{"id":3410,"date":"2020-03-01T19:56:02","date_gmt":"2020-03-01T18:56:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/krestanstvo\/vatican-biblical-scholar-mauro-biglino-his-video-lectures-with-subtitles\/"},"modified":"2026-02-12T21:17:43","modified_gmt":"2026-02-12T20:17:43","slug":"vatican-biblical-scholar-mauro-biglino-his-video-lectures-with-subtitles","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/krestanstvo\/en\/vatican-biblical-scholar-mauro-biglino-his-video-lectures-with-subtitles\/","title":{"rendered":"Vatican biblical scholar Mauro Biglino, his video lectures with subtitles"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_83 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/krestanstvo\/en\/vatican-biblical-scholar-mauro-biglino-his-video-lectures-with-subtitles\/#Lecture_2013\" >Lecture 2013<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/krestanstvo\/en\/vatican-biblical-scholar-mauro-biglino-his-video-lectures-with-subtitles\/#Lecture_2014_Part_1\" >Lecture 2014 Part 1<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/krestanstvo\/en\/vatican-biblical-scholar-mauro-biglino-his-video-lectures-with-subtitles\/#Lecture_2014_Part_2\" >Lecture 2014 Part 2<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/krestanstvo\/en\/vatican-biblical-scholar-mauro-biglino-his-video-lectures-with-subtitles\/#Lecture_2014_part_3\" >Lecture 2014 part 3<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/krestanstvo\/en\/vatican-biblical-scholar-mauro-biglino-his-video-lectures-with-subtitles\/#Lecture_2016_Part_1\" >Lecture 2016 Part 1<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/krestanstvo\/en\/vatican-biblical-scholar-mauro-biglino-his-video-lectures-with-subtitles\/#Lecture_2016_part_2\" >Lecture 2016 part 2<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/krestanstvo\/en\/vatican-biblical-scholar-mauro-biglino-his-video-lectures-with-subtitles\/#Lecture_2017\" >Lecture 2017<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Lecture_2013\"><\/span>Lecture 2013<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p> <a href=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/1j_dTCKImzM\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/youtu.be\/1j_dTCKImzM<\/a><\/p><p>Okay.<br \/> So, is anyone here?<br \/> as it is fine for it to be so<br \/> who never&#8230;<br \/> who doesn&#39;t know what I&#39;m talking about<br \/> Besides the fact that I&#39;m talking about the Bible&#8230;<br \/> but haven&#39;t you heard anything about it yet?<br \/> almost nothing<br \/> Where is it almost nothing?<br \/> Yeah, there, okay.<br \/> almost nothing else<br \/> So only two people.<br \/> unbelievable<br \/> Okay.<br \/> So<br \/> we will talk about the Bible<br \/> and in a somewhat specific way<br \/> That&#39;s clear.<br \/> we will talk about it from the point of view of a literal reading<br \/> I am doing this literal reading because<br \/> that<br \/> I&#39;m saying this for these two people.<br \/> that I translated Hebrew for the San Paolo publishing house for many years<br \/> which was issued<br \/> 17 books of the Old Testament<br \/> in my translation<br \/> and then, from 2010, I started telling those things in my own way<br \/> At that moment, my employment was, of course, terminated.<br \/> So I&#39;m lucky that I have nothing left to lose.<br \/> except for your face&#8230;<br \/> But I don&#39;t care about that.<br \/> I know I won&#39;t lose her.<br \/> and<br \/> a little bit of smugness, forgive me, but&#8230;<br \/> and therefore<br \/> I can speak freely, write freely.<br \/> because I am no longer conditioned by anything<br \/> So Bigli is coming.<br \/> a, Bigli is coming<br \/> everything I&#39;m explaining<br \/> is of course not considered acceptable<br \/> is not considered acceptable by so-called tradition<br \/> or the so-called doctrine<br \/> this afternoon, when I arrived here<br \/> one person gave me an email<br \/> which she received<br \/> a mail that talks about me<br \/> I&#39;ll read you the last lines.<br \/> that when a person has no faith<br \/> necessarily becomes naive<br \/> and therefore, that for the undersigned<br \/> only two hypotheses remain<br \/> who behaves like this<br \/> chili, as I do it<br \/> and he is a trap-maker<br \/> exploiting people&#39;s ignorance<br \/> either he is an arrogant person<br \/> which, instead of spreading culture<br \/> and did a noble and highly philanthropic service<br \/> spreads ignorance<br \/> and wants to assert himself<br \/> enslaving people<br \/> or he is an uneducated person himself<br \/> Okay? I&#39;m reading this completely fresh, I got it 45 minutes ago.<br \/> It&#39;s one of the more polite things they say to me&#8230;<br \/> chili, basically it&#39;s about this:<br \/> either I enslave people, or I am an uneducated person<br \/> So you&#8230; but that&#39;s what others wrote about me&#8230;<br \/> so I present to you the reading of the uneducated<br \/> I have a third hypothesis.<br \/> between enslavement&#8230; at least this is how I will give a public answer<br \/> &#8230;between enslaving people and being an uneducated person<br \/> the third hypothesis is that<br \/> &#8230;on the seventh bite, I too realize that it&#39;s polenta<br \/> in this sense<br \/> I am invited to dinner.<br \/> I get polenta on my plate, which I like.<br \/> but<br \/> this polenta is presented to me<br \/> as if it were the most refined dish<br \/> prepared according to a recipe that only a few people know<br \/> who share it with only a few others<br \/> to persons who<br \/> they consider themselves worthy of receiving this knowledge and information<br \/> and so they tell it to me sweetly, they flavor it nicely for me<br \/> and I&#39;ll have one bite<br \/> Okay, I believe it.<br \/> then I&#39;ll have a second one, then a third one<br \/> but then, starting from the fourth, fifth, I start to suspect something<br \/> and when I take the seventh bite, I say: no, look<br \/> This is polenta.<br \/> chili flour cooked in water<br \/> chili, food, in quotation marks<br \/> and I say that without contempt, because I like it<br \/> food of the uneducated<br \/> because you just need to boil water and pour flour into it<br \/> he doesn&#39;t have to do much&#8230;<br \/> So I say, if someone offers me polenta<br \/> So I&#39;ll have it very, very gladly.<br \/> I just want to be told that I am being served a plate of polenta.<br \/> and this is the third hypothesis to the other two<br \/> between whether I am someone who deceives people or whether I am an uneducated person<br \/> I say no, so at a certain point<br \/> I understand that certain things&#8230; let&#39;s say, I feel like I&#39;m starting to understand.<br \/> that certain things are presented to me in a certain way<br \/> it seems to me that they are no longer such<br \/> Okay?<br \/> Let&#39;s say that over the years, while working on translations, I&#39;ve reached the seventh bite.<br \/> and so I&#39;m putting down the seventh bite<br \/> then everyone has to do what they want with it, including saying: I don&#39;t like polenta, I&#39;ll have something else<br \/> That&#39;s fine.<br \/> you know well, that is, almost all of you, except for two<br \/> you know very well that I have no groups, followers, sects, nothing<br \/> I&#39;m making my things available, and everyone can do with them what they want.<br \/> including the fact that someone will immediately throw it away if they don&#39;t like it, and that&#39;s that<br \/> I only do conferences where I am invited.<br \/> in the sense that I am not a preacher by profession, and I have no truths to distribute<br \/> it is not my intention to go around and tell those things<br \/> I go where people call me.<br \/> If people stop calling me, I&#39;ll stop driving.<br \/> that&#39;s no problem, because I repeat, I don&#39;t need any follower or henchman<br \/> But, two things&#8230;<br \/> Yeah, and as I always say, ask me whenever you want, of course.<br \/> So don&#39;t wait until the end, and let the organizers tell me when to take a break.<br \/> Because I don&#39;t keep track of time, I don&#39;t even have a watch, you tell me&#8230;<br \/> So<br \/> two things that are pivotal&#8230; &#8230;when it comes to the Bible<br \/> the Bible, regardless of translations, is not what we think it is<br \/> is not what we are told<br \/> in the sense that it&#39;s not a book that was written like this&#8230;<br \/> thousands of years ago<br \/> that she was inspired by God<br \/> and that no one had interfered with it since then<br \/> and that it has been gradually passed down by tradition, for centuries, always with respect, etc., etc.<br \/> the truth is the exact opposite<br \/> The Bible is a collection of books that are among the most<br \/> revised, rewritten, rearranged, deleted, supplemented, amended<br \/> hidden, discovered, reworked, deleted<br \/> edited books on planet Earth<br \/> and it has always been like that<br \/> until the time between the 6th and 9th centuries AD<br \/> let&#39;s say Jewish theology<br \/> she felt the need to stabilize the situation<br \/> we will say stop, we will do it in such a way that the Bible can no longer be manipulated<br \/> and so they defined, let&#39;s say, a code<br \/> This is what we know as the Masoretic Codex.<br \/> because this work was done by the Masoretes<br \/> i.e. guardians of tradition<br \/> and by the way, there were several schools that also competed with each other<br \/> so it&#39;s not like they agree on everything<br \/> and let&#39;s say that this Tiberian school prevailed<br \/> and so, basically, all the Bibles we have at home are based on this codex<br \/> from the so-called Masoretic Codex<br \/> which is one of the possible codes, then I&#39;ll give you an example&#8230;<br \/> So we&#39;ll start by saying that we have one of the possible Bibles.<br \/> And I&#39;ll say something very clear now, so that we understand each other well.<br \/> traditions, that is, so-called traditions<br \/> not only is it not a guarantee of truth, but it is a certainty of manipulation<br \/> So when we hear people say, but this is according to tradition&#8230; okay&#8230;<br \/> Okay, if one tradition says so, we&#39;re starting to doubt it.<br \/> Such is the approach.<br \/> That&#39;s why I say<br \/> I don&#39;t have the calling of a preacher, because for that I would have to possess the truth.<br \/> No? Someone says: I know how things are, so I&#39;ll tell you about them.<br \/> I don&#39;t know how things are.<br \/> I just know that we have one of the possible Bibles.<br \/> I know there are others<br \/> As I said, I&#39;ll make an example later.<br \/> I work with this one, because let&#39;s say<br \/> that the holders of power, knowledge, say about it that it is the one that is inspired by God<br \/> So I work with her not because I chose her, but because they chose her.<br \/> and I don&#39;t know if she&#39;s the right one<br \/> I don&#39;t know, nobody knows.<br \/> because everyone says that the right one is theirs<br \/> so everyone is convinced that they have the right one<br \/> We have the Masoretic codex, the Samaritans have a different codex.<br \/> it is the Samaritan Torah<br \/> The Torah, as you know, is the first 5 books of the Old Testament.<br \/> what we know as the Pentateuch<br \/> that is the core of the Bible<br \/> between the Samaritan Torah and the Masoretic Torah there are 2000 deviations, 2000!<br \/> There are Bibles&#8230; there is Targumim, which is the Bible written in Aramaic.<br \/> and there are those deviations&#8230;<br \/> then we&#39;ll take a look at one&#8230; the deviations there are really huge<br \/> it&#39;s just a completely different text<br \/> but really completely different<br \/> and this is not a matter of translations<br \/> these are the individual biblical codices<br \/> when we put them side by side and compare them<br \/> between the Masoretic codex, which is a very young codex<br \/> because, as I said, this work was done between the 6th and 9th centuries AD<br \/> so it was completed, let&#39;s say, in the time of Charlemagne<br \/> so not millennia ago, in the time of Charlemagne<br \/> when we compare the Masoretic codex with parallel texts found in Qumran<br \/> Someone has probably heard of them, and they are much older.<br \/> there are deviations that are really fundamental<br \/> fundamental<br \/> and what the Masoretes did, they defined<br \/> let&#39;s say&#8230; the meaning of the Bible<br \/> because Semitic languages are written only with consonants<br \/> so the meaning of the word remains unclear until the vowels are inserted<br \/> these Masoretes inserted vowels there<br \/> Let&#39;s do an example.<br \/> Let&#39;s take an example from the Bible, it says LVT here.<br \/> it is written from right to left,<br \/> when I insert &quot;e&quot; here&#8230; vowels do not exist here, dots and commas are used to indicate the sound of vowels<br \/> this word written like this is &quot;tevel&quot;<br \/> and means earth, world, universe<br \/> when I make another &quot;e&quot; out of this &quot;e&quot;<br \/> it is still read as &quot;tevel&quot;<br \/> but this means sexual intercourse between a woman and an animal<br \/> This is how it is: the Earth, the universe, the world.<br \/> this is how sexual intercourse between a woman and an animal<br \/> or sexual intercourse between a father-in-law and daughter-in-law<br \/> These are biblical examples, not fantasy, right? Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20<br \/> So the Masoretes did this work, they inserted these marks here.<br \/> As for these signs, there are still certain exegetical currents today.<br \/> mainly Jewish interpreters, who alter them<br \/> chili removes these vowel sounds and inserts others<br \/> and thus also significantly changes the meaning of the stories<br \/> I don&#39;t do that.<br \/> because if I did, they would massacre me, besides everything else&#8230;<br \/> I respect every dot of the Masoretes<br \/> I respect every dot of the Masoretes<br \/> I&#39;m not changing anything, not even a single dot.<br \/> I was told that this is a text inspired by God.<br \/> Okay, so I&#39;m doing a reading of a text inspired by God.<br \/> dot. I don&#39;t interfere with anything<br \/> and I do it by pretending<br \/> with the understanding of the things I have just said<br \/> with an awareness of how the Bible was formed<br \/> I do it by &quot;pretending&quot; that when<br \/> when the biblical authors wrote something, that&#39;s exactly what they wanted to say<br \/> so I pretend that the language has some meaning<br \/> here, in that email, which I just read to you<br \/> it is said that&#8230;<br \/> that key to reading, this key, is wrong,<br \/> because there are other keys for reading<br \/> These are theological, spiritual, esoteric-initiatory keys, that&#39;s fine.<br \/> I have no problem with that.<br \/> I know these things very well from high school.<br \/> that all these keys to reading exist<br \/> all of them, we know them, don&#39;t we? these are the keys that theology uses<br \/> we&#39;ve known it since childhood<br \/> because more or less everyone<br \/> Right? Because we&#39;ve all been through some kind of upbringing.<br \/> Okay, they all exist.<br \/> Great, no problem.<br \/> I say, let me present my key to reading the uneducated.<br \/> and that is literal reading<br \/> Let me put it next to the others.<br \/> and instead, I am told in every way that I must not do it<br \/> Of course, I&#39;m still doing it.<br \/> I am told in every way that I must not do it.<br \/> if there is a reason<br \/> because when using this key to read, meanings emerge<br \/> which are<br \/> may be wrong<br \/> Really? Because it&#39;s possible that someone told us a bunch of nonsense, the truth is something else.<br \/> But I&#39;m talking about the text.<br \/> meanings emerge that have logic and coherence<br \/> and intelligibility, which does not even require interpretation<br \/> just read them<br \/> just read them<br \/> By the way, some of these meanings are also found in the Bibles we have at home.<br \/> then we&#39;ll read something&#8230;<br \/> because those meanings are already there<br \/> Since September last year, I have only been reading from the Bibles that you have at home at conferences.<br \/> I don&#39;t even read my translations.<br \/> because everything is already written there<br \/> you just have to read the bible here, which is of course something we don&#39;t do<br \/> to the happiness of the holders of power<br \/> to the happiness of those who write such emails<br \/> because when you read carefully, you get to the seventh bite<br \/> because everyone gets to the seventh bite when reading carefully<br \/> So&#8230; I was saying&#8230;<br \/> we have one of the possible bibles<br \/> Considering all the adjustments that have been made over time, we can only pretend that&#8230;<br \/> In my opinion, this is the only correct, coherent approach to the text that was created in this way.<br \/> but I&#39;m not the only one saying that<br \/> Okay, if you want, I&#39;ll say it a little more clearly.<br \/> maybe a little too much<br \/> in 1958 at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem<br \/> one project was launched, the Bible project<br \/> which is run by university professors, Jewish biblical scholars<br \/> So they, only they.<br \/> and the aim of the project is<br \/> reconstruct the Bible to be as close as possible<br \/> the original Bible, of which no one knows what it was like<br \/> they reserved two centuries for it<br \/> So they have been working on it for 60 years, and they will be working on it for another 140 years.<br \/> for the next 140 years they will have the Bible<br \/> resembling<br \/> the original Bible, of which we do not know what it was like<br \/> certainly no one will know what the vocals were in the original<br \/> No one will ever find out.<br \/> because they were never written down<br \/> we only know the vowels written by the Masoretes<br \/> chili written by those who found a certain meaning in it<br \/> we will never know anything about all the others<br \/> It is said that tradition is the guarantee of truth.<br \/> and on the basis of this<br \/> there are people who distinguish between orthodoxy and heterodoxy<br \/> what is right to say about the Bible and what is not right to say<br \/> among the coordinators of the project of the Jewish University in Jerusalem<br \/> For example, Prof. Rofe says:<br \/> He has been teaching at that university for 40 years, okay?<br \/> A Jew, a biblical scholar&#8230;<br \/> It is known that every biblical text transmitted in writing or orally is never the same.<br \/> texts from the 4th century BC were like an inverted funnel, from 1 word at the input, several words came out<br \/> Why?<br \/> because in the 4th century BC we are in the period of return from the so-called Babylonian exile<br \/> The Jerusalem priesthood seized power.<br \/> and said: from now on, we, in principle<br \/> we are the custodians of this knowledge<br \/> and so they decided what<br \/> the doctrine is to be passed on<br \/> and from that moment on, they basically began to form a monotheistic doctrine that is not in the Bible<br \/> texts from the 4th century BC were like an inverted funnel<br \/> from 1 word at the input, several came out, in the sense of what emerged from it<br \/> 2.5 centuries later, however, the opposite happened, the funnel was turned upside down<br \/> and in the Temple of Jerusalem someone said: this is the official text<br \/> from that moment on, all books were edited<br \/> and when a book was very different<br \/> as if they couldn&#39;t adjust it because it was too different<br \/> So because they couldn&#39;t destroy it, they buried it.<br \/> They deleted what did not serve their doctrine, they made it disappear.<br \/> The Bible you have at home cites 11 books.<br \/> which no longer exist, officially<br \/> maybe they are in some Roman or Jerusalem library<br \/> but they are not officially available<br \/> they were made to disappear because they were too explicit<br \/> they couldn&#39;t adjust them<br \/> and because they couldn&#39;t normally destroy them<br \/> because, after all, they were written by their ancestors<br \/> so they just intervened in such a way that they were not available<br \/> THIS IS THE OLD LAW<br \/> anything but inspired by God<br \/> or if he inspired him at the beginning, then he completely lost interest in him, there is no doubt about that<br \/> So I can say<br \/> which I was just pointing out to an acquaintance<br \/> something I always repeat, but&#8230;<br \/> I say: THE BIBLE DOES NOT SPEAK OF GOD<br \/> I&#39;m not saying God doesn&#39;t exist, because I don&#39;t know anything about God.<br \/> So for people of faith, God exists, he exists, no problem.<br \/> I don&#39;t care about it.<br \/> I say that the book does not talk about God<br \/> which is something completely different from saying that God does not exist<br \/> I am not interested in spiritual worlds because I know nothing about spiritual worlds.<br \/> There are plenty of masters who know everything, ok.<br \/> if someone wants the truth about the spiritual worlds<br \/> it has hundreds of doors where he can ring the doorbell<br \/> but don&#39;t ring my doorbell<br \/> Is that clear? Because I have no truth about the spiritual worlds, not even for myself, let alone for others.<br \/> I live happily in uncertainty.<br \/> and I&#39;m actually swimming in it wonderfully<br \/> so I can&#39;t even tell someone to follow me<br \/> because I wouldn&#39;t be able to tell the person who would want to follow me why we&#39;re going there, but I don&#39;t know where I&#39;m going<br \/> But I don&#39;t know how to be clearer.<br \/> and I already know that&#8230; ok&#8230;<br \/> nothing<br \/> So<br \/> one of the things&#8230;<br \/> I&#39;ll give you an example of the adjustments&#8230;<br \/> performed by the Masoretes or other traditions<br \/> we know that Moses<br \/> that&#39;s what the Masoretes tell us, and we pretend it&#39;s true<br \/> that Moses was a descendant of the Ivrim<br \/> chilean descendant of Hebrews<br \/> when we read the Bible written in Aramaic<br \/> it says there that Moses was a descendant of the Yahudis<br \/> the Egyptian priests of Pharaoh Akhenaten<br \/> So, according to the Aramaic Bible, Moses was an Egyptian.<br \/> According to the Masoretic Bible, Moses was a Jew.<br \/> plus or minus<br \/> because the Bibles you have at home also say so<br \/> that when Moses has to flee from Egypt<br \/> because he killed a person and wants to avoid conviction<br \/> so he goes to the so-called land&#8230; to Sinai, to simplify it<br \/> and there he comes to a spring where some guys are bothering a girl<br \/> which tries to connect the cattle, will protect it<br \/> she will become his wife<br \/> The girl returns home and tells her father what happened.<br \/> and her father says: and who is the one who helped you?<br \/> and she, while Moses is coming, says, in the Bibles you have at home: there&#39;s that Egyptian<br \/> So in the Bibles we have at home, there is a trace of the fact that Moses was probably an Egyptian.<br \/> So here we have a tradition that says that Moses was a descendant of the Hebrews.<br \/> and the second tradition, which says that he was a descendant of the Yahudis<br \/> Don&#39;t ask me which one is the right one, because I don&#39;t know.<br \/> Of course.<br \/> Nobody knows, everyone has their own truth.<br \/> It&#39;s okay, everyone should have their own faith, great, no problem.<br \/> we know<br \/> tetragram<br \/> JHVH<br \/> which is supposed to be Yahweh, or the name of God<br \/> in Bibles written in Aramaic<br \/> The name of this one is not here.<br \/> but it is written 2 jody<br \/> it&#39;s two &quot;i&quot;s, and it&#39;s read as &quot;ay&quot;<br \/> So in the Masoretic Bible we have JHVH<br \/> in the Aramaic Bibles Targumim we have JOD JOD<br \/> Which name is the real one? Who knows&#8230;<br \/> Tradition is the certainty of a mini-manipulation.<br \/> and here, as you can see&#8230; we&#39;re not talking about translations, are we? We&#39;re talking about how the Bible is written.