u/Graphenium, you didn't pick up on my prior thoughts here.
Since I met you, you've had this interesting tack. You really want dialogues on the whizbang feeling you get about some very specific data points that inspire you so much that you appear to love to speak about them endlessly, Ra or Chang or Atlantis; but then you don't actually seem to contribute much to dialogue. It's odd to hear myself saying that but it's an attempt to diagnose.
When I ask what you've got in reality, it's all generic maybes and kindas. When I supply my own definite beliefs, those too are met by more of the same. You seem committed to truth while also not responsible to select any particular truth beyond that original commitment while also excessively evangelistic about particular experiences about how great these things make you feel and how much you want to talk about them yet without saying anything committal.
Well, there seems to be a little bit of pent-up analysis coming out fast now that I've opened that valve a little bit.
To take it somewhere, OP is: "The way I see things, these two sources explain existence, the state of our world, and the meaning of life far more accurately than any other." I respond that HH is just recycling simple illuminatist talk like I could fake anytime (who's to say I haven't or won't) and isn't even consistent. You're literally a Hollow Earther according to HH on 10-24 21:53 and you're literally defending that as the most accurate explanation of any in the world. Now you could back off and say, no, what you mean is that the general picture of the devil actually being good (by his own judgment) is the most accurate general picture of all, the specifics are unimportant, but (a) that's not what you said and (b) that too is merely a theodicy copout that we haven't plumbed yet between us.
So can we at least find out what you actually mean in OP without saying Hollow Earth is more accurate than anything? Can you come down on a solid position such as "Helel is a Good Moral Agent" or do you just want to continue playing gadfly and pretending you're not getting bugzapped?
So universalism? Sympathy for the devil? Where do you put this forum's favorite despots and tyrants when they die, are they Jesuses?
I appreciate your saying it's your opinion because I have relative respect for universalists who don't insist on everyone else agreeing with them. (Kinda defeats the argument of universalism to believe that some argument is necessary to get others to agree with you if you believe they will already.)
I stick to God's Word revealed in the Bible; if that's an "apologist" sobeit.
If you accept "the Father and I are [plural] one" that implies that Father and Son have both diversity and unity. You, mind and body, have unity, and you, mind and body, have diversity. Pretty simple.
What would be confusion is if someone said something is unity and diversity at the same time and in the same sense; that would be a contradiction instead of a resolvable paradox. But nobody says that. If you think people are saying something contradictory, just go a bit deeper to see the different things that different clauses refer to. You are one, mind and body are two, but you are yet mind and body, because you are not one in the same way that you are two. If you understand how that paradox works then there's no problem applying the same reasoning to All Being.
You say "united somehow", but Jesus also says "one" i.e. united somehow. If you're mindboggled it can be resolved simply by analyzing what you or others are saying; there's always a resolution. I apologize for the billions of Christians who have copped out and said it can't be understood. I've concluded anything can be understood.
The Church managed to change a lot of things
Correct! Yet what else did Jesus's own disciples see in him? Omniscience ("you know all things"), omnipresence ("there I am in the midst of them"), omnipotence ("none can snatch them from my hand"), eternity ("before Abraham was, I am"), I have a list of 40 divine attributes around here somewhere.
Jesus was declared to be the very Word of God made flesh, who was with God at creation and through whom God made all things.
Yeah, John 1. As Christians we accept the whole Bible as infallible in the original manuscripts. You haven't objected to that so if you have a problem with texts you might want to explain it so I know where you're coming from.
Eventually Jesus came to be seen as God in every respect, coeternal with the Father, of the same substance as the Father, equal to the Father within the Trinity of three persons, but one God.
Yeah. There is one exception, which I already pointed out to you: when an opposite has two complementary poles, like father and son, or greater and lesser, God is both of them in his diversity (and God is the whole spectrum in his unity). The rest of the time, when the opposite of a thing is a nothing, God is the the thing (being all being). So Jesus is God in every respect in which the Father is God, except a very small number of respects in which Jesus and the Father are two diverse expressions of the same spectrum.
