Jews historia

Origen on the Jews - Volume 29 - John A. Mcguckin. This present study is a note added to what has already become an extensive bibliography concerning Origen’s doctrinal relation to Judaism in general, and the extent and significance of his awareness of Jewish exegetical procedures in particular. This is a list of the greatest Jews – those who have (for good or bad) influenced the world. 10. David Ben-Gurion. 16 October 1886 – 1 December 1973. David Ben-Gurion was the first Prime Minister of Israel. Ben-Gurion’s passion for Zionism, which began early in life, culminated in his instrumental role in the founding of the state of Israel. Jews of both Western and Eastern Europe created a culture of religious practice, arts and music, language (principally Yiddish), and education. It was an entire culture which the Nazis sought to make extinct. There were distinct differences in the cultures of Jews who settled in the “East” and “West” in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th ... The campaign to free the Jews of the USSR grew into a global phenomenon that motivated Jews across the world to fight for their fellow Jews. With incredible results. Jewish History. Passover and the Spanish Inquisition. by Dr. Yvette Alt Miller. D. Juden in Rom (Berlin, 1895-96); LAGUMINA, Codice diplomatico dei Giudei di Sicilia (Palermo, 1885); LINDO, The History of the Jews of Spain and Portugal (London, 1848); AMADOR DE LOS RIOS, Historia social, politica, y religiosa de los Judios de España y Portugal (Madrid, 1875-76); KAYSERLING, Gesch. Paul Johnson says that writing A History of the Jews was like writing a history of the world 'seen from the viewpoint of a learned and intelligent victim.' Johnson's history begins with the Bible and ends with the establishment of the State of Israel. Throughout, Johnson's history is driven by a philosophical interest: 'The Jews,' he writes, 'stand right at the centre of the perennial attempt ... Judaism is the world’s oldest monotheistic religion, dating back nearly 4,000 years. Followers of Judaism believe in one God who revealed himself through ancient prophets. History is essential ... While all Jews agree that a child born of a Jewish mother is Jewish, Reform Judaism goes beyond Orthodox and Conservative Judaism in affirming that a child is Jewish if either one of the parents is a Jew. From a purely religious standpoint, Gentile converts to Judaism are accepted as Jewish in the fullest sense of the word. Paul Johnson has comprehensively chronicled the journey of the Jews in this mere 644 paged book. Given the fact that he has captured about 4000 years of world history focussing on the Jews, this is a commendable feat in itself. This book starts at a time when the Jews didn't even call themselves that and ends at the 1970's. Zionism is a religious and political effort that brought thousands of Jews from around the world back to their ancient homeland in the Middle East and

A story of a old man (Short version).

2020.09.04 21:21 Discojames69 A story of a old man (Short version).

There is in Russia an emeritus Professor Nikolay Stepanovitch, a chevalier and privy councillor; he has so many Russian and foreign decorations that when he has occasion to put them on the students nickname him "The Ikonstand." His acquaintances are of the most aristocratic; for the last twenty-five or thirty years, at any rate, there has not been one single distinguished man of learning in Russia with whom he has not been intimately acquainted. There is no one for him to make friends with nowadays; but if we turn to the past, the long list of his famous friends winds up with such names as Pirogov, Kavelin, and the poet Nekrasov, all of whom bestowed upon him a warm and sincere affection. He is a member of all the Russian and of three foreign universities. And so on, and so on. All that and a great deal more that might be said makes up what is called my "name." That is my name as known to the public. In Russia it is known to every educated man, and abroad it is mentioned in the lecture-room with the addition "honoured and distinguished." It is one of those fortunate names to abuse which or to take which in vain, in public or in print, is considered a sign of bad taste. And that is as it should be. You see, my name is closely associated with the conception of a highly distinguished man of great gifts and unquestionable usefulness. I have the industry and power of endurance of a camel, and that is important, and I have talent, which is even more important. Moreover, while I am on this subject, I am a well-educated, modest, and honest fellow. I have never poked my nose into literature or politics; I have never sought popularity in polemics with the ignorant; I have never made speeches either at public dinners or at the funerals of my friends ... In fact, there is no slur on my learned name, and there is no complaint one can make against it. It is fortunate. The bearer of that name, that is I, see myself as a man of sixty-two, with a bald head, with false teeth, and with an incurable tic douloureux. I am myself as dingy and unsightly as my name is brilliant and splendid. My head and my hands tremble with weakness; my neck, as Turgenev says of one of his heroines, is like the handle of a double bass; my chest is hollow; my shoulders narrow; when I talk or lecture, my mouth turns down at one corner; when I smile, my whole face is covered with aged-looking, deathly wrinkles. There is nothing impressive about my pitiful figure; only, perhaps, when I have an attack of tic douloureux my face wears a peculiar expression, the sight of which must have roused in every one the grim and impressive thought. I still, as in the past, lecture fairly well; I can still, as in the past, hold the attention of my listeners for a couple of hours. My fervour, the literary skill of my exposition, and my humour, almost efface the defects of my voice, though it is harsh, dry, and monotonous as a praying beggar's. I write poorly. That bit of my brain which presides over the faculty of authorship refuses to work. My memory has grown weak; there is a lack of sequence in my ideas, and when I put them on paper it always seems to me that I have lost the instinct for their organic connection; my construction is monotonous; my language is poor and timid. Often I write what I do not mean; I have forgotten the beginning when I am writing the end. Often I forget ordinary words, and I always have to waste a great deal of energy in avoiding superfluous phrases and unnecessary parentheses in my letters, both unmistakable proofs of a decline in mental activity. And it is noteworthy that the simpler the letter the more painful the effort to write it. At a scientific article I feel far more intelligent and at ease than at a letter of congratulation or a minute of proceedings. Another point: I find it easier to write German or English than to write Russian. As regards my present manner of life, I must give a foremost place to the insomnia from which I have suffered of late. If I were asked what constituted the chief and fundamental feature of my existence now, I should answer, Insomnia. As in the past, from habit I undress and go to bed exactly at midnight. I fall asleep quickly, but before two o'clock I wake up and feel as though I had not slept at all. Sometimes I get out of bed and light a lamp. For an hour or two I walk up and down the room looking at the familiar photographs and pictures. When I am weary of walking about, I sit down to my table. I sit motionless, thinking of nothing, conscious of no inclination; if a book is lying before me, I mechanically move it closer and read it without any interest -- in that way not long ago I mechanically read through in one night a whole novel, with the strange title "The Song the Lark was Singing"; or to occupy my attention I force myself to count to a thousand; or I imagine the face of one of my colleagues and begin trying to remember in what year and under what circumstances he entered the service. I like listening to sounds. Two rooms away from me my daughter Liza says something rapidly in her sleep, or my wife crosses the drawing-room with a candle and invariably drops the matchbox; or a warped cupboard creaks; or the burner of the lamp suddenly begins to hum -- and all these sounds, for some reason, excite me.
To lie awake at night means to be at every moment conscious of being abnormal, and so I look forward with impatience to the morning and the day when I have a right to be awake. Many wearisome hours pass before the cock crows in the yard. He is my first bringer of good tidings. As soon as he crows I know that within an hour the porter will wake up below, and, coughing angrily, will go upstairs to fetch something. And then a pale light will begin gradually glimmering at the windows, voices will sound in the street ... The day begins for me with the entrance of my wife. She comes in to me in her petticoat, before she has done her hair, but after she has washed, smelling of flower-scented eau-de-Cologne, looking as though she had come in by chance. Every time she says exactly the same thing: "Excuse me, I have just come in for a minute ... Have you had a bad night again?" Then she puts out the lamp, sits down near the table, and begins talking. I am no prophet, but I know what she will talk about. Every morning it is exactly the same thing. Usually, after anxious inquiries concerning my health, she suddenly mentions our son who is an officer serving at Warsaw. After the twentieth of each month we send him fifty roubles, and that serves as the chief topic of our conversation. "Of course it is difficult for us," my wife would sigh, "but until he is completely on his own feet it is our duty to help him. The boy is among strangers, his pay is small ... However, if you like, next month we won't send him fifty, but forty. What do you think?" Daily experience might have taught my wife that constantly talking of our expenses does not reduce them, but my wife refuses to learn by experience, and regularly every morning discusses our officer son, and tells me that bread, thank God, is cheaper, while sugar is a halfpenny dearer -- with a tone and an air as though she were communicating interesting news.
< 4 >
I listen, mechanically assent, and probably because I have had a bad night, strange and inappropriate thoughts intrude themselves upon me. I gaze at my wife and wonder like a child. I ask myself in perplexity, is it possible that this old, very stout, ungainly woman, with her dull expression of petty anxiety and alarm about daily bread, with eyes dimmed by continual brooding over debts and money difficulties, who can talk of nothing but expenses and who smiles at nothing but things getting cheaper -- is it possible that this woman is no other than the slender Varya whom I fell in love with so passionately for her fine, clear intelligence, for her pure soul, her beauty, and, as Othello his Desdemona, for her "sympathy" for my studies? Could that woman be no other than the Varya who had once borne me a son? I look with strained attention into the face of this flabby, spiritless, clumsy old woman, seeking in her my Varya, but of her past self nothing is left but her anxiety over my health and her manner of calling my salary "our salary," and my cap "our cap." It is painful for me to look at her, and, to give her what little comfort I can, I let her say what she likes, and say nothing even when she passes unjust criticisms on other people or pitches into me for not having a private practice or not publishing text-books. Our conversation always ends in the same way. My wife suddenly remembers with dismay that I have not had my tea. "What am I thinking about, sitting here?" she says, getting up. "The samovar has been on the table ever so long, and here I stay gossiping. My goodness! how forgetful I am growing!" She goes out quickly, and stops in the doorway to say: "We owe Yegor five months' wages. Did you know it? You mustn't let the servants' wages run on; how many times I have said it! It's much easier to pay ten roubles a month than fifty roubles every five months!"
< 5 >
As she goes out, she stops to say: "The person I am sorriest for is our Liza. The girl studies at the Conservatoire, always mixes with people of good position, and goodness knows how she is dressed. Her fur coat is in such a state she is ashamed to show herself in the street. If she were somebody else's daughter it wouldn't matter, but of course every one knows that her father is a distinguished professor, a privy councillor." And having reproached me with my rank and reputation, she goes away at last. That is how my day begins. It does not improve as it goes on. As I am drinking my tea, my Liza comes in wearing her fur coat and her cap, with her music in her hand, already quite ready to go to the Conservatoire. She is two-and-twenty. She looks younger, is pretty, and rather like my wife in her young days. She kisses me tenderly on my forehead and on my hand, and says: "Good-morning, papa; are you quite well?" As a child she was very fond of ice-cream, and I used often to take her to a confectioner's. Ice-cream was for her the type of everything delightful. If she wanted to praise me she would say: "You are as nice as cream, papa." We used to call one of her little fingers "pistachio ice," the next, "cream ice," the third "raspberry," and so on. Usually when she came in to say good-morning to me I used to sit her on my knee, kiss her little fingers, and say: "Creamy ice ... pistachio ... lemon ..." And now, from old habit, I kiss Liza's fingers and mutter: "Pistachio ... cream ... lemon ..." but the effect is utterly different. I am cold as ice and I am ashamed. When my daughter comes in to me and touches my forehead with her lips I start as though a bee had stung me on the head, give a forced smile, and turn my face away. Ever since I have been suffering from sleeplessness, a question sticks in my brain like a nail. My daughter often sees me, an old man and a distinguished man, blush painfully at being in debt to my footman; she sees how often anxiety over petty debts forces me to lay aside my work and to walk u p and down the room for hours together, thinking; but why is it she never comes to me in secret to whisper in my ear: "Father, here is my watch, here are my bracelets, my earrings, my dresses ... Pawn them all; you want money ..."? How is it that, seeing how her mother and I are placed in a false position and do our utmost to hide our poverty from people, she does not give up her expensive pleasure of music lessons? I would not accept her watch nor her bracelets, nor the sacrifice of her lessons -- God forbid! That isn't what I want.
< 6 >
I think at the same time of my son, the officer at Warsaw. He is a clever, honest, and sober fellow. But that is not enough for me. I think if I had an old father, and if I knew there were moments when he was put to shame by his poverty, I should give up my officer's commission to somebody else, and should go out to earn my living as a workman. Such thoughts about my children poison me. What is the use of them? It is only a narrow-minded or embittered man who can harbour evil thoughts about ordinary people because they are not heroes. But enough of that! At a quarter to ten I have to go and give a lecture to my dear boys. I dress and walk along the road which I have known for thirty years, and which has its history for me. Here is the big grey house with the chemist's shop; at this point there used to stand a little house, and in it was a beershop; in that beershop I thought out my thesis and wrote my first love-letter to Varya. I wrote it in pencil, on a page headed "Historia morbi." Here there is a grocer's shop; at one time it was kept by a little Jew, who sold me cigarettes on credit; then by a fat peasant woman, who liked the students because "every one of them has a mother"; now there is a red-haired shopkeeper sitting in it, a very stolid man who drinks tea from a copper teapot. And here are the gloomy gates of the University, which have long needed doing up; I see the bored porter in his sheep-skin, the broom, the drifts of snow ... On a boy coming fresh from the provinces and imagining that the temple of science must really be a temple, such gates cannot make a healthy impression. Altogether the dilapidated condition of the University buildings, the gloominess of the corridors, the griminess of the walls, the lack of light, the dejected aspect of the steps, the hat-stands and the benches, take a prominent position among predisposing causes in the history of Russian pessimism ... Here is our garden ... I fancy it has grown neither better nor worse since I was a student. I don't like it. It would be far more sensible if there were tall pines and fine oaks growing here instead of sickly-looking lime-trees, yellow acacias, and skimpy pollard lilacs. The student whose state of mind is in the majority of cases created by his surroundings, ought in the place where he is studying to see facing him at every turn nothing but what is lofty, strong and elegant ... God preserve him from gaunt trees, broken windows, grey walls, and doors covered with torn American leather!
When I go to my own entrance the door is flung wide open, and I am met by my colleague, contemporary, and namesake, the porter Nikolay. As he lets me in he clears his throat and says: "A frost, your Excellency!" Or, if my great-coat is wet: "Rain, your Excellency!" Then he runs on ahead of me and opens all the doors on my way. In my study he carefully takes off my fur coat, and while doing so manages to tell me some bit of University news. Thanks to the close intimacy existing between all the University porters and beadles, he knows everything that goes on in the four faculties, in the office, in the rector's private room, in the library. What does he not know? When in an evil day a rector or dean, for instance, retires, I hear him in conversation with the young porters mention the candidates for the post, explain that such a one would not be confirmed by the minister, that another would himself refuse to accept it, then drop into fantastic details concerning mysterious papers received in the office, secret conversations alleged to have taken place between the minister and the trustee, and so on. With the exception of these details, he almost always turns out to be right. His estimates of the candidates, though original, are very correct, too. If one wants to know in what year some one read his thesis, entered the service, retired, or died, then summon to your assistance the vast memory of that soldier, and he will not only tell you the year, the month and the day, but will furnish you also with the details that accompanied this or that event. Only one who loves can remember like that. He is the guardian of the University traditions. From the porters who were his predecessors he has inherited many legends of University life, has added to that wealth much of his own gained during his time of service, and if you care to hear he will tell you many long and intimate stories. He can tell one about extraordinary sages who knew everything, about remarkable students who did not sleep for weeks, about numerous martyrs and victims of science; with him good triumphs over evil, the weak always vanquishes the strong, the wise man the fool, the humble the proud, the young the old. There is no need to take all these fables and legends for sterling coin; but filter them, and you will have left what is wanted: our fine traditions and the names of real heroes, recognized as such by all.
In our society the knowledge of the learned world consists of anecdotes of the extraordinary absentmindedness of certain old professors, and two or three witticisms variously ascribed to Gruber, to me, and to Babukin. For the educated public that is not much. If it loved science, learned men, and students, as Nikolay does, its literature would long ago have contained whole epics, records of sayings and doings such as, unfortunately, it cannot boast of now. After telling me a piece of news, Nikolay assumes a severe expression, and conversation about business begins. If any outsider could at such times overhear Nikolay's free use of our terminology, he might perhaps imagine that he was a learned man disguised as a soldier. And, by the way, the rumours of the erudition of the University porters are greatly exaggerated. It is true that Nikolay knows more than a hundred Latin words, knows how to put the skeleton together, sometimes prepares the apparatus and amuses the students by some long, learned quotation, but the by no means complicated theory of the circulation of the blood, for instance, is as much a mystery to him now as it was twenty years ago. At the table in my study, bending low over some book or preparation, sits Pyotr Ignatyevitch, my demonstrator, a modest and industrious but by no means clever man of five-and-thirty, already bald and corpulent; he works from morning to night, reads a lot, remembers well everything he has read -- and in that way he is not a man, but pure gold; in all else he is a carthorse or, in other words, a learned dullard. The carthorse characteristics that show his lack of talent are these: his outlook is narrow and sharply limited by his specialty; outside his special branch he is simple as a child. "Fancy! what a misfortune! They say Skobelev is dead." Nikolay crosses himself, but Pyotr Ignatyevitch turns to me and asks: "What Skobelev is that?" Another time -- somewhat earlier -- I told him that Professor Perov was dead. Good Pyotr Ignatyevitch asked:
"What did he lecture on?" I believe if Patti had sung in his very ear, if a horde of Chinese had invaded Russia, if there had been an earthquake, he would not have stirred a limb, but screwing up his eye, would have gone on calmly looking through his microscope. What is he to Hecuba or Hecuba to him, in fact? I would give a good deal to see how this dry stick sleeps with his wife at night. Another characteristic is his fanatical faith in the infallibility of science, and, above all, of everything written by the Germans. He believes in himself, in his preparations; knows the object of life, and knows nothing of the doubts and disappointments that turn the hair o f talent grey. He has a slavish reverence for authorities and a complete lack of any desire for independent thought. To change his convictions is difficult, to argue with him impossible. How is one to argue with a man who is firmly persuaded that medicine is the finest of sciences, that doctors are the best of men, and that the traditions of the medical profession are superior to those of any other? Of the evil past of medicine only one tradition has been preserved -- the white tie still worn by doctors; for a learned -- in fact, for any educated man the only traditions that can exist are those of the University as a whole, with no distinction between medicine, law, etc. But it would be hard for Pyotr Ignatyevitch to accept these facts, and he is ready to argue with you till the day of judgment. I have a clear picture in my mind of his future. In the course of his life he will prepare many hundreds of chemicals of exceptional purity; he will write a number of dry and very accurate memoranda, will make some dozen conscientious translations, but he won't do anything striking. To do that one must have imagination, inventiveness, the gift of insight, and Pyotr Ignatyevitch has nothing of the kind. In short, he is not a master in science, but a journeyman.
Pyotr Ignatyevitch, Nikolay, and I, talk in subdued tones. We are not quite ourselves. There is always a peculiar feeling when one hears through the doors a murmur as of the sea from the lecture-theatre. In the course of thirty years I have not grown accustomed to this feeling, and I experience it every morning. I nervously button up my coat, ask Nikolay unnecessary questions, lose my temper ... It is just as though I were frightened; it is not timidity, though, but something different which I can neither describe nor find a name for. Quite unnecessarily, I look at my watch and say: "Well, it's time to go in." And we march into the room in the following order: foremost goes Nikolay, with the chemicals and apparatus or with a chart; after him I come; and then the carthorse follows humbly, with hanging head; or, when necessary, a dead body is carried in first on a stretcher, followed by Nikolay, and so on. On my entrance the students all stand up, then they sit down, and the sound as of the sea is suddenly hushed. Stillness reigns. I know what I am going to lecture about, but I don't know how I am going to lecture, where I am going to begin or with what I am going to end. I haven't a single sentence ready in my head. But I have only to look round the lecture-hall (it is built in the form of an amphitheatre) and utter the stereotyped phrase, "Last lecture we stopped at ..." when sentences spring up from my soul in a long string, and I am carried away by my own eloquence. I speak with irresistible rapidity and passion, and it seems as though there were no force which could check the flow of my words. To lecture well -- that is, with profit to the listeners and without boring them -- one must have, besides talent, experience and a special knack; one must possess a clear conception of one's own powers, of the audience to which one is lecturing, and of the subject of one's lecture. Moreover, one must be a man who knows what he is doing; one must keep a sharp lookout, and not for one second lose sight of what lies before one.
A good conductor, interpreting the thought of the composer, does twenty things at once: reads the score, waves his baton, watches the singer, makes a motion sideways, first to the drum then to the wind-instruments, and so on. I do just the same when I lecture. Before me a hundred and fifty faces, all unlike one another; three hundred eyes all looking straight into my face. My object is to dominate this many-headed monster. If every moment as I lecture I have a clear vision of the degree of its attention and its power of comprehension, it is in my power. The other foe I have to overcome is in myself. It is the infinite variety of forms, phenomena, laws, and the multitude of ideas of my own and other people's conditioned by them. Every moment I must have the skill to snatch out of that vast mass of material what is most important and necessary, and, as rapidly as my words flow, clothe my thought in a form in which it can be grasped by the monster's intelligence, and may arouse its attention, and at the same time one must keep a sharp lookout that one's thoughts are conveyed, not just as they come, but in a certain order, essential for the correct composition of the picture I wish to sketch. Further, I endeavour to make my diction literary, my definitions brief and precise, my wording, as far as possible, simple and eloquent. Every minute I have to pull myself up and remember that I have only an hour and forty minutes at my disposal. In short, one has one's work cut out. At one and the same minute one has to play the part of savant and teacher and orator, and it's a bad thing if the orator gets the upper hand of the savant or of the teacher in one, or vice versa. You lecture for a quarter of an hour, for half an hour, when you notice that the students are beginning to look at the ceiling, at Pyotr Ignatyevitch; one is feeling for his handkerchief, another shifts in his seat, another smiles at his thoughts ... That means that their attention is flagging. Something must be done. Taking advantage of the first opportunity, I make some pun. A broad grin comes on to a hundred and fifty faces, the eyes shine brightly, the sound of the sea is audible for a brief moment ... . I laugh too. Their attention is refreshed, and I can go on.
No kind of sport, no kind of game or diversion, has ever given me such enjoyment as lecturing. Only at lectures have I been able to abandon myself entirely to passion, and have understood that inspiration is not an invention of the poets, but exists in real life, and I imagine Hercules after the most piquant of his exploits felt just such voluptuous exhaustion as I experience after every lecture. That was in old times. Now at lectures I feel nothing but torture. Before half an hour is over I am conscious of an overwhelming weakness in my legs and my shoulders. I sit down in my chair, but I am not accustomed to lecture sitting down; a minute later I get up and go on standing, then sit down again. There is a dryness in my mouth, my voice grows husky, my head begins to go round ... To conceal my condition from my audience I continually drink water, cough, often blow my nose as though I were hindered by a cold, make puns inappropriately, and in the end break off earlier than I ought to. But above all I am ashamed. My conscience and my intelligence tell me that the very best thing I could do now would be to deliver a farewell lecture to the boys, to say my last word to them, to bless them, and give up my post to a man younger and stronger than me. But, God, be my judge, I have not manly courage enough to act according to my conscience. Unfortunately, I am not a philosopher and not a theologian. I know perfectly well that I cannot live more than another six months; it might be supposed that I ought now to be chiefly concerned with the question of the shadowy life beyond the grave, and the visions that will visit my slumbers in the tomb. But for some reason my soul refuses to recognize these questions, though my mind is fully alive to their importance. Just as twenty, thirty years ago, so now, on the threshold of death, I am interested in nothing but science. As I yield up my last breath I shall still believe that science is the most important, the most splendid, the most essential thing in the life of man; that it always has been and will be the highest manifestation of love, and that only by means of it will man conquer himself and nature. This faith is perhaps naive and may rest on false assumptions, but it is not my fault that I believe that and nothing else; I cannot overcome in myself this belief.
But that is not the point. I only ask people to be indulgent to my weakness, and to realize that to tear from the lecture-theatre and his pupils a man who is more interested in the history of the development of the bone medulla than in the final object of creation would be equivalent to taking him and nailing him up in his coffin without waiting for him to be dead. Sleeplessness and the consequent strain of combating increasing weakness leads to something strange in me. In the middle of my lecture tears suddenly rise in my throat, my eyes begin to smart, and I feel a passionate, hysterical desire to stretch out my hands before me and break into loud lamentation. I want to cry out in a loud voice that I, a famous man, have been sentenced by fate to the death penalty, that within some six months another man will be in control here in the lecture-theatre. I want to shriek that I am poisoned; new ideas such as I have not known before have poisoned the last days of my life, and are still stinging my brain like mosquitoes. And at that moment my position seems to me so awful that I want all my listeners to be horrified, to leap up from their seats and to rush in panic terror, with desperate screams, to the exit. It is not easy to get through such moments.
submitted by Discojames69 to notinterestingatall [link] [comments]

2020.08.22 12:19 EnclavedMicrostate Tartaria: The Supposed Mega-Empire of Inner Eurasia


For those not in the know, the Tartaria conspiracy theory is one of the most bizarre pieces of pseudo history out there. Its core notion is that the region known as ‘Tartaria’ or ‘Grand Tartary’ in Early Modern European maps was not simply a vague geographical designate, but in fact a vast, centralised empire. Said empire emerged… at some point, and it disappeared… at some point, but for… some reason, its existence has been covered up to suit… some narrative or another. As you can tell, there’s a lot of diverse ideas here, and the fact that there hasn’t been the equivalent of a Christological schism every time a controversial thread goes up is really quite impressive. While this post will primarily address one particular piece of writing that is at the core of Tartaria conspiracy theorising, I’ll include a few tidbits to show you just how much madness its adherents have come up with. But first, some background.

State of Play, and why I’m doing this

The Tartaria theory has a small but active following on subreddits such as Tartaria, tartarianarchitecture, and CulturalLayer, which as of writing have around 5,300, 2,400 and 23,000 subscribers, respectively, but it’s clear from the 8 questions on the topic asked at AskHistorians since January 2019 and this debunk request from June that it’s a theory that has somewhat broad appeal and can reach beyond its core niche. This is unsurprising given how little education most people in the West receive about basically anything east of Greece: simply put, the reality of Eurasian history is just not something most of us are taught. And if we don’t know the reality of Eurasian history to begin with, or if we do then it's all in bits and pieces where we might not even know a basic set of dates and names, then what seems to be a pretty developed narrative about a lost empire actually turns out rather plausible.
Unfortunately, many debunks of the Tartaria narrative come from people pushing competing conspiracy theories, like this guy claiming that there’s a global Jewish Phoenecian conspiracy and that Tartaria is simply rehashing the notion that Khazars were Jews in order to distract from the real Phoenecian threat at the heart of global society or some nonsense like that. (I don’t really care, I died of laughter after page 3.) Now, there are those coming from serious perspectives, but they focus largely on the problems with Tartaria as a concept rather than addressing the more specific claims being made. This is of course valuable in its own right (shoutout to Kochevnik81 for their responses to the AskHistorians threads), but we can go deeper by really striking at the roots of this ‘theory’ – what is the ‘evidence’ they’re presenting? But to do that, we need to find out what the origins of the ‘theory' are, and thus what its linchpins are. Incidentally, it is because of some recent events regarding those origins that I’ve been finally prompted to write this post.

Where does it come from?

My attempts to find the exact origins of the Tartaria conspiracy have been not entirely fruitful, as the connections I’ve found have been relatively circumstantial at best. But as far as I can tell, it at least partially originates with that Russian pseudohistorian we all know and love, Anatoly Fomenko. Fomenko is perhaps best known in the English-speaking world for his 7-volume ‘epic’ from 2002, History: Fiction or Science?, but in fact he’s been pushing a complete ‘New Chronology’ since the publication of Novaia khronologia in Russian in 1995. While the New Chronology is best known for its attempt to explain away most of the Middle Ages as a hoax created by the Papacy on the basis of bad astronomy, it also asserts a number of things about Russian history from the Kievan Rus’ to the Romanovs. Key to the Tartaria theory is its claim that there was a vast Slavo-Turkic ‘Russian Horde’ based out of ‘Tartaria’ which dominated Eurasia until the last ‘Horde’ ruler, Boris Godunov, was overthrown by the European Mikhail Romanov. This, of course, is a clear attempt at countering the notion of a ‘Tatar Yoke’ over Russia, as you can’t have a ‘Tatar Yoke’ if the Tatars were Russians all along. Much as I’d like to explain that in more detail here, I don’t have to: in 2004, Konstantin Sheiko at the University of Wollongong wrote an entire PhD thesis looking at the claims of Fomenko’s New Chronology and contextualising them within currents of Russian nationalism, which can be accessed online.
But I personally suspect that if there are Fomenko connections as far as Tartaria specifically is concerned, they are limited. For one, at one stage users on the Tartaria subreddit seemed unfamiliar with Fomenko, and there are those arguing that Fomenko had ‘rewritten’ Tartarian history to be pro-Russian. This is why I said that the evidence was circumstantial. The only other link to Fomenko is indirect: the CulturalLayer sidebar lists the ‘New Chronology Resource Collection’ and the audiobook of History: Fiction or Science? under ‘Essential Resources’, and Tartaria in its ‘Related Subs’.
As far as I can tell, the ultimate origin of its developed form on the Anglophone web traces back to this post on the StolenHistory forums, posted on 17 April 2018. This makes some chronological sense: only one post on CulturalLayer that mentions Tartaria predates this. Moreover, KorbenDallas, the OP of the thread, was also the forum’s chief admin, and given that StolenHistory is still (as of writing) the top resource on CulturalLayer’s sidebar, that suggests significant influence. However, using the search function on, it was mentioned at least 9 times before then, with the first mention, on 10 January 2018, mentioning that the ‘theory’ had been doing the rounds on the Russian web for at least 5 years. Nevertheless, as the detail in these early comments is sparse and generally refers only to speculation about maps, it is probably fair to say that the first in-depth English-language formulation of the Tartaria ‘theory’ was thus the April 2018 forum post. Funnily enough, it is not cited often on Tartaria, but that subreddit was created on 27 December, long after discussion had been taking place on places like CulturalLayer, and combined with the ‘mudflood’ ‘theory’ and the notion of giant humans, which are not significant features of the StolenHistory thread. This more convoluted and multifaceted version of the Tartaria theory doesn’t really have a single-document articulation, hence me not covering it here.
It is this StolenHistory thread which I will be looking at here today. Not just because it seems to be at the heart of it all, but also because it got shut down around 36 hours ago as of writing this post, based on the timestamps of panicked ‘what happened to StolenHistory’ posts on CulturalLayer and Tartaria. So what better occasion to go back to the Wayback Machine’s version, seeing as it’s now quite literally impossible to brigade the source? Now as I’ve said, this is not the most batshit insane it gets for the Tartaria crowd, in fact it’s incredibly tame. But by the end of it, I bet you’ll be thinking ‘if this is mild, how much more worse is the modern stuff!?’ And the best part is, I can debunk most of it without recourse to any other sources at all, because so much of it involves them posting sources out of context or expecting them to be read tendentiously.
But that’s enough background. Let us begin.

Part 1: The Existence

Exhibit 1: The Encylcopædia Britannica, 1771

”Tartary, a vast country in the northern parts of Asia, bounded by Siberia on the north and west: this is called Great Tartary. The Tartars who lie south of Muscovy and Siberia, are those of Astracan, Circassia, and Dagistan, situated north-west of the Caspian-sea; the Calmuc Tartars, who lie between Siberia and the Caspian-sea; the Usbec Tartars and Moguls, who lie north of Persia and India; and lastly, those of Tibet, who lie north-west of China.” - Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. III, Edinburgh, 1771, p. 887.
Starting a post about the ‘hidden’ history of Central Asia with an encyclopædia entry from Scotland is really getting off to a good start, isn’t it? Anyone with a sense of basic geography can tell you that Tibet lies due west of China, not northwest. But more importantly, this shows you how single-minded the Tartaria advocates are and how tendentiously they read things. ‘Country’ need not actually refer to a state entity, it can just be a geographical space, especially in more archaic contexts such as this. Moreover, the ethnographic division of the ‘Tartars’ into Astrakhanis, Circassians, Dagestanis, Kalmuks, Uzbeks, and, for whatever reason, Tibetans, pretty clearly goes against the notion of a unified Tartary.
Now compare to the description given by Wikipedia, ”Tartary (Latin: Tartaria) or Great Tartary (Latin: Tartaria Magna) was a name used from the Middle Ages until the twentieth century to designate the great tract of northern and central Asia stretching from the Caspian Sea and the Ural Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, settled mostly by Turko-Mongol peoples after the Mongol invasion and the subsequent Turkic migrations.”
Obviously, Wikipedia is not a good source for… anything, really, but the fact that they’re giving a 349-year-old encyclopaedia primacy over the summary sentence of a wiki article is demonstrative of how much dishonesty is behind this. And it only gets worse from here.

