12 steps of aa, a course in miracles, glenn beck, oliver anthony, joe rogan

[Ymarsakar]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FCMYB-6uHtM

Chris oliver anthony catapulted forward.

I was told by seers that in thr last days the fake leaders of humanity will fade and we will see the true leaders arise. Leaders not in hierarchy but in action and unity of consciousness.

Old souls lead the way.

Younger souls suspect that the qabal is doing everythijg but the qabal is dead. This is early stage paranoia not late stage. I am an example. 2006 early stage. 2012 late stage. 2015, cannot kill evil on my own, need a higher power to help.

This is what a broken heart and contrite spirit means in one s actual life. Oliver and glenn both acquired it in life.

For those that do not know the connection. 12 steps ofnalcoholics anonymoud was generated by students of a course ij miracles. And that text was channeled by an atheist jew who was claiming these are thr words of sananda aka jeshua.

https://youtu.be/QznmyuASgTk?si=NLxikJkwGxt9rF_z

A good reaction and analysis of why the public is running with oliver anthony songs.

[gkearney]

Only trouble with this post is that the AA twelve step program was developed in 1935 by Bill Wilson and Dr. Robert Holbrook Smith.

A Course in Miracles was first "scribed" by Helen Schucman in 1965 30 years after the development of the first 12 step program.

So it would be impossible for the students of A Course in Miracles to have “generated” AA’s 12 Steps. Someone here needs to learn how to do basic research before they go and sit down at the keyboard to post.

[Niemand]

So it would be impossible for the students of A Course in Miracles to have “generated” AA’s 12 Steps. Someone here needs to learn how to do basic research before they go and sit down at the keyboard to post.

I said that in another recent post but was told that I needed to stop being arrogant. Apparently the Romans didn't crucify people according to Ymarsakar, and the Vatican had made that up. In spite of the fact that it is well documented from non-Vatican sources that Rome crucified thousands of people.

[David13]

Still, or, but yet, there may be some insight coming forward here, after all.
dc

[Ymarsakar]

Only trouble with this post is that the AA twelve step program was developed in 1935 by Bill Wilson and Dr. Robert Holbrook Smith.

A Course in Miracles was first "scribed" by Helen Schucman in 1965 30 years after the development of the first 12 step program.

So it would be impossible for the students of A Course in Miracles to have “generated” AA’s 12 Steps. Someone here needs to learn how to do basic research before they go and sit down at the keyboard to post.

God transcends 3 decades when they work for the same god.

It is only impossible when your god is not theirs or your ego is limited to material linear paradigms.

Also, i have forgotten more about how these things connect together than what you know via reading.

https://www.aa.org/aa-timeline

That is a nice basic intro the timeline gk. Now time for everyone to think it through more fully. Immerse yourself in all the details.

Bonus rewards for those passing acing the quiz

Previously gk challenged me to provide any evidence of westerners migrating to russia. That had already been a thread i made days ago here. If only they had done some basic research before challenging me. It is not that hard.

[Ymarsakar]

So it would be impossible for the students of A Course in Miracles to have “generated” AA’s 12 Steps. Someone here needs to learn how to do basic research before they go and sit down at the keyboard to post.

I said that in another recent post but was told that I needed to stop being arrogant. Apparently the Romans didn't crucify people according to Ymarsakar, and the Vatican had made that up. In spite of the fact that it is well documented from non-Vatican sources that Rome crucified thousands of people.

The claim that romans never crucified people was not made by ymar. Nobody i recall seeing even made that claim at that thread or this forum recentlt.

Nie was just going on a trigger based on tu quoque and red herrings. As will sometimes happen when you think you have won over moi

Try to bring your best against me. The usual hodge podge tries are too weak.

Sometimes when you get emotionally invested in my responses, a veil will cover you and you wikl stumble around in darkness.

At least gk did some basic homework before making claims this time. Whether that is advanced enough is hard to say. Aa is not a church so they did not have 2 founders. Anyone can form an aa group afaik. Were there aa groups in 1965? Probably. Did they have something to do with a course in miracles.... uh oh. Maybe too much of a hint. Yall still think you can just search online and get the right answers... right heh heh

Wolf and fred, pay close attention.

