No, it's been around for a longass time.

It got moved across most of asia for thousands of years.

That anthropologist guy was constantly going on about it appearing in pre-history.

No. One jew who was part of the muslim spanish ruling class "discovered ancient text" as soon as Spanish started kicking out jews with the muslims.

Yeah and the oral traditions were from 4000+ years ago according to the Jews.

The Hindu religion alone is 5000 years old dude. They simply have different names for the same thing.

I believe that there are ancient shared memories across all civilizations. I just don't think that means what you do. And Kabballah was invented, or possibly whispered in an ear in Spain centuries later.

I'm not talking about shared memory.

This system along with the symbols and chakras and sex magic, are all contained in religions from 5000 years onwards.

The Book of Enoch talks at length about how the Angels, who fell out of sheer lust for human women, corrupted mankind via teaching us "forbidden knowledge," a.k.a. magic, which goes a long way towards explaining why that book eventually became so demonized.

Considering that Eve is thrice cursed and thus more evil than Lillith, I can imagine why fallen angels would lust for them.

Imagine it from their (human women) perspective though. Women have always been fascinated by bad boys, and fallen angels are the ultimate bad boys, and they were also wiser and more beautiful than human men. No way that they could have resisted that.

According to the story, God took both Adam and Eve to the Tree "Hey .. you two! C'mere! See this Tree? Don't touch! Mine!" (yes, I gave God a Brooklyn accent). So Eve knew from the start not to touch, but she wanted it anyway and probably more so now that she was told no. So the Serpent (which is Temptation) talks her into it and she bites the apple. Nowhere in that lore does it say she had to take time to digest this, so we can safely assume her gaining that Knowledge of Good and Evil was instantaneous. She knew now WHY God said no. Now we come to the part everyone glosses over: she had a choice. At that moment, knowing what she did, she had a choice. She could have presented herself to God for judgement, apologizing for eating the forbidden fruit, and kept Adam out of it. Instead, she chose to rope the poor guy into it so she doesn't have to be alone. Shared sin is less terrible, to some minds. Three bad choices, three curses, and bait for fallen angels.

this is actually something I used to think about as a boy when I was in church.

“wow so Eve knew not to eat from the tree, but then did and grew ashamed, so instead chose to make sure Adam felt the same shame? she sounds just like the snake!”

I once read that Muslims also believe in the story of Adam and Eve and the apple, but they specifically state that Adam and Eve were both equally guilty, rather than it be Eve who took the first bite and encouraged Adam to do the same.

@A_Small_Dog @shortstories @Dagnar @PodunkPotato @zeke @GoonPatrol @James_Dixon @Jewpacabra @Kalogerosstilitis2RevengeoftheJunta @KingOfWhiteAmerica @multiversal_gangstalker @thatfightnerd @thefinn Well I would think that since Adam was nearby he should have told her to not do that since a man should protect, so maybe there is something to that?

@Sovereign @Dagnar @PodunkPotato @zeke @A_Small_Dog @GoonPatrol @James_Dixon @Jewpacabra @Kalogerosstilitis2RevengeoftheJunta @KingOfWhiteAmerica @multiversal_gangstalker @thatfightnerd @thefinn

So are you saying that if Eve ate a poisoned fruit than Adam should have tried to make her vomit up the fruit to protect her from food poisoning?

Had Adam done his job, and corrected Eve, Death would not have entered the entire world at that time.

There is no letter of the Adam and Eve story that states they were immortal or that death had not entered the world. In fact, it's made explicitly clear that they are cast out of the Garden because they would eat from the Tree of Eternal Life and become "like the gods."

The correct meaning of Genesis is made explicitly clear in the New Testament. It’s not my problem if others choose to reject that; but answers certainly exist and are available to us.

Not really. If anything, NT encourages the worst hermeneutics.

It obviously doesn’t matter to Christians whether people outside The Faith approve of NT hermeneutics 😂

Though I will say, a hard line like that is easier to work with than a thousand slippery heresies that almost sound right.

Jay Dyer, is this you?

You speak with his voice.

Got me 😂

Naw jk - he’s kind of a wanker, even if he’s technically right about most things

Dyer is an odd duck, but he's sharp.

I’m being a bit uncharitable saying he’s a bit of a wanker; but my point is I’m not actually him - even if, at times, I inadvertently say some things the same way he probably would 😂

Tbh I’m pretty sure he stonewalled me because I’m not in Communion with his Church; it’d be easy to be bitter and shitty about it but I do get it - so it’s forgivable 🙏🏻

I am neither is neither angry nor bitter. What I am is confused. Th Orthodox are proto-prots if they can deny the fathers at will. I can say theoretically the Truth is there, one line, but I see that fruit.

Not sure what you’re referring to, my man

I think he said You can't deny the fruit

No, I'm trying to justify in my mind sedevancantilism in order to reject the fruits without being Ortho with their errors.

@PodunkPotato @Dagnar @Sovereign @zeke @A_Small_Dog @GoonPatrol @James_Dixon @Jewpacabra @Kalogerosstilitis2RevengeoftheJunta @KingOfWhiteAmerica @multiversal_gangstalker @thatfightnerd @thefinn @Yesterday

Ultrajectine Sedevacantist or Ultramontane Sedevacantist?

How close do you think the end of the world is?

Neither Francis, nor Leo, is a validly elected Pope. We can argue the rest later.

Reading threads like this where there’s branches of the faith like “ultranuclearcyberrapist” that I’ve never heard of just reminds me there’s so much to the history of The Church that I don’t know.

I don’t know anything about what you’re talking about but I’m honestly surprised more people don’t think Francis and Leo are fraudulently elected.

Please don't use me for anything more than further research. But at the very least, Pope Benedict's resignation was coerced.

I think that’s abundantly obvious; he got thrown for a loop and wasn’t mentally prepared for the whole idea of what he’d have to do to get a handle on everything.

He was a smart man. Even with everything else.

There are some obvious key distinctions, but I see a good deal of overlap between Benedict XVI and Richard Nixon.

Framed and pushed out. I see your thought pattern.

Theoretically, Nixon actually had the power to declare National Emergency Powers, round up and arrest every jew and traitor, and have them executed as hostile foreign enemy agents - and ordered the Executive in all the States to do the same. There was no guarantee of success, and the bloodshed would have been extreme. But he clearly wasn’t Genghis Khan; he went in with Faith in the American Way of democracy and will of the people through electoral process and all that jazz. Big part of why he got elected in the first place.

While I don’t know the exact extent of powers delegated to the Pope, I imagine he could theoretically have done the same or similar, vis-a-vis the Swiss Guard locally, and friendly State actors and agents throughout Western Christendom. The bloodshed probably would have been even greater than is the case, with Nixon. But he wasn’t that kind of guy. Honestly, I don’t know for certain if that was actually ever on the table for Benedict XVI. But intuitively I sense every TradCat I ever met would gladly have cooperated.