Exhibit 2: Hermann Moll’s A System of Geography, 1701

THE Country of Tartary, call'd Great Tartary, to distinguish it from the Lesser, in Europe, has for its Boundaries, on the West, the Caspian Sea, and Moscovitick Tartary; on the North, the Scythian, or Tartarian Sea; on the East, the Sea of the Kalmachites, and the Straight of Jesso; and on the South, China, India, or the Dominions of the great Mogul and Persia : So that it is apparently the largest Region of the whole Continent of Asia, extending it self [sic] farthest, both towards the North and East: In the modern Maps, it is plac'd within the 70th and 170th Degree of Longitude, excluding Muscovitick Tartary; as also between the 40 and 72 Degree of Northern Latitude.
Immediately underneath the scan of this text is the statement, clearly highlighted, that
Tartary was not a tract. It was a country.
Hmm, very emphatic there. Except wait no, the same semantic problem recurs. ‘Country’ need not mean ‘state’. Moreover, in the very same paragraph, Moll (or rather his translator) refers to Tartary as a ‘Region’, which very much disambiguates the idea. Aside from that, it is telling that Moll refers to three distinct ‘Tartaries’: ’Great Tartary’ in Asia, ‘Lesser Tartary’ in Europe, and ‘Muscovite Tartary’ – that is, the eastern territories of the Russian Tsardom. If, as they are saying, ‘Great Tartary’ was a coherent entity, whatever happened to ‘Lesser Tartary’?

Exhibit 3: A 1957 report by the CIA on ‘National Cultural Development Under Communism’

Is a conspiracy theorist… actually believing a CIA document? Yep. I’ll add some context later that further complicates the issue.
Or let us take the matter of history, which, along with religion, language and literature, constitute the core of a people’s cultural heritage. Here again the Communists have interfered in a shameless manner. For example, on 9 August 1944, the Central Committee of the Communist Party, sitting in Moscow, issued a directive ordering the party’s Tartar Provincial Committee “to proceed to a scientific revolution of the history of Tartaria, to liquidate serious shortcomings and mistakes of a nationalistic character committed by individual writers and historians in dealing with Tartar history.” In other words, Tartar history was to be rewritten—let its be frank, was to be falsified—in order to eliminate references to Great Russian aggressions and to hide the facts of the real course of Tartar-Russian relations.
[similar judgement on Soviet rewriting of histories of Muslim areas to suit a pro-Russian agenda]
What’s fascinating about the inclusion of this document is that it is apparently often invoked as a piece of anti-Fomenko evidence, by tying New Chronology in with older Russian-nationalist Soviet revisionism. So not only is it ironic that they’re citing a CIA document, of all things, but a CIA document often used to undermine the spiritual founder of the whole Tartaria ‘theory’ in the first place! But to return to the point, the fundamental issue is that it’s tendentious. This document from 1957 obviously is not going to be that informed on the dynamics of Central Asian ethnicity and history in the way that a modern scholar would be.
In a broader sense, what this document is supposed to prove is that Soviet coverups are why we don’t know about Tartaria. But if most of the evidence came from Western Europe to begin with, why would a Soviet coverup matter? Why wasn’t Tartarian history deployed as a counter-narrative during the Cold War?

Exhibit 4: ‘An 1855 Source’

This is from a footnote in Sir George Cornwalle Lewis’ An Inquiry into the Credibility of the Early Roman History, citing a travelogue by Evariste Huc that had been published in French in 1850 and was soon translated into English. From the digitised version of of Huc’s book on Project Gutenberg (emphasis copied over from the thread):
Such remains of ancient cities are of no unfrequent occurrence in the deserts of Mongolia; but everything connected with their origin and history is buried in darkness. Oh, with what sadness does such a spectacle fill the soul! The ruins of Greece, the superb remains of Egypt,—all these, it is true, tell of death; all belong to the past; yet when you gaze upon them, you know what they are; you can retrace, in memory, the revolutions which have occasioned the ruins and the decay of the country around them. Descend into the tomb, wherein was buried alive the city of Herculaneum,—you find there, it is true, a gigantic skeleton, but you have within you historical associations wherewith to galvanize it. But of these old abandoned cities of Tartary, not a tradition remains; they are tombs without an epitaph, amid solitude and silence, uninterrupted except when the wandering Tartars halt, for a while, within the ruined enclosures, because there the pastures are richer and more abundant.
There’s a paraphrase from Lewis as well, but you can just read it on the thread. The key thing here is that yes, there were abandoned settlements in the steppe. Why must this be indicative of a lost sedentary civilisation, and not instead the remnants of political capitals of steppe federations which were abandoned following those federations’ collapse? Places like Karakorum, Kubak Zar, Almaliq and Sarai were principally built around political functions, being centres for concentration of religious and ritual authority (especially monasteries) and stores of non-movable (or difficult to move) wealth. But individual examples of abandoned settlements are not evidence of broad patterns of settlement that came to be abandoned en masse. Indeed, the very fact that the cited shepherd calls the abandoned location ‘The Old Town’ in the singular implies just how uncommon such sites were – for any given region, there might really only be one of note.

Exhibit 5: Ethnic characteristics in artistic depictions of Chinggis and Timur

I… don’t quite know what to make of these.
Today, we have certain appearance related stereotypes. I think we are very much off there. It looks like Tartary was multi-religious, and multi-cultural. One of the reasons I think so is the tremendous disparity between what leaders like Genghis Khan, Batu Khan, Timur aka Tamerlane looked like to the contemporary artists vs. the appearance attributed to them today.
Ummm, what?
These are apparently what they look like today. These are ‘contemporary’ depictions of Chinggis:
Except, as the guy posting the thread says, these are 15th-18th century depictions… so NOT CONTEMPORARY.
As for Timur, we have:
In what bizzaro world are these contemporary?
We’ll get to Batur Khan in a moment because that’s its own kettle of worms. But can this user not recognise that artists tend to depict things in ways that are familiar? Of course white European depictions of Chinggis and Timur will tend to make them look like white Europeans, while East Asian depictions of Chinggis will tend to make him look Asian, and Middle Eastern depictions of Chinggis and Timur will make them look Middle Eastern. This doesn’t prove that ‘Tartaria’ was multicultural, in fact it you’d have an easier time using this ‘evidence’ to argue that Chinggis and Timur were shapeshifters who could change ethnicities at will!

Exhibit 6: Turkish sculptures

Why this person thinks modern Turkish sculptures are of any use to anyone baffles me. The seven sculptures shown are of Batu Khan (founder of the ‘Golden Horde’/Jochid khanates), Timur, Bumin (founder of the First Turkic Khaganate), Ertugrul (father of Osman, the founder of the Ottoman empire), Babur (founder of the Mughal Empire), Attila the Hun, and Kutlug Bilge Khagan (founder of the Uyghur Khaganate). They are accompanied (except in the case of Ertugrul) by the dates of the empires/confederations that they founded – hence, for instance, Babur’s dates being 1526 to 1858, the lifespan of the Mughal Empire, or Timur’s being 1368 (which seems arbitrary) to 1507 (the fall of Herat to the Shaybanids). To quote the thread:
A few of them I do not know, but the ones I do look nothing like what I was taught at school. Also dates are super bizarre on those plaques.
Again, Turkish sculptors make Turkic people look like Turks. Big surprise. And the dates are comprehensible if you just take a moment to think.
Do Turks know something we don't?
Turkish, evidently.

Exhibit 7: A map from 1652 that the user can’t even read

The other reason why I think Tartary had to be multi-religious, and multi-cultural is its vastness during various moments in time. For example in 1652 Tartary appears to have control over the North America.
This speaks for itself.
The thread was later edited to include a link to a post on ‘Tartarians’ in North America made on 7 August 2018, but that’s beside the point here, read at your own leisure (if you can call it ‘leisure’). Except for the part where at one point he admits he can’t read Latin, and so his entire theory in that post is based on the appearance of the word ‘Tartarorum’ in an unspecified context on a map of North America.

Part 2: The Coverup

The official history is hiding a major world power which existed as late as the 19th century. Tartary was a country with its own flag, its own government and its own place on the map. Its territory was huge, but somehow quietly incorporated into Russia, and some other countries. This country you can find on the maps predating the second half of the 19th century.
…Okay then.

Exhibit 8: Google Ngrams
This screenshot shows that the use of ‘Tartary’ and ‘Tartaria’ declined significantly over time. This is apparently supposed to surprise us. Or maybe it shows that we actually understand the region better…

Part 1a: Back to the existence

You know, a common theme with historical conspiracy theories is how badly they’re laid out, in the literal sense of the layout of their documents and video content. Don’t make a header called ‘The Coverup’ and then only have one thing before jumping back to the evidence for the existence again.

Exhibit 9: A Table

Yet, some time in the 18th century Tartary Muskovite was the biggest country in the world: 3,050,000 square miles.
I do not have enough palms to slap into my face. Do they not understand that this is saying how much of Tartary was owned… by foreign powers?

Exhibit 10: Book covers

You can look at the images on the thread itself but here’s a few highlights:
Histories of the Qing conquest of China, because as far as Europeans were concerned the Manchus were Tartars. Proof of Tartaria because…?
An ambassador who never set foot in ‘Tartary’ itself, cool cool, very good evidence there.
There’s also three screenshots from books that aren’t even specifically named, so impossible to follow up. Clearly this is all we need.

Exhibit 11: Maps

The maps are the key think the Tartaria pushers use. All these maps showing ‘Grand Tartary’ or ‘Tartaria’ or what have you. There’s 20 of these here and you can look for yourselves, but the key thing is: why do these people assume that this referred to a single state entity? Because any of these maps that include the world more generally will also present large parts of Africa in generic terms, irrespective of actual political organisation in these regions. And many of the later maps clearly show the tripartite division of the region into ‘Chinese Tartary’, ‘Russian Tartary’, and ‘Independent Tartary’, which you think would be clear evidence that most of this region was controlled by, well, the Chinese (really, the Manchus) and the Russians. And many of these maps aren’t even maps of political organisation, but geographical space. See how many lump all of mainland Southeast Asia into ‘India’. Moreover, the poor quality of the mapping should give things away. This one for instance is very clear on the Black Sea coast, but the Caspian is a blob, and moreover, a blob that’s elongated along the wrong axis! They’re using Western European maps as an indicator of Central Asian realities in the most inept way possible, and it would be sad if it weren’t so hilarious. The fact that the depictions of the size of Tartaria are incredibly inconsistent also seems not to matter.

Exhibit 12: The Tartarian Language

There’s an 1849 American newspaper article referring to the ‘Tartarian’ language, which is very useful thank you, and definitely not more reflective of American ignorance than actual linguistic reality.
The next one is more interesting, because it’s from a translation of some writing by a French Jesuit, referring to the writing of Manchu, and who asserted (with very little clear evidence) that it could be read in any direction. In April last year, Tartaria users [claimed to have stumbled on a dictionary of Tartarian and French]( called the Dictionnaire Tartare-Mantchou-François. What they failed to realise is that the French generally called the Manchus ‘Tartare-Mantchou’, and this was in fact a Manchu-French dictionary. In other words, a [Tartare-Mantchou]-[François] dictionary, not a [Tartare]-[Mantchou]-[François] dictionary. It is quite plausible, in fact probable, that the ‘Tartarian’ referred to in the newspaper article was Manchu.

Exhibit 13: Genealogies of Tartarian Kings

Descended From Genghiscan
Reads the comment above this French chart. How the actual hell did OP not recognise that ‘Genghiscan’ is, erm, Genghis Khan? Is it that hard to understand that maybe, just maybe, ‘Tartars’ was what they called Mongols back in the day, and ‘Tartaria’ the Mongol empire and its remnants?

Exhibit 14: Ethnographic drawings

These prove that there were people called Tartars, not that there was a state of Tartaria. NEXT

Exhibit 15: Tartaria’s alleged flag

Images they provide include
Except there’s one problem. As any EU4 player will tell you, that’s the flag of the Khanate of Kazan. And while they can trot out a few 18th and 19th century charts showing the apparent existence of a Tartarian naval flag, the inconvenient fact that Tartaria would have been landlocked seems not to get in the way. To be sure, their consistent inclusion is odd, given the non-existence of Tartary as a country, and moreover its landlocked status. It seems plausible that the consistent similarity of the designs is just a result of constant copying and poor checking, but on its own it means relatively little.

Exhibit 16: 19th-century racism
That I think speaks for itself.

Exhibit 17: Flags of Moscow on one particular chart

It is also worth mentioning that in the British Flag Table of 1783, there are three different flags listed as a flag of the Tsar of Moscow. There is also an Imperial Flag of Russia as well as multiple naval flags. And all of them are proceeded by a flag of the Viceroy of Russia.
By that logic, the Royal Navy ran Britain because the Royal Navy ensigns precede the Union Jack. It’s simply a conscious decision to show the flags of individuals before the flags of states. The ‘Viceroy’ (unsure what the original Russian title would be) and ‘Czar’ of Muscovy would presumably be, well, the Emperor of Russia anyway, so as with the British section where the Royal Standard and the flags of naval officers came first, the same seems true of Russia. Also, as a side note, the placement of the USA at the end, after the Persians, the Mughals and ‘Tartarians’, is a fun touch.
Significance of the Viceroy is in the definition of the term. A viceroy is a regal official who runs a country, colony, city, province, or sub-national state, in the name of and as the representative of the monarch of the territory. Our official history will probably say that it was the Tsar of Russia who would appoint a viceroy of Moscow. I have reasons to doubt that.
Why is the flag of the Viceroy of Moscow positioned prior to any other Russian flag? Could it be that the Viceroy of Moscow was superior to its Czar, and was "supervising" how this Tartarian possession was being run?

Part 3: 1812

This, this is where it gets really bonkers. A key part of this post is arguing that Napoleon’s invasion of Russia was a cover story for a joint invasion against Tartaria gone horrendously wrong. All the stops are being pulled out here.
There is a growing opinion in Russia that French invasion of Russia played out according to a different scenario. The one where Tsar Alexander I, and Napoleon were on the same side. Together they fought against Tartary. Essentially France and Saint Petersburg against Moscow (Tartary). And there is a strong circumstantial evidence to support such a theory.
Oh yes, we’re going there.
Questions to Answer:
1. Saint Petersburg was the capitol of Russia. Yet Napoleon chose to attack Moscow. Why?
He didn’t, he was trying to attack the Russian army. (credit to dandan_noodles).
2. It appears that in 1912 there was a totally different recollection of the events of 1812. How else could you explain commemorative 1912 medals honoring Napoleon?
Because it’s a bit of an in-your-face to Napoleon for losing so badly?
And specifically the one with Alexander I, and Napoleon on the same medal. The below medal says something similar to, "Strength is in the unity: will of God, firmness of royalty, love for homeland and people"
Yeah, it’s showing Alexander I beating Napoleon, and a triumphant double-headed Russian eagle above captured French standards. Also, notice how Alexander is in full regalia, while Napoleon’s is covered up by his greatcoat?
3. Similarity between Russian and French uniforms. There are more different uniforms involved, but the idea remains, they were ridiculously similar.
Ah yes, because fashions in different countries always develop separately, and never get influenced by each other.
How did they fight each other in the dark?
With difficulty, presumably.
Basically, he’s saying that this:
Is too similar to this:
To be coincidental.
OK, whatever. Here’s where it gets interesting:
There was one additional combat asset officially available to Russians in the war of 1812. And that was the Militia. It does appear that this so-called Militia, was in reality the army of Tartary fighting against Napoleon and Alexander I.
Russian VolunteeMilitia Units... Tartarians?
Clearly this man has never encountered the concept of a cossack, an opelchenie, or, erm, a GREATCOAT.
4. Russian nobility in Saint Petersburg spoke French well into the second half of the 19th century. The general explanation was, that it was the trend of time and fashion. Google contains multiple opinions on the matter. * Following the same logic, USA, Britain and Russia should've picked up German after the victory in WW2.
Clearly never heard of the term lingua franca then.
5. This one I just ran into: 19th-century fans were totally into a Napoleon/Alexander romance
It is true that after the Treaty of Tilsit, Napoleon wrote to his wife, Josephine, that
I am pleased with [Emperor] Alexander; he ought to be with me. If he were a woman, I think I should make him my mistress.
But Napoleon’s ‘honeymoon period’ with Russia following the Treaty of Tilsit should not be seen as indicative of a permanent Napoleonic affection for Russia. Notably, Napoleon’s war with Russia didn’t just end in 1812. How are the Tartaria conspiracists going to explain the War of the Sixth Coalition, when Russian, Prussian and Austrian troops drove the French out of Germany? Did the bromance suddenly stop because of 1812? Or, is it more reasonable to see 1812 as the end result of the bromance falling apart?


So there you have it, Tartaria in all its glorious nonsensicalness. Words cannot capture how massively bonkers this entire thing is. And best of all, I hardly needed my own sources because so much of it is just a demonstration of terrible reading comprehension. Still, if you want to actually learn about some of the history of Inner Eurasia, see below:


submitted by EnclavedMicrostate to badhistory [link] [comments]

2020.08.20 04:25 Guomindang A review of John Malalas's Chronicle

I was looking for biographies of Antonius Pius besides the one in the Historia Augusta (which I discuss at length here) when I stumbled across the similarly remarkable work of John Malalas.
Malalas, born at the end of the fifth century, was a Byzantine historian who wrote the Chronographia, the oldest world chronicle to survive almost completely intact. It begins with the world's biblical origins and continues to at least 565 AD. It is often said to have been greatly popular in its time and was cited for centuries to come. In his introduction, he describes his intentions as follows:
I thought it right, after abbreviating some material from the Hebrew books written by Moses... in the narratives of the chroniclers Africanus, Eusebios Parnphilou, Pausanias, Didyrnos, Theophilos, Clement, Diodoros, Domninos, Eustathios and many other industrious chroniclers and poets and learned historians, and to relate as truthfully as possible a summary account of events that took place in the time of the emperors, up till the events of my own life-time which came to my hearing, I mean indeed from Adam to the reign of Zeno and those who ruled afterwards. My successors must complete the story relying on their own ability. Thus the majority of writers on world history give an account like the following.
Despite his stated aims, the Chronographia is an atrocious work of history. Every page abounds with errors and absurdities that are apparent to even the casual student of antiquity. In the words of a frustrated seventeenth-century reader, "more than halfe the book is stuffed with ridiculous lys and although there be something of good use contained therein, yet they are not of such number or value as to make any recompense for the rest of his booke which is intolerable". Edward Gibbon came to a similar conclusion, saying "the authority of that ignorant Greek is very slight". Not only does the author fabricate liberally, but he neglects to narrate actual history, instead repetitively describing the physical appearance of historical figures, their favorite chariot racing faction, and the baths they constructed in his native Antioch. A typical example:
After the reign of Antoninus, his son Marcus Antoninus, the philosopher, reigned for 18 years and nine months. He was short, thin, fair-skinned, with greying short hair, good eyes, a good beard, delicate features and a long nose.
The emperor Marcus built, or reconstructed, in Antioch the Great the public bath known as the Centenarium. For it had collapsed in the time of Trajan, during the wrath of God. He also built the Mouseion and its Nymphaion known as the Okeanon.
The emperor Marcus Antoninus favoured the Green faction.
(One of the first things Marcus Aurelius mentions in his Meditations was that he was taught not to become a partisan of either the Blues or Greens.)
In short, Malalas manages to make the Historia Augusta look like a work of the highest caliber. Below are just some of the absurdities I noticed in my reading—I'm sure there are many others.
  1. After Manlius (mispelled "Mallius" in Malalas's account) Capitolinus saved Rome from the Gauls, he shortened the number of days in the month of Sextilis because of its inauspicious association with recent events and renamed it after his enemy, a senator named Februarius, whose sacrifice to the underworld he demanded on the grounds of him being of Gaulish descent and a homosexual. Februarius was then bound in a straw sack and beaten out of the city and died, which is why every Roman city celebrates the month of February by chasing a man in a straw sack out of town. This bizarre account of Feburary's etymology appears to be a garbled version of the festival of Mamuralia, held in March, in which an old man is wrapped in goat skin and beaten with sticks.
  2. "Alexander [the Great] freed the cities and territories and all the land of the Romans, Hellenes and Egyptians from subjection and slavery to Assyrians, Persians, Parthians and Medes; he restored to the Romans all that they had lost."
  3. Hannibal was the "king of the Africans" and Carthage was "the city of which he was king".
  4. Caesar was born via Caesarian section, hence his name.
  5. Caesar murdered the entire senate upon capturing Rome.
  6. Caesar killed Pompey in Egypt.
  7. Caesar ruled as a dictator for 18 years.
  8. Caesar built the Caesareum of Alexandria in honor of his son born to Cleopatra.
  9. Cleopatra built the Lighthouse of Alexandria.
  10. Mark Antony invaded Egypt and besieged Alexandria to quell Cleopatra's rebellion against Rome, but Cleopatra seduced him and he defected.
  11. Mark Antony launched an invasion of Rome intending to capture it, which prompted Rome's declaration of war against him.
  12. Octavian sacrificed a virgin girl named Gregoria upon founding Galatia. (Alexander the Great and Trajan among others are also said to offer virgin girls in sacrifice.)
  13. Octavian killed Mark Antony and Brutus.
  14. Nero had "completely grey hair" despite his youth.
  15. Nero was so fascinated by Jesus's exploits that he wanted to meet this "great philosopher", but upon learning that he had been crucified, he angrily summoned Pontus Pilate and had him beheaded, saying "Why did he hand the Lord Christ over to the Jews, for he was an innocent man and worked miracles. If his disciple could work such wonderful feats, how powerful must he have been?" Pilate's execution provoked the Jews to revolt and Nero had to bloodily suppress their insurrection.
  16. St. Peter and Simon Magus both met with Nero, who wanted to learn more about Christ. He tossed them out because Simon was pretending to be Jesus.
  17. Nero died at the age of 69.
  18. Malalas claims that a governor of First Palestine called Tiberianus wrote to Trajan, asking him how to deal with Christians who stubbornly incriminated themselves, to which Trajan replied that Christians should not be put to death. This account actually bears some resemblance to an exchange between the governor of Bithynia and Pontus Pliny the Younger and Trajan on dealing with Christians, in which Trajan said that Christians should not be actively sought out.
  19. In complete contradiction of the policy mentioned above, Trajan put five Christian women to death and mixed their ashes with bronze, from which hot-water vessels were made to be used in bathhouses. But after bathers began to feel sick, these vessels were replaced. The original vessels were then melted down into statues of the women, and Trajan boasted, "Look, it is I who have resurrected them as they said, and not their god." He also invited any Christian who wished to do so to throw themselves into a furnace, which many martyrs then did.
  20. Hadrian rebuilt the Colossus of Rhodes.
  21. Marcus Aurelius's reign was followed by that of a son, Antonius Verus, who ruled for 8 years. Commodus then ruled for 22 years.
  22. Caracalla and Elagabulus were beloved by all.
  23. Maximinus Thrax was besieged by a mob in his palace in Rome.
  24. Aurelian beheaded Zenobia.
  25. Diocletian ordered that the residents of Alexandria be slaughtered until their blood reached his horse's knees. However, his horse tripped, bringing its knees to the ground, and the massacre was stopped. The grateful residents built a statue of the horse. (Malalas is the sole source of this famous anecdote.)
  26. Malalas does not appear to understand of the concept of the tetrarchy and lists its emperors as ruling in succession, which warps his chronology by stretching their 53-year reign into 95 years. However, at some point he noticed the mathematical impossibility and added a passage confusingly explaining that "The chronicler must thus record how many years each emperor reigned, but readers of chronicles must pay attention simply to the sum of the years that have elapsed in the case of the reigns of all the emperors mentioned above". Still, he did not amend his mistaken description of the length of their reigns.
  27. Honorius was deposed by a coup d'etat led by a senator named John, causing Honorius to go mad and die.
And so on.
That this could pass as a history of Rome says a lot about the loss of cultural memory in late antiquity. Though the Byzantine Empire is often said to be the continuation of the Roman legacy, it's clear that much was lost in the transition from Rome to Constantinople. It also sheds light on how a document like the Historia Augusta could have come about: Malalas invents facts constantly and cites authorities that he appears to have mostly fabricated. He only manages to convey truth when he plagiarizes the few authorities he actually consults, most notably Eustathius of Epiphania.
  • "The Chronicle of John Malalas".
  • Elizabeth Jeffreys, "Studies in John Malalas".
  • Glanville Downey, "The Work of Antoninus Pius at Antioch".
  • Luwian Studies, "John Malalas".
  • Raf Gilbert Leonza Maria Praet, "From Rome to Constantinople: Antiquarian Echoes of Cultural Trauma in the Sixth Century".
  • Benjamin Garstad, "Alexander the Great's Liberation of Rome and an Idiosyncratic Model of World History in the Chronicle of John Malalas, the Excerpta Latina Barbari, and Fulgentius' De aetatibus".
  • Warren Treadgold, "The Byzantine World Histories of John Malalas and Eustathius of Epiphania".
submitted by Guomindang to ancientrome [link] [comments]

2020.04.12 00:46 BestBookUs The Wars of the Jews

The Wars of the Jews
The Wars of the Jews (or The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem, or as it usually appears in modern English translations, The Jewish War - original title: Phlauiou Iôsêpou historia Ioudaïkou polemou pros Rhômaious bibliona) is a book written by the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus.
It is a description of Jewish history from the capture of Jerusalem by the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 BC to the fall and destruction of Jerusalem in the First Jewish-Roman War in AD 70. The book was written about 75, originally in Josephus's "paternal tongue", probably Aramaic, though this version has not survived. It was later translated into Greek, probably under the supervision of Josephus himself.
The sources of knowledge that we have of this war are Josephus's account and from the Talmud (gittin 57b) and in midrash Eichah.
Read More :

The Wars of the Jews

u/bestbookus #books #audiobooks #history
submitted by BestBookUs to u/BestBookUs [link] [comments]

