Miracles and Biblical Infallability

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
[Forked from thread on Rick's "last testament":]

Optimistically, perhaps Richard was telling us that he is planning to be reborn somehow. But for those of us not among the Elect, perhaps we can't count on a rebirth at all. Richard might equally have been suggesting that soon the living will envy the dead.
 
Last edited:

Ruby Gray

Member
Re the comment on the living envying the dead in these troubled days, there is a very similar passage in the Bible.

Revelation 9
1 The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth.
The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss.
2 When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace.
The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss.
3 And out of the smoke locusts came down upon the earth
and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth.
4 They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree,
but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads.
5 They were not given power to kill them, but only to torture them for five months.
And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes a man.
6 During those days men will seek death, but will not find it;
they will long to die, but death will elude them.

Perhaps Richard, who had most likely read this, was also alluding to what is here outlined as part of the end-times events? He understood the Bible in a different paradigm from the traditional Judaeo-Christian one, but really, in the end, his observations on current global trends were closer to scriptural prophecy than he was prepared to acknowledge.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
...in the end, his observations on current global trends were closer to scriptural prophecy than he was prepared to acknowledge.
On the contrary, Ruby, I don't see how current global trends could possibly be any closer to scriptural prophecy than Richard or I would acknowledge. Because we say that the global elite are intentionally recapitulating the scenario mapped out in the Book of Revelation. This was set forth most clearly in Richard's article "Apocalypse How", where he said that Donald Trump's emergence from Mar-a-Lago seems to illustrate the beast rising up out of the sea in Revelation 13:1-2. It was basically at my instigation, as his copy editor and publisher, that Richard included the following caveat:

It should be noted here, that one type of analysis on Revelation asserts that the attributions of actions listed separately for the 7 seals, the 7 trumpets, and the 7 angels with the seven bowls are really meant to be read in parallel, connecting the numbers, so to speak.
Then again, it’s possible that the modern re-enactment might cycle through these sequences in series, or jumping around. Similarly, the various beasts may be different, or they may be the same character. Such difficulties serve to enhance plausible deniability, for those who are inclined to believe that everything is coincidence, or that these alleged connections are a result of confirmation bias. The element of unpredictability also makes it difficult, if not impossible, to make a killing on the stock market simply by observing the sequence of events as an outsider.
But with further evidence accumulated by Michael Burch, and discussed in our Trump mega-thread in this post -- it seems undeniable that Donald Trump is self-consciously adopting the role of the Antichrist from the Book of Revelation. Not necessarily that he's the only such individual, but certainly he fits the bill. Do you agree?
 

Ruby Gray

Member
On the contrary, Ruby, I don't see how current global trends could possibly be any closer to scriptural prophecy than Richard or I would acknowledge. Because we say that the global elite are intentionally recapitulating the scenario mapped out in the Book of Revelation.
I see your point, but mine is that the traditional, evangelical understanding of the Bible is quite far from yours or Richard's. Yes, Richard saw the same events occurring globally which fit the parameters of the prophecies, but as you say, he thought that these events are being deliberately orchestrated by the individuals who have read the scriptures.
The evangelical viewpoint is that there is an ultimate evil spiritual force driving these compliant individuals who, though they may imagine they are in control of something, are in fact dupes of Satan, who is rebelling against the One True God.

This is a theme that I would have liked to discuss with Richard, but he was somewhat hostile to my attempts.

The following prophetic psalm predates the book of Revelation by about 1,000 years, but encapsulates this spiritual struggle that is fleshed out in detail in Revelation. This particular version with its translation,
"Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain"
etc, appeals to the "conspiracy theorist" in me. It proves that conspiracy by the nations is not a new concept, but has been the overriding theme of all the rebellious throughout the ages.

New International Version
Psalm 2
1 Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth rise
and the rulers band together
against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,
3 “Let us break their chains
and throw off their shackles.”
4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them.
5 He rebukes them in his anger
and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
6 “I have installed my king
on Zion, my holy mountain.”
7 I will proclaim the Lord’s decree:
He said to me, “You are my son;
today I have become your father.
8 Ask me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You will break them with a rod of iron;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”
10 Therefore, you kings, be wise;
be warned, you rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with fear
and celebrate his rule with trembling.
12 Kiss his son, or he will be angry
and your way will lead to your destruction,
for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
But with further evidence accumulated by Michael Burch, and discussed in our Trump mega-thread in this post -- it seems undeniable that Donald Trump is self-consciously adopting the role of the Antichrist from the Book of Revelation. Not necessarily that he's the only such individual, but certainly he fits the bill. Do you agree?
That may very well be true. Of course I would have to respond with this scripture,

ESV
1 John 2:18
Children, it is the last hour,
and as you have heard that antichrist is coming,
so now many antichrists have come.
Therefore we know that it is the last hour.

