This is Conspiracies, what's your evidence? Sounds like special pleading.
To be a Christian is to be the "master race". It is for freedom that we have been set free, we are kings and priests, we are Jews inwardly. Anyone is free to be the "master race" if they want, by becoming servants of Jesus. Those who don't are still the human race but they have continued to reject the image of God in them so they serve anyone else.
"Positive Christianity" and the Reichskirche was defined by rejecting Jesus as Son of God and establishing Hitler as infallible. It was a cult.
The "H" is an eta (E) so it's actually like saying Jesus-Esus Christ. This comes from "JHC" which is supposed to represent the "IES" in Iesous.
According to you, Hitler was only painting himself here.
Employers are standing by! Your resume is being considered and if they have need for your services they will contact you!
In my forums, we've had unjust persecution most notably of blacks, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims, and I seek to enforce the rules against that evenly.
You are right that uneven enforcement is a significant problem, and you are free to report any cases where you think I may have employed a double standard. Your present comment contains many different slurs so I bypass them all categorically rather than chastise any at the expense of others.
Remember, every single jew is a hypocrite
I see no evidence of this. I offered to help you work with no-racism forums because you implied you wanted to, but if you don't want to then it's your choice either way.
Since you ask, "Jew" is an ethnonym, but "white" and "black" are descriptive adjectives. Ethnonyms like Caucasian, Aryan, European, or African are obviously capitalized, but Caucasians don't seem to prefer those words for some reason, nor do Jews prefer olive or brown. As to words that various groups find offensive, I generally use equal treatment as shown objectively by dictionaries: both pejorative use and offensiveness of "jew" has far outranked either pejorative use or offensiveness of "white", and that's just a linguistic fact.
What I've admitted and accepted as true is that every nation has the right to self-determine its citizenship and ethnicity rules. We might say that whites have led the way in mercifulness to prospective citizens, even to the point of self-sacrifice (sometimes unrequited); so whites have not chosen to enforce tight citizenship and ethnicity rules lately. As a Constitutionist I've pointed out that our supreme law treats whites, blacks, and natives very differently, and that is still reflected when amendments are applied. It also seems that we've had the best methodology this year out of 250 years in terms of achieving better citizenship rules, so we might do best to press that advantage (even though we all know much more must be done). If you have a specific implementable proposal that's better than what we're doing right now, I'm all ears (obviously we know what your administration would do, I'm talking about what Trump's administration might reasonably be persuaded to do as a public servant being instructed by us sovereigns who operate via group consensus).
Add: Since you also pinged me in ConPro, you get the comment I drafted there without realizing you'd pinged me from where I was banned:
-
Racism is judging the innocent with the guilty, which is done when you defame Jews as a group.
-
Chosen by God involves two things: chosen for salvation means Christian, blood-bought; chosen for group blessings and/or cursings means a member of a group that has a demographic positive or negative tendency. In the second category, Jews, Israelis, Egyptians, Syrians, Arabs, Jordanians are all "chosen" for various blessings and cursings traceable in Scripture.
So, yes, it mischaracterizes.
open dialogue about whether Supreme White Christians should allow Christ's killers into our nations
Let's have the open dialogue, without the illogical insertion of racism such as by charging people with specific Christ-killing who didn't contribute to his death (in any other way than we all did). Calling for open dialogue and poisoning the well at the same time is contradictory.
The [Conspiracies] forum rule is no attack, violence, or abuse. We can also have the meta dialogue about what those rules mean and how much they should be applied, I recall trying to start that dialogue last month but I don't recall you being very interested. If you think racism should be allowed under those rules, that's a different dialogue than discussing immigration.
not disqualify one side of the debate before the debate has hashed out all the evidence. We've already proven that mass migration invasion is jewish.
Rejection of well-poisoning, followed by well-poisoning. If you had stated it objectively as "26 Jewish/Israeli orgs support mass migration" instead of "mass migration invasion is jewish" (with loaded word "invasion", lowercase of ethnonym, presumptive close, and neglect of all other migration orgs in the world), that wouldn't have been well-poisoning.
The Jews didn't say what they'd do in the Protocols, that was Gentiles satirizing what they thought they saw the Jews preparing to do. Another presumptive close.
Having gotten past all the logic problems (which I point out in the fond hope that you actually want to be logical), you get to the core question of what reasonably implementable policy would be better than what Trump is already doing, for which I refer you to my previous comment [above].
c/Satanism is intended to attract people interested in satanism so they can receive the good news just like c/Nazi is intended to attract people interested in nazism. Funny thing, neither group has bitten much, but the Nazis don't give me credit for running the Nazi forum.
I didn't say antisemitism was a status of Christians, but of racists. I didn't say circumcision was a status of Christians, but of Jews. Given those reading comprehension fails, you might want to take a second look at the rest again to see if you missed anything.
Since we have now considerately been told that conspiracies.win does give access to edit history, I see that you edited your comment 11 times, and the version that I downloaded and saved for replying to did not include what you now say are the "core questions", so I missed them; but I'll be happy to respond to those too.