I looked at the development of these things and sought to be very considerate of antitrinitarian concerns. I found that the sincere antitrinitarians (not the reactionary ones) were willing to agree to uphold the whole text and then it's simply a matter of not forcing any propositions that aren't clear in the text. The development of the doctrines was not the problem, it was the adding of words that are very tenuously tied to the text (like Latin "person") that distances the doctrine from the text and allows mistakes in the minds of modern readers. I am very hopeful your sincere inquiry will get all your questions answered and confusions dispelled.
Some opposites are between something and nothing, like real and unreal. God is real and God is not unreal, God is all being and is not nothing.
Some opposites are between two poles that ultimately resolve, even if paradoxically. God is Father and God is Son, God is Reality and God is Symbol. In Greek, fathers and sons have the same "living" and "substance", referring to their estate; that's what bios and ousia mean.
If by "trinity" you want to mean that God is nothing or is unreal, that won't work. "Trinity" literally just means threeness but has come lately to mean triunity, three-in-oneness; it doesn't mean nothing or unreality.
The lesser (Samael) is so much less that he does not deserve the titles creator, deity, demiurge, or Yahweh. If gnostics are so monist you'd think they wouldn't deify some subaeonic upstart. The whole Sophia shtik is simply kicking theodicy down the road. Christ is about timeless emanation, not sequential emanation, which literally comes from Kek of the Egyptian ogdoad.
Israel and Yahweh both have a few historical citations prior to 1000 BC, and David has a few by name shortly after. Shoshenq I left records in Byblos, Megiddo, and Karnak of his conquest of named cities of Israel in 925 BC, exactly the time at which the Bible chronology says he (under the name Shishak) attacked Solomon's son Rehoboam. But Israel was generally recognized as similar to other Semitic tribes, i.e. they were Hyksos and Aamu; Abisha the Hyksos was drawn for a hieroglyphic display at around the time Abraham's family kept visiting pharaohs like Sesostris.
I'm pretty confident that the pig-free settlements go back to ca. 1200 BC, that being the primary marker of the Israelites seeing as such nomads left very few other traces.
[Assyrian] "Sennacherib's third campaign, directed against the kingdoms and city-states in the Levant, is very well-documented compared to many other events in the ancient Near East and is the best-documented event in the history of Israel during the First Temple period." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sennacherib&oldid=1345345960
You suggest the Philistinians should have left records about a Jewish state. Did the Peleset people leave any records about anything at all?
You say "There is also no any historical proof that Jews are descendants of biblical Jacob." Why are they called "Jews" then if they don't come from Judah? What would be wrong with identifying the founder of the tribe by that name and the founder of the Levites among them as Judah's brother Levi?
Thank you for supporting Jesus, I appreciate your views generally and am not speaking or asking antagonistically. All records of Jesus indicate that he believed literally in Adam, Noah, Abraham, Israel, Levi, Judah, Moses, David, and Solomon. Was he wrong?
Read the link you replied to separately and tell me a better explanation for the suddenness of a complete resurrection narrative (now believed by 2.5 billion people) arising from an otherwise defeated cluster (like any of a half-dozen other circles built around dead messiahs known historically of the era, like Theudas), i.e. something better than a very imaginative, compelling, and wholly consistent moral-spiritual narrative arising around a historical Jewish hippie named Josh.
What was Josh executed for if not miracle?
Yeah, there were lots of people outside the Gospels in the 1st and 2nd century that said Jesus raised the dead. None of them gave this particular detail that Matthew gives, but it's not significant compared to Jesus himself coming back, which is the core claim that either is completely true or is so amazing that it would take a Jesus to invent it fresh. It wasn't a "massive" number, probably a dozen or so would suffice. And the Talmud demonstrates that the Jews are constantly expecting, and mythologizing, that their fathers are often returning to them bodily to give advice, so all those testimonies also reflect the Matthaean event.
There was no party among the seven or eight Jewish political divisions and many subdivisions that had incentive to popularize these particular "Elijah sightings" as opposed to any others more in line with the emerging Pharisee consensus. Except the new completely unfunded movement, the Messianics (the Way). So it's natural that the Messianics are the only ones to be specific about that resurrection. But about healing, raising the dead, and doing wonders in general, there are many such contemporary testimonies, starting with Tacitus, listed in the link I gave.