2020.02.19 01:44 saert_gert Daily Gnostic movement: The Ebionites

Today we will be talking about the Ebionites:
Ebionites is a patristic term referring to a Jewish Christian movement that existed during the early centuries of the Christian Era. They regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity and his virgin birth and insisted on the necessity of following Jewish law and rites. They used only one of the Jewish–Christian gospels, the Hebrew Book of Matthew starting at chapter three; revered James, the brother of Jesus (James the Just); and rejected Paul the Apostle as an apostate from the Law. Their name suggests that they placed a special value on voluntary poverty. Ebionim was one of the terms used by the sect at Qumran who sought to separate themselves from the corruption of the Temple. Many believe that the Qumran sectarians were Essenes. Since historical records by the Ebionites are scarce, fragmentary and disputed, much of what is known or conjectured about the Ebionites derives from the Church Fathers who wrote polemics against the Ebionites, who they deemed heretical Judaizers. Consequently, very little about the Ebionite sect or sects is known with certainty, and most, if not all, statements about them are conjectural. At least one scholar distinguishes the Ebionites from other Jewish Christian groups, such as the Nazarenes. Other scholars, like the Church Fathers themselves from the first centuries after Jesus, consider the Ebionites identical with the Nazarenes. The early Christians called themselves preferably "Ebionim" (the poor; comp. Epiphanius, l.c. xxx. 17; Minucius Felix Octavius, ch. 36), because they regarded self-imposed poverty as a meritorious method of preparation for the Messianic kingdom, according to Luke vi. 20, 24: "Blessed are ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God"; and "Woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation" (=Messianic share; Matt. v. 3, "the poor in spirit," is a late modification of the original; comp. Luke iv. 18, vii. 22; Matt. xix. 21 et seq., xxvi. 9 et seq.; Luke xix. 8; John xii. 5; Rom. xv. 26; II Cor. vi. 10, viii. 9; Gal. ii. 10; James ii. 5 et seq.). Accordingly they dispossessed themselves of all their goods and lived in communistic societies (Acts iv. 34 et seq.). In this practise the Essenes also were encouraged, partly by Messianic passages, such as Isa. xi. 4, xlix. 3 (comp. Ex. R. xxxi.), partly by Deut. xv. 11: "The poor shall never cease out of the land"—a passage taken to be a warning not to embark upon commerce when the study of the Law is thereby neglected (Ta'an. 21a; comp. also Mek., Beshallaḥ, ii., ed. Weiss, 56; see notes).
The reconstructed Ebonite gospel using ancient citations done by judaizer scholars:
The term Ebionites derives from the common adjective for "poor" in Hebrew, which occurs fifteen times in the Psalms and was the self-given term of some pious Jewish circles (e.g. Psalm 69:33 ("For the LORD heareth the poor") and 1 QpHab XII, 3.6.10). The term "Ebionim" was also a self description given by the people who were living in Qumran, as shown in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The term "the poor" was at first a common designation for all Christians, a reference to their material and voluntary poverty. The hellenized Hebrew term "Ebionite" (Ebionai) was first applied by Irenaeus in the second century without making mention of Nazarenes (c.180 CE). Origen wrote "for Ebion signifies 'poor' among the Jews, and those Jews who have received Jesus as Christ are called by the name of Ebionites." Tertullian was the first to write against a heresiarch called Ebion; scholars believe he derived this name from a literal reading of Ebionaioi as "followers of Ebion", a derivation now considered mistaken for lack of any more substantial references to such a figure. The term "the poor" (Greek ptōkhoí) was still used in its original, more general sense. Modern Hebrew still uses the Biblical Hebrew term "the needy" both in histories of Christianity for "Ebionites" (אביונים) and for almsgiving to the needy at Purim.
The earliest reference to a group that might fit the description of the later Ebionites appears in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho (c. 140). Justin distinguishes between Jewish Christians who observe the Law of Moses but do not require its observance upon others and those who believe the Mosaic Law to be obligatory on all. Irenaeus (c. 180) was probably the first to use the term "Ebionites" to describe a heretical judaizing sect, which he regarded as stubbornly clinging to the Law. Origen (c. 212) remarks that the name derives from the Hebrew word "evyon," meaning "poor." Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 310–320 – 403) gives the most complete account in his heresiology called Panarion, denouncing eighty heretical sects, among them the Ebionites. Epiphanius mostly gives general descriptions of their religious beliefs and includes quotations from their gospels, which have not survived. According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, the Ebionite movement "may have arisen about the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (AD 70)." The tentative dating of the origins of this sect depends on Epiphanius writing three centuries later and relying on information for the Ebionites from the Book of Elchasai, which may not have had anything to do with the Ebionites. Paul talks of his collection for the "poor among the saints" in the Jerusalem church, but this is generally taken as meaning the poorer members of the church rather than a schismatic group. The actual number of groups described as Ebionites is difficult to ascertain, as the contradictory patristic accounts in their attempt to distinguish various sects sometimes confuse them with each other. Other groups mentioned are the Carpocratians, the Cerinthians, the Elcesaites, the fourth century Nazarenes and the Sampsaeans, most of whom were Jewish Christian sects who held gnostic or other views rejected by the Ebionites. Epiphanius, however, mentions that a group of Ebionites came to embrace some of these views despite keeping their name. As the Ebionites are first mentioned as such in the second century, their earlier history and any relation to the first Jerusalem church remains obscure and a matter of contention. There is no evidence linking the origin of the later sect of the Ebionites with the First Jewish-Roman War of 66–70 CE or with the Jerusalem church led by James. Eusebius relates a tradition, probably based on Aristo of Pella, that the early Christians left Jerusalem just prior to the war and fled to Pella beyond the Jordan River, but does not connect this with Ebionites. They were led by Simeon of Jerusalem (d. 107) and during the Second Jewish-Roman War of 115–117, they were persecuted by the Jewish followers of Bar Kochba for refusing to recognize his messianic claims. According to Harnack, the influence of Elchasaites places some Ebionites in the context of the gnostic movements widespread in Syria and the lands to the east. After the end of the First Jewish–Roman War, the importance of the Jerusalem church began to fade. Jewish Christianity became dispersed throughout the Jewish diaspora in the Levant, where it was slowly eclipsed by gentile Christianity, which then spread throughout the Roman Empire without competition from "judaizing" Christian groups. Once the Jerusalem church was eliminated during the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135, the Ebionites gradually lost influence and followers. According to Hyam Maccoby (1987), their decline was due to marginalization and "persecution" by both Jews and Christians. Following the defeat of the rebellion and the expulsion of all Jews from Judea, Jerusalem became the Gentile city of Aelia Capitolina. Many of the Jewish Christians residing at Pella renounced their Jewish practices at this time and joined to the mainstream Christian church. Those who remained at Pella and continued in obedience to the Law were deemed heretics. In 375, Epiphanius records the settlement of Ebionites on Cyprus, but by the fifth century, Theodoret of Cyrrhus reported that they were no longer present in the region.
Last days of the Ebionite sect
Some scholars argue that the Ebionites survived much longer and identify them with a sect encountered by the historian Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad around the year 1000. There is another possible reference to Ebionite communities existing around the 11th century in northwestern Arabia in Sefer Ha'masaot, the "Book of the Travels" of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, a rabbi from Spain. These communities were located in two cities, Tayma and "Tilmas", possibly Sa`dah in Yemen. The 12th century Muslim historian Muhammad al-Shahrastani mentions Jews living in nearby Medina and Hejaz who accepted Jesus as a prophetic figure and followed traditional Judaism, rejecting mainstream Christian views. Some scholars argue that they contributed to the development of the Islamic view of Jesus due to exchanges of Ebionite remnants with the first Muslims.
Views and practices:
Judaic and Gnostic Ebionitis:
Most patristic sources portray the Ebionites as traditional Jews who zealously followed the Law of Moses, revered Jerusalem as the holiest city and restricted table fellowship only to Gentiles who converted to Judaism. Some Church Fathers describe some Ebionites as departing from traditional Jewish principles of faith and practice. For example, Epiphanius of Salamis stated that the Ebionites engaged in excessive ritual bathing, possessed an angelology which claimed that the Christ is a great archangel who was incarnated in Jesus and adopted as the son of God, opposed animal sacrifice, denied parts or most of the Law, practiced Jewish vegetarianism and celebrated a commemorative meal annually on or around Passover with unleavened bread and water only, in contrast to the daily Christian Eucharist. The reliability of Epiphanius' account of the Ebionites is questioned by some scholars. Shlomo Pines, for example, argues that the heterodox views and practices he ascribes to some Ebionites originated in Gnostic Christianity rather than Jewish Christianity and are characteristics of the Elcesaite sect, which Epiphanius mistakenly attributed to the Ebionites. Another Church Father who described the Ebionites as departing from Christian orthodoxy was Methodius of Olympus, who stated that the Ebionites believed that the prophets spoke only by their own power and not by the power of the Holy Spirit. While mainstream biblical scholars do suppose some Essene influence on the nascent Jewish-Christian Church in some organizational, administrative and cultic respects, some scholars go beyond that assumption. Regarding the Ebionites specifically, a number of scholars have different theories on how the Ebionites may have developed from an Essene Jewish messianic sect. Hans-Joachim Schoeps argues that the conversion of some Essenes to Jewish Christianity after the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE may be the source of some Ebionites adopting Essene views and practices, while some conclude that the Essenes did not become Jewish Christians, but still had an influence on the Ebionites. Epiphanius of Salamis, in his book Panarion, 30:17:5, said, "But I already showed above that Ebion did not know these things, but later, his followers that associated with Elchasai had the circumcision, the Sabbath and the customs of Ebion, but the imagination of Elchasai." Epiphanius made it clear that the original Ebionites were different from those heterodox Ebionites that he described.
Ebionite views on John the Baptist:
In the Gospel of the Ebionites, as quoted by Epiphanius, John the Baptist and Jesus are portrayed as vegetarians. Epiphanius states that the Ebionites had amended "locusts" (Greek akris) to "honey cake" (Greek ekris). This emendation is not found in any other New Testament manuscript or translation, though a different vegetarian reading is found in a late Slavonic version of Josephus' War of the Jews.Pines (1966) and others propose that the Ebionites were projecting their own vegetarianism onto John the Baptist. Robert Eisenman suggests that the Ebonim followed the Nazirite Oath that was associated with "James the brother of Jesus"
The majority of Church Fathers agree that the Ebionites rejected many of the precepts central to Nicene orthodoxy, such as Jesus' pre-existence, divinity, virgin birth, atoning death and physical resurrection. On the other hand, an Ebionite story has Jesus eating bread with his brother, Jacob ("James the Just"), after the resurrection, which indicates that the Ebionites, or at least the ones who accepted this version of the Gospel of the Hebrews, believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus. The Ebionites are described as emphasizing the oneness of God and the humanity of Jesus as the biological son of Mary and Joseph, who, by virtue of his righteousness, was chosen by God to be the messianic "prophet like Moses" (foretold in Deuteronomy 18:14–22) when he was anointed with the Holy Spirit at his baptism. Origen (Contra Celsum 5.61) and Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica 3.27.3) recognize some variation in the Christology of Ebionite groups; for example, that while all Ebionites denied Jesus' pre-existence, there was a sub-group which did not deny the virgin birth. Theodoret, while dependent on earlier writers, draws the conclusion that the two sub-groups would have used different Gospels. Of the books of the New Testament, the Ebionites are said to have accepted only a Hebrew (or Aramaic) version of the Gospel of Matthew, referred to as the Gospel of the Hebrews, as additional scripture to the Hebrew Bible. This version of Matthew, Irenaeus reports, omitted the first two chapters (on the nativity of Jesus) and started with the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. The Ebionites believed that all Jews and Gentiles must observe the commandments in the Law of Moses in order to become righteous and seek communion with God.
James and the Ebionites
One of the popular primary connections of the Ebionites to James is that noted by William Whiston in his edition of Josephus (1794), where he notes regarding the murder of James, the brother of Jesus, "we must remember what we learn from the Ebionite fragments of Hegesippus, that these Ebionites interpreted a prophecy of Isaiah as foretelling this very murder." That Hegesippus made this connection from Isaiah is undisputed; however, Whiston's identification of Hegesippus as an Ebionite, while common in 18th and 19th century scholarship, is debatable. The other popularly proposed connection is that the Ascents of James in the Pseudo-Clementine literature are related to the Ebionites. The Book of Acts begins by showing Peter as leader of the Jerusalem church, the only church in existence immediately after the ascension, though several years later, Paul lists James prior to "Cephas" (Peter) and John as those considered "pillars" (Greek styloi) of the Jerusalem Church. Eusebius records that Clement of Alexandria wrote that Peter, James and John chose James, the brother of Jesus, as bishop of Jerusalem, but Eusebius also subjects James to the authority of all the apostles. Peter baptised Cornelius the Centurion, introducing uncircumcised Gentiles into the church in Judea. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, established many churches and developed a Christian theology (see Pauline Christianity). At the Council of Jerusalem (c 49), Paul argued to abrogate Mosaic observances for non-Jewish converts. When Paul recounted the events to the Galatians (Galatians 2:9-10), he referred only to the remembrance of the poor rather than conveying the four points of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:19-21). James Dunn notes the conciliatory role of James as depicted in Acts in the tension between Paul and those urging the Law of Moses upon Gentiles. According to Eusebius, the Jerusalem church fled to Pella, Jordan after the death of James to escape the siege of the future Emperor Titus. After the Bar Kokhba revolt, the Jerusalem church was permitted to remain in the renamed Aelia Capitolina, but notably from this point onward all bishops of Jerusalem bear Greek rather than evidently Jewish names. Scholars such as Pierre-Antoine Bernheim, Robert Eisenman, Will Durant, Michael Goulder, Gerd Ludemann, John Painter and James Tabor argue for some form of continuity of the Jewish Jerusalem church into the second and third centuries and that the Ebionites regarded James, the brother of Jesus, as their leader. Scholars, including Richard Bauckham, distinguish the high Christology practiced by the Jerusalem church under James with the low Christology later adopted by the Ebionites. Tabor argues that the Ebionites claimed a dynastic apostolic succession for the relatives of Jesus. Epiphanius relates that the Ebionites opposed the Apostle Paul, who they saw as responsible for the idea that gentile Christians did not have to be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses, and named him an apostate. Epiphanius further relates that some Ebionites alleged that Paul was a Greek who converted to Judaism in order to marry the daughter of a high priest of Israel, but apostatized when she rejected him. As an alternative to the traditional view of Eusebius that the Jerusalem church simply became integrated with the Gentile church, other scholars, such as Richard Bauckham, suggest immediate successors to the Jerusalem church under James and the relatives of Jesus were the Nazoraeans who accepted Paul, while the Ebionites were a later offshoot of the early second century.
Few writings of the Ebionites have survived and they are in uncertain form. The Recognitions of Clement and the Clementine Homilies, two third century Christian works, are regarded by general scholarly consensus as largely or entirely Jewish Christian in origin and reflect Jewish Christian beliefs. The exact relationship between the Ebionites and these writings is debated, but Epiphanius's description of some Ebionites in Panarion 30 bears a striking similarity to the ideas in the Recognitions and Homilies. Scholar Glenn Alan Koch speculates that Epiphanius likely relied upon a version of the Homilies as a source document.[25] Some scholars also speculate that the core of the Gospel of Barnabas, beneath a polemical medieval Muslim overlay, may have been based upon an Ebionite or gnostic document. The existence and origin of this source continues to be debated by scholars. John Arendzen (Catholic Encyclopedia article "Ebionites" 1909) classifies the Ebionite writings into four groups.
Gospel of the Ebionites:
Irenaeus stated that the Ebionites used Matthew's Gospel exclusively. Eusebius of Caesarea wrote that they used only the Gospel of the Hebrews. From this, the minority view of James R. Edwards (2009) and Bodley's Librarian Edward Nicholson (1879) claim that there was only one Hebrew gospel in circulation, Matthew's Gospel of the Hebrews. They also note that the title Gospel of the Ebionites was never used by anyone in the early Church. Epiphanius contended that the gospel the Ebionites used was written by Matthew and called the Gospel of the Hebrews. Because Epiphanius said that it was "not wholly complete, but falsified and mutilated", writers such as Walter Richard Cassels (1877) and Pierson Parker (1940) consider it a different "edition" of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel; however, internal evidence from the quotations in Panarion 30.13.4 and 30.13.7 suggest that the text was a Gospel harmony originally composed in Greek. Mainstream scholarly texts, such as the standard edition of the New Testament Apocrypha edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher, generally refer to the text Jerome cites as used by the Ebionites as the Gospel of the Ebionites, though this is not a term current in the Early Church.
Clementine literature:
The collection of New Testament apocrypha known as the Clementine literature included three works known in antiquity as the Circuits of Peter, the Acts of the Apostles and a work usually titled the Ascents of James. They are specifically referenced by Epiphanius in his polemic against the Ebionites. The first-named books are substantially contained in the Homilies of Clement under the title of Clement's Compendium of Peter's itinerary sermons and in the Recognitions attributed to Clement. They form an early Christian didactic fiction to express Jewish Christian views, such as the primacy of James, the brother of Jesus; their connection with the episcopal see of Rome; and their antagonism to Simon Magus, as well as gnostic doctrines. Scholar Robert E. Van Voorst opines of the Ascents of James (R 1.33–71), "There is, in fact, no section of the Clementine literature about whose origin in Jewish Christianity one may be more certain". Despite this assertion, he expresses reservations that the material is genuinely Ebionite in origin.
Symmachus produced a translation of the Hebrew Bible in Koine Greek, which was used by Jerome and is still extant in fragments, and his lost Hypomnemata, written to counter the canonical Gospel of Matthew. Although lost, the Hypomnemata is probably identical to De distinctione præceptorum mentioned by Ebed Jesu (Assemani, Bibl. Or., III, 1). The identity of Symmachus as an Ebionite has been questioned in recent scholarship.
Hippolytus of Rome (c.230) reported that a Jewish Christian, Alcibiades of Apamea, appeared in Rome teaching from a book which he claimed to be the revelation which a righteous man, Elkesai, had received from an angel, though Hippolytus suspected that Alcibiades was himself the author. Shortly afterwards, Origen recorded a group, the Elkesaites, with the same beliefs. Epiphanius claimed the Ebionites also used this book as a source for some of their beliefs and practices (Panarion 30.17). Epiphanius explains the origin of the name Elkesai to be Aramaic El Ksai, meaning "hidden power" (Panarion 19.2.1). Scholar Petri Luomanen believes the book to have been written originally in Aramaic as a Jewish apocalypse, probably in Babylonia in 116–117.
Religious and critical perspectives:
The mainstream Christian view of the Ebionites is partly based on interpretation of the polemical views of the Church Fathers who portrayed them as heretics for rejecting many of the central Christian views of Jesus and allegedly having an improper fixation on the Law of Moses at the expense of the grace of God. In this view, the Ebionites may have been the descendants of a Jewish Christian sect within the early Jerusalem church which broke away from its mainstream theology.
Islam charges Christianity with having distorted the pure monotheism of Jesus through the doctrines of the Trinity and through the veneration of icons. Paul Addae and Tim Bowes (1998) write that the Ebionites were faithful to the original teachings of Jesus and thus shared Islamic views about Jesus' humanity and also rejected the redemptive death, though the Islamic view of Jesus may conflict with the view of some Ebionites regarding the virgin birth, respectively denying and affirming, according to Epiphanius. Hans Joachim Schoeps observes that the Christianity Muhammad was likely to have encountered on the Arabian peninsula "was not the state religion of Byzantium but a schismatic Christianity characterized by Ebionite and Monophysite views." Thus we have a paradox of world-historical proportions, viz., the fact that Jewish Christianity indeed disappeared within the Christian church, but was preserved in Islam and thereby extended some of its basic ideas even to our own day. According to Islamic doctrine, the Ebionite combination of Moses and Jesus found its fulfillment in Muhammad.
Modern movements:
The counter-missionary group Jews for Judaism favorably mentions the historical Ebionites in their literature in order to argue that "Messianic Judaism", as promoted by missionary groups such as Jews for Jesus, is Pauline Christianity misrepresenting itself as Judaism. Some Messianic groups have expressed concern over leaders in Israel who deny Jesus' divinity and the possible collapse of the Messianic movement due to a resurgence of Ebionitism. In a 2007 polemic, a Messianic writer asked whether Christians should imitate the Torah observance and acceptance of rabbinic understanding of "neo-Ebionites", who are defined as those who accept Jesus as Messiah, reject Paul and claim Moses as the only guide for Christians.
submitted by saert_gert to Gnostic [link] [comments]

2019.12.09 12:03 YeshuaReturned Reasons why it was not "Prophetically Necessary" to form Israel of 1948. The ending of the Mosaic Covenant. The Ushering of the New Covenant. New Heavens and New Earth. No end to the Christian Age. Eternal Harvest.

The majority of the "Jews" who have returned to Israel are not even Orthodox Jews. In fact, the majority are atheists and skeptics.
This brings us to the consideration of 1948 Israel, and whether it was the fulfillment of prophecy.
If God’s covenant with Israel made no provision for a return in unbelief, and we have seen that it does not, then it is patently obvious that the events of 1948 were not the fulfillment of prophecy.
In Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28-29, we find God’s conditions for Israel to dwell in the land, and the conditions for restoration to the land when/if they should be expelled. Simply stated, Jehovah said that if Israel obeyed the Mosaic Covenant faithfully, she could dwell in the land. However, “If you do not obey Me, and do not observe all these commandments...I will do this to you: I will appoint terror over you... I will punish you seven times over...I will bring the land to desolation, and your enemies who dwell in it shall be astonished at it. I will scatter you among the nations and draw a sword after you...those who are left shall waste away in their iniquity in your enemies’ lands” (Leviticus 26:14-34). The condition for restoration to the land is then given,
“But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers, with their unfaithfulness in which they were unfaithful to Me, and that they also walked contrary to Me, then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and My covenant with Abraham will I remember, I will remember the land” (Leviticus 26:40f). In other words, if, and when, Israel repented, then and only then would Jehovah return them to the land. There is not a single word to hint that He would reward their unrighteousness by re-gathering them to the land in their disobedience.
The same is true of Deuteronomy 28-30. Over and over the Lord of Hosts threatened them with captivity and scattering if they violated the Covenant (Deuteronomy 28:36-37; 45-49; 28:64).
Jehovah said that when the plagues and dispersion for sin came upon them, and they would call to mind the Covenant “among all the nations where the Lord your God drives you, and you return to the Lord your God and obey his voice, according to all that I command you today, you and your children...that the Lord your God will bring you back from captivity” (Deuteronomy 30:1-3). Repentance and obedience to the Mosaic Covenant were the conditions for return. If the reason for rejection from the land was rebellion and unbelief, how in the name of reason can anyone posit rebellion and unbelief as a condition for restoration to the land?
However, if the events of 1948 are not contained in God’s Covenant promises, then the events of 1948 have nothing to do with God’s dealings with Israel, for God is a Covenant keeping God. If there is no provision for a return in unbelief, then He would not do it, for it lay outside His Covenant promises. If 1948 was not the fulfillment of prophecy however, then the entire millennial house of cards found in Charting comes tumbling down, for a return in unbelief is necessary to their schema. Fruchtenbaum says that an understanding of a gathering in unbelief is vital to solving the conundrum posed by the gathering of “a majority of atheists and agnostics” in 1948. The problem is that, as we have seen, there is not one shred of Biblical evidence to support the doctrine of a re-gathering in unbelief. To form the argument concisely we would state it thusly: God made no covenant promises to return Israel to the land in unbelief.
Read Exodus 34:23f: “Three times in the year all your men shall appear before the Lord, the Lord God of Israel. For I will cast out the nations before you and enlarge your borders; neither will any man covet your land when you go up to appear before the Lord your God three times in the year.”
The promise here is simple. As long as Israel was in covenant relationship with Jehovah, their enemies would not attack them during their holy feast days.
In BC 586, Babylon destroyed Jerusalem, and according to Josephus and other Jewish sources, that happened during the Feast of Pentecost. What is so highly significant is the fact that the prophets of the day, Jeremiah, Zephaniah, etc. clearly enunciated why God was about to send Jerusalem into exile. She had broken her covenant. The fall of Jerusalem was proof positive of Israel’s alienation from Jehovah.
According to first-century Jewish historian Josephus, an eyewitness to the event, the final destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 also took place during Pentecost, one of Israel’s three special feast days. What are the implications of that destruction in light of Exodus 34? Jesus very clearly said the reason Jerusalem was to be devastated in AD 70 was because of her disobedience (Matthew 23-24). Specifically, as the early church writers repeatedly observe, Jerusalem was destroyed for crucifying her Messiah.
Furthermore, Jesus and the New Testament writers claimed that Old Covenant Israel was to be finally cast out in that cataclysm of AD 70. Israel was to be finally cast out, for filling the measure of her sin (Matthew 23:29f; Galatians 4:22)
How can one speak of the restoration of Israel, if Israel ceased to exist in AD 70, with the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the genealogical records? If the majority of the Jews today are of Gentile lineage, how can one speak of the events of 1948 as the restoration of the nation of Israel? If the promise of restoration belonged to national, ethnic Israel how then can one apply those covenant promises to those who are not of that ethnic heritage? Judaism today is a religion, or, for the atheists and agnostics that comprise the majority of the country today, a traditional way of life, not a race of people descended from Abraham.
In harmony with the foregoing, I want to call attention to something that is given little attention in the evangelical world, and that is the significance of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70.
It is legitimate to question the lineage of those who claim to be Jews today. As seen, even those who call themselves Israelis deny the reality of a Jewish race today. But, what is being missed is that it is even acknowledged, by a variety of sources, that what came out of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was not anything remotely resembling Old Covenant Judaism. Old Covenant Judaism died in the flames of AD 70 in the biggest war the world has ever seen. The Jewish War, deaths reportedly of over 1,000,000 people. The destruction of Israel.
Following the destruction, a rabbi known as Yohannan Ben Zakkai, who had escaped the cataclysm, approached the Romans and asked permission to establish a school at Joppa. Zakkai realized that with the removal of the temple, priesthood, and altar, Judaism itself hung in the balance. The fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 was exponentially worse than BC 586.
It was truly unparalleled. Judaism itself was in mortal danger. Realizing that they no longer had access to Jerusalem, with the temple destroyed, the altar turned to chalkstones the priesthood effectively annulled, Zakkai radically transformed Judaism right down to its foundation.
It is simply assumed, unfortunately, that modern-day Judaism is Judaism of first-century Jerusalem and the previous 1500 years. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is not too much to say that Old Testament Judaism died in AD 70. Modern-day Judaism bears no resemblance whatsoever to Old Covenant Judaism, and the Jews have recognized, and naturally lamented this undeniable truth.
Jesus’ coming to destroy Jerusalem represented the passing of the Old Covenant. The removal of the temple in AD 70 was the consummative removal of the Torah itself, ushering in the New Covenant.
One reason it is so difficult for some people to realize the Great Tribulation had its fulfillment in the siege and fall of Jerusalem is that they do not fully appreciate what a tremendously important event and what a landmark in history the break-up and abolition of the Old Testament economy really was. The Jewish Revolt, 7 Year war was from 63 AD - 70 AD.
The fall of Jerusalem was the greatest single event of a thousand years and religiously significant beyond anything else that ever occurred in human history.
The Thessalonians were, when Paul wrote, being actively persecuted for their faith in Christ. This is undeniable.
Paul said that God would repay their persecutors “with tribulation.” Christ was going to give to their persecutors what their persecutors were giving them.
Christ would give the Thessalonians “rest” from the Greek word anesis. I have not found a single case in which this word is ever used of “reward” or heaven. It is invariably “relief from pressure.” The pressure in Thessalonians was the tribulation (from the Greek word thlipsis, which means pressure).
That promised rest (relief) from persecution would be, “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven, in flaming fire.” Here is a critical key: Paul said Christ would repay with tribulation “those who are troubling you.” Take note of the present tenses.
Fact: A Man of Sin, from the Eastern European Common Market, was not the one troubling or persecuting, the Thessalonians when Paul wrote.
Fact: A Man of Sin and his minions, based in literal Babylon of Iraq was not, “those who are troubling you” when Paul wrote.
Fact: The Roman Catholic pope was not the entity guilty of being, “those who are troubling you” when Paul wrote.
Fact: The Roman empire was not, “those who are troubling you” when Paul wrote.
Fact: “Those who are troubling you”, if we are going to deal exegetically with the text, the context and the facts of history, were none other than the Jews. There was no other entity persecuting the Thessalonians. While it may true that the Jews stirred others up against the church in Thessalonica (Acts 17) at least briefly
The indisputable fact is that it was the Jews who were the movers and shakers of the persecution. They and they alone must be identified as “those who are troubling you.” These indisputable facts virtually eliminate all futurist eschatologies as viable doctrines.
Paul was affirming that at the parousia, the Thessalonian church – not some far distant, un-identified church, Christ would give those saints relief from Jewish persecution. At his coming, Christ would turn the tables on the Jews, and give to them what they were giving to the Thessalonians: It is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation (thlipsis) those who are troubling (thlipsis) you.”
Unless the Jewish persecutors of the Thessalonians were sending those Christian saints to hell, then, since Paul said Christ was going to give to the Jews, what the Jews had given to the Christians, then we are forced to conclude that Paul was saying that the persecutors would become the persecuted. And of course, that is precisely what happened.
The Temple was the most sacred place in the world. It was the center of the world for the Jews. The privilege of worshiping there was one of the greatest blessings in the world.
Thus, religiously, Israel is no longer Biblical Israel, because Jehovah removed the Old Covenant, along with circumcision, the sacrifices, the temple, the priesthood, in AD 70. And, ethnically, Israel is no longer Biblical Israel, because Jehovah destroyed the genealogical records in AD 70, and, the majority of those calling themselves Jews today, are atheists, or are of Gentile descent.
The inspired writers said:
1.) God gave Israel the land as promised,
2.) God gave them all the land He promised,
3.) God gave the land in fulfillment of His promise to Abraham.
4.)Israel had conquered the land as promised. They divided the land by allotment as promised, and they dwelt in the land as promised.
5.) Not one word of His promises failed,
6.) God had manifested His faithfulness by fulfilling the land promises.
One reason so many people firmly believe that Israel has returned to the land or one day will, is because God promised the land to her forever. And, the thinking goes, if God gave the land to Israel forever, then forever means forever, right? Well, actually, not necessarily. First of all, let’s take a look at the promise. When Jehovah spoke to Abraham, He told him, “all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever” (Genesis 13:15). Thus, there is no question that Jehovah did give the land to Israel forever. A similar promise is made regarding Israel in 2 Samuel 7:24, where Jehovah said Israel would be His “very own people” forever. The question is, and this will sound strange to the western mind, what does forever mean in the Hebrew Bible?
The word translated as forever is the Hebrew word Olam, (Strong’s Concordance reference #5769), and is translated as forever, everlasting, perpetual, and other corollary terms. Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldea Lexicon of the Old Testament,45 coded to Strongs’ #5769, says that Olam means “what is hidden; especially hidden time, long; the beginning or end of which is either uncertain or else undefined, eternity, perpetuity.” He then proceeds to illustrate that the word does not inherently mean forever, in the sense of endlessness as Western-oriented minds tend to think.
The study of Olam could be a lengthy study, beyond the scope of this small work. However, we will present some ideas that will show that the word Olam, must not be pressed to mean endlessness when applied to the land and national promises to Israel. And, we will show that even the millennialists agree with this, and yet, are inconsistent in their use of Olam.
The Old Testament used the word Olam to speak of things that virtually everyone agrees were temporary. That means that some eternal things were intended to cease.
Before we begin, remember that virtually all dispensationalists agree that the Law of Moses has been permanently removed. However, are you aware that the Mosaic Covenant, with its cultus, was to stand forever? Let’s take a brief walk through the Old Testament to examine some of the eternal things they were to pass away. 45 Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldea Lexicon of the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1979)612.
1.) Genesis 17:7-8– God made an everlasting covenant with Abraham to give them the land. Now as we have already seen, the retention and possession of the land was a conditional promise, that demanded obedience to the Law of Moses. See our comments above.
2.) Genesis 17:13– Circumcision was to be an “everlasting covenant” between God and Israel. Yet, Paul said that circumcision now means nothing, and, to be circumcised for a religious reason is to lose the benefit of Christ’s work (Galatians 5:1-6). Thus, circumcision, though everlasting, has ceased as a theologically significant practice.
3.) Exodus 12:14– Jehovah instituted the Passover as an “everlasting ordinance” (Exodus 12:14). Is the Passover binding today? Not if we accept the New Testament teaching. For the Christian “Christ is our Passover” (1 Corinthians 5:7). Furthermore, he commanded Gentile Christians not to be judged in regard to the Jewish feast days, because they were “shadows of good things that are about to come” (Colossians 2:14f). The Old Covenant Passover has ceased as a mandate of Jehovah because what it typified, the deliverance from sin, death, and bondage has become a reality in Christ.
4.) Exodus 27:21– The statute concerning the care for the lampstand that stood in the Holy Place was to be “a statute forever to their generations.” The term “throughout their generations is the key term here. The idea is that the ordinance would stand as long as Jehovah intended for it to stand.
5.) Exodus 29:9– The Lord promised that the priesthood would belong to the Aaronic family “for a perpetual statute.” Yet, the New Testament is abundantly clear that the Aaronic priesthood has been superseded by Christ’s superior priesthood, and that in fact, the promise of the Levitical priesthood is now “annulled” (Hebrews 7:12-18).
6.) Exodus 29:28– The law of the heave offering was to be a “statute forever.” The same is true of the trespass offering (Leviticus 6:18), the division of the sacrifices to the priesthood (Leviticus 7:34), the provision forbidding the priests to drink wine before serving at the altar (Leviticus 10:9), and a variety of other ordinances concerning the sacrifices and the Temple cultus. Yet, the writer of Hebrews says that the Old Covenant ordinances were only imposed, “until the time of reformation” (Hebrews 9:10). Thus, eternal statutes are specifically said to be temporary.
7.) Exodus 31:16– The Sabbath was a “perpetual covenant.” Yet, Paul, good Jew that he was, said that Gentile Christians were not to be judged on whether they observed the Sabbaths of Israel, and in fact, when writing to the Galatians, he said, “I am afraid of you, for you observe days, and weeks, and months and years” (Galatians 4:10). The attempt to impose those eternal statutes on Christians is condemned. From these examples, it is evident that forever does not necessarily mean, without end.46 The demand that forever means without end, can, in fact, lead to serious problems for the millennial view. Not only were the mandates of the Mosaic Covenant said to be eternal, what many do not realize is that Jehovah placed an eternal curse on Israel. Yet, we do not hear the millennialists talking about this.
From these examples, it is evident that forever does not necessarily mean, without end. The demand that forever means without end, can, in fact, lead to serious problems for the millennial view. Not only were the mandates of the Mosaic Covenant said to be eternal, what many do not realize is that Jehovah placed an eternal curse on Israel. Yet, we do not hear the millennialists talking about this.
“Nevertheless, According to His Promise, We Look for a New Heavens and a New Earth, Wherein Dwells Righteousness.” (2 Peter 3:13)
  1. The apostle tells us they expected the “new” heaven and earth.
  2. It is worth investigating the word “new” which he used. There are two words translated as new in the New Testament, neos and kainos. Neos is new in time. It is that which has never been before or that which has recently come into existence.
  3. On the other hand, kainos means new in quality, not time. It means new in contrast to what has “seen service, the outworn, the effete, or marred through age.” I
  4. In 2 Peter 3:13, Peter uses kainos. As we have already seen, Peter in his first letter speaks of the end of all things as at hand (4:7). He saw the passing of an old system. This comports well with Hebrews 8 where inspiration says the old system of Judaism was in the process of vanishing away (8:13). The heavens and earth of that old world were being shaken to usher in the new heaven and earth of the unshakable kingdom of heaven (12:22-28).
  5. Who could doubt that the new creation of Christ’s kingdom could be aptly described as kainos in comparison to the old system? We have a new (kainos) covenant (Hebrews 8). The Christian is a new (kainos) creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). The church is the new Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22, Revelation 21:2).
  6. And, while kainos is not specifically used, we have a new sacrifice, a new priesthood, temple, nation, and song. We are a new creation! All of these stand in stark contrast to the old system which passed away. It is this very contrast, the old system versus the New, that is the heart of Peter's expectation of the “new” heavens and earth.
1000 years in the bible always means a very long time and is not a literal extrapolation. Satan was conquered at the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.
The bible prophesied through the old testament in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Jeremiah about Herod's Temple and destruction. Jesus returned and destroyed the temple in 70 A.D and destroyed the temple ushering in the new earth and heavens and kingdom on earth in the Holy Spirit. Men sin by our hearts and Satan no longer has power.
20 Points Proving that the book of Revelation was fulfilled in AD 70:
  1. In Matthew 13.31f Jesus explained his parable of the Wheat and Tares. He said “the harvest is at the end of this age”11 (Matthew 13.39, 40).
  2. When Jesus spoke of “the end of the age” in v. 39, 40, he used a distinctive Greek term aionion ton aionion. This is the identical term that the disciples used when they asked about the end of the age in Matthew 24.3.
  3. So, in Matthew 13, Jesus was predicting the end of the age that the disciples asked more about in Matthew 24.
  4. In Matthew 13.43, Jesus said the end of the age would be “when the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom.” This is a direct quote from Daniel 12.3. Daniel also foretold the “time of the end” (Daniel 12.4). So, Jesus, in predicting the time of the end said the end would be when Daniel’s prediction of the end would be fulfilled. When would that be?
  5. In Daniel 12.6, one angel asked another one: “When shall these things be, and when shall all of these things be fulfilled?” The question involved the abomination of desolation (v. 1), the resurrection (v. 2), the righteous shining forth (v. 3), and the time of the end (v. 4), as well as the abomination of desolation (v. 9f). The answer as to when all of these things would be fulfilled is given in verse 7: “When the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all of these things shall be fulfilled.”
  6. One has but to ask in what age Jesus was living to know that Jesus was not predicting, the end of the Christian Age, but the end of the Mosaic Age. Jesus’ “this age” was the Mosaic Age. He was born under the Law (Galatians 4.4). So, harvest, at the end of His “this age,” was to be at the end of the Old Covenant Age. So, according to heaven itself, the time of the end, the end of the age that Jesus foretold in Matthew 13, and the time of the end that the disciples asked about in Matthew 24, would be when Israel was completely destroyed!
  7. Was Jesus not predicting the complete destruction of Israel in Matthew 24? Of course, he was! He predicted the total, massive destruction of the Temple, its cultus, its priesthood, its ministry. In fact, Old Covenant Israel died in A. D. 70! Here is what is so important about this.
  8. In Matthew 13.50f, after telling the disciples the parable, and explaining that the end of the age would be when Daniel 12 was fulfilled, the Lord asked the disciples: “Do you understand?’ What did the disciples say in response? Did they admit confusion? No, they said: “Yes.” The disciples said that they understood what Jesus said about the end of the age! But, Jesus said that the end of the age would be when Israel was destroyed. Therefore, the disciples said they understood that the end of the age would be when Israel was destroyed.
  9. Well, in Matthew 24, Jesus foretold the total destruction of Israel, and the disciples asked: “What shall be the sign of...the end of the age?”13Now, unless the disciples lied to Jesus in Matthew 13, when he explained the end of the age to them, and that explanation of the end of the age included the total destruction of Israel (i.e. the Temple), then it is simply misguided to claim that the disciples mistakenly associated the fall of Jerusalem with the end of the age. On the contrary, the disciples knew from the scriptures 12 In a desperate attempt to negate the force of Daniel 12.7, some dispensationalists argue that the “power” to be destroyed in Daniel 12. 7, was Israel’s stubborn will. So, they take the passage to mean that the time of the end will come when Israel’s stubborn will is ultimately destroyed. However, the word translated “power” (Strong’s # 3027), is used hundreds of times in the O.T. and is never, so far as I can determine, used of Israel’s will, whether rebellious or obedient. The millennial suggestion is a fabrication out of whole cloth with no support.
  10. When Jesus foretold the demise of the Temple, the disciples thought of the end of the age. What age did that Temple represent? Did it represent the Christian Age? Patently not. Did it represent the time/space continuum? No. It represented the Mosaic Age, and when that Temple fell, that age ended. There is no contextual justification for assuming that the disciples thought of the end of time or material creation with the fall of that edifice. themselves, and Jesus’ own explanation of them, that the end of the age would be when Israel was destroyed!
  11. This means that those who say that the disciples were confused to link the end of the age with the fall of Jerusalem are wrong. It also means the millennialists are wrong to tell us that in Matthew 24, the Lord did not answer their question about the destruction of Jerusalem, but instead focused on the end of the age. Those who delineate between the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the age are the ones confused. It is not Jesus’ disciples! The implications of this are profound.
12.If the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age are synchronous events, and to Daniel they undeniably are, then as we read Matthew 24 and realize that it contains virtually every constituent element of Daniel 12, we can keep those elements within the confines of the first century. Daniel said the Great Tribulation would be fulfilled by the time the power of the holy people was completely shattered. Israel was completely shattered in A.D. 70. Jesus said the Great Tribulation would be in that first-century generation (Matthew 24.34). That was the generation when the power of the holy people was completely shattered. Now, while my dispensational friends try to say that “this generation” does not mean Jesus’ generation, by honoring Daniel’s prediction of when the end was to come, it definitively does define “this generation” as Jesus’ generation. After all, Daniel said the Great Tribulation would occur by the time Israel was completely shattered. Israel was completely shattered in A.D. 70. So, again, this demands that Jesus’ “this generation” was, in fact, the first century generation.
  1. In Luke 21. 24 Jesus cited Isaiah 3 and the reference to the men of Israel perishing by the edge of the sword in “the war.” This would be when Israel was judged for her blood guilt (Isaiah 4.4; Matthew 23.34f). Daniel 9 said desolations were determined on the “holy city” until the end of “the war,” and this desolation would be for killing the Messiah. Revelation posits the judgment of Babylon at Armageddon, for killing the saints of God, and says this would occur in “the war.” There is a theme, i.e. the vindication of the martyrs, that runs from the Old Testament to the New, in regard to “the war” and Armageddon. And, Jesus definitively stated that the martyrs, all the martyrs, would be vindicated in the judgment of Israel that occurred in A.D. 70. This proves that Armageddon is past. We can drive this point home a bit more, by examining Daniel 9 and Daniel 12. The chart will help visualize the comparison. Daniel 9 Prophecy concerned with Israel (v. 24) The time of the end (v. 26-27) The abomination of desolation (v. 27) The Great Tribulation (v. 26-27) “The War” (v. 26) Fulfilled by the end of the Seventy Weeks (v. 24) Daniel 12 Prophecy concerned with Israel (v. 1) The time of the end (v. 4, 9f) The abomination of desolation (v. 9f) The Great Tribulation (v. 1) When the power of the holy people completely shattered (v. 7) All fulfilled “When the power of the holy people has been completely shattered.”
  2. Let’s take a closer look now at Luke 21 and Daniel 9. Daniel 9 foretold “the war,” and note that in Isaiah’s prediction of “the war” Israel’s men would “fall by the edge of the sword.” (Isaiah 3.23). Now take a look at Luke 21.20-24. “ But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.”
  3. Notice the correlation with Daniel 9. Daniel foretold the time of “the war” when Israel’s men would fall by the edge of the sword. Jesus cited Isaiah 3.25 when he said that in the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem Israel’s men would “fall by the edge of the sword” in “the war.”
  4. This means that the end of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks, at the end of “the war” would be the fulfillment of Isaiah 2-4. Jesus applied Isaiah to the events of A.D. 70 (Luke 21.20-24). Therefore, the end of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9, is the same as Isaiah 2-4, which would be fulfilled by the events of A.D. 70.
  5. Furthermore, Daniel said that by the end of the Seventy Weeks, “vision and prophecy” would be “sealed” (Daniel 9.24). This means that all prophecy would be fulfilled by the end of the Seventy Weeks.14 Likewise, Jesus said that in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70: “These be the days of vengeance when all things that are written must be fulfilled.” John also foretold the time when all things foretold by the prophets would be fulfilled and alludes directly to Daniel 12–the time when the power of the holy people would be shattered (Revelation 10.7). Thus, Daniel, Jesus, and John all foretold the time of the fulfillment of all things. Jesus, in the clearest language of all, said that time would be when Jerusalem was destroyed (Luke 21.22). This means that the Seventy Weeks prediction of Daniel 9, and Revelation, were fulfilled by A.D. 70.
  6. Isaiah 3.25, when he said that in the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem Israel’s men would “fall by the edge of the sword” in “the war.” This means that the end of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks, at the end of “the war” would be the fulfillment of Isaiah 2-4. Jesus applied Isaiah to the events of A.D. 70 (Luke 21.20-24). Therefore, the end of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9, is the same as Isaiah 2-4, which would be fulfilled by the events of A.D. 70. Furthermore, Daniel said that by the end of the Seventy Weeks, “vision and prophecy” would be “sealed” (Daniel 9.24).
  7. This means that all prophecy would be fulfilled by the end of the Seventy Weeks.14 Likewise, Jesus said that in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70: “These be the days of vengeance when all things that are written must be fulfilled.” John also foretold the time when all things foretold by the prophets would be fulfilled and alludes directly to Daniel 12–the time when the power of the holy people would be shattered (Revelation 10.7). Thus, Daniel, Jesus, and John all foretold the time of the fulfillment of all things. Jesus, in the clearest language of all, said that time would be when Jerusalem was destroyed (Luke 21.22).
This means that the Seventy Weeks prediction of Daniel 9, and Revelation, were fulfilled by A.D. 70.
Our body is the Temple, Jesus is the ultimate Sacrifice, and the Holy Spirit is filled in the earth. And we go to the Father through conviction of the Holy Spirit and Jesus.
The Third Temple is not scriptural, as the prophets, Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Isaiah had prophecized of Herod's Temple, the second temple was the final temple.
The new earth is about the New Covenant by Jesus, discarding the Old Mosaic Age. The "End of the Age" was when we die, we no longer wait in Sheol to be resurrected at the return of the messiah. So the new kingdom is about when we die, we instantly go to heaven, the WHOLE point of eternal life, there is no more sorrow at death for we immediately live on in the New Kingdom. You didn't go to heaven in the old covenant. You waited for the messiah to come, which, he did, Jesus who they rejected.
The new earth is an eternal harvest, there is "no more sea" in the way that there is no more division between where the temple is, which is our bodies with the Holy Spirit filling the new earth in its new spiritual quality.
We had 2 commandments from Jesus:
Love God
Love your neighbor as yourself
And we are to spiritually progress in love as a planet as Jesus loved. And one day we will all love and live in harmony, just like when we have to let our kids learn, so do us as humans, evolve in harmony and love.
Here is a passage of Josephus and the eyewitnesses to Jesus when he returned in AD70 (I do not know why so many denominations who support Josephus ignore what your about to read, written clearly in his book "The Jewish War" where 1,700,000 people died. JESUS appeared as a shining sword and stayed above the temple for 1 year and Titus the Roman general ceased to take credit for the destruction because he knew he had become an instrument of God for the judgment and Armageddon the commenced:
“Thus it was that the wretched people were deluded at that time by charlatans and pretended messengers of the deity; while they neither heeded nor believed in the manifest portents that foretold the coming desolation, but, as if thunderstruck and bereft of eyes and mind, disregarded the plain warnings of God.”
A SWORD IN THE SKY “So it was when a star resembling a sword, stood over the city[Jerusalem] and a comet which continued for a year.” [In 66 AD]
Keep in mind what the shape of a sword is and how closely a sword appears to a cross. If swords and crosses are similarly shaped, then perhaps this statement by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled by the sign of the sword in the sky:
“Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.” (Matt. 24:30)
The “Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” is a reference to the judgment of Jerusalem which was physically manifested in the Roman Army which surrounded the city and destroyed it.
2) A BRIGHT LIGHT “So again when, before the revolt and the commotion that led to war [i.e., before the war], at the time when the people were assembling for the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth of the month Xanthieus [Nisan], at the ninth hour of the night [3 a.m.] … … so brilliant a light shown round the [holy] altar and the sanctuary[of the temple] that it seemed to be broad daylight, and this continued for half an hour. By the inexperienced, this was regarded as a good omen, but by the sacred scribes it was at once interpreted in accordance with after[later] events.”
3) A COW GIVES BIRTH TO A LAMB “At that same feast [just after the 2nd sign, the great light over the altar] a cow that had been brought by someone for sacrifice gave birth [just before it was to be killed] to a lamb in the midst in the court of the Temple.”
4) THE EASTERN GATE OPENS BY ITSELF “The eastern gate of the inner court — it was of brass and very massive, and, when closed towards evening, could scarcely be moved by 20 men; fastened with iron-bound bars [on each side], it had bolts which were sunk to a great depth into a threshold consisting of a solid block of stone — this gate was observed at the sixth hour of the night [midnight] to have opened of its own accord. The watchmen of the temple ran and reported the matter to the captain, and he came up and with difficulty succeeded in shutting it.”
“This again to the uninitiated seemed the best of omens, as they supposed that God had opened to them the gate of blessings.” “But the learned understood that the security of the Temple was dissolving of its own accord and that the opening of the gate meant a present to the enemy, interpreting the portent [sign, the same word as in the gospel] in their own minds as indicative of coming desolation.”
5) ARMIES IN THE SKY “Again, not many days after that festival on the twenty-first of Artemisium [the Jewish month of Iyyar which is in the late springtime], there appeared a miraculous phenomenon, passing belief. Indeed, what I am about to relate would, I imagine, have been deemed a fable, were it not for the narratives of eyewitnesses and for the subsequent calamities which deserved to be so signalized [so “sign-ized,” a great sign]. For before sunset …” “For before sunset throughout all parts of the country [of Judea] chariots were seen in the air and armed battalions hurtling through the clouds and encompassing the cities.”
6) VOICES SPEAKING “Moreover, at the feast which is called Pentecost the priests [all 24 of them] on entering the inner court of the Temple by night as their custom was in the discharge of their ministrations, reported that they were conscious, first of a commotion and a din [a great noise], and after that of a voice as of a host [an army], ‘We are departing hence [from here].”
Is it interesting that on the day of Pente­cost exactly 33 years from the time that the Gospel started in Jerusalem — to the very day — this announce­ment and sign occurred.
ROMAN HISTORIAN TACITUS ALSO CONFIRMS: “There were many prodigies presignifying their ruin which was not averted by all the sacrifices and vows of that people. Armies were seen fighting in the air with brandished weapons. Fire fell upon the Temple from the clouds. The doors of the Temple were suddenly opened. At the same time, there was a loud voice saying that the gods were removed, which was accompanied by a sound as of a multitude going out. All which things were supposed, by some to portend great calamities.” [Tacitus Historiae V: The Roman Earthworks at Jerusalem]
NOTE: Titus reportedly refused to accept a wreath of victory, saying that the victory did not come through his own efforts but that he had merely served as an instrument of God’s wrath.[6] [Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana] It is beyond amazing that Josephus, a non-believing Jewish historian, would record these signs from God that preceded the ultimate destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish Age. It’s also very significant that the day the Temple was destroyed in AD 70 was the exact same day and month that the previous Jewish Temple was destroyed.
This was no coincidence. This was an emphatic statement that God had brought an end to the outward signs and fulfilled them all in Christ. The Day of the Lord prophesied all throughout the Old Testament Scriptures, and also confirmed by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse, was totally and completely fulfilled in AD 70 when the Roman army surrounded Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple, ended the animal sacrifice and disbanded the priesthood.
Today, the followers of Christ are now the new, living Temple of God which is made up of Priests who offer themselves as Living Sacrifices to God.
We are in an Eternal Harvest. We no longer wait in Sheol for the Messiah to return, for he did return. We immediately go to heaven in our new Spiritual Bodies. We no longer "mourn" for we do not wait in sleep for we are brought to Eternal Life immediately upon death, shedding the flesh, entering the spirit.
submitted by YeshuaReturned to Christianity [link] [comments]