There have always been many antichrists ("One who stands in the place of the Messiah"), and now there are even more.
But ultimately there will be a single Antichrist, the global dictator, who willannounce himself as the saviour of this troubled world, but who will quickly reveal his true agenda with draconian and even supernatural powers. He will be the political world ruler.

Revelation 13
1 And I saw a beast rising out of the sea,
with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems on its horns
and blasphemous names on its heads.
2 And the beast that I saw was like a leopard; its feet were like a bear’s,
and its mouth was like a lion’s mouth.
And to it the dragon gave his power and his throne and great authority.
3 One of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound,
but its mortal wound was healed,
and the whole earth marveled as they followed the beast.
4 And they worshiped the dragon, for he had given his authority to the beast,
and they worshiped the beast, saying,
“Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?”

5 And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words,
and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months.
6 It opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God,
blaspheming his name and his dwelling,
that is, those who dwell in heaven.
7 Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them.
And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation,
8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it,
everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world
in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.

9 If anyone has an ear, let him hear:

10 If anyone is to be taken captive,
to captivity he goes;
if anyone is to be slain with the sword,
with the sword must he be slain.

The enlightened among us can already see of course that a global dictator is a very bad idea, but somehow, the majority of the world will be taken in by him with his philanthropic-sounding rhetoric and magnanimous gestures. He must by definition be an ethnic Jew.

I just don't think Donald Trump is going to cut it at this level.

Then there is the Second Beast who will be the religious leader, subordinate to the First Beast. Popular consensus is that this will be a Roman Catholic Pope.

11 Then I saw another beast rising out of the earth.
It had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon.
12 It exercises all the authority of the first beast in its presence,
and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast,
whose mortal wound was healed.
13 It performs great signs,
even making fire come down from heaven to earth in front of people,
14 and by the signs that it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast
it deceives those who dwell on earth,
telling them to make an image for the beast that was wounded by the sword and yet lived.
15 And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast,
so that the image of the beast might even speak
and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast
to be slain.

16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave,
to be marked on the right hand or the forehead,
17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark,
that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.
18 This calls for wisdom:
let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast,
for it is the number of a man,
and his number is 666.

Indeed, we see the New World Order plan to microchip and micromanage every citizen on earth in this prophecy.
Did they read Revelation 13 and think, "What a good idea!! Let's do that!"

Or was this simply a corollary of the technological advances that evolved through the millennia, which was foreknown in 98 AD?
I think our views on that differ here, but the result will be the same.

What was prophesied in Revelation is already being implemented, in which 9/11, "Climate Change" and the "Covid-19 pandemic" are all pretexts and tools contrived to achieve the satanic Illuminati agenda of global domination and control.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The evangelical viewpoint is that there is an ultimate evil spiritual force driving these compliant individuals who, though they may imagine they are in control of something, are in fact dupes of Satan, who is rebelling against the One True God.
One key point is that according to the Hebrew scripture, God himself was responsible for creating evil; to wit, Isaiah 45:5-7:

5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
While some passages of Revelation seem to give credit to Satan or 'the Beast' as a distinct entity, Jewish and Catholic orthodox theologians have generally rejected a Zoroastrian view of equal status for Satan.

But aside from that, let's consider the two hypotheses. H1, that global elites have read the Bible and are implementing its prophesies. H2, God and the Devil are carrying out a cosmic battle with human politicians as pawns.

Hypothesis H1 seems to fit all the data, and it's much simpler than H2. God and Satan are mysterious supernatural entities who are depicted in the Bible as having the capability to carry out clearly miraculous actions such as the plagues of Moses, the parting of the Red Sea, and Jesus walking on the surface of a lake. In all our modern experience, matter and energy behave according to scientific principles which are clearly violated by the superstitious tales told in the Bible.

So where is the evidence that would lead us to prefer the evangelical hypothesis H2, rather than a secular humanist hypothesis H1? Evangelical preachers and church leaders of all denominations obviously have a vested interest in promoting H2, but that's not a good reason to believe it.