<br \/> even before we think about its translation, this is written<br \/> we know that Jews cannot pronounce the name of Yahweh<br \/> No? Because&#8230;<br \/> because it is an ineffable name, it is an extension of one<br \/> the exact instruction that he, whatever his name was, gave<br \/> He said: don&#39;t call me unnecessarily<br \/> but don&#39;t call me unnecessarily doesn&#39;t mean don&#39;t name me<br \/> it means: don&#39;t call me about all your bullshit<br \/> you, because then we&#39;ll see who it is<br \/> you solve all your affairs yourselves<br \/> and if there are really any problems<br \/> serious, so you&#39;ll come to me with that<br \/> First, however, follow the hierarchy of your bosses, whom you have as intermediaries.<br \/> so the Jews&#8230; to be sure<br \/> that they do not violate this rule<br \/> they decided that they would never name him<br \/> and so instead of JHVH, Yahweh, they say Adonai<br \/> which in the language of the Masoretes means My Adon<br \/> So that ending is a possessive suffix.<br \/> first person singular<br \/> according to the Targumim, however, Adonai does not mean My Lord<br \/> but it means Adon by the name of Aj<br \/> who was an Egyptian commander<br \/> Which tradition is the right one? I don&#39;t know&#8230;<br \/> but we must know that they exist<br \/> because otherwise we expose ourselves to risk<br \/> we know about these things because we conduct readings of the uneducated<br \/> that&#39;s why I keep doing it&#8230; the reading of the uneducated<br \/> that&#39;s why I keep doing it<br \/> otherwise, we expose ourselves to the risk of avoiding reading the uneducated, of closing our eyes<br \/> and that we will be told that the Bible actually says&#8230; no, no, no&#8230;<br \/> one Bible says some things, another Bible says others<br \/> then we are free and should be free to choose the one we like more<br \/> we, here in Italy, or simply in the Catholic West<br \/> we are to believe that the Old Testament consists of 46 books<br \/> right-wing<br \/> i.e. canonical, inspired<br \/> for Jerusalem, for the Jewish canon, there are only 39 true books<br \/> 7 of them are true for us, but they are not true for them.<br \/> for Protestants&#8230;. Protestants basically follow the Jewish canon<br \/> So even when it comes to Protestants, the 7 books that are true for Catholics are not true for them.<br \/> if we were born among Coptic Christians<br \/> chili in Africa<br \/> we were told that there are basically 39 of them<br \/> the Jewish canon, plus other books that are not authentic for either Jews or Catholics<br \/> Which Bible is the right one? Who is right? No one can say, no one can say.<br \/> because for the Copts it is clear that the books there are genuine<br \/> and for us, on the contrary, they are fake<br \/> because there is someone here who decides from the table which books we should believe and which books we should not believe<br \/> and I haven&#39;t even mentioned the translations<br \/> only about the Bible as such<br \/> between the Masoretic Book of Isaiah<br \/> and the book of Isaiah found in Qumran, practically in its entirety<br \/> there are more than 250 deviations, including whole words<br \/> which are in one and not in the other<br \/> each group wrote its own book and adapted it<br \/> each group<br \/> then there is one dominant group that says: now I will tell you, we will tell you which books are the right ones<br \/> and it&#39;s from the dominant group, from which, of course, these emails are coming<br \/> because this is a Dominican priest<br \/> and it is from the dominant group from which these emails are coming, because it is not possible to accept<br \/> that these things should be interpreted, but these are independent of translations<br \/> I haven&#39;t started talking about translations yet.<br \/> but this is the Bible, this is how it is for everyone to see<br \/> and that&#39;s something you can understand for yourself, by yourself<br \/> you just have to want to study these things&#8230;<br \/> but these things are obviously like this<br \/> The interpretations are not related to this in any way.<br \/> whether it says JOD JOD here and JHVH here, it has nothing to do with translations, it&#39;s just written that way<br \/> Then let everyone choose their own version.<br \/> American rabbis, who are very open and of the studious type, write.<br \/> one of them is&#8230; I asked him a few questions about Abraham&#8230; a few such curiosities&#8230; and&#8230;<br \/> I just wanted something from him&#8230; in my opinion, Abraham was a Sumerian.<br \/> he was a Sumerian<br \/> that was his country of origin, he lived there for some time, etc. etc. etc.<br \/> and this man, Dr. Robert Wexler, who is the president of the American Jewish University in Los Angeles<br \/> teacher, Jew<br \/> from the American Jewish University in Los Angeles<br \/> he writes to me that most modern Bible scholars<br \/> &#8230;they believe that Abraham never existed.<br \/> Abraham, probably, never&#8230;<br \/> most modern biblical scholars, &quot;scholar&quot; means a scholar, not a schoolboy, right? in English<br \/> &quot;most&quot; means v\u011bt\u0161ina<br \/> their modern biblical scholars believe that Abraham never existed<br \/> Well, not everyone accepts that Moses was historical.<br \/> not everyone accepts that Moses existed<br \/> they write it with complete calm<br \/> with the Bible, it&#39;s much better to pretend, to act as if<br \/> Then, God exists, exists, great.<br \/> Fortunately, they don&#39;t need this book.<br \/> because if he needed this book, he would be in a really bad way<br \/> God exists, for people of faith, great, I have nothing to say about that.<br \/> I have something to say when someone tells me that God is in the Old Testament&#8230;<br \/> So&#8230; no questions?<br \/> As for God, something about Allah?<br \/> No, nothing&#8230; nothing, because in order to talk about the Quran, we would first need to talk about the New Testament.<br \/> I have to stick to my path&#8230; now I&#39;m not even talking about the new law<br \/> So&#8230; this one here<br \/> Who was this one? Because this is<br \/> the essence of the matter, because, look, the whole rest<br \/> I&#8230; look, today my latest book is here.<br \/> the latest book I&#39;ve written<br \/> Consciously: THE BIBLE IS NOT A HOLY BOOK<br \/> The Bible is not a holy book because, I repeat, the Bible does not speak of God.<br \/> The Bible tells us a different story.<br \/> The Bible tells us the story of the relationship between one nation.<br \/> and one individual, about whom the Masoretic Bible tells us<br \/> that he has this name here<br \/> and it is an everyday, concrete relationship<br \/> Sure, among flesh-and-blood individuals.<br \/> including him<br \/> i.e. it is not a relationship between one nation and some spiritual entity<br \/> Another of my books is titled: THERE IS NO CREATION IN THE BIBLE<br \/> because just like the Bible, it doesn&#39;t speak of God<br \/> The Bible does not even speak of creation.<br \/> It doesn&#39;t talk about the creation of heaven and earth, the universe&#8230; no.<br \/> no<br \/> the Bible tells us, I repeat, from the first verse of Genesis<br \/> what is commonly translated&#8230; here we are already entering the field of translations&#8230; what is translated<br \/> with the words &quot;In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth&quot;<br \/> Hebrew tells us that in the beginning, the Elohim did a series of things in one place where there was water and soil.<br \/> not that they created the heavens and the Earth<br \/> the Hebrew term &quot;bara&quot;, which is translated as &quot;to create&quot;<br \/> is a term that never means &quot;to create&quot;, not even once in the Old Testament<br \/> not only that Semitic root<br \/> does not mean &quot;to create&quot; in any Semitic language<br \/> never&#8230; that is, the concept of creation, and even less the concept of creation from nothing<br \/> is not present in the Old Testament<br \/> I repeat here<br \/> I don&#39;t know how the universe came into being.<br \/> For people of faith, the universe was created by God, that&#39;s fine.<br \/> No problem, as far as I&#39;m concerned, I don&#39;t know, so I can neither object nor agree, and I&#39;m not interested in it because&#8230;<br \/> that&#39;s one of the things I know I won&#39;t get an answer to<br \/> so I don&#39;t spend a single minute on it&#8230; then, if science one day tells us how the universe came into being, ok<br \/> We&#39;ll take that into account&#8230; I&#39;m dedicated to the Bible, and the Bible doesn&#39;t talk about creation.<br \/> just that<br \/> it tells us the story of a specific relationship between individuals<br \/> among the individuals that the Bible accurately names<br \/> Elion<br \/> ELION, ELOHIM, YAHWEH<br \/> These are three names that are used to speak.<br \/> about what in translations&#8230; and here we get to the heart of the matter<br \/> is usually served as &quot;b\u016fh&quot;<br \/> So, Elion is a Hebrew term that is usually translated as the Most High.<br \/> So every time you read Most High in the Bibles you have at home, in Hebrew it is elion.<br \/> but Elion is not a name<br \/> but it is, as they say, a determinative, i.e.<br \/> it is actually an adjective that denotes a quality of someone<br \/> and elion means, that\/the one that is above<br \/> e.g. it is used several times in the Bible as an adjective<br \/> e.g. when talking about one building<br \/> For example, in Ezekiel it is said that he had rooms downstairs, and then he had one room that was &quot;eliona&quot;<br \/> So the upper room, which is upstairs, so this is someone who is upstairs.<br \/> then this name is used&#8230; so translating \/\/the first one\/\/ as Supreme is, all in all, almost correct<br \/> it is not correct to translate it with an absolute superlative, but that is not important, we can use it that way<br \/> Another word is Elohim, Elohim is a Hebrew term that corresponds to the Italian term &quot;God&quot;.<br \/> this term is in the plural<br \/> which is translated into the singular in Italian<br \/> and translating Elohim as God is a work of pure, absolute, unambiguous fantasy<br \/> because no one in the world knows what the term &quot;elohim&quot; means<br \/> No serious scholar of Semitic languages says that elohim means &quot;god&quot;<br \/> they are theologians, philologist-theologians, who translate it as God&#8230; because it doesn&#39;t mean God<br \/> It is not known what it means.<br \/> so we should at least have common sense, be correct and not translate it<br \/> and say Elohim, wherever Elohim is, let&#39;s say Elohim<br \/> and remember that it is a plural<br \/> which is acknowledged, because it cannot be otherwise, here it is the designation of the plural<br \/> but then someone tries to teach in every way that it is a special plural, abstract, denoting dignity<br \/> majestic plural, because it actually means God, so even though it is plural, it refers to only one<br \/> then there is this: Yahweh<br \/> which is a name that appears in the Old Testament at one point, when Moses<br \/> who has a direct relationship with this, and is actually his field commander, working for this one here<br \/> He says to him: but who are you?<br \/> because Moses basically says: I have to convince others to follow you, but I have to say who you are<br \/> because&#8230; Moses asks him: who are you? because he knew very well that it was not God, because such a question is not asked to God<br \/> and he answers him and says to him: &quot;ehieh a\u0161er ehieh&quot;<br \/> this is again a phrase that is usually translated as: &quot;I am what I am&quot;, &quot;I will be what I will be&quot;, &quot;I was what I was&quot;, &quot;I will be what I was&quot;&#8230;<br \/> I&#39;ve been saying for three years that&#8230; and then she says to him: you will remember me by this name<br \/> not like Yahweh<br \/> because we don&#39;t know what the sounds of the vowels he pronounced were, we will never know<br \/> one thing is certain, when He said, you will remember me by this JHVH, the Hebrew language did not exist<br \/> so we don&#39;t even know what language he said it in, the Hebrew language began to exist about 4 centuries later<br \/> So, in what language were these sounds uttered? We don&#39;t know.<br \/> we know that these four consonants were written approximately<br \/> we know that these four consonants were written down approximately 4 centuries after they were pronounced<br \/> So how were they passed on during those 4 centuries?<br \/> you can imagine that for yourself<br \/> vowels were added to them 1600 years later<br \/> This is what we know about the name Yahweh.<br \/> in the name of the alleged god<br \/> We know this, nothing&#8230;<br \/> nothing&#8230; not even what language it was spoken in<br \/> So, to get back to that email, who is the one who is lying?<br \/> Who says they know nothing? Or who says they know everything about that name?<br \/> when we don&#39;t even know what language it was spoken in<br \/> Who is the one who lies?<br \/> Hmm?<br \/> That worked out with the email, I like it.<br \/> So<br \/> because the only thing we can say is that this name is not of Hebrew origin<br \/> because others knew him even before the Jews<br \/> they knew him as JH or JHV<br \/> and on Ugaritic tablets, or<br \/> let&#39;s say the ancient Phoenicians, present-day Lebanon<br \/> chili one of these&#8230; the singular of these is &quot;el&quot;<br \/> basically, or &quot;eloha&quot;<br \/> one of the tablets says: my son&#39;s name is JHV<br \/> this one here was the son of one of these here<br \/> and it is written<br \/> one member of the Roman Jewish community wrote to me more than a year ago<br \/> that this one here<br \/> was probably the younger son of one of the bosses<br \/> and he was supposed to become independent and show what he could do, and he was given a certain task<br \/> on the Ugaritic tablets it is written that one El says: the name of my son is JHV<br \/> during the reading of the uneducated, a number of things come to the surface<br \/> So, we don&#39;t know when it was&#8230; what language it was spoken in, so we don&#39;t even really know how it was pronounced.<br \/> we certainly don&#39;t know what vowels, what vowel sounds were there, because there were none<br \/> what I can tell you is that in the Masoretic text<br \/> it could be said in most cases<br \/> it is not vocalized as Yahweh, but it is vocalized as Jehovah<br \/> D\u017eeova<br \/> so it is vocalized JEHOVAH<br \/> because, after all, it is not known how it was originally vocalized<br \/> So we know that we don&#39;t know about the Bible.<br \/> and if we have no truths to pass on, we must not deceive people<br \/> because to lie&#8230; he is lying who says: I will tell you how it is<br \/> I don&#39;t know how it is.<br \/> I know it is not as we are told with certainty, there is no doubt about that<br \/> so it&#39;s not, I really don&#39;t know how it is<br \/> sure but, sure<br \/> I know that here he was not the one who said his name in Hebrew<br \/> in this way, with the exact meaning, because it simply isn&#39;t<br \/> just not<br \/> so, then it is said that elohim<br \/> is singular<br \/> and that Elion, Elohim, and Yahweh are three ways of referring to the same god<br \/> because, naturally, when there is a need to convey monotheistic doctrine<br \/> one can only say<br \/> that what is written in Hebrew using different determinations, terms<br \/> so it actually refers to one individual<br \/> Here is a Bible.<br \/> distributed by the weekly Christian family<br \/> or the Bible for families<br \/> and then we confront it with another Bible, Deuteronomy 32.8<br \/> the following is written in Deuteronomy 32.8:<br \/> when the Supreme<br \/> distributed to the nations their share<br \/> when he divided the human race and established the borders of the people<br \/> in Hebrew it is: when Elion<br \/> determined the allocations and borders of peoples and nations<br \/> says the Masoretic Bible, so it is translated correctly<br \/> he did it according to the number of the sons of Israel<br \/> but Elion did not assign the nations according to the number of the sons of Israel, and actually here it is a phrase that makes no sense<br \/> and it doesn&#39;t make sense because in the old codes, in all of them<br \/> it is written that Elion made this division and this allocation according to the number of the children of the elohim<br \/> not according to the children of Israel<br \/> this is one of the many changes that the masoretes made to give importance to their nation<br \/> but there it is said that Elion divided the nations, established borders, and allocated them, it is not said to whom, he simply allocated<br \/> and he did this division and allocation based on the number of children of the elohim<br \/> and says that on that occasion<br \/> ration, or portion&#8230; here it is written Pana<br \/> in Hebrew it is Yahweh, and in all cases where you find Lord or Eternal in your Bibles at home, in Hebrew it is Yahweh<br \/> so translate Yahweh as Lord or Eternal<br \/> knowing that we don&#39;t even know in what language it was pronounced<br \/> is it correct or is it not correct?<br \/> It&#39;s so obvious, so obvious.<br \/> okay<br \/> it&#39;s too obvious, that&#39;s why it shouldn&#39;t be read by uneducated people<br \/> because one gets to the seventh bite<br \/> So, the portion of Yahweh is his people, Jacob<br \/> Jacob and his descendants<br \/> by the way, be careful, Jacob is the son of Isaac, who is the son of Abraham<br \/> that is, the portion of Yahweh is not Abraham or Isaac, but from Jacob onwards<br \/> not Abraham, Jacob!<br \/> that could be elaborated more&#8230; so&#8230;<br \/> He, or Yahweh, found him in the wilderness<br \/> in the roaring confusion of solitude<br \/> took care of him, raised him, surrounded him, etc. and now watch out!<br \/> Jahve, here it is written Pan, he himself drove it<br \/> can we read verse 12 in the other bible?<br \/> The Lord led him alone, there was no foreign god with him<br \/> ok, thanks, none<br \/> and in Hebrew it is written: there was no foreign Elohim with him<br \/> so I ask you, if this is the only god, how could there be any foreign god with him?<br \/> How could he?<br \/> while for Jewish authors it was perfectly fine<br \/> it is said that when he divided the nations here, he allocated them<br \/> he did so after counting his own<br \/> and in that ration he got that piece, and with that piece he loaded himself and didn&#39;t let anyone help him<br \/> I am now reading the bible published by the Christian family, not my own translations, ok?<br \/> I read the Bible like an uneducated person.<br \/> which you have at home, the reading of uneducated people!<br \/> so&#8230; and what kind of bible is there? I don&#39;t know, however&#8230;<br \/> i downloaded it from&#8230; just some bible, ok<br \/> so<br \/> here we face a mystery<br \/> which, of course, requires interpretation, if we are to think that there is only one here<br \/> because, here it must be said: but God<br \/> calculates itself<br \/> god god god, she calculates herself<br \/> will divide and allocate the nations I don&#39;t know to whom<br \/> and in that allocation<br \/> He takes only one part<br \/> and says I&#39;m not interested in the other parts<br \/> so if the only part when he budgeted himself<br \/> allocates and decides to be interested in her, that is, in Jacob&#39;s descendants<br \/> so all of us, now I don&#39;t know if there is any descendant of Jacob among us<br \/> If he is here, he is with him.<br \/> but we all have the right to say: ok, you didn&#39;t choose us, live your life, we&#39;ll live ours<br \/> you decided not to take care of us, not us<br \/> and that is quite a nice mystery, an inexplicable mystery in the mind of God<br \/> which takes care of defining borders, peoples and nations<br \/> their allocation is not known to whom<br \/> and he says I will only take care of you here<br \/> and the others are his slaves<br \/> this is what the bible you have at home says<br \/> and up to here we are in the sphere of the mystery of the impenetrable mind of God<br \/> but there is something else here that dramatizes the whole matter<br \/> the whole bible, the whole bible<br \/> which you have at home<br \/> is a narrative about how here the one<br \/> with their own<br \/> massacres hundreds of thousands of people<br \/> to take their territory, on which he wants to get his own<br \/> so we have to take note that here the one<br \/> he does not remember in the evening that He himself put those people there in the morning<br \/> and when he decides that those territories interest him<br \/> instead of assigning them to himself, if there is a god, with whom did he need to discuss? with no one<br \/> no, instead of assigning them to himself, he says to his own:<br \/> now we will go there, we will kill them all and we will take the territory<br \/> we are in a circle of absolute madness<br \/> simply if it is so, and I say that without fear of blasphemy<br \/> because it&#39;s not god, here it&#39;s a mental deviant<br \/> like if there&#39;s only one here, he&#39;s mentally ill<br \/> but He is not one, there is one boss, one group and one of that group<br \/> this is clearly what the bible tells us<br \/> everything else is theological fiction<br \/> there is no doubt about it<br \/> or here he is mentally ill<br \/> but not only Him<br \/> In the course of the events narrated in the Bible, he consistently says:<br \/> I am the Elohim of Israel, and he says so all the time<br \/> this is how he consistently refers to himself, no I am God, I am the Elohim of those here<br \/> and I am a jealous Elohim<br \/> and he says to his own: if you betray me with other elohohim who do not exist<br \/> so I will kill you<br \/> and he does it regularly, killing 40 thousand of them<br \/> who betrayed him with other elohim<br \/> it is written here in the Bibles you have at home<br \/> just read them like an uneducated person<br \/> just read them like an uneducated person, just read them!<br \/> without thinking too much, it&#39;s all written<br \/> so he is, apart from being affected by a certain disease<br \/> jealous of rivals who don&#39;t exist<br \/> and if He does not know that they do not exist, who is to know?<br \/> but the studs would be His followers<br \/> and if I belonged to the Jewish nation<br \/> so I would piss like an animal if I heard that my ancestors were so stupid<br \/> Why stupid?<br \/> because they did not recognize, based on everyday experience<br \/> the effectiveness of this story, they knew the true God, the one, all-powerful, all-knowing<br \/> transcendent, spiritual<br \/> they knew the true God, the one, all-powerful, all-knowing<br \/> transcendent, spiritual, creator of the heavens and the earth<br \/> and, read the bible, they kept leaving him<br \/> to put themselves in the service of Others who did not exist<br \/> can anyone be more stupid?<br \/> I would be upset if something like that was said about my ancestors<br \/> because I would consider it an insult<br \/> but they did it<br \/> they were abandoning him, theoretically god everything everything everything everything everything<br \/> and they turned to idols made of stone or pieces of wood<br \/> Didn&#39;t they understand the difference?<br \/> how were they not able to understand the difference?<br \/> when they had a relationship with it here for centuries, at least from Abraham onwards<br \/> they saw him and Moses dining together<br \/> they were preparing a bath for him, they were preparing food for him, that&#39;s it, then we&#39;ll see&#8230;<br \/> and yet above all<br \/> they were leaving him and turning to someone who did not exist&#8230; according to the doctrine<br \/> ie to the so-called pagan gods who do not exist, who are the bare invention of man<br \/> but can someone be like that? can&#39;t!