It is hard to know what is truth and what isn't, regarding the Templars. The waters have been muddied by popular authors, the Vatican and the Freemasons, which has suited some people very well.
It is worth remembering one thing, however. Hegel never invented his infamous dialectic. He merely gave his name to a time-honoured, yet dishonourable practice.
The victims of the Middle Eastern turmoil were the pawns, such as they are today, as is true Christianity.
The Hegelian dialectic is a successful strategy because so many take things at face value.
Indeed, the average person is like a young woman who has grown distrustful of her boyfriend, but agrees to have dinner with him to talk things through rather than simply dump him. As she alights her vehicle near the restaurant, an assailant grabs her. Fearing for her life, she is saved by the arrival of her boyfriend, who sees off the threat with little regard for his own safety.
After such an heroic action, she gladly accepts him as genuine.
But was what she experienced real? Or was it simply an exercise in further mind control orchestrated by a man she was beginning to seriously doubt?
Ultimately, people believe what they want to believe and some of those that know this prey upon it.
Many conspiracy theorists understand this happens, but still fall for it constantly. And they're supposedly the aware ones. The unaware don't even realise it happens.
Another example (the most famous been the tower of Pisa) of how an engineering mistake became a tourists’ attraction. Some more are the 17th ce. Swedish ship Vasa, the Spruce Goose airplane of Hughes Aircraft, the crooked spire in the Chesterfield Parish Church England, the Garisenda Tower in Bologna etc.
This is an interesting proposition. However, the sayings of these texts do not ring true, on the whole.
Gnosticism is an agenda pushed ultimately by those wishing to discredit Christianity. Even the use of the word itself, 'Gnostic', can be a deception. All Christians are truly 'Gnostic' in that they believe it is possible to know God, as opposed to Agnostic. These sayings will only make it harder for one to truly know God.
Muddying the waters of Christianity is a favourite past-time of devotees of the Devil.
After reading several of the comments I wanted to clarify that the Assyrian account wanted to kill the god who sent the flood. in the biblical account Gilgamesh or referred to as Nimrod was a rebel against God and a mighty warrior. The name Nimrod means to rebel against God.
As far as what I've seen of all the other ones with a similar biblical flood account the God who sent the flood was to kill the wicked. The only one that differs from that is the story of Gilgamesh. so I put those two together or all the other ones against the Gilgamesh retelling and you can see the perspective of what's being told. Also Babylon is not referred to in the Bible is necessarily a location, but a particular type of empire. As Babylon is also existing or reemerging in prophecies that are yet fulfilled. Rome was also considered one of these empires and when the stone was thrown at the feet made of clay and iron and destroyed it to never unite again it was the destruction of the Roman Empire. Jesus Christ was the stone that was not cut with human hands. Babylon reemerges and is destroyed in a day during the time of the Beast.
God was not angry at the people for building the tower of babel. it was the technology or the ability of what they would be able to create if they stayed there they would quickly turn wicked again so they he had to separate them or they would quickly turn self-destructive and self dependent to repeat what he did that brought about the flood.
“And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.” Genesis 11:5-9 KJV Not a KJV only.
when people lose dependency on God they become self-destructive and start bragging on themselves and or believe they are one. Plenty of history to say that. Nimrod means rebell against God. they didn't wanna scatter across the earth and God told him to scatter. The scattering created the nations. From there he chose a nation and not a strong one to show his power.
Please correct the article to show that it was not God’s anger that sent them but to save them. Confusing their language slowed down this process. as we can rapidly see what's happening as people are unifying on a global scale and it is self-destructive. Some benefits, but on the whole and the trajectory it's going is self-destructive.
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?
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
It is hard to know what is truth and what isn't, regarding the Templars. The waters have been muddied by popular authors, the Vatican and the Freemasons, which has suited some people very well.
It is worth remembering one thing, however. Hegel never invented his infamous dialectic. He merely gave his name to a time-honoured, yet dishonourable practice.
The victims of the Middle Eastern turmoil were the pawns, such as they are today, as is true Christianity.
The Hegelian dialectic is a successful strategy because so many take things at face value.
Indeed, the average person is like a young woman who has grown distrustful of her boyfriend, but agrees to have dinner with him to talk things through rather than simply dump him. As she alights her vehicle near the restaurant, an assailant grabs her. Fearing for her life, she is saved by the arrival of her boyfriend, who sees off the threat with little regard for his own safety.
After such an heroic action, she gladly accepts him as genuine.
But was what she experienced real? Or was it simply an exercise in further mind control orchestrated by a man she was beginning to seriously doubt?
Ultimately, people believe what they want to believe and some of those that know this prey upon it.
Many conspiracy theorists understand this happens, but still fall for it constantly. And they're supposedly the aware ones. The unaware don't even realise it happens.
Another example (the most famous been the tower of Pisa) of how an engineering mistake became a tourists’ attraction. Some more are the 17th ce. Swedish ship Vasa, the Spruce Goose airplane of Hughes Aircraft, the crooked spire in the Chesterfield Parish Church England, the Garisenda Tower in Bologna etc.
https://www.amazon.com/Hamlets-Mill-Investigating-Knowledge-Transmission/dp/0879232153/
I just placed an order and can't wait for the goods to arrive
This is an interesting proposition. However, the sayings of these texts do not ring true, on the whole.
Gnosticism is an agenda pushed ultimately by those wishing to discredit Christianity. Even the use of the word itself, 'Gnostic', can be a deception. All Christians are truly 'Gnostic' in that they believe it is possible to know God, as opposed to Agnostic. These sayings will only make it harder for one to truly know God.
Muddying the waters of Christianity is a favourite past-time of devotees of the Devil.
After reading several of the comments I wanted to clarify that the Assyrian account wanted to kill the god who sent the flood.
in the biblical account Gilgamesh or referred to as Nimrod was a rebel against God and a mighty warrior.
The name Nimrod means to rebel against God.
As far as what I've seen of all the other ones with a similar biblical flood account the God who sent the flood was to kill the wicked.
The only one that differs from that is the story of Gilgamesh.
so I put those two together or all the other ones against the Gilgamesh retelling and you can see the perspective of what's being told.
Also Babylon is not referred to in the Bible is necessarily a location, but a particular type of empire. As Babylon is also existing or reemerging in prophecies that are yet fulfilled.
Rome was also considered one of these empires and when the stone was thrown at the feet made of clay and iron and destroyed it to never unite again it was the destruction of the Roman Empire. Jesus Christ was the stone that was not cut with human hands. Babylon reemerges and is destroyed in a day during the time of the Beast.
God was not angry at the people for building the tower of babel.
it was the technology or the ability of what they would be able to create if they stayed there they would quickly turn wicked again so they he had to separate them or they would quickly turn self-destructive and self dependent to repeat what he did that brought about the flood.
“And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”
Genesis 11:5-9 KJV
Not a KJV only.
when people lose dependency on God they become self-destructive and start bragging on themselves and or believe they are one. Plenty of history to say that.
Nimrod means rebell against God.
they didn't wanna scatter across the earth and God told him to scatter.
The scattering created the nations.
From there he chose a nation and not a strong one to show his power.
Please correct the article to show that it was not God’s anger that sent them but to save them.
Confusing their language slowed down this process.
as we can rapidly see what's happening as people are unifying on a global scale and it is self-destructive. Some benefits, but on the whole and the trajectory it's going is self-destructive.
thank you for considering.
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....
Pages