John got started in 28 because the 70th sabbatical cycle of 27-34 AD had begun and everyone knew it (counting from 457 BC, 457+27-1=69*7; four sabbatical cycles are verified by history as noted by Benedict Zuckermann). John was killed because of a pedophile dance, one that Oscar Wilde called the Dance of the Seven Veils. This is a reference to the gradual sevenfold denudation of Inanna as she descended into the underworld after the fall of Dumuzid, which is an Eve-coded mythos. Therefore the powers that had both John and Jesus killed were of the same cabal that caused Eve to discover her nakedness. Jesus was crucified specifically because the Rephaim (Remphan) represented their power as being a sin-bearer in a tree, same coding.
No, I'm speaking of the Jews
Well, when people do that here I generally ask why they use a nebulous term "the Jews" that would mean every man, woman, and child, and I get little response. If people just said "it's Jews" instead of "it's the Jews", then they wouldn't be referring to the collective but to whichever individuals are guilty, but for some reason people wish to collectivize their enemy, which actually removes guilt from the guilty and places it upon an imaginary construct. But we don't have to go that route. Suffice that there is a cabal, they are satanists, and satan will use whomever he can (good of you to allude to City of London and Masonry); I'm trying to finish writing a post on the subject.
Monad is the supreme/absolute consciousness, complete fullness (Pleroma) and total absence of evil. And this is not an insignificant theological detail .... not ... a deity subject to moods and preferences, but ... the immutable source, the Monad. Who does not judge, who does not decide who deserves to be heard. The Monad is pure consciousness.
Great. Now, I use "God" capitalized to mean the supreme fullness and total good, and I use "Yahweh" to mean the self-existent (absolute), and I use "Creator" capitalized to mean that from which all emanates. ("Demiurge" similarly but it's less important.) It sounds like you want to use those words for lesser being(s), as if the emanator of a creator or god is not the Creator of creators or God of gods.
I also appealed to history of religion to demonstrate that the gnostic demiurge came from the Egyptian ogdoad and was not the god conceived by any of the Jews of Jesus's day (two of that ogdoad were literally Heh (Yahweh-coded) and Hauhet (Eve-coded)). Now you say things like:
Jesus never prayed to God. He prayed to the Monad
.... Luke 6:11-12 KJV: "Jesus ... went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God" (cf. Rom. 8:34, Heb. 7:25).
When Jesus uttered the words, "I and the father are one," he was not claiming to be Yahweh
I believe Jesus constantly says "I am" in Aramaic, which is "Yahweh" applied to himself.
So my question comes up again: How would we decide among these options? If we both pursue truth, then I come with this historiographic evidence about the Greek roots of your belief, and you come with some historical observations where you indicate the belief was original to Jesus and his Jewish-then-Gentile followers, so how would we select and refine our two evidences? I would presume that we'd have agreeable standards that history is judged by preponderance of evidence and inference to the best explanation, but so far we're just laying out two lines of inquiry without a meeting of the minds about how to resolve those lines. See why I think that's important to judging how to direct people's understanding of Christianity?
Correct Atlantis dates are 3993 BC to 2337 BC. The hieroglyphics at Sais got it wrong because they relied on exaggerated Sumerian dates.
I agree we probably have worse ritual abuse than any time in history, and what Trump's done hasn't lowered the numbers yet. This forum loves comparing them. Now, I've learned a bit about Judaism so I can say you're speaking e.g. of Frankism but not of Hasidism (among many isms), and there are indeed many Frankist Jews who are working that particular narrative. Of course, since I've got Paul, I have one of the clearest rejections of that narrative, namely, "Shall we do evil that good might result? Their condemnation is just." (Note, there are blamers here of all kinds, and since the biggest forums on Scored are nominally "no racism" forums I have a personal preference that we do not judge the innocent with the guilty, but I am all in favor of naming any guilty parties or groups, like JE/GM, in which membership constitutes willful contribution to collective guilt; so, if you want to blame, I trust you do so according to a just standard.)