<br \/> and they were not like that in reality<br \/> they turned to others because they knew well that the others existed and how<br \/> and you, by the way, were interested in the same territory<br \/> and there were rivals of this one, and that&#39;s why this one was terrorized by the idea that they would leave him and join the others<br \/> and he told them: if you do that, I will kill you<br \/> because the danger that he would be abandoned by his own, betrayed, was permanent<br \/> permanent, he was afraid of it<br \/> that is absolutely evident in the Bible! I repeat, not in my translations<br \/> in the Bibles you have at home<br \/> that is key<br \/> and it is clear that it must not be accepted here, because when this obviousness is accepted, everything falls<br \/> everything is falling<br \/> moment&#8230; everything that was built on the Bible is falling<br \/> because, I repeat, not that god does not exist, that is something else<br \/> the god who was invented on the basis of the bible falls, that&#39;s something else<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> if we look at Genesis&#8230; blah blah blah<br \/> in one moment&#8230;<br \/> \/\/there will be an expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden&#8230;\/\/ blah blah blah<br \/> in the middle of flowers&#8230; blah blah blah &#8230; yes, I would place it in the region of Azerbaijan<br \/> please?<br \/> I would place it in the area of \u200b\u200btoday&#39;s Azerbaijan<br \/> that is, to the west of the Caspian Sea, in the area of \u200b\u200blakes Urmia and Van<br \/> where the so-called the mountains of Urartu, or Ararat<br \/> where, by the way, there were many archaeological discoveries, which are hardly talked about<br \/> a number of findings appear there<br \/> which gives the impression of a large presence of educated people, especially when it comes to astronomy<br \/> just in that territory, really big astronomical centers<br \/> and then he drives them out of that Eden and says:<br \/> then the Lord God said: look, that person has become like one of us<br \/> one of us<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> He became like one of the elohim.<br \/> as for the knowledge of good and evil, let us see that he does not lift up his hand and taste the fruit of the tree of life, that he does not eat of it and live forever<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> this is how I will drive out man and I will set up cherubim in the east of Eden<br \/> blah &#8230; to guard the tree of life<br \/> so<br \/> there is really a lot of information here<br \/> as for the tree of life, my hypothesis is in my book, which is back there<br \/> but here it is more necessary to talk about Adam and Eve<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> \/\/now he&#39;s like us\/\/<br \/> exactly<br \/> anyway they say<br \/> we will, we will! Adam in our image and likeness, we will &quot;make&quot;<br \/> we will make Adam &quot;in our image&quot; but not &quot;in our image&quot;<br \/> and this is not even written in the Masoretic Bible<br \/> it says: &quot;with something that contains our image&quot;, not &quot;to our image&quot;, which is something completely different<br \/> this is one translation really intentionally wrong<br \/> because it is written<br \/> &quot;with&quot; the something that contains our image<br \/> and they will make this Adam here<br \/> they will make a man, not a woman, on this occasion<br \/> then the bible says that the elohim took adam<br \/> and placed him in Eden<br \/> that is, they did not create him in Eden, they created him elsewhere, then they took the man and placed him there<br \/> and they gave him&#8230; as the Bible says, because he was supposed to take care of that territory<br \/> and by man is meant a group of men, because &quot;adam&quot; is listed as a member<br \/> so it&#39;s not one individual, it&#39;s that group called &quot;adam&quot;<br \/> so here they were supposed to take care of the territory, i.e. they were supposed to cultivate the land and raise cattle, this is how the Bible clearly says<br \/> then the bible says that at one point the elohim realized<br \/> that for that man, for Adam, the company of animals is not enough<br \/> and they decide to make him a wife<br \/> which means that the Adams, they were males, lived alone with animals<br \/> holy shepherds&#8230;..but in the sense of their own isolation&#8230;<br \/> and so they still lived alone<br \/> That&#39;s the idea that comes to my mind, right? Because they were&#8230;<br \/> people living in isolation with animals, so they decide to get them a wife<br \/> And how did they do it here? According to the Bible.<br \/> put the man to sleep, actually put him into a deep sleep, so not only do they put him to sleep, they put him into a deep sleep<br \/> they will remove something from the curved side part<br \/> then they will close the meat where they took the sample<br \/> and with what they took, they will make a woman<br \/> So the way the woman was made shows us that these groups were not fertile with each other.<br \/> and actually, when the first son is born, whose name is Cain<br \/> Eva says she did it thanks to the help of one of the Elohim.<br \/> or the birth of the first son, the intervention of one of the Elohim was necessary<br \/> then they do another one<br \/> when they have their first son<br \/> one elohim says: these have become like us<br \/> because until then they had been taking care of the production of Adams<br \/> and they will say: now we will drive them out, because if these start drawing from the tree of life as well<br \/> then they will become too dangerous because they will be able to live &quot;le olam&quot;<br \/> &quot;Le olam&quot; is usually translated as &quot;eternity&quot;, etc., but it doesn&#39;t actually mean that in Hebrew.<br \/> there is no concept of eternity, it means a long duration in the past or in the future<br \/> So, here you are.<br \/> they were afraid that those who had become fertile, i.e. capable of reproducing,<br \/> to gain access to practices<br \/> ensuring a long life<br \/> and that is contained in the story of the tree of life, and so they are sent away from there, or rather, they are driven out<br \/> they will have another son, who will&#8230; so the tree of life probably represents some practices guaranteeing a long life<br \/> and current genetics is beginning to implement practices that ensure a considerable extension of life<br \/> So when Cain&#8230; that&#39;s the story of Cain and Abel, Cain kills Abel.<br \/> Cain is driven out and says: but if you drive me out of here, whoever meets me will kill me.<br \/> but if Adam and Eve were the grandparents of humanity<br \/> and Abel was already dead, who was that anyone?<br \/> There was no one there.<br \/> According to the doctrine&#8230; according to the Bible, there were a lot of people there, so he&#39;s afraid he&#39;ll be killed by others.<br \/> reading for the uneducated&#8230; that&#39;s how it&#39;s written&#8230;<br \/> Cain is lucky, he is not killed, he finds a wife, has children, builds a city, etc., etc., and stands at the beginning of a great civilization.<br \/> endowed with a wealth of knowledge, from construction to cattle breeding,<br \/> after agriculture, writing, etc., etc.<br \/> So here we have a story about individuals.<br \/> who will form a group<br \/> men, they will put her in a certain situation to work there, to manage it there<br \/> this is what we know as earthly paradise<br \/> which, however, does not mean &quot;earthly paradise&quot; in Hebrew, in Hebrew it means &quot;an enclosed and protected place&quot;<br \/> located in Eden<br \/> So, we can say that it was their command center, an experimental laboratory, a greenhouse, or something like that.<br \/> they take these men and put them there, after a while they notice that they were obviously not completely satisfied with just the animals<br \/> and so they decide to make a woman<br \/> at the beginning, these are probably not fertile<br \/> and the curious thing here is that when he eats the so-called apple<br \/> So the two of them, it is said, realize that they are naked.<br \/> and it is said that they hid<br \/> and we all think that a feeling of shame appeared there<br \/> but it&#39;s not that the two of them hid from each other<br \/> it&#39;s not that the man was ashamed to be seen by the woman and vice versa<br \/> they both hide and cover their genitals from the Elohim<br \/> between each other<br \/> But can we think that the Elohim, who had seen them naked until just before, were suddenly offended?<br \/> No, because it&#39;s there.<br \/> a story about how they<br \/> they immediately understood that revealing their sexuality was something the bosses didn&#39;t want<br \/> so they are trying to hide the fact that they discovered it<br \/> but of course, that can&#39;t be hidden, so they drive them away<br \/> So in fact, as he says<br \/> biblical scholar, Jew, Amos Luzzatto<br \/> he says, there was no original sin and there was no punishment<br \/> there was a post-eventum judgment, so the boss of those in Gan Eden said, ok<br \/> you wanted this option, ok, now<br \/> Beware, the knowledge of good and evil, explains this biblical scholar, a Jew.<br \/> it is not the knowledge of good and evil as we understand it<br \/> chili as the knowledge of some ethical order, that someone is aware of what is right&#8230; no, no, no<br \/> says:<br \/> from this moment on, you will experience both the positive and negative aspects of the situation you have found yourself in<br \/> Well, you wanted this self-sufficiency? OK, go enjoy it somewhere else.<br \/> and says to Adam: now, when you want to eat, it will be up to you<br \/> because you&#39;ll have to earn it<br \/> because as long as they were in there with them, they had no problem with food<br \/> and says to Eva: now you will understand that making children causes pain<br \/> it&#39;s not a condemnation of someone<br \/> This is a post-eventum judgment, of the type: you wanted a bike? So now you have to pedal.<br \/> It can&#39;t be done any other way, you can&#39;t sit on a bike and not move, it&#39;s nice to ride a bike, but you also have to pedal.<br \/> Okay, so it says: now you&#39;ll understand that having children causes pain.<br \/> You wanted it? Ok, it&#39;s your thing.<br \/> so there is no original sin there<br \/> it&#39;s your business, so there&#39;s no original sin there<br \/> when there is no original sin, we are at peace, we are not tainted by anything<br \/> even if that were the case<br \/> If it is true that Cain found a lot of people out there, it means that these two are not the grandparents of humanity.<br \/> and if they are not the grandparents of humanity, then even if there was the stain of original sin, they did not pass it on to humanity<br \/> if anything, then to their own offspring, period. if anything<br \/> Seriously, no.<br \/> but if anything, they would pass it on to their offspring<br \/> so when the reading of the uneducated is done<br \/> only what you have in your Bibles at home is read<br \/> a lot will be understood<br \/> that&#39;s why there is a need to insert allegories, metaphors, etc. because otherwise it is clear that these things are not compatible<br \/> with a doctrine that is passed on<br \/> and it is clear that no religious doctrine can be created on these stories read by the uneducated<br \/> because these are very specific stories, very specific<br \/> then we can all agree that they were just writing here for no reason<br \/> So, if they wrote here just like that, if the Masoretes wrote just like that<br \/> If they made those things up, then all of us, all of us, all of us, all of us must accept it.<br \/> that nothing can be gained from the Bible, because the Bible contains no truth<br \/> unless we make it up<br \/> but it is they who need to invent it<br \/> because<br \/> Otherwise, what the Bible tells us is absolutely clear.<br \/> and also easy to understand, just read it carefully<br \/> I was talking about&#8230; before.<br \/> Can we take Judges 11:24?<br \/> Before that, I was talking about the Elohim, that&#39;s something that&#8230; look&#8230;<br \/> 11.24<br \/> I think.<br \/> Yes, because in my books, over the years, I have written a whole range of unacceptable things, some of you may have read one of my books&#8230;<br \/> So I wrote that the Bible is not a religious book, that the Bible does not talk about God, that it does not talk about spiritual worlds, that the Bible does not talk about angels.<br \/> in the sense that biblical malakhim are individuals of flesh and bone, just as the individual of flesh and bone is here<br \/> &#8230;malakhim are not spiritual beings, you should know that angels have been defined<br \/> that the spirituality of angels was established at a council in the 4th century AD? around the 4th century AD<br \/> because before that they did not agree that they were spiritual<br \/> And actually, I&#39;ll give you an example.<br \/> in the Church Fathers, e.g. in Tertullian&#39;s De virginibus velandis<br \/> it is written that young girls<br \/> who attended the assemblies where the so-called angels were present<br \/> they had to cover their heads, long hair, with a veil<br \/> because long hair sexually aroused angels<br \/> so for their protection, it was better for them to cover up<br \/> this is in the Qumran texts, in the treatises on brachot<br \/> the same<br \/> at gatherings where angels are present, girls must have their heads covered<br \/> because it was dangerous for them, because they weren&#39;t such angels.<br \/> in the Letter to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul<br \/> apostle&#8230;<br \/> Pavel<br \/> says:<br \/> at assemblies where &quot;angeloi&quot; are present, which is the Greek translation of the term &quot;malachim&quot;<br \/> girls, women must walk with their heads, with a sign of subordination on their heads<br \/> or let&#39;s say with a covered head<br \/> not at all out of respect for God<br \/> because of the angels<br \/> because of the angels<br \/> only with the passage of time did they become spiritual beings, before that they were not so much<br \/> then they were also given wings<br \/> I repeat<br \/> Are there angels? Okay, I&#39;m not saying anything about that.<br \/> They are not the ones from the Old Testament.<br \/> Okay? Let&#39;s always make these distinctions, so we can all be at ease&#8230;<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> In the Bible, there are several passages where it says: I met one of them, luckily I&#39;m still alive.<br \/> It was better not to meet them&#8230; one was more at ease when not meeting them.<br \/> they were no quiet ones<br \/> So<br \/> So I said, these malakhims were individuals of flesh and blood.<br \/> cherubim&#8230; not only are they not angels, but unlike malakhim, they were not even persons, they were machines<br \/> Machines!<br \/> So those cherubim with fiery swords, were they machines? Exactly.<br \/> Do you know what part of Jewish exegesis writes?<br \/> the Jewish exegesis that is against me, ok? not some friends<br \/> cherubim&#8230; Jews have always known from the Talmud that they were mechanical objects<br \/> some kind of robots used for etc. etc. etc.<br \/> Thanks to the Talmud, Jews have always known that they were mechanical objects.<br \/> I deduced it from my uneducated reading of the Masoretic Bible.<br \/> that&#39;s why I continue with that uneducated reading<br \/> Malachim<br \/> The Hebrew term &quot;malach&quot;, which is the singular of &quot;malachim&quot;, translated into Italian as &quot;angel&quot;, refers to ordinary human beings.<br \/> chili individuals of flesh and bone<br \/> In many ways, Mauro Biglino is right, the Bible, as he claims, is not a religious book.<br \/> I wrote, I documented<br \/> I tried to document that the Bible talks about genetic engineering.<br \/> how they made Adam and Eve, how they intervened in the case of Noah, etc.<br \/> It has been known since ancient times through the Talmud that the Bible speaks of genetic engineering.<br \/> It has been known to Jews since time immemorial, it is written on the internet.<br \/> I dedicated a whole chapter to Satan in one of my books.<br \/> to document that Satan does not exist in the Old Testament<br \/> Mauro Biglino has done a very good job with the chapter on Satan, and we really congratulate him on this.<br \/> all this just by reading an uneducated person<br \/> by mere reading of an uneducated person<br \/> that&#39;s why I keep doing it<br \/> So, the problem is this.<br \/> The problem is to determine whether this is God or not.<br \/> Judges 24&#8230; I said before that it is absolutely evident<br \/> that this is the boss, this is some group<br \/> he will count his own, establish the boundaries according to his own, and assign them<br \/> as part of this allocation, one piece was assigned to him<br \/> He doesn&#39;t like it, he&#39;s not happy with his piece, so he fights against his colleagues in an attempt to take more pieces from them.<br \/> Full stop.<br \/> because otherwise it would mean<br \/> that He decides, He still does not remember what decisions He made, and to correct those decisions, He massacres hundreds of thousands of people<br \/> That&#39;s the second option, there is no other one here.<br \/> But let&#39;s see what the Bible tells us next.. 11:24 Can we read it?<br \/> Don&#39;t you own what Kemosh, your God, has given you to own?<br \/> Thus we will also own the territory of those whom the Lord has driven out before us.<br \/> Okay, here we are in the Book of Judges.<br \/> Here one of the judges speaks, the Israelite judges were not the ones who ensured justice<br \/> but the field commanders, who before the kingdom was founded, the Kingdom of Judah, David&#39;s kingdom, then Solomon&#39;s, etc.<br \/> let&#39;s say, these individual figures emerged, who took the reins of power into their own hands<br \/> in moments when it was necessary to subdue something, in particularly dangerous situations, etc.<br \/> So these people took over the power, the one who is speaking here is a judge named Jephthah.<br \/> and he is dealing with a hostile people, the Ammonites<br \/> because they were at war with the Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, etc.<br \/> because they were fighting and taking pieces of territory from each other<br \/> a little smaller than an Italian region, to give you an idea<br \/> So this Jephthah says to the king of the Ammonites:<br \/> you hold the territory that your Elohim Kemosh gave you<br \/> we hold the territory that our Elohim Yahweh gave us<br \/> there it is written with disarming clarity<br \/> that Jephthah, the Israelite commander<br \/> says: we are subordinate to Elohim by the name of Yahweh and we hold the territory that He gave us<br \/> your Elohim, whose name is Kemosh, gave you those territories and you hold them, absolutely equally<br \/> He doesn&#39;t say that God gave them to us, and therefore&#8230;<br \/> and Kemosh, who does not exist, gave them to you<br \/> because according to this document, he was not supposed to exist, of course<br \/> while it existed, and how&#8230; as they say, you have what yours gave you, we have what ours gave us<br \/> but even the wise Solomon knew that Chemosh existed<br \/> who had the cult sites built for him<br \/> because Solomon, who was wise, knew that Yahweh was here today, but might not be here tomorrow<br \/> so he maintained good relations with his other colleagues<br \/> who operated in the same territory<br \/> So Solomon had places of worship built for one named Chemosh<br \/> and he had cult sites built for one named Milkom \/\/= Moloch\/\/<br \/> said to another elohim who was in the area<br \/> actually, these lower elohim were fighting over small pieces of territory<br \/> while the great bosses who oversaw the great empires<br \/> Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites<br \/> they were fighting over empires<br \/> the little ones were stealing small pieces of land from each other, or at least trying to.<br \/> This is what is written in the Bibles you have at home.<br \/> We&#39;re reading it there&#8230; here in this, how is it written?<br \/> the territory that your God, this is of course a translation, in Hebrew it is Elohim Kemosh, gave you ownership of, you hold it<br \/> Thus we also hold on to what the Lord, or Yahweh, our God, our Elohim, has given us to own.<br \/> Exactly the same&#8230; you have yours, we have ours.<br \/> Full stop.<br \/> then other elohim are also named<br \/> and then other elohim are named, I&#39;ve already said, Milkom, Baldeor, Balzebub, Balzafon<br \/> there are a lot of others there, a lot, they are all named in the Bible<br \/> So, the attempt to transform this term into a single God is an attempt that really makes no sense, it makes no sense.<br \/> because the Bible consistently tells us about the plurality of these individuals<br \/> I think there should be no doubt about this.<br \/> Let&#39;s say.<br \/> We are cautious.<br \/> and this becomes apparent when reading the uneducated<br \/> Then there are all the other ways of reading, okay?<br \/> As I said.<br \/> I&#39;m making mine available.<br \/> Everyone can do with it what they want.<br \/> there are many others here<br \/> mine is the lowest reading, absolutely<br \/> there are other readings here that are really at a high level<br \/> And sometimes I say, if we had a table&#8230; set&#8230; with a bunch of the most amazing, most refined dishes<br \/> prepared according to recipes, etc., etc., etc., so I only put boiled potatoes there<br \/> That&#39;s it, I just take the potatoes and throw them into boiling water, any klutz can do that.<br \/> But I say: let me put my boiled potatoes on the table.<br \/> then let everyone do what they want with them<br \/> Instead, I am constantly told&#8230;<br \/> then let everyone do what they want with them&#8230; instead, I&#39;m constantly told that I can&#39;t put those boiled potatoes in there<br \/> But I keep putting them in&#8230; do you want to take a break?<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> Here, one gentleman had a question.<br \/> Where? Blah blah blah<br \/> blah blah blah \/\/Malachimites, why they terrorize and what their mission is\/\/<br \/> OK, the mission is described by the name itself, which means &quot;bearers of commands&quot;.<br \/> &quot;executors of commands&quot;, from which the Greek angelos comes, which means the same thing<br \/> &#8230;so they were something like guards?<br \/> Yes, they were the ones who carried out the orders from these people.<br \/> After all, it can be understood from the Bible that when Yahweh was on the road, he always had one or two by his side.<br \/> as his henchmen, let&#39;s say, and he gave them various tasks to perform<br \/> and they, of course, behaved like Someone<br \/> and as Someone, they could be unpleasantly aggressive from time to time, because they felt they could freely do whatever they wanted<br \/> so they had some authority given to them by Elohim<br \/> Exactly.<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> it makes significant sense, it makes significant sense<br \/> they were simply powerful individuals with authority, and in a way, they despised their subordinates<br \/> For example, we read that Yahweh&#8230; wait, I&#39;ll be right there&#8230;<br \/> that Yahweh says: you will give me every firstborn son, as well as every firstborn male, so it is the same for him<br \/> so they didn&#39;t consider them&#8230; to be anything more&#8230;<br \/> Then, when we have time, let&#39;s talk about what he did with them, but that would be a whole lecture.<br \/> Please.<br \/> Is it written somewhere whether the Malachim are of the same race as the Elohim, or were they created as&#8230;<br \/> No, it&#39;s not there.<br \/> in some codes there are actually passages where<br \/> where it seems that the same individuals are referred to as Malachim as the descendants of Elohim<br \/> as if they belonged to the same group, it may be so<br \/> In fact, the Malachimim are of the functional order.<br \/> we could say within some military hierarchy<br \/> general, then colonels, then lieutenants, second lieutenants, etc.