Look how “jews” are behaving and what they’re doing to Christians in Palestine, the rightful Semite owners of the land. Does that line up with my interpretation or yours? Do you support their behavior or do you condemn it?
Apparently you mean something called "Palestine" is some Semitic entity that has some rightful ownership of some land. Without reviewing the history in quite as much depth as the other points: (1) For the various subnational entities, Hussein bin Ali ceded that part of the land to the British in 1916 in exchange for wartime assistance, so if some Arab entity is the rightful owner they should prosecute a claim that Hussein was cheated, but nobody here ever argues that for some reason. (2) For the individuals, for centuries many individual land purchases were made by people known as Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs (and others) and these were largely undisputed and have continued to follow ordinary real estate practice. So it's not clear to me that there is some entity to cognize that has some rightful ownership claim that is being ignored. Obviously Arafat was inspired by Herzl and decided to create a nation from scratch out of a membership org, and he's still not quite there yet because he's only got the unique status of "nonmember observer state" for this PLO offshoot he incorporated, but I don't see how he has any claim on any national entity especially seeing as he encouraged Arabs to sell their land en masse in 1947.
I don't think you mean Christians are the rightful Semitic owners, though that's the first way I read your sentence. Apparently you mean that since there's a little persecution of Christians from some Jewish citizens (not really institutionalized AFAIK), very mild compared to most surrounding countries, this should be taken as supporting your view as if Jesus teaches that all Jews (at some point future to John in 96 since he is Jewish) are specifically organized by satan, rather than my view that satanism has many tentacles and all non-Christians are used by satan as he can.
Testing those two propositions objectively, it seems to me that if all Jews, man, woman, and child, were automatically satanists and were formally tools of a satanic organization dedicated to destroying Christians, we would see something much more like, um, those many surrounding countries. Or, citing Jewish history, we would see a Herodian-Archelean persecution of innocents and of those faithful to the Biblical covenant that would rack up thousands of deaths every other month. Instead we see a pluralism where many rabbis are seeking to find ways to reclaim Jesus as a pretty good guy who did some good in the world and was Jewish, and many Jews are beginning to admit they didn't know about how cool Jesus was until they saw Christians acting Christian toward them. In your view we'd see stabbings and bombings targeting Christians where Jews yell "El Gibbor!" ("God is great!") before their holocaust. We'd certainly see the teaching organizations state clearly and on behalf of all Judaism that it is a tenet of Judaism that Jesus is to be rejected as God, just as we see clearly in cults and in Islamic sects and in atheistic orgs. How could you have a millions-strong satanic organization that rejects Jesus's deity that doesn't take any formal position on the subject?
On the other hand, if satan is diverse and scheming variously when and where he may devour, we would see a worldwide cabal of millions of participants of every race, all of whom are satanists but who make their allegiance known by their blasphemous acts and denial of religious rights. It would be natural for more talented races to rise more rapidly in the ranks of these satanists (I'm thinking whites, but not limiting the application to that) such that they were overrepresented proportionally; and in particular, because the organization is loose and elastic one never knows if one is the next sacrificial virgin or human shield, so it would be common to see particular satanic leaders burn out publicly when secretly abandoned by a consensus group of other leaders. This regular "sacrifice" keeps the remainder of the cabal hidden and operative and able to regroup, such that Christians who think they're winning because several people have been exposed are distracted from doing the hard work of occupying until Christ comes. In short, if satan had the seven manifold works I outlined from Christ's warning, he would certainly want us to overlook myriads of deaths in one country to get ired over a little spitting in another country.
So, unless you present actual data on "what Jews are doing to Christians" (but they are even letting Cardinal Pizzaballa of the LPJ St. James Vicariate evangelize Jews in their own Hebrew culture and idiom), it seems the data are not consistent with a synagoguing organization run by satan, but with an elastic, variable scheming that uses distraction and deception to hide its worst works. When Israel or Jews do right I support it, and when Israel or Jews do wrong I condemn it. We had a video of a lay Jew saying Christians are automatically idolaters and deserve the death penalty, and that is to be condemned, because it doesn't represent Talmudic Judaism (which never explicitly says that Christian trinitarianism is idolatry, though it rejects many sectarian views like tritheism). We had a video of someone spitting on another, and Christians report getting rocks thrown at them by the Orthodox Jews, and that is to be condemned because individuals are taking the law into their own hands rather than letting the Sanhedrin rule on Christianity (the cold case they've never answered directly). We've also had Netanyahu speak highly of Jesus many times, and that is to be supported; he's very cagy and knows exactly what he can say and what he can't, and so he doesn't offend either Judaism or Christianity with his statements. So those are some examples of "what Jews are doing to Christians" that indicate how I judge the cases.
NOT ONE IN A POSITION OF POWER ACTS AGAINST JEWISH INTERESTS OR CRITICIZES ISRAEL!