There is, of course, a logical problem with proving that something doesn't exist. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, as the saying goes. So I don't necessarily expect to persuade you that your views are mistaken. We may end up "agreeing to disagree".

But if you're going to advocate for a particular religion's view of God, you have to explain all the other religions which have very different views about God, even while claiming divine inspiration.

We argue that Judaism, Catholicism, evangelical Protestantism, and Islam are all working together covertly to bring about a single World Empire, but even those three religions have very diverse ideas about God's nature. They can't all be right. At some point there will need to be a new revelation to tie the diverse branches together, which we've humorously referred to as "Space Jesus".

But ultimately there will be a single Antichrist, the global dictator, who will announce himself as the saviour of this troubled world, but who will quickly reveal his true agenda with draconian and even supernatural powers. He will be the political world ruler.
Both the Old and New Testaments repeatedly voice this megalomaniac goal to create a single world empire.

The enlightened among us can already see of course that a global dictator is a very bad idea, but somehow, the majority of the world will be taken in by him with his philanthropic-sounding rhetoric and magnanimous gestures. He must by definition be an ethnic Jew.
But don't Christians also wish for a global dictator, namely Jesus Christ himself? But it seems to me that the definition of a "Jew" is really very flexible: the British Israel movement said that inhabitants of the British Isles should qualify. Trump has a Jewish son-in-law; that should be close enough to qualify. Of course the acid test is whether Trump will really be able to establish himself as world dictator, clearly achieving dominion over such as Putin and Xi Jinping.

This is a theme that I would have liked to discuss with Richard, but he was somewhat hostile to my attempts.
I think Richard was hoping that our discussion forum would attract mostly like-minded individuals who would share our worldview, and contribute to the research in a positive way. He was reluctant to provide a platform for views that he saw as disruptive or discrediting.

But if we're going to have a discussion forum, I don't see how it's possible to avoid having participants with a diversity of points of view.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Ruby: Romans 13:1 says "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." And surely that must be relevant to the United States of America as it was in 2001. President George W. Bush was a born-again Christian who renounced the excesses of his youth, and lived a life dedicated to God after his 40th birthday. Donald Rumsfeld was a Presbyterian who provided President Bush with daily briefings highlighted by Bible verses.

On Sept. 11th, 2001, President Bush addressed God and the nation in prayer in the words of Psalm 23: “Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me.” And on Nov. 10th, 2001, speaking to the UN General Assembly, Bush warned: "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."

In light of Romans 13, and with the clear direction of the governing authorities, I'm confused as to how you (who call yourself a Christian) can be giving any credit to this conspiracy theory that Flight 77 did not strike the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.

From your perspective, wouldn't it be obvious that any evidence to the contrary must be planted in evil men's minds by the Devil Satan, in order to foster confusion and lead people astray?

And aren't you defending godless Islamic radical terrorists who hate our freedoms???
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Jerry!!!!!!! Can this really be you??? This seems like a very tongue-in-cheek post from you. Ole Skull and Bones Bush couldn't lie straight in bed. "Bushspeak" was fertile ground for countless TV comedy skits here in Australia. How could someone so tonguetied and mentally confused be expected to run the world's most powerful country? The gobbledygook he uttered was a constant source of wonder and delight to us Aussies, cynics that we are.

Even more wondrous is the way Americans apparently cannot comprehend that their fawned-upon leaders are so uniformly discreditable. You never have a choice between the two most praiseworthy, capable statesmen in the land, but between narcissistic buffoons and would-be red button pushers. Both parties seem to me (and I suspect also to you) to be but variations on a theme, puppets of the unseen masters of this fallen world. Chosen for the purpose, even from the cradle it would seem, as to G. Dubbaya, who seems to have been your country's only hereditary president, first in line to the throne of that great One World Order expositor.

Now of course we know that America was founded upon the high moral principles of the Pilgrims, to create a new future of opportunity and all good things in the land of the free and the home of the brave. HA!!! In fact of course, America was founded centuries ago by the Illuminati, for their own nefarious purposes, global domination and micromanagement of every world citizen being paramount, in obedience to their clandestine god Lucifer, a liar and the father of lies.

Everyone knows what a religious country America is, and that when it suits, everybody "is a born-again christian". America has been the nursery of a plethora of false religions, each claiming sole infallibility and divine favour, all quoting bible texts to prove their point. So I have no respect for the claims by G.W.B. as to being "born again", and nor, I suspect, do you.