<br \/> as malachim, one function could therefore be defined<br \/> so it may not be a racial type distinction, because<br \/> You said 10 minutes&#8230; so I&#39;ll use them with these two&#8230;<br \/> when Abraham<br \/> It fits&#8230; assuming it existed&#8230; we&#39;ll take it that way&#8230;<br \/> Abraham sits in the shade of his tent.<br \/> and he sees coming, as the Bible says, 3 anashims<br \/> which is the plural of &quot;i\u0161&quot;, which means male individuals<br \/> sees that three are coming<br \/> He sees that they are hungry, dusty, dirty, thirsty, etc., etc., etc.<br \/> He will tell them: stop, I will prepare food for you, water, wash yourselves, rest before you continue, etc.<br \/> and after a few verses we find out that one of the three is Yahweh<br \/> Genesis 18<br \/> one of those three is Yahweh<br \/> He stops for a few words with Abraham, eats, drinks, washes himself, etc.<br \/> he will stay for a few words with Abraham and the other two will leave<br \/> and the moment they leave, they go to perform the function of messenger for Abraham&#39;s nephew Lot, who is in Sodom<br \/> these two, and our two, that is, two male individuals, exactly like Yahweh, are called malachim<br \/> at that moment they become messengers and become malakhim<br \/> This is a really beautiful passage that helps us understand that these 3 came here.<br \/> all three the same, all three who stank of sweat<br \/> They were dirty, etc.<br \/> and two continue as messengers and become malakhs<br \/> but they are still our people<br \/> after all, a few verses later they are called anashim again<br \/> there is an amazing interchangeability here<br \/> It&#39;s all simple.<br \/> Let&#39;s not add&#8230; if we can&#39;t get the veils for it.<br \/> Sometimes someone writes to me: but Biglino, what do you think you&#39;ve discovered? Nothing! I haven&#39;t discovered anything.<br \/> nothing<br \/> I read what is written.<br \/> I just want it not to be covered up<br \/> if we are to use the term &quot;revealed&quot;<br \/> I agree with him in the sense that I try to remove the veils<br \/> which they covered up so that it would not be possible to understand what is understood when reading the uneducated<br \/> Besides, it&#39;s fun to read the uneducated, so&#8230; please<br \/> blah blah<br \/> But what are you looking for?<br \/> I satisfy my curiosity, that&#39;s enough, I don&#39;t know where I&#39;ll end up, if I&#39;ll reach any goal, I don&#39;t know<br \/> I satisfy my curiosity, which I quite enjoy.<br \/> When someone asks me to talk about it, I do.<br \/> If no one asks me to, I won&#39;t talk about it anymore.<br \/> I have no availability at this time until October 2014.<br \/> all weekends&#8230;<br \/> I no longer have a private life&#8230;<br \/> I have to speak until October 2014, then what do I know&#8230;<br \/> tonight, from 3 to 5, I have a live broadcast to the United States, for the third time<br \/> So tonight I&#39;m continuing with America.<br \/> It&#39;s a live broadcast from New York to Los Angeles, I&#39;m presenting the whole thing, I&#39;m not there as a guest, you know?<br \/> It&#39;s not like I have any input there.<br \/> the whole thing is dedicated to my work, I&#39;m the only one there<br \/> for those two hours<br \/> blah blah<br \/> Okay, let&#39;s go have&#8230; yes, please.<br \/> You mentioned the Qumran texts, can anything be read from them?<br \/> you know, it&#39;s not that there is one publication<br \/> For example, there are studies by Luigi Moraldi, published by UTET, which are dense volumes of almost 1000 pages, really interesting.<br \/> and then there are plenty of books by other researchers&#8230; actually, it was divided among the researchers<br \/> So everyone contributed a piece, so&#8230;<br \/> Qumran literature as such does not exist&#8230; if you look into it, you will find everything.<br \/> there are also texts on the internet, even those that have been published, but<br \/> blah blah<br \/> Now I&#39;m focusing on it because of certain things.<br \/> for his other works<br \/> but it&#39;s not like there&#39;s a Qumran library here where everything would be<br \/> blah blah<br \/> and there are about 9 more papyri, I think, that have not yet been published<br \/> already because the Qumran question apparently calls into question the very beginnings of Christianity, so<br \/> For decades, everything was kept under wraps.<br \/> because it provides information about the distribution of Essenes, Caddikim, and Hasidim<br \/> and there is one that could call into question the person of Christ<br \/> It&#39;s very risky, very risky.<br \/> blah blah \/\/Eva and the snake\/\/<br \/> &quot;had&quot; means<br \/> So, these stories, so that we understand each other well.<br \/> those stories, like most of the stories in Genesis<br \/> are not the product of Jewish thought<br \/> were copied from the surrounding nations, especially from the Sumerian-Akkadians and the Phoenicians<br \/> there are<br \/> those stories were not subjected to theological, monotheistic scrutiny<br \/> it is clearly stated that&#8230; the big boss was there<br \/> whose name, for example,. this name is also found in Phoenician<br \/> and there he is considered the chief of the gods<br \/> So while here he is made a god, still him, it is clearly stated that he is the leader of the gods.<br \/> Absolutely clear.<br \/> in Sumerian-Akkadian it is called Anu, which means Supreme<br \/> exactly like Elion, The one who is above<br \/> and it is said there that this one had two sons<br \/> who fought among themselves<br \/> one of them was the one who made Adamu, which is the Sumerian-Akkadian name for Adam<br \/> So they didn&#39;t even come up with it, they took it from there.<br \/> Adam or Lulu, which means &quot;mixed&quot;<br \/> because it was made of different materials<br \/> So, one of the two who made Adam, Adamu<br \/> is the one who also liked him more<br \/> he was the one who wanted to give it to this Adam, Adam<br \/> to become more independent, to develop more<br \/> The other one, the brother, on the contrary, said: no, we have to keep these as they are, because they have to work here and that&#39;s it.<br \/> So, in the form of a snake.<br \/> can be seen<br \/> disagreement between the two brothers<br \/> because one brother says: let&#39;s keep the Adam&#39;s apples under control, because these must not develop independently under any circumstances<br \/> the other one, on the contrary, who made them<br \/> with his partner, whose name was Ninchurshag<br \/> the other one, who made them and wanted to give them independence, thus violated<br \/> my brother&#39;s orders and gave them this opportunity<br \/> and the apple is a representation of that choice<br \/> and besides, it&#39;s not even an apple, because the apple comes from &quot;malum&quot;, which was the Latin translation of the Hebrew term that simply means &quot;fruit&quot;<br \/> there is no &quot;apple&quot; because &quot;malum&quot; means both &quot;evil&quot; and &quot;apple tree&quot; in Latin<br \/> so the meanings have merged<br \/> in Hebrew, but here the meaning is not there<br \/> so it&#39;s a story about the moment when, after an agreement with one of the brothers, they made that decision<br \/> they actually decided to accept the offer<br \/> So we&#39;re back, now we&#39;re going to ask questions.<br \/> Ready?<br \/> We talked about it.<br \/> that Yahweh&#8230; received as an allotment&#8230;<br \/> I wanted to ask about one thing from the Book of Enoch&#8230; blah blah blah&#8230; \/\/physical connection between the Elohim and humans\/\/<br \/> So, the Bible also speaks of sexual intercourse between the Elohim and earthly women, Genesis chapter 6.<br \/> where it is said that the sons of Elohim saw that the daughters of Adam were attractive<br \/> they got together with them and had children<br \/> So, first, it would be necessary to repeat what was written here.<br \/> that God had some sons&#8230;<br \/> they were the descendants of the Elohim&#8230; if Elohim is God, God had sons<br \/> and here these sons unite with human daughters<br \/> By the way, those who consider &quot;Elohim&quot; to be God say that here &quot;Elohim&quot; refers to the lawgiver&#8230;<br \/> Yeah? Like here &quot;Elohim&quot; is supposed to mean &quot;legislators&quot;, &quot;judges&quot;&#8230;<br \/> Well, it&#39;s clear when someone invents a theory and then takes a text.<br \/> and in parts where the text does not correspond to the theory, he changes it, he simply inserts meanings according to his own will<br \/> Let&#39;s take Tex Willer and do exactly the same thing with him.<br \/> So&#8230; they have sex and make children.<br \/> who are called &quot;giborim&quot;, which means &quot;famous&quot; or &quot;powerful&quot; people<br \/> and here, if we understand it correctly, this should not have happened<br \/> in the sense that the bosses didn&#39;t like this crossing, this mixing<br \/> those two types should have simply remained separate<br \/> by the way, one says&#8230;<br \/> rather than a sin, it could have been a violation of a rule<br \/> We are the ones who rule, they are the ones who are ruled, and we&#8230; simply do not mix with them.<br \/> and that is understandable from the point of view of the ruling class<br \/> In this way, our colonizers did not associate with the colonized nations.<br \/> because they kept them in subjugation, despised them, etc., etc., etc.<br \/> &#8230;still in Genesis chapter 6, it is written that at that time, i.e. when these unions were taking place, the Nephilim were on Earth.<br \/> &quot;nefilim&quot; is a term translated into Greek as &quot;gigantes&quot;<br \/> which means &quot;giants&quot;<br \/> and it is written that they were here afterwards<br \/> but it is not said that the descendants of these were Nephilim, it is said there that their descendants are Gibborim, not Nephilim<br \/> So there were giants here&#8230; I said that even today there are those who change the vowels recorded by the Masoretes.<br \/> For example, some of these exegetes say that it is not written &quot;nephilim&quot; there.<br \/> but they invoke the root &quot;nafal&quot;, which means abortion<br \/> and they say that abortions were performed at that time<br \/> in the sense that they performed selective abortions and left alive&#8230; only sons<br \/> So I have the feeling that they were removing the sons and only letting the daughters be born.<br \/> So, by changing the vowels of the term &quot;nephilim&quot;, giants become abortions.<br \/> Okay? And that&#39;s what today&#39;s exegetes do.<br \/> on the internet, etc. the Talmud, their whole interpretation of this passage<br \/> just change a few vowels and everything changes<br \/> So it can be safely said that if they considered the Bible a holy book, they would not interfere with it.<br \/> if someone changes it, they do not necessarily consider it sacred<br \/> So&#8230; they all got upset when I published my first book.<br \/> How dare they?! But it&#39;s them who<br \/> which alter the letter, so they do not consider it sacred, because what is sacred is taboo<br \/> it is taboo by definition, it cannot be interfered with<br \/> so if they can interfere with it freely, it seems to me that it is one of many books, as is actually the case<br \/> And in that passage, there is one interesting thing&#8230; in one place it says that<br \/> Elohim says:<br \/> I won&#39;t anymore.<br \/> to argue with Adam<br \/> after all, it&#39;s just a piece of meat, its life will be 120 years<br \/> and there is one term<br \/> you know that it is written from right to left, B\u0160GM<br \/> which the Masoretes vocalized as &quot;be-sha-gam&quot;<br \/> &quot;v\/proto&quot; &quot;\u017ee&quot; &quot;pouze&quot;, and then &quot;basar&quot;, i.e. &quot;proto\u017ee pouze maso&quot; &#8211;\/\/here, however, &quot;gam&quot; = &quot;tak\u00e9\/po\u0159\u00e1d&quot;, not &quot;pouze&quot;\/\/&#8211;<br \/> &quot;because&quot; &quot;only meat&quot;, so&#8230;<br \/> I&#39;m not going to argue with Adam anymore.<br \/> &quot;because&quot; &quot;only meat&quot;, because they are actually just a piece of meat<br \/> so his life will be 120 years<br \/> and then there is a professor from the University of Beirut<br \/> Prof. Salibi, who says, no, this vocalization of the Masoretes is incorrect.<br \/> because it has to be divided differently here, it needs to be divided here<br \/> and it is &quot;be-shagam&quot; &#8211;\/\/var. &quot;be-shaga-m&quot; = in their error\/\/&#8211;<br \/> and says that this is a Semitic root that has passed into both Hebrew and Arabic<br \/> which means &quot;to pour organic fluids&quot;<br \/> So this one says that the Elohim say:<br \/> We will no longer enrich the Adamy family.<br \/> &quot;s&quot; &quot;our seminal fluid&quot;<br \/> and his life will be 120 years<br \/> So it is said that there, according to this professor from the American University of Beirut<br \/> The Elohim decided to stop their supply of their genetic material.<br \/> chili &quot;we will no longer give our sperm&quot;<br \/> Adam&#39;s<br \/> and their lives will be shortened by it<br \/> This can be found in the Bible, again.<br \/> because before that, before this decision, there were so-called patriarchs who lived up to 800, 900 years<br \/> from that moment on, in the Bibles you have at home, you can see that the length of life is 600, 500, 400, 300, 200<br \/> until it drops to 100 and something, e.g. Moses was 120 years old, etc.<br \/> So, in fact, there was a period when mergers were taking place.<br \/> they gave them their genetic material, and at one point they said enough<br \/> the supply of genetic material will stop<br \/> and the life of a person, that generation, that group<br \/> it decreases drastically over time because the genetic material of these is decreasing<br \/> Okay? I answered.<br \/> we talked about the fact that Yahweh received Jacob as his portion<br \/> and thus Jacob&#39;s descendants, i.e. the so-called 12 patriarchs, or leaders of the 12 Israelite tribes<br \/> when you read the Bible carefully, you see that when counting the Israelite tribes<br \/> you see that sometimes there are 8 of them, sometimes 9, sometimes 10, sometimes 11, 12, 13<br \/> and then, as a result, it is 12<br \/> I also said that the core of the Bible is the Pentateuch, you should know.<br \/> that throughout history there was a period when the Pentateuch was not the Pentateuch, but the Hexateuch<br \/> that it was 6 books<br \/> there was a period when there were 7 of them, when there were 8 of them, and then<br \/> they decided it was penta, that there were 5 of them<br \/> So even then, there was someone who decided from the desk how things should be.<br \/> So, Yahweh had Jacob as his portion.<br \/> who then after the battle with one bull becomes Israel &#8211;\/\/isra-el = El&#39;s\/God&#39;s warrior\/\/&#8211;<br \/> but the Bible says that at one point<br \/> this Yahweh goes to the land of Shinar, or to the Chaldean Ur, that is, to Sumer<br \/> and he&#39;s going there for Abraham<br \/> He will take Abraham, not Abraham&#39;s family.<br \/> in the sense that Abraham&#39;s father, Abraham, and two brothers lived there<br \/> Yahweh comes there, takes Abraham and says: you come and fight with me<br \/> You come with me, because we are going to take pieces of the land of Canaan.<br \/> So Yahweh will choose one individual from one family.<br \/> the other family members will stay where they are<br \/> and they really never considered following Yahweh<br \/> followed by the Elohim, who ruled where they resided<br \/> So, in Mesopotamia, in the land between the two rivers<br \/> what was known as Sumer in the Bible is like Shin-ar<br \/> which is Sumer, biblical Sumer<br \/> when we read Genesis, chapter 14<br \/> we see that it was in Canaan that wars of conquest were waged<br \/> and it also says that there were territories that had belonged to the rulers of Shinar for decades, i.e. for a long time<br \/> Chili was under the rule of those who ruled in Sumer.<br \/> So Yahweh takes Abraham and leads him away.<br \/> the others remain there and do not even consider for a moment to put themselves at the service of &quot;God&quot;<br \/> because simply&#8230;<br \/> it is quite clear that Yahweh is not a god<br \/> So here, Abraham and his men had an army of about 300 people.<br \/> He was not some shepherd; if he existed, he was a warlord who had his own army.<br \/> he goes, he fights, and then on his return from one of these battles<br \/> he meets Melchizedek, you&#39;ve probably heard that name before<br \/> which means &quot;malak sadok&quot;, or &quot;king of justice&quot; or &quot;just king&quot;<br \/> which in the Masoretic Bible<br \/> is a Kohen of Elohim, or &quot;Kohen&quot;, which means &quot;priest&quot;<br \/> Then, when we have time, I&#39;ll read you something about priests.<br \/> priest&#8230; the term used in the sense of priest does not mean &quot;priest&quot; as we understand it<br \/> there the priests did not care for the souls of the faithful<br \/> there were no believers there<br \/> and the question of the soul, that was the last thing all those gentlemen would care about there<br \/> In the book of Kohelet, chapter 3, it is said that people are the same as animals.<br \/> when they die, both will turn to ashes<br \/> and it says there that man&#8230; Ecclesiastes 3:19<br \/> and it says there that humans have nothing extra compared to animals<br \/> so the priests there didn&#39;t care about the souls<br \/> they took care of&#8230;. rather, they were giving orders on behalf of the commanders<br \/> and it is said that Melchizedek<br \/> was a kohen directly to Elion, not Yahweh, Elion, or the One Above, the boss<br \/> and Abraham must appear before Melchizedek<br \/> he will appear before Melchizedek<br \/> who will bless him in the name of Eliona, something like Abraham asking for an imprimatur<br \/> in the sense that Yahweh will bring him there and he will be accepted by the great boss<br \/> and an interesting thing is that in the Masoretic text<br \/> it is written that Melchizedek was a kohen of elohim and especially of Elion<br \/> The oldest Qumran texts state that Melchizedek was one elohim.<br \/> that it was one of them who worked directly for Elion<br \/> and since in Masoretic theology there could be no one else who would be &quot;God&quot;, they changed&#8230;<br \/> In Masoretic theology, there could be no one else who would be &quot;God&quot;, so they made &quot;Elohim&quot; into &quot;Kohen&quot;.<br \/> the representative of Eliona in that territory<br \/> but they probably made another adjustment<br \/> because it is said that he was a kohen in the territory of Shalem, i.e. in Jerusalem<br \/> but in fact in the oldest codices, according to studies by Luigi Moraldi<br \/> it is said that Melchizedek was not in Salem, but in Shalima<br \/> which is a locality near Nablus in Samaria<br \/> So what happened was that the Jewish tradition, which could not accept&#8230;<br \/> You know what the contrast with the Samaritans is, even in the Gospels the difference between the Judeans and the Samaritans is mentioned.<br \/> she could not accept that Elion&#39;s direct representative was based in Samaria, so they changed Shalima to Shalem<br \/> tradition is a certainty of distortion<br \/> So let&#39;s do it like this, it&#39;s better, let&#39;s do it like this.<br \/> So, just in this short passage, there are already two things.<br \/> which somewhat clarifies what types of interventions were carried out<br \/> then everyone can decide whether to draw absolute truths from that book or not<br \/> I would have a bit of a problem with that.<br \/> to draw absolute truths from such a book, so it is much better to do as<br \/> blah blah blah \/\/did anyone have a question before? no&#8230;\/\/<br \/> So we&#39;ll do it like that.<br \/> we talked about Gan Eden<br \/> Excuse me&#8230; blah blah blah \/\/Jewish and Christian Easter, origin of the name\/\/<br \/> for Christians, it is a replacement for those there<br \/> blah blah<br \/> So, the Jewish Passover was apparently officially established.<br \/> around 622 BC by King Josiah, ruler of one of the Israelite kingdoms<br \/> because&#8230; of the Kingdom of Judah, because there was a division there<br \/> and let&#39;s say that in the time of Josiah, there was a great religious reform<br \/> that religious reform abolished human sacrifices, which had been performed until then<br \/> above all, it abolished the sacrifice of firstborns, who were burned in fire<br \/> He had them handed over to him after 8 days, when they were 8 days old.<br \/> Ezekiel 20:25<br \/> and&#8230; so<br \/> the firstborn son has since been replaced by a lamb<br \/> and also to forget&#8230; not just to make sure it doesn&#39;t happen again<br \/> but also to make people forget that they were previously carried out at His explicit request<br \/> Elohim &#8211; Ezekiel 20:25 &#8211; clearly explains: I realize that I have given&#8230;<br \/> Shall we read it?<br \/> I even gave them bad laws and commandments, because of which they could not live.<br \/> I defiled them with their sacrificial offerings when they burned all the firstborn in the fire.<br \/> to drive them to despair, so that they may know that I am the Lord<br \/> So, in the previous verse it also says: because they did not keep my rules here<br \/> They did not accept my orders, so in order to break them, I issued an order that they burn their firstborn to me.<br \/> and here it was true up to a certain point<br \/> Then they replaced it with the lamb, and then the priests found it even more convenient to collect money.<br \/> even today&#8230;<br \/> People are still the same, there are good and bad ones&#8230; so the priests back then&#8230;<br \/> in Jerusalem, there were no others, they just found it much easier to collect money, that was the famous ransom<br \/> So, that lamb was called &quot;Pesach&quot;.<br \/> only this lamb was called that<br \/> because others were called differently&#8230; it was only for this particular victim<br \/> only for this particular victim, because others were called differently<br \/> and in this passage, where King Josiah carries out a religious reform, it is said: such a Passover had never been before<br \/> So in other words, basically: it&#39;s the first time we&#39;re doing this.<br \/> and they connected the term &quot;Passover&quot;, albeit in a rather fantastical way<br \/> with the story of &quot;crossing over&quot;, crossing over, jumping elsewhere<br \/> So, at that time, they were trying<br \/> to transform or remake a certain kind of founding myth at the moment of leaving Egypt<br \/> So&#8230; you know that there was a selective death of the firstborn, they were killed, they died, only the Egyptians&#39; and not the Jews&#39;<br \/> because, it is said there, that the angel was skipping&#8230; because they were marked with blood&#8230; he was skipping the doors of the Jews<br \/> so he scaled and killed only the Egyptian firstborns<br \/> and so this founding myth was created<br \/> So then there is the lamb&#8230; then, when the figure of Christ is created<br \/> who becomes the lamb who takes on the sins of the world<br \/> so the new &quot;pascha&quot; replaced the old one<br \/> and in a definitive way, so it is claimed<br \/> so Christ&#39;s sacrifice is a unique sacrifice that has universal validity<br \/> and eternal<br \/> and there is no need to make another one, by making that sacrifice there, it was made once and for all, so&#8230;<br \/> and eternal&#8230; and there is no need to make another one, by making that sacrifice there, it was done once and for all<br \/> So, Christian doctrine created this here.<br \/> at the moment when it prevailed over the Jewish Passover<br \/> so they replaced them and transformed them in this way<br \/> A Christian theologian, Armin Kreiner, says the following about this:<br \/> who teaches<br \/> Sorry&#8230; so Christian Easter is not about Christ&#39;s resurrection?<br \/> So, the sacrifice makes sense if there is a resurrection, otherwise it doesn&#39;t.<br \/> He became the only lamb, valid for all and forever.<br \/> who replaced many lambs that used to be sacrificed, ok?<br \/> So here it is, the replacement.