It's quite laughable that we've historically accepted the Christ person concept as being a "white" man. He most likely wasn't, given the geographic area from which he presumably came. Most Jewish antecedants of the time had no European lineage so, therefore, to assume that a man from Jesus Christ's presumed geological and genealogical precedence was a "white" man, in our modern concept and historical pictographical depictions, is an unreasonable, unfounded conclusion. As he might have existed, Jesus of Nazareth was a brown-skinned man, not very tall and not striking in any physical sense. He might and probably was a giant, spiritually and intellectually. Maybe even "the son of God". But a fair-skinned white guy? Probably, most likely, not.
Are you a witch? No? Prove it by dying, or not. If you die by trial, you're not a witch. If you don't, you are and are then burned at the stake. Either way, being accused of witchcraft in the 17th, 18th and 19th century resulted in you dying. Whether "in the grace of God" or not, you'd die. Period.
Are we really much different today? We distinguish ourselves by or with differences. Skin color, languages, religions and "nationalities". But we came from a same place, didn't we? "Neanderthal" has been previously identified as "backwards" or archaic. Maybe it's not. Maybe we can now look at ourselves as one, all other things notwithstanding. Maybe we should look at ourselves as a part of one and not as different to each other, as we currently seem to want for whatever reasons. The reasons we're apart are wrong, not what we are intrinsically. We're apart today because we choose to be, not because we are intrinsically. And these archeological findings prove it.
The video is “all over the place” with a lot of talk, often repeated, and no meaningfull information. In addition, the ancient ship wreck in the video is clearly from a much more recent Black Sea wreck. There is no such mud near a rocky island of Aegean and no wood is left from the Dokos wreck. Even the triremes in the video are out of place and era (been warships of the 7th ce BCE and later). The most close resemplance to Dokos ship is the Kerynia ship, a replica of which was constructed in the ‘80s and sailed across Aegean.
Where’d you get your definition of testament? Because it doesn’t sound etymologically sound at all.
testament (n.) late 13c., "last will disposing of property," from Latin testamentum "a last will, publication of a will," from testari "make a will, be witness to," from testis "witness."
Here’s something interesting: Hebrews 9:14-17
“How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.”
The greek word diathēkē can be translated as both covenant (agreement) and testament (last will), which is why the author chose it. Because the covenant was ratified by blood when the testator died.
Infact the whole of Hebrews 9 is explaining this exact concept.
The Bible was not written “a hundred years after the death of Christ”. Where did you get this erroneous and easily disproven information? Strange statement coming from someone who not more than 2 sentences earlier was making a big deal of proof.
Most scholars who’ve bothered to study the history of the New Testament will tell you that Q source (source document used by the authors of Matthew and Luke) was written prior to 50 A.D and even as early as the 30s A.D.
To be clear, this is a mere handful of years after the death of Christ. Compare this to the earliest written account of Alexander the Great (who I’m sure you not only believe existed, but also believe conquered from Greece to India) which was over 300 years after his death.
Btw, proof and evidence aren’t the same thing. Why is it that discoverers of bibilical artifacts must produce “definitive proof”, rather than just pointing at the evidence, whilst secular discoveries with lots of uncertainty or an outright lack of evidence are treated as definitive?
The double standard is pathetic. For example, the ruins of Jericho were excavated by John Garstang with plenty of good evidence (including expensive imported pottery from c. 1500 B.C. with signs of fire damage and untouched grain stores) indicating that not only was this Jericho, but it was destroyed right around the time the Bible claimed in exactly the way the Bible said it was, right down to the short seige, yet this very strong evidence, dare I say, definitive proof, was later dismissed. Why?
Well, due to what can only be described as an enexplicably shoddy excavation by Kathleen Kenyon which led her to claim that the city was destroyed earlier and thus not inhabited at the time the Israelites came through. How did she reach this conclusion? She didn’t find expensive imported pottery in the poor part of the city she looked in. That was it. Suddenly scholars lorded her work as definitive proof that the Bible was untrustworthy myth.
So my question is, who decides what is and isn’t “definitive proof” and how much evidence is required for something to be proven definitively?
When is the definitive article on the very real Nazi links in Ukraine coming out? Like the Azov Battalion have? And of even Zelenskyy himself? Spoiler alert, Ashkenazis can be Nazis. Nazi is actually a diminutive of Ashkenazi.
Never, presumably. When only one side of a complex story is told, it is not history, but propaganda.
Wagnerians are mercenary forces. The fact that they could harbour less than ideal behaviour is hardly staggering, to say the least. Killing for money is not an honourable profession.
However, given the sanctity of standing by Ukraine, an equivalent dose of reality regarding what happens on the Ukrainian side would be truly shocking to many. Especially if one discovers that's even worse than the Wagnerians' exploits.
One should become more familiar with culture of ancient India to understand it.From a westerners point of view it is absolute nonsense because of lack of information.Wives went into the funeral fire because they considered nit worth living without husband.And again this sentence is just an excerpt .One has to look more deeply into it.
