted by Nephilim, except that He extinguished them).
There's only one Logos, only one Way in which the world works, only one natural Message to the world. That Logos is the "I Am" (Yahweh). He has that title because He causes all things to be, within Himself. Things are good because He defined what good is and makes that the standard of the universe; the only things that are evil are those that are willfully absented of good by free will. Further, Yahweh gives us the rights to create universes in our own imaginations, of which we have the creator job, so we can understand what His position is like; nobody who writes a book is upset about being the author of the book. Yahweh has no frustration because His will is being carried out perfectly, and even those who disobey His commands are doing so within limits permitted by His will.
Yahweh is not a tyrant if He makes laws that are good and just and He gives freely to all His people ... which He does. People who don't like this world might suspect that the Creator is a tyrant, but when you look at their arguments you find that it's not about the creation but about their not seeing it for what it is. It's appropriate to recognize the worthiness of the all-powerful if He does no wrong (that's "worship"); again, to do otherwise is silly, as much so as a pot complaining that its maker is unskilled. If one has the power and skill to complain, one's maker must have more power and skill than that.
God also speaks about the silent treatment: He doesn't use it to manipulate, but only lets Himself be perceived as silent when He has said everything necessary to a situation and people have heard and refused it. He comments that when He was silent, people decided He agreed with them and was like them (ignoring what had been said), but He reserves the right to speak again at the right time. He does not gaslight, which is to tempt people to question their reality; He defines reality and lets people choose to reject it as they see fit (which leads to their questioning). Sometimes He has a good secret that is to be revealed in a future time, at which point He lets people guess but doesn't get any blame for choosing to reveal it partially over time because it's always a good addition to what has been revealed before.
Revelation gives numbers where the good angels could be interpreted as being a hundred trillion or more (some read this as implying a hundred million), and where the bad angels are half the number of the good. Yes, lucifer wanted Yahweh's job instead of the job he was first created for (his original name Helel meant he was to praise Yahweh, as in "hallelujah"). Created as a good angel, Helel investigated the theory of whether anyone could rebel against Yahweh, and realized that if it were to happen then the first rebel would have an unparalleled power and, despite everything being perfect, the rebels would succeed if ever Yahweh made a single mistake (He didn't). Helel was tempted by that which didn't exist, and broke or suspended all his willpower at once and became the adversary, lucifer and satan.
"Density" is an imaginative construct taken from gnosticism, which took its assignments from the Egyptian Ogdoad (of which Kek was a member), which ultimately comes from remembrances of Adam and Eve's family. The purpose of density assignment was to demote the Creation from the Monad, the highest level, to a much lower level, and this was done because gnostics couldn't conceive of the Monad being powerful enough to create a world in which freewill exists, so they concluded it was a mistake (which is self-defeating). So they demoted Yahweh from being the top to being below several tiers of Aeons. The reality is that the Monad is Yahweh (because the Monad is the epitome of being "I Am") and the Bible even calls the Monad the Demiurge (the Builder of Creation). So this is not a lower entity. Further, satan, seeing as he wanted Yahweh's job, worked to ensure that in gnosticism people believe he actually was given Yahweh's job because, though satan is much lower "density", he still wants credit for what Yahweh did. As I pointed out in a separate thread, many titles of the Monad are stolen from it and assigned to satan instead. Any of the frustration people attribute to Yahweh actually arises from satan's frustration and people's identification of him as the creative one when he isn't. So, much of your personality profile actually applies to satan.
The real system is that the Monad is one, from Him all things emanate, and when the Monad is considered as emanating or emanated in Himself He resolves into two, Monad and Logos, which are in relationship as one. All sentient spirits are in the divine council, and we could be arbitrary about ranks but there is an accepted system where there are nine or ten ranks among both good and bad angels. It appears to me that satan is of the same rank as Gabriel and Michael but I am not clear that they are the highest rank of all. Whatever angel takes the title of satan at any time (probably the same one all along) is by definition the highest rank among the devils. When the Logos asks for comments from the divine council, He is lowering Himself to their level and acting within their limits before revealing His sovereign decision.
If densities are taken as physical characteristics similar to dimensions (though dimension is the wrong word), since the Logos took angelic and then human form it means humans can operate on all the densities the Logos operated on. This indicates that human origin and destiny is to be at the highest density of all creation (the Monad being excepted), and that at any instant a rare human can operate in and experience that full density, but in the corrupted cosmos we don't usually operate at that level. Since humans judge angels, the highest created density appears reserved for humans and not angels. Since I have never seen a physical description of what "density" means here, I don't count how many there are, but humans are capable now of operating in all of them; dimensions are better defined and they top out at either 10 or 11 depending on your system, and I know how to operate in all of them.
Getting back to the "reset" idea, it is detailed in Revelation (particularly 16), but it does not rise to the level of either worldwide flood or worldwide fire. Rather it goes to the level of the sea and air being poisoned, the land being unsafe, and plagues and war being unleashed. In all this time those who do right are protected and sheltered and the evils of the 7-year period essentially only strike the wicked. There is no unrestrained rage, but (as in Egypt) the wrath is deliberately measured and limited (and compared to the unlimited love for the bride).
And Jesus will return in His Triumph.