<br \/> blah blah \/\/unfinished thought\/\/<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> yes, theologian Armin Kreiner<br \/> who teaches theology at the Faculty of Theology in Munich<br \/> So, he is a Catholic theologian, a university teacher.<br \/> says that the question of the possible existence of aliens<br \/> assuming that you, the Elohim, came from elsewhere<br \/> He questions everything and says that the church can no longer just do as it pleases.<br \/> the church can no longer say, no, we don&#39;t talk about this, because&#8230;<br \/> Nonsense, it&#39;s not worth it.<br \/> He says: the existence of even one of them calls everything into question.<br \/> and, above all, it calls into question Christology<br \/> This is what Armin Kreiner says.<br \/> because if they happen to exist, then<br \/> what was elaborated with the figure of Christ, i.e. his act of sacrifice<br \/> which happened at a time when they thought the Earth was the center of the universe<br \/> and that man is the only intelligent creature created by God<br \/> Thus, Christ&#39;s deed has a unique, universal, and eternal validity, valid for man and forever.<br \/> but if there are other planets, then Christ&#8230;<br \/> Did they commit the original sin there? Did Christ go to be killed there too?<br \/> or will he go there in 10 or 100 thousand years, when they commit the original sin?<br \/> We in the church can no longer just pretend, and we have to stand up to it.<br \/> says&#8230;<br \/> After all, we can no longer interview the witnesses of Christ&#39;s existence, we cannot verify it.<br \/> On the contrary, we have possible witnesses to the contacts here, we can interview them, we can verify it, there it is not possible.<br \/> these biblical stories<br \/> about those who created man, who passed on knowledge to him<br \/> they are not unique stories, they are not an original product of the Bible<br \/> but they correspond to the stories of nations from all continents, who all tell the same story, all of them, all of them<br \/> from the Maori to the Hopi Indians, Zulu, pre-Saharan civilizations<br \/> not to mention the Middle East, Egyptians, China, India, Japan, Nordic sagas, Celts, Incas<br \/> Everyone, everyone tells us about those who came from elsewhere, came here and did a number of things here.<br \/> so let&#39;s think about it carefully<br \/> Everyone tells us the same story.<br \/> with different names, because here they are called elohim.<br \/> The Sumerian-Akkadians call them Anunnaki.<br \/> among the Eastern Semites, these are ilu or ila<br \/> they are called d\u00e9vas, virakochas<br \/> They are the \u00c6sir&#8230; in the Norse sagas<br \/> etc. they all tell us the same story<br \/> but about this, it must be said that these are just stories<br \/> that these are myths, fabrications<br \/> Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us about Jesus Christ, but they never saw him, because Matthew is not that disciple, he is another one&#8230;<br \/> Matthew, Mark and Luke, who never saw him&#8230; and now John<br \/> no one considers him a disciple of Christ anymore, it was a different John<br \/> so even John might never have seen him&#8230; but we can say that John was a disciple, it&#39;s all the same<br \/> the whole of Christianity is built on the doctrines of Paul, who never saw him<br \/> The Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke, who never saw him, speak of him.<br \/> The letters attributed to Peter speak of him, attributed because there is no certainty, but so be it, we can say that Peter wrote them.<br \/> it is mentioned in the letter of James the Greater, the blood brother of Christ, and so we basically have<br \/> maybe 4 characters who saw him<br \/> So maybe we have 4, if we turn a blind eye and consider all 4 of them to be real.<br \/> 4 people, i.e. witnesses interested in conveying a certain idea about one person, about one character<br \/> based on the testimony of 4 persons<br \/> about a billion people today have no problem believing in absolute truth<br \/> the existence of Jesus Christ<br \/> thanks to 4, possibly, interested witnesses<br \/> All the nations on Earth speak of these gentlemen who came from other lands, but it&#39;s a fairy tale.<br \/> Something doesn&#39;t add up in this logic.<br \/> Something&#39;s not right here.<br \/> I am among those who believe that Jesus Christ, as a historical figure, probably existed.<br \/> As much as I try to believe these four, I believe the nations of all continents of the Earth even more.<br \/> because everyone tells us the same story<br \/> all, everyone<br \/> blah blah blah \/\/Greek myths, flying around the Earth\/\/<br \/> So, because I still don&#39;t have enough enemies, I started putting things into this last book.<br \/> with which I will make many experts on Greece and the classical period my enemies<br \/> and, I don&#39;t know if any of you have seen it, a few months ago I made a book trailer lasting 41, 43 seconds<br \/> and has already stirred the waters<br \/> and there I say&#8230; that the President of the United States of America<br \/> and the members of the Supreme Court of the United States of America swear on the Bible<br \/> and I said: if they swore on the Iliad and the Odyssey, their oath would have exactly the same weight&#8230; if not more&#8230;<br \/> because the Iliad and the Odyssey tell us exactly the same stories<br \/> Now, in this book, I&#39;m starting to analyze it, and I&#39;m continuing, I&#39;ve studied it all again over the last year.<br \/> we&#39;ll do a few examples<br \/> We haven&#39;t talked about Kavod and Ruach yet. If you want and have time, I&#39;ll tell you something about it.<br \/> about the things that this Lord used for traveling<br \/> it was noisy, it flew high, etc. etc. then, when there is time, we will talk about it<br \/> The Iliad and the Odyssey speak of the same things, they speak of the same individuals, who are called theoi<br \/> a, nobody reads it anyway<br \/> it is said that they traveled in cars<br \/> and we, in the translations we have&#8230;. because we believe that these are works, poems, simply mere works of poetry<br \/> it is said that these cars were pulled by horses<br \/> but it is not written here in Greek<br \/> it says there that they were &quot;yps\u00e9ch\u00e9&quot;<br \/> which means, &quot;ypsi&quot; means up and &quot;ch\u00e9es&quot; is &quot;rattle&quot;, &quot;noise&quot;<br \/> so the chariots used by the Greek theoi made noise up there<br \/> not altonitrenti<br \/> altonitrenti is not in Greek at all, it&#39;s just not there<br \/> There&#39;s noise upstairs.<br \/> and as they descended, a large cloud rose<br \/> at one point, they covered a distance that a person sitting on a mountain can see with a glance at the sea<br \/> so kilometers, at one point<br \/> This is written in the Iliad and the Odyssey.<br \/> We talked about Gan Eden.<br \/> chili in a fenced and protected garden<br \/> in books 6, 7, 8 of the Odyssey, where it is said that Odysseus sailed through the land of the Phaeacians<br \/> and it is said that the Phaeacians were ruled by King Alcinous<br \/> who was of the bloodline of Poseidon<br \/> As you know, this is one of the Greek gods.<br \/> Poseidon is the Lord of the Waters, which corresponds exactly to Enki in Sumerian-Akkadian stories.<br \/> or Eovi, Lord of the Waters<br \/> and it is said, in the Odyssey, that Poseidon gave this blood descendant<br \/> ships that<br \/> they sailed without &quot;cybernetics&quot;, i.e. they sailed without a helmsman<br \/> they knew the way themselves<br \/> They never got lost, they never crashed, they sailed very fast both above and under the water.<br \/> He had a good imagination, Homer, right?<br \/> ships sailing without a helmsman, which know the way themselves and never get lost<br \/> and he told them that they could only use these ships themselves, they couldn&#39;t make them available to anyone else<br \/> and when Alcinous makes one available to Odysseus, Poseidon gets angry, etc. etc. etc.<br \/> Alcinous had a garden, fenced, what a coincidence<br \/> in this garden, says Odyssea<br \/> they grew all kinds of fruit trees<br \/> with one peculiarity<br \/> that while fruit was already being picked on one tree, flowers were beginning to bloom on another<br \/> and while one vine was already producing wine, another was just starting to set its grapes<br \/> Thus, Odyssea says that there was permanent production in summer and winter.<br \/> it was therefore a center for accelerated production<br \/> how we can do in greenhouses<br \/> This is the Odyssey.<br \/> Hephaestus, who was the one of them who devoted himself to metalworking<br \/> He was accompanied by two maids because he was limping, he had a problem with his leg&#8230; the god Vulcan for the Latins&#8230;<br \/> It was therefore a lame god, who was therefore accompanied by two maids<br \/> The Iliad and the Odyssey are full of maids, because all the big bosses had maids.<br \/> and here about these two&#8230; only about these two, ok? very interesting things are said<br \/> Firstly: they had thinking and speech inside<br \/> It&#39;s clear that the maids think and speak, right?<br \/> Is it necessary to say that?<br \/> they had it inside as a gift from the gods<br \/> And others? OK&#8230;<br \/> they had skin like gold, like gold, i.e. metallic-looking skin<br \/> and finally: in everything they resembled living maids<br \/> What need does someone have to make this up for these two maids?<br \/> when all the others were normal girls<br \/> couldn&#39;t they have white skin?<br \/> and here these two maids, although they were not living girls, thought and spoke<br \/> and they had metal skin<br \/> So what were they?<br \/> but that&#39;s how it&#39;s written there<br \/> that&#39;s how it&#39;s written there<br \/> when in book 13 of the Iliad<br \/> it is said that Poseidon, the Lord of the Waters, who was on the side of the Greeks in the Trojan War<br \/> because here you divide&#8230; exactly the same as here<br \/> they were dividing, weren&#39;t they? who would be with one nation, and who with another<br \/> Poseidon goes to urge the Greeks on, because they were having a hard time, there was a risk that the Trojans would destroy their ships&#8230;<br \/> the Greeks can be urged to hurry up and protect their ships<br \/> Instead of going there with his appearance, he disguises himself as Kalchas, who is one of the characters in the Iliad&#8230;<br \/> the soothsayer Kalchanta&#8230; he will deliver his speech<br \/> then he turns and leaves<br \/> and as he leaves, Oileus&#39; Ajax, one of the Homeric heroes, says:<br \/> But that&#39;s not Kalchas, I recognized from the footprints and the legs that it&#39;s one of the theoi, theoi can be recognized!<br \/> So, according to the tracks they leave and the shape of their legs, I don&#39;t know how&#8230;<br \/> you can tell that it&#39;s not a human, but one of those there<br \/> bla&#8230; I&#39;ll just finish it&#8230;<br \/> when those three men come to Abraham, as I said<br \/> he sees that there are 3 male individuals, but, as he says, he immediately understands that they belong to the group of those there<br \/> Unfortunately, the Bible doesn&#39;t tell us how to recognize it.<br \/> but he will immediately understand that they are from there<br \/> &#8230;so when it walks, it walks on two legs, etc., etc., etc.<br \/> and it is said that it can be recognized by the traces they leave behind<br \/> Someone says&#8230; but I read that a long time ago.<br \/> you know that the Olympics, which began in the 7th century BC<br \/> the participants had to be naked<br \/> And do you know why the participants had to be naked?<br \/> so that the privileged participants do not get there<br \/> it was necessary to recognize<br \/> I hope that none of them will be there.<br \/> who would participate and be favored over the human race<br \/> 7th century BC?<br \/> there was no anti-doping, but apparently during the inspection<br \/> What do I know? I read it once, now I remember it&#8230;<br \/> Did you say the 7th century BC? So what era are we in?<br \/> around 750 BC<br \/> blah blah<br \/> because if you were still here, you could have participated&#8230;<br \/> and if they had to hide some of their aspects, the fact that they had to be naked would reveal them<br \/> It&#39;s just a curiosity&#8230; we can laugh at it&#8230;<br \/> So there are a whole range of things in the Iliad and the Odyssey, for example, one<br \/> I have to say that this is something that is considered an allegory, because it is absolutely unacceptable.<br \/> and that the Elohim<br \/> they wanted to smell the smell of burnt fat<br \/> because the Bible says that the smell of burnt fat calmed them down<br \/> it was a calming and soothing remedy for them<br \/> and<br \/> I will read it to you in the translation of the Italian Bishops&#39; Conference.<br \/> Yahweh is speaking here, okay? Leviticus 3<br \/> &#8230;you shall present this sacrifice, by burning it in fire, for Yahweh<br \/> so they didn&#39;t eat it, it had to be burned whole<br \/> visceral fat<br \/> everything above that, both kidneys with their fat<br \/> fat around the hips and around the liver lobe, which you cut off above the kidneys<br \/> here God gives very precise butchering instructions<br \/> and this fat was so important that in Leviticus 7 He says:<br \/> anyone who eats animal fat that can be burned as an offering to Yahweh<br \/> he will be cut off from His people<br \/> OK? Removed means killed, not expelled.<br \/> So this fat is mine.<br \/> and if you catch someone eating it, you kill them, because that fat is for me<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> In the Iliad and the Odyssey, there are more than 30 such commands.<br \/> so either Jewish authors and authors of the Iliad&#8230; or simply Homer<br \/> &#8230;<br \/> they came up with exactly the same thing<br \/> a coincidence<br \/> they came up with exactly that&#8230; because that&#39;s what it says there<br \/> that they should have prepared the fat by layering it on the whole leg of meat<br \/> and that was burned, the rest was eaten<br \/> So the biblical authors and the Homeric authors came up with exactly the same thing.<br \/> It is more likely to think that they did not make it up, if only because here<br \/> the system<br \/> it also mentions the Mayan Popol Vuh<br \/> which means that they were also there, in Central and South America, and they came up with the same thing<br \/> Is it possible for everyone to come up with the same thing?<br \/> that&#39;s something so specific<br \/> to invent it for some god&#8230; that means to make him imaginable, right?<br \/> it&#39;s like I&#39;d say, I&#39;ll come up with an allegory, a metaphor, and I&#39;ll say that my god<br \/> he has to have that animal fat burned there to feel good&#8230; who would think of that?<br \/> Something like that can be written&#8230; with a shadow of shame&#8230; like who here could think of that?<br \/> something like this can be written with a shadow of shame only if it is true<br \/> it doesn&#39;t say there with joy, like hurray my God&#8230; no, that&#39;s just how it was, and that&#39;s how they wrote it<br \/> because it is not possible to come up with something that makes God something unimaginable<br \/> allegories of this kind are not made up&#8230;<br \/> As an allegory, you can come up with something that will glorify God, but not here.<br \/> It says here: you separate&#8230; blah blah blah<br \/> if someone says that the smoke of these victims was meant to symbolize the soul seeking God<br \/> was it necessary to make such an animal slaughter? because it says that He had to have that smell at home every day<br \/> every day, morning and evening, they had to burn his fat<br \/> because that scent had to be there all the time, in his dwelling<br \/> so it was a real animal slaughter<br \/> it was not enough to burn wood, as a symbol of that&#8230;<br \/> Did they have to burn parts of animals? They could have burned sheep&#39;s wool.<br \/> not to kill lambs so that the fat can be gutted and burned<br \/> No? As in symbolism&#8230; smoke is smoke.<br \/> No, he wanted that there.<br \/> One moment, I&#39;ll be right there, just let me finish what I&#39;m saying&#8230;<br \/> By the way, this puts us in front of another inexplicable thing.<br \/> if it is true that God is there<br \/> you surely remember that when Cain and Abel&#8230;<br \/> it is said that God liked Cain&#39;s sacrifice<br \/> but he didn&#39;t like the victim&#8230;<br \/> that he liked the sacrifice of Abel, and he did not like the sacrifice of Cain<br \/> and you know what Abel sacrificed to him, right? Abel burned lambs for him<br \/> Kain was burning his vegetables<br \/> There is no need to invent anything here.<br \/> They liked the smell of burning fat; it calmed them.<br \/> Abel burned meat and fat for him and he liked it, the other one burned cucumbers for him and he didn&#39;t like it.<br \/> Everything is in one line here, nothing needs to be invented&#8230; please&#8230;<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> May I ask for a glass of water?<br \/> Aha, it&#39;s here.<br \/> blah blah blah blah<br \/> blah blah blah blah<br \/> &#8230;I&#39;ll be right there&#8230;<br \/> Two people have already told me.<br \/> that it explains some excerpts from Sumerian-Akkadian tablets<br \/> where it is said that when they were burning meat<br \/> Anunnaki, or Anunnaki, which is the Sumerian-Akkadian equivalent of Elohim.<br \/> they flocked like flies attracted to meat<br \/> They flew to Noah&#8230; did they fly to us too?<br \/> Aha, after Noah&#8230; blah blah<br \/> Exactly, they even flew to Noah, and by the way<br \/> after the flood receded<br \/> they were here after the local flood, which they themselves caused, not after the global flood<br \/> Something that Noah will do, the Bible says, is that he will take a large number of animals and burn them for the Elohim.<br \/> but he barely saved those animals in the ark<br \/> So the first thing he&#39;ll do on solid ground is take them and burn them?<br \/> He will burn them, Elohim Yahweh will come.<br \/> welcomes the victim and immediately says: I will never do something like that again, and immediately calms down<br \/> after Noah burned a large number of animals<br \/> By the way, I&#39;ll say this, and then I&#39;ll move on to the Ten Commandments.<br \/> The Bible says that Noah carried animals in pairs.<br \/> in the story from which this narrative comes<br \/> it is written that in the ark&#8230; ark means a box, not a boat<br \/> so, into that cabinet<br \/> This is a Sumerian-Akkadian story&#8230; they inserted animal semen.<br \/> not animals<br \/> and the Bible says that they put pairs of animals there<br \/> but now, based on our current knowledge, if we put the two terms together<br \/> seeds and vapors, what comes to mind?<br \/> DNA, seeds in pairs<br \/> it was a cabinet<br \/> there is no need to invent anything, just pretend that what is written there is true<br \/> and then, if it&#39;s not true, when we find out it&#39;s Pinocchio, it will have the same value, we&#39;ll have fun<br \/> the Ten Commandments, which are not actually 10, but 613<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> So there are 600 rules that He gave.<br \/> we know the part that was used to create the ethical, moral system<br \/> and in fact, there is one merit that we can attribute to religion, to Christianity<br \/> and the fact that it developed an ethical system despite what is written in the Old Testament<br \/> not because of what is written in the Old Testament, but in spite of it<br \/> the Ten Commandments, so the first one we know is: you shall have no&#8230; I am your Elohim<br \/> we will use the term elohim, okay? &#8230;<br \/> I am the Creator Elohim, you shall have no other elohim besides me.<br \/> so no, it&#39;s not that they don&#39;t exist, &quot;you won&#39;t have&quot;<br \/> we have already seen how He repeatedly declares that He is jealous of rivals, etc., who in reality should not have existed<br \/> one processing of this 1. commandment, Jewish processing<br \/> which is already in the publications of the Jewish Publication Society from 1911<br \/> says: you shall have no other elohim besides me<br \/> because other elohim do not give any advantages compared to me<br \/> not because they don&#39;t exist, but because they don&#39;t provide any benefits<br \/> This is Jewish literature.<br \/> So, to be with me or with others???? So, you&#39;ll be with me.<br \/> secondly, the second elaboration<br \/> you shall have no other elohim before me<br \/> How can God make such a statement?<br \/> as long as I&#39;m here<br \/> that means, when I&#39;m not here, go to whoever you want, but as long as I&#39;m here, you&#39;ll be with me<br \/> Did they summarize those 613 into those 10?<br \/> No, no, that&#39;s not a summary&#8230; there are 10 of them here too&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;but there are a whole range of rules concerning everyday life, hygiene, etc., etc.<br \/> one part of which is formulated positively and the other negatively, i.e.: you will do, and you will not do<br \/> By the way, here&#39;s an interesting fact&#8230; in one midrash, that is, in one commentary on the Bible<br \/> it is admitted that these commandments are not understandable, or simply that they are difficult to understand<br \/> it is said that Moses speaks to Yahweh and tells him, hey<br \/> There is one commandment that we cannot understand.<br \/> How should we behave?<br \/> And He says: follow the majority, when the majority decides in one way, it is fine.<br \/> when he decides otherwise, it&#39;s okay again&#8230; God&#8230;<br \/> and since most of them can change, what is true today may not be true tomorrow<br \/> but this is in the Midrash, in the &quot;Midrashim&quot;, which is Jewish literature commenting on and interpreting the Bible<br \/> Then here are the other commandments, still within the framework of the famous 10.<br \/> e.g. Thou shalt not kill<br \/> Rabbi Dovid ben Dori says that &quot;you shall not kill&quot; is a mistranslation, and he is right.<br \/> because that commandment does not mean &quot;you shall not kill&quot;, it means &quot;you shall not kill ????&quot; &#8211;\/\/&quot;do not intentionally kill those with whom you have permanent relationships&quot;\/\/&#8211;<br \/> and this rabbi says: killing at that time was completely permissible, so one could kill without any guilt<br \/> just kill, it&#39;s fine&#8230;<br \/> It&#39;s not a fault.<br \/> and says that based on this erroneous translation, Jews and Christians were burdened with completely unjustifiable feelings of guilt<br \/> And why did you give this &quot;kill&quot; this meaning here?<br \/> e.g. you shall not steal, you shall not covet your neighbor&#39;s wife, your neighbor&#39;s possessions, your neighbor&#39;s animals&#8230;<br \/> here, the &quot;others&quot; who then became &quot;neighbors&quot; in the sense of all as humanity<br \/> this extension is completely groundless and unjustified<br \/> Hebrew term meaning &quot;others&quot;, &quot;neighbors&quot;<br \/> in the sense of &quot;your kind&quot;, with whom you have a direct relationship<br \/> daily relationship<br \/> So, that was the system, the order that He commanded.<br \/> which was to apply only within that camp in the desert of the exodus, when he led them out of Egypt<br \/> because this order was supposed to serve the purpose of making it possible to live inside.<br \/> because what was happening there, of course, was that we were about 1400 years before Christ, in the Neolithic period<br \/> when a man saw a girl, he did not treat her gently<br \/> when he liked her&#8230; he took her and raped her<br \/> 2 hours later, the guy, the owner of that girl, came and slit her throat.<br \/> when someone saw an animal, they took it, 2 hours later the owner of the animal came and slaughtered it there<br \/> So this regulation basically meant: within your community<br \/> What is one&#39;s own, is one&#39;s own, what is yours, is yours, what belongs to another, you do not touch.