We all know that the number one alternative candidate (other than Osama bin Laden) for the 9/11 attack was the state of Israel. This is why Israel is the "keystone" of both Qanon and freemasonry (Joe Lange has good writing on Israel as the keystone).
A few weeks ago I learned that there are strong arguments that Jesus was born on September 11, 3 BC. The classic book is by Ernest Martin and was written in 1991, long before the terror attack.
So my natural question is:
Did Israel attack on September 11 in part because its leaders believed that Jesus was born on September 11?
And, since Jesus is associated with goodness and turning the other cheek, would this be a reason why many or most of the deaths on 9/11 were faked, as argued by Miles Mathis?
A related question is: if orthodox Christianity was created, in part, to hide important truths about Jesus, then would the Julian and/or Gregorian calendar (with all of its apparent shortcomings) be designed in part to hide Jesus' birthday on September 11?
I could debate you line by line, but there's a big philosophical problem at the start:
"Yes, the conjunctions are correct, but the idea that God wants us to date things via methods that nobody knew about at the time and that were not visible to the magi is suspect to me."
Of COURSE he would want us to do that. If the methods didn't even exist yet, then this shows that God was working in a predetermined, time-travel-y sort of way.
Not if they contradict the evidence, fren. The evidence is that the magi followed a star they could see at the beginning and the end of the trip.
Perhaps I'm speaking too fast because it's true that new information becomes available, but what I meant is that new information doesn't allow us to redefine old information that has always been interpreted literally.
Now I don't mean any disrespect I have for Martin and his followers to spill over here. So don't read that in. If you want to debate I have time, now and then, and am open-minded. We both have things to learn about this.