KEN OLSON has done a thesis showing the TF being more Eusebian than Josephean, [1] Eusebius was the first church father to introduce it and therefore has come under suspicion of being the interpolater.Yet it is unlikely that Eusebius created the entire text ex nihilo. It is more likely that Eusebius simply "improved" the wording of the available manu­scripts. In fact we can track the evolution of this passage!
A significant advance in understanding the evolutionary his­tory of the Testimonium came in 1971 when the Jewish scholar Shlomo Pines published An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its lmplications. [2] In a linguistic tour de force, Pines traced the translation and citation history of the Testimonium and demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that an earlier form of the piece was not as outrageously Christian as the received text.In this version it does not blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. The key phrase "at the suggestion of the principal men among us" reads instead "Pilate condemned him to be crucified".Pines' monograph drew attention to a long-known tenth­ century Arabic historical work, the "Kitāb al-Únwān" by Agapus, the Melkite bishop ofManbij (Hierapolis). In his (apparently indirect) quotation from Josephus, Agapius supplies what would appear to be the earliest form of the Testimonian.
“Similarly Josephus the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance of the Jews: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his cru­cifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted won­ders." This is what is said by Josephus and his companions of our Lord the Messiah, may he be glorified.”~Arabic version.
As there is a close connection between Agapius' version and Michael's, [Michael the Syrian] the resemblance between the latter and St. Jerome's text might, lead to the conclusion that the distinctive traits of Agapius' version might have been produced in the Syriac or Arabic period. However, during this period the Testimonium was being transmitted by Christian historiographers. Agapius and also, as far as we can judge, his sources accept in a very devout spirit all the legendary stories concerning the life of Jesus. To me it is inconceivable that he or they could of their own accord have added the sceptical or non-committal note represented by the word “reported”, or weakened the references to Jesus' extraordinary qualities and actions occurring in the first two sentences of the vulgate recension. They must have found the distinctive char­acteristics of Agapius' recension in the text of the Testimonium handed down to them."~
Shlomo Pines also discovered a 12th-century Syriac version of the Testimonium in the chronicle of Michael the Syrian.Although the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian dates to nearly three centuries later than Agapius, he too reports a version of the Testimonian that is more primitive than the received text, but more "evolved" than that preserved by Agapius. Shlomo Pines renders his version as follows:
“The writer Josephus also says in his work on the institutions of the Jews: In these times there was a wise man named Jesus, if it is fitting for us to call him a man. For he was a worker of glo­ rious deeds and a teacher of truth. Many from among the Jews and the nations became his disciples. He was thought to be the Messiah [or Perhaps he was the Messiah] . But not according to the testimony of the principal [men] of [our] nation. Because of this, Pilate condemned him to the cross, and he died. For those who had loved him did not cease to love him. He appeared to them alive after three days. For the prophets of God had spoken with regard to him of such marvelous things [as these]. And the people of the Christians, named after him, has not disappeared till day”
Instead of "he was Christ", the Syriac version has the phrase "he was believed to be Christ". Drawing on these textual variations, scholars have suggested that these versions of the Testimonium more closely reflect an earlier form of the Testamonian. (This is close to Jeromes attestation).St. Jerome [c340-420] made a Latin translation of the Testimonium in On Illustrious Men, ch13 in his discussion of Josephus. It too is in one respect less developed than the received text with respect to the Messianic identity of Jesus:
“He [Josephus] wrote about the Lord in this way: "At about this time there was a wise man, Jesus, if it is proper to call him a man. He was the doer of marvelous deeds and teacher of those who receive truth willingly. He had many followers both among the Jews and the Gentiles, and he was believed to be the Christ [Messiah] . When, because of the envy of our principal men, Pilate had condemned him to the cross, those who at the first had come to love him persevered in faith. Living, he appeared to them on the third day. These and countless other marvels about him the prophecies of the prophets had foretold. And up until today the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not disappeared”.
Although Jerome lived a generation later than Eusebius, his Latin version of the Testamonian is more primitive than the received Greek text preserved in the latter's Historia Ecclesiastica [Eusibius] and in most manuscripts of Josephus. It will be noted that Jerome retains the dubitative "he was believed to be the Christ," making it clear that the Greek text Jerome owned did not ascribe the belief in Jesus' messiahship to Josephus himself. [As a matter of interest the Greek translation of De Viris Illustrious has eliminated all differ­ences and reads exactly the same as the received text of Eusibius!]—————————————————- Slavonic
Before the thirteenth century, in Constantinople or its environs, a mutant form of the Testi­monium found its way into the Greek text of the Wars.Translated into Old Russian, producing the so-called ‘Slavonic Josephus.' The material corresponding to the beginning of the Testimonium was inserted between the third and fourth paragraphs of the ninth chapter of Book 2 of the Wars.
“At that time there appeared a certain man, if it is meet to call him a man. His nature and form was human, but the appear­ ance of him more than (that) of a human (being): yet his works (were) divine. He wrought miracles wonderful and strong. Wherefore it is impossible for me to call him a human (being, simply). But on the other hand, if I look at (his) characteristic (human) nature, I will not call him an angel.And all, whatsoever he wrought through an invisible power, he wrought by a word and command. Some said of him, "our first lawgiver is risen from the dead, and hath evidenced this by many cures and prodigies." But the others thought he was (a man) sent from God. Now in many things he opposed the Law and kept not the Sabbath according to the custom of (our) forefathers. Yet again, he did nothing shameful nor underhand.And many of the multitude followed after him and hear­ kened to his teaching. And many souls were roused, thinking that thereby the Jewish tribes could free themselves from Roman hands. But it was his custom rather to abide without the city on the Mount of Olives. There also he granted cures to the people. And there gathered to him of helpers 150, but of the crowd a multitude.But when they saw his power, that he accomplished by a word whatsoever he would, and when they had made known to him their will, that he should enter the city and cut down the Roman tropo s and Pilate, and rule over them, he heeded it not. And when thereafter news of it was brought to the Jewish leaders, they assembled together with the high priest and said, "We are powerless and (too) weak to resist the Romans. Since howev­ er the bow is bent, we will go and communicate to .Pilate what we have heard, and we shall be free from trouble, in order that he may not hear (it) from others and we be robbed of(our) goods and ourselves slaughtered and (our) children dispersed."And they went and reported (it) to Pilate. And he sent and had many ofthe multitude slain. And he had that wonder-worker brought up, and after he had held an inquiry concerning him, he pronounced (this) judgment: "He is (a benefactor, but not) a male­ factor (nor) a rebel (nor) covetous of king(ship)." And he let him go, for he had healed his dying wife. And after he had gone to his wonted place, he did his wonted works. And when more people again gathered round him, he glorified himself by his action(s) more than all.The scribes (therefore) being stung with envy gave Pilate thirty talents to kill him. And he took (it) and gave them liberty to car out their will (themselves). And they took him and cru­cified him contrary to the law of (their) fathers.”
Hugh J. Schonfield, an expert on the ancient "Jewish Christians," has shown quite convincingly that Jewish Christian writings underlie the expansion of the text of Slavonic Josephus.
Stephen C. Carlson ( see link at end of post) [3] has followed up a curious footnote in Meiers book “A Marginal Jew” Vol 1 page 101, footnote 12, where it has been studied ( by Franz Dornsieff, “Lukas der Schriftsteller. Mit einem Anhang: Josephus und Tacitus,” ZNW 35 (1936): 148-55.), that Tacitus has used Josephus as one of his sources. Because of this he may have preserved the original TF, ( before Eusibius got his dirty hands on it)! Here is what the reconstruction may have looked like:
“Now there was about this time a man, an innovator and deceiver of the people. Through his sorcery and innovations he drew over to him many Galileans and by them he was seen to be a King: For fear of the influence of a great many people, he suffered the extreme penalty at the hands of governor (ἡγεμών), Pilate who condemned him to be crucified. Many of his followers, the Galileans were slain and thus checked for the moment. The movement again broke out with wild fury and mischievous superstition not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”
As can be seen from Annals15:44, the entirety of Tacitus’s information about Jesus is paralleled in Josephus, AJ 18, if not in the Testimonium, then nearby in the book. Even more significant, Tacitus’ use of Josephus explains the erroneous title for Pontius Pilate as a governor (ήγεμών). The Greek term Josephus uses for Pilate elsewhere (ἡγεμών), [An example of Josephus using “ἡγεμὼν” is in Ant18.3.1 as a title for Pilate], was non-specific, and Tacitus had to guess (and guess incorrectly) what Pilate’s Latin title would have been. (This would argue against Tacitus having a Roman source and would argue in favor of Josephus being his source).[As a side note:His title is given as procurator in Tacitus. Pontius Pilate's title was traditionally thought to have been "procurator of Judea" since the Roman historian Tacitus (writing in the second century AD) refers to him as such. However, the Pilate stone (a fragmentary Latin inscription that records the name of 'Pontius Pilate comes from the Tiberium') refers to him as "prefect of Judea". Pilate would have been a prefect at the time of Jesus. “Prefects" were governors in charge of parts of larger provinces. Pilate was removed from office because of his treatment of the Samaritan ( Ant 18.4.1) After this, as it turns out, it was not until the rule of the emperor Claudius (who governed from 41 to 54 AD) that the title of the Roman governors changed from "prefect" (ἔπαρχος) to "procurator". (επίτροπος)]
I’ve built on top of Carlson’s reconstruction with the following reasons:• On one of the four points where the TF meets the Annals, it uses the phrase “mischievous superstition”. I thought that was rather Tacitean and replaced it with ‘innovator’ and ‘deceiver’ which is more Josephean.• I replaced the line, “He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.” With “ He drew over to him many Galileans” as the original line sounds Paulinist. Also the early followers of Jesus were known as Galileans, as attested by Epitetus, Diss.4.7.6. Circa110-115AD (Cf Luke13.1-2; Mark14:70).Diss. 4.7.6: “Well then, if madness can cause people to adopt such as attitude towards these things [not being scared at the swords of tyrants] and habit too, as in the case of the Galileans, can’t reason and demonstration teach people that God ha made all that is in the universe, and the universe itself as a whole, to be free…”This passage shows that Christians were known to be persecuted by the Emperor Nero, and Epictetus had been within close proximity to the Emperor’s household.• As with many messianic figure followers reported in Josephus works, they usually declared the would be leader a King, this is reflected in the reconstruction.•Agapius Arabic version does not blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. The key phrase "at the suggestion of the principal men among us" reads instead "Pilate condemned him to be crucified". This is reflected in the reconstruction.• The Syriac version has the phrase “he was believed to be Christ” instead of "he was the Christ"Origen attested that Josephus did not like the term “Christ” so I left that out (Contra Celsus I.47).• The TF could not have been neutral because of what was written before and after it. I stated the Galileans were slain because of the opening line of this Ant 18.3.4“About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder: ~Ant18.3.4 and also see what was written before it:- “Who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them; and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not. Nor did they spare them in the least.“~ Ant18.3.2• The interpolation of the TF into Slavonic Josephus Wars also does not name Jesus in the passage but refers to him as “there appeared a certain man”~Slavonic Wars2.9.3/4. This could have been a more primitive interpolation than Eusibius’ interpolation. The most telling part about the Slavonic version is that it said everything about Jesus but his name, that very fact could have been preserved along a separate transmission line that Jesus was not named in the original. I have gone for this in the reconstruction above. This and the fact of the TF being a negative original could explain why Origen never cited this passage in all his works.Whealy [4] (in page13 of link) makes a very astute observation that "Yet before Origen no Christian writer apparently found it worthwhile to cite Josephus as a relevant authority on anything in the New Testament; not only did they not cite Josephus on Jesus, they did not cite Josephus on James the brother of Jesus, John the Baptist, the several parallels shared by Luke-Acts and Josephus works, and perhaps most surprisingly, they did not name Josephus an authority on King Herod, a figure that dominates three and a half books of Antiquities".————————————————— Here is the original TF:Ant18.64-65 ( Ant18.3.3 AKA TF) “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
A DIFFERENT JAMES PASSAGEOur reconstruction does not bode well for the current James passage, Ant 20.200, as there is no mention of Jesus or an abhorant word to the Jew Josephus - the word 'Christ'. But this is not a problem as Origen in his attestation of the James passage was on about a different James.Was James the brother of Jesus originally in Josephus?We all suspect interpolations, what is more interesting is what was cut out from Josephus. All James references (opposition to Paul gentile movement), derogatory Jesus references etc.Lets examine this Christian tradition blaming the fall of Jerusalem to the death of James.[TRACKING THE SOURCES].Although nowhere to be found in the extant Josephus, it is quoted by Eusebius – who implies it is from Wars – in the following manner:“And these things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, for the Jews put him to death, notwithstanding his preeminent Righteousness.”(EH2.23.20)On close analysis, it is clear Eusebius or the Josephus he saw means James.Origen reproduces something of the same idea, though he claims Josephus referred to it in the Antiquities. Since Josephus’ Antiquities does not encompass a discussion of the fall of the Temple per se as Wars does, it is more likely that Eusebius is more correct in this matter. Origen gives the tradition as follows:“So great a reputation among the people for Righteousness did this James enjoy, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in Twenty Books, when wishing to show the cause what the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the Temple was razed to the ground, said that these things happened to them in accordance with the Wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called the Christ.”(Contra Cel 1.47)Then he adds:“The wonderful thing is, that though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the Righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of [what had been done to] James.” ( Commentary on Matthew 10.17)This is extremely interesting testimony and hardly something either Origen or Eusebius would or could have dreamed up entirely by themselves, because it contradicts authoritative Church doctrine, which rather ascribed the fall of Jerusalem, as Origen “himself contends, to Jesus’ death, not James’. (Contra Cel 2.13)Jerome too gives us a version of this tradition about James:“This same Josephus records the tradition that this James was of such great Holiness and repute among the people that the downfall of Jerusalem was believed to be on account of his death.”(Vir ill 2)[Lives of illustrious men].Jerome is a careful scholar; one must assume that he saw something of what he says. Perhaps the nonsense Paulina and Fulvia episodes that follow the suspicious-sounding account of the crucifixion of Christ in Book Eighteen replaced some more extensive commentary of the kind Jerome says he saw in Book Eighteen, which included the material about Jerusalem falling ‘because of the death of James the Apostle’, not Jesus.Epiphanius too calls James a nazorite (Panarian 29.5.7). From other sources like the Pseudoclementine Homilies and Recognitions, we shall be able to show how James is leader of the Jerusalem Church does send out Apostles and others on overseas missions. Paul confirms this when he discusses the ‘some from James’ that are sent down to check into affairs in Antioch in Galatians 2:12.The only other early author (apart from the disputed Josephus) to mention James before the close of the second century C.E. is Hegesippus (cf. Fragments from the Acts of the Church; Concerning the Martyrdom of James, the Brother of the Lord, from Book 5), who as early as c. 165 - 175AD tells his reader in great detail that James (as brother of the Lord) was hurled from the top of the Temple and then because he survived this attempt on his life he was then summarily stoned to death. Hegesippus also tells us that this happened immediately before the destruction of the Temple by Vespasian and as such it would point to a date of c. 68 - 70ADThese argue strongly for the authenticity of Hegesippus’ detailed description of James and the existence of a much longer exegetical work on the death of James in the manner of the pesharim at Qumran, upon which this was based.The first is the allusion to a key scriptural passage, Isaiah 3:10–11. Not only is this Zaddik passage exactly parallel to ones like those in the Habakkuk and Psalm 37 Peshers applied to the death of the Righteous Teacher at Qumran, but its vocabulary was actually absorbed into the former of these. The second feature is the application to James of this important conceptuality of the ‘Zaddik’ or ‘Righteous One’.————————————————————-So to sum up Origen in two works, Contra Celsus and his Commentary on Matthew, claims to have found in his copy of the Antiquities by Josephus a passage attributing the fall of Jerusalem to the death of James, not Jesus. Eusebius claims something similar but he claims to have seen it in WARS.In normative Christian usage, Jesus is considered to have predicted both the downfall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, and Origens outrage at having come upon these passages in the copy of Josephus available to him – presumably in the library at Caesarea on the Palestine coast, where Eusebius too had later been Bishop – and Eusebius’ own concern over this discrepancy, might be not a little connected to its disappearance in all extant copies about James in Josephus’ works.----------------------------------------------------SO HOW DID IT HAPPEN WE HAVE THE CURRENT JAMES PASSAGE?Allen [5] in the paper linked below (chapter 4 , p 291-328) goes one step further than Carrier in claiming that the James passage in “Antiquities of the Jews” (AJ) was not an inter linear scribal error but an actual Christian interpolation.————————————————————ORIGEN AND THE ”JAMES THE JUSTICE” PASSAGE IN Antiquities by Josephus (Ant20.9.1)You can see from the following two quotes by Origen that Josephus never liked to use the term ‘Christ’.CONTRA CELSIUM Book1 ch. 47 ( Origen)“Now this writer [i.e. Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ....”COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW X 17 (Origen)“And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.”————————————————————JOSEPHUS DID NOT LIKE THE TERM ‘CHRIST’.According to Origen (cf. COM, X.17 / 5268 - 5269; Cels, I, 47),we are able to confirm that Josephus did not accept Jesus as the “Christ”.You can clearly see Josephus did not like to use the term ‘Christ’ in relation to Jesus.It is interesting that Josephus would have mentioned the word “Christ” considering how quickly he denigrates any other supposed messianic upstarts in all of his other writings.Why Josephus says “James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ” and not say “James the son of Joseph” which is the proper Jewish form of address. Origen quotes the James Passage practically verbatim - even inappropriately referring to a Jewish male as “the brother” of another individual;I would like people to note what Allen missed->[At the start of 20.9.1 there is a high priest Joseph mentioned who was deprived of his position by Agrippa, perhaps James is the son of Joseph.]Instead of"brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"It originally should have read"James son of Joseph".This makes much more sense that Carriers explanation and it fits as there is a high priest named Joseph deposed at the start of the passage.The assurances of many Christian scholars, it is difficult to see how the James Passage (JP) [A]* can in any way appear as an innocent text. (See relevant passages below in footnotes.)For the James passage to be authentic then the earlier passage the Testimonium Flavian (TF) [B]* would have to be authentic too. But we know this TF passage was not in Origen’s copy of “Antiquities of the Jews”(AJ). To take any other stance would seriously question why Josephus would have expected his reader to know who Jesus (of Nazareth) was in the James Passage.Origen relies SOLELY on what is surely the James Passage in his attempts to justify that it was the death of Jesus, and not James, that caused the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem makes it far more likely to presume that the TF DID NOT EXIST in Origen’s version of the AJ.————————————————————ORIGEN AS SUSPECTED INTERPOLATORIf one simply reviews the actual statements made by Origen, it should be regarded as pertinent that he uses almost exactly the same wording as is contained in the current form of the JP (i.e. “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James”) to describe James, viz.:1. COM, X, 17 / 5268: “James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ”;2. Cels, I, 47: “James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ”; and3. Cels, II, 13: “James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ”.Origen mentions Josephus' reference to James on four occasions: twice in his COM, X, 17 / 5268 – 5269, once in Cels. I, 47 and again in his Cels. II, 13Suspected interpolation (i.e. “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ”), if foul play is speculated it is almost certain that Origen (rightly or wrongly), will be amongst the more likely suspects.The interpolator merely used this convenient point in line 200 of Josephus’ account of Ananus’ atrocities to ensure the inclusion of the following few mission-critical words: “Jesus who was called Christ”.The suspected Christian interpolator merely used the cursory reference to the stoned man and some compatriots as a useful device.————————————————————CALLED CHRIST HAS GOSPEL TRADITION:The participial phrase “(who is/who was) called Christ” (c.f. Antiquities, does not actually include the verb “to be”. This is simply added into the English translation.This is literally what it says in Greek:“…and having brought before them (the council) the brother of Jesus, who being called Christ, James - his name…”The participial phrase indeed matches the gospels. There is NO implication of PAST TENSE in «Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ». And there’s no way to rephrase it to imply a present tense more explicitly.Since, in the context of the current form of the text, Jesus is assumed to have died previously, it is totally appropriate to translate it in English as “...was called...”. The Greek phrasing should be totally non-controversial.The same expression “called Christ” is both John 4:25 and Matthew 1:16: “of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” The phrase is found in a similar form in Matthew two more times, then in 27:17 and 27:22; and the author of the Gospel of Matthew has Pilate both times designating Jesus as that “Jesus who is called Christ”. The manner of letting a non-Christian witness identify Jesus as the one who was “called Christ” can accordingly be traced back to the Gospels. This would reasonably imply that it would not have felt unnatural for a Christian person with knowledge of the Gospel accounts to designate Jesus as the one called Christ, if he later found that Josephus ought to have mentioned Jesus.“Called Christ” are the EXACT SAME phrase in different grammatical cases (nominative for ‘subject', accusative for ‘direct object' and genitive for 'possessive’).So what we observe in the English translations is a juxtaposition of the tense forms of “to be”, where past tense (“was”) is appropriate for Josephus and Origen (narrating events after Jesus’ death); while present tense (“is”) is appropriate for the Gospels (narrating events during Jesus’ life). English translators are forced to make a choice, while the Greek authors were not bound by such rules.Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ (genitive).(Iêsou tou legomenou Christou)Jesus who (was) called Christ(Antiquities of the Jews 20:200).Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός (nominative)(Iêsous ho legomenos Christos)Jesus, who (is) called Christ (Matt 1:16).ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός (nominative)(ho legomenos Christos)he] who ( is)called Christ (John 4:25).Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν (accusative)(Iêsoun ton legomenon Christon)Jesus who (is) called Christ (Matt 27:17).Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν (accusative)(Iêsoun ton legomenon Christon)with Jesus who (is) called Christ (Matt 27:22).———————————————————-
WHAT’S MISSING/ WHAT’S ADDED?? (From passage)As stated in line 199 this makes little sense. For example, was Josephus telling us that Ananus simply liked to have individuals executed without justifiable cause, and was merely waiting for the opportune moment when he was not under Roman authority to give vent to his sadistic temperament?Or, is something now missing from the original text, immediately before line 200, which formerly gave the correct account of why Ananus needed to get rid of the unknown man or men in question?However, in the current version, the reader is none the wiser. This is in fact quite noticeable if one has the eyes to see, because after supposedly giving his reader no clear motive for the arrests, Josephus then goes to great lengths (lines 201 – 203) to explain that the charges against the men were not justified. These three lines would only make sense if, before line 200, the reader had been told the nature of the charges and the context behind them being levelled at the men in question.It might also be consider that originally the JP (or preceding text), was somewhat longer than it now appears, and once included the genuine reasons behind Ananus’ urgent need to make use of the opportune death of Festus to dispatch his enemies. Here, the unknown Christian interpolator may well have removed one (or possibly two), sentences that originally gave the reader the correct names of the offenders (as well as the true nature of their crime). He then inserted this most convenient of phrases: “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James”.After supposedly giving his reader no clear motive for the arrests, Josephus then goes to great lengths (lines 201 – 203) to explain that the charges against the men were not justified. These three lines would only make sense if, before line 200, the reader had been told the nature of the charges and the context behind them being levelled at the men in question.————————————————————CONCLUSIONS The only other early author (apart from the disputed Josephus) to mention James before the close of the second century C.E. is Hegesippus (cf. Fragments from the Acts of the Church; Concerning the Martyrdom of James, the Brother of the Lord, from Book 5), who as early as c. 165 - 175 C.E. tells his reader in great detail that James (as brother of the Lord) was hurled from the top of the Temple and then because he survived this attempt on his life he was then summarily stoned to death. Hegesippus also tells us that this happened immediately before the destruction of the Temple by Vespasian and as such it would point to a date of c. 68 - 70 C.E.If this account is in any way accurate it means that the JP is in direct contradiction to both the date as well as the manner and circumstances of James’ death (The JP states that James was stoned along with “others” after due trial and sentencing by a high priest).The issue is further compounded by the fact that, by the fourth and fifth centuries it was more normal for the mainstream church to defer from referring to Jesus as having flesh and blood brothers. In this regard, it will be recalled that in his DVI, 2 Jerome (c. 347 – 420 C.E.) maintains that James was Jesus’ cousin and the biological son of Mary of Cleophas. Jerome stresses that James was not the son of Joseph by another wife.Lastly, if one needs the name of the chief suspect for this interpolation, Origen is certainly the most likely candidate. Although, in his Cels. II, 22, he makes it clear that he thinks that the death of Jesus was the ultimate cause for the destruction of the Temple, he repeatedly makes mention of Josephus’ reference to James in his many writings. In these contexts, he falsely records Josephus as blaming the death of James for the destruction of Jerusalem and as has been clearly shown, Origen recurrently employs the almost identical phraseology as found in the JP today.——————————————————
MY OWN CONCLUSION: Origen said himself that Josephus hated the term ‘Christ’ in relation to Jesus. I don’t believe the term existed in his copy. I believe the interpolater was of Origen school and simply lifted the phrase, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ” from Origen’s writings.——————————————————
Footnotes[A] Passage from Antiquitates Judaicae20.9.1/ 197 - 203 (James Passage)“And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.”[B] Passage from the Antiquitates Judaicae18.3.3/ 63 – 64.( better known as the Testimonium Flavian or TF).“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
——————————————————— [1]
[5];isAllowed=y ——————————————————— P.14 from Shlomo Pines book "An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its lmplications".
submitted by Belgooly1 to AcademicBiblical [link] [comments]

