Hey Vlad, this is a fun conspiracy but I'm not sure what dots can be connected.
I see that there is fog of war about it, namely "her coffin was actually filled with secret documents buried to escape scrutiny" and "she was buried on the golf course to get a tax writeoff", which are apparently secondary theories that distract people from the core and paint unhelpful side narratives.
I see that the primary force of the event was to delay Trump's deposition to Tish James, but I'm not confident that's a big deal in the scheme of things. Also there seems to be no continuing "legs" to the story because nothing else is obviously tied in later to keep people's interest.
So my first take is that Ivana may have actually died earlier for other reasons and a decision was made to postpone the announcement of the death until it could be used to upend a deposition schedule to Trump's advantage. That would explain the initial oddities, but it would only take it one layer back to what other reasons she would have blunt torso injuries in prior time. Perhaps spy work caught up with her? Trump would have superior intel and control but would not have sufficiency of either SS or personal security to protect against a murder if it happened after Biden's larp began (30+ years divorced). But it could be presumed that (as with the Paul Pelosi case) the first responders might have been embeds acting on a contingency instruction to secure the site and prevent leakage of the event. Nobody dies on their death date anymore, that's such an old-fashioned idea.
Welcome back, just a reminder that c/FlatEarth is interested in your work.
The "firmament" is made of matter, of course, what might be loosely called "waters" (hydrogen and oxygen), but it's been "stretched out" to an extreme degree. There are three heavens of different character, and it's probable there are also different dimensional statuses involved as Paul and John show. Were you looking for something more specific from that?
One thing that happens at Scored is autofilters remove links that they don't like. When this happens everyone else sees "Comment removed by spam filter, pending further review." instead of your comment. You can find a log URL that will show the first line of the removed comment ["the origin of man is deliberately being covered up from us They are covering a lot more than you think about the original man. There are [two creation stories of humans in the Bible.](https://4."]. All you need to do is repost it without the link (and possibly tell people less directly how to find the link).
c/Conspiracies has no active moderators; admin names are on the list and they are active but very rarely step in here. So it's a Wild West forum right now. Don't sweat it.
You might be interested to know that basically no readers of Genesis had any problem with creation being told from two perspectives until 19th-century German higher critics came in and started writing theories about how the Bible was contradictory and recent and how nobody needed to believe in God or live morally. Little bit of pandering to their own deviances there. Quite an interesting rabbit hole. Those of us in the 21st century who are still troubled by Biblical accounts are not reading them in their cultural setting. But, as I said, I'm still interested in what the real Truth is as the two accounts have much to say about Reality that is unappreciated by Christianity (notice the movement of gold, for instance) and there is much around the text for us to learn from.
Welcome to c/Conspiracies! Obviously the moon landing would be much cheaper if it was faked so all the money would have been funneled into ARPAnet with a small cushion for doing enough science to keep their filmmaking relevant.
Jesus is who he is. He knows better who he is than I do, so I nominally defer that subject to him. But sometimes he lets me blather my opinion about him. More objective figures are about only 2/3 of nominal Christians are in the dark about this. Which aspect of who he is are you here to share? A couple of details and I could direct you to the most interested parties. Thanks!
Mrs. Ham is said to have been black. Genetic diversity before the flood worked the same way as afterward, the flood just created a bottleneck and three emergent genotypes.
The N word, first seen ca. 1775, is an "alteration of earlier neger, from Middle French negre, from Spanish or Portuguese negro, from negro black, from Latin niger" according to m-w.com.
Because prots, Catholics, and Orthodox are all not Biblical Christians as they believe in some things like pugatory and the abilities of dead people.
Was wondering how you would exegete 1 Cor. 3:12-15 KJV ....
Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Guy, it's by an anon and follows the patterns of other jokes in the Talmud. It's a pagan, a Roman, and a Jew walking into a seance. It's already advertised as incongruous because the questionable Jew conducting the seance shouldn't have been doing so in the first place. The punchline is that even though all are speaking of torment the first two say to fight the Jews and the third says to convert to Judaism because he still likes the Jews. It has nothing to do with any theology and is more closely related to any American joke about any conspicuous person going to hell when people don't know theologically if s/he did or not.
You just commented on genetic fallacy. References to names can be determined based on context. I looked at all the Yeshu passages, there are three men named Yeshu from three different centuries (including Jesus) who each have their own passages, then there are a couple passages like this one that just mention Yeshu generically. The pagan is Balaam, who could've meant other people who had been compared to Balaam, and the Roman is Titus, who could've been father Titus Vespasian or son Titus Caesar. So it's a generic reference, not a specified person; it probably reflects on all three Yeshu figures.