How convenient that within a handful of hours of the 9/11 incidents, Bush's speechwriter had already been able to construct that infamous "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories" speech which Bush could never have cobbled together himself.

I am certain that you know I remain strictly unconvinced about there having been 19 Arab terrorists who flawlessly outsmarted security, foiled the FBI who had been surveilling them for years, overpowered the muscle men on the planes with plastic knives, slid beneath the locked cockpit doors, and flew jumbo airliners accurately into the U.S. targets which most guaranteed decades of reprisals that resulted in millions of their own people dead and suffering.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Jerry!!!!!!! Can this really be you??? This seems like a very tongue-in-cheek post from you.
Yes, this was me!! You might have suspected that someone stole my login password, but it isn't so. Yes, this was my lame intent to go full tongue-in-cheek. And this is a digression, that probably will get moved eventually to the "Miracles and Biblical Infallibility" thread.

But you do agree that Romans 13:1 is in the Bible, right? "there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." There's hardly anything in the Bible more clearly stated than that. And if Paul could say that while the Emperor Nero was the authority in Rome, surely it should apply now as well. Why wouldn't it?

Romans 13 is said to be a very popular verse among American policemen today.

In fact of course, America was founded centuries ago by the Illuminati, for their own nefarious purposes, global domination and micromanagement of every world citizen being paramount, in obedience to their clandestine god Lucifer, a liar and the father of lies.
Why such a negative view of Lucifer? Originally this was simply the Latin name for Venus, personified by the Greeks as a god. In Revelation 22:16, Jesus refers to himself as the morning star, which is to say Lucifer.

And while I would certainly not deny that the planet Venus does exist, why should anyone in modern times believe that a planet is a deity, either good or evil? If we can agree that ancient Gods such as Poseidon, Zeus, Marduk or Ahura Mazda don't exist, why do we take Lucifer seriously as if he is a conscious being with agency and supernatural powers?

Everyone knows what a religious country America is, and that when it suits, everybody "is a born-again christian". America has been the nursery of a plethora of false religions, each claiming sole infallibility and divine favour, all quoting bible texts to prove their point.
But how is anyone supposed to tell the difference between the false religions and the true religion? Why don't we just do as Romans 13 suggests: consult the authorities that God has established, and rest assured that God has spoken?

I am certain that you know I remain strictly unconvinced about there having been 19 Arab terrorists who flawlessly outsmarted security, foiled the FBI who had been surveilling them for years, overpowered the muscle men on the planes with plastic knives, slid beneath the locked cockpit doors, and flew jumbo airliners accurately into the U.S. targets which most guaranteed decades of reprisals that resulted in millions of their own people dead and suffering.
Now you're making an appeal to common sense. But if Jesus could walk on water, then surely there's no limit to what can be done with plastic knives?

Or conversely, why won't you allow me to appeal to common sense as well? Look at what St Paul was doing in the 1st century AD, in that Book of Romans. He was telling his Jewish followers that they need to accept that the authority of Emperor Nero in Rome has been established by God. Why? Because he had a vision of Jesus that told him so! The same Jesus who was revered by the rebellious James and Peter, who walked on water and was resurrected on the third day!

Why doesn't Paul's invocation of Jesus evoke the same kind of skeptical response that you give to Dubya's claims of divine authority?
 

Ruby Gray

Member
I must admit that when it comes to voting (which is compulsory in Australia, enforced by stiff fines for non-compliance), I have frequently chosen the option of voting informal. That is, I "waste" my vote and don't vote for anybody, on the understanding that the Lord is in control, and nothing I do is going to change the outcome. When I first voted I had a boyfriend whose father was a prominent politician, and I was foolhardy enough to admit my informal-vote deed at the dinner table. It ranked up there with shooting JFK apparently.

Jesus was never politically correct. He fearlessly called out the scribes and Pharisees for their spiritual hypocrisy. But he never inaugurated a campaign to stamp out the death penalty. He was unjustly commanded to pay taxes to the Roman government, although he was not earning any money. Yet he abided by the law of the land, and paid up with a coin found in a random fish's mouth. He was sentenced to death although he had done nothing wrong, but he never said a word in his own defence.

Jesus told his followers that if they happened to be conscripted by the Roman army and required to march one mile for them, then they should exceed the demand and go that extra mile.