2019.10.12 18:48 chunkmaster86 A bad trip made m guess the ending of the show(I think)

I HAVE NOT READ THE MANGA. DONT TELL ME IF IM RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF YOU WOULD BE FULFILLED IF THIS WAS THE ENDING BECAUSE I DONT KNOW. I tripped on too many mushrooms my first time recently. I had a bad trip and my friends were worried i would never leave the trip because they all finished tripping and I was in a dark closet talking to myself. My friend pulled me out of the trip that wouldn’t end by telling me how scared they were that they lost me forever. It was scary thinking that I wanted to keep talking to the voices instead of coming back to reality and I could have been stuck in a trip forever. For some reason weeks later I’m still getting takeaways and showing my friend attack on titan made me realize how attack on titans is like shrooms.
Being a titan is like being on shrooms. If you do it enough you learn to control it if you are normal. If you are crazy like me and eren you go psycho and the more you trip the more you get lost in the sauce til you get stuck as a titan (never ending trip) in beginning of season three eren is trying to learn hardening. He stays in titan form for a long time. When he becomes a titan he starts the trip. He begins coherent but slowly gets crazier. He can’t talk to normal people as a titan(me too)
On shrooms I couldn’t talk to my friends so I talked to voices in my head that were really my own thoughts but I convinced myself they were foreign
This is schizophrenia. Eren has a better connection to paths because he is schizophrenic. The best way to learn deep stuff about myself was to go insane. I went insane on shrooms and realized crazy stuff that I couldn’t explain. The deeper I let myself go crazy the more I learned but the harder it was to remember. This deep learning is “paths” but not really
Paths in real life is this “forbidden knowledge” we forget when the trip is over. When eren is in titan mode he learns stuff quick. He is only good at hand to hand combat as a titan. He recreates combos perfectly having seeing them once. The “paths” made him learn faster but he had no clue paths was teaching him to harden easily because he was delusional. It was easy for him to forget his entire titan experience after coming out of the “trip”. A normal person as a titan shifter pretty much able to control themselves completely. My friends on shrooms were also on their first time but I had no control and they did. I was radical and wanted to destroy the world. I related to that in erens most insane moment. In the season finale of season 2 eren is in titan form with a leg and an arm missing yet something takes power of him to stand up with one leg and finally defeat Annie using only his one arm and leg.
Why did he get so powerful and driven all of a sudden? It would be so easy to have fought well when he had all of his limbs. But being about to die made him alive. Not to mention he’s on a shroom trip every time he goes titan mode.
I think ymir(goddess) is the devil. She made paths. She can do something to the Eldians. She can connect the energy somehow between each eldian. Eren is the only titan shifter who even understands paths. It’s because he’s schizophrenic! He’s so ready to accept a foreign voice in his head(Ymir) that when he’s delusional (titan mode) and he hears paths talking he is so ready to listen to it. He wants to see how deep he can go.
After eren gets possessed with “paths” (Ymir’s will) and destroys Annie, he screams something terrifying. He screams “I want to destroy the whole world.”
Eren never said that before. That wasn’t eren talking. It was Ymir. But he heard Ymir’s voice so familiar all of a sudden. For a second he was Ymir. He understood the plan (destroy world) he knew if he died he could not destroy the world. (Ymir’s plan) Ymir saw that eren was going to die so she possessed him and did crazy stuff. Eren was like so temperature hot. Idk how he did it. They haven’t mentioned it since but he was covered in like burns everywhere. Ymir loves eren because she has full control of him.
But why does Ymir want to destroy the world?
What is Ymir?
Ymir is God. She can talk to Eldians (jews) with paths. The Eldians are Jews and ymir is like God the father. Eren is Jesus Christ.
But there is a devilish twist.
Who made ymir god? The devil So if Ymir became a god because the devil made a promise is she really god? Nope she was never god. She was actually the devil all along. Tricking people to think she’s god
She’s schizophrenic. Psycho’s have a great sense of worth and are expert con artists. She convinced all the Eldians that she is God. Her self worth is literally god level and she convinced the whole world that it was true. But she was the devil all along. Deep down the Eldians that live in Marley know she is evil but they are blinded. To the eldian, ymir is perfection so being like ymir is what “god” is telling the Eldians to be. But Ymir is not god. Ymir is satan. The Eldians strive to become satan. They love violence. Erwin is a hero to them. Levi is a hero. They are both the most bloodthirsty. Everyone calls Erwin a devil when he died but they said it like it was a good thing. Like the devil was the leader they needed.
Ymir is the devil and Eren is her son. But we are familiarized with only erens world so it makes us think that eren is the good guy. He is the son of the devil. The marleyans are the good guys. The king who wanted peace was a good guy. Even the warriors are willing to eliminate their own kind because they understand that they are literally subjects of the devil. If the Marley warriors/Zeke believed in ymir they could take their titans alone and destroy Marley. It would be easy. But they are so convinced that titan wielders are the devil that they are willing to genocide their own race. They genocide their race but have identity crisises because ymir is trying to stop them. She has control if you give it to her. The warriors resist and it drives Reiner and Bertolt insane. They want to pretend to be soldiers to forget that they are literally hitler. Reiner and Bertolt get so lost in the soldier gig they grow attached to their victims. Because they naturally want to destroy the world. It’s what ymir wanted.
An eldian stopped ymir from destroying the world. An eldian killed ymir Became the coordinate and hid in the walls with it. By only taking the coordinate, the king could hide the power to destroy the world in the walls. He brainwashed his eldian followers and changed the code so only his descendants could use the coordinate. Life’s good for a long time but there are still radical Eldians in Marley. Their mind wasn’t wiped. They have the attack titan. That’s all they need. Grisha is Radical and schizophrenic, a perfect fit. Grisha has a plan but he is wrong. Ymir can see all and she knows what she must do. She has total control over Eren Kruger the attack titan. The plan is for grisha to raise a radical royal child. His greatest creation. This is Zeke. Zeke is a good guy. He realized his dad is crazy and doesn’t want to end the world. He sells out his parents and ruins the rebellion. Zeke can’t do the plan. Who’s left? Grisha sauce, the smiling titan. She could go get the coordinate and use it. But Ymir knows she couldn’t kill the current god titan (coordinate.) ymir knows grisha could. Eren(ymir) lets grishas wife become a titan and escape and grisha is confused because the owl should had given her the attack titan but he picks him. It’s because ymir knows the truth. Maybe if she gets the coordinate then the old king will use his paths to control her into being idle. She knows anyone can use the coordinate under certain circumstances. Ymir’s plan is to get eren to become the god titan. Give eren every titan power til ymir is 100 percent back. So Ymir can take over. But eren can’t use the power. Grisha believes that. Grisha has his own plan. He waits 13 years til his very last days of life and heads to the palace. His plan is to beg the coordinate to stop Marley. To nobodies surprise, she denies. He’s spent these 13 years training to fight the god titan. If she had full control I’m sure she could take his power away somehow but grisha somehow killed the real god. Grisha has one day left to live. He has two titan powers. If he dies without passing them on the powers are lost and could be reborn into Marley hands.
The marleyans know what day grisha dies. To thwart his plan they attack on his death day. It thwarts grishas plan the warriors are young. They are all erens age so when Reiner Bertolt Annie and the other guy were to attack they were not even teenagers yet. Grisha who is trained could take on all 4 easily and then he would have 6 titan powers. That’s why they attack grisha on his death day. but works perfect for Ymir’s plan. Grisha was going to give the titan powers to his current wife. She knew the secrets. After receiving the power she was to leave the walls. Using paths, grisha contacted the smiling titan his royal wife, with the location and look of his wife. She would run out and eat her wife giving the smiling titan full control of the coordinate. Great idea? No. If she does that she wasn’t crazy enough to do all of Ymir’s will. She caused the warriors to attack the day they did. She put the idea in their head to attack on his death day. She sent ymir(not god) to become the jaw titan.(funny bc jaw titan is named ymir and her titan looks like the devil from the picture of ymir receiving power. Ymir(“goddess”)wasn’t the pretty girl, ymir(“goddess”) was the devil.
So what happens. The smiling titan books it to grishas house and eats his wife so quick bc grishas paths told her to before but she doesn’t have powers yet. That’s why mom is so okay already with dying as long as her son lives. That’s why Hannes doesn’t fight the smiling titan. He should have but Ymir made mom whine and made Hannes scared. Boom Ymir’s plan is in full effect. Eren sees mom die. He sees himself as too weak. He creates an alter ego for himself. A kid who isn’t afraid and can kill every titan. Basically Levi is what he wants to be so from that moment he thinks he’s Levi. That’s why he’s so intrigued that Levi is similar to him. Because when his mom died he killed his real personality and became a fake one. And by believing he was something else. It was easy for him to accept that he is ymir. He is god. He is the devil. He must destroy the world.
Ymir’s plan works. Eren is completely radical and the only person grisha can trust with the titan. In grishas last moments he finds his son. With no time to explain. He wanted to explain the basement before dying so eren could know for what cause his parents died But now the basement is the only place to guide him to realizing his purpose of destroying the world.
He yearns to get to the basement. He yearns for answers. Eren learns titan moves quick and is a very powerful titan but lowkey at first it seems as though hes not in control of his titan. He’s shroomed up.he can’t control himself because eren, erens alter ego, and Ymir are all trying to drive the same titan. He sucks at first but begins to control the titan well but. He never remembers much of being a titan. He is sometimes does stuff he’s incapable of. Trying to learn to harden doesn’t work easily and he almost turns into a pure titan because he get so lost in the trip. Like I did on shoots. I was so stuck in my head I almost stayed there for ever in a shroom trip. Him getting lost isn’t the shrooms fault. My friends were on the same stuff in another room and not list in their heads. Eren is the same. No other titans are lost in their titan. They are all in control.
Eren is a great titan and learns quick in important situations because when he really needs to get something done he lets ymir take over. That’s how he always comes back stronger when he is going to die or be unable to harden. He gets so reliant on letting ymir take over soon every time he transforms he gives ymir the controller and he chills reading the paths and learning. He is tripping so he can’t bring the path knowledge out of the titan. Ymir eventually controls eren when he’s sane.
Fast forward in my life. I wanted to understand my trip so I tried to recreate it without shrooms. I closed my door turned out all the lights and watched hacker music video by death grips. I was like one tiny bong rip high. I stopped smoking because I kept getting paranoid since I did shrooms. I was afraid of a bad trip. The video was a loud and the video was so scary my fight or flight kicked in. I knew I could not fight. It was a video. My reaction was to run from the vid. My paranoia was so insane I felt 100 black arms squeezing all around me and I knew I could just look away but I didn’t. I though I would die. And then all of a sudden I wasn’t scared. It was cool. I turned the lights on and saw the fear drove me crazy and I was sober. I felt like I was shroom tripping but I was sober. I heard the voices but I realized the voices were also telling me stuff I always knew but could not piece together. I solved my own dual identity crisis could think just as profound as I could on shrooms but I actually remembered the profound thoughts. I basically interpreted my real shroom trip. I thought I had a dual identity when I was on shrooms and I realized all the childhood trauma that caused me to create an ideal version of myself and when I was schizophrenic on shrooms I was actually talking with my ideal self that my mind created. I made peace with him and now we are one. In the shroom trip I watched an episode of attack on titan before going insane. On my new fear induced trip I all of a sudden remembered that while I was on shrooms my ideal god version of myself “solved” attack on titan but I was really solving myself all along. I put on this fake ideal mask of myself when I was like 13 and for the first time in 10 years I was myself again. I liked attack on titan because deep down I related to the mask eren has put on. It made me over analize the series. Here is the ending summarized.
Erens royal step mom is searching for the coordinate. Maybe the royalty inside of her wants to hide the god power now.
When I tripped through fear (not worth) I could let my alter ego take control without shrooms
Eren was scared like I was and went crazy from fear that his only escape was into his mind so ymir possessed him and showed him he could use the coordinate powers by touching a royal titan person. He doesn’t realize that til the end of season 3.
But Ymir controlling eren makes him kill the smiling titan. So that was the last royal titan right? Shoot. Historia is royal but they don’t wanna make her a Titan because they have no shifter so she’d be pure. Not good. But wait
Armin. We know nothing of his parents He lives in the poorest city He isn’t typical poor kid He’s a genius with a heart He has weakness but handles it well. He has a connection to paths. It’s not through ymir though. He has a titan god that is good that controls him. The real king is the real god. Ymir is the devil. Armin is royal. The king tells Armin what to do through paths. Ymir knows he’s royal but thinks he is so dedicated to eren he would give up his morals to follow eren to death. Not true Eren Kruger’s last words were basically “you gotta fight if you want to save Armin and Mikasa” that was weird bc they aren’t born yet but god and devil has no time. Its paths. Grisha is like who tf is armin and Mikasa t and neither know. Grisha is smart enough to not brush it off. He sets up shop near Armin and they naturally become friends. This is part of the kings path. Ymir underestimates Armin. Finding Mikasa was grishas job. She’s an Ackerman, unaffected by paths. He looked for her and killed her family ymir told grisha to leave eren because he knew he’d go after her. Ymir knew eren and Mikasa at their age could take on 3 grown men so grisha made it happen and it worked. Mikasa, the strongest human capable of killing shifter titans alone. Uncontrollable by paths. Was wired to protect eren. The greatest terrorist of all time. This is why Reiner said eren was the worst possible person to have the coordinate. Because he is insane. He wants to kill all titans but he is a titan so deep down he really wants to kill all humans. He’s dead inside and killing makes him feel alive.
Ymir’s plan is simple. Armin became the colosal titan. Why? Everyone chose it. It was god and the devils plan. Levi knows he should save Erwin but he picked Armin for some reason. Eren went insane and was willing to kill Levi over the serum. But being Ackerman, the king nor Ymir can take total control of Levi but something controls both Levi and Mikasa. It’s kind of crazy too Mikasa has this power awoken that makes her kind of like eren let something take over and go sicko mode. I’m sure Levi had an awakening as a kid as well but maybe it doesn’t protect him just in combat but in decisions as well. Levi tells eren in season 1 that he’s afraid to trust himself or what his orders are. It’s because he knows he’s capable of always making the right choice. So either Ymir or the king are tryna tell Levi the same thing. Give it to Armin. The stressful decision makes him use this power to decide and he for no reason picks Armin and tells Armin how sure he was about saving him after realizing that Erwin was a heroic devil that came to terms with himself. But really he was so secure because god or the devil told him the decision through paths. I feel like both god and devil have power to influence Mikasa and Levi.
Ymir thinks her plan is working. She’s got Armin colossal titan to fuel eren with the ability to utilize the coordinate and send the wall titans to destroy everyone. And if Armin is so good that he would kill eren to save the world then mikasa would easily kill Armin. Ymir plan is betting on the loyalty of his two best friends. Ymir expects both to go with eren til the end. But if Armin did crack then mikasa and eren could kill him if needed.
But the king was smart. The king was a girl. Ymir the “goddess” was always the devil from the story. The girl was the king/god. We think ymir is god. We are wrong. Ymir splits the god titan but can never use the coordinate because she is not royal. She tricks the other titan shifters to side with her and try to take the coordinate. Eren using Armin as a royal titan conduit let’s ymir once and for all do what she always seeked. Do more than what she accomplished. Don’t just conquer the world, exterminate the world. Kill all humans. That is her dream if she makes all humans titans, nobody will hunger, nobody titan will die. Everyone will be lost in a bad shroom trip forever. The royal family recuperated the coordinate before ymir could figure it out and the royal family hid the coordinate behind 3 huge walls full of colossal titans if you break the wall the titans get sunlight and they are set to attack enemies. It would go crush Marley. But this is not gods peace. Gods peace is ignorance god makes everyone forget the truth to protect them. It works mostly but the king makes many procautions to never allow Ymir to get the coordinate. Ymir has paths with those who listen. The king does as well. Ymir inspires radicals in Marley. The radicals possess the attack titan and the radicals worship her as a goddess and strive to be like her and complete her will. When the radicals are about to win. When eren and Armin finally defeat all other titan shifters, Armin realizes all along erens true motives. Armin all along was the true god. He was so guided. Having all titans defeated eren has all shifter abilities but the colossal. Eren(ymir) must fight armin(king) for who becomes god. Eren not being a true royal can never have full power. But completing the god titan (all titans in one guy) he has no competition. He can destroy the world. Eren being a psychopath attempts to convince armin to let him eat him but armin turns on eren. In your mind it’s a plot twist because nobody saw eren as the bad guy. People that don’t get this say, wat armin is bad? No eren always was! In an epic battle somehow involving mikasa probably siding with eren. Armin must defeat his 2 best friends to save the world. He does it and by consuming eren he becomes god. He brings an end to the Ymir’s curse because now he is full on god. He removes the ability for Eldians to change and starts a world peace. He un titans all the titans and takes down the walls. He vows to never use his titan for war. World peace and a modern world can exist. Armin is immortal only another titan could take his power. Somehow when he is ready to die he removes the curse of the titans completely and let’s his god body die. The Eldians can no longer become titans so the powers of god are lost forever and the modern age begins.
i didn’t proof read this so ask me any questions thanks for reading. If there are plot holes in my theory let me know bc I’m too lazy to read it all after typing for 3 hours.
submitted by chunkmaster86 to attackontitan [link] [comments]

2019.07.02 22:50 Gazetawarszawska Gazeta Warszawska - Haniebne antypolskie wystąpienie Dudy

4 lipca 2016 roku Duda pojechał do Kielc na obchody rocznicy "pogromu kieleckiego", aby tam dalej czapkować żydom i szkodzić Polsce, co chyba powoli staje się głównym zadaniem jego prezydentury.
Podczas tych uroczystości Duda całkowicie przemilczał polskie ofiary - dziewięciu niewinnych ludzi; Polaków - zamordowanych przez żydowskie sądy wojskowe, które na posiedzeniach wyjazdowych w Kielcach skazały na śmierć tych nie tylko niewinnych, a często nieświadomych „uczestników pogromu”.
Duda wyliczył za to wielokrotnie żydów jako „naród” (pięć razy), a Polaków ani razu. I standardowo już bełkotał w koło – na wzór Beaty Szydło – słowo „obywatel” i jego odmiany gramatyczne (czternaście razy).
Duda jasno postawił wyższość „narodowości żydowskiej” i „obywatelstwa” nad Narodem Polskim i interesami Narodu Polskiego, którego ani razu nie określił narodem, a za to parokrotnie posłużył się słowem „POLIN”, co jest stygmatem wskazującym na żydowską antypolskość tego, który tym słowem - łajnem się posługuje.
Duda zadeklarował agresję i restrykcje przeciwko wszystkim, którzy będą szkodzić - „choćby w najdrobniejszym przejawie” - i „żydom”, i „obywatelom”.
Z pewnością nie uszło to uwadze żydów, którzy słuchali tego strasznego antypolskiego bełkotu. Będą oni już potrafić odpowiednio wcielić w życie te zalecenia, które merytorycznie są w całkowitej jedności z wypowiedziami Józefa Stalina i Jakuba Bermana, którzy wzywali do zabijania antysemitów.
Żydzi już potrafią te słowa i zrozumieć, i wcielić w życie - podkreślamy, a co przynieście intensyfikację żydowskiego ludobójstwa na Polakach.
Ale my też te słowa rozumiemy właściwie: ŚMIERĆ ZDRAJCY!
Red. Gazeta Warszawska
Poziom historycznej wiedzy, jaką Duda ujawnił w trakcie tego seansu nienawiści, jest tak niski, że tylko to niniejszym zaznaczamy, ale już nie podejmujmy wątku.

Duda: mowa nienawiści wobec Polski i Polaków
Całość przemówienie prezydenta:
Jestem dzisiaj tutaj, by w imieniu Rzeczypospolitej, naszego państwa, oddać hołd tym, którzy zostali zamordowani 4 lipca 1946 roku, 70 lat temu. Byłem przed momentem na tutejszym żydowskim cmentarzu, by pochylić głowę w zadumie i modlitwie nad zbiorową mogiłą tych, którzy tutaj zginęli.
Można powiedzieć - młodych ludzi, bo średnia wieku to, myślę, ok. 25-30 lat. A więc to byli młodzi ludzie, a co najważniejsze - to byli obywatele Rzeczypospolitej, żydowskiego pochodzenia. Ludzie, którzy często cudem przeżyli gehennę Holokaustu, tracąc często na własnych oczach swoich najbliższych. Jestem tutaj, by podkreślić, że niepodległa, suwerenna, wolna Rzeczpospolita oddaje hołd tym swoim obywatelom, bo Polska jest państwem wolności, wzajemnego szacunku i Polska jest państwem dobrego współżycia - wszystkich obywateli, niezależnie od narodowości, wyznania czy języka.
W wolnej i niepodległej Polsce nie ma miejsca na jakiekolwiek uprzedzenia: na rasizm, ksenofobię, nie ma miejsca na antysemityzm. Takie zachowania, choćby w najdrobniejszym przejawie muszą być w Polsce piętnowane, bo tylko wtedy Polska będzie prawdziwie wolnym państwem dla wszystkich swoich obywateli.
Jestem tutaj dzisiaj, bo ta tragedia pogromu kieleckiego sprzed 70 lat ma wymiar państwowy i społeczny. Zdarzyła się już po II wojnie światowej, po straszliwym doświadczeniu Holokaustu. Zdarzyła się w państwie, które miało nową władzę - komunistyczną. W państwie, gdzie w II wojnie światowej władze Polski Podziemnej karały wszystkich donosicieli, szmalcowników i tych, którzy nie byli solidarni wzajemnie: obywatel wobec obywatela. Solidarni w sprzeciwie wobec wspólnego wroga, jakim byli faszystowskie Niemcy i hitlerowcy okupujące polskie ziemie. Władze Polski Podziemnej ofiarowywali pomoc obywatelom narodowości żydowskiej, bo Niemcy chcieli zgładzić cały ten naród.
To władze Polski Podziemnej utworzyły Żegotę, (…) przenosiły do mocarstw światowych informacje o tym, co dzieje się na okupowanych przez Niemców ziemiach, że istnieją obozy zagłady, gdzie masowo, codziennie morduje się ludzi. W tym sensie państwowym, gdy przyszły władze komunistyczne, które niszczyły polskie państwo podziemne, to doszło do tej tragedii.
Dlaczego o tym mówię? Dlatego, że władze państwa: wojsko, milicja, UBP zachowały się tamtego dnia w zdumiewający, a często bestialski sposób. To wojsko i milicja pierwsze otwarły tutaj ogień i wiele ofiar, które zginęły, zginęło od kul. To wojsko i milicja zamiast pomóc i chronić polskich obywateli, naszych współobywateli, nie tylko nie zapewniły ochrony, ale jeszcze zaatakowały i pozostawiły sprawę i UB przez wiele godzin nie reagowało. Dopiero wieczorem przyszło z ochroną.
Ale to także problem społeczny - nie tylko wojsko i milicja atakowały i tutaj były. Atakowali też ludzie… Pozostawiam ocenie historyków, socjologów, jak to się stało, dlaczego tak się stało, że ludzie zareagowali w taki, a nie inny sposób. Ale jedno chcę podkreślić: nie ma żadnego usprawiedliwienia dla antysemickiej zbrodni. Nie ma i nie będzie! Nie ma żadnego usprawiedliwienia dla sytuacji, w której jeden człowiek podnosi rękę na drugiego, bezbronnego. To się nigdy nie może zdarzyć w praworządnym państwie. Dziś Polska jest państwem praworządnym i chce zapewnić wszystkim obywatelom bezpieczeństwo. (…) Wszystkim obywatelom Rzeczpospolita jest winna jednakową ochronę.
Polacy i Żydzi na tych ziemiach to tysiącletnia tradycja współżycia dwóch narodów, kultur, często małżeństw, pokrewieństwa, przyjaźni, znajomości. 1000 lat wspólnej historii i trwania razem - w Polin, ziemi przyjaznej żydowskiemu narodowi. (…) 1000 lat historii, w której Polacy, polscy obywatele narodowości żydowskiej stawali w obronie Rzeczypospolitej: w postaniach, wojnach 1920 i 1939 roku, całej II wojnie światowej. Na różnych frontach: zachodnim i wschodnim, w Polskim Wojsku. W kampanii wrześniowej, w Powstaniu Warszawskim. Wszędzie tam byli, ramię w ramię walczono za wolność Polski. Razem przelewano krew.
Chcę z całą mocą podkreślić - ci, którzy tej zbrodni dokonali, przez ten czyn wykluczyli się z naszego społeczeństwa, z Rzeczypospolitej przyjaciół. Bo jak oni chcieliby spojrzeć w oczy tym wszystkim Polakom narodowości żydowskiej, którzy zginęli za naszą wolność? Przez tyle lat… Jak chcieliby spojrzeć w oczy rodzinie Ulmów i tym, którzy w II wojnie światowej, ratując Żydów, oddali swoje życie, ryzykowali często, cierpieli. Jak chcieliby spojrzeć w oczy uczciwym polskim obywatelom? Uczciwym ludziom? Nie mogą spojrzeć w oczy, bo takie zachowanie, jak było wtedy, nigdy nie znajdowało i nigdy nie znajdzie akceptacji.
Rzeczpospolita takich ludzi wyklucza - nie ma dla nich miejsca w naszym wspólnym państwie, w naszej wielkiej wspólnocie polskich obywateli. Jeszcze raz składam hołd wszystkim tym, którzy zginęli. Dziękuję tym, którzy na przestrzeni dziesięcioleci budowali i budują dobre relacje między narodami - polskim i żydowskim, którzy kultywują pamięć i pokazują piękną historię. (…) Dziękuję tym, którzy przyczynili się do powstania muzeum Polin w Warszawie. Wspomnę pana prezydenta prof. Lecha Kaczyńskiego, wielkiego orędownika polsko-żydowskiej przyjaźni i współistnienia, wielkiego orędownika Rzeczypospolitej przyjaciół.
Chciałbym, by to muzeum - obok Muzeum Powstania Warszawskiego - stało się w Warszawie stałym punktem szkolnych wycieczek. Żeby młodzież odwiedzała to muzeum. By budować świadomość tego wielosetletniego współżycia, świadomość istnienia Rzeczypospolitej Przyjaciół. Dziękuję tym, którzy przyczynili się do budowy muzeum Polaków Ratujących Żydów. Mamy najwięcej drzewek w Yad Vashem - dziesiątki tysięcy Polaków pomagali w czasie wojny Żydom. Dziękuję za ich upamiętnianie, bo to ważny element historii. Dbajmy o to, co było ważne, co było piękne, ale i o to, co było trudne. By pamięć nie zginęła, by na tym, co trudne budować wnioski i jak najlepsze relacje współżycia i przyjaźni. By nigdy nie dopuszczać do wrogości bezpodstawnej, pustej i prymitywnej. Dziękuję bardzo.
Prime Minster,
Minister,Your Excellency, Madam Ambassador,Your Excellency, Ambassador,Your Excellency, Chief Rabbi of Poland,Minister,President,All Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,Madame Voivode,Honourable Deputies,Senators,Distinguished Guests,Dear assembled inhabitants of Kielce,
I am here today to pay tribute on behalf of the Republic of Poland, of our home country, to those murdered on July 4th, 1946, seventy 70 years ago. A moment ago have I visited the local Jewish cemetery to bow my head and to reflect and to pray before the mass grave of those who perished here.
One could say they were young people, reaching on average their 25th - 30th year of age; so there were young people and, most importantly, something that I want to emphasize very strongly: there were citizens of Republic of Poland of Jewish descent, the people who often almost by miracle survived the Gehenna of the Holocaust, many a time seeing with their own eyes the demise of their nearest. I am here to emphasize that independent, sovereign, free Poland pays tribute to its citizens. For Poland is a country of freedom and mutual respect. Poland is a country featuring good coexistence of all citizens, regardless of their nationality, religion or language.
Therefore, in a free, sovereign and independent Poland, there is no room for any prejudice: no room for racism, xenophobia, there is no room for anti-Semitism. Such behaviour, even in its smallest manifestation, must be in Poland decidedly stigmatized, since only under such a condition will Poland be a genuinely free country in the eyes of all its citizens.
I am here today since the tragedy of the Kielce pogrom seventy years ago, has two dimensions to it: a state dimension and a social one. It unfolded after World War 2, after the atrocious experience of the Holocaust. It happened in a country which had its new power installed in it: the communist regime. In a state where in World War 2, the authorities of the Underground Poland punished all informants, all szmalcowniks, and all other people who showed no mutual solidarity: a citizen towards another citizen, the people who showed no solidarity in opposing their common enemy: the fascist Germany and Hitler's occupiers on Polish soil. The underground authorities ordered everyone to come to aid to Polish citizens of Jewish nationality whom the Germans wanted to eradicate completely under their plan to entirely destroy this nation.
It was the Polish Underground authorities that created “Żegota”, the Council to Aid Jews, who rescued thousands of humans beings, including children. It was the Polish Underground authorities and the Polish government in exile who kept informing the global powers about the developments on Polish territory occupied by the Germans: that Jewish people are annihilated, that there are annihilation camps in place where every day people are murdered on a mass scale. This tragedy here happened when the Communist regime came in, also to destroy the Polish Underground State and all people who wanted to oppose the regime. Why I am saying all this? The reason is that it is the state authorities: the military, the people's police, the Office for the Public Security on that day behaved in a shocking, not to say beastly manner. It was the military and the people's police that were first to open fire here, and many of the victims fallen here died from bullets. Instead of helping and protecting Polish citizens, our compatriots, the military and the people's police not only failed to afford any protection but even engaged in an upfront attack and then left the scene with the Security Office not stepping into action for many hours. It was only in the evening when they turned up to defend. However, this is also a social problem; involving more than complicity of the military of the policemen who were staging the attack here. Also ordinary people were involved in the attack... I leave it down to historians and sociologists to determine how it happened and why it happened, why people reacted in this particular way. However, there is one thing to be strongly underlined: there is no justification whatsoever to the crime of anti-Semitism. There is no and there never will be! There is no justification to a situation when a man raises his hand to strike another: defenceless, innocent. It can never happen in law-abiding state. Today Poland is a law-abiding state, the state which wants to give security to all of its citizens, no matter what their home or class, no matter in what faith they were raised or if raised without faith, no matter what tongue they close to their hearts; since we are all Polish citizens. The Republic of Poland owes equal protection to all of its citizens.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Poles and Jews on this soil represent a millennium tradition of co-existence of two nations, two cultures, often intermarriages, kinship, friendship, acquaintance. A millennium of shared history and being together in Polin, the land friendly to the Jewish people. “Polin” - “rest here, this is a friendly place”. A millennium of history in which the Poles, the Polish citizens of Jewish nationality, were standing up to defend the Republic of Poland: in uprisings, in the wars of 1920 and 1939, and all across World War 2: on various fronts, the Western and Eastern, fighting in the Polish army, in the September's defensive war and in the Warsaw Rising. In all of those places, they stood arm in arm, fighting for Poland's freedom. They shed blood together.
I wish to emphasize it with all my might: the people who perpetrated this crime here on July 4th, by doing so have excluded themselves from the our society, no longer being part of the Commonwealth of friends. How could they ever look in the eyes of all those Poles of Jewish nationality who died for our freedom? For so many centuries, for whole decades. How could they ever look in the eyes of the Ulms family or all of them who sacrificed their lives coming to aid Jews, or who incurred such risk or suffered? How could they ever look in the eyes of honest Polish citizens? Honest people? They cannot look them in the eyes because such a conduct as exemplified back then, was never approved, and – as I trust – will never be approved.
The Republic of Poland bans such people, there is no room for them in our common state, in our great community of Polish citizens.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Once again do I pay homage to all of them who perished here. I wish to pay homage and to acknowledge all of them who over decades have been building and continue to build good relations between the Polish and the Jewish people, who uphold the memory and manifest how beautiful albeit difficult the history of the Commonwealth of friends has been. I want to thank all of them who contributed to establishing the beautiful Polin Musem in Warsaw. A this point, I wish to recall President Professor Lech Kaczynski, the great advocate of Polish-Jewish friendship and co-existence, a great patron of the Commonwealth of friends, one of those who made the Polin Museum project come true.
I would like to make sure that this Museum, next to the Warsaw Rising Museum, would permanently feature on itineraries of school trips. To make sure that young people visit this Museum. In order to promote the awareness of this good centuries' old coexistence, the awareness of Commonwealth of friends which used to be.
I also wish to thank all of them who contributed to the project of building the Museum of Poles who Saved Jews. From all nations of the world we have the highest number of trees planted in the Yad Vashem Institute testifying to thousands, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of Poles who helped Jews during the war to smaller or greater extent, who helped their compatriots. I am grateful for the effort to commemorate them since this is also an important feature of our history. Let us take care and preserve what was significant, beautiful but equally of what was difficult those days, so that the memory does not perish. So that also the difficult moments serve us as material to build on and draw conclusions from, and to develop possibly best relations of friendship and good coexistence. But, most importantly, never condoning enmity: groundless, empty and primitive. Thank you very much.
submitted by Gazetawarszawska to u/Gazetawarszawska [link] [comments]