There are also quite a few ladies named Mary in the Bible and I have never gotten them all straight. Every time the Bible says Mary it refers to one of them actually doing the thing it says she did. But there are debates about how many and whether some were the same person, and there are questions about some passages which person identified from elsewhere was intended. And Gittin 57a is a passage from which the particular Yeshu can not be specifically identified; in fact there are at least four readings for the name of the Jew (blank, Yeshu, Yeshu of Nazareth, and a sinner of Israel), so we can't insist on which is the original, though I think "Yeshu" is the likeliest. We can infer that some Jews regarded the passage (nonbindingly) as referring to Jesus of Nazareth, but we cannot infer that that is the original Talmudic text given that the Talmudists poke equal fun at three Yeshu figures.
I appreciate your challenges, but they might be better formed as questions rather than as an appeal to ignorance and a false equivalence. You might take the hint that, since I literally found 53 misquotes of this passage and listed them in the link, I might have a bit of evidence of the joke claim therein.
This is the 53rd misquotation of Gittin 57a that I've found here, the most misquoted passage on Scored. It's a joke about a stock character that reflects Yeshu the student of ben Perachiah, who lived in the early 2nd century BC.
See more corrected Talmud quotes.
This is the 49th misquotation of Gittin 57a that I've found here, the most misquoted passage on Scored. It's a joke about a stock character that reflects Yeshu the student of ben Perachiah, who lived in the early 2nd century BC.
See more corrected Talmud quotes.
The only solution is for the people to run our own countries as a team of equals without authoritarianism.
Sounds like elevating Americans as a god class and everyone else as a slave class.
Not that I'm against each nation doing that for themselves in their own borders.
Do all that you can to support voluntaryism, the Zero Aggression Principle, and common law, and I'm behind you.
Because it's respectfully libertarian, it's very slow, and gets punctuated by others who play unfairly.
But keep preaching this message unfiltered, undistracted, and it will take in due time.
OP questions Israel and the Jews on five important points with the true status of the religion while demonstrating that questioning Israel and the Jews with falsehoods, illogic, and probable ill speech of the dead only serves to advance Jewish causes by shilling. It's not ultimately "anti-Semitic" for someone to larp being anti-Semitic so badly that it makes anti-Semites look really stupid: it's pro-Semitic shilling. Please see my related post.
I get paid twice as much for this comment because twice nothing is nothing.
I'm a volunteer for Scott Lively of SwampRangers.com.
Then explain the difference between the baptized Jews Glinka speaks of and the baptized Jews I speak of.
JG5 reads everything, as a courtesy I don't need to ping him on things I've said to him before (or to ping him when someone else has). I've also already said that I suffer with whatever names people throw at me. But I've pretty well fought satanism consistently here, and am currently working on a detailed post for several forums about how to fight satanism.
Your statement if taken logically would show that all the first 5,000 members of the Holy Church and the first pope were not Christians at all. Cornelius must be the first pope then because he was the first non-Jewish member of the Holy Church.
But perhaps you have some other theory, which is likely to be one of those that I've discredited successfully every time I've seen it. This being a new year and you being gracious, let's hear the theory.
If I'm a satanist, then JG5 is SynagogueOfSatan. But it's a new year, I'll consult among the Swamp Rangers as to whether certain forums need repurposing.
As to "Christ killers": Is it true that, among the first 5,000 members of the Holy Church, Pope Peter admitted many Jews (probably several hundred) that were among the exact same crowd who called for Jesus's death as shown by Acts 3-4?
The same link shows that Nazis so manipulated the pre-Nazi Weimar prohibition of homosexuality as to leave many gays unpunished and to punish many straights. So yeah.
Plus the speed of your reply indicates I'm over target.
*intercession
Are you larping? You're doing an excellent job of making Catholics look bad, and the purpose of a system is what it does.
Three, because when the NSDAP did burn porn, it was to cover up the burning of all the previous government-mandated intervention records on all the party members' own sexual deviancies.
Who are you? Let your view of yourself be the judge of your view of me. Do I test or judge? Do you recognize me? How would you know I have not gone to the Church except by consulting the Church's records in my Christian name?
I believe the Apostles' Creed. I've gone to the Church and am waiting. Here I am going to you. Why don't you recognize me? Are you not the Church?
Incidentally, how do you know I haven't been training with other members of the Church and gotten the right hand of fellowship from them but don't want to play it up to see how other Church members will treat me without credentials?
Jesus came to seek out and save that which was lost, the lost sheep didn't "go to" him.
What if I am a humble supplicant waiting upon the Church to recognize me? What if I do believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? What if I don't worship the killers of Christ? What if I don't deny the successors of Peter? What if I do believe in the apostolical succession of bishops?
I keep telling him that. But you see, since the Holy Church tells him he has Jesus in him already (via sprinkling) and there is no greater assurance of his eternal destiny than what the Holy Church says, he can cuss up a storm and not be accountable to any of us separated brethren about it.
Yeah, the atheist is the original cuckold, he ignores God who gave him a social covenant as God showers all his love on me.