Y'know, I should be very cautious here, because somewhere in the notes I have the justification for the Mar 25 that frames the Dec 25, and there may be enough leeway there to say it wasn't directly the equinox/solstice link. The problem is that Jesus didn't say to celebrate his conception and birth and the Bible is generally against birthdays anyway. He said celebrate his death (because it's Passover, an established date), and he celebrated both the Levitical feasts and the added feast of Hanukkah. And Sabbath. When the Gentiles lost the original OT context of the feast calendar they started making their own (naturally inventing a date for Christ's birth), and Augustine put forward all kinds of the new feasts as if properly supplanting the old ones, with Sunday supplanting the Sabbath. But these are all by God's permission and by magisterial authority, and not by Biblical command (not even Sunday) or by actual commemoration of any Biblical event. So I'll back out the claim that Dec 25 is always syncretist, because I wasn't remembering all the details; but there is so much larded over onto the Biblical data that when I discovered it (Lev. 23) and realized that it covered the whole Bible period I wondered at how far we've strayed from its didactic symbolism.
But I learned to enjoy both Sabbath and Lord's Day, and to celebrate Christ's birth both at Tabernacles and with underinformed Christians at Christmas.
I hadn't heard of Hippolytus using the Abijah calendar to get that date. Here, among other things, are three readings that put John's conception in midsummer based on Abijah. John Parsons is a reliable source and lays out all the evidence he can find on both sides, and doesn't find Hippolytus using the Abijah calculation, jibing with my memory that he only had the solar calendar and the concept of putting the conception on the same date as the crucifixion (which wasn't necessarily indicated and ultimately cuts against Josephus). So I'm not convinced the early church fathers used Abijah; Chrysostom instead argued that Zechariah served for Day of Atonement, which is an understandable assumption but not in the text and not consonant with the Abijah evidence.
I understand if my quibbling attempt to put a little braking on a rampant charge might not sound like the most supportive. Yes, the Protestants lost the original Nicholas and let his character be heavily reworked; and we suffer for this, and are trying to work our way out of the hole. I guess my concern is that if we're both against the consumerist idol then we shouldn't regard blame for each other's camps as any more than a friendly tease, instead of using words that make it more belligerent. I'll seek to work on that myself.
Great challenge! The sarcastic answer is simple, Bill: CDC changed the definitions, as did many scientists and lexicographers, so now "virus" means "one of an artificial computer-generated set of sequences after trillions of PCR amplifications". Look on their computer, see a virus. The goal is to declare everyone sick so they can control everyone. The Bible says everyone is already sick and Jesus is the answer, and he's a better king than anybody, so I'm sticking with his prognosis.
I don't want to stop u/Doggos or anyone from answering but I've noticed that admins encourage others to answer tentatively to take some burden off them.
Yes, many Jews control many institutions, and very many Jews have explicitly rejected Jesus and are currently in hell or hellbound. But the Bible tells us that there are only children of God or children of the devil (1 John 3:10), so the accurate name of the enemy of Orthodox believers is the devil's children, or the satanists, or synonyms of those.
When we list globalist names, I say Name The Jew For Real because there's nothing wrong with identifying globalist Jews and their acts, but it is wrong to act like it's always Jews, or crypto-Jews, or shabbos goyim, or people that must have some Jewish connection (which can usually be found because the Jews work hard to make connections). That's goalpost-moving and question-begging because, instead of accepting the evidence and modifying the hypothesis, one is manhandling the facts to fit the hypothesis.
Did you see my "It's the Germans" satirical comments where I point out all industry and all orgs are controlled by Germans? It's very easy to fake, because it's not elite research but just manipulation of evidence.
Now, you're not banned by admin. I don't know where you're banned, but if it's PDW it's probably because you don't follow the rules there (such as avoiding certain words that do not advance discussion). You get two choices as a sovereign, you either break rules from other sovereigns and accept their consequences, or you deign to keep their rules so as to honor them as your fellows. "Sucking off" is not a rule, but I know "no racism" has been a rule most of the time and I've explained it to you before.
If you want to make an extraordinary claim that you know certain people are in hell or are personal Christ deniers, you need to give evidence. From the first time I realized it was an issue here I asked for evidence and nobody had it. There's no evidence that Netanyahu denies Jesus Christ; he speaks highly of him but he cannot speak to the religious question of how much Messianic work Jesus has done so far.
(I knew a Jewish man who got saved late in life: he testified that he didn't hate or love Jesus as a person, he only knew that Jesus was the name which people invoked when they cursed and attacked the Jews, so in context he concluded it must have meant something bad. When he finally realized what Jesus had done and what life he lived, he became a Christian. So you say Jews hate Christ, but many of them are actually misinformed both by antisemites and by their own people, and they have no animus for Jesus as a person.)
So this may sound like my former advice to you on Christianity, but if you want a right that is in the control of another sovereign, then you need to learn how that sovereign wants his game played in his zone. You seem capable of that. Just reread everything after you've written it once, and trim that which is just extra invective that doesn't actually tie to demonstrable fact. If you want to be on PDW, I will be happy to advocate for you and to suggest (privately or publicly) what you might want to modify to accommodate the PDW rules, and I'd be happy to interface with a mod if they are willing to ensure your content gets a fair hearing from the two of us. I suppose that sounds like I'm offering it as a mentorship, but since I respect you as a fellow sovereign I don't mean it in any other sense than sharing what we each have available to share.