2019.07.01 12:53 KelloPudgerro [Anime Spoilers] My dumb speculations about how AoT will end.

With the basement reveal it showed us that the outside world is way bigger than we thought, and that titan people are treated similar to jews , except this time jews actually have magical powers and that the opressor seems to have similar technology to ww1 era germany. So i think its safe to assume that we will learn that the world is even bigger, with ''orientials'' having their own country somewhere same with Ymir's people since it was mentioned that her town was far away and destroyed. Now we know that there are 9 shifter titans and we know of potentially 8, so im guessing the 9th will be a titan under marley control, it might even be their dictator that potentially has the ability to either control or manipulate humans like the kings titan could control titans.
With all that in mind, we might see a bunch of scouts alongside eren try to infiltrate marley town like reiner and berthold did with the wall. Now, one thing that were missing is the information about how nation completely won and opressed a nation of giant titans with at least a few shifter titans with only conventional weapons, i think this is gonna be revealed that titans are some sort of human created disease or mutation or something rather than magical gift from a devil . Maybe marley has some way to manipulate that to allowed em to oppress a vast nation and bring em to near genocide. We probably will get a straight up war and its clear that by the end alot of people will die, and eren probably will be one of the few suvivors of the war. Despite ''winning'' i dont think that this will be a happy ending, im expecting eren to survive to live with the consequences of near everybody he knew dying to earn the ''freedom'' that he was destined to fight for and finally achieve only to know nothing but despair after achieving his multiple-lifetime goal.
Shocking reveals that we will see: shooting squads as shown in preview, i think we will get a theme of ''repeating cycle'' with Owl losing his family to what im expecting to be marley controlled titans attacking his town and killing his family, having similar fate and life as eren, historia wont have a good time, i dont know what will happen to her but im expecting the worst. Armin will prove himself with leadership and tactics at the cost of his life, i think we will see nazi-style gas chambers and mass graves, maybe even mikasa or historia will get captured and tortured. The biggest reveal will probably be that nobody is a good guy, we all are bad people who justify evil acts for what we perceive as good. At the very end im expecting a 4th wall breaking monolog of eren about something. In season 3 we had the dialog with gross talking atop the 4th wall about how he enjoys watching titans eat and kill people for his entertainment while looking at the camera, something similar will end the series.
Please no spoilers manga readers, im writing this in my half-assed way to capture my thoughts and speculations right after the s3 end. I wanna read this in 2 years and laugh how wrong i was.
submitted by KelloPudgerro to ShingekiNoKyojin [link] [comments]

2019.06.17 17:28 Ouralian The Genre Shift is really going to be a "love it or hate it" thing.

With the anime finally revealing the secrets of the basement, I believe it's the perfect time to discuss about this.
While I was weirded out with how Attack on Titan shifted from a mysterious zombie apocalyse story to a human-vs-human "Game of Thrones" like story filled with political intrigue, I gradually liked the new tone in the story.
However, others aren't too keen with how Isayama (in their opinion) "ran out of ideas". Here'a some comments that properly expresses their feelings about it.
The biggest example of this to me is still AoT since it managed to an entire genre shift. It went from basically a story about a zombie apocalypse set in medieval times to WWII-style GoT fanfic. It's utterly baffling, and the only explanation I have for it is that Isayama wanted to write an entirely new a story, but couldn't since AoT wasn't finished so he just decided to cram the two together, and the resulting trainwreck is what we got. I'll never fucking forgive that cunt for that. He started watching Game of Thrones and then was like, "ME WANT" and just did that. I don't think its an exaggeration that the manga lost basically half its audience after he made the switch and the basement was revealed. I seriously think the only thing that actually saved the manga was the Anime, and the Anime is basically relying on the first part that everyone loved, I have a feeling its going to crash. And crash fucking hard. The only people I see really left are shippers (oh my fucking christ, the shippers in that community), people who think he's a secret genius and fanboys who don't even think, just consume.
The funny thing is, fanboys are like "OH GOD, WAIT TILL THE ANIME SEES THE BASEMENT REVEAL LOL" and I'm like, "You mean when he upsets everyone for making his universe a worse game of thrones and loses half his audience because he basically threw out what they loved? And then he does a time-skip because he shifted the entire genre and had no fucking idea what he was doing and has been winging it ever since, and character motivations haven't made sense for years with 0 revelation because Isayama doesn't actually know what he's doing?" I'm really going to love when the brigade rides out to defend that fucking shit show.
I mean, for non-anime people, I really feel like I have to explain how really jarring this was. Attack on Titan was this post-apocalypse setting where the remnants of humanity were set up in these huge walls, surrounded by gigantic titans, monsters that would just eat people. Then you gradually learn there are sentient titans, humans that can control these monsters. So there's this big mystery, the primary genre is the horror of people fighting these things. The answers are held in the protagonist's basement. For which there's this huge charge, a major sacrifice, huge character deaths to get to.
Then it turns out that no, humanity is thriving and just fine, and the island is just a World War 2 concentration camp (figuratively) because the world hates the Jews people on this island and they're there for punishment. They just have a deus ex machina magic titan that uses the MIB mind eraser on the entire population of this island to forget the existence of the rest of the world to make an excuse as to 'why don't they know the world exists'.
Then there's a whole bunch of bullshit nonsense with royal families and bloodlines and shit and eventually most of the 'fighting these horrifying titans' are replaced with some stupid fucking world political machinations and its just fucking nauseatingly bad, where Isayama did a major timeskip after this revelation and basically the protagonist's motivations have made absolutely no sense since then, because he clearly doesn't know what the fuck he's doing. Fuck even the major ANTAGONIST'S actions make no sense at all. Even WITH what he revealed.
Despite the rather harsh tone and virtrolic hate, I do understand why they reacted like this. The shift really was that adrupt and I'm none too happy with some of Isayama's decisions (Annie still in the crystal, Sasha's death and him being delibrately vague about Eren and Historia's true motivations.)
With the anime finally reaching the Marley Arc, I expect more division and comments similae to the above.
What's your opinion on the Genre Shift?
submitted by Ouralian to titanfolk [link] [comments]

2019.06.14 21:11 JustToLurkArt Timeline of events in Paul's ministry

33 AD – Jerusalem: Pontius Pilate, Roman prefect of Judea, has Jesus crucified.
Plaque fragment inscription at Caesarea Maritima reads, “Pontius Pilatus, Prefect of Judea, has dedicated to the people of Caesarea a temple in honor of Tiberius”) matches the biblical record of Pontius Pilate ruling as governor of Judea from 26 to 36 AD.
First century Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus correlates Pontius Pilate and Christ: “Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus…” – Annales, Historiae, Cornelius Tacitus.
Following Jesus’ post-resurrection instructions disciple begin ministry to, “make disciples of all nations” (e.g. The Great Commission to). The movement quickly spreads to neighboring Diaspora and Gentile communities.
James appointed leader in the home Church of Jerusalem. "For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem." Eusebius quoting Clement, Church History, Book II, Chp 1.2
Believing Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, Jesus followers aka the Way (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22) continue as a messianic sect within Judaism; these continue to go to synagogue, worship and follow Mosaic Law and Temple traditions. They observed Jewish holy days, circumcise and follow kosher dietary laws. James, Peter, John, and other leaders of the sect continue as a group of presbyters acting somewhat like Judean presbyter elders of the Jewish synagogues.
Stephen (Acts 6-7): Hellenistic Jew (Greek) speaks publically against the Pharisees preaching they were: stiff-necked, had uncircumcised hearts and that they killed the Righteous One. Jewish leaders become enraged after Stephen shares a vision of seeing Jesus at the right hand of God. Saul witnesses Stephen’s execution and begins mission to persecute and/or murder the followers of the Way going house to house and dragging them to prison.
Saul shares murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples; asks for letters to be sent to the synagogues at Damascus “so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.” (Acts 9:1-2)
On the way to Damascus “suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him.” Saul hears Jesus’ voice instructing him to go to the house of Judas in Damascus. Ananias is instructed by Jesus in a vision to restore Saul’s sight there. After several days, Saul is in the Damascus synagogues preaching Jesus as the Son of God. Ironically now the Jews belonging to Judah were plotting to kill Saul.
35/37AD – Saul to Jerusalem 3 years after his conversion (Acts 9:26-30,Gal.1:18-24); visits apostles and stays with them in Jerusalem. Meets Cephas and James (brother of Jesus); PeteJames satisfied that Paul’s gospel was a revelation of the resurrected Jesus Christ. Paul sent away after only 15 days to avoid capture. Paul to Caesarea, Syria and Cilicia.
38/40 – Anti Jewish riots in Alexandria. Jews were accused of not honoring the emperor; the Jews were angered by the erection of a clay altar and destroyed it. In response, Caligula orders the erection of a statue of himself in the Jewish Temple of Jerusalem.
41 AD – Agrippa I, ruler of Galilee assumes control of Judea; executes James (son of Zebedee). Peter imprisoned, escapes.
45-46AD – Barnabus to Tarsus, brings Saul to Antioch and they one year; disciples first called Christians at Antioch. Most likely a derogatory term used by Romans and some Jerusalem Jews.
Paul to Jerusalem (Acts 11:28-30): delivers collected donations from Antioch believers to Jerusalem believers; stays short time then back to Antioch.
47-48AD – Paul’s 1st Missionary Journey; 6-9 months then back to Antioch. People from Judea travelled to Antioch teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” Paul/Barnabus dispute and debate them
49/50AD – Paul and Barnabus appointed to go to Jerusalem to settle the Gentile/circumcision matter with the apostles and elders.
49/50AD – Jerusalem Council (Acts 15): believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees speak saying, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the Law of Moses.” Peter speaks next, then Paul and Barnabus speak and James makes the final judgment on the matter: “we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.” Basically Gentiles are only held to the Noahide Law.
49/51AD – Paul begins 2nd Missionary Journey Acts 15-17
51AD – Paul brought before Gallio (Acts 18:12-18) then released.
52AD – Paul takes a vow and has his head shaved. He, Priscilla and Aquila travel to Ephesus; he leaves them for the next missionary journey hoping to be in Jerusalem for the Feast (Acts 18:18 - 21).
53-57AD – Paul 3rd Missionary Journey (Acts 18-21) to include Paul’s final trip to Jerusalem (Romans 15:25-28, 1 Corinthians 16:1-4, Acts 21:15-18.) carries another collection of donations to Jerusalem for the needy saints.
57-58AD – Stays with Philip a few days in Caesarea; leaves to visit James in Jerusalem. Paul’s presence at the temple causes a riot and he’s savagely beaten. The mob disperses when Roman soldiers arrive. Paul promptly arrested and imprisoned 2 years at Caesarea (Acts 21:17-26:32); transferred to Rome but shipwrecked. Travels to Rome by road (Acts 28:12-16.)
60-63AD – Paul under house arrest in Rome. Paul before Roman authorities; charges dropped and he is set free.
62 AD – High Priest Ananus charges James (brother of Jesus) of transgressing the Law; James executed in Jerusalem.
64 AD – Great Fire of Rome burns for 6 days; 10 of Rome’s 14 districts were burned due to thousands living in slums filled with poorly constructed wooden apartment buildings. Not wanting to be blamed, Nero blames Christians who are already unpopular for rejecting Roman pagan society. Soon after it becomes a crime to bear the name "Christian" (About twenty years had elapsed since the name arose in Antioch) and the suppression of the church becomes state policy.
Tacitus (senator and historian of the Roman Empire) was 8 years old at the time of the fire, but used public records and reports to write an accurate account. He includes passages detailing the who, what, when and where of Jesus’ execution and records that after the fire Christians: “… were covered with wild beasts' skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night. Nero had offered his Gardens for the spectacle, and gave an exhibition in his Circus, mixing with the crowd in the habit of a charioteer, or mounted on his car.” Annals, 15.44 (Note: see responses regarding claims of interpolations in Tacitus.)
64AD – Peter’s possible martyrdom under Nero.
67AD – Paul imprisoned again in Rome; writes letter to his closest friend Timothy.
68AD – Paul’s death; traditionally beheaded.
66-73AD – The Great Revolt (Judea/Galilee revolt against Rome.)
The Roman Empire retaliates from the Jewish Revolts with a vengeance and begins a systematic campaign to obliterate Jewish Jerusalem. Rome barricades Jerusalem, famine ensues and Jerusalem falls. Titus orders Jerusalem razed, slaughters thousands, ransacks the Temple artifacts and destroys the Temple. The Jews scatter (diaspora), the Levitical priesthood ceases, the Sadducees (Temple sect) vanish and sacrifices come to an immediate halt. Qumran falls and the Zealots are crushed at Masada (73AD.)
73 AD – Masada destroyed ending the revolt. After the Jewish Revolts and the destruction of the Temple, Pharisaic Judaism goes into exile and evolves into Rabbinic Judaism; the Jesus movement shifts to predominately Gentile Antioch, Alexandria and Rome each having it’s own bishop/presbyters/elders.
70-90AD + The Gospel of Mark is first in final form first, then Matthew and Luke with John being the last Gospel in final form. At this point in history the separation between Judaism and Christianity is complete.
Paul’s letters were copied and circulated very early and were the first texts of the New Testament in written form. We know Peter recognized Paul’s letters as Scripture. He cited Paul's letters (a major part of the NT canon), which some were twisting "as they do the rest of the Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15,16) implying there were already somewhat of a proto canon. We know of a reference to a “book” and “parchments” in 2 Tim 4:13, which may specifically designate a notebook or perhaps a collection. We know Paul’s later dated letters to Romans, Corinthians and Philippians document creedal summaries of the earliest followers of the Way, that: Christ died for sins, was buried, was raised on the third day, appeared to Cephas, then the twelve. These Pre-Pauline Creeds date from as early as 35-40 C.E.
submitted by JustToLurkArt to TrueChristian [link] [comments]

2019.03.09 17:02 BB8ball Three Houses Theory pt 5b: The Nations of Fódlan—The Holy Kingdom of Faerghus

The previous post delved into the symbology of the Adrestian Empire's heraldry and name; we saw links to concepts such as war, retribution, and references to three famed empires (Roman, Holy Roman, and Russian) in Europe's history. Now, we turn to Fódlan's most northerly country.
The Holy Kingdom of Faerghus lies in Fódlan's frigid north. Its flag is blue with two silver stripes running parallel to each other at its edges, with a silver image of a sword-wielding knight, cape gallantly spread behind them, astride a griffin. In heraldic terminology, it would be described as argent on a pallet azure, a griffon argent statant thereon a man in complete armour with sword proper.
(I am, again, saving the goddess crest on the flag for another post)
This tells us a few things: pales in heraldic terminology (the diminutive form is a pallet) derive from the wooden stakes used in building palisades, symbolising "martial strength and fortitude (DK);" the knight refers to not just military power, but chivalric order and status that goes beyond a mere foot soldier; the griffin in pose statant says the beast is ready for battle. Argent usually refers to silver, but in heraldry is interchangeable with white. Both colours are symbols of chastity, purity, wisdom, and the moon. Blue is associated with wisdom, calm, sadness, the sky, divinity, and water. It is important in religions such as Judaism (blue is a "godly colour" that represents the sky and God, hence why the Israeli flag and Jewish tallit have blue stripes. Source: am Jewish), Hinduism (many deities are depicted with blue skin), and Christianity (the Virgin Mary wears a blue robe).
The griffin is an interesting creature. Combining features of the eagle ("king of the skies") and the lion ("king of the beasts"), this mythical animal was considered the best of both worlds, with its fierce, predatory characteristics. It was thought of as a solar icon, a strong, protective beast who did battle against evil. The very first images of the griffin originated in the Middle East (appearing in the Mesopotamian pantheon, Achaemenid and Urartian art, among others; recall also the iconic griffin statues of Persepolis), and from there its image spread to the Caucasus and Egypt, and from there to Minoan Crete and Greece. The Greeks had a peculiar view of griffins as Indian or Hyperborean creatures protecting hoards of gold from a Scythian tribe known as the Arimaspians:
But in the north of Europe there is by far the most gold. In this matter again I cannot say with assurance how the gold is produced, but it is said that one-eyed men called Arimaspoi (Arimaspians) steal it from Grypes (Griffins). The most outlying lands, though, as they enclose and wholly surround all the rest of the world, are likely to have those things which we think the finest and the rarest. (Herodotus)
Griffins were quickly linked to the Greek pantheon. Griffin icons were said to have been set up in a temple dedicated to Hera; as the mounts of Artemis and especially her brother Apollo; and as the beasts of burden who pulled the chariot of Nemesis:
She [Nemesis] had harnessed racing Grypes (Griffins) under her bridle; quick through the air she coursed in the swift car, until she tightened the curving bits of her fourfooted birds, and drew up on the peak of Sipylos in front of the face of Tantalos' daughter [Niobe] with eyeballs of stone. (Nonnus)
Nemesis has been mentioned in the previous post as a namesake of the Adrestian Empire.
From Ancient Greece the griffin crossed to Christian Europe. Griffin talons were said to have powerful medicinal properties, and so "talons" (antelope horns) imported from the Holy Land and fashioned into drinking goblets to protect against poisonings were popular, much like how narwhal teeth were sold as "unicorn horns." The griffin was favoured mostly by the Italians, and the most famous example of a griffin in European heraldry is on the flag of the Republic of Genoa, a maritime merchant city-state that boasted one of the most powerful navies of its time.
(Today Genoese griffins can still be seen on the shield of Genoa's football club, Genoa CFC)
We now turn our sights on the knight. Knights weren't simply soldiers: they were men who dedicated themselves to a rigorous code of loyalty to their lords, martial prowess, and defense of the Christian faith. Their efforts rewarded them with a title of nobility and landed holdings. Though they employed their services in exchange for payment, they can't be called mercenaries because payment was an expected perk, and not the point of the job—knights already came from affluent classes (rich enough to support horses, indispensable to any knight) and the purpose of knighthood was for a man to give himself away in vassalage to the church and lord. Additional prestige and wealth were perks. The most famous knights of all come from Arthurian mythos and recount the stories of legendary figures of King Arthur's court in the search for the Holy Grail and other such challenges. The modern image of the knight is highly romanticised: a gallant, brave man riding out to protect his kingdom and the weak, noble in mind and bearing, and often pining away for the love of a beautiful woman, especially a princess (popularised by Arthurian stories such as Guinevere and Lancelot).
Today, many countries still retain the granting of knighthood titles, though they are mostly reserved for those who have contributed special achievements in fields such as the humanities. Notable examples include Katsuhiro Otomo being named a Chevalier of the French Ordre des Arts et des Lettres for Akira, and Pelé receiving an honourary Knighthood of the British Empire for being Pelé.
The Holy Kingdom of Faerghus reinforces this ideal of piety in its name. Its ruling class is described as a royal family supported by knights. The headquarters of the western branch of the Church of Seiros is found in the border it shares with Adrestia. It tells us that it highly values religion and the Church, enough to create a class of knights in service to them; perhaps valuing them in a more obvious manner than its neighbours.
But the romantic conception of knighthood and chivalry hides a darker reality. They often served as a glorified thug class protecting the interests of the church and nobility, and different orders of knighthood were quarrelsome and uncooperative towards one another. The chivalric ideal of a noble warrior defending women also dims in light of the fact that, as men, abuses they committed against women were not entirely seen as bad:
[Chrétien de Troyes'] code of knightly honour maintained that a knight cannot rape a woman travelling alone, but a knight who fights and defeats a woman's male escort 'would be able to have his will of her without incurring any shame or reproach'. (Dunn)
(Surprisingly, simply telling bad people "don't be bad people" is not going to stop them from being bad people)
Perhaps the worst aspect of knights comes from their contributions in the Crusades. With Europe's Christian zeal to dominate the Holy Land and retake it from its Muslim rulers (as well as their vast material riches), knights, used as shock troops, help cut a bloody swathe as they pushed through to Jerusalem: the Sack of Constantinople, the Siege of Jerusalem, and the brutal slaughter of thousands of Muslims, Jews and other Christians in their lust for plunder and violence does not speak of a noble and chivalrous character at all.
(It comes as no surprise, then, that figures of the alt-right and avowed fascists often invoke the image of a crusader-knight crying out deus vult!)
But what about the rest of the kingdom's name? Faerghus is derived from the Gaelic name Fergus, meaning "the wrathful one" or "virility." It's a popular name that has been seen across many legendary figures such as Fergus I, the "first king of Scotland"; Fergus Dubdétach and Fergus Fortamail, High Kings of Ireland; Fergus mac Léti, a High King of Ulster and wielder of the legendary sword Caladbolg.
The most famous mythological Fergus of all, and the one the Fire Emblem wiki chose to mention in its entry on the Holy Kingdom, is Fergus mac Róich, King of Ulster, and an important character in the Irish Ulster Cycle.
Fergus' story starts with the death of his predecessor, Eochaid Sálbuide. He desired Eochaid's daughter Ness for himself. Ness would only marry him if he gave his kingship to her son Conchobar for a year, and Fergus agreed, assured by his councilors that the boy would only be king in name. But Conchobar, coached by his mother, proved to be a cunning flatterer skilled at gift-giving and compliments, and the year kept getting extended for so long until he became a grown man and the Ulstermen preferred him as their king instead of Fergus. Fergus, curiously, didn't seem too bothered by this and stayed as Conchobar's retainer. He even became a foster-father to Conchobar's nephew Cú Chulainn and Conchobar's son (by his own mother Nessa) Cormac.
The peace was not to last. Conchobar's betrothed, Deirdre (the inspiration behind Fire Emblem's Deirdre), fell in love with a warrior named Naoise. The two eloped and escaped to Scotland along with his brothers, and Conchobar, thirsty for vengeance, sent Fergus and his sons after them under the guise of needing their help to defend Ulster. Deirdre's repeated warnings of a trap went ignored. On the way back, they were delayed by a feast hosted by Conchobar's ally Borrach, who played on the rudeness of denying offered hospitality. To keep Fergus quiet, Borrach placed a geas on him. Forced to stay behind with Borrach, Fergus sent his sons off under the impression that they would protect Deirdre and Naoise. But the party was attacked in their lodgings by Conchobar's men, with Deirdre forcibly sent back to Ulster, and one of Fergus' sons and Naoise and his brothers murdered. Outraged that his promise of protection was so grossly violated, Fergus turned his back on Conchobar; he exiled himself from Ulster and decided to fight for Conchobar's enemy Queen Medb.
(Of added note, the Ulster Cycle keeps telling stories of Fergus' incredibly horniness. He took on many lovers, one of them being Queen Medb, said to be equally insatiable. Fergus died when Medb's jealous husband Ailil mac Máta saw them having sex in a river. Ailil told his blind brother Lugaid that a pair of deer were mating in the river, meaning easy prey, and Lugaid's spear went through Fergus and killed him)
The Holy Kingdom's capital is named Blaiddyd, lending itself to the royal family's surname of Bladud ("wolf lord"). Bladud was a legendary king of Britain famed for his great intellect. His father sent him to study at Athens, and upon his return, Bladud founded a university in Stamford as well as the city of Bath. The myth of Bladud was an entry in The History of the Kings of Britain, a mythical account of the lineage of British kings written by Geoffrey of Monmouth linking them to Brutus of Troy (a son of Aeneas, thus connecting British royalty to the Romans). His writings, though historically unreliable and often based on wholesale fiction, helped popularise Arthurian mythos.
In any case, the story of Bladud is highly fantastical. In Bath he was said to have dedicated a temple to Minerva, patroness of knowledge, and kept it alight with eternally burning fires. He was renowned as a wise magician, enthusiastic necromancer, and the creator of a spear belonging to the warrior-nymph Britomartis.
The waters of Bath were said to have healing properties. This detail was embellished further by later writers, who claimed that Bladud was a leper whose illness meant banishment from his father's court, and so became a swineherd who wandered the country with his pigs. The animals became afflicted with leprosy, until they came upon a warm spring of mud that soothed their skin and healed their sores. Bladud himself was cured by the spring, established the baths there, and returned triumphantly to his father's court to reclaim his birthright.
However, Bladud was also a cloudcuckoolander who had grand ideas of fashioning himself a flying device much like Daedalus and Icarus. And like ill-fated Icarus, he died, as he was "dashed to pieces" when he fell onto the Temple of Apollo in the city of Trinovantum (London).
There are a myriad of references to several topics found by analysing the imagery and the name of the Holy Kingdom of Faerghus: the protective iconography of the griffin, the chivalry of knighthood, the fierce prowess of the warrior-king Fergus, and the magic of King Bladud. Like Adrestia before them, Faerghus also hides darker, more negative characteristics: the violence of knighthood; the tragedy of Fergus' betrayal and his subsequent failure to protect his charges; Bladud's imagination leading to his demise. More death, more pain, more destruction.
What does this say about the Holy Kingdom? Perhaps it gives us clues that the country's religious fervour will play a part in the destabilisation of Fódlan. Aided by their knights, they may wish to seize control of the Church (or at least persuade it to side with them) and crests and run things as they see fit. Perhaps the rest of Fódlan is not as pious as they would like.
Maybe their zeal will prove to be their undoing…or someone plans to betray them in the future.
The latter is especially troubling given the very direct link Faerghus' names have to its neighbour Leicester.
submitted by BB8ball to fireemblem [link] [comments]

2018.10.25 19:01 vgubaidulin [MANGA SPOILERS] Royal Bloodline

I believe that there will be explanation as to why royal bloodline is special science-wise and why Eldians, allegedly, the only Nation who can turn into titans. Here is what we know:
1) Founding titan full-power can only be used by a royal bloodline.
2) Royal Founding titan is 'cursed' to be a pacifist. We have evidence that both Uri and Frieda were changed after becoming FT. We do not know if that's because of memories of FT or something else. Both Eren and Grischa stayed more or less the same.
3) Royal bloodline supposedly existed for a long time and they are still special.
3) Eldians might be special too. We have only seen Eldians transform into Titans. It is not known for sure if other nations can or cannot transform after spinal fluid injection.
4) Reiner is a half-Eldian half-Marley, since his mother was likely raped. So we know that it is possible for half Eldian to be a titan. Also, I would assume it was not the only case of rape and a child with no father. It is likely there are many Reiners out there.
5) It does not matter are you male are female you are still eldian and can become a titan. Same holds for royal bloodline both men and women were capable of being the Founding titan.
6) Every Ackerman indendent of origin was also somehow special and was triggered by some violent experience in life.
7) Whole Ragako village was turned into titans with no problem.
8) Tybur family has no contact with other Marleyans and they still hold there titan transforming ability. They might be doing incest(given how many children they have and how huge is there family. They might be doing that to avoid negative effects of incest), otherwise there only option is to have sex with Marleyans. Incest is not healthy, so let's assume they are interbreeding with Marleyans.
Let's try to look on these two problems from basic genetics perspective. Assuming, author will not invent his own genetics.
First, Eldians and Titan transformation possibility.
Let 'N' denote a non titan allee, 'T' denote gene responsible for ability to transform into a titan after injection. Then we have 4 basic combinations for any person: TT, NT, TN, and NN with middle two being essentially the same. TT will always be a titan, NN will never be a titan and TN or NT will be a titan depending on which of the genes are dominant. If T is a recessive gene, it will be supressed but NT's kids might be TT and be fully susceptible to being titan.
Since whole of Ragako was turned into titans, it is pretty accurate to assume that T is not a recessive trait and, moreover, if Ragako was a fair mix of TT, NT and TN we will have some people with NN genes (children of NT and TN parents). So, all people in Ragako must be TT, pure blood titans. And likely, by extension whole of Paradies and Marley ghetto are Titans as well.
Because Reiner is able to become a Titan we can draw more conclusions. If T is a recessive gene, his Mother can only be TT and father could be either TN or NT. Then and only then Reiner can inherit T from each one of his parents. That means that his father had a recessive titan gene. So, Marley people children could be children of a NT and NT parent, meaning that a Marley child could also have a TT gene. In this case it is definitive that Marley people can turn into Titans as well! They just don't know about it, or don't want to do that because it is cruel. It is already implying that Marleyans can be titans too but let's look at Tybur family. There is no way they can retain recessive gene trait without incest.