If we agree that good and evil exist, then conscious beings have limited free will to choose between them (only the Monad has totally unfettered free will). The universe also has the property that if you choose evil your ability to choose gradually shrinks, and if you choose good your ability to choose gradually grows. It's a vast universe, and so we've had trillions of evil acts, many billions of heinous and destructive acts. The question from the standpoint of good is how much evil should be allowed, and what we find is that there's enough that we also have many people turning from evil out of their free will to learn to pursue good alone. We could imagine a world with less evil or with more evil, but, between the history in which evil gets itself restrained sooner or later and the prophecy in which we are assured the same will happen to any evil at the right time, it doesn't seem like our imagination would do much better in setting the right limits on evil than the created world already sets.
The remaining question is then whether the Monad participates in evil by allowing free will. No, because free will is a good gift, whether it's abused or not. God is not the author of evil, but you could say he's the Author of authors of evil. He gives us power to choose and if we consistently choose poorly we face natural consequences; that's good natural law. Natural law also ordains that the person who chooses evil cannot perfectly achieve the evil he chooses, because it is ultimately a contradiction: he can only achieve what is permitted by natural limits, he cannot kill and destroy all that he wills to. And we have an early statement, Gen. 50:20, that it's possible for God to will, with a good will, that people achieve certain things with their evil will. The illustration is given that God can use people's evil will to achieve further good for all people, both to feed the innocent hungry and to give mercy to the guilty that some of them might turn. So God does no evil even though he gives creatures free will to do evil.
When you see the problems you describe, speaking out against them (and refining your evidence to get much more specific) is part of the good you can achieve, and it contributes to repelling the evil even at its core. There are some things happening with this cycle of ritual abuse that will never happen again because humanity's collective memory will forbid it in the future. I mourn the evil but I look for what is happening to get us past certain levels of evil in history. Now, others can take other views, but that's how I navigate. Bringing it back one topic, the physical is not evil in itself but is being redeemed, and so I don't give Samael the credit of being able to corrupt things that badly. Rather there is good news that monadic natural law restrains evil sufficiently for each day.
Correct. Since we discovered them almost 100 years ago, all coronaviruses are either widespread and inconvenient, or deadly and noncasual. The imagination that there is a new version of an old thing that is simultaneously deadly and widespread was the hoax. As soon as it was announced, I looked it up and discovered this, like the month before pandemic was declared. Fear was always the weapon.
Oh, campfires are another thing entirely. It's still hard for me to talk about the vanishing hitchhiker in any other way than scholastically. Mental note, lightening up.
Without playing the video or reading more than this comment, I'd simply suggest there are lots of AI feelgood urban legends going around, many narrated to sound like there are documentation and witnesses. Therefore Serling delivery doesn't carry the case for critical thinkers, though it makes incredible theater.
I said that more or less as a joke
I appreciate it then! It's hard to get to know a person online so as to be able to tell the intended intonations. That particular one gets around because Christians have argued theodicy for many years (the vindication of God in allowing evil) while atheists have argued nihilism for many years (evil and God are irreconcilable therefore neither is meaningful). But both that and maya are secondary IMHO. The way threaded conversations work, sometimes we get into multiple branches, and right now I'm still looking at this link as the main branch. Also an interesting aside:
But for humans once they reach about age of 30 their chance of dying doubles roughly every eight years.
We do have a unique curse on us. Having looked into this before, I was going to question your math, but you seem to have it close enough not to quibble. The usual measurement is risk of dying in the next year, which at 30 is about 1/1000 and at 110 is about 1/2. But there's another fascinating phenomenon, namely that it's not fully exponential but begins to taper off after around 70-90, where tapering means the risk begins to plateau and essentially ceases to increase. You still have a high risk of death but it doesn't get any riskier after a point approximately at 110. That means that for some people, every day they live their life expectancy goes up by a full day. That encourages me to aspire that every day I live I increase my life expectancy by a full day or more (some days it's doable).
But that's all to say we have uncountable rabbit trails. I do have a tendency of redirecting people to whether they have made a personal commitment to truth because the nature of their commitment helps me understand how to approach disputable topics. Thanks!
Max Headroom: 30 Minutes Into the Future.