TLDR: If you want access to PDW, or to another forum, you need to get a mod's ear. I'm willing to advocate and interpose to the degree that you and a mod permit. I think if I proposed that to the mod board in general there'd be at least one or two who might be willing to give you a chance.
I’m using God’s Word and you’re not.
Not really, you're taking two verses out of context and adding much context that assumes many other things not in the Bible. I cited the whole context, where (like other patters of sevens) there are seven works in various verses identified either as being explicitly of satan or as not being what they claim to be (or, in the case of the synagogue, both). That indicates the synagogue doesn't operate alone. Many things in the Bible are "offhand" in the sense of incidental to more important points; the important point of Rev. 2-3 is the church itself, with the various infiltrators being only a subtheme, and the synagogue being one of seven branches of a fork of that subtheme.
The reason Ignatius is important is that it's history and it gives the background of several of the same seven churches Jesus spoke to (Ignatius is believed to be one of the children Jesus blessed). When I read the Scriptures for many years and came to Rev. 2-3, I assumed that characters like Antipas and Jezebel were actual 1st-century people, as well as the synagogue of satan (it was pointed out to me that, historically, one of the best candidates for a "synagogue" member was the young Gentile Onkelos, who much later got an actual circumcision). We routinely use history and geography to tell us about other people and places in the Bible, and geography tells us that John literally traveled to these seven churches in Asia Minor with seven copies of the inspired text.
But it was clear from the context of 1 and 4-22 that Rev. 2-3 could be read as more than just encouragement to individual churches, as all the churches in the world can learn from the others; this is consistent with all apocalyptic and all parables. Obviously any woman who meets the qualifications of Jezebel, including the original Jezebel of Ahab, could metaphorically be called Jezebel; but in each case the metaphor is only as good as the fit to the text. One reading that was recognized recently is that the seven churches in order represent different phases of the universal church over its first 2,000 years, so that the synagogue of satan in Smyrna would refer to those who claimed to be Christians but weren't (because they got baptized without cautious heart inspection, which happened a lot in the 4th century), and the synagogue of satan in Philadelphia would refer to the same phenomenon later (as many in the 18th and 19th centuries claimed to be church members but ceased believing in the creeds, leading to the Laodicean or lukewarm church). Because the sequential reading of Revelation is well established among eschatologies, that would be a valid application of the meaning of synagogue of satan.
Now the problem is that we had a late (antibiblical) movement of judging that the Jews as a whole were all incapable of salvation and then looking for this in the text. The NT says both that all the early church members were Jews (so often that it would be burdensome for me to weigh you down with the list), and that "the Jews" were big persecutors of the church: it gives both types of characters to the same people-group, so that's the actual context we should be using. Similarly Deut. 28 gives both blessings and cursings to the same Israelite people, to be carried out at different times depending on whether the nation is generally behaving or misbehaving. But certain people who were fully separated from the Near East culture of the OT and all the references to it in the NT (too many to list, I have Lightfoot's four volumes on all those references) got the idea that we should only listen to the negative descriptions of the Jews, and then when they come to Rev. 2-3 they see the word synagogue and assume it's about Jews even though Jesus explicitly says they are not Jews.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, because persecution against Jews was very strong, some Ashkenazi and Karaite Jews proposed (on different grounds for each subtribe) that there was enough intermixing from Khazaria and other sources that local groups should be exempted from persecution against Jews in that era, because they could be technically excepted from being fullblood Jews. (Very similar to Jews calling themselves white today.) Unfortunately this backfired and gave rise to even worse antisemitism, when various critics started arguing that no Ashkenazi should be counted as descendants of Jews, even though they had fully converted, been circumcised, intermarried, and been absorbed into the Jewish people at large. And now this is said of all Jews (and it happened in part originally because of the Jewish equivocation I mentioned).
But by the Golden Rule a people has the right to identify itself. If no outsider can tell Americans that they're not American but that other people are true immigrant Americans, then no outsider can tell Jews that they're not Jews but that other people are true spiritual Jews. (We do have a right to the title "spiritual Jews", but not to reject ethnic Jews.) The Jewish people have continually maintained their identity since 1797 BC, where I put the birth of Judah in Genesis. When they were constituted under Moses they already included a mixed multitude of Egyptians, Ex. 12:38, but all were accepted as Israelite (and their children eventually adopted as Judahites, a subset of Israelites) because all were circumcised, naturalized, law-abiding citizens. Throughout the Bible from Genesis on, the household of Judah (Yehudah) is a notable subset of Israel, and as you note in 2 Kings it is first treated as an ethnonym (Yehudi) but it was a household since the 18th century BC. Because of the divided kingdom and the return and perpetuity of the Judah kingdom, other tribes of Israel were incorporated into the tribe of Judah such that Judah became in large part a synonym of Israel. There's so much OT and NT on that that there's no doubt of the continuity of the people and the purity of Jesus's Jewish genealogy.