The other case is that TT is a dominant gene. Than Mother can be TT, NT, TN and Marleyan father is only NN. In any case, Reiner is a mixblood and only has one T allee. This has implications mixed blood children. Here Comes the Tybur family. They exclusively had sex with Marleyans and they are still capable of holding War Hammer Titan. If they were mixed blood, then 25% of Tybur children will not be able to have a T allee, thus, they will not be able to transform into titans. Which implies that this cannot be true.

So, from this two we have a knowledge that for a fact that this does not work in Attack on titan. In the first case there would be Marleyans capable of having titan power and in the second case we can have Eldians with NN gene and no titan trait. So, here is my theory. We all know that the whole racism towards Eldians is an allegory towards WWII and discrimination of Jews. They even wear 'Eldian star' on their arms, this is like right in the eyes. Hitler and Nazis believed that some other nations, including Jews, are less human than they are, not as evolutionary developed. So, here we have Marleyan empire who think that Eldians are monster-titans, when in fact basic genetics points us towards a conclusion that Marleyans are no different. There is likely NO GENE responsible for titan transformation. I believe it is all bullshit and anyone can be transformed into a titan. We were shown that Reiner is halfblood for a reason, we were shown separated Tybur family and possibility of raping Eldian women for a reason. It makes sense for the narrative to show us that Nazi-Marleyans are wrong, just like the real Nazis were. There is no genetic, no fundemental difference between Eldians and Marleyans. The only differences are cultural, Eldians are not devils, we've seen both good and bad on both sides.

As for the Royal bloodline, I think I will do it later. Maybe they are keeping purity with incest, then both Zeke and Historia might not have any founding titan advantage over Eren. It would mean that Grischa essentially destroyed this possibility altogether.
submitted by vgubaidulin to ShingekiNoKyojin [link] [comments]

2018.10.06 17:00 ashofcinders ANDRES BERNALDEZ

Of the two men – Columbus and Colon – reports were made by the historian Andres Bernaldez.
Andres Bernaldez was born in Fuentes de Leon, Badjoz, around 1450. He was known as the priest of the Palacios, and was a Spanish Ecclessiast and Historian.
He was also known to be the Chaplain to Diego De Deza, who was the archbishop of Seville.
In the Historia De Los Ryes Catolicos, Don Fernando and Dona Isabel, there were collected important aspects of the Castile at the end of the 15th century.
These included the following:
The Granada War
The Expulsion of the Jews
And the vicissitudes of Christopher Columbus.
Andres remains are believed to be buried in the Parish of Santa Maria la Blanca of the Seville Town of Los Palacios y Villafranca, where he held his parish office. Within this Parish, his oldest parish books are believed to be preserved.
In conclusion, he wrote the following about the converts:
“And most of them were for the most part accomplished people of many arts and deceptions, because they all lived in easy jobs, and in buying and selling they were not aware of the Christians, to dig, nor to walk through the fields raising cattle, nor to teach them to their landlords, except for settlement trades, and to be settled, earning to eat with little work.”
submitted by ashofcinders to historyblogs [link] [comments]

2018.08.27 07:49 Gazetawarszawska Żydowskie pachołki Neon24.

Żydowskie pachołki Neon24.
Czyli przyspiesza polowanie na antysemitów.

W dniu 21.08.2018, w portalu doskonale tam znany i czytany blogger ksywa „Talbot” konsekrowany zawołaniem ”Talbot - Całym sercem strzeżmy dziedzictwa Narodu” zamieścił wpis – przedruk – szkalujący, oskarżający „Gazetę Warszawską” oraz Krzysztofa Cierpisza.
To w artykule:,antysemici-do-wynajecia
„Antysemici do wynajęcia”.
Wyżej wymienieni, są w tym wpisie oskarżeni nie tyle o krzywe poglądy czy szerzenie niewłaściwych myśli, ile o działalność agenturalną. Prawdopodobnie mają pracować albo dla Mossad`du albo dla Putina - lub może dla jednego i drugiego.
Kto próbuje wrabiać „Warszawską”? „Warszawska Gazeta” stała się obiektem takiej właśnie operacji bliżej nieznanych służb. Kilka lat temu powołano podszywającą się pod naszą gazetę stronę internetową „Gazeta Warszawska”. Zamieszcza ona absurdalne antysemickie teksty, które często miesza z treściami ukradzionymi z naszej gazety. W ten sposób próbuje uzasadniać oskarżenie naszego tygodnika o szerzenie antysemityzmu. Nie ma wątpliwości, że mamy do czynienia z profesjonalistami. Portal zmienia często miejsce rejestracji. Tylko w ostatnim czasie były to: Szwecja, Holandia i Kanada. „Firmuje” ów portal bliżej nieznany Krzysztof Cierpisz, rzekomo zamieszkujący Szwecję. Prawdę trudno ustalić, pozwu mu doręczyć nie sposób. Jego działalność jest bardzo na rękę wielu osobom, dla których stanowi potwierdzenie, że oskarżania Polaków o antysemityzm są zasadne. Posiłkując się tym obrzydliwym portalem, pomawiał nas o antysemityzm radny Jan Śpiewak z Warszawy i dziennikarz „Gazety Wyborczej” Bartosz Wieliński. Gdy dziennikarze i internauci zwrócili im uwagę, że posługują się stroną podszywającą się pod nasz tygodnik, to nie przeprosili za swoje pomówienia. Na dodatek gdy zapoczątkowaliśmy akcję „posprzątania internetu” z takich obrzydliwych treści, to nie poparli naszych działań. Dla nich, z oczywistych powodów, istnienie antysemickich gadzinówek podszywających się pod tych, z którymi się nie zgadzają, to przysłowiowa woda na młyn.,antysemici-do-wynajecia
Doraźnym źródłem tych oskarżeń o agenturę jest portal, a co utożsamiająco przedrukował tenże „narodowiec” Talbot. A NEON24 przepuścił tekst bez cenzury lub zesłania do Lochu, zaś, w dalszej kolejności - współblogerzy NEON24 zaakceptowali to świństwo jako im akceptowalne. Bo faktycznienie padł tam ani jeden głos sprzeciwu – niesmaku, to mimo tego, że mija już tydzień. A przecież publicyści na Neon24, powinni odżegnać się od tego rynsztoka i to głównie w obronie swojej własnej godności, a nie tam Gazety Warszawskiej czy jakiegoś tam Cierpisza.
Wszystkim wiadomo, jest bardzo dobrze wszystkim znana z tego, że zwalcza antysemityzm w świecie i w tym celu pisze nawet różne zawiadomienia do władz z donosami o zbrodniach antysemityzmu jak i też dopuszcza się gróźb karalnych pod adresem antysemitów. Tenże Portal – na przeróżne głosy i w różnych miejscach TT, FB – gorliwie odgraża się, że nie spocznie, dopóki antysemickie napaści i poglądy nie zostaną do końca wykorzenione i rzucone w ogień, i portal nie spocznie, i będzie z tym antysemickim plugastwem walczyć nie tylko w Polsce, ale i w całym świecie – aż do skutku.
Czyli jest to żydowska „Liga Przeciwko Zniesławieniu”, to takie ADL-polin, a w tym wszystkim rej wodzi Aldona Zaorska – prawnik, możliwe nawet, że to jakaś Luna Brystygierowa XXI wieku, taka internetowa Luna w wersji light.
Filosemicka gorliwość portalu jest rozwinięta i aktualizowana aż w takim stopniu, że portal ten uruchomił nawet te młode wilki bijące się o ratusz warszawski w nadchodzących wyborach, i kto wie czy sam naczelnik Daniels nie został poinformowany o tej sprawie. Pieniędzy to Danielsowi nie zapłaci, ale za te protekcje, zaproponuje temu „i am a proud jew” czyn społeczny przy zamiataniu polskich kierkutów uszlachetnianych na żydowskie kierkuty. To w końcu nic nowego, redakcja dokona czynu społecznego w duchu – narodowca Grzegorza Brauna, współpracownika portalu od dawana nawołującego do sprzątania kierkutów Redakcja, wysprząta pozamiata i cały teren kierkutu owinie sznurkami z proporczykami Żydaera, tak aby Polak wiedział, że wstęp jest wzbroniony.
Faktycznie pieniądze są bez znaczenia, a liczy się gorące serce.
Ale nie żartujmy zbytnio. Dzięki portalowi NEON24 - tu i teraz - antyantysemici zdobywają nowe rubieże - hańba!
I nie chodzi to o żaden strach przed tą żydowską nagonką, bo jak ktoś jest antysemitą z antysemityzmem nie tylko wyssanym z mlekiem matki, ale i szkołą ojca, to jest aż tak gruboskórny, że nic nie jest mu niewygodne.
Tu chodzi o to, że złamano święte zasady praw walki narodowej, które głoszą: Żaden żyd czy jego interes nigdy nie może być porównywalny z polskim prawami czy interesami. Polska, Polak zawsze nad żydem i żydostwem. Na płaszczyźnie społecznej, politycznej Polak ma zawsze rację, a żyd jest mu jedynie rzeczą.
Wynika to oczywiście z pierwotnych nauk Kościoła Świętego, dotyczących wszystkich chrześcijan bez wyjątku. Ale kwestia ta stała się – na płaszczyźnie prasy – dodatkowo bardzo specjalną w Polsce i istotną już okresie rozbiorowym w Polsce. Rozbiory bowiem nie były niczym innym jak planem budowy Judeopolonii na trupie Królestwa, a tzw. zaborcy byli jedynie listkiem figowym żydowskich benificjencji rozdarcia Polski. I w tamtej sytuacji kwestia polskiej prasy była i arcyważna, i dramatyczna, bo już wtedy Polacy w Polsce nie byli u siebie, ale mieszkali u żydów w polin i wszystkie środki masowego przekazu, łącznie teatrami, przechodziły pod kontrolę żydowską jako narzędzie władzy nad polskimi gojami.
Warto poczytać o tych dramatach np: To po to, aby nabrać jakiegoś perspektywicznego rozumienia obecnych wydarzeń.
Śmiertelnie ranna Korona, w której wyniszczani Polacy podjęli nierówną walkę z żydowską dominacją, w prasie języka polskiego wytworzyła niepodważalne zasady tak obozu narodowego, jak i szeroko rozumianego frontu masmediów – co musi obowiązywać do dziś. Zasady te wykluczały jakąkolwiek walkę podjazdową między gazetami proweniencji polskiej a działające w interesie obcych, a przecież głównie w interesie żydów podszywających się pod polskie społeczeństwo.
Zasada niepodejmowania walki przeciwko redakcjom polskim była tak silna, że wyrwała piętno nawet na piłsudczykach, którzy mimo swoich żydowskich żon starali się nie podnosić ręki na te rachityczne przecież polskie gazety czy wydawnictwa – rachityczne w okresie międzywojnia w takim stopniu, że Gazeta Warszawska, aby się utrzymać, handlowała żyletkami do golenia otrzymanymi w darze od fabrykanta narodowca.
Prawo nieagresji, ochrony polskich gazet było świętą zasadą, honorową wśród Polaków wydawców.
Zasada ta – niestety - jest obecnie wszędzie łamana – a jest niebyła raczej w III RP. No bo w takich przykładowych portalach jak tu omówione, to ani honoru, ani świętości. Bo przecież takie i podobne wydawnictwa w „polin” nie są od tego, aby służyć społeczeństwu w przekazie informacji, ale po to, aby wyniszczać portale ideologicznie – rasowo obce. Jest to bolszewizm w czystej postaci.
To niewątpliwe! Takim bolszewickim szmatławcom jest nie tylko ale i – w świetle tolerancji wobec Talbota. Żaden Polak tam nie publikuje, ani z tymi portalami nie współpracuje. A pomijamy tu już inną kwestię, że wielu publicystów Neonu, (Nowegoekranu) było inwigilowanych przez policję za publikacje z „” czy gazetawarszawska, a redakcja N24 musiała w tym pomagać prokuraturze. Ten wątek faktycznie pomijamy, bo problem tego terroru dotyczył nie tylko Neonu24, ale i innych portali, w tym wydawców mieszkających poza Polską, którzy byli zastraszani tak przez policję, jak i „towarzysko” przez środowiskowy koszer na emigracji.
Szkoda czasu na dalsze rozpisywanie się. Wystarczy zapoznać się ze starszymi linkami w sprawie i obejrzeć parę zrzutów z ekranie, które załączmy poniżej.
Jakie to upodlenie, przerażenie, przygnębienie - biedna Polska, biedna sponiewierana Nasza Ojczyzna. ""prase ""-warszawska-gazeta-chce-interwencji-msz-ws-antysemickiego-serwisu-gazetawarszawska-com ""historia-2/841-zawiadomienie-o-przestepstwie-aldona-urszula-zaorska
No te facjaty, ta tu poniżej, czy to przypadkiem nie jest figura z Stanley`a Kubrick`a, filmu „Oczy szeroko zamknięte”?
Czy jedynie Różowa Pantera?
Red. Gazeta Warszawska.
submitted by Gazetawarszawska to u/Gazetawarszawska [link] [comments]

2018.08.14 17:54 Gazetawarszawska Jan Paweł II ojcem chrzestnym obecnych żydowskich zbrodni w Polsce. cz.1

Jan Paweł II ojcem chrzestnym obecnych żydowskich zbrodni w Polsce. cz.1
Laudetur Iesus Christus
Wydarzenia, które w Oświęcimiu 27 stycznia 2018 zapoczątkowała przedstawicielka żydowskich sił okupacyjnych w Polsce Anna Azari, wstrząsnęły Polską i Polakami do głębi.
Do takiego poziomu zbydlęcenia i głupoty, jakie publicznie uwidoczniła ambasador Żydaera Azari, nie posunęłaby się nawet Luna Brystigirowa, która znana była przecież z seksualnego znęcania się nad więźniami na Rakowieckiej, a co nawet doprowadzało do zgonów z powodu powikłań od obrażeń wywołanych przez tę żydowską sukę na genitaliach polskich więźniów.
Jak mogło do tego dojść, że Azari mogła tak się zachować w Oświęcimiu, a w dodatku - w zamian - nie otrzymała szlifów persona non grata umajonych fizycznym kopniakiem w tyłek, a to w pierwsze pięć minut po wygaśnięciu immunitetu? Ale otrzymała dodatkową ochronę, czas telewizyjny i pięciodniowy stan wyjątkowy w Stolicy, w rejonie ambasady Żydaera?!
Do tego doszła ta dodatkowa hańba wszystkich najwyższych osób w państwie, które to deklamując na pamięć wyuczonej formuły zaczęły powtarzać, że polskich obozów koncentracyjnych nie było, ale były przypadki odosobnionych aktów antysemityzmu, a nawet „kolaboracji z nazistami”. Dzień czy pięć dni temu Morawiecki powtórzył to samo i zapowiedział, że te indywidualne przypadki polskich zbrodni przeciw żydom muszą być policzone. Potem każdy, kto tylko ważny w Polsce powtarzał gorliwie, były przypadki, gdzie Polscy zachowywali się haniebnie… haniebnie….podle……haniebnie ……haniebnie……. i tak bez końca..….bez końca!
Skąd to się wszystko wzięło i jak do tego doszło?
Jak jest możliwe to, że Polacy uprawiają taką bezwstydną politykę autodestrukcji, czołgania się przed żydami czy ciągle przepraszają świat cały za „nasze liczne grzechy” wobec żydów? Skąd ta autodestrukcyjna mentalność dająca przestrzeń dla tej samobójczej polityki wstydu?
Odpowiedzią na to pytanie jest sprawcza rola osoby Jana Pawła II, prywatnie Karola Wojtyły i jego destrukcyjna rola w Kościele, i przestępcza karno-prawnie w Polsce.
Jan Pawel II podczas swego b. długiego pontyfikatu dokonał ogromnych zniszczeń w całym Kościele, a co szczególnie lokalnie odbiło się tak na naszej religijności jak i zbiorowej psychice - na naszej polskiej zbiorowej psychice, a nawet na naszej zdolności postrzegania rzeczywistości i emocjonalności społecznej. A właśnie szczególnie w Polsce, szczególnie w Oświęcimiu, mistycznie - gdzie żydówka Azari bezprzykładnie znieważyła to męczeńskie miejsce umęczonych narodów – a gdzie, jako wyrafinowany prestidigitator i nieświadomy (spontaniczny) naturszczyk zła, Jan Paweł II wypędzając zakonnice z ich domu - dopuścił się świętokradztwa w Kościele i złamania polskiego, świeckiego prawa karnego – za co to drugie powinien być ścigany przez polski wymiar sprawiedliwości.
Ale, tak zresztą jak Wojtyła zaszkodził Polakom, tak samo przecież zaszkodził katolikom w całym Kościele, z tą jednak zasadniczą różnicą, że żaden naród w świecie nie był tak zniszczony w czasie II W. św. jak Polacy i nigdzie nie wystąpiła tak ogromna przerwa kulturowa między pokoleniami, utrata 12 milionów istnień z trzydziestu sześciu przed wojną, która po wojnie ułatwiła żydom to zbiorowe manipulowanie nami. Czyli żaden naród w Europie - skutkiem ludobójstwa wojennego drugiej wojny światowej - nie był tak łatwym łupem żydowskiej zbrodniczości – tak fizycznej jak i mentalnej, jak umęczeni Polacy.
Skutkiem tego, my Naród, Polacy – w sensie kulturowym, politycznym, administracyjnym czy państwowym - jesteśmy narodem, który w latach czterdziestych XX w. spadł jakby z Księżyca i tak od zera niemal zaczął tu nad Wisłą budować swoje pierwsze zręby państwowości i administracji. A to mając wkoło narody i społeczeństwa mniej zmęczone lub wręcz w stanie nienaruszonym, o stabilnym emocjonalnym zapleczu państwowym czy geograficznym.
W samym sercu zaś tego krateru, do którego wpadła ta nowo narodzona polska społeczność, wszczepiono już na samym początku straszny nowotwór cywilizacyjno–religijny tj. żydów, od wieków całych pasionych na krwi narodów tego świata. A którzy to żydzi zniszczyli wszystko to, przez co - jako szarańcza piekieł - przeszli: wyniszczyli Egipt, zamordowali Chrystusa w Palestynie, zburzyli ekonomicznie Cesarstwo Rzymskie, w całej Europie utworzyli gigantyczny system dystrybucji niewolników, wywołali dwie wojny światowe, po wojnie urządzili masową aborcję u białych kobiet, a teraz – po zaplanowanym przez nich zburzeniu Warszawy w 1945 r. (wg. Mein Kampf Hitlera) – wypędzają Polaków z odbudowanych z ruin domów i światowym terrorem chcą dokonać rabunku na Polsce, a to licząc wykup od terroru w wysokości 65 miliardów dolarów, a to z nowym wykupem licząc 300 miliardów dolarów, a to tylko choćby jako rekompensatę za traumę, bo potem mają przyjść nowe wymagania – bo najpierw palec, a potem reszta. Właśnie „reszta”, liczy się ta reszta, bo żydom nigdy nie chodziło o pieniądze czy bogactwa, jak to myślą sobie proste goje, a własną boskość, do której prowadzi jakubowa drabina żydowskiej władzy nad gojami i stąd te wymagania, dąsy, smutne miny, a nawet łzy w oczach – żydzi chcą do nieba!
Tak zatem my, którzy spadliśmy z księżyca, na przełomie 22 lipca 1944 / stycznia 1945 aż do października 1956 byliśmy przyjmowani u bram PRL przez żydowskich nadzorców, filozofów, ekonomistów, wampirów, pedofili czy wodzów, a za tymi bramami piekło było tylko coraz większe. Mimo tej przerażającej przewagi tych żydowskich ludożerców w naszej Ojczyźnie, wytrenowanych w gettach jako szmalcownicy na własnych rodzinach, w obozach koncentracyjnych jako kapo, w Sowietach jako egzekutorzy katyńscy, a jeszcze wcześniej – arcy zręcznych spadkobierców lichwiarzy i poborców myta królewskiego już XIV wieku w Polsce, wytrenowanych antypolskich dywersantów wojen tatarskich, potopu szwedzkiego, rozbiorów, jakoś przetrwaliśmy dumnie jako Polacy i żadna żydowska suka nie mogłaby tak się zachować u Gomułki, jak Azari u Dudy.
To straszna prawda! Fakt niezaprzeczalny, że w PRL, my, nawet pijani i znikczemnieni w barakach robotniczych Nowej Huty, a to budach odbudowy Warszawy, a to ogłupieni w kolejkach po modne dżinsy z importu, żadnego żyda nigdy nie przepraszaliśmy i żywi nie oddawaliśmy nigdy żadnemu wampirowi żadnego miejsca naszej PRL-owskiej przestrzeni.
My naród młody czy młodociany, mimo aborcji, wielki strat przesiedleń, obłąkańczych projektów urbanizacyjnych, bezustannie podnosiliśmy poziom naszego polskiego ducha w stosunku do żydowskich gości. To aż w takim stopniu, że wydawało się nam, że po trochu, żydzi staną się już jedynie historycznym zapisem naszych dziejów, że to już tylko drobny odprysk niegroźnego folkloru, który odchodzi. Bo tak to wyglądało: część wyjechała do Żydaera, część uciekła do bogatszych krajów, a ta część, która pozostała w Polsce, pod zmienionymi nazwiskami rozpływała się w naszym żywiole.
I tak było do roku 1978, kiedy to 16 października ogłoszono szokującą wiadomość, że konklawe w Rzymie wybrało nowym papieżem biskupa z Krakowa - Karola Wojtyłę.
Faktycznie, my młode, zabiegane, studiujące, czy stojące w kolejkach po kiełbasę lub telewizor społeczeństwo ludzi młodych, niedbałych o szczegóły, nie słyszeliśmy wcale lub prawie wcale o tym tam Wojtyle, kardynale z Krakowa.
Potem jednak, w pierwszych dniach po ogłoszeniu tej wielkiej wiadomości, dotarła do nas świadomość, że nieznany w Polsce polski kardynał był już wcześniej szeroko znany i wysoce ceniony na Zachodzie jako: „młody”, „światły” i energiczny kardynał, ksiądz, pisarz, poeta i intelektualista – czyli wiosna Kościoła. A nam się spodobało i uwierzyliśmy w to wszystko, w te poematy, homilie, komplementy i gesty, że to wszystko wyjdzie nam tylko na dobre.
Tak jak zostaliśmy tym zaskoczeni, tak podprogowa propaganda ateistyczna państwa, jakim był PRL, zaczęła urabiać Wojtyłę jako jednego z nas, a nawet promotora naszych wolnościowych marzeń i antysocjalistycznych studenckich gadulstw, toczących się skrycie po różnych kawiarniach, klubach i akademikach. I my głęboko zakompleksieni, młodsi, niechciani bracia demokracji zachodniej uwierzyliśmy w tego Polaka, który został papieżem, daliśmy mu spontanicznie i bez żądnej rezerwy mandat na wiele ważnych spraw.
O ile rządzący Polską Gierek oficjalnie wyraził satysfakcję z wyboru Polaka na papieża - co „budowało pozycję Polski w świecie”, to zaplecze partyjne wszelkich szczebli wyrażało niepokój faktem takiego wyboru.
Młodym ludziom trzeba tu przypomnieć, że Gierek doszedł do władzy po krwawym puczu przeciwko Gomułce w grudniu 1970 roku i po przejęciu władzy, natychmiast rozpoczął „demokratyzację” PZPR i reformę gospodarki państwowej.
"Demokratyzacja" ta polegała na tym, że beton i antysemici zostali odsunięci od władzy, a z powrotem wpuszczono żydów na centralne stołki w partii i państwie, a reformy polegały na likwidacji polskiej przedsiębiorczości, bo preferencjami na zakupy superdrogich licencji produkcyjnych na Zachodzie wyłączono polskie i tak słabe przedsiębiorstwa z praw o współgospodarzeniu zasobami narodowymi.
Po kilku latach okazało się, że nieefektywność takiego rozwoju gospodarczego zaczyna przynosić negatywne rezultaty, co dało konieczność podwyżek cen żywności, a czemu – spontanicznie – rzekomo - mieli sprzeciwić się robotnicy w Radomiu 1976.
Ferment powstania "Solidarności" w 1980 i pontyfikat Wojtyły w 1978 zbiegły się razem z wejściem ZSRR do Afganistanu w 1979 i późniejszym nowym prezydentem Regan`em w 1981. Zbieżność tych dat nie mogła być przypadkowa i była sterowana.
ZSRR wplątało się w awanturę w Afganistanie decyzją Biura politycznego KPZR, pod nieobecność w KC Breżniewa i Kosygina, którzy akurat się rozchorowali i przebywali w szpitalu, a którzy wielokrotnie wcześniej wyrażali sprzeciw wobec takiej ingerencji. Później – ale daleko po fakcie - okazało się, że u Regana zdiagnozowano Alzheimera już w trakcie jego pierwszej kampanii wyborczej. Czyli Regan był zwykłym pajacem, którego chorobę wykorzystano tyle po mistrzowsku, co i cynicznie.
Wszystko poszło zatem jak po maśle, Polska drastycznie zadłużona decyzjami wielkich zakupów, które były tak przemyślane, jak wymysły gospodarcze obecnego Morawieckiego. W USA Regan nie panował umysłowo nad zrozumieniem tekstu, który objętościowo przekraczał treść jednej kartki formatu A-4, a w Afganistanie ZSRR spotkał się nieoczekiwanie z amerykańskimi samosterującymi rakietami ziemia-powietrze, które jako najnowszy cud techniki kosiły z dziecinną łatwością sowieckie helikoptery, a które były podstawową i niemal jedyną liczącą się bronią w tamtym górzystym terenie.
Tak więc zaplanowany upadek sytemu – a faktycznie państwa, bo system, etyka były bez znaczenia - w Polsce i w Sowietach były tylko kwestią czasu, a gwałtowna demencja Regan`a była bardzo w tym wszystkim pomocna, bo decyzjami o wojnach amerykańskich w świecie decydowali doradcy wojskowi niższego szczebla sterowani dalej przez swoich ukrytych mentorów, a on w razie czego był dobrym kozłem ofiarnym.
Sama prowokacja powstania, rozkwit i upadek "Solidarności" odbywały się w akompaniamencie politycznych wypowiedzi przelicznych doradców, którzy mieli pochodzenie żydowskie. Chociaż już w tym okresie dobrze działał retorsyjny zarzut o „ślepy antysemityzm” wobec tych, którzy „wszędzie widzieli żydów”, nawet i pod stołem, to jednak te kuronie i geremki miały raczej przyjazne przyjęcie społeczne.
Później stan wojenny dał żydom i filosemitom całkowitą przewagę moralną nad innymi nieżydowskimi związkowcami, bo stan wojenny swoją masową manipulacją objawiał żydów jako bojowców o Polskę, a nawet i o wiarę. A równie masowa propaganda BBC, Radia Wolna Europa, Głosu Ameryki urabiała w naszej świadomości żydów jako Polaków, a nierzadko żydów jako dużo lepszych Polaków niż sami Polacy. Było bardzo łatwo zauważalne to, że centrum dowodzenia "Solidarnością" stanu wojennego, opozycją polityczną przesuwa się z Warszawy do Krakowa. A tam centrum dowodzenia były Tygodnik Powszechny, Więź i inne podobne im struktury żydowskie, maskujące się jako polskie lub katolickie, które coraz częściej podpierały się etosem „Ojca Świętego”, który choć jest daleko w Rzymie, ale wszystko dobrze widzi i rozumie, i „tak chce”, albo „tak nie chce” – chce dla Polski najlepiej, a papieżowi sprzeciwiać się nie wolno.
Jakikolwiek argument oporu wobec nawały żydostwa i filosemityzmu spotykał się ze zgrozą w postaci obrazy promieniującej dobroci papieża.
I dodatkowo, jakiekolwiek personalne środowiska oporu w postaci autentycznych, niezależnych od żydów grup polskich, zostały szybko zlikwidowane przez Jaruzelskiego, bo ci Polacy, działacze, antysemici autentyczni, lub potencjalni, zostali jako sieroty systemu łatwo wypchnięci na Zachód, a mniej ugodowi, którzy zostali w Polsce i przeszkadzali w zmianach, zostali wymordowani w licznych skrytobójstwach. A i jednymi, i drugimi dobry papież brzydził się, a czego nikt nie skrywał.
Jeszcze przedtem, 28 maja 1981 zmarł schorowany Prymas Wyszyński, który nawet jako schorowany był zaporą dla wywrotowych zachowań Jana Pawła II i żydowskiego środowiska w Krakowie. Pustka, jaką pozostawił po sobie Wyszyński, dobrze komponowała się z późniejszą nawałą żydostwa, która już nie krępowana obecnością Prymasa przyspieszyła swój bieg z dniem ogłoszenia stanu wojennego.
Właściwie jeszcze przed stanem wojennym, bo zaraz po śmierci Prymasa Wyszyńskiego, zaczęły pojawić się niebezpieczne sygnały o zachowaniu Jana Pawła II. A zaskakujący wybór Glempa, który przez postępowców był uważany za kontynuatora linii Prymasa Tysiąclecia, dość szybko okazał się złym wyborem, bo po paru latach imitacji Wyszyńskiego Glemp ujawnił swój brak zdecydowania, brak odpowiedzialności za Kościół i zwykłe tchórzostwo niegodne księcia Kościoła.
Sam zaś Jan Paweł II, uwolniony od wzroku Wyszyńskiego, zaczął wykazywać niebezpieczne filosemickie trendy wyborów personalnych i odpowiednio obsadzał zwalniane stanowiska w hierarchii w Polsce, bez żadnych już przeszkód z niczyjej strony, co rok po roku systematycznie, trwale zmieniało proporcje rasowe w Episkopacie na korzyść żydów. Wszystko to miało swoje różne fazy i faktycznie nie nastąpiły żadne reakcje ze strony zaskoczonych antysemitów, katolików, endeków, bogoojczyźnianych papistów i innych, poza jednym: Jędrzejem Giertychem z Londynu. Wśród potencjalnych antyliberalnych oporników, narodowców nastąpiło może jakieś zdziwnie, ale też szybko skrywane wstydliwym spuszczeniem wzroku, potem przy następnych nierozumianych decyzjach czy zachowaniach papieża pojawiały się słabe, szybko tłumione skargi. Dyskusja czy spór, potem zaś wielki spór i wielki rozłam w naszej narodowej społeczności, ujawnił się u zmierzchu pontyfikatu, a faktycznie dopiero po śmierci Jana Pawła II, ale to już jako narodowy rozłam, pękniecie wrzodu, a nie rzeczowe starcie na argumenty.
Ale konflikty były, już stan wojenny zderzył się z nadaniem żydowi Miłoszowi Nagrody Nobla, który to wybór wprawił polską inteligencję emigracyjną w zniesmaczenie, a Jana Pawła II w euforię niegodną głowy Kościoła. Miłosz, żyd i komunista, nienawidzący Polaków, napisał dodatkowo sztandarową książkę „Dolina Issy”, która miała cechy bluźniercze i to był jeden z motywów przydzielania mu nagrody. Nie przeszkadzało to jednak Wojtyle w zaproszeniu Miłosza do Watykanu. I na początku tej papieskiej pedagogiki nauczania Polaków posłuszeństwa żydom, ich wywyższania, nikt nie rzekł słowa przeciw Wojtyle.
I tak już poczynając od Miłosza po 1981 roku, mury Watykanu coraz bardziej wypełniały się wrzawą żydowskich entuzjazmów, których to Jan Pawel II seryjnie zapraszał na pogawędki, śniadania i obiady, a nawet sesje reklamowe, żydowskich publicystów, gdzie papież żenująco usłużnie pomagał w reklamie żydowskich książek i wydawnictw, a wszystko po to, by tak sobie pogaworzyć z żydami o żydach, no i dać im zarobić oraz wywyższyć przed Polakami, od których ten papież wyraźnie stronił.
I tak Polacy bardzo szybko zorientowali się, że są Polakami drugiej kategorii w kwestii kontaktów osobistych papieża z „ludem”, bo Polakami pierwszej kategorii byli żydzi. Jan Paweł II owszem zajmował się Polską i polskimi problemami, tak w trakcie stanu wojennego, jak i po nim, ale "polską" stroną spotkań z nim byli prawie wyłącznie żydzi z Polski lub emigracji, a jeśli jakiś Polak chciałby coś wtrącić, to mniej lub bardziej dyskretnie był wycofywany do tyłu, aby nie urazić wrażliwości żydowskiej czy mądrości papieża, który i tak wszystko wiedział najlepiej o tym, co dotyczyło Polski.
Nawet działacze "Solidarności", którzy najbardziej przeżywali procesy polityczne toczące się za plecami społeczeństwa, nie uzewnętrzniali swojego krytycyzmu wobec postępowania Jana Pawła II.
W szerokim wachlarzu tłumów żydowskich na Watykanie papież w wyraźny sposób opierał się na paru zaledwie osobach – żydach - w kontaktach decyzyjnych, a dotyczących spraw polskich i zagranicznych. Jego łącznikiem światowym był żyd Jerzy Kluger, a głównym agentem na Polskę był Jerzy Turowicz. Kluger był agenturą światową i prawdopodobnie był on zamieszany w farsę zamachu na papieża na Placu św. Piotra, kiedy Ali oddał do niego jeden celny strzał z małokalibrowego pistoletu. Kluger, do spółki z wcześniej wprowadzonym do Watykanu Józefem Lichtenem (Lichtensztul), kontrolował Jana Pawła II aż do czasu Okrągłego Stołu i przedkładał papieżowi żądania żydowskie, które Jan Paweł II gorliwie spełniał. To nawet w takim stopniu, że jako pierwszy papież w historii przyjmował żydów na audiencji i tytułował ich jako „przedstawicieli judaizmu”, co było otwartym zaakceptowaniem antychrystianizmu żydowskiego, jako strony w stosunku do Kościoła Świętego. Tak do żydów nigdy nie zwracał się przedtem żaden papież. Przy okazji takich spotkań, już na początku lat osiemdziesiątych, zapewniał ich, że z „nauczania” i dokumentów Kościoła były pousuwane wszystkie „antysemityzmy”. Powiedział też po tym „teraz już nic nie stoi na przeszkodzie dialogowi między nami”.
O ile zachowanie papieża coraz bardziej modernistyczne i wywrotowe nie wywoływało zastrzeżeń na Zachodzie u protestantów czy żydów, to w środowiskach polskich - tak w Polsce jaki i na uchodźctwie - zachowanie Jana Pawła II było coraz częstszym przedmiotem kontrowersji, które jednak nigdy nie były uzewnętrznione na jakimś otwartym polskim forum.
Można nawet powiedzieć, że Wojtyła jako papież stał się przedmiotem i sporów, i podziałów wśród najbardziej propapieskich środowisk polskich. To nawet w takim stopniu doprowadził do bardzo głębokich waśni wśród Stronnictwa Narodowego na zachodzie, ale miało to charakter skrytych sporów, gdzie nawet nieoficjalnie imię Wojtyły jako szkodnika nie zastało wyartykułowane. Ku całemu nieszczęściu, fala pomówień, gniewu, plotek, nienawiści czy pogardy przetoczyła się przez środowiska narodowe, gdzie faktycznie Jan Paweł II był tego powodem, ale tego problemu nikt nigdy nie nazwał po imieniu.
Znakiem przelania czary goryczy, w środowisku polskiej tradycji lojalności bezwarunkowej wobec Jana Pawła II, był list Jędrzeja Giertycha z 1984 roku:
Powodem napisania tego listu był szok środowisk narodowych na emigracji, wywołany zachowaniem Papieża Jana Pawła II w Szwajcarii, gdzie papież wyliczając polityków niepodległościowych przemilczał nazwisko Romana Dmowskiego.
Był to wielki afront Wojtyły tak wobec naszej historii, jak i naszej wymierającej inteligencji katolickiej, która jako najwierniejsza stała przy Kościele i Papieżu. Warto sobie ten list przeczytać i wydrukować, aby go zachować dla potomnych, bo nie jest takie pewne to, czy nasze wydawnictwo dłużej pociągnie, gdyż jest celem różnych akcji terrorystycznych medialnych ze wszystkich stron i wszytko może się wydarzyć.
Był to okres, kiedy po uwolnieniu z więzów cenzury i monopolu prasy, zaczęto publikować masowo pisma Dmowskiego, który nagle - przedtem zakazany i faktycznie nieznany, nawet zakazany warstwom inteligencji - wyszedł z mroków zapomnienia i potępienia, i czarując czytelników klarownością wspaniałego języka publicystyki politycznej na najwyższym poziomie, natychmiast stał się wręcz idolem młodzieży narodowej, a jego „Kościół, Naród i Państwo" oraz "Myśli Nowoczesnego Polaka" stały się pozycjami sztandarowymi nawet do rozmów przy kieliszku.
W tej atmosferze utożsamiania się młodzieży polskiej z Dmowskim, fakt przemilczania przez papieża osoby tego ważnego polskiego patrioty i działacza politycznego sprawił, że duża część Polaków poczuła się głęboko dotknięta takim nietaktem. Ale i nawet wtedy milczano, poza jednym, wyżej wspomnianym Jędrzejem Giertychem, który gorzko zarzucił Janowi Pawłowi II niesprawiedliwość i preferowanie żydów kosztem Polaków. Czytanie tego listu wtedy było gorzkim przeżyciem dla wielu z nas.
Jednakże to głupie, niechrześcijańskie, żenujące i faktycznie grubiańskie zachowanie Jana Pawła II wobec ducha naszej kultury czy pieczołowitości naszej pamięci było niczym w stosunku do tego, co tenże papież uczynił przeciwko nie tylko Kościołowi, ale i Polsce w dniu 13 kwietnia 1986 roku w Rzymie.
Dzień ten dał kamień węgielny obecnie postępującej nawałnicy zagłady Polaków w Polsce. A nie było to żadne wydarzenie bezpośrednio związane z Polską, lecz które pośrednio stało się zaczynem tego strasznego żydowskiego zła zalewającego naszą Ojczyznę.
W dniu 13 kwietnia 1986 – prawie 32 lata temu – Jan Paweł II rozkręcając dalej tę karuzelę bluźnierstw, apostazji i żydowskiego rozpasania poszedł do synagogi w Rzymie, aby tam kłaniać się żydom. Nazwał ich "jakby starszymi braćmi” – terminem do tej pory wyłącznie polskim, bo zamkniętym w bluźnierstwach Adama Mickiewicza. I podpierając się lichymi, jednostronnymi, filosemickimi argumentami potępił poprzednie nauczania Kościoła Świętego, a więc faktycznie ekskomunikował samego siebie, bo wyłączył się z szeregu 263 papieży - wszystkich swoich poprzedników.
O ile wizyta odbiła się głębokim szokiem w całym świecie, zszokowani tradycjonalni katolicy z oburzeniem gorzko komentowali tych „starszych braci”, a kiedy otrzymywali wyjaśnienie genezy tych słów jako pochodzących od Mickiewicza, to zaraz, po nitce do kłębka, dochodzili aż do Bławackiej, jej podglądów i czasopisma "Lucyfer", które wydawała. O ile fala goryczy i skandalu przetoczyła się przez cały katolicki Zachód, to w Polsce, chyba już nawykłej do filosemickich zachowań Wojtyły, pozostało to tak jakby bez echa, a jeżeli już, to pisano o tym szerzej tak jakby w duchu pozytywnego bratania się z żydami.
Jednak skutki tamtej wizyty rykoszetem uderzyły głównie w Polskę i to niemal natychmiast po tym wydarzeniu.
Owoce wizyty w synagodze z dania 13 kwietnia 1986 dały o sobie znać w Polsce jeszcze tego samego miesiąca. Dosłownie kilka dni po zbrataniu się Wojtyły z rabinem w Rzymie żydowscy terroryści przyjechali do Polski i przypuścili pierwszy atak terrorystyczny na Klasztor Karmelitanek na Żwirowisku w Oświęcimiu, obrzucając budynek kamieniami i próbując włamać się do klasztoru. A nie tylko to! Żydzi zaczęli grozić zakonnicom podłożeniem pod drzwi klasztoru ładunków wybuchowych, o ile siostry nie wyniosą się z niego i to szybko. Bo według nich katolicki klasztor uraża żydowską wrażliwość na ich cierpienia związane z obozem w okresie okupacji hitlerowskiej.
Kalendarium konfliktu oświęcimskiego:
Ta obecna katastrofa, widmo zagłady naszej Ojczyzny znalazło swój zaczyn w nieodpowiedzialnym, a nawet infantylnym zachowaniu papieża Jana Pawła II, poprzednio biskupa krakowskiego.
Wszystko to, co wydarzyło się trzydzieści lat temu i te wydarzenia 27 stycznia bieżącego roku w Oświęcimiu i przypuszczalnie szatańskie błogosławieństwo Szydło przez rabina prawdopodobnie nie są przypadkowe ani są oderwane od siebie. Bez wątpienia sięgają one głęboko w przeszłość i to nie tylko polską.
Wojtyła już od dziecka może nawet był związany ze środowiskiem żydowskim, a może nawet już wtedy planowano go „wychować” i użyć do odpowiedniej roboty. A przecież nie on jeden, w Watykanie urzęduje żyd z Żydarera,
An article in Haaretz (Israeli Jew turned Catholic priest named head of papal co”) describes one David Maria Jaeger who “converted” from Judaism to Catholicism and will now become a member of the highest court in the Vatican. The word ‘converted’ is in quotes because it’s apparent that Jaeger has in no sense ceased being a Jew. Jaeger was born in Tel Aviv and had a Jewish religious education before assuming his high position in the Church.
którego najpierw wetknięto jako studenta seminarium w USA, a obecnie jest głównym rewizorem w Watykanie i był zamieszany w zamach przeciwko Papieżowi Benedyktowi XVI ""/30/knesset-hold-session-auschwitz/ ""nu-bo-planowal-opublikowac-brak-dowdow-na-holocaust/
(a co z tzw. raportem Pileckiego i działaniami Karskiego w USA?
Nie dotarło to do Watykanu, jak podobno jakaś wersja raportu była i jest w archiwach rządu em. w Londynie? -red.)
http://gazetawarszawska.euHYPERLINK ""/2012/02/17/kevin-macdonald/
Karol Wojtyła ma bardzo niejasne pochodzenie, a śmierć matki i śmierć brata pasuje właśnie do wybrania go przez jakieś żydowsko iluminackie sekty na przyszłego wybitnego człowieka o zasięg światowym. Takim przypadkiem był ponoć również Barak Obama.
Wszystko wskazuje na to, że Karol Wojtyła już jako młody człowiek był jakoś usidlony i podlegał kontroli. Kluczem do zrozumie jego losów jest żyd Jerzy Turowicz. Turowicz był jakimś mentorem Wojtyły i to w okresie od okupacji aż po swoje ostanie dni.
Turowicz urodził się w 1912 roku i przed wojną odgrywał wysoce dwuznaczną rolę: publikował w czasopismach zbliżonych do Stronnictwa Narodowego, a równocześnie był członkiem organizacji żydowskiej BUND.
In Christo
Krzysztof Cierpisz
submitted by Gazetawarszawska to u/Gazetawarszawska [link] [comments]