[gkearney]

Must be nice to live in a world where you can make up facts to suit your narrative.

[Niemand]

Must be nice to live in a world where you can make up facts to suit your narrative.

Or to deny things still on the board. See below.

The claim that romans never crucified people was not made by ymar. Nobody i recall seeing even made that claim at that thread or this forum recentlt.

Gaslighting. Either you're lying, distorting the definitions of words, or can't remember two days ago. "Crucify" means to execute someone on a cross.

[John Tavner]

THeromans didn't use crosses for crucifixion simply because it was too much work and wood wasn't exactly falling out of the sky.

Wood was valuable. They would prefer to use something even less valuation and bulky, but while rock may be more available, it is not exactly accessible.

So when you say Jeshua was crucified on a cross, that is de facto and de jure incorrect. Which should have made you question what else you have read or were told is right or wrong.

"The Romans did use crosses. "

The ROman Catholics used crosses. They are called the Church of Rome. The same Rome that crucified the prophets and your savior, also gets to tell you about crosses. Nice mimic and replacement.

By tradition and incorrectly edited scriptures, humanity was fooled.

Maybe you meant something else.. but it seems like you said "Romans didn't use crosses for crucifixion simply because it was too much work..."

[Niemand]

Were there aa groups in 1965? Probably.

Not probably, definitely. I doubt many of that vintage are still with us, but yes there were.

[Niemand]

Replying at the top Ymar style. More likely he is just spitballing and doesn't know the etymology or the definition of the word "crucify".

It puts him in line with the Muslims and JWs.

THeromans didn't use crosses for crucifixion simply because it was too much work and wood wasn't exactly falling out of the sky.

Wood was valuable. They would prefer to use something even less valuation and bulky, but while rock may be more available, it is not exactly accessible.

So when you say Jeshua was crucified on a cross, that is de facto and de jure incorrect. Which should have made you question what else you have read or were told is right or wrong.

"The Romans did use crosses. "

The ROman Catholics used crosses. They are called the Church of Rome. The same Rome that crucified the prophets and your savior, also gets to tell you about crosses. Nice mimic and replacement.

By tradition and incorrectly edited scriptures, humanity was fooled.

Maybe you meant something else.. but it seems like you said "Romans didn't use crosses for crucifixion simply because it was too much work..."

[Ymarsakar]

https://acim.org/archives/articles/incr ... im-part-i/

How seers were chosen and made in the production of sananda s book aka jeshua the christ.

[Ymarsakar]

THeromans didn't use crosses for crucifixion simply because it was too much work and wood wasn't exactly falling out of the sky.

Wood was valuable. They would prefer to use something even less valuation and bulky, but while rock may be more available, it is not exactly accessible.

So when you say Jeshua was crucified on a cross, that is de facto and de jure incorrect. Which should have made you question what else you have read or were told is right or wrong.

"The Romans did use crosses. "

The ROman Catholics used crosses. They are called the Church of Rome. The same Rome that crucified the prophets and your savior, also gets to tell you about crosses. Nice mimic and replacement.

By tradition and incorrectly edited scriptures, humanity was fooled.

Maybe you meant something else.. but it seems like you said "Romans didn't use crosses for crucifixion simply because it was too much work..."

I was talking to peeps about the crucifixion. 2 pieces of wood equals a cross. A stake is 1 piece of wood. Less weight less nails less trouble. Might even be more stable and not fall down.

This is seen by nie as ymar claiming romans dont crucify. Veil gotcha there

One of the traps to trying to gotcha ymar is when u dont fully read the context of the discussion. Because yall aint intetested in discussing the topic but contending with ymar.

Reminds me of jordan peterson and the british interviewer. Emotional investments are agendas which often interfere with logickal arguments.

Then instead of admitting their mistake they have to carry on their red herring and tu quoque to another thread i made in order to hijack it. They then declare victory.

But yall fell into the trap. Again.