Although the wind and the waves obeyed his words, Jesus subjected himself obediently to the corrupt authorities, to the point of death.

Thus his entire life demonstrated the lives we should live in emulating his example, and proved that he truly has power over the last enemy, death. The point made by Paul is that as Jesus humbly accepted the treatment he received from the ruling authorities, so should we, because they have only been permitted to rule by God. In the end it matters not which political party is in office, but what matters is our obedience to both man and God.

When man's demands conflict with God's, then we are required to obey God rather than man.

Countless thousands of Christians in the first centuries A.D. opted to live by these statutes, choosing to be torn apart by lions or burned as living torches for the entertainment of the Romans, rather than compromising with Rome, or protesting their innocence or resorting to political activism. Yet the Romans could not stamp out this religion. It was said that the blood of the martyrs was like seed in the ground. The more that were killed by the Romans, the more converted to Christianity.

God's ways are far above man's ways. They are foolishness to the world.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hello Ruby,

I agree that "voting informal" in Australia is a crime against democracy that ranks similar to shooting JFK. The sentiment is exactly the same. You won't vote because you think your vote alone should determine the outcome. Because it doesn't, you refuse to participate out of spite. Whoever killed JFK, similarly felt that their own opinion was more important than the millions of voters who collectively chose JFK.

It is not true that voting has no effect. You might not have THE deciding vote that determines who wins. But the politicians do pay attention to the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various candidates and parties.

Or (if you prefer) you are trusting in the Lord. That is, leaving things entirely in the hands of voters who believe the pious crap coming from politicians like Dubya Bush.

In American elections, I have often voted for third party candidates who have no chance of winning. But I feel that my vote has always sent the clearest possible signal, that I am not happy with either major party. I have always lived in either Oregon or California, both solidly blue states. If I lived in a hotly contested swing state, I would be more likely to vote Democratic in many cases. As evil as the Democrats are, I do feel they are generally preferable to most Republicans, with some notable exceptions.

I am saddened to see that you believe the obviously bullshit story that Jesus could command the wind and waves. At this great historical distance in time, you accept Roman wartime propaganda at face value. You are also swallowing hook line and sinker, the fake news that thousands of Christians were martyred in the first centuries AD. Those were Jewish nationalists who were murdered, not pious Roman loyalist followers of Paul.

You are an intelligent person, so this is an indication of the power of cultural indoctrination.

I am asking for a conversational approach for your participation in this forum. In my previous post, I asked the following questions, which I will hereby summarize and re-state:

(1) Did Paul mean to say that Nero's authority was established by God? And similarly, what about Dubya's authority, and The Donald?

(2) Why do you have such a negative view of Lucifer? (Do you agree that Lucifer was the ancient name of the planet Venus, the Morning Star?)

(3) How is anyone supposed to tell the difference between the false religions and the true religion?

As far as I can tell, you are agreeing that Paul thought Nero's authority was established by God. If so, doesn't it follow that God was directly responsible for murdering those countless thousands of martyrs, whether they were Jewish nationalists or whether they were something else?

I don't see any answers to my other questions.
 
Last edited:

Ruby Gray

Member
I agree that "voting informal" in Australia is a crime against democracy that ranks similar to shooting JFK. The sentiment is exactly the same. You won't vote because you think your vote alone should determine the outcome. Because it doesn't, you refuse to participate out of spite.
Not at all!! As a raw 18 year old just emerged into the Big Wide World from a home where politics was never mentioned (I still have no idea how anyone else in my family votes), I had no clue who was what. I abstained from making any choice because I knew nothing about any of the candidates.

Also now, although I am somewhat more aware, being insulated from TV, newspapers, radio and general public opinion, I am often clueless to the personalities and issues involved, and the political wrangling preceding elections, so sometimes feel unqualified to weigh in to the fray.

Although I reject the idea of lifelong party loyalty or membership, I lean towards a certain party generally. I could just mark my card as the party directs, but many years of broken election promises suggests this may be unwise and certainly not useful. But it would be the same of course if i voted for the other major party, or any of the minor ones. Watching televised sessions of parliament with its juvenile bickering is repellent. Seems these politicians are all argumentative self-seeking versions of the same ilk no matter their party.