Now when you ask about the history after, obviously I can't use Scripture except prophetically. However, briefly, I've pointed out here that the people were called Judaeus in Latin for as long as Latin was circulating, and in the 900s the French shortened this to "Ju" in the same way many other words are elided to their first syllables. And there were very many variant spellings of these two forms as long as language was not standard and I was not distinguished from J except by ligature. But the word "Ju" is older than the disappearance of Khazarians into the Jewish people, which was after c. 1000 and wasn't in France. The migration of the same Jewish people around Asia, Europe, and Africa is well-known and there's not a real doubt that the Ashkenazi are descended from Judahites; many of them have full genealogies, some back to Levi and Judah themselves.
But I found that some people here do doubt the claim and so I asked about it. I knew an Ashkenazi Jew who pointed out that black African Jews have a better genealogical record than Ashkenazi do; so the intermixing is admitted but it doesn't remove Jewish identity. That was forthright of him to discuss the facts; but the people here don't generally put forward facts on their theory, they rehearse old (unenlightened) canards that at some point the Jewish people ceased to be and others completely took over their name. But there is no such point in history when this could have happened. So I ask and ask, and nobody can give me a coherent theory, they can only give the conclusion that the Jews must not be what they and the Bible says they are. Jesus says there are people who call themselves Jews (which was recognized as meaning circumcised) but they weren't; he also says, same context, there are people who call themselves apostles (which was recognized as meaning anointed by laying on of hands) but they weren't. Similar problem. It's not about people who have valid Jewishness or valid apostleship, it's about liars. It's rather silly to say this of someone whose family goes back Jewish for thousands of years, just as it would be silly to call someone an apostle of satan whose chain of succession goes back apostolic for thousands of years. That just isn't what Jesus meant. If you wanted to twist the metaphor almost entirely out of proportion and say that some modern Jews claim to be white but they're not, and that makes them a synagogue of satan, I would reply it's such a poor eisegesis that it shouldn't be used: you actually mean a "whiteness of satan" instead, namely a lying whiteness. So, compared to the actual exegesis of Scripture, the racists who added Rev. 2-3 to their list of antisemitic Scriptures were just overreaching.
Now I do call out racism, or more accurately collectivism, because the Bible is not racist. It is valid to speak about demographics of races, which the Bible does a lot (and it teaches how to recognize the many national blessings and cursings around the world). But racism is when you prejudge individuals based on demographics instead of just considering them likelier to certain activity because of their character. And the Bible clearly rejects that consistently, starting with the plea of Abraham (the grandfather of Israel) that we never judge the innocent with the guilty, Gen. 18:23. When you lowercase "jew" (against dictionary usage, knowing in particular that the verb "jew" is highly offensive), you're rejecting what people call themselves (we don't get to argue that others lowercased "white" first and that makes it right for us to reply in kind), and that's the mild start of collectivism. When you give the context of the Jews (contributing) and the Romans killing Christ, you're building on it by not noting the myriads of Torah-observant Jews, not just in Jerusalem (Acts 21:20) but around the Roman world, who believed in Christ; you're not noting that the first 5,000 Christians were Jews from around the world, and that many hundreds of them were the same crowd that called for Jesus's death (Acts 3-4). Those are pretty salient limits to the thought "the Jews killed Christ"! When you finally (AI-assisted?) say Rev. 2-3 is about Jews when Jesus says it's not about Jews, you contradict the Lord flatly and judge a whole people as guilty when he's only speaking of those (Gentiles) who are knowingly guilty of lying; it's not a passage about Jews at all, according to its plain reading as well as any levels deeper than the surface. So, no, we don't get to be racist. You are free to believe what you want, but if you contradict Jesus you have him to deal with and not me.
Thank you, Jalapeno, that's not the response I usually get! I'd been asking the Lord for years what the historical setting of the text was, and he finally showed me.
That's a whole lot to infer from an offhand verse in 96 AD. There is a continuous Judahite people from the first century to today and there is no time at which the whole people have been replaced, that's just history. There is no church teaching that the Judahites are no more, or that the word Jew (French "Ju" ca. 900s) is any different from an elision of the word Judahite (Latin "Judaeus" at the same time). And Ignatius in 108 AD says the Gentiles who spoke so highly of Judaism were surprised that his Spirit-inspired teaching was so direct in countering them, which suggests they really did bow at his feet in Philadelphia, just as Jesus said. So I'm using the guy who watched the Scriptures be written, but you seem to be using some racist ca. 1900. Be careful.
Nope, he says the ones who lie are not Jews. He's not speaking of the ethnic Jews (identified by Ignatius as I just linked you) who let the Gentiles call themselves Jews even when they weren't circumcised.
We can infer from Jesus's words that he identifies seven enemy works: the apostolate of satan (2:2), the synagoguing of satan (2:9, 3:9), the throne of satan (2:13), the dwelling of satan (2:13), the depths of satan (2:24), the livings of satan (3:1), and the riches of satan (3:17). Don't limit your view of the enemy when Jesus says otherwise!
I agree with you except semantically. "First" in Latin is "primus", what do you think I meant by primacy?
The synagogue of satan is just one psyop and is not what you think.