2018.07.23 20:37 H-K_47 [Manga Spoilers] Summary of the story up to the latest chapter (Chapter 107)

Hello! Been seeing a lot of confusion about what’s going on in the story lately in the manga, so I wrote up this summary of the manga that should hopefully answer the broad questions. Season 1 finished at Chapter 33, Season 2 finished at Chapter 50, and the latest chapter was Chapter 107. This is a very rough summary, and misses a lot of details, since it becomes very complicated. The story can be divided into Arcs, each one roughly 16-20 chapters long. Season 1 covered the first 2 major arcs: Siege of Trost, and the Female Titan arcs. Season 2 covered the Clash of the Titans arc. This is a summary of the entire story, but you can skip ahead to wherever you want. If you just want to know what’s in the Basement, scroll down to about halfway through Arc 5:


Arc 1: Siege of Trost – Chapters 3-16

Arc 2: Female Titan – Chapters 19-33

This is where Season 1 ended.

Arc 3: Clash of the Titans – Chapters 34-50

This is where Season 2 ended.

Arc 4: Uprising – Chapters 51-70

Arc 5: Return to Shiganshina – Chapters 71-90

Arc 6: Marley – Chapters 91-??

That's where the latest chapter leaves off. As you can tell, a lot has happened, and the story gets both complex and fairly weird. We don't know what will happen next yet! So they reached the Basement in Chapter 85, and shortly afterwards had a very long timeskip. This summary is very rough and leaves out tons of details and characters and developments, I only covered the major plot points. If this interested you, I recommend reading it for yourself to get the full experience! Season 3 has begun airing, as of July 22nd, 2018!
Hope this helped! If you have any questions or want clarification, feel free to ask me, or make a separate post on the subreddit. They can give more details. If it’s too long, let me know and I’ll try to cut it down even further.
TL;DR: Centuries ago Ymir Fritz somehow got kickass Titan powers. She, her tribe, and their descendants use their Titan powers to conquer the world. Eventually the 145th King gets bored of ruling everything, destroys his own empire, creates the Walled Kingdom of Paradis full of mindwiped people, and lets the normal humans take over the world. Erwin gets tired of the corrupt bourgeoisie and seizes the means of production. Wall Maria is retaken and they finally reach the Basement. Timeskip. Eren took the fight to the enemy and now literally the entire planet hates him. Everyone is depressed.
TL;DR TL;DR: Titan-Jews battle the Nazis for control of Madagascar’s oil, the Jaeger family is super messed up, Eren gets hard, Armin grows a lot as a character, Reiner has a splitting headache and gives everyone depression herpes, and everything is genocide.
submitted by H-K_47 to ShingekiNoKyojin [link] [comments]

2018.06.29 00:54 Errechan [Manga Spoilers] Interesting Bible tingz

Even stronger Tinfoil hat tingz:
I wrote this post to troll around but now I'm legitimately thinking about things connecting things together in the SnK universe
submitted by Errechan to ShingekiNoKyojin [link] [comments]

2018.05.25 23:30 Changeling_Wil [Extracts from the 'Last Church'] Even the God Emperor can display bad history. (x-post from /r/badhistory)

In the thirtieth Millennium, there is only bad history. Master of Mankind by the Might of his armies, and unifier of Holy Terra, the immortal Emperor comes to the last Church on earth, to try and make the last priest give up his faith. What follows, is, in parts, terrible history.
The history of religion is a horror story, Uriah, and if you doubt it, just look at what humanity has done in the name of their gods over the millennia. Thousands of years ago, a bloody theocracy that venerated a feathered-serpent god rose in the Mayan jungles. To appease this vile god, its priests drowned maidens in sacred wells and cut out the hearts of children. They believed this serpent god had an earthly counterpart and the temple builders drove the first pile through a maiden’s body to pacify this non-existent creature.’
I don't know much about central american religions, but wasn't it the inca's that killed kids via leaving them on mountains to die, and the Aztecs that offered up enemy warriors? I'll admit, I might be getting this wrong.
Uriah turned to Revelation in horror and said, ‘You can’t seriously compare my religion to such heathen barbarism?’ ‘Can’t I?’ countered Revelation. ‘In the name of your religion, a holy man launched a war with the battle cry of “Deus Vult”, which means “god wills it” in one of the ancient tongues of Old Earth. His warriors were charged with destroying enemies in a far-off kingdom, but first they fell upon those in their own lands who opposed the war. Thousands were dragged from their homes and hacked to death or burned alive.
1)The Rhineland massacres were less 'killing those who opposed the war', more 'we need supplies and you are rich' + religious conflict against Jews.
2)The church condemned these attacks and bishops in areas did try to help them.
Then, satisfied their homeland was secure, the zealous legions plundered their way thousands of miles to the holy city they were to liberate. Upon reaching it, they killed every inhabitant to “purify” the symbolic city of taint. I remember one of their leaders saying that he rode in blood up to the knees and even to his horse’s bridle, by the just and marvellous judgement of god.’
1)The 'blood up to the knees' was hyperbole.
2)The entire thing wasn't a 'PURGE THEM!!!' To claim as much is reductionist.
First, we need to remember that the sacking of cities and massacres wasn't exactly unusual in the period. Yet interestingly, the killings aren't a continuation of the post assault climax. It occurs several days afterwards. Indeed, Albert of Aachen stresses that:
"After they heard this advice, on the third day after the victory judgement was pronounced by the leaders and everyone seized weapons and surged forth for a wretched massacre of all the crowd of gentiles which was still left, bringing out some from fetters and beheading them, slaughtering others who were found throughout the city streets and districts, whom they had previously spared for the sake of money or human pity."
What is neat about this? Well, it tells us a few things!
*The killings weren't just a hotblooded spill over from the siege. You're not going to contain a constant murderboner for 3 days.
*The killings were a judgement and decision actively decided upon by the Crusader leadership.
*Jews and Muslims had been previously spared by the crusaders, for ransom and other reasons.
Of course, why might wonder why they decided to kill them all. The answer is that a large army was approaching from Egypt and if the crusaders had stayed in Jerusalem? They would have been fucked. The city was damaged by the siege, and their supplies were low; not to mention the fact that the local population would have provided Islamic forces with a perfect fifth column. Nor could they realistically leave a large garrison behind to maintain the city, when they marched forth.
End result? The city gets secured via the purging of potential rebels, then the crusaders march off to the Battle of Ascalon.
‘That is ancient history,’ said Uriah. ‘You cannot vouchsafe the truth of events so lost in the mists of time.’
‘If it were one event, I might agree with you,’ replied Revelation, ‘but just a hundred or so years later, another holy man declared war on a sect of his own church. His warriors laid siege to the sect’s stronghold in ancient Franc, and when the city fell his generals asked their leader how they might tell the faithful from the traitor among the captives. This man, who followed your god, ordered the warriors to “Kill them all. God will know His own”. Nearly twenty thousand men, women and children were slaughtered.
I'll admit, I don't know enough about this area to make any hard statements, but it's more than just the papacy involved, isn't it? There's the influence of the northern French lords and the attempt to crush the independence/culture of the region? Perhaps someone more qualified than me can add to this.
Worst of all, the hunt for any that had escaped the siege led to the establishment of an organisation known as the Inquisition, a dreadful, monstrous plague of hysteria that gave its agents free rein to stretch, burn, pierce and break their victims on fiendish pain machines to force them to confess to disbelief and identify fellow transgressors. Later, with most of their enemies hunted down and killed, the Inquisition shifted its focus to wychcraft, and priests tortured untold thousands of women into confessing that they engaged in unnatural acts with daemons. They were then burned or hanged for their confessions and this hysteria raged for three centuries in a dozen nations, a madness that saw whole towns exterminated and over a hundred thousand dead.’
1)The inquisition did not lead the witch trails. It was largely secular courts that did that. While church courts did indeed sometimes get involved in witchcraft accusations, it was largely the secular courts that dished out the harshest punishments.
2)It was not soley focused or targeted at women. Men suffered accusations and burnings too. Iceland, for example, suffered more men punished for witchcraft than women. While several explanations for the witch hunts exist (from 'grain was lsd/purging of weak members of society in a time of crisis' etc etc'). While it is true that social positions of women, and their status didn't help them, it was by no means a 'KILLING WOMEN AND ONLY WOMEN WORSE THAN THE HOLOCAUST!' tier thing that some claim it to be.
Now! I'm sure you are all thinking 'but what if the Emperor knew this, but he was twisting the historical truth around to fuel his own narrative about religion being bad?'
I'd say you are probably right (if we ignore the meta reasoning of the writer not knowing history). But that doesn't excuse his badhistory.
*Norman Roth, "Bishops and Jews in the Middle Ages," The Catholic Historical Review 80, no. 1 (1994)
*Christopher Tyerman, God's War: A New History of the Crusades (Harvard University Press, 2006)
*WolfgangBehringer, Witches and Witch-Hunts: a global history (2004)
*Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana : history of the journey to Jerusalem , ed. and trans. by Susan B. Edgington (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007)
submitted by Changeling_Wil to 40kLore [link] [comments]

2018.05.25 23:25 Changeling_Wil Even the God Emperor can display bad history.

In the thirtieth Millennium, there is only bad history. Master of Mankind by the Might of his armies, and unifier of Holy Terra, the immortal Emperor comes to the last Church on earth, to try and make the last priest give up his faith. What follows, is, in parts, terrible history.
The following extracts are from the Black Library book 'The last Church'.
Uriah is the last priest at the titular last church on Earth.
Revelation is the God Emperor of Mankind, in disguise, attempting to convince the priest to give up his faith by pointing out the horrors of religion.
The history of religion is a horror story, Uriah, and if you doubt it, just look at what humanity has done in the name of their gods over the millennia. Thousands of years ago, a bloody theocracy that venerated a feathered-serpent god rose in the Mayan jungles. To appease this vile god, its priests drowned maidens in sacred wells and cut out the hearts of children. They believed this serpent god had an earthly counterpart and the temple builders drove the first pile through a maiden’s body to pacify this non-existent creature.’
I don't know much about central american religions, but wasn't it the inca's that killed kids via leaving them on mountains to die, and the Aztecs that offered up enemy warriors? I'll admit, I might be getting this wrong.
Uriah turned to Revelation in horror and said, ‘You can’t seriously compare my religion to such heathen barbarism?’ ‘Can’t I?’ countered Revelation. ‘In the name of your religion, a holy man launched a war with the battle cry of “Deus Vult”, which means “god wills it” in one of the ancient tongues of Old Earth. His warriors were charged with destroying enemies in a far-off kingdom, but first they fell upon those in their own lands who opposed the war. Thousands were dragged from their homes and hacked to death or burned alive.
1)The Rhineland massacres were less 'killing those who opposed the war', more 'we need supplies and you are rich' + religious conflict against Jews.
2)The church condemned these attacks and bishops in areas did try to help them.
Then, satisfied their homeland was secure, the zealous legions plundered their way thousands of miles to the holy city they were to liberate. Upon reaching it, they killed every inhabitant to “purify” the symbolic city of taint. I remember one of their leaders saying that he rode in blood up to the knees and even to his horse’s bridle, by the just and marvellous judgement of god.’
1)The 'blood up to the knees' was hyperbole.
2)The entire thing wasn't a 'PURGE THEM!!!' To claim as much is reductionist.
First, we need to remember that the sacking of cities and massacres wasn't exactly unusual in the period. Yet interestingly, the killings aren't a continuation of the post assault climax. It occurs several days afterwards. Indeed, Albert of Aachen stresses that:
"After they heard this advice, on the third day after the victory judgement was pronounced by the leaders and everyone seized weapons and surged forth for a wretched massacre of all the crowd of gentiles which was still left, bringing out some from fetters and beheading them, slaughtering others who were found throughout the city streets and districts, whom they had previously spared for the sake of money or human pity."
What is neat about this? Well, it tells us a few things!
*The killings weren't just a hotblooded spill over from the siege. You're not going to contain a constant murderboner for 3 days.
*The killings were a judgement and decision actively decided upon by the Crusader leadership.
*Jews and Muslims had been previously spared by the crusaders, for ransom and other reasons.
Of course, why might wonder why they decided to kill them all. The answer is that a large army was approaching from Egypt and if the crusaders had stayed in Jerusalem? They would have been fucked. The city was damaged by the siege, and their supplies were low; not to mention the fact that the local population would have provided Islamic forces with a perfect fifth column. Nor could they realistically leave a large garrison behind to maintain the city, when they marched forth.
End result? The city gets secured via the purging of potential rebels, then the crusaders march off to the Battle of Ascalon.
‘That is ancient history,’ said Uriah. ‘You cannot vouchsafe the truth of events so lost in the mists of time.’
‘If it were one event, I might agree with you,’ replied Revelation, ‘but just a hundred or so years later, another holy man declared war on a sect of his own church. His warriors laid siege to the sect’s stronghold in ancient Franc, and when the city fell his generals asked their leader how they might tell the faithful from the traitor among the captives. This man, who followed your god, ordered the warriors to “Kill them all. God will know His own”. Nearly twenty thousand men, women and children were slaughtered.
I'll admit, I don't know enough about this area to make any hard statements, but it's more than just the papacy involved, isn't it? There's the influence of the northern French lords and the attempt to crush the independence/culture of the region? Perhaps someone more qualified than me can add to this.
Worst of all, the hunt for any that had escaped the siege led to the establishment of an organisation known as the Inquisition, a dreadful, monstrous plague of hysteria that gave its agents free rein to stretch, burn, pierce and break their victims on fiendish pain machines to force them to confess to disbelief and identify fellow transgressors. Later, with most of their enemies hunted down and killed, the Inquisition shifted its focus to wychcraft, and priests tortured untold thousands of women into confessing that they engaged in unnatural acts with daemons. They were then burned or hanged for their confessions and this hysteria raged for three centuries in a dozen nations, a madness that saw whole towns exterminated and over a hundred thousand dead.’
1)The inquisition did not lead the witch trails. It was largely secular courts that did that. While church courts did indeed sometimes get involved in witchcraft accusations, it was largely the secular courts that dished out the harshest punishments.
2)It was not soley focused or targeted at women. Men suffered accusations and burnings too. Iceland, for example, suffered more men punished for witchcraft than women. While several explanations for the witch hunts exist (from 'grain was lsd/purging of weak members of society in a time of crisis' etc etc'). While it is true that social positions of women, and their status didn't help them, it was by no means a 'KILLING WOMEN AND ONLY WOMEN WORSE THAN THE HOLOCAUST!' tier thing that some claim it to be.
Now! I'm sure you are all thinking 'but what if the Emperor knew this, but he was twisting the historical truth around to fuel his own narrative about religion being bad?'
I'd say you are probably right (if we ignore the meta reasoning of the writer not knowing history). But that doesn't excuse his badhistory.
*Norman Roth, "Bishops and Jews in the Middle Ages," The Catholic Historical Review 80, no. 1 (1994)
*Christopher Tyerman, God's War: A New History of the Crusades (Harvard University Press, 2006)
*WolfgangBehringer, Witches and Witch-Hunts: a global history (2004)
*Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana : history of the journey to Jerusalem , ed. and trans. by Susan B. Edgington (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007)
submitted by Changeling_Wil to badhistory [link] [comments]

2018.05.23 13:17 Twiceandforsome Massacre of Yaquis in Porfiriato Mexico contender for "first genocide of 20th century"

People often refer to the Herero or Armenian genocides as having this title, but I feel that massacre of Yaquis after the battle of Mazocoba in 1902 beats them out by a few years. I'll try to plot the event along Stanton's 8 stages of genocide except for denial, but it's a bit of a stetch.
Stage 1 - 2 Classification:
The Yaqui's citizenship was revoked
Stage 3 Dehumanization:
Were considered rebels which would justify the massacre via security reasons
Stage 4 Organization:
The genocide was performed by Porfirio Diaz's border police the "Gendarmería Fiscal" and lead by Emilio Kostelitzky
Stage 5 Polarization
The massacre happened in the backdrop of the Yaqui Wars and a particular battle in Mazocoba
Stage 6 Preperation
Trains were used to send Yaquis to Haciendas?
Stage 7 Extermination
The Porfiriato government violated all 5 of the crimes set out in the genocide convention.
Yaqui were rounded up and deported via death marches and trains were 1 to 2 thirds perished simply in this process. I primary target for train deportations were children which violates genocidal act 5 of the convention. They were then enslaved in Haciendas were they were worked to death at the same rate violating crimes 1, 2, and 3 and on top of that Yaqui women were only allowed to marry non native chinese workers which violates crime 4. They were also killed in Mexican aerial bombing as well. Overall in the process over 20,000 Yaquis perished (More than 2/3 of their population) constituting in whole.
I think this genocide is notable for a number of reasons, for one I think it set an important precedent for the means of genocide Joseph Stalin used in his population transfers of dissident groups. The deportation and death marches of Yaquis in the desert to be worked to death in Hacienda bares a striking resemblance to the way Stalin would ship Central Asian and Baltic minorities in trains through Siberia to be worked to death in the Gulag. It also arguably the first 20th century genocide to be carried out by a nation state, compared to the Namibian genocide which was carried out in a colony and the Armenian genocide which was carried out by an Empire. I'll also note that the Opata, Pimas and Mayos were also killed in the same deportation process.
Paco Ignacio Taibo II narra genocidio de yaquis en México
14 Oct 2013
¿Genocidio en México?
Pedro Salmerón Sanginés
Documenta Taibo genocidio yaqui
El exterminio de los yaquis: del henequén al gasoducto
El holocausto yaqui
The Yaqui Genocide
Yaquis: The Story of a People’s War and a Genocide in Mexico
El genocidio del porfiriato que no te enseñaron en la escuela
Archaeology in the Service of the Tribe:
Three Episodes in Twenty-first-Century
Tribal Archaeology in the US–Mexico
J. Andrew Darling1
, Barnaby V. Lewis2, Robert
, and B. Sunday Eiselt
San Marcos Station:
Silent witness to the enslavement and attempted genocide of Mexico’s Yaqui Indians
The genocide against the Yaquis, like the Jew or gypsy
Six expulsions and a goodbye: spoils and exclusions in Sonora
Aarón Grageda Bustamante
submitted by Twiceandforsome to genocide [link] [comments]

Compelling Evidence for God: Jewish History - YouTube The Jewish Story - In Animation - YouTube The Whole Jewish History in One Hour - YouTube Khazars: History of the Jewish Turkic Nomads - YouTube History of the Jews - summary from 750 BC to Israel ... Crash Course in Jewish History 1. Ancient Israel Dr. Henry ... History of Jews - Facts about Judaism, What are the ... History of Jews in 5 Minutes - Animation - YouTube Trailer  The Story of the Jews  PBS - YouTube

A History of the Jews by Paul Johnson - Goodreads

  1. Compelling Evidence for God: Jewish History - YouTube
  2. The Jewish Story - In Animation - YouTube
  3. The Whole Jewish History in One Hour - YouTube
  4. Khazars: History of the Jewish Turkic Nomads - YouTube
  5. History of the Jews - summary from 750 BC to Israel ...
  6. Crash Course in Jewish History 1. Ancient Israel Dr. Henry ...
  7. History of Jews - Facts about Judaism, What are the ...
  8. History of Jews in 5 Minutes - Animation - YouTube
  9. Trailer The Story of the Jews PBS - YouTube
  10. The Mystery of the Jews - YouTube

Jewish history is full of some of the world’s most inspiring, thought-provoking engaging stories: The parting of the red sea, Jewish pirates or the miraculou... Let's look at a map and retrace the history and major events of the Jewish people throughout the world. Part two of this video is titled 'The Israeli-Palesti... Can a rational person believe in God? Ollie presents compelling evidence for the existence of a Higher Power through a quick analysis of Jewish history and t... Click here to Download our Android APP to have access to 1000's of #Smart_Courses covering length and breadth of almost all competitiv... Part 1 of a lightning-fast, four-lecture tour through Jewish history from earliest times to the present day. Delivered at the Young Israel of Lawrence-Cedarh... Watch the full series at (US Onl... Zum zweiten Mal widmen sich die Jüdischen Kulturtage Berlin einem Aspekt, der immanenter Teil jüdischer Kultur ist: dem Aspekt des Lernens. Zu diesem Zweck w... History of Jews in 5 Minutes - Animation: The history of the Jews and Judaism can be divided into five periods: (1) ancient Israel before Judaism, from the b... Who are the Jews? What impact have the Jews had on the world? A powerful short film that reveals the real story behind 'The Mystery of the Jews'. With remark... Video Sponsored by Ridge Wallet: Use Code “KNG” for 10% off your order! In our new video in the animated historical documentary ser...