Since you are talking about this so much, I'll say that (as I have for years) I'll upvote or downvote u/CrusaderPepe based on how I perceive his argument is going; sometimes he's within the pale. So, though I don't upvote him in every community he posts in, a few of my upvotes are being counted in your totals.
Since you point out he has a lot of supporters (in my view, mostly just the Catholic lurkers and blog readers who dutifully refresh his profile), he doesn't need much from me. Though I don't have animus for him despite our particular disagreement, as a courtesy to you and as a brief test of your theory I will cease to upvote him for an unspecified period so as to see if the data persist. There are times I do this with other contributors who clearly don't need my upvotes. I still don't agree that you should go around making a big meta deal of a particular number, but if the explanation is a combination of lurkers and bots then the real contributors would be well advised to withhold votes to see if the numbers stabilize more consistently to test the theory.
That's the second-most popular date. But I agree that "33 years" is not reading the text literally when it says "about". Anyway, I trust you're considering my other thoughts. Always good to hear from you even though my agreement with you ranges over the whole gamut.
Looks like we just crossed in the mail. So when you make these statements (some with sounds of certainty, some IMO), that's where I ask how we can come to agreement in our search for truth (point (a)). For instance:
all you have to do is look around, look at us humans. I rest my case.
It's not that simple IMHO. There are many answers to why evil exists besides this one and none of them are necessarily right until we start (scientifically) comparing hypotheses and inferring to the best explanation.
The universe is indistinguishable from a sufficiently detailed simulation (Math Universe Hypothesis or MUH) so we are free to call it one, and call it not one, as the context warrants. But you, or I, could propose methods as to point (a) such that we can be more certain of these answers with respect to each other's views.
Interesting, but maybe nothing more than unmasking one spy (not named in link).
Going back to the earlier statement then:
his God and their God was not one and the same. That's where they're wrong, they're worshiping to wrong God.
If that is true, it would logically follow that Jesus's Jews and other rabbis' Jews did teach different things. But I don't see the proof that it's true they had different gods. Sofia and her son (Samael) don't come from Jewish tradition but from Grecized Egyptian tradition. Yah doesn't come from Greek or Egyptian tradition but from Hebrew tradition. Therefore when Apocryphon says that Samael is called Yaldabaoth it doesn't mean he automatically gets the rights of the meaning of Yah Sabaoth. Apocryphon might be truly reporting the lies of Samael's followers. For someone who doesn't understand the Near East cult of Yah to look at Yah's attributes very casually and say, oh sure, Yah must be exactly Samael, would be to fail all principles of comparative religion by comparing apples to scorpions.
And that's what I mean by (1), asking where these two Jewish movements differ. Yes, they differed in practices, but not clearly in theology. If you don't like the later church's theology, that's fine, we don't have to bring that up because we're focusing on the theology taught by Jesus. In particular you're right to note that the framing "if you don't believe in Jesus, you will burn in hell forever" is suspect because so much is missing; but that's a side point. On the main line, it seems that we'd need to come to agreement on methods of how to read and interpret sources to determine whether Jesus's Jews and other rabbis' Jews had different gods in their original theology. Transformation and belief in truth (knowledge, trust) are both essential and always accompany each other: transformation means there's belief, and belief means there's transformation.
Jesus isn't saying "follow me" or "worship me."
IMHO "Follow me" is one of the most certain things the historical Jesus said. He didn't say "worship me" (who does?), but I've documented that the words for "worship" meant quite a few different things than we expect (even latria), and so when people bowed to Jesus respectfully that fell under several words for "worship" and was considered worship (even if we don't count it to have that meaning today). But, more important (if I can use Paul), the way we follow Jesus is exactly the way we follow other leaders, and in bowing cultures we bow to Jesus in the way we bow to other leaders. When you get to latria, it is only offered to the Father, but it can be offered through the physical image of God in humans and that's the direction latria should be taken (worship God who is in us).
So for (2) it's not essential to argue about the specifics of claiming to be a god, but (again) claiming many different powers and titles of divinity is very tied up with Jesus's narrative. And whenever you think about divinity in any human you find that Jesus was so one with the Monad that, whatever attribute you think of, he had first. He didn't intend us to be separate from him but that we would all be one in a many-membered "body of Christ". So, just as his nature and message align perfectly, so should ours. You make a decent description of the message and so our message, and our spark of divinity, must be united just as his was.