I am more interested in what gk comes up with. They already surpassed 26 people here who dont understand my sentences whatsoever. At least partial comprehensioj is vetter than 0

[Niemand]

That's what they call a massive cope. Being put on a cross is called being crucified or crucifixion. What you're talking about is being tied to a stake. (As the JWs believe).

I'm well aware that there is a long term debate about the shape of what Jesus executed on, including whether it was T-shaped, a tree (living or dead), some kind of frame or even a wall. Some of these are more convincing than others. I'm familiar with most of them including the "torture stake" theory, the supposed relationship with the ankh, the sun, the constellations and even Mjölnir.

Jesus is supposed to have had a spear put into his side, which would be considerably harder if his hands were by his sides. Behind his back and there is an issue too. If his hands were directly above his torso then we have the issue of having to put the INRI sign above it.

If you're swithering over what stauros and crux mean then you could have made stronger cases from those etymologies.

But yall fell into the trap. Again.

Do you worship a trickster god?

Maybe you could have thrown in the notion that Julius Caesar was the basis for Jesus Christ. There have been people who've said that but it's not fashionable enough.

[John Tavner]

THeromans didn't use crosses for crucifixion simply because it was too much work and wood wasn't exactly falling out of the sky.

Wood was valuable. They would prefer to use something even less valuation and bulky, but while rock may be more available, it is not exactly accessible.

So when you say Jeshua was crucified on a cross, that is de facto and de jure incorrect. Which should have made you question what else you have read or were told is right or wrong.

"The Romans did use crosses. "

The ROman Catholics used crosses. They are called the Church of Rome. The same Rome that crucified the prophets and your savior, also gets to tell you about crosses. Nice mimic and replacement.

By tradition and incorrectly edited scriptures, humanity was fooled.

Maybe you meant something else.. but it seems like you said "Romans didn't use crosses for crucifixion simply because it was too much work..."

I was talking to peeps about the crucifixion. 2 pieces of wood equals a cross. A stake is 1 piece of wood. Less weight less nails less trouble. Might even be more stable and not fall down.

This is seen by nie as ymar claiming romans dont crucify. Veil gotcha there

One of the traps to trying to gotcha ymar is when u dont fully read the context of the discussion. Because yall aint intetested in discussing the topic but contending with ymar.

Reminds me of jordan peterson and the british interviewer. Emotional investments are agendas which often interfere with logickal arguments.

Then instead of admitting their mistake they have to carry on their red herring and tu quoque to another thread i made in order to hijack it. They then declare victory.

But yall fell into the trap. Again.

I am more interested in what gk comes up with. They already surpassed 26 people here who dont understand my sentences whatsoever. At least partial comprehensioj is vetter than 0

Alright - Peeps said "preaching of the cross" and you replied romans didn't use crosses - What do you believe the "preaching of the cross" means? The method exactly isn't really needful or even deceitful through tradition. I don't really see how it might or would change anything. though History records that Thomas talks about nails (plural) in hands and in feet meaning it wasn't just one nail but multiple, likely indicating arms stretched out (He was crucified for claiming to be King after all). Peter was crucified (arms spread out) (John 21) Regardless, the cross or stake or whatever was an instrument of death - it means to suffer that which others do to you and to not revile back, but to bless- or in other words "die to ourselves" and live for God. Andrew was crucified on an X shaped cross (which was definitely two pieces of wood. Peter was crucified upside down and his wife was also crucified on a cross

The Book of Mormon even states Jesus was on a cross: 14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.."

Regardless, the point isn't so much the two pieces of wood or one- though there is symbolism in the Tau and I believe it was a Cross (two pieces of wood). It is about how we go about our life and how we react to life towards others and the belief in what Jesus did for us and to "follow Him." That we love not our own life even unto death.

[Niemand]

I could have also thrown in a few allusions to the world tree, which turns up in many mythologies including the Norse as Yggdrasil. Odin/Woden/Wotan is said to have hung from a tree, and the Basques, Germans and Celts all had sacred trees. (Some of these are still around like the ?oak at Gernika/Guernica and the Glastonbury Thorn.

[ransomme]

Fascinating

[Fred]