Where are the memorable pronouncements of revered statesmen who enter the public arena for the good of the country? I think back to the famous words of one of our Prime Ministers who sent businesses and farmers and homeowners to the wall or to suicide en masse with his "Recession that we had to have", and his interest rates that soared to a crippling 18%. His other most memorable quote was about his choice to enter politics - "I just wanted to get my bum on that seat".

That pretty much sums up politicians for me. Which fool to vote for?

I don't know what this has to do with the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon, which is why I am not comprehensively answering each point and cluttering up this thread right now.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Ruby,

I don't know what this has to do with the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon...
Regarding the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon, my question is: how do we know that the Devil isn't somehow leading us down a false pathway. Either by presenting all these eyewitnesses with a false vision, or by causing them to lie to the various reporters and intermediaries who convey this information to us, or by interfering with our own minds so that we cannot correctly evaluate the evidence.

Because clearly the evidence leads us to question the Authorities which have been Ordained by God.

...which is why I am not comprehensively answering each point and cluttering up this thread right now.
That's fair, and I appreciate the respect for the thread structure. I will move this material to the "Miracles and Biblical Infallibility" thread tomorrow.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
I am saddened to see that you believe the obviously bullshit story that Jesus could command the wind and waves. At this great historical distance in time, you accept Roman wartime propaganda at face value. You are also swallowing hook line and sinker, the fake news that thousands of Christians were martyred in the first centuries AD. Those were Jewish nationalists who were murdered, not pious Roman loyalist followers of Paul.
That is a point of view, and certainly a minority one. There is a wealth of literature from the early centuries A.D. which contradicts this concept, on which of course this site was predicated. You mentioned that we may end up having to agree to amicably disagree, but it would be wiser to begin that way. I present the traditional, evangelical understanding of the bible as a counterpoint to the postflavian one here. I am interested to see how your understanding varies, and admit that I have not studied your position thoroughly.

It's a rather cheap shot to suggest that as I am intelligent, I should not believe accounts of certain supernatural events in scripture.

I am frequently surprised at the intelligent people who believe that life, love and laughter could evolve from random collisions of inanimate particles of inexplicably pre-existing atoms in an infinite space over squintillions of aeons.

That takes a lot more blind faith, it seems to me, than believing that a supremely intelligent and all-powerful creator is responsible for everything we can see, hear and touch within this physical realm, and also for all that is beyond the 4 dimensions which we currently inhabit, but of which we are occasionally given glimpses.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Regarding the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon, my question is: how do we know that the Devil isn't somehow leading us down a false pathway. Either by presenting all these eyewitnesses with a false vision, or by causing them to lie to the various reporters and intermediaries who convey this information to us, or by interfering with our own minds so that we cannot correctly evaluate the evidence.

Because clearly the evidence leads us to question the Authorities which have been Ordained by God.
Or sometimes we can just overthink things.

Hence my attempt to more fully scrutinise the empirical testimony and evidence available to us.
I am presenting what I hope will eventually be a methodical analysis of as much eyewitness testimony as I can locate at this late date, whenever possible undergirded by photo and video evidence that has never been linked before, to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Certainly I would agree with your suggestion that Satan was responsible for many witnesses seeing a false vision of a 757 flying into the ground floor of the Pentagon. His earthly henchmen designed it that way, and it was resoundingly successful, but they were not careful enough. Some of them were caught in the act, on candid camera.

Many have tried to sweep the Pentagon event under the carpet, as being a dead end for evidence proving the false flag of 9/11. David Chandler etc were prominent in this, and seem to be no more than apologists for the Official Fairy Tale when it comes to the Pentagon, although they properly argue for controlled demolition at New York.

Seems to me this campaign to suppress and mutilate Pentagon evidence is no more than a ruse to divert our attention from their blunders, which as you know Jerry, were recorded for posterity in real time on video - the only one of the sites where identifiable individuals were caught red-handed in the act of staging their part of the grand illusion that was 9/11.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
There is a wealth of literature from the early centuries A.D. which contradicts this concept, on which of course this site was predicated.
This is false. There is very little literature about Christian martyrdom that dates back to the early centuries AD. See:

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/new-book-creating-christ.1964/post-12985

Also, Joe Atwill and I did a podcast about this: https://postflaviana.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Atwill-Russell-6-9-2017.mp3

I present the traditional, evangelical understanding of the bible as a counterpoint to the postflavian one here.
There are thousands of websites that present the traditional, evangelical understanding of the Bible. But if you want to use this space, you can expect to draw a rebuttal.