Sofia his mother, and a partial aspect of the divine Pleroma, desired to create something apart from the divine and did this without consent from the Father. Demiurge (Yahweh) having stolen a portion of power from his mother, sets about a work of creation in unconscious imitation of the superior realm.
I've heard this, but I don't understand how we can classify these Dodecad offshoots as "good" or "not evil" if we're also calling them nonconsensual and thieving and mistaken and false. It's also not a cosmology that particularly appeals to historical truth claims better than say Zeus and Hera do. One issue is that this life involves doing physical good, and so a message of focusing solely on some other life that is not something we generally experience is an extraordinary claim that I'd ask for greater proofs of. So I appreciate your speaking so forthrightly and yet I ask the same questions of the meaning of these things that I ask others who raise similar points.
So in question (3) you give an excellent definition of the Monad. What I don't understand is why we should give any credit or value to Samael. For instance I use the word "Yah" (self-existence) to mean precisely "It is he who establishes himself", so I don't believe in awarding its forms freely to Samael (who isn't even an original of the Dodecad but an offspring).
TLDR: (a) All that is just for me to categorize and seek to enfold your thoughts. When it comes to specifics (and any debate), we are likely to begin to question which documents weigh more heavily than which if we get to a hard disagreement. I like to preclude that instead, by first asking how we would jointly use documents and inner revelation and other sources in some objective, agreed way so that we can come to the same answers with the relative certainty of math and science. That is, not calling something right or wrong by appeal to authority, but by making inferences to the best explanations. If you're someone who pursues the truth at all costs then right evaluation of revelations shouldn't be an issue.
(b) Your exposition puts you very close to one Conspiracies regular, and significantly close to the moderator of another forum I referred to. Neither are very aligned to traditional Christendom but both state they uphold original Christianity. If you'd like me to get these two folks involved, I can ping them, but I don't want to do so if you're wanting to keep it between us two for now. There is also another moderator I alluded to whose thoughts are pretty close to mine but who might be too traditional for you; that person will probably be along in time sooner or later too.
They figured if they can confuse people into thinking his death leads to salvation instead of his message, they can shake people's attention away from his message because once 5 percent practice his message, the whole world because saved from hell on Earth.
Jesus's death and resurrection are inseparable from his message. Neither his message nor his death and resurrection guarantee salvation unless they are believed, but you can't meaningfully believe his message without believing in his purposeful death and resurrection and vice versa. And we do have more than 5 percent practicing his message, and that's why the whole world is being saved right now.
they changed his named to YaPitur which means to Lord Jupiter but later changed it again to YaZeus which means Lord Zeus
Totally false, there is no relationship between Iesus and Zeus except for the -us ending common to all male names. Jupiter and Zeus were not confused with Jesus, they were different beings; sometimes one is put in tension with the other, but never as a synonym.
So Rome, using the Council of Nicea, made the Catholic religion.
No, from its start it was always catholic ("kath holes" in Luke) and orthodox, but there were significant changes in the 4th century when it was legalized that made it different.
His mother was NOT a virgin.
Mary's virginity has been taught since the gospels and echoed in 2nd-century patristics. By why would you need to deny such a claim so boldly unless who he is were an essential part of his message? And if who he is becomes part of it, then maybe how he died and rose is part of it.
He was crucified at 36
Yeah, I have 35.5, from fall of 4 BC to spring of 33 AD. People took Luke's "about 30" and added 3 years of ministry to get 33 years old, which is math abuse because whenever Luke says about he means about (approximately).
Jesus is part of the Christ which is basically the level of God in individual form in the universe but he himself had to experience limitation when incarnating here for various purposes.
Christ is a divine person. If by Jesus you mean a human person, they were one. Christ is also one with us. And in whatever way we are to be Christ (Anointed), Jesus has already been Christ even more utterly so. Jesus shares the title of Christ with us such that he is called head and we are called members (parts), but this doesn't divide Christ and so calling anyone "a part of Christ" is misleading.