<br \/> outside that community, the instructions of Yahweh<br \/> killing, massacring, raping, kidnapping, and stealing are constant<br \/> constant<br \/> Chapter 10 of the Book of Joshua, how many times He repeats, when you have conquered some inhabited territory<br \/> You have conquered it? Now kill them all, including women, children, and the elderly.<br \/> only in chapter 10 of the book of Joshua, I have the feeling that it is repeated 5 times with 5 inhabited places<br \/> So don&#39;t kill them all when you fight.<br \/> Did you conquer them? Now kill them all, because we have to settle there.<br \/> Do you remember what I said? No? Ethnic cleansing.<br \/> So the first one who broke the commandment &quot;Thou shalt not kill&quot; was Him, because it wasn&#39;t even a commandment &quot;Thou shalt not kill&quot;.<br \/> it was: don&#39;t kill each other here inside, out there, we&#39;ll do whatever suits us<br \/> e.g. one of the commandments&#8230; and the same applies here with &quot;you shall not steal&quot; etc. etc.<br \/> one of the regulations, for example, was: you shall not take a wife from a foreign country, a foreign woman<br \/> after these regulations were issued, the first thing Moses did was to take a woman from Ethiopia<br \/> one Cushite, so Moses has two wives, a Midianite and a Cushite, so neither of them was Jewish<br \/> so his descendants are not Jews, by the way, just as he was not&#8230;<br \/> because it is said that Judaism is passed down through the female line, so Moses&#39; descendants, even if he was Jewish, they were not&#8230;<br \/> so he takes a Cushite woman, that is, an Ethiopian woman<br \/> Aaron, the chief priest, sees it and says, &#39;Look, it&#39;s like this.&#39;<br \/> We had barely told the others not to do it, and you do it.<br \/> Do you know what happens? Aaron and his wife Miriam complain about it, and Yahweh intervenes.<br \/> and he says to Aaron and Miriam: look, you take care of yourselves, Moses has a special relationship with me, he does what he wants<br \/> And what will he do?<br \/> it only affects women&#8230;<br \/> And what will it do? It will only affect the woman, and that is with a skin disease.<br \/> only the woman, only Miriam, not Aaron<br \/> what a sense of justice this individual had&#8230;<br \/> So Moses can do whatever he wants, we have to keep silent.<br \/> Okay?<br \/> It&#39;s a good thing God isn&#39;t here, otherwise we&#39;d be in real trouble.<br \/> to be in the hands of someone like that<br \/> and here, this person is affected by a skin disease<br \/> It reminds me of&#8230;<br \/> the end of the 10th chapter of the book of Joshua&#8230; here the final assessment is made<br \/> Thus Joshua conquered the whole area, the mountains, the Negev, the lowlands, the slopes and all their kings.<br \/> he left no one alive<br \/> and wiped out all living things, including animals<br \/> as Yahweh, the Elohim of Israel, commanded<br \/> so we murdered everyone in that entire area<br \/> Joshua struck them down from Kadesh Barnea to Gaza and from the entire land of Goshen to Gibeon.<br \/> in a single campaign, he took the territory of all those kings<br \/> because Yahweh, the God of Israel, fought for them<br \/> Finally, Joshua returned to the camp in Gilgal.<br \/> so throughout the entire territory<br \/> where He commanded to kill them all<br \/> Then he says, we conquered it and killed everything alive, including the animals.<br \/> as He commanded&#8230; ethnic cleansing<br \/> Then someone might say that this is an allegory, but I ask, an allegory of what?<br \/> how to come up with an allegory<br \/> which puts a god in the worst light? that&#39;s not possible<br \/> Even a moron wouldn&#39;t come up with such an allegory.<br \/> but it was normal there&#8230; we said before, Kemosh, Yahweh<br \/> He gave that territory to you, He gave this one to us, we hold it, period.<br \/> and whoever could, took him<br \/> Yes?<br \/> blah blah blah blah \/\/what the so-called believers say about it\/\/<br \/> Well, religious believers don&#39;t even know these things.<br \/> blah blah<br \/> they believe it because they have never read it, then they can believe it&#8230; and they believe it because they have never read it<br \/> blah blah<br \/> Let&#39;s not forget that for many centuries it was forbidden to read the Bible.<br \/> blah blah<br \/> blah blah<br \/> I completely agree with this, I can only shrug my shoulders.<br \/> I also realize that you can&#39;t believe in this God here.<br \/> God, that&#39;s something else, you can&#39;t believe in that.<br \/> actually, even they didn&#39;t believe it<br \/> because the Jewish religion, by the way, was not a religion of faith<br \/> Christianity is a religion of faith because I believe in something I cannot see.<br \/> there&#8230; it is already difficult to use the term Jewish religion<br \/> let&#39;s say in the Jewish way of thinking<br \/> it was a matter of trust, so we entered into a contract<br \/> I am keeping my part of the contract in the hope that you will keep yours.<br \/> In the end, when I fulfilled my part of the contract, I am a just person, I was a just person.<br \/> because we have concluded a contract, we with you<br \/> we are doing our part and we expect you to do yours<br \/> blah blah blah&#8230; \/\/how is it possible in such a situation to consider God the God of love\/\/<br \/> blah blah blah blah<br \/> I replaced the word &quot;God&quot; with the word &quot;intention&quot;.<br \/> I believe, I firmly believe, as I have believed for 50 years, in this God of love.<br \/> Today I find that the Bible does not speak of God, so between God and us there is that intermediate link, those Elohim&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;they made a certain modulation, but we did something intentionally different<br \/> blah blah&#8230; I believe in the God who is above the Elohim<br \/> bla&#8230; so when I pray, I pray with an intention that transcends&#8230;<br \/> blah blah blah blah<br \/> I think the intention is a laser that penetrates&#8230; blah blah blah<br \/> as a &quot;created&quot; being, I believe that my God created me with good intentions&#8230;<br \/> blah blah<br \/> That&#39;s legitimate, I have nothing to say about that.<br \/> As you know, I&#39;m talking about what&#39;s written there.<br \/> Yes?<br \/> blah&#8230; &#8230;let&#39;s call them aliens, gods, etc.<br \/> Where did they go? Are they still here?<br \/> blah&#8230; &#8230;when they have influenced the world for so long<br \/> This is a more than justified question, the problem is the answer.<br \/> Didn&#39;t they leave any traces?<br \/> The traces are in large structures that are located all over the Earth.<br \/> because&#8230; it is not known for sure how they were built<br \/> It&#39;s hard to believe they would play skittles with copper knives.<br \/> nothing can be carved with knives<br \/> So there are traces here&#8230; what end they took or if they left, I&#8230; I don&#39;t know.<br \/> Is there nothing said in the old writings?<br \/> as all the stories say, when they left here, they promised to return<br \/> except the Bible<br \/> It&#39;s not in the Old Testament.<br \/> in the books that remained&#8230; because, for example, in those 11 books, as I said at the beginning<br \/> which were removed, there might have been something more explicit there<br \/> and when they could not change them, they made them disappear, as Professor Rofe says<br \/> So, I don&#39;t know.<br \/> we can make all possible imaginable hypotheses<br \/> a Presbyterian pastor, Father Barry Downing, a man of faith<br \/> he performs his office, Presbyterian, Christian, not Catholic, but Presbyterian<br \/> He has no doubts, he says: they are still here and they control everything.<br \/> has no doubts at all<br \/> says that the Mosaic religion is the fruit of<br \/> encounter with a flying object, controlled by intelligences from other worlds<br \/> This is the Kavod and Ruach, if there is time, I will say something about it.<br \/> but we can&#39;t be here until midnight, so you can go to bed<br \/> So&#8230; a meeting with that thing.<br \/> controlled&#8230; on which they were there<br \/> and says that there is no doubt that they are still here and that they control everything<br \/> But?<br \/> Excuse me, but first it was&#8230;<br \/> bla&#8230; &#8230;those individuals were fighting over territory, so they always used people, they didn&#39;t fight among themselves<br \/> When they started to be cunning, they started to take advantage of people.<br \/> because they had used their weapons before, which were terrifying<br \/> Shall I read something to you? Yes.<br \/> I said before that one day Abraham received those three<br \/> accepts those three, one of those three is Yahweh<br \/> the other two go to Sodom to warn Abraham&#39;s nephew Lot<br \/> that he must leave the city because the next day it will be razed to the ground, along with four others<br \/> &#8230;these two will convince him and Lot and his family will leave, etc.<br \/> the next day, fire will come from heaven, which will wipe out Sodom, Gomorrah and 3 other cities<br \/> fire from heaven, we don&#39;t know what it was, there is no description<br \/> but the Bible mentions that territory several times, and it says<br \/> e.g. in the 1st Book of Kings, which is about 1000 years after the plot with Sodom and Gomorrah, so 1000 years later<br \/> it is said that<br \/> In the valley of Sodom and Gomorrah, the water is still bad and the land does not bear fruit&#8230; 1000 years&#8230;<br \/> in the book of the prophet Zephaniah<br \/> that was in 620 BC, so 1200, 1300 years after that event<br \/> it is said that the area of Sodom and Gomorrah is a devastated land of salt and thistles<br \/> nothing else grows there<br \/> in the book of Wisdom, which was written more or less at the time of Christ<br \/> So 1800 years have passed.<br \/> it is said<br \/> that in the territory, in the valley of Sodom and Gomorrah, trees bear fruit that does not ripen<br \/> almost 2000 years have passed<br \/> So what did they do in that area?<br \/> The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is also told on Sumerian-Akkadian tablets.<br \/> in the epic of Nergal&#8230;. Nergal was one of those elohim, anunnaki<br \/> it is said that<br \/> in the wars they waged against each other<br \/> Nergal wanted to destroy Ninurta, that&#39;s another name from there<br \/> along the royal road, he flew to the green valley of the five cities, that is, the five biblical cities<br \/> into the greening valley, where Nabu, another name, one of those there<br \/> He was turning people, turning here is not in the religious sense, here it means recruiting, moving from one alliance to another<br \/> that&#39;s why he decided to exterminate them<br \/> Nergal planned to crush him like a bird in a cage.<br \/> to those five cities, one after another<br \/> He sent a weapon of terror from heaven.<br \/> one for each city<br \/> He destroyed those five cities&#8230; a weapon of terror from the heavens.<br \/> one for each city<br \/> He destroyed those five cities of the valley, which turned into a wasteland.<br \/> and everything that was alive there turned into steam<br \/> vapor&#8230; just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where bodies evaporated<br \/> 4000 years ago<br \/> we can say that these are fairy tales, sure, they present it nicely<br \/> Now I&#39;ll read you another one.<br \/> I&#39;ll read you another one.<br \/> These are Oxford publications, not alternative translations, this is the Kappa 5001 table.<br \/> We are on the Sinai Peninsula.<br \/> Ninurta set out for the ridge of Mount Ma\u0161u<br \/> Nergal followed him immediately<br \/> Ninurta controlled the mountain and the plain located in the middle of the fourth region from the heavens.<br \/> there were areas that they divided among themselves<br \/> Ninurta then released the first weapon of terror from the heavens.<br \/> a lightning bolt struck the top of Mount Ma\u0161a, and in a single moment the mountain&#39;s entrails melted<br \/> he dropped the second weapon in place of the heavenly chariots<br \/> with the brightness of 7 suns, the stones on the plain turned into a festering wound<br \/> the earth trembled, it shattered, the heavens darkened after a flash<br \/> what an imagination they had&#8230;<br \/> the plain with the wagons was covered with burnt stones<br \/> of all the forests that surrounded the plain, only tree stumps remained<br \/> You couldn&#39;t even come up with this here&#8230; and they really came up with it precisely.<br \/> we now know what has these effects here<br \/> and here they described these effects 4000 years ago<br \/> If we want to consider them fairy tales, okay, we&#39;ll have fun, we&#39;ll read fairy tales, no problem.<br \/> blah blah<br \/> but we are talking about the Sinai territory here, by the way<br \/> in one study by Luigi Moraldi, where it is said that ruach moved and created wind<br \/> and that cherubs<br \/> when it is said that they &quot;blessed&quot;<br \/> in fact, it&#39;s that &quot;they made noise&quot; when they moved their wings<br \/> which was attached to the handle<br \/> and it is also said&#8230; when we look at the Jewish version of the Book of Enoch<br \/> about those celestial chariots&#8230; that 23 different types of them have been described<br \/> 23 types of celestial chariots<br \/> so before they started to be cunning, because these things were killing them too<br \/> they fought with their weapons, then they obviously decided to let others fight, because it was much less dangerous<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> in the Mahabharata&#8230;<br \/> in the Bible, in the Bible, because the Bible tells us<br \/> &#8230;as I said, about the relationship between that nation and that One&#8230; so the Bible is interested in this&#8230;<br \/> Unfortunately, one of those 11 lost books is called The Book of the Wars of Yahweh.<br \/> If we had it, we would know how Yahweh fought.<br \/> but maybe it was too explicit, so the book is no longer available<br \/> because she spoke directly about the battles of Yahweh<br \/> and is quoted in the book of Numbers in the Bibles we have at home<br \/> so it is clear that<br \/> So if we pretend that these stories are specific, we are not making anything up&#8230;<br \/> if here, instead of the Valley of the Kings, there were Hiroshima and Nagasaki<br \/> So in the rest of the story, we don&#39;t have to change a single word, not one, not one.<br \/> priests<br \/> the priests were the ones who were supposed to take care of those there<br \/> Biblical priests were to take care of Him, so not of the believers, ok? They were to take care of His dwelling, His food, etc. etc.<br \/> priests there were appointed purely by belonging to the family of Aaron<br \/> He chose this family and said: these are exempt from all other services<br \/> These people take care of me, period.<br \/> so all members of that family were &quot;kohanim&quot;<br \/> In Leviticus 21, Yahweh says to Moses<br \/> Speak to Aaron and tell him that in the future, no one from your family<br \/> anyone with a disability must not come near me to serve me bread<br \/> because no one with any disability is allowed to approach<br \/> neither blind, nor lame, nor anyone with a deformed face, nor anyone with a broken arm or leg<br \/> neither a hunchback, nor a dwarf, nor anyone who has a defect in the eye, or scabies or festering wounds or who is castrated<br \/> no one of Aaron&#39;s lineage who has any disability may present the offerings burned in fire for Yahweh<br \/> Does it have any defect? Let him not go to serve bread to Yahweh.<br \/> can eat the bread of Yahweh<br \/> because it was prepared for him once a week, it was exchanged, and they ate what was left over<br \/> he can eat it, but he must not present it<br \/> He can eat bread, but he must not come near because he is affected.<br \/> He didn&#39;t want to see the affected ones, they weren&#39;t allowed to dare to touch the food for him.<br \/> we let them eat, out of His goodness<br \/> bla<br \/> blah blah<br \/> Numbers 5, commanded the Israelites<br \/> to drive every leper out of the camp<br \/> anyone who has gonorrhea or who has been defiled by contact with a corpse<br \/> you will drive away both men and women<br \/> You&#39;ll drive them out of the camp so they don&#39;t contaminate the camp where I live.<br \/> He could not afford any contamination or epidemics that would decimate the people, so<br \/> Does he have leprosy or something else? Away<br \/> and to be expelled from the camp means to be condemned to death, that&#39;s not it<br \/> Go live somewhere else, in another hostel.<br \/> So you are a risk to the people here, get out, go die somewhere else.<br \/> So the Bible tells us this, it&#39;s not about portraying Yahweh as some kind of personality.<br \/> It is the Bible that speaks of Him in this way, we can&#39;t do anything about it.<br \/> Deuteronomy 23<br \/> you will have a place outside the camp where you will go to relieve yourself<br \/> you will have a wand in your equipment, which is out there<br \/> you make a hole and then cover your excrement<br \/> because Yahweh, your Elohim, is passing through your camp, and He must not see your indecencies<br \/> since they were doing it there, and it bothered him, he instructed them on how to do it<br \/> go outside to relieve yourself, make a hole and bury it, he had to instruct them about that here too<br \/> This is proof of that&#8230; please?<br \/> This is proof that he was nevertheless walking among them&#8230; yes, certainly.<br \/> and he lived in the camp&#8230; sure<br \/> he walked among them<br \/> and he was afraid of diseases<br \/> he must have been afraid of diseases<br \/> one nice thing&#8230; a curiosity&#8230;<br \/> We know that there is a Messiah, the Hebrew term is &quot;Mashiach&quot;<br \/> which is translated into Greek as Christ, which means anointed<br \/> so he is anointed by God, the Lord<br \/> and we all have in mind the symbolic gesture of anointing<br \/> smearing something, oil, on the head<br \/> which was in the sense of acceptance by God, and that God gave that person some special value, etc.<br \/> in books whose authenticity we must not believe<br \/> it is said that the few who could enter their dwellings<br \/> it had to be washed well&#8230; after all, in the desert of the exodus, he had a tub built outside, outside his dwelling<br \/> and the few who were allowed to enter it<br \/> they had to wash themselves before entering, the bathtub was there<br \/> so that he can check it, so that he can be sure that they are washing<br \/> No? Because they were not allowed to bring any contamination into the house.<br \/> but the term, the verb from which &quot;ma\u0161iach&quot; comes<br \/> means exactly<br \/> rub and wash<br \/> it even means &quot;to hit&quot;, so something like to brush out<br \/> because the anointing before it received the symbolic meaning of the anointing of the Lord<br \/> was probably meant to indicate that the few<br \/> who had the privilege of entering to him, to them<br \/> they were washed and then probably sprinkled with oil, because oil holds everything on the skin<br \/> while cells are separated in this way, viruses and bacteria skip<br \/> when you rub yourself all over with oil, it makes&#8230;<br \/> So the &quot;needed&quot; one was Ma\u0161iach.<br \/> brushed off, and then he could enter, this is probably what it originally meant<br \/> then, over time, the concept of the anointed, the chosen, etc. etc. evolved.<br \/> the original meaning of this Hebrew root is this<br \/> so not to smear, but to scrub and rub it in<br \/> even with violence, because there is also a need to intervene<br \/> paint, exactly, paint<br \/> blah blah<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> blah blah blah \/\/deadly danger\/\/<br \/> \/\/we also have to get vaccinated before traveling to Africa\/\/<br \/> they were not used to our diseases<br \/> by the way, the dietary regulations as well<br \/> e.g. so that they don&#39;t eat animals they found already dead&#8230;<br \/> By the way, it&#39;s interesting that they weren&#39;t allowed to eat these things themselves, but they could give them to others.<br \/> blah blah<br \/> so there was a whole range of additional regulations to prevent any epidemic<br \/> because it is clear that the hygienic situation of such a camp<br \/> where there was a shortage of everything&#8230;<br \/> an epidemic could decimate all His people<br \/> And he was desperately trying to build an army.<br \/> so he couldn&#39;t afford to have some illness ruin it for him<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> another mixture was being prepared there<br \/> which, however, had a soothing effect on the respiratory tract<br \/> it was a mixture consisting of three types of plants and the shell of one mollusk<br \/> it had to be ground, it had to be placed in precise locations<br \/> crushed and burned, then they also used it<br \/> for fumigating spaces<br \/> when He had a dwelling built that could be dismantled&#8230;<br \/> and reassembled, right? when they were moving<br \/> and when they assembled it, they fumigated it before entering<br \/> because these substances are also used to repel or kill insects<br \/> sterilization of the environment<br \/> As for the manipulation, the rewriting of the Bible over the millennia, it could be understood as the effort of whoever did it.<br \/> that he wanted to take over the positions of those who left? blah blah<br \/> So, the one who did it, and he did it in such a way as to secure a position of power, I think that&#39;s quite&#8230;<br \/> the one who did it, and he did it in such a way as to secure a position of power, I think that&#39;s quite evident<br \/> as if he wanted to replace them<br \/> Yes, at the moment when contact with the real masters was lost.<br \/> whether they left or what do I know&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;or lost interest<br \/> someone who was in that position, because they had had contact with them before<br \/> He reworked the whole situation to maintain the entire structure of power and control.<br \/> It was in that book, which I have here today, that I wrote a chapter.<br \/> which is entitled: How religion can arise under similar assumptions<br \/> and I wrote there how I would do it<br \/> and I say that in my opinion, that&#39;s how they did it<br \/> Maybe if we went to the Vatican archives&#8230;<br \/> louder<br \/> blah blah \/\/astronauts, the smell of burnt meat\/\/<br \/> in the book I wrote 2.5 years ago, called The Alien God of the Bible<br \/> I just pointed this out.<br \/> astronauts getting out of the ship up there<br \/> Everyone says that after returning, they smell a strong odor of burnt meat.<br \/> after all, a report was published in the Telegraph<br \/> that NASA ordered from Omega Industries \/-\/Ingredients\/-\/, which is an English perfume manufacturer<br \/> the production of an essence that accurately reproduces the smell of meat fried on a barbecue<br \/> because they put it in the astronauts&#39; training suits when they do<br \/> in the pool, movements in the absence of gravity&#8230;<br \/> so they get used to this smell, because it&#39;s very strong up there<br \/> Of course, the smell is not external, there are no smells in the space.<br \/> it is caused by the fact that up there, in space, the surface layers of the skin are shed much faster than here on Earth<br \/> those who make outputs due to work on ships<br \/> they wear a lot of clothes and move a lot, so there is a lot of friction<br \/> when they return, these dead cells will be flying around the rocket in the absence of gravity<br \/> they get into the artificial atmosphere and oxidize quickly<br \/> which causes a very strong smell of burnt meat<br \/> So, whoever travels up there, smells this odor strongly.<br \/> there was an Iranian businesswoman who traveled on a Russian spacecraft<br \/> and after her return, she also told how strongly she felt this smell of burning there<br \/> blah blah&#8230; \/\/could Elohim, Yahweh use it to calm down?\/\/<br \/> Yes, the Bible says that it was a calming and relaxing agent.