We can infer from Jesus's words that he identifies seven enemy works: the apostolate of satan (2:2), the synagoguing of satan (2:9, 3:9), the throne of satan (2:13), the dwelling of satan (2:13), the depths of satan (2:24), the livings of satan (3:1), and the riches of satan (3:17). Don't limit your view of the enemy when Jesus says otherwise!
I'm agnostic about any conspiracy on this, but an interesting pivot is that Kirk began keeping 7th-day Sabbath about 3 years ago but his book in its defense could only be published posthumously. That suggests he believed it conscientiously as a Christian but the evidence that he was more lately breaking from rabbinical Israel means that his legacy on the Sabbath was free to be spun by those who remain. A falsifiable test for whether this actually contributes to conspiracy would be whether the book when published takes significantly different approaches toward the Jewish aspects of Sabbath than Charlie's public statements about it over prior years.
OP is not the issue because there would have been no problem with Sabbath dinner, rejection of antisemitism, or promotion of Jewish orgs on their own face prior to his death. The issue is whether his statements about Judaism, as a whole, are discontinuous with TP policy about Judaism after his death.
Those are the two I was referring two. But some say it's only one, the Assumption, and some say it's hundreds of ex cathedra magisterial pronouncements, and (guess what) there is no infallible guide to tell me how many infallible statements there are. They simply institutionalized the circularity without the people seeing it.
The pope said here's the definition of declaring ex cathedra, and then the pope said now I'm declaring something, and then the pope left you and me holding the bag as to determining infallibly whether he declared ex cathedra or not. That's how he keeps himself off the hook: if he needs to declare later it wasn't ex cathedra, he still can, he has plausible deniability, he only needs to say "Simon didn't say". The idea that the Assumption is infallibly declared only arises on your infallible authority, not the pope's, because he didn't apply the definition to the declaration, you did. He's free, the hapless Catholic is stuck and doesn't even realize he's holding the bag.
But that's a consequence of the Catholic always being asked to suspend his own authority to decide except in the case of deciding to whom he will delegate his authority to decide. (And that problem is shared with some Orthodox.) The Church gives you no help whatsoever in sharing your responsibility for rightly or wrongly deciding that the Church you're speaking of is in fact (part of) the same church Jesus established. It cannot share that responsibility with you because it's your free will. Any Church or cult can claim total authority after you make that one decision on your own authority to delegate all authority to it; and that's why the Orthodox claim is no different from the claims of the others. Until you see it you'll still be stuck in that claim of self-sustenance that the Orthodox (or Catholic) Church doesn't actually make for itself: you need to see that that you delegated to the Church your authority to make decisions, but you cannot logically delegate your authority to decide at the same time as exercising your authority to decide (to delegate). Each person is responsible for the use of his freewill, even if he only ever uses his freewill once to make himself the passive slave of some magisterium. The actual claim any Church should make is not infallibility but (Joan of Arc) to hope to stay right if right and to be put right if wrong. Only Jesus can remove or retain a candlestick, not the candlestick.
Vatican I effectively shut up the Catholics but stopped short of saying the Immaculate Conception was infallible, which is why Catholics today still are unsure whether it should be counted. It was use of force and threat, not actual use of a power of infallibility. If the Catholic or Orthodox are incorrect about who they've sainted, we'll all laugh about it in heaven, it was never an earthly perfection that they had to work so hard to defend their rightness about (and thereby prevent the living from recognizing their own saintedness but keep them in a state of doubt that can transfer to the afterlife). But for those whose system depends upon being right at all costs, unlike Joan of Arc's system, there is always the risk of pride preceding a fall. I don't think the Catholic or Orthodox will lose their place utterly, but the Catholics are cruising for a bruising and I have no eschatology that preserves either organizational name; only the invisible church is knowably preserved. (Incidentally, my doubt about the Churches might be paralleled to the hierarchs' doubt about individual sainthoods and salvations; perhaps I should be more confident about both Churches just as they should be more confident about my sainthood. But then that suggests that the problem is that we all lack spiritual discernment of each other and our organizational destinies, and resolving that might be the direction we should each take.)
no single person or a group of Catholics can go against the Pope and dispute his teachings, even if they are not ex cathedra.
Since Orthodox and Protestants are fond of pointing out that the Pope has been successfully refuted repeatedly in the earliest days, and since the Church is semper idem, that hasn't changed. If Vatican I was truly a change it'd be a problem, but it was deliberately phrased in such way that it wouldn't be a change to the same Catholic-Orthodox system in which the Bishop of Rome can be overcome if the other bishops are wise and connected enough. Also, since the Orthodox still pretty well agree with Roman primacy if Rome isn't schismatic, without agreeing with Roman superiority, the crux is the claims of superiority, not of the pope having a unique ultimate authority alone. That quibble is only important because the path to unity and resolving the conflict would involve the Orthodox and the Catholics both admitting that the pope didn't actually mean to claim a superiority he didn't have; and in my (perhaps scholastic) understanding of the pope's pronouncements, he didn't.
I appreciate your continuing to give me the grace of interaction, I hope that by one means or another our comms get through.