So it's true "Adolf Hitler had Ernst Rohm executed after learning of his homosexuality." In fact it was about 15 years after. Hitler knew Rohm was gay when DAP members were holding meetings at gay bars in 1919. I have the names of the places here somewhere from The Pink Swastika.
Very helpful, James, I'll mull it over and get back to you.
When this came up before, I've said I believe in Samael just fine, but I'm not able to accord him more titles than he clearly deserves, namely Yahweh, Yaldabaoth, Demiurge, or Creator. But then I haven't had opportunity to read the whole Apocryphon through so maybe I should do that first.
Well, if it's not physically feasible then either it won't happen that way or it'll be a miracle (spectacle), and either way it'll be good. I won't be absent from the catechumens when the Revolution comes.
Interesting take! Pulling some good historical quotes, and some less inspired ones.
"The Jewish financed Hussite revolution led by Jan Hus, gained cooperation with the Jews in Bohemia due to their shared affinity with Judaism and undermining the authority of the Catholic Church." Ah, but Luther turned against the Jews, so if they infiltrated anything then we are free to exfiltrate it. For instance, even as a moderate Sola Scriptura guy I've also recovered the place of Christian Tradition that would be, in this theory, what the Jewish force is allegedly trying to get me to lose.
"By 1517, the Jews who controlled the spice trade began reinvesting their profits into the printing industry .... secret trafficking of unauthorized and heretical biblical translations." Sure, they likely also made Luther the first grassroots meme. More important, the Fugger bank caused the whole indulgence controversy in the first place with its loan to Albrecht.
"Kabbalistic manipulation ... in the following two ways. First, in the internal emphasis on salvation as an alchemical process of self-enlightenment through the transmutation of a new man. Second, as external actions to hasten eschatological events by replacing the old Christian order with a new messianic Jewish kingdom on earth." Hmm, the new creation is actually Pauline and alchemy is the counterfeit; and millennial eschatology seems to be the original majority view, after which being nice to the amillennials led to the present watery stance. So I'd agree Jewish kabbalism resonated with this but didn't create them.
"Studying Jewish texts and rabbinical traditions as part of an eschatological mission to convert Jews to Christianity." Yes, it has its validities and dangers, like all evangelism only more so.
"It’s safe to say Yates is correct in stating that this remolding of Christianity is nothing more than a new manifestation of the ancient judaizing heresy." No, because neither of these are clearly defined. Judaizing is forcing laws on others involuntarily. Christian evangelistic sifting of kabbalah was not done by force.
Catholics did force Protestants and Protestants replied in kind for awhile, but that's a different case. For conspiracy's sake, it's interesting to note that the first blood shed in the Reformation was the Knights' War led by Franz von Sickingen and Ulrich von Hutten, influenced by Johann Reuchlin (uncle of Melanchthon), who is painted by OP as the kabbalist. They seized upon action against Luther to try to overthrow Catholic polity, acting against archbishop and emperor, attacking Richard of Trier but getting attacked back, which killed Sickingen. The knights' objections were then reflected in the larger Peasants' War, which has unclear causes but was clearly the result of "community organization" starting in Stuhlingen. So the religious wars were started by landowners who weren't Protestant or Lutheran (though they were friendly with Luther) and then by organized peasants, both of which attacked the Catholic structure with the clear assistance of the printing press and coordinated philosophy but without direct reference to Luther other than using his case as a banner to wave. So in terms of a demonic network setting up a major attack on church unity, yeah the fingerprints are there; similarly, the Catholic structure failing to give Luther a fair hearing could also have been the result of calculated manipulation. So I will agree with bookmarking Johann Reuchlin (a student of David Kimchi) as possibly used as an anti-Church provocateur and foil of converso Johannes Pfefferkorn.