<br \/> it may be that this thing was something like a memory, which is nice, as we say, that in some places I feel the smell of home<br \/> It&#39;s something human, but they are like us, there&#39;s no difference.<br \/> nostalgic&#8230;<br \/> Sure, why not? The Bible is not clear on that, so why not?<br \/> it happens to us too that someone feels the scents of childhood, which are really pleasant to us, why not<br \/> The moment everything becomes concrete, everything is possible.<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> Yes, exactly, in the book I quoted.<br \/> I published part of what was sent to me by a doctor who is also a Sumerologist.<br \/> I remember talking about it here, it was in 2011, at an international meeting in San Marino<br \/> I told the organizer of the meeting: when there are 5-6 minutes left before the end of the lecture, tell me<br \/> I&#39;ll tell you, but then I&#39;ll take to my heels<br \/> as in, I&#39;ll tell you how God wanted to get high on burnt meat<br \/> because no one had talked about it before<br \/> and so I did it<br \/> and at that meeting there was a doctor who called me the next day and said, hey, you know<br \/> when I heard you say those things there<br \/> You gave me an explanation of something I read in the Sumerian tablets and sent me a study.<br \/> then, after a few weeks<br \/> where, in principle&#8230; fat molecules<br \/> burned in that way, i.e. on the grill<br \/> are subject to transformation<br \/> and they become essentially the same as endorphin molecules<br \/> which are substances that our brain orders our body to produce when we are stressed and need to calm down<br \/> that scent is full of endorphins<br \/> the Bible says that it was a &quot;nichoach&quot; for them, i.e. a soothing, relaxing agent<br \/> is equally explainable neurophysiologically<\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Lecture_2014_Part_1\"><\/span>Lecture 2014 Part 1<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p> <a href=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/Tw09T2DF41Y\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/youtu.be\/Tw09T2DF41Y<\/a><br \/><br \/> THE BIBLE IS NOT A HOLY BOOK<br \/> Thank you for being here, thank you all.<br \/> I hope that there will be an opportunity here for me to call you friends.<br \/> and so I could speak about each of you and about all of you<br \/> here in Castello di Zena<br \/> We have the honor and pleasure of hosting Mauro Biglin.<br \/> which will introduce us to the topics<br \/> which are known to many of you<br \/> while others are probably prompted by the disturbing title<br \/> concerned is in fact<br \/> the food of knowledge<br \/> and I think each of us, too<br \/> lazily accepts<br \/> acquired information and ideas, prevailing ways of thinking<br \/> without their own, deeper, original research<br \/> scientific, educated<br \/> Where could such research lead us?<br \/> I don&#39;t know.<br \/> possibly to change ingrained opinions<br \/> Yes, that is possible, it certainly evokes an increased desire for knowledge.<br \/> is a witness to the renewal and variability of our views<br \/> and in this variability lies the richness to which, I believe, each of us is called in this life.<br \/> Castello di Zena has long been organizing, in the footsteps of my mother, who is here<br \/> and I would like to extend a very warm greeting<br \/> we have already held book presentations here<br \/> with the authors, we discussed with those authors, here in the salon, but also in the mill<br \/> in gardens, etc. all of that<br \/> we are trying to renew with a new offer<br \/> in the meantime, we share various experiences with holistic topics<br \/> We do gong baths, my wife teaches.<br \/> Frederica, who is here, and I also want to thank her for her contribution, as she teaches yoga here.<br \/> and I know that it has a growing response<br \/> and then there are friends in the hall who also work with us on gong baths<br \/> chilli group of vibrational music, so experience and new ways<br \/> I suffer from an old adolescent disease: science and politics.<br \/> and I am also interested in history<br \/> I question many clich\u00e9s concerning our post-war period.<br \/> and depicting events in a way that, fortunately, is starting to take its toll<br \/> occasionally there is a meeting with an author, such as Pansa, who is criticized, who causes a stir<br \/> I believe that this work is meritorious.<br \/> this rediscovery and reassembly of the truth of our history<br \/> history, including the more distant and therefore extremely important ones, because they determine our oldest and most deeply rooted views<br \/> which also applies to our oldest and most deeply rooted clich\u00e9s<br \/> Mauro Biglino, we appreciate that he is here.<br \/> Naturally, Spazio Tesla, Alberto Negri and his wife Laura are collaborating on all of this.<br \/> with whom we gladly and harmoniously cooperate<br \/> for a long time, and I would like this cooperation to continue to grow with your help.<br \/> I&#39;m handing the microphone over to Albert, because he also wants to thank you&#8230; actually, I won&#39;t hand it over to him&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;if it works&#8230;<br \/> Thank you&#8230; Emanuele Perotti, the landlord<br \/> together with Federika, a scientist<br \/> this beautiful place, which has already witnessed<br \/> one very important event with Sabrina Pieragostini and Manuel Paroletto<br \/> Sabrina Pieragostini works for Media Sette, Manuel Paroletti for the ufological center in Imperia<br \/> Today we are not hiding anything, it is a great honor for us, for me and for Emanuel, to host<br \/> this event, which&#8230; as I was just talking to Mauro Biglin&#8230; with its presented topics<br \/> sets something in motion<br \/> we wrote on our website, and we share it with our colleagues from Spazio Tesla<br \/> a report that I think is very important<br \/> since 2012&#8230; it is clear, today here for us<br \/> it really vibrates in a different way<br \/> consciousness is therefore beginning to awaken<br \/> Today you will hear things that you may have already heard somewhere on the Internet.<br \/> things that undoubtedly lead to reflection and that vibrate all the cells of our body<br \/> and thus this quantum awakening<br \/> which is always here, is accelerating in an incredible way in this particular period<br \/> I won&#39;t waste any more time, just a few technical details.<br \/> as for the exit from Castella<br \/> There is a table down there on the left where you can leave your contact details if you have not already done so.<br \/> On the ground floor, in the main part, on the left, there is a refreshment stand.<br \/> and in the second salon there is a sale of books by Mauro Biglin with a trilogy<br \/> and we look forward to him telling us something about the new book today<br \/> which is almost out of control, almost<br \/> and one last thing: November 15th<br \/> with Emanuel&#39;s permission, it will be here<br \/> Second Congress of the City of Piacenza on Medicine and Quantum Physics<br \/> there will be personalities here, just like last year<br \/> making our association proud, the news will be on the Spazio Tesla website<br \/> and also on the Castello di Zena website, where you will find all possible information<br \/> Thank you once again, so Mauro Biglino<br \/> Thanks to Emanuel, thanks to Albert, I am very glad to be able to speak in a place like this.<br \/> It evokes emotions in me.<br \/> and thanks to you who are here, so numerous, and by the way, there are some who were in Cremona last night and are here today&#8230;<br \/> that&#39;s worthy of a medal<br \/> That&#39;s incredible, ok.<br \/> So, how many people here have no idea what I&#39;m talking about?<br \/> ok<br \/> there should be a lot of them, but&#8230;<br \/> So, a few words for these guys.<br \/> But to follow up on what Emanuele said, quoting Pansa&#39;s work, which reconstructs history from 1943 onwards, etc.<br \/> and which is heavily criticized, and regardless of whether someone agrees with it or not<br \/> writes things that are well-documented and<br \/> this helps us understand one thing, that when historical books are written<br \/> the one who writes them writes them according to their own criteria<br \/> and he tries to put into those texts what he wants to be conveyed<br \/> and Pansa talks about the history of 60, 70 years ago<br \/> and it makes us understand how it can be twisted<br \/> imagine texts that were written millennia ago<br \/> at a time when documentation about those times, as we have today, was unimaginable<br \/> Despite this, the work that Pansa does consists precisely in reformulating<br \/> history&#8230; which basically means history from a few decades ago<br \/> can be written in a different way than it was presented to us as verified before<br \/> and now imagine what this means for the Old Testament<br \/> or multiply it as many times as you want<br \/> exponentially<br \/> the variants that may be here, because the Old Testament is just like that, because it was written over many centuries<br \/> at a time when there was practically no documentation, nothing could be verified<br \/> and that&#39;s why I&#39;ve been saying for several years that we can only do as we please with the old law<br \/> this is the only certainty I have when I talk about these things<br \/> because in the case of the Old Testament, you need to have a lot of doubts<br \/> it is necessary to ask questions with a flavour of knowledge<br \/> So&#8230; many questions&#8230; many doubts&#8230;<br \/> So when we make a claim with the Old Testament, we always say &quot;we&#39;re pretending that&quot;<br \/> because in my opinion, it can&#39;t be done any other way<br \/> So what I&#39;m explaining about the Old Testament comes from the work I did for the San Paolo publishing house.<br \/> for whom I translated for many years&#8230; I&#39;m saying this for those who don&#39;t know anything&#8230;.<br \/> &#8230;I was translating Masoretic Hebrew, i.e. the codex from which the Bibles we have at home are derived.<br \/> and they published 17 books of the Old Testament, which I translated literally, these are the books<br \/> these volumes<br \/> in which my task was<br \/> literal translation, shown here on the right<br \/> checking the correctness of the Hebrew text<br \/> checking the correctness of the Greek version<br \/> and the grammatical analysis of the verbs is shown below, so my work was this one<br \/> here in this volume<br \/> &#8230;is an interlinear translation by Mauro Biglin and<br \/> and the Italian text of the latest version of the Bible by Monsignor Gianfranco Ravasi<br \/> who is the Minister of Culture of the Vatican, so in this volume, it&#39;s me and him together<br \/> he gave permission to publish his own translation alongside mine<br \/> and since my task was to make a literal translation<br \/> over time, I began to feel the need to tell stories<br \/> what I feel I&#39;m really reading<br \/> in the Masoretic codices<br \/> It started in 2010, my employment was of course immediately terminated.<br \/> for obvious reasons<br \/> so these years I am now continuing on my path, both in translating and lecturing<br \/> &#8230;for those who have never heard anything, but also&#8230; given that these videos are shared here<br \/> it is good that it is understandable even to those who will listen to it on the internet, because I keep repeating it, but in reality&#8230;<br \/> but someone still doesn&#39;t want to understand&#8230;<br \/> I&#39;m not talking about the spiritual worlds<br \/> I heard what you&#39;re doing here in Castello.<br \/> here you focus on certain topics<br \/> Today you will hear something that is terrifyingly down-to-earth.<br \/> chilli here for the few hours we&#39;ll spend together<br \/> and please, ask right away and don&#39;t wait until the end, so I can have some fun too<br \/> we will address one topic from an exclusively material point of view<br \/> I don&#39;t talk about God because I don&#39;t know anything about him.<br \/> I don&#39;t talk about spiritual worlds because I know nothing about them.<br \/> I&#39;m not talking about spiritual beings because I don&#39;t know anything about them, I&#39;m talking about one book.<br \/> I said that with this book we can only do like<br \/> the second certainty I have<br \/> &#8230;I say that I don&#39;t talk about God because I don&#39;t know anything about him.<br \/> The second certainty I have is that even that book does not speak of God.<br \/> because it tells us different stories<br \/> God, they then crammed it in by force.<br \/> Okay? But that book wasn&#39;t about God.<br \/> Absolutely&#8230; then they subsequently used it.<br \/> to speak about God<br \/> So, when I make these claims<br \/> To be more precise, I&#39;m not saying &quot;God doesn&#39;t exist.&quot;<br \/> because I don&#39;t know anything about God, I say that the book doesn&#39;t talk about him<br \/> Well, we live in a certain world, in a certain culture.<br \/> and we are used to thinking that if something is written in the Bible, it is truer<br \/> but if it&#39;s not written in the Bible, then someone will say, so if the Bible doesn&#39;t talk about God<br \/> So that means that God&#8230; no, that has nothing to do with it.<br \/> The Bible may be a book containing a whole lot of nonsense that has ever been told to us.<br \/> So the fact that the Bible does not speak of God does not mean that God does not exist.<br \/> it means that the biblical authors were not interested in it because they wanted to tell something else<br \/> Okay? Then we&#39;ll take a look at it.<br \/> one of the judgments that needs to be made about this set of books is<br \/> that the Old Testament is a collection of books that have been written over the centuries<br \/> written, transcribed, deleted, improved, corrected, added to<br \/> were lost, rediscovered<br \/> So everyone who had the power to have them in their hands did whatever they wanted with them.<br \/> say current biblical scholars<br \/> Israeli<br \/> teachers at Israeli universities<br \/> So they don&#39;t say, they write.<br \/> that the only certainty we have is that the Bible we have is not the Bible as it was originally written<br \/> because every time it was dictated and transcribed, or simply copied<br \/> from code to code, it was amended<br \/> so we have a bible, which is the fruit<br \/> a current that has split over the centuries<br \/> thanks to which we have a book today that was not originally written<br \/> because a lot of modifications were made to it<br \/> that&#39;s why we only pretend to do it with the Bible<br \/> and the first thing we have to do a trick with is that<br \/> that the person who wrote it wanted to say exactly this, even though we know that this is not the case<br \/> but since we are told that this is the true Bible, the Bible inspired by God<br \/> So I say, let&#39;s at least try to look at what is literally written there.<br \/> when you&#8230; here&#8230; listen to theologians, kabbalists, esotericists&#8230;<br \/> That&#39;s all right.<br \/> the Bible has been approached with a variety of reading keys<br \/> since the Bible can only be used to perform a trick, it is good for everyone to choose their own perspective<br \/> let her choose the one that makes her feel better<br \/> but don&#39;t delude yourself that it&#39;s some kind of truth, okay? that it&#39;s some kind of truth<br \/> because what is important is to have your own truth<br \/> according to which to live, so let everyone choose the one they like in the sound of the bells<br \/> but in my opinion, it is important that in this sea of interpretations that are presented to us, there is also room for this one<br \/> while other optics do not cause reading&#8230; and that&#39;s weird&#8230;. but I say that with a bit of irony<br \/> they do not cause reactions<br \/> There may be disputes among them, but no one says: the theological way of reading should not be done.<br \/> The esoteric way of reading should not be done.<br \/> The Kabbalistic way of reading should not be done.<br \/> but it is said that a literal way of reading should not be done<br \/> I&#39;ve been doing it for 4 years and I&#39;ll be doing it more and more.<br \/> The more they tell me that it shouldn&#39;t be done, the more I do it.<br \/> because I want this option to be on the table as well<br \/> Okay? So everyone can choose their own, but they should all be available.<br \/> because when someone writes, they write in a certain language<br \/> that language has some words, those words primarily have some meaning<br \/> and therefore the meaning is the first one, they certainly have it<br \/> The other meanings are possible.<br \/> I say: they are possible, so let everyone choose the one they like more from all the possible ones.<br \/> but it is not possible to disregard the fact, or at least the awareness, that something specific is written there<br \/> we are in a situation where<br \/> and that&#39;s not related to translations, ok?<br \/> By the way, I will do the whole conference in such a way that I do not quote my own translations.<br \/> we will consider the reflections of the uneducated when reading the Bible translated by the educated&#8230;<br \/> So, theoretically, no one will have anything to say about it. In reality, they do have something to say about it, but that&#39;s not important.<br \/> with this approach to the Old Testament, we must know<br \/> that about the Old Testament<br \/> We don&#39;t know who wrote it.<br \/> there is not a single verse about which we could say that we know who wrote it<br \/> We don&#39;t know when it was written.<br \/> We don&#39;t know how they originally wrote it, we don&#39;t know how they originally read it.<br \/> This is a fact.<br \/> All the codes we have are relatively recent, the oldest ones are from the 2nd century BC.<br \/> and they describe events 2000, 1800 years old&#8230;<br \/> and we&#39;ll see that it&#39;s even older<br \/> they are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies<br \/> and at each confrontation of those copies, as I said<br \/> it is clear that when the Bible was rewritten, it was rewritten differently than it was written before<br \/> So, no one knows how it was originally written.<br \/> Nobody knows who wrote it.<br \/> as it was read, now we&#39;ll see what it means, nobody knows<br \/> but<br \/> based on this utter ignorance<br \/> we insist that when the Bible says something, it actually meant something else, and that it is inspired by God<br \/> I think that a more absurd statement cannot exist.<br \/> We know nothing about the authors and dating.<br \/> but we know that those about whom we know nothing, when they wrote something, they wanted to say something else<br \/> I can&#39;t do this.<br \/> I can&#39;t do this.<br \/> I say that I got to the seventh bite<br \/> where we eat polenta, but I assume you eat it here too<br \/> There is a saying among older people who say: even I, and I&#39;m a fool, notice that it&#39;s polenta by the 7th bite.<br \/> in the sense that you&#39;ll put this on a plate for me<br \/> you&#39;ll explain to me that it&#39;s the product of an elaborate, secret recipe<br \/> very old, which requires a lot of penetration<br \/> that only a few experienced chefs have it at their disposal<br \/> who pass it on themselves&#8230; ok<br \/> Okay, I believe it with the first bite, then I&#39;ll have a second, then I&#39;ll start to doubt a little.<br \/> and when I get to the 7th bite, I&#39;ll say, no, that&#39;s not it, that&#39;s clear, that&#39;s polenta<br \/> I&#39;ll have it because I like it, but please, when you give me polenta, tell me it&#39;s polenta.<br \/> Okay? So I&#39;m presenting you with the 7th bite.<br \/> OK? Knowing that there are others<br \/> so all the bites are on the table<br \/> all, theological, allegorical, metaphorical, esoteric, initiatory, kabbalistic<br \/> and I&#39;m putting this here too, and when you walk around the table, and you see this here<br \/> you say, I don&#39;t like the smell of it, and you don&#39;t even look at it: there&#39;s no problem with that<br \/> but it is important that it is on the table&#8230; but it is important that it is on the table<br \/> because this 7th bite explains a lot of things to us<br \/> which other mouths are often unable to explain<br \/> and so it must, for example, introduce the category of secrecy<br \/> &#8230; here it looks like a contradiction, but it&#39;s a divine mystery<br \/> This looks like a contradiction, but it is the mystery of faith.<br \/> if we read according to the 7th bite<br \/> there is never a need to introduce the category of secrets, never<br \/> because it&#39;s all clear, maybe it&#39;s too clear<br \/> So, is it here because we&#39;re told we&#39;re not allowed to do this reading?<br \/> that it&#39;s reading for the uneducated? ok, we, no, I, excuse me, I do reading for the uneducated, by declaration<br \/> The situation is so complicated.<br \/> that in 1958, at the Jewish University in Jerusalem, they felt the need<br \/> Jewish biblical scholars<br \/> launch a project whose goal is<br \/> to try to reconstruct the Bible as close as possible to the original wording, which no one knows what it was<br \/> It&#39;s called the Bible Project, or the Bible Project.<br \/> they reserved 2 centuries for it<br \/> 60 years have passed, in 140 years<br \/> they will have, perhaps, a Bible similar to the original one, of which no one knows what it was like<br \/> Such is the reality.<br \/> we, Western Christians, Catholics, must believe that there are 46 true Old Testament books<br \/> for Jews, there are 39 true books<br \/> for Samaritans there are 6 true books<br \/> For Coptic Christians, the true books are those that are true for Jews, plus others that are not true for Catholics or Jews.<br \/> for the Greeks, the Bible<br \/> Let&#39;s say the original core of the Bible is not the Hebrew version of the Masoretes.<br \/> but it is a Bible written in Greek in Egypt in the 3rd century BC.<br \/> so, depending on where we are born<br \/> Is there anyone here who tells us which books are the right ones?<br \/> which books should we trust, is there anyone who determines this from the desk<br \/> So we believe in the authenticity of one of the possible Bibles.<br \/> because, for example, between the Masoretic Bible and the Samaritan Bible there are 2000 deviations, 2000<br \/> The Masoretes say: We are the guardians of tradition.<br \/> The Samaritans say: we are the guardians of the Torah, or the Law&#8230; everyone is sure they are right.<br \/> If you feel like it, read one, read the other, and then choose which one you like better, after all.<br \/> these are all human fabrications<br \/> Is that clear? And we&#39;re not even talking about translations.<br \/> we are only touching on the structure of the Old Testament<br \/> and when I say &quot;we&#39;ll pretend to be&quot;, I mean that we can only pretend to be<br \/> just like when we pretend that the Bible we have at home is the real one<br \/> Someone says: but Biglino chose the Masoretic Bible, why did he choose it? I didn&#39;t choose the Masoretic Bible.<br \/> I have always worked and still work with the Masoretic Bible, i.e. with the Leningrad Codex, because<br \/> because it is the Bible from which all the Bibles that we all have at home are basically derived<br \/> and the Bibles at home are basically based on this code<br \/> So I work with this code, because if it is the one that you, educated people, tell me is the right one<br \/> so I&#39;m at least trying to understand what&#39;s written in that code<br \/> But I have one personal conviction.<br \/> and the fact that this code is, with the highest probability, the most counterfeited one<br \/> because it is the one that has suffered over the centuries<br \/> most modifications by theologians<br \/> Jewish theologians, not Christian, also Christian, but much later<br \/> these changes were first made by Jewish authors<br \/> and then the Christians, so everyone had a hand in it<br \/> so despite my conviction<br \/> that the Masoretic codex is, with the highest degree of probability, the most forged one<br \/> I work with him because I&#39;m told he&#39;s the right one.