Add: It might be thought of this way. One pope really wanted Mary to be glorified so wrote up, and got approved, the Immaculate Conception with a really high-sounding set of declaration clauses that had never been used before so that he would win over those who weren't certain he should go that far. That didn't work, so the later pope put forward Infallibility to try to patch up what the prior pope had done and to shut up the argument, but without actually saying that the Immaculate Conception was in fact infallible (or, for that matter, saying the Infallibility declaration was itself infallible, important point). That worked to get the sheeple quiet but it didn't help the Protestant argument against circularity, which remained. So the next later pope found occasion to try to cement the Infallibility doctrine by repeating almost the same magic formula as Conception in the Assumption doctrine as if the repetition would do the trick. Well, that led many to think there were now two infallible doctrines praise God, but they hadn't realized the new was no more declared infallible than the old. Simply defining infallibility doesn't infallibly declare how the ordinary person can infallibly decide a doctrine is infallible. Note that no pope ever had the simple gumption of John the Revelator who ended all discussion of circularity by saying self-referentially that THIS prophecy is not to be added to or subtracted from. And by my count no pope ever will. If Infallibility was ever declared it was declared once and for all by John, never to be repeated. The Revelation is Infallible by its own declaration, and the Bible is Infallible by application of John's meaning as closing the then-open canon. But Chicago Leo? Pfft.
"I 0:34 wanted to think of how what is a new 0:36 angle that I could present to people 0:38 about Santa Claus"
So blaming the Protestants is new.
"most 2:50 der will say yeah but don't you know, 2:54 don't you know that December 25th is is 2:57 the winter solstice, right? .... Actually, 3:12 that's not the case. Actually during 3:15 that time December 25th was on the 3:19 Julian calendar which today would be 3:22 January 7th"
His review of the Julian doesn't disprove the solstitial origin of Dec 25. In the 3rd century (only), the Gregorian and Julian calendars are the same. Because the Julian regresses against the seasons more rapidly, Julian "Dec 25" is now 2-3 weeks after the solstice, but in the 1st century and a little prior Julian (Roman) "Dec 25" was right at the solstice; it was also remembered as the week before kalends. So the sequence is that celebrating the solstice came first, setting it to Dec 25 came next, and the name "sol invictus" came later, and by the 3rd century it was stuck on the week before calends (Dec 25) even though that was no longer the solstice. So when Dionysius (and others) tried to set a date by imagining Jesus was conceived at the spring equinox, he got Dec 25 and not the actual solstice.
Upshot: Trying to justify that Dec 25 was in no way pagan fails; it was syncretist from the start (I believe it was Ambrose that admitted this).
"The 3:55 Christians calculated from the 3:58 enunciation of Christ in March 25th"
That's what proves they were working from the equinoxes and not the actual date of Passover (2 weeks after the calculated new moon of the equinox, e.g. 1 Apr 33 AD Julian or 3 Apr Gregorian). Since they worked from the equinox, they got the solstice, open and shut. (They also assumed Christ's conception was the same day as his birth, which was symbolic but also not justified, especially because shepherds didn't watch their flocks by night in winter.)
"yeah, 4:17 Christians incorporated the symbolism 4:19 because it then corresponded with the 4:21 celebration that they themselves were 4:24 participating in regarding the nativity, 4:26 but it didn't go the other way around"
Both factors contributed. It was syncretist, like many other things that happened in those days. So the first clause of OP title is disproven, Protestants didn't give rise to the pagan roots of Christmas, they were there from the start. In the same way, (my research shows) the first uses of the word "Easter" had confluent roots: it means "rising" and was used for both the sunrise (Eos, pagan) and the resurrection. Those who say the word "Easter" is all Christian, and those who say it is all pagan, are both wrong; same applies to the date Dec 25.
"what we see today as 4:59 Santa Claus is a concoction of 5:02 Protestant Christians reforming the 5:05 figure of St. Nicholas because they 5:07 hated the veneration of saints so much"
Okay, let's hear it.
"St. 5:51 Nicholas 5:53 who destroyed the pagans, who gave gifts 5:56 to the children, protected the innocents 5:59 and the travelers gets repaganized"
Okay, let me provisionally accept the second clause then, that "antichristian propaganda and Protestant's rejection of saint veneration led to ... today's secular X-mas Coca-Cola Santa Claus consoomerist holiday." As a Hebrew-roots guy I would grant that Protestants need to teach who Nicholas was, what wonders he did, and how he inspired generosity so as to combat the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Santa image that has been templated over him. However, I also note that many Protestants do that debunking quite successfully, such as the VeggieTales team in Saint Nicholas: A Story of Joyful Giving.
"They then begin to develop and add 6:05 aspects of Odin"
In the 19th century? Sounds sketch.
"Protestantism, 6:32 .... because of it, 6:39 we now live in a commodified secular 6:42 celebration of Christmas where you can't 6:44 even say Merry Christmas anymore."
The reason people are afraid to say Merry Christmas is the opposite of Protestantism, namely rabbinical Judaism and Islam. If you merely meant Orthodox and Catholics are not afraid to say Merry Christmas, that would have a bit of correlation considering the whole world, but the fight against Christ being celebrated proceeds apace in Catholic and Orthodox countries too in its own way, so I don't know that Protestant policy is the only reason for its advances.