You call me "false on every count" and then provide no proof, even though all I did was ask questions. This is an inquiry board but you seem to have your mind made up. Feel free to give evidence rather than circumstantial inference about something I didn't say.
It's a good start and I'm generally supportive. The problem with abandoning everyone and embracing Sitchin is that one particular superpower (Yahweh as taught by Jesus) seems to be winning the game of superpowers right now and that's the side I've chosen. Near East scholar Michael Heiser takes a much more balanced approach that doesn't IMHO contradict the core of the "Anunnaki paradigm".
Correct, Ezek. 28 ties the prince of Tyre and king of Tyre so closely that one might well be the identical son of the other. I think that the current satan is too smart to have been one to have gotten caught up in human flesh in Phoenicia, though, he may have left that to other satan(s).
The Collapse was sudden like Sodom before collapsed suddenly: the culture reached a point of immediate self-destruction, as archaeology attests. It was complete for those cultures for the same reason. We can argue that Jephthah gave fair warning in Judg. 11:24 (which I date as 1174, 300 years after Joshua's death), published widely, that Chemosh would have to fend for himself from then on.
Spiritually, the many nations taking over while the Canaanites collapsed could easily mesh with a satanic consolidation, as satan's game is always to sacrifice one failed work to save others, the more "glorious" the destruction, the better, he thinks. IMHO the corruption and then destruction of the Templars in the 1300s AD was a similar consolidation.
I'm fine with an 1100s Tyrian king being an incarnation a la Anunnaki, but Ezekiel is talking about a 500s Tyrian king if any, so it won't be the same human. If you want to say the satanic HQ was Byblos or Sidon for a long time, that's very reasonable, though I would expect him to have been using backups then too. So I don't see much for me to abandon given your approach so far. How about laying on us the next chapter?
Have you read the top pinned post and reply at c/Atheism?
Do you know that most historical figures of the era are not mentioned by authors for hundreds of years after their death?
Do you know that most scholars agree 1 Cor. 15:3-4 indicates an oral creed circulating about Jesus 3-5 years after his death in 33?
Do you know that Jesus is better historically attested than most other people who lived in that era?
Do you know that if Jesus didn't exist as a person, it would take a person as great as Jesus to be able to invent and propagate such a complicated origin narrative?
Have you read the top pinned post and reply at c/Atheism?
Add: The mods here will be very interested in the most recent several handshake accounts (at least four). Welcome back.
That twists the word "Jew" out of all proportion and just makes it mean "anyone I hate", which is not very communicative.
Christians know that "Jew" is Hebrew for "praiser".
But at least I understand now where you think it went wrong. Very funny. Emperor Theodosius I (347-395) and St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386). Both Nicene, very funny. I thought you were thinking of something that happened in the 5th century but no.
So who or what is God if not unity in diversity?
Complacency to government corruption has been a problem for a very long time.
110% voter turnout in 1860
The Bronze Age collapse ca. 1200 was the fall of Canaanite pedophile culture under its own weight allowing lots of Semitic (many), Japhthetic (Caphtorite, Athenian), and Hamitic (Egyptian) tribes to control regions of the Levant. We have all the idols and temples to prove it. The Sea Peoples were Phoenician and were one of those many tribes who benefitted but there were many others. Satan is usually behind all nations that collapse and most nations that replace, so no surprise there. You're right it's not talked about enough, but most of the replacing nations left records of their conquests that modern history thinks are too dull to review. The fact that "bad guys" run most nations at most times isn't a surprise either. I look forward to your thoughts on this.
I'm not as interested in the thoughts of OP "Dr. Professor Eric H. Cline, Ph.D." or the "National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS)". When he sells his book on the idea that in 1177 "with their end came the world’s first recorded Dark Ages", he's kinda ignoring the fact that Egypt had a strong New Kingdom from ca. 1540 to ca. 1070 with no interruption due to the nearby Bronze Age Collapse. I suppose you could make a case that Egypt was somehow "subjugated" to priestcraft in the latter of those days but that is a highly speculative theory that doesn't indicate a historical trajectory or a connection to Canaan or Israel. The House of Ramses and the priests worked together throughout the whole later New Kingdom. So I doubt OP is worth it.
the 5th Common Era; the Jews put it and all of the Hellenes and Philosophers with it to an undignified mass death and terraformed all of Europe and the Middle East into a prison continent.
Name two such Jews. For Real. Should be easy, no?
It goes way back. Chester Arthur had three false stories released about his birth IIRC to hide the fact that he had Irish citizenship at birth through his unnaturalized father (i.e. he was not a natural-born citizen and knew it but reigned anyway at the hands of an assassin supporter).
Attacking users implies intent.
This is a good point. At the same time intent cannot be directly gleaned but only inferred, so it's not that objective. We might say objectively your sarcastic tone in the subject comment means you didn't intend to insult another, but then I infer you did intend to caricature an identifiable collective third party as insulting another, which does attack the collective by implying they use slurs and are illogical. If you were to say for instance "Greenblatt says", you'd be Naming The Jew For Real and wisely moving the criticism from a nebulous collective to a known violator. Perhaps more to the point even though riskier, "Judith Resnik and Ilan Ramon say". (They have been the subject of conspiracy research.)
In my moderation experience I might let your version go as you edited it, because it's isolated, indirect, and self-moderated by repunctuation; but c/Thisisnotanexit makes the calls at the pleasure of admin and the community. The real question is to what degree you want to interact without getting hung up on meta about restoration of the forum's original honor code. I've noticed that virtually everyone claiming "censorship" here has no idea what real censorship is or has been.
If we were to be very gracious and exempt a million Jewish people who believe Jesus is the Messiah, even though they consider themselves Jews and the rest of Judaism does not reject them unless they are judged individually as having "converted" (which isn't the same as merely believing Jesus is the Messiah), that hypothetical definition would only get us so far as to define "Jew" by religion and not ethnicity and would not implicate all such "Jews" (men, women, and children) as being either nonethnic or criminal.
In particular, Ashkenazi Jews have Jewish heritage dating back to Temple Jews (Ioudaioi) even if there was some immixing. If Americans can tell Jews they're not Jews, then Jews can tell Americans they're not Americans (which is exactly what you imply you don't want them doing); so your argument "not Jews" contains seeds of your own destruction at the hands you claim to despise. That is you're arguing exactly as you say a Jew argues.
So the evidence that the Ashkenazi arose at some point in history from a people without any Jewish birth/conversion integration is totally missing. At the same time, simple surname evidence indicates that most all named any form of Cohen (note, Khazarian "Kagan"), Katz (Kohen-Tzedek), Levi, or Sacerdote have heritage back to the Biblical Levi, and several names have heritage back through second temple Judah to the Biblical Judah, such as Abravanel, Berdugo, Charlap, Dayan, Epstein, Horowitz, Luria, Shaltiel, Spira, Yahya. Netanyahu and Schneersohn claim heritage from gaon Elijah Zalman, others from Rashi or Isaac Luria. Obviously many Ashkenazim do not have such extensive genealogies handy, and many with the best surnames don't have the genealogy handy either, but this much would suffice for any nation to claim continuous heritage against the claims of outsiders. DNA evidence agrees.
1 Thess. 2:15 "contrary to all men" is spoken by a Jew to other Jews about a different subset of "the Jews" "in Judaea" (14), not about all Jews, nor even about all unbelieving Jews. Here are some Biblical descriptions that don't and that do apply to all Jews generically.
I appreciate that you are mostly moderate and not stretching the criticism to those who are innocent of it (e.g. children). You are mostly keeping good pace and not falling into traps that others have who deal with this subject. If you were able to offer historical evidence comparable to the above to advance the thesis that one nationality (yours) has the right to deny the nationality of another ("Jews'"), you might get somewhere; but seeing as nobody ever does then it might be wiser to tone it down and stick to actual facts.
Do you propose to have some demonstrable fact about my ethnicity simply because I'm a covenantalist Christian?