It's a rather cheap shot to suggest that as I am intelligent, I should not believe accounts of certain supernatural events in scripture.
What I said is that your beliefs are a testament to the power of cultural influence. You have been subjected to Christian propaganda all your life, and you've come to believe that it's true. If you had been raised in an Islamic culture, or a Chinese Buddhist culture, your beliefs would almost certainly be different. Conversions from one to another of these traditions are vanishingly rare.

If it weren't for all this cultural training, you would believe in an entirely different set of miraculous ancient events, or maybe none at all.

I am frequently surprised at the intelligent people who believe that life, love and laughter could evolve from random collisions of inanimate particles of inexplicably pre-existing atoms in an infinite space over squintillions of aeons.

That takes a lot more blind faith, it seems to me, than believing that a supremely intelligent and all-powerful creator is responsible for everything we can see, hear and touch within this physical realm, and also for all that is beyond the 4 dimensions which we currently inhabit, but of which we are occasionally given glimpses.
You are conflating two different things here. It's one thing to debate about whether a "supremely intelligent and all-powerful creator" exists, or whether life evolved from inanimate particles. In my opinion, the existence of such a creator is equally as inexplicable as the existence of atoms or space.

But that's a very different question, from whether you accept that a team of ancient propagandists working for the Roman Empire, somehow knows more about God than we do.

Certainly I would agree with your suggestion that Satan was responsible for many witnesses seeing a false vision of a 757 flying into the ground floor of the Pentagon. His earthly henchmen designed it that way, and it was resoundingly successful, but they were not careful enough.
In making the suggestion, I was being tongue-in-cheek, and/or making an argument which seems consistent with the point of view that you are projecting here.

I think we're in agreement that the presentation of a "magic show" involving a simultaneous overflight and explosive demolition of the Pentagon, was successful in creating the impression of a collision. This is simple psychology of perception, and does not require Satanic interference.

But on the other hand, many witnesses also said that they saw the aircraft on the north flight path, where it could not possibly have hit the light poles or caused the observed impact damage. I don't have any psychological explanation for that: it seems to me that if they are mistaken, the only possible explanation would be some miraculous, Satanic interference with their minds. I feel very comfortable dismissing that idea as ridiculous, but I don't see any logical basis for you to reject that possibility.

By "Satan's earthly henchmen" I presume that you mean Bush, Rumsfeld and whoever their accomplices were, along with anyone else calling the shots for that day. But isn't it sufficient to explain their motives in earthly terms: the quest for money and power, and perhaps an ideological belief in their own moral superiority over their Islamic radical enemies? Why invoke a supernatural explanation when simple human vanity is more than sufficient?
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
And on Nov. 10th, 2001, speaking to the UN General Assembly, Bush warned: "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."
How convenient that within a handful of hours of the 9/11 incidents, Bush's speechwriter had already been able to construct that infamous "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories" speech which Bush could never have cobbled together himself.
How our biases can inform what we read...
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
MythVision podcast just came out with this discussion about the martyrdom of the disciples. (This is an unlisted video, I got access as a perk for Patreon subscribers.)


10:00 Even Josh McDowell admits that the evidence for the martyrdom of Peter, James and Paul is late, legend-filled and contradictory.

12:00 Traditions about James's death in John 21:18, apocryphal Acts of Peter, and Origen are diverse and contradictory.

18:00 Confusion over various individuals named James

23:00 GMark and Papias say John was martyred, with but give little detail. Acts of John say he died of old age in Ephesus. Tertullian says he was boiled in oil, but miraculously survived and went on to write the Book of Revelation. Several other sources say he died of natural causes at old age.

29:00 Phillip is crucified upside down by snake worshippers, but he retaliates by causing them to be swallowed into a chasm. Jesus punishes Phillip. Other accounts deny this.

34:00 Various sources report that Bartholomew was either skinned alive, or crucified, or beheaded, or drowned in a bag.

36:00 Thomas Didymus died a natural death according to most sources.

39:00 Matthew, conflated with Matthias? Stabbed in the back, or burned to death and cannibalized.

42:00 later sources: Heracleon, Hippolytus

43:00 James son of alphaeus may or may not be the same person as James brother of Jesus. Many diverse stories.

46:00 Judas

47:00 Simon the zealot

50:00 Matthias

52:00 Paul: decapitated, his head bounced three times. With each bounce, a spring opened, supplying fresh water or milk.
 
Last edited:
Top