Would love to go into this but not gonna take the time right now. But if you confront a rabbi with false quotes I can understand if you get banned. For instance, as to the thumbnail:
Bava Kamma 113a does not say "Jews may use subterfuges to circumvent a goy." Actual text: "Rav Ashi said: With regard to a Gentile customs collector .... one approaches circuitously; the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: One does not approach circuitously due to the sanctification of God's name." Two contradictory views are stated, then the ruling is given that Akiba is correct even if the Name is not in consideration due to Lev. 25:48 prohibiting robbing a Gentile, as quoted in Sanhedrin 57a. So this paraphrase is almost accurate for the view of the minority of Ashi and Yishmael, but not for the majority view or Jewish practice. Summary attributed also to Yoreh De'ah (generic).
Correct, Washington joining 13 virgin spirits representing the 13 states is unduly Freemasonic. Some other deifications are visible, and in the larger rotunda art there's some appropriation of Native paganism too into the "American" narrative.
The church teaches theosis, not apotheosis.
The 72 names are no problem, it's that people treat them like names of powers other than God, just like they treat the names of our united states. It's not "synagogue of satan" as if that means Judaism, it's a group of "theist" Masons trying to get people away from Christianity. George probably never gave them what they wanted but he did permit himself to be diplomatic with them, and so they "repay" him by remembering him in ways he wouldn't have approved. Compare the statue of Washington as Zeus (let me know if I need to link that).
Those are occasions long in the past when I was invited by individuals who guided me through what I can now say qualify as Backrooms in a broad sense. The point of Backrooms is that they are "liminal", meaning they don't appear suddenly out of place but they gradually give the impression of connecting to something we'd find out of place IRL; so there's no point at which you say "I'm going in" and crossing a clear threshold. That's why discernment is needed, and I didn't have that much but had enough situational awareness to make it through.
I don't know why the Guidestones, Stonehenge, or similar sculptures were ultimately purposed, but I can guess wildly!
The 1% exaggeration is for me to remain slightly cryptic for this forum, but please feel free to ask anything.
Christians are triumphalists, we believe Jesus will rule everything, and most of us recognize he's of Jewish ethnicity, so "every single time" might become literally true.
Thanks for the sanity. I would say "every single time" if it meant Jesus is in control. Maybe it will.
Gamaliel was the leading Pharisee and he was descended from David (via Hillel the Great) just like Jesus was. That's about 15th-cousin level, but it counted in those days. The Bible makes clear that Iudaea Province continued to have a mix of those with genealogies back to Adam and those leaders recently established.
The idea that there existed some other ethnicity than Jewish among the Judeans is completely foreign to the Bible.
Joseph's descent from David as a kingly line does in that culture transfer fully to Jesus by adoption. Mary's descent from David transfers to her seed. Now that we understand conception better, it's clear that the Holy Spirit used a pure-blood egg cell (the Word took part of flesh and blood) for the incarnation. Adam came from dust inspired the Holy Spirit, and Jesus's humanity did too, while his deity did not. Now, the incarnation is a matter that theologians argue hotly, but to say Jesus didn't inherit flesh and lineage from his mother seems pretty well excluded. After the zygote, all of Jesus's flesh in the womb came from his mother by nutritive processes.
Christianity started as a sect of Judaism. "Judaism" as defined by Paul in Galatians is neutral and can include good and bad practice. Christianity winnows out much of the bad practice (but is still being refined).
You have an ahistorical view of "Jew" as being shiftless and "Judaism" as being rabbinical only, which does not account for the historical meaning of those cognate terms in Jesus's day. Even if "Jews" genetically lost certain physical strengths over time, that's part of a curse upon a people, and can be reversed.
I've referred you to what the Bible actually says about "the Jews" collectively and it's quite different from the modern version due to intervening events. Of the quotes I gave about 2/3 are positive and 1/3 negative. Intervening events don't change the identity of the two.
Jesus is really in power. Oh, and he's Jewish.
Yes, all relations between two Christians are part of "church", but obviously that's not the type of "church" in which women are to be silent because Paul wouldn't be saying they should be silent in all human relations. It refers to regulating orderly church assemblies ("the churches"), and specifically exempts the "church" fellowship that a man has with his wife at home. Learn to exegete. Paul teaches you how to define by the example of the way he defines, it's amazingly instructive.
You also speak of regulation by establishing "quorum". c/Conspiracies is unregulated and the regulars seem to like it that way.
I suppose that watching u/CrusaderPepe on c/catholic might be counted a regulated church, but I haven't conceived of it that way as I would be concerned that not enough regulations are secured in many fora here.
The primary example of Christians discussing faith by the river was women, who were not silenced by Paul (Acts 16:13).
in the churches
in the church
c/Conspiracies is not constituted as a church. You don't go into a building managed by someone else and just declare it's a church because there are two of you and the manager has to remain silent no matter what you do. Go start a church, Christian man.
It says, But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; and honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition (Mark 15:3-6).
I'm rather partial to the name "Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" (SPLAJ, 1977-2011).
We had much older words, like those that gave English pederast and catamite, and in Greek arsenokoites and malakos, that work even better. And porneia may be the best of all.
giant bottle of 30 pills
one chip challenge
Literally a bag of potato chip. Only one chip. I also see those .25-oz bags with 8 regular chips. We were commenting that it was Amos's complaint about unequal weights and measures .... and Israelites weren't the only ones doing it.