"once American culture and 8:29 that's where in the 19th century once we 8:32 get to Washington Irving and uh Thomas 8:36 Nast and the developing CocaCola all 8:39 this stuff comes together by the end of 8:42 the 1900s"
That's your evidence? I might just as well say that Tolkien's extremely colorful Catholic retellings of Father Christmas's adventures (and Dickens's Anglican carol, and Lewis's Anglican Father Christmas in Narnia) were just as responsible. Lewis even wrote an essay on how there were two different celebrations of the same date already, a pagan and a Christian, and he put forward his Father Christmas to direct people back to the Christian side, but it's been amalgamated into the pagan side too. So, yeah, it's syncretist and it's not the Protestants' fault.
"folk cultures reinserted 10:53 local winter giftgivers. In Germany, you 10:56 got Chris Kendall or what we would say 10:58 say is Chris Kringle. In England, you 11:01 get Father Christmas."
Christkindl means Christ child. The later Kris Kringle was taken from Father Christmas, whom I pointed out was not Protestant but Anglican.
Not going to quote the bit about how it's actually shamanism to put out red and white psychedelic mushrooms on a tree to dry because it's the favored dish of Siberian reindeer whose urine was then used religiously; that's just a failed parallel that doesn't reflect the actual European origin of decorating trees with candles. Funny attempt at convergence though.
"17:10 the Christmas tree is Yigdasil"
So what if so? I thought every tree was Yggdrasil. I know that Yggdrasil is an echo of the Cross.
He's right to say that Mithras, Horus, Dionysius, Tammuz, and Adonis were only templated onto the Jesus story after it was revealed, and their origins and connection with the solstice were only amplified after the fact; that is part of the deception, for the new to claim it is older than what God shows to be truly old. He's wrong to imply Saturnalia has nothing to do with Christmas, because it's the same solstitial celebration that was already extant and that informed the Mar 25 date used by Dionysius Exiguus.
So as to the second charge, I think it's overstated to say Protestant rejection of saint veneration was a major contributor to the secular Santa Claus. It's true that the regular waves of antichrist propaganda that keep redefining Santa (new redefinition movie every year now) keep breaking against the truth and history, but Protestants are pushing back against this. It's true that Protestant neglect of history gave more leeway for these encroachments, to which I will admit guilt, but I wouldn't say that's so strong as saying that rejection led to the modern Claus, rather it permitted others to seize the ground. If someone wants to use the second charge with sufficient context, there's blame to go around, but the first clause is still a fail and so it's still lopsided and my initial statement of the case was correct.
Totally unrelated and I think it's God's sense of humor, but it's what I've calculated: leaning on Whiston's figures, Jesus was born in fall of 4 BC, for which I've put 6 Oct (at 3 a.m.), the first of Tabernacles. That puts the Annunciation and Conception on a probable date of the 24th and 25th of Kislev, the first of Dedication, a date prophesied by Haggai as notable for beginning to measure seed in the barn. Oddly enough this date in 5 BC is 25 Dec Julian (23 Dec Gregorian). So if you want to know the solar date when the Word became incarnate, I'll tell you it was exactly 2,029 years ago as of this year's Festivus (note how Rand Paul is reclaiming Festivus for Christianity).
they, definitionally, reject Christ's sacrifice
First, you mean rabbinical Jews, because a Lifeway survey estimated there are a million Messianic (Christian) Jews.
Second, I ask people for proof that some congregational rabbi or rabbinical organization teaches, as a tenet of Judaism, that Jesus's sacrifice is rejected. They don't actually do it because they're too scared, they leave the rejection to folk religion and to antimissionaries but they don't make it a tenet of rabbinical Judaism because they know what would happen if they did. So I decline the statement that rabbinical Judaism definitionally rejects Jesus Christ's sacrifice, and ask for proof. In fact, rabbinical Judaism teaches that it's a valid view that the Christ must suffer and that this suffering is somehow redemptive for his people; but they refuse to apply that the way Christianity does, and so they do not get the spiritual benefit of salvation from it.
I told you what Vatican I says. When he meets the conditions, his speech is infallible. But he's never infallibly stated that he's met the conditions. There are zero official (ex cathedra) teachings. That's the whole game, and it was discovered by Irish Protestants shortly after Vatican I was first analyzed.
Catholics have always been free to speak against the magisterium up until the hierarchy actually cracks down, and that's true during the first millennium too. The pope could never rein in everybody so instead he (does the same thing as the fake media and the science cabal and) gets everyone to think that only his group is authoritative without ever saying so or proving it.
Funny, when I criticize Catholics for breaking the magisterium, they just tell me (their consciences rule) that they didn't break it, proving my point of private interpretation that seeks to follow and build on tradition. But they've missed that point because they've been blinded to when they're responsible for speaking infallibly (often) versus when the pope is (never). Being my own pope, I know that everything I say is responsible to be as infallible as possible, so I have the greater seriousness in my statements.
Yes, just as there are other lights and one true Light, there are other judges and one true Judge. Look into Michael Heiser's dissertation on Near East theology of divine councils. One God, everything else is just a light.