Do you propose to have some demonstrable fact about Jews not being descended from Judah (whether or not there was also intermarriage) and about being solely "dysgenic turkomongoloid"? The Bible says they were Ioudaios in the 1st century, by the 10th century Judaeus was shortened to Ju, there was never a point at which Ioudaioi/Jews ceased to exist with someone else picking up the name.
David, you're quoting a false report that was literally debunked 100 years ago: the meme version is source 4 in my list. In 1920 it was reported there exists no "Libbre David", and assiduous search for such quotes in one of several books called Dibrei David has not turned them up. So the first two quotes are too distorted to find any originals; the others are false interpretations that don't appear in the texts as such. I could present evidence in more detail if you didn't demonstrate yourself predisposed to reject it.
My level of evidence is, you look at a text (like from sefaria.org), you see what it says, you do like a sociologist and interpret it according to its culture. If you want to quibble with anything in the link on a fact basis, go ahead. But it may be simpler for us to do a test case to see what meets your level of evidence.
To your quote about lying, there is no such findable reference as "Schabouth Hag. 6d". However, I invite you to read any of many books called "Shavuot Haggadah" to see if you can find such a reference; I haven't found one. Now, you might bring the medieval source Zohar, Vayetzei 27 which is Google-translated as: "With tricks you will make war for yourself." But this is just an inference from Pr. 24:6 (KJV), "By wise counsel thou shalt make thy war." So it only applies to wartime and is similar to Christian (or most nations') views on use of deception in wartime.
If you wanted to go back to the actual Talmud, you could cite Bava Kamma 113a, which says, "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). Talmudists use context to show which of two contradictory statements is the majority ruling (i.e. Jewish practice), and here it's that marketplace deception or "circuitousness" is not permitted. But if you wanted to call out Ashi and Yishmael by name for a harsher minority approach, you could do so.
TLDR: When you go to the actual Talmud like a comparative religionist, you generally find reasonable judgments that are similar to other contemporary sources (e.g. church fathers on when to "reserve" information). I'd be happy to agree with you on an evidence standard such as I suggest above, and then to judge evidence, but you'll need to come to it without prejudice.
Well, the video title is trying to clickbait; in journalism that's called good headline writing.
What I'm wondering is where you take it. Are you a gnostic? What would gnostic mean then? Why would knowledge of archons be important for daily living? From the contributions of others: Do you have a problem with Jesus affirming a god who likes to sacrifice animals and enjoy the scent of their blood poured on a burning hot altar (we now call that BBQ)? Do you have a problem with Jesus affirming the "I AM" of the Hebrew Scriptures? Do you have a problem with the Bible calling God the Father a "Demiurge" (public servant) in Heb. 11:10?
Thanks for your consideration. I may have started with too much snark.
Umm, that would suggest Gab is not that much "free speech" because with free speech you do get a lot of criticism. Let me know here what Group you post in, please.
I told you I could explain the Day of Atonement vow. You don't seem interested.
Your interpretation of it is not in the Talmud.
If you've heard of the Talmud you should be able to post folio and paragraph. Since you don't, that implies you're playing hearsay down a telephone game of people, including some German skeptics, who had no idea what they were saying.
You're speaking Yiddish and refusing to name the Jew for real. I'm just replying to you and naming names. The community can tell the difference.
Tremendously clickbaity. Maybe we all already know it? Wanna include a submission statement, fren?
Thanks Critical.
If there are sentient spirit beings, will they too enter heaven, even if they're as bad as the Biblical devil?
Will the worst tyrants turn into perfect people in time, so that in a million years you might laugh in the heavens with someone who literally killed 10 million people (or billions over many lifetimes) about how (s)he doesn't deserve any punishment for that (and what does that mean for morality today)?
If you believe in reincarnation, have you considered the differences between gilgul, metempsychosis, and transmigration, and come down on a definitive position of the interim time, the nature of memory and amnesia, and the relationship of souls and oversouls?
Is there perhaps a time when a person's freewill has the power to "lock in" the desire to reject good and morality forever, or is a person not free to lock that desire in because such desire will always be thwarted sooner or later?
Things to think about.