Yeah, they are more concerned with earth than anywhere, but I'm becoming more enamored of Biblical evidence that they have a little connection to various stars too. Sci-fi has done much to make them look like more physical creatures than they are.
Hebrew4Christians is a good source.
The OP is the complete opposite, pareidolia and apophenia.
Explaining the difference isn't worth it for this graphic.
Yes, and the system is still recognized as incomplete. And for those who want the exact irregular movement of the earth, we've grown a library of when leap seconds have been irregularly inserted into the calendar too, which is another cumulative idiosyncrasy that has no resolution. God intends irrationality that can't be approximated with any simple formula.
Bookmarked for Mercedes-Benz logo peace symbol history.
He once gave me a dozen sources about white replacement. None were on point except for three that all came from Bar-Ilan University. Let me know if you want the link, he would be a caricature of himself if anyone cared to draw him.
See Book of Enoch again. Both are designed to round to 360 in months of 30. But the deficiency of about 11 days is designed to round to 1/3, 2/5, or 3/8 of a month per year (note anticipation of Fibonacci), with the out-of-phase cycle requiring people not to speak rashly but to recognize layering in the revelation.
The moon is also designed to round to 4 weeks and thus festivals are placed at the 4 quarters of the lunar cycle (weekly). This approximates Sabbath (though Sabbath is an inviolate weekly cycle and thus different from both). The 1/3 cycle is then reflected in tying feasts to the 10th of the month as well. In the pentecontad calendar, the 20th of the month was a festival for being the 50th of the previous month. People liked approximations and simple fractions that didn't have to be exact back then.
Correct, there are only three large pyramids in Egypt, plus the red and the bent which are practice models for the great ones. Everything else in antiquity is ziggurat size, except for Etemenanki (Babel), which was the same size as the great pyramid of Menkaure and built the same year IMHO, and which was abandoned spectacularly (while Menkaure's was abandoned when almost finished). After that the next pharaoh skipped pyramids entirely and built a mastaba instead, and architecture backed off for thousands of years.
The first one was called the collapsed pyramid, which failed because they didn't have tech, safety, or efficiency yet. The bent pyramid appears to have had its plan changed in the middle. The red pyramid was a proof of concept. Then the three biggies and the tower of Babel. Then poof.
Mostly correct. All kayfabe. Israel absorbs blame and Babylonish business continues.
If the motive were rectified, no more such towers would be built.
Etymologies proposed by this account have been factually wrong before, and are usually speculative. Will report back.
I'm glad you're taking the time to read the context and try to get a feel for how the Talmud works! It's not easy though, and one thing to keep in mind is that it works like a wiki backpage where anyone can say anything, and everything memorable is preserved whether it's sensible or not.
As I said, 113a:21, which partly appears in your first quote, gives two views, putting the majority view last (do not circumlocute but sanctify the name). Both views affirm vindicating a fellow Jew, but differ on whether circumlocution is permitted, and the majority view is that it isn't. Your third quote is 133a:22, which questions whether a nitpick can be taken from the majority view stated by Akiba (thus putting "apparently" in the gloss to guide the reader that this is an objection to be parried). The parry comes immediately in 133a:23-133b:1, where the original text reads, "One might have thought, deceive him. Therefore, the verse states: 'And he shall reckon with him that bought him', be precise with purchaser." The later gloss then explains, "This indicates that it is prohibited to steal from a gentile." (If you've ever read Aquinas, who is similarly dense, it's sometimes hard to tell that an opposition view is actually presented as opposition to be debunked, just like on this platform sometimes people don't always make clear when they're quoting another person they disagree with.) The position of the arguments, and the last argument not being parried, indicates what the majority view is.
Your second quote is then 133b:2, the opinion of Rav Yosef, saying that Lev. 25:48 permits deception to free a slave, Lev. 25:50 forbids such deception, and therefore they must refer to different types of Gentile. This too is immediately refuted, in 133b:3, "Abaye said to, Aren't both of them written next to each other?" Abaye shows that Lev. 25:47 refers to the "ger toshav" and not just the "goy", indicating that all Gentiles are to be treated by default as responsible.
The fact that individuals were less reasonable in judgment than others, but their opinions were retained so as to be refuted by the majority, is exactly like American case law where many wrong rulings abound but are corrected later by appeal to the same or a different court. Sometimes it's hard to find that a view has been overruled, but the view is still given credit because it was issued formally and is therefore preserved for the instructiveness of its mistake.
Abaye fields another objection in 133b:4-6, thus forbidding abrogation of loans, and then 133b:7-9 covers returning lost property, and again the majority ruling is to return property because of sanctification of the name: "In a case where there is desecration of name, prohibited even lost item." The fact that rabbis are testing loopholes and others are shutting them down is notable, as are the extraordinary haggadoth of 133b:10-12, but these are not the actual case law. If we wanted to argue that there are a number of unscrupulous rabbis, that Ashi and Yishmael were evil for wanting to cheat on their taxes, that would only apply to those individuals and not to the majority laws of the Talmud.
So even if we were to try to give maximal credit to the thumbnail as if it doesn't purport to be a quote (though many take it as such), and it merely summarizes the passage as "Jews may use lies to circumvent a 'Goy'", and it intends to include 133a where the word "circuitous" appears that is not in 133b, it would still be inaccurate because it doesn't indicate this is only the minority view of Ashi and Yishmael and it is immediately contradicted by authoritative context. We don't go around saying Psalm 14 teaches "There is no God" simply because that quote appears in it.