Even Wikipedia:
Svayamvara is a type of marriage mentioned in Hindu mythology where a woman chose a man as her husband from a group of suitors.The bride would place a garland on the man of her choice and a marriage ceremony was held immediately.
By scratching the surface one will be lead to wrong conclusions and will have miles off understanding.
As your self what was the purpose for making this article and video?
With the ‘mythbusters’ re-creation I have to wonder if the mirrors they used were
A – large enough in the first place, and
B – correctly focussed on one specific spot.
Not to mention differing conditions, including (presumably) the lack of tar on the boats/ships. Sorry but I don’t have much trust in professional sceptics, as they are usually biased before they even start (although I admit freely I have not seen their reconstructed attempt), and I suspect that Archimedes was a lot smarter than any of their team either individually or combined – just look at some of the other things he achieved, including things thought previously impossible such as the ‘Claw’ and his most famous invention, the Archimedes Screw, probably used to maintain the Hanging Gardens at Babylon, plus he is my top candidate for building the Antikythera Mechanism – or the Antikythera Orrery, as it probably should be called. That did not exist in a vacuum either – there had to have been more.
ITER is a non starter because Stars do not work by fusion in the first place (the only nuclear reactions occurring are on the surface, which is a real surface & not an ‘optical illusion’ as the Standard Solar Model says – we have photographs of transverse waves rippling outwards, which can only happen on an actual surface, probably a liquid one) and in the second place fusion is the technology of the future – and it always will be. France is nowhere even close to a sustained fusion reaction that is actually under control, and the ITER project is just another name for Tokomak – which still does not work despite decades of trying & tens of billions of taxpeyer fundiong wasted – kinda like the search for ‘Dark Matter’ really, as that is also a non-starter.
As far as Pyramid Power generation goes I think the best place to start is with Christopher Dunn’s book ‘The Giza Power Plant’ and the follow-ups on his dedicated website www.gizapower.com and his forthcoming bnew book ‘GIZA: The Tesla Connection’ out in January next year.
AparentLink internet site and navigate to the affiliate network section. There, you may discover distinctive records approximately the program and a hyperlink to the associate portal.
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
It's quite laughable that we've historically accepted the Christ person concept as being a "white" man. He most likely wasn't, given the geographic area from which he presumably came. Most Jewish antecedants of the time had no European lineage so, therefore, to assume that a man from Jesus Christ's presumed geological and genealogical precedence was a "white" man, in our modern concept and historical pictographical depictions, is an unreasonable, unfounded conclusion. As he might have existed, Jesus of Nazareth was a brown-skinned man, not very tall and not striking in any physical sense. He might and probably was a giant, spiritually and intellectually. Maybe even "the son of God". But a fair-skinned white guy? Probably, most likely, not.
Are you a witch? No? Prove it by dying, or not. If you die by trial, you're not a witch. If you don't, you are and are then burned at the stake. Either way, being accused of witchcraft in the 17th, 18th and 19th century resulted in you dying. Whether "in the grace of God" or not, you'd die. Period.
Are we really much different today? We distinguish ourselves by or with differences. Skin color, languages, religions and "nationalities". But we came from a same place, didn't we? "Neanderthal" has been previously identified as "backwards" or archaic. Maybe it's not. Maybe we can now look at ourselves as one, all other things notwithstanding. Maybe we should look at ourselves as a part of one and not as different to each other, as we currently seem to want for whatever reasons. The reasons we're apart are wrong, not what we are intrinsically. We're apart today because we choose to be, not because we are intrinsically. And these archeological findings prove it.
What star is being created using fusion?
The video is “all over the place” with a lot of talk, often repeated, and no meaningfull information. In addition, the ancient ship wreck in the video is clearly from a much more recent Black Sea wreck. There is no such mud near a rocky island of Aegean and no wood is left from the Dokos wreck. Even the triremes in the video are out of place and era (been warships of the 7th ce BCE and later). The most close resemplance to Dokos ship is the Kerynia ship, a replica of which was constructed in the ‘80s and sailed across Aegean.
This was hilarious!
Where’d you get your definition of testament? Because it doesn’t sound etymologically sound at all.
testament (n.)
late 13c., "last will disposing of property," from Latin testamentum "a last will, publication of a will," from testari "make a will, be witness to," from testis "witness."
Here’s something interesting:
Hebrews 9:14-17
“How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.”
The greek word diathēkē can be translated as both covenant (agreement) and testament (last will), which is why the author chose it. Because the covenant was ratified by blood when the testator died.
Infact the whole of Hebrews 9 is explaining this exact concept.
The Bible was not written “a hundred years after the death of Christ”. Where did you get this erroneous and easily disproven information? Strange statement coming from someone who not more than 2 sentences earlier was making a big deal of proof.
Most scholars who’ve bothered to study the history of the New Testament will tell you that Q source (source document used by the authors of Matthew and Luke) was written prior to 50 A.D and even as early as the 30s A.D.
To be clear, this is a mere handful of years after the death of Christ. Compare this to the earliest written account of Alexander the Great (who I’m sure you not only believe existed, but also believe conquered from Greece to India) which was over 300 years after his death.
Btw, proof and evidence aren’t the same thing. Why is it that discoverers of bibilical artifacts must produce “definitive proof”, rather than just pointing at the evidence, whilst secular discoveries with lots of uncertainty or an outright lack of evidence are treated as definitive?
The double standard is pathetic. For example, the ruins of Jericho were excavated by John Garstang with plenty of good evidence (including expensive imported pottery from c. 1500 B.C. with signs of fire damage and untouched grain stores) indicating that not only was this Jericho, but it was destroyed right around the time the Bible claimed in exactly the way the Bible said it was, right down to the short seige, yet this very strong evidence, dare I say, definitive proof, was later dismissed. Why?
Well, due to what can only be described as an enexplicably shoddy excavation by Kathleen Kenyon which led her to claim that the city was destroyed earlier and thus not inhabited at the time the Israelites came through. How did she reach this conclusion? She didn’t find expensive imported pottery in the poor part of the city she looked in. That was it. Suddenly scholars lorded her work as definitive proof that the Bible was untrustworthy myth.
So my question is, who decides what is and isn’t “definitive proof” and how much evidence is required for something to be proven definitively?
Blinded by a magnificent gate, the historians entered the city without ever realising the reality of being a slave...
What is the difference between an historian and an apologist for totalitarianism? Often, not much at all.
Great buildings are not often built by great people, but by great propagandists, and propaganda is the most favoured tool of totalitarianists.
This made me chuckle.
Just wondering if Kenniwick man was dark skinned, he is imagined as light skinned.
When is the definitive article on the very real Nazi links in Ukraine coming out? Like the Azov Battalion have? And of even Zelenskyy himself? Spoiler alert, Ashkenazis can be Nazis. Nazi is actually a diminutive of Ashkenazi.
Never, presumably. When only one side of a complex story is told, it is not history, but propaganda.
Wagnerians are mercenary forces. The fact that they could harbour less than ideal behaviour is hardly staggering, to say the least. Killing for money is not an honourable profession.
However, given the sanctity of standing by Ukraine, an equivalent dose of reality regarding what happens on the Ukrainian side would be truly shocking to many. Especially if one discovers that's even worse than the Wagnerians' exploits.
The word “preceding” in the last sentence should surely read “ following” instead?
One should become more familiar with culture of ancient India to understand it.From a westerners point of view it is absolute nonsense because of lack of information.Wives went into the funeral fire because they considered nit worth living without husband.And again this sentence is just an excerpt .One has to look more deeply into it.
Even Wikipedia:
Svayamvara is a type of marriage mentioned in Hindu mythology where a woman chose a man as her husband from a group of suitors.The bride would place a garland on the man of her choice and a marriage ceremony was held immediately.
By scratching the surface one will be lead to wrong conclusions and will have miles off understanding.
As your self what was the purpose for making this article and video?
Yes, your buddy's mother earns lots of money, just not in front of her pc....
It’s an aspersorium, vessel for holy water or another sacred liquid, and the figure holding it and dispensing its contents it is a priest.
With the ‘mythbusters’ re-creation I have to wonder if the mirrors they used were
A – large enough in the first place, and
B – correctly focussed on one specific spot.
Not to mention differing conditions, including (presumably) the lack of tar on the boats/ships. Sorry but I don’t have much trust in professional sceptics, as they are usually biased before they even start (although I admit freely I have not seen their reconstructed attempt), and I suspect that Archimedes was a lot smarter than any of their team either individually or combined – just look at some of the other things he achieved, including things thought previously impossible such as the ‘Claw’ and his most famous invention, the Archimedes Screw, probably used to maintain the Hanging Gardens at Babylon, plus he is my top candidate for building the Antikythera Mechanism – or the Antikythera Orrery, as it probably should be called. That did not exist in a vacuum either – there had to have been more.
ITER is a non starter because Stars do not work by fusion in the first place (the only nuclear reactions occurring are on the surface, which is a real surface & not an ‘optical illusion’ as the Standard Solar Model says – we have photographs of transverse waves rippling outwards, which can only happen on an actual surface, probably a liquid one) and in the second place fusion is the technology of the future – and it always will be. France is nowhere even close to a sustained fusion reaction that is actually under control, and the ITER project is just another name for Tokomak – which still does not work despite decades of trying & tens of billions of taxpeyer fundiong wasted – kinda like the search for ‘Dark Matter’ really, as that is also a non-starter.
As far as Pyramid Power generation goes I think the best place to start is with Christopher Dunn’s book ‘The Giza Power Plant’ and the follow-ups on his dedicated website www.gizapower.com and his forthcoming bnew book ‘GIZA: The Tesla Connection’ out in January next year.
It's amazing that the reconstruction hasn't turned her into a Nubian, for that sort of revisionism seems very popular these days.
AparentLink internet site and navigate to the affiliate network section. There, you may discover distinctive records approximately the program and a hyperlink to the associate portal.
Registering account took 10 minutes and slightly suspicious of the website.
Pages