Luther is quoted on Sola Fide as "These are those adorable mysteries of Scripture and vera cabala, which even Moses in some places indistinctly indicated, which the prophets and apostles knew." To me this supports the idea that he sought the apostolic original and used "cabala" in the same sense as Paul used the word "received" (H6901, Greek in 1 Cor. 15). Tabletalk 805 refers positively to alchymy as herbal and metallurgic and symbolic of resurrection, which again indicates the same desire to sift the work of others. Father Seraphim Rose adds, Luther "consulted rabbis to construct his text, and that text was, therefore, skewed in favor of judaizing". The similarity between the Lutheran and Rosicrucian seals is also noted.
Funny: "The Calvinists justified their violent iconoclastic crusades of 1566 with Calvin’s doctrines and were never explicitly condemned by the reformer" (yeah, because he died in 1564). And: "Perhaps for Zwingli and Calvin, the clarity of Scriptures came not from a clear reading of Exodus 20:4, which does not detail what constitutes a graven image, but from the Babylonian Talmud" (wholly speculative). And: "Cotton Mather even went on to develop the teaching that Native Americans were of Jewish ancestry, an idea so influential it later became a core doctrine of Mormon theology" (guilt by association).
"Increase Mather .... interest in Jewish mysticism was particularly sparked by the Sabbatean movement led by Sabbatai Zevi in the 1660s." Sounds more rational than the prior paragraph, but is also inconsequential. Quaker George Keith writes favorablly on kabbalah to counteract Jacob Bohme's favor of kabbalah, sounds more like the sifting mechanism than the infiltration mechanism.
"H[ie]romonk Job Gumerov reminds us: 'This occult numerical and alphabetic magic has nothing to do with the meaning of Scripture. Biblical texts do not continue any code or cipher.'" Not true, Matthew used 14 as code for David, John used 666 as code, Jeremiah used atbash subsitution cipher twice for Babylon, acrostics and anagrams are pervasive, etc. The question is the right use of gematria as opposed to the rampant abuse.
"These esoteric symbols we carry with us on our currency to this day should serve as a reminder that the American ethos was not established upon anything that resembles apostolic Christianity, but a form of Christian Humanism synthesized with revolutionary Kabbalistic doctrines." I think they represent the warfare over America using ambiguous symbols that testify of multiple strands of domination claims over it.
Davening is sexual? Noted.
"The first Noahide law contains an explicit prohibition of idolatry punishable by death, which incriminates Christians for their worship of Christ." Not true, because Noahide courts over Gentiles are run by Gentiles, not Jews, so Gentiles get to decide if Christianity is idolatry or not. "On March 26, 1991 the U.S. Congress, under the presidency of George H.W. Bush, established the Seven Noachide Laws as Public Law 102-14 in honor of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the Chabad-Lubavitch." Good, a test. Full text below, and it does not establish the Noahide Laws but proclaims an Education Day and mentions "these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws" (not as interpreted by Jews but by the earliest civilizations).
"One might argue that regardless of the Hebrew word not appearing in the Bible, the doctrine of Shekinah as a manifestation of God’s glory is biblically sound; yet the mere usage of this exclusively rabbinical term begs the question: How did it end up in Protestant theology?" "Shekinah" is from the common Biblical word "shakan" for dwelling, and the dwelling of God is a common Biblical theme without specifying that particular inflection of the word. Using a Hebrew inflection to describe a Hebrew thought is perfectly acceptable, that's where we get words like "Abba", which I don't believe is in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Conclusion: "This goes to show that throughout the centuries, Protestant theologians have maintained their own type of oral and written transmission of rabbinical thought, whether knowingly or unknowingly." Well, the issue is what is truth because it would be expected that the rabbis would retain a little truth that can be sifted as background for Christians. We can't blacklist a doctrine solely because rabbis have said it, since everything rabbis say is supposedly from our own Hebrew Scriptures, so there must be a reason for them saying it. Even if a rabbi speaks a blatant falsehood (as they do), the issue is not that it's rabbinical but that it's clearly false.
Therefore it's still disappointing. Yes, kabbalah influences Protestants and founding fathers as it did many of the Church's original fathers, who rely on gematric and rabbinical reasoning. What I'd have looked for with such a title would have been a distinction between truths that Christianity has in common with kabbalah and falsehoods of kabbalah not found in Christianity (or Orthodoxy if you prefer). Instead I got "kabbalah bad" without any recognition that the first Christian creed in 1 Cor. 15:3-4, when translated into the Hebrew thought that pervaded it, states that it is literally kabbalah (formally received).
Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded; Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws; Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos; Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society; Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future; Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world; Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26,1991; Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, "the rebbe", this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of "education and giving", the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and Whereas this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as "Education Day, U.S.A.". The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. Approved March 20, 1991
I don't know that Dante had one! AI doesn't help. My first thoughts are that the number of orders of angels are nine or ten, suggesting the ninth circle might have an "arch-" form of itself.
More relevant to this forum, the Cecil Rhodes will sets up many circles of globalists according to Carroll Quigley, and what's important to recognize is that the circles are not concentric. Members of each circle are designed to think they are the innermost circle but they are only loosely confederated. That's why there are such constant inner rebellions and infighting. The devil (if he's the same one) only retains his ultimacy by having been on top of all deception from the beginning and constantly outthinking all the others to keep them from overcoming him.
Those are my thoughts, very interested in yours.
Wow, that's new. I'd suggest going to c/Memes and making a dozen one-line comments on whatever inspires you; lots of folks do that. Repeat every so often until your handshake icon disappears.
Yes, anyone who writes "u/SwampRangers" as a parseable part of a comment thereby pings me (adds to my incoming notifications), as well as anyone who replies to my contribs.
Question: Assuming you're saying that the Orthodox Church is the way to make America truly Christian, do you think the Church has the capacity to incorporate massive conversions given its 1-3 years of catechizing without facing the dilemma it (the Church) faced in the 4th century with parts of it being accused of loosening its conversion standards too laxly?
That is, it seems the solution requires more than just the Orthodox Church has to offer in the earthly sense. In the heavenly sense, clearly whatever God is doing invisibly is to the benefit of the Orthodox Church and will suffice, but it doesn't look to me like he will solely work through Orthodox auspices without some kind of big deal-signing with other nominal Christians. Thanks as always.
You told this mistaken Trump origin story once already. Parsons and Hubbard conducted rituals called the Babalon Working, from Dec 1945 to late Feb 1946 (or from Jan to Mar 1946; not in Jun), the last in the Mojave Desert seeking a "moonchild" by immaculate conception. Trump's birth 1946-06-14 was too early to be affected. Others have pointed to Marina Abramovic 1946-11-30 as the likeliest candidate.
I'm not favoring the idea that that kind of portal would remain open; it would seem to be a separate operation for each moonchild. Like a volcano, it usually seals up when it's released its contents; it's the narrow minority that continuously flow for years, and they eventually dry up. Getting multiple demons to cooperate together is very ticklish! I don't think Parsons's summoning power was as great as Nimrod's.
Parsons (whose birth name was Marvel) didn't die then, but declared the last ritual successful and continued collaborating with Hubbard, dying in 1952 in a mysterious explosion at home after experimenting on explosives for a film.
Sure, cabal groups are aligned, but it's unhelpful to credit Illuminati, Jacobins, or KKK with more scope than they actually asserted. Jacobins were named after James brother of Jesus, via the Dominican monastery St. Jacques. I had some good Weishaupt info sitting here somewhere but there's no direct link with Frank or the Rothschilds, you sound like you've been listening to Robert Sepehr who is easily discredited on most any point.
blackmail video of a murder of a 12 year old girl. Trump didn't respond so Chabad had the existence of this video broadcasted across the fake news network.
Extraordinary claim. Sounds like Frazzledrip projection.
Chabad really wants Trump to make speech of Jews illegal but the blowback would be so severe that they are just holding off.
I take it you mean hate speech against, otherwise it's incomprehensible.
Israel and US are desperate to install a China style totalitarian system
We actually beat China to that technology, in the 30s, we call it SS.
The people are the savior especially when we tap into the power of God
And Jesus's unfiltered words are the best instructions on our use of that power.
Rome wanted Canada to be American, they lost the thread with NAFTA, but now people like it a lot more when it's conceived of as a Trump shopping spree. Apparently as long as we pretend that America's in charge (guns blazing strategically) we can continue signing bad treaties as normal. "We have a little time."