The bun might need to be in the oven a bit longer than that, I'm afraid.
We're potentially looking at the BLM community going for the Jews' throat.
Buying tickets to a Wrestling Match like that is not exactly the best play from an optics standpoint. Either you're a racist or an anti-semite. It's a lose-lose to take a side.
That said, I'm rooting for Kanye simply from a meme standpoint because I think it's funny as hell watching them eat their own. Yeezy may well be a genius, 4D chess player after all, depending on who ends up on the ropes.
I think it's best to just sit back and see where Kanye is going with this mess before we get too excited about supporting him. We are in the days of straw men, so it's best to be cautious lest you get burned.
Either way, this is suiting up to be one hell of a ride, aye?
The repercussions are even more far reaching.
Every doctor and nurse will also be liable for crimes against humanity.
The entire Rockefeller Modern Medicine doctrine is on the chopping block with this.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/who-are-our-health-care-workers.html
22 Million Employed in Health Care Fight Against COVID-19
There were 22 million workers in the health care industry, one of the largest and fastest-growing sectors in the United States that accounts for 14% of all U.S. workers, according to the Census Bureau’s 2019 American Community Survey (ACS).
Realistically think about what it would look like if 14% of the U.S. Work Force were suddenly faced with jail time, following protocols and doctrines they first-hand knew to be deadly beyond reason.
Add in all the Pharmaceutical workers and the industry workers to make all the medical supplies they use, and we're talking at least 40% of the total Work Force being negatively impacted by the sudden vacuum of nurses and doctors facing trial.
This isn't just the beginning of the end for Big Pharma. It's the beginning of the end for Western Medicine and the work force along with it.
That's a bad play -- like flipping the chess board when you're winning just because you had to sacrifice your queen for an advantage. You're gonna win anyways, even if you don't like losing pieces.
You have to realize what people do when they are threatened with a no-win scenario. They go ballistic.
Even a feint threat of nuclear power isn't to be taken lightly, as the civilian populations would then scramble to flee and fall into more enemy traps and bloodshed. Stampedes are deadly for many reasons, but none the more relevant than panic and terror. Even worse is the potential of your enemy using that panic and terror against you.
This feels like the whole snake venom in the water supply fiasco all over again.
Personally, I'm just gonna assume it's comms and the only ones that should take this warning to heart are those who do the posting on telegram, rather than the readers.
Either way, I don't have it installed, so I guess my opinion is only cursory.
If you look at my description and yours, they actually don't differ much at all.
It's all about the gatekeeping.
While you view it as a separation of social castes, I see it more as a separation of technological availability. Regardless of the approach, it is true that those at the top have access to higher and more secretive technologies not available to the sheep at the bottom or even the media and corporate moguls in the middle.
We're both touching the elephant at different sides. In this case, looking at the similarities shows that the primary feature of the pyramid is keeping those at the bottom of the pyramid under the weight of those at the top.
Personally, I hinged most of my interpretation on the word Providence, which refers to the eye at the top.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/providence
- divine guidance or care
- God conceived as the power sustaining and guiding human destiny
Why should I trust him?
Yes, exactly. You hold this man's word as greater than Gospel itself. That you are so entranced is worrying.
I mentioned that there is biblical research that supports Pillai's logic on the meaning of "knew" in Matt 1:25. This research is what corroborates his view, right from the pages of the Bible.
That research does not exist outside of Pillai's two writings on the matter. One you provided and another that I have. I have scoured every source I can to find any others that corroborate.
I was wrong on one point, however. He wasn't a Vatican Bishop...
Do you even know that Pillai went on to help form a cult? He spent 18 years helping Victor Paul Wierwille start up a group called The Way International.
Pillai spoke in tongues and went around the United States claiming to heal people while taking their money. He wasn't a real Bishop, as his Indian Orthodox denomination left him out to dry.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Way-International
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/info/people/kreitz/Christian/Cults/4.way.pdf
Wierwille eventually came to believe that the Trinity was a pagan intrusion into the church. His understanding of the Trinity led him to deny the related belief in the divinity of Jesus.
He was taken in by a con artist who used Pillai's works to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of American Christians during the 1970's.
You being one of them, obviously.
You say I follow false doctrines, and here you are getting taken in by a cult.
You seek to discredit the men who don't agree with your false doctrines.
It's not MY false doctrine. It's the default stance by every denomination to believe that Mary was virgin up until the Birth of Jesus. They diverge afterwards.
Until 1969, no one even argued otherwise. You stand only with KC Pillai, and his word alone.
Face it, you follow the fringe views of a man who butchered the Bible with fanciful eastern views. Some of his takes are quite provocative, but they are no more authoritative than any other denomination, canon, or religious institution with far more credibility than he.
That you won't let this go shows you have your doubts.
I have no doubts that Mary stayed virgin, just as Matthew 1:25 suggests. That is Gospel Truth. Not your cultish butchering of the facts through a solitary eastern lense.
He knew her not
https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/1-25.htm
The majority of translations traditionally do not interpret this line any other way.
For clarification, these are the events given the evidence thus far:
-
By 1969, Bishop K.C. Pillai publishes the first of his two volumes, entitled Orientalisms of the Bible - Volume 1
-
He passes in 1970, before the second volume comes out.
-
1974 his second volume is published posthumously.
-
In 1980, Reverend Bo Reahard compiled several of Pillai's teachings in his work Old and New Testament Orientalisms - Teachings of Bishop K.C. Pillai
-
If he was asked to clarify any non-Canon views, he did not have time to re-publish with any corrections.
-
You come along and read his 1969 publication, but not the 1980 compiled work over the same materials.
Do you not see that it is entirely possible for you to have committed to your world view a stance which he later might have recanted as an error?
It's just like people with the vaccines... Even now, after Fauci changes his stance on literally everything that was once "settled science" there are still those who believe that vaccines stop transmission, are better than natural immunity, and aren't harmful. Are you really gonna fall in with their lot when confronted with this potential oversight by the original author himself?
This is why I worked so hard to coax from you your original source for this belief. I needed to know whether or not you just pulled it out of your ass. I'm actually glad to find you didn't, but holy shit why did it take you so long to provide a simple citation?! So much of our discord towards one another would have been avoided days ago had you just cited your sources...
Finally, my goal was to make 100% certain that the source you have committed to your world view was absolutely certain of THEIR convictions, and that they had not unintentionally let loose into the world a false doctrine which they later regretted.
Which seems this may just be the case...
The foundation of your world-view is built on shaky ground -- when the author's notes suggest he recanted the original belief.
Now, you have to come to terms with the fact that you may believe in something that another wrote in error -- that they later realized but passed before being able to correct. While the work was published in 1969, it takes years of writing and revisions before a publisher takes it to press. Seeing how he passed in 1970, he had absolutely no time to write re-issues to correct any of his errors.
Sure, this is all speculation, but that's my point. Your belief is ill-formed, based on the opinions of a single author who we have on good authority later changed his own stance on this belief...
If you want to continue believing in such a shaky argument, fine. I'm done with this. I've succeeded in all I set out to do.
You keep calling me a "dumb fuck", but I got what I want in the end -- the primary source for your worldview and the final stance of the author.
As dishonest as you've been thus far, I cannot in good faith accept your citation.
However, assuming you are correct in your citation, I once again offer up https://eternallyblessed.org/archive/downloads/3605/pdf/ORIENTALISMS-PILLAI-DSided.pdf
From the same author. K. C. Pillai
Which means, I need only find which came first and which came second. If my document came second, him being a Bishop, means that he recanted his prior statement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._C._Pillai
Orientalisms of the Bible - Volumes 1 & 2
Munkus Publishing Company, INC. (1969, 1974)
The Way International: American Christian Press (1984). ISBN 0-910068-70-4
In 1980, Reverend Bo Reahard compiled several of Pillai's teachings in his work Old and New Testament Orientalisms - Teachings of Bishop K.C. Pillai and in 2010, Jeanie Strand Chilton published the work Eastern Customs of the Bible: The Teachings of Bishop K. C. Pillai.
Which means what I linked to was his most current stance on that passage.
What you have cited is an outdated view by the author, published in 1969.
What I cited was recovered from his most up-to-date teaching notes compiled by Reverend Bo Reahard in 1980.
Which likely means, K. C. Pillai being a Bishop, the Church must have asked him to clarify his stance, which he was unable to do before his death in 1970. The Vatican is very strict about such things, so it's not unusual for them to do so.
All that said, either what you cited was his belief at death, and the Church changed his stance after the fact, or he did recant his original stance in the work I cited.
The reliability of this source is a wash as we cannot ascertain the most recent stance of the author.
You're not getting me to buy anything. Once again, you try making your points while hiding behind a veil.
I found an online version, after much looking.
https://eternallyblessed.org/archive/downloads/3605/pdf/ORIENTALISMS-PILLAI-DSided.pdf
Same writer: OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT ORIENTALISMS TEACHINGS OF BISHOP K.C. PILLAI
Page 132
Joseph and Mary espoused...before they came together.
Just had not had intercourse, married, yes. Therefore, no human father for Jesus.
You are alone. K.C. Pillai writes as much here. He says they were married, yes, but not had intercourse.
Page 323
Verse 20 "Mary thy wife." Joseph and Mary were married before she conceived by the Holy Spirit.
Once again you cite a reference that you think I won't read.
Here is the author of the work you just cited, clarifying my point.
They were already man and wife. No sexual act needed. They were married before she conceived by the Holy Spirit -- as a Virgin.
You are alone...
Give me a link to your reference. I'm finding like a dozen versions and none of them have anything to do with Mary and Joseph.
http://www.absolutebiblestudy.com/Word/Orientalisms_of_the_Bible_(Part_One).htm
There is no chapter 8
The only fake birds that should concern us are the bots on twitter parroting liberal and globalist talking points.
Whenever I see a story about there being fake birds, I'm not taking it literally. Instead, I read them as if they are talking about messengers -- like carrier pigeons.
To protect an important message when being sent, it's logical to fear for someone shooting down your carrier pigeon, so you might send a flock of them out carrying pointless messages to various locations so that the enemy has less of a chance of striking the right bird and divulging your secrets.
Those would be the fake birds I believe are being referred to.
We are in a information war. The actions of many "messengers" can be considered simultaneously real and fake. Some can effectively spy on the American people by acting as litmus tests for more irrational narrative pushes.
Not sure if you crazy narrative is going to be accepted? Throw out some fake birds (fake messengers) and see how the public responds to your proxies. If they all get shot down for being fake and gay, then you know your narrative won't take hold in the greater public. If a few do accept your message push, then you know it's safe to invest in the narrative push.
must be translated and a sense conveyed and understood and applied in a given context as to meaning.
Something you are not doing...
In Matthew, the context is Joseph taking or receiving closely to himself Mary to make her his wife. What do you suppose that closeness is?
He is taking her into his keeping. Up until that point she was living either at the temple or with her parents. She was already his wife, but he had yet to take her as his wife into his possession. It means nothing more than him taking responsibility for her wellbeing. Not sex. Your citation even omits sex as a possibility of that translation...
It doesn't imply anything other than that, according to the vast majority of translations and linguists. You're the only one who is so stringent in your interpretation.
Once again, you have given me no proper citation whatsoever.
Nothing in Strong's #2983 suggests a sexual intent.
Did you even read what you copy and pasted? There is no sexual connotation at all.
There is zero doubt that they did.
You clearly have doubts because you have yet to cite me a single reference that specifically mentions they fulfilled the entire Wedding Ceremony as you've suggested. I've given you ample opportunity to do so. The only reference you have cited thus far even disagrees with you.
https://bible-history.com/biblestudy/marriage
Between betrothal and marriage all communication between the betrothed ones was carried on through "the friend of the bridegroom" (John 3:29). She was regarded as his wife, so that faithlessness was punished with death (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).
You're so bad at this you probably didn't even realize when you cited a reference which already establishes that she was considered his wife.
And what's sad is you're still gonna try to weasel out of your critical mistake...
Satan himself is smiling at your dedication to slander the Bible. You're doing him really proud right now.
If you had ANY DIGNITY AT ALL you would find me a reference that supports your argument that he took her virginity while pregnant to fulfill the ceremony.
ANY at all. Just one reference to support the idea you aren't the first person to think this way. Just one. You can't even do that. It's really, really pathetic to a point of clear insanity.
But, you run with the mob established in false doctrines.
I've been looking literally anywhere for someone to support your argument. Islam, Judaism, Satanic grimoires, alchemy handbooks. I've been actively TRYING TO DISPROVE MY ARGUMENT in any way shape and form. I cannot find a single reference that suggests even in the slightest that Matthew 1:25 can be disregarded as you are disregarding it. They all say the same thing -- even the MOST anti-Christian sources all don't even bother tackling Matthew 1:25 in any other way.
Every fringe source I can find all say the exact same thing, that it's actually embarrassing for you to the highest degree.
You are factually the only one to think this way, given all the reference material I have been through. There are more people alive who think we live on the back of a turtle shell than think Joseph had sex with Mary during the pregnancy. That's not even hyperbole.
Nothing on the face of the earth and in heaven supports your argument. I'm not running with the mob in any respect. I'm running with common sense. I'm running with all biblical translations. I'm running with tradition. I'm running with etymology.
WHAT DOES MATTHEW 1:25 MEAN OTHERWISE!? You can't answer that outside of your god complex bending words to suit your will.
Why was that line included? What could it possibly mean other than he didn't have sex with her during pregnancy? It can't be read any other way.
Matthew 1:25
καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν: καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν.
https://www.greekbible.com/l.php?ginw/skw_v-3iai-s--_
- to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel 1a) to become known 2) to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of 2a) to understand 2b) to know 3) Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman 4) to become acquainted with, to know For Synonyms see entry 5825
ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως = knew her not
It's right there in the Greek Bible.
There is literally no other way to interpret that line. No one until now has even bothered trying.
He didn't have sex with her during pregnancy. Period.
https://www.greekbible.com/index.php?r=020436&font=
Mark 4:36
καὶ ἀφέντες τὸν ὄχλον παραλαμβάνουσιν αὐτὸν ὡς ἦν ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ, καὶ ἄλλα πλοῖα ἦν μετ' αὐτοῦ.
The word paralambano is used in bold.
36 Leaving the crowd behind, they took him along, just as he was, in the boat. There were also other boats with him. 37 A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped. 38 Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?”
If you have your way, and paralambano means exclusively having sex, then that means Jesus had sex with a crowd of people.
Hebrews 12:28
Διὸ βασιλείαν ἀσάλευτον παραλαμβάνοντες ἔχωμεν χάριν, δι' ἧς λατρεύωμεν εὐαρέστως τῷ θεῷ μετὰ εὐλαβείας καὶ δέους:
28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe,
It is also used here.
Which means we, the people, are having sex with a kingdom.
Do you understand now?
They actually did do The Wedding Ceremony
Alright, I'll bite.
Where did it even say they had a wedding.
Which passage went over them having a wedding, and hanging the sheet. You're implying all of this by only three words.
So, the only solution was to do The Wedding Ceremony. Which is what Joseph did.
Where does it say they had a wedding ceremony?
He knew her not, that is did not produce his own progeny until AFTER Jesus was born.
So you're agreeing with me? The only way to interpret your statement here is he didn't have sex with her when she was pregnant.
Everyone agrees with your view. Nice and comfy.
No, not just that.
I can't find a single human being to agree with your stance.
I can't find a single author who would put their name on it.
Your stance is absolutely remote. I'm convinced you are the sole, single person on the face of the earth to have every assumed Matthew 1:20 and Matthew 1:25 implies Joseph had sex with a still pregnant Mary.
You are the ONLY PERSON ALIVE to unironically think that way.
Prove me wrong
Other translations use brethren.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13:55&version=GNV
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
In full context, they weren't calling into question his heritage, they knew it quite well, but rather they were calling into question his claims of being the Messiah. He did not fit the prophecy, because they were aware he was not "Of the House of David" in terms of being related to the royal family as they were expecting from the Messiah.
54 And came into his own country, and taught them in their Synagogue, so that they were astonied, and said, Whence cometh this wisdom and great works unto this man?
They were more upset that he was just some scrub carpenter's son and not a son of a king. They further were upset that a carpenter's son would have such deep understanding of scripture when they said "Whence cometh this wisdom and great works unto this man?"
They wanted to know who taught him all he knew, and refused to believe a nobody would dare speak with such authority.
I'm not saying you're wrong in him having siblings of Mary, but in context they used his perceived siblings to reject him as the Messiah. He didn't fit their preconceived notions.
That's debatable. There was no word for cousin at the time in the Greek language.
https://www.bible-researcher.com/adelphos.html
"Brother" and "Sister" could have been as open ended as anyone from his home village, according to some interpretations.
But Matthew 1:25 with "But he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first born son," does open the door that they were permitted to have relations, but not that they necessarily did.
I don't care either way, personally, so long as it's not in question that Joseph didn't touch her at all during pregnancy. If he did, I see no logical way to say Jesus was born of a virgin then.
Which part? The virgin birth part?
If so, it's because every sect of Christianity affirms that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit.
This is because it is necessary for the Messiah to be without sin. Original Sin comes into play, so he can't have a traditional birth with man an woman, at least according to Mosaic law.
Furthermore, in order to fulfill the prophecies, he had to be born of a virgin.
14 Therefore the Lord [a]himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and she shall call his name [b]Immanuel. - Isaiah 7:14
As it concerns whether or not Joseph had sex with her while Jesus was in the womb, it only concerns me as far as the fact I'm in a conversation with someone who is convinced with every fiber of their being that "fear not to take Mary thy wife:" means Joseph banged her when pregnant -- his words, not mine.
Take it up with a mod then.
There is a scripture flair, so why shouldn't it be?
Did Joseph and Mary, per the culture, do The Wedding Ceremony?
To answer you directly, no. Matthew 1:25 proves it.
That he SHOULD have stoned her also supports my claim. If they had followed the Wedding Ceremony to the letter, he would have stoned her. He sought divorce, which he didn't have to do.
You're insane. There is no other explanation.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6O8XkZB/
Let's see what everyone else thinks.
Matthew 1:25 was written to express they did not follow the standard Wedding Ceremony.
You can't convince me otherwise.
Consider the lethality for a moment.
There have been so many "enough fentanyl was seized to kill 4 million people" kinda stories going around.
Let's assume them's real facts.
How much effort would it take to rig up a drone with a bag of fentanyl to pop over a crowd? How many casualties might that cause?
If the goal is mass casualties, an army of fentanyl drones all simultaneously blowing their load in densely packed city areas would definitely cause a lot of damage.
Really, think about how easy it would be for even a relatively small strike force to take a city hostage. Do you honestly think the Cabal haven't considered pulling such a trick if they were about to be taken down?