<br \/> and I say, let&#39;s at least see what&#39;s written there<br \/> Okay?<br \/> Over the years, I have said certain things at conferences and in books.<br \/> things that, of course, caused a variety of reactions<br \/> and blogs have appeared that are discussing my work<br \/> e.g. one is called: confutatio, a systematic critique of Mauro Biglino<br \/> and that&#39;s okay, it&#39;s part of the game, and they&#39;re giving me a lot of publicity<br \/> a lot of things are written on these blogs, because all the conferences I do are examined there, sentence by sentence, all the books I write<br \/> and everything is carefully analyzed and criticized<br \/> and on one such blog, one of the most important on Jewish issues, where Jewish exegetes write<br \/> but they behave, let&#39;s say<br \/> they have an intellectually correct approach<br \/> even if they are not with me on the basic question, i.e. the question of God, then we will see why<br \/> in a whole range of other things, they completely agree with me, and they write it<br \/> For example, Mauro is right about many things, the Bible, as he claims, is not a religious book.<br \/> that the Bible speaks of genetic engineering has always been known to Jews through the Talmud<br \/> The Hebrew term &quot;malach&quot;, translated into Italian as &quot;angel&quot;, refers to ordinary human beings, not spiritual entities.<br \/> cherubs&#8230;<br \/> Anyone who has heard one of my conferences or read something knows that<br \/> cherubs are not only not angels, but while malachim are at least beings of flesh and blood, cherubs were machines<br \/> cherubs&#8230; Jews have always known from the Talmud that they were mechanical objects<br \/> it has always been known, but if it has always been known, then please let&#39;s say it<br \/> let&#39;s say it, if it has been known forever<br \/> let&#39;s not leave the vivid idea that&#8230;<br \/> I repeat: I don&#39;t know if cherubim of the angelic gates exist<br \/> I mean the biblical &quot;cherubim&quot;, they were mechanical objects<br \/> And whether there are cherubim? I don&#39;t know anything about that, I don&#39;t care about that.<br \/> Biblical cherubim were mechanical objects<br \/> I devoted the entire chapter to the fact that the Old Testament Satan does not exist.<br \/> Mauro Biglino has done a very good job with the chapter on Satan, and we really congratulate him on this.<br \/> So let&#39;s be calm, Satan won&#39;t take us to hell.<br \/> but there is one statement<br \/> which, in my opinion, is crucial<br \/> and here I must thank these gentlemen who are dedicated to the Jewish question<br \/> Specifically, I think this one is called Avraham, who is the most important one there.<br \/> because he makes one statement that, in my opinion, should put an end to all books, all conferences, everything.<br \/> I quoted this for the first time last night, I said:<br \/> if we were to translate the word &quot;snow&quot; into the Tuareg language<br \/> we couldn&#39;t do that because the Tuareg don&#39;t have a word for &quot;snow&quot;<br \/> Why don&#39;t they have it? Because they don&#39;t have snow.<br \/> they have no concept of snow, so they have no word to describe it<br \/> If we were to translate &quot;phone&quot; for the Bantu, we couldn&#39;t do it because they don&#39;t know what a phone is.<br \/> they have no concept of a phone, they have no word for phone<br \/> we could make thousands of examples<br \/> and I say in the books that there is no monotheism in the Bible, and in fact there is no polytheism either<br \/> there is no polytheism there, but because it is said that the Bible is<br \/> that this nation is the nation that invented monotheism, right? because it was the most developed nation<br \/> I say no, that&#39;s not true, there is no monotheism there<br \/> answer, here is the answer published on that blog<br \/> and I thank you for this intellectual honesty<br \/> Thank you, because for years people have been writing to me: but if Yahweh, Elohim, Elion, which are biblical terms that we will see later<br \/> they don&#39;t mean &quot;God&quot;? How do you say &quot;God&quot; in Hebrew then?<br \/> listen to Jewish exegesis<br \/> it makes no sense to talk about monotheism<br \/> in a language that does not have a single term in its vocabulary that would make sense for &quot;God&quot; as an object of worship<br \/> in Hebrew, the term &quot;god&quot; is not<br \/> The Bible was written in a language.<br \/> which has no term to designate God<br \/> We can close this here and say that we&#39;ve been making fun of ourselves for 2000 years.<br \/> because it means that the culture has no concept of God, because if they had one, they would express it with a word<br \/> It&#39;s not there, it&#39;s not there.<br \/> but it&#39;s obvious that it&#39;s not there<br \/> and that&#39;s the end of it<br \/> Let&#39;s have a coffee and go home.<br \/> Do you understand?<br \/> but they write it here, because with intellectual honesty they have to say it, they say it<br \/> When I say it, it means nothing, of course, but when Jewish exegesis says it, it means something.<br \/> If they don&#39;t have a word to refer to God, it means they don&#39;t have a concept of God.<br \/> So that means the Bible doesn&#39;t talk about God, because there isn&#39;t a single word naming God, because it&#39;s not in that language.<br \/> but that&#39;s obvious<br \/> The problem, however, is that we are led to believe that<br \/> and we read in the Bibles we have at home that God is constantly present there<br \/> God did it, God decided, God ordained, God did it&#8230; no, no, no<br \/> The word God is not there.<br \/> and if the word God is not there, it means that the concept of God is not there<br \/> as far as the spiritual worlds are concerned<br \/> I&#39;ll read you what he\/she writes.<br \/> Prof. Maximiliano &#8230; Cordero, this is something new.<br \/> who teaches Old Testament exegesis and biblical theology at the Pontifical University of Salamanca<br \/> Listen carefully, this is written by a professor.<br \/> i.e. a pontifical university, or a professor receiving a salary from the Vatican<br \/> in the Old Testament<br \/> Then, if anyone wants it, I&#39;ll give them all the links where to find it, the page, etc.<br \/> hardly in the Old Testament<br \/> this is written in the chapter dedicated to God&#39;s promises<br \/> Yeah? You know that God promises that if we are good, we will go to heaven.<br \/> In the Old Testament, worries that would be purely spiritual are hardly visible.<br \/> Thus, one professor of biblical exegesis and theology writes:<br \/> in the Old Testament, the requirements for&#8230; are barely visible.<br \/> So, what does that mean&#8230; maybe we&#39;re uneducated, but we&#39;re not stupid, what does he mean by that? It&#39;s barely shining through.<br \/> that they are not there<br \/> they are not there because the Bible does not deal with spirituality<br \/> They are not there.<br \/> God&#39;s rewarding justice&#8230; but when you read the Bible, you&#39;ll understand it yourself, no one has to explain it to you.<br \/> God&#39;s justice must be applied in this life.<br \/> all the promises that the Lord made there, then we&#39;ll see who it was<br \/> did, was<br \/> If you do this, I&#39;ll help you here, if you don&#39;t do this, I&#39;ll kill you here, period.<br \/> there are none then<br \/> there are none, then&#8230; that doesn&#39;t mean that the other world doesn&#39;t exist, I don&#39;t deal with it, I&#39;m not interested in it<br \/> The Bible doesn&#39;t deal with it either, okay?<br \/> and the fact that the Bible doesn&#39;t address it may mean that whoever wrote the Bible was a bunch of ignoramuses<br \/> who doesn&#39;t know that the other world exists, ok, I don&#39;t care<br \/> I&#39;m telling you, whoever wrote the Bible wasn&#39;t interested in the afterlife.<br \/> God&#39;s rewarding justice must be exercised in this life.<br \/> there is no mention of posthumous rewards, listen carefully<br \/> the spiritualization of divine promises becomes necessary due to the national catastrophe in 586 BC<br \/> that is, when Babylon comes, it will conquer Jerusalem and deport the Jews<br \/> blah blah<br \/> when Babylon comes and conquers Jerusalem<br \/> after this period, the chosen spirits<br \/> they turn to themselves and seek a spiritual explanation for ancient promises that were not spiritual at all<br \/> so when they realized that the promises of Yahweh could no longer be fulfilled here on Earth<br \/> they began to develop the idea that, perhaps, they would find fulfillment in another world<br \/> but this is written by papal professors<br \/> that&#39;s what the papal professors write<br \/> not atheists<br \/> The Bible does not deal with spirituality.<br \/> they started working on it because they saw that there was no other chance here<br \/> So they started thinking, but maybe&#8230;<br \/> No? But they did it from the table, it&#39;s not in the Bible.<br \/> I told you that<br \/> We don&#39;t know who wrote it.<br \/> I&#39;ll give an example.<br \/> with the amazing book of Isaiah, one of the most important Old Testament prophets<br \/> also important because, according to Catholic theology, he was supposed to have predicted the coming of Jesus Christ<br \/> according to Catholic theology<br \/> have the same passages interpreted by a Jewish theologian<br \/> and then choose the interpretation you like best<br \/> In my opinion, the Jews are right in this case.<br \/> have it interpreted and then choose for yourself<br \/> So, the book of Isaiah, 66 chapters.<br \/> chapters 1 to 39&#8230; you can find it here in the Bibles you have at home<br \/> it is said that they were written by Isaiah, chapters 40-55 were written by Deutero-Isaiah<br \/> which is such a nice, artificial invention to keep the name Isaiah<br \/> Deutero-Isaiah means, in Greek, the second Isaiah.<br \/> Chapters 56-66 were written by Trito-Isaiah, or the third Isaiah.<br \/> Okay, so someone is reading it and they see Isaiah, Isaiah, Isaiah.<br \/> No, no, it says there that Deutero-Isaiah wrote 2 centuries after the first one.<br \/> and this Isaiah wrote several decades after the second one<br \/> So, in the best-case scenario, the book of Isaiah had three authors who wrote over a period of 250 years.<br \/> but that&#39;s in the best-case scenario, because as for chapters 1-39, Prof. Penna<br \/> who was a consultant to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, writes<br \/> as regards the origin of chapters 1 to 39<br \/> Do you know why they are attributed to Isaiah? It is written&#8230;<br \/> because there are no serious reasons to deny it<br \/> no, because we know that he wrote it<br \/> because there are no serious reasons to deny it<br \/> Attention, this is for the entire file of those 39 chapters.<br \/> while critics almost agree that, for example, chapters 36-39 come from another book<br \/> the agreement is much smaller when assessing the origin of individual parts<br \/> Greater difficulties arise with Isaiah&#39;s apocalypse, chapter 14 \/-\/24\/-\/ to 27<br \/> which many are asking about 2 centuries later<br \/> then there are other problems with chapters 13-23 and 34-35<br \/> so we say that chapters 1-39 were written by Isaiah, because we have no serious reasons to deny it<br \/> However, we have serious reasons regarding chapters 24-27, 13-23, 34-35.<br \/> as if we had the Divine Comedy and someone would say: Paradise \/-\/ Hell\/-\/ was written by Dante<br \/> except for the chants, blah blah blah, because we know he didn&#39;t write them<br \/> The Purgatory was written by the second Dante, 2 centuries later.<br \/> and Paradise was written by the third Dante, a few decades later&#8230; would we say that the Divine Comedy was written by Dante?<br \/> but that&#39;s what they do<br \/> that&#39;s how they do it<br \/> What work did the Masoretes do?<br \/> those who created the code from which the Bible, which we have at home, is derived<br \/> they tried to define the meanings once and for all<br \/> What does it mean to define meanings?<br \/> since Semitic languages are written only with consonants, because vowels do not exist there<br \/> they exist only in the form of sounds<br \/> so all the codices are written only with consonants<br \/> and until they accept the sounds of vowels, then&#8230;<br \/> So they wrote down the sounds of vowels, and they did that between the 6th and 9th centuries AD.<br \/> So not millennia ago, okay? They finished it in the time of Charlemagne.<br \/> No one knows what vowels were used to read it originally, and no one will ever know.<br \/> never<br \/> we have the vowels that these people wrote there<br \/> who are representatives of one tradition<br \/> I&#39;ve already told you that there is also a Samaritan tradition here, which has a 2000-year deviation from this one.<br \/> there is the Greek tradition, the Bible of the Seventy, etc.<br \/> So we know these vowels.<br \/> like this one here<br \/> Biblical example, ok? It says TVL here.<br \/> when we put two &quot;e&quot;s there, twice two dots, then it&#39;s &quot;tevel&quot;<br \/> which means earth, world<br \/> when we put another kind of &quot;e&quot; there, this one, another dot under it<br \/> It is still read as &quot;tevel&quot;, but it means sexual intercourse between a woman and an animal.<br \/> This is how it is, the country, the world&#8230; this is how it is, sexual intercourse between a woman and an animal.<br \/> or sexual intercourse between a father-in-law and his daughter-in-law<br \/> the book of Leviticus<br \/> this is quoted in a passage where Yahweh, or God, says: when you catch a woman having intercourse with an animal<br \/> So you kill her and the animal on the spot.<br \/> Okay? So the Masoretes did this work.<br \/> that is, they inserted dots and dashes representing the sounds of vowels<br \/> and with this work they wanted to freeze the Bible, simply from this moment on it will not be interfered with<br \/> In fact, there is a part of biblical exegesis that today, today<br \/> removes these vowel sounds and inserts others, because they can do it<br \/> No one can prevent them from doing so, because no one in the world knows how it was originally.<br \/> So they can do it in peace.<br \/> I don&#39;t do it, because if I did&#8230;<br \/> So I&#39;m reading exactly how the Masoretes vocalized it.<br \/> when you tell me that this is the true Bible, ok, let&#39;s see what is written in that true Bible, I don&#39;t change a single dot there<br \/> So these gentlemen did this here.<br \/> And&#8230; no question? No.<br \/> So<br \/> What are the Elohim? If you know Hebrew&#8230;<br \/> So<br \/> In the Bibles you have at home, it says the Most High, in Hebrew it says Elion<br \/> in the Bibles you have at home, it says God<br \/> in Hebrew it says Elohim, or El, or Eloha<br \/> when you read Lord or Eternal, in Hebrew it says Yahweh<br \/> or&#8230; ok, that&#39;s for later<br \/> Okay? According to Dokr\u00edny, these are 3 terms for God.<br \/> in Hebrew&#8230; please&#8230;<br \/> a term indicating a plurality of gods<br \/> We&#39;ll get to that right away.<br \/> Elion in Hebrew means The One who is above.<br \/> Elohim is a term that<br \/> exegesis, in general, or various philologists<br \/> they are derived from a wide variety of roots<br \/> because no one in the world knows for sure what it means<br \/> Nobody in the world knows for sure, so<br \/> so translating Elohim as &quot;god&quot; is a complete fantasy, absolutely unfounded<br \/> Okay? Absolute fantasy, absolutely unfounded.<br \/> If there is a theologian in the audience, we can discuss it.<br \/> unjustified&#8230; this term is in the plural<br \/> this is uniform, this too<br \/> The Bible, without distinction, uses both singular and plural.<br \/> Unfortunately, in Italian translations, it is still &quot;God&quot;<br \/> so in Italian translations we are not able to notice the difference<br \/> but it is very noticeable in Hebrew<br \/> it is very noticeable in Hebrew, and when they really want to talk about just one, they use this term<br \/> on the other hand, when they want to say that a decision was made collectively, they use this term<br \/> or it is said that one of them was one Elohim<br \/> as if we wanted to say that Lorenzo Magnifico was &quot;the&quot; Medici<br \/> that Cosimo the Elder was &quot;the&quot; Medici<br \/> chilli, an individual belonging&#8230; Medici, that&#39;s a plural<br \/> belonging to that family, belonging to that group<br \/> Yahweh was one of these.<br \/> Okay? You&#39;re welcome.<br \/> However, since this term in the plural causes a lot of problems here<br \/> because what&#39;s the point of talking about a single God<br \/> I repeat, Elohim does not mean God, but even if someone wanted to talk about one God<br \/> what is the point of using the plural when the singular is available<br \/> So what&#39;s happening is that they&#39;re interpreting this term in every conceivable way.<br \/> The plural denoting majesty, sublimity, and abstractness, now the plural of abstraction is very popular.<br \/> This term is used with verbs in both singular and plural&#8230; does anyone here have a Bible?<br \/> I have a Bible here from the San Paolo publishing house.<br \/> it&#39;s a single-dose bible&#8230; when I have withdrawal symptoms<br \/> I&#39;ll have a drip<br \/> it is lightweight, easy to wear&#8230;<br \/> So, we know that<br \/> Our history of salvation began when God called Abraham.<br \/> Isn&#39;t it the famous calling of Abraham?<br \/> He calls Abraham away from the land of the Chaldeans, He says: you will go with me, and there begins God&#39;s intervention in history<br \/> through which God gives us the opportunity<br \/> to get rid of the stain of original sin, which is not in the Bible<br \/> So I don&#39;t know what we are supposed to cleanse ourselves from.<br \/> because original sin is not in the Bible, it is an invention of theologians<br \/> So Genesis 20:13&#8230; so we&#39;re fine, none of us are born tainted, everything&#39;s fine, everyone&#39;s squeaky clean.<br \/> Here Abraham speaks, Genesis 20:13<br \/> And it came to pass that when God let me wander away from my father&#39;s house, I said&#8230;<br \/> So, when God let me wander away from my father&#39;s house<br \/> I&#39;ll read this to you, why? Because there is a professor, a Hebraist, a biblical scholar<br \/> who says that Biglino did not even understand that when Elohim is used with a verb in the singular, it means God<br \/> when used with a plural verb, it means pagan deities<br \/> stone idols worshipped by other nations who did not know God, poor things, and so they worshipped&#8230; non-existent deities<br \/> So, as a singular, it is God, as a plural, pagan deities, says this professor, a biblical scholar, a Hebraist.<br \/> Genesis 20:13<br \/> These are texts for theological faculties and for the libraries of the most important world universities dealing with the Bible.<br \/> literal translation: and it was<br \/> how that they have made me wander, the elohim, from my father&#39;s house<br \/> they made me wander, plural<br \/> because the Hebrew verb is in the plural<br \/> in the Bible for families, the verb is in the singular<br \/> God let me wander<br \/> in the bible for researchers, because no one can shoot them, because they know what the plural looks like<br \/> is a verb in the plural and elohim is not translated<br \/> Elohim is there, he remains there<br \/> and that&#39;s the right way to do it, because we don&#39;t know how to translate it<br \/> any translation is a fabrication<br \/> they have made me wander-elohim<br \/> So, according to this professor, a biblical scholar, when it&#39;s singular, it&#39;s God, when it&#39;s plural, it&#39;s pagan deities.<br \/> So who called Abraham away from the land of Chaldea? Pagan deities.<br \/> the same publishing house<br \/> this and this same publishing house<br \/> correct translation, incorrect translation<br \/> but that&#39;s not the only example&#8230;<br \/> I&#39;m starting to suspect why they tell me I can&#39;t do literal translations.<br \/> I&#39;m starting to get a clue.<br \/> but really justified, very justified<br \/> because then there is a risk that people will understand when literal translations are made<br \/> Last night I did one example for the first time, it occurred to me last night, so I&#39;ll do it today as well.<br \/> an example of another shaky translation&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;sometimes they ask me to talk about the new law, so we&#39;ll touch on it for a while&#8230;<br \/> you know, because we basically know from the catechism that when Jesus is crucified<br \/> We&#39;ll pretend Jesus existed, okay?<br \/> when he was crucified, there were two thieves with him<br \/> Yes? That they were crucified&#8230;<br \/> Luke 23:32 says this:<br \/> Then I&#39;ll read it to you, okay?<br \/> the other two criminals<br \/> Kakourgoi is a term that generally referred to criminals.<br \/> but he especially referred to the anti-Roman Zealot revolutionaries<br \/> So we know that there were &quot;also&quot; two criminals with him&#8230;<br \/> when I tell you that I stopped at a motel this morning<br \/> and there were two plumbers with me as well<br \/> Can you understand something about what my profession is?<br \/> no<br \/> When I tell you that I stopped at a motel and there were &quot;other&quot; two plumbers with me, do you understand what trade I do?<br \/> &quot;heteroi&quot; does not mean &quot;such&quot;, it means &quot;other&quot;<br \/> two rebels<br \/> in the Gospels we read that there were &quot;also two rebels&quot;, in the translations<br \/> In Greek, it says &quot;two other criminals&quot;, so he was part of that group.<br \/> not only<br \/> when Judas<br \/> will carry out his betrayal<br \/> It is said that he came.<br \/> labium<br \/> speiran<br \/> that he took&#8230; it&#39;s written &quot;a crowd of people&quot;<br \/> Speiran is a Greek term for a Roman cohort.<br \/> So, Judas certainly couldn&#39;t have taken any cohort, because the Romans would never have entrusted him with one.<br \/> but a Roman cohort was one-tenth of a legion, i.e. 600 soldiers armed to the teeth<br \/> we are in the period of the Jerusalem Passover<br \/> Jerusalem used to be flooded with 100-120 thousand pilgrims, so there were major problems with public order.<br \/> according to the doctrine, we are to believe that the Romans<br \/> They sent 600 men, armed to the teeth, to capture 10 hippies.<br \/> who spoke of love and peace<br \/> So they separated 600 Romans who were in charge of public order in Jerusalem so that they could go and pick up 10 hippies.<br \/> cohort<br \/> two more rebels<br \/> a cohort to suppress the rebellion they were preparing<br \/> translation of tapeworms<br \/> they cause certain things to get into our heads<br \/> this causes us to get &quot;God sent me to wander far&quot; into our heads<br \/> &quot;The Elohim took me from my father&#39;s house,&quot; not that God made me wander.<br \/> translations of The Simpsons, that&#39;s why you can&#39;t do literal translations, because then there is a risk that a person will understand<br \/> and when people understand, they understand<br \/> Okay?<br \/> Thank you, but<br \/> Let&#39;s always consider the thoughts of the uneducated over Bibles translated by the educated, and thus the educated will not be angry.<br \/> because<br \/> Literal translations can be challenged, but we, the uneducated, cannot be forbidden.<br \/> to make us think, because uneducated does not mean stupid<br \/> An uneducated person is someone who doesn&#39;t know, but that doesn&#39;t necessarily mean they are stupid.<br \/> Deuteronomy 32:8, here Moses speaks<br \/> and says: when the Most High&#8230; in Hebrew Elion<br \/> He was distributing their inheritance to the nations.<br \/> when he divided the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the nations<br \/> according to the number of the sons of Israel<br \/> this translation is correct<br \/> and it corresponds to what the Masoretes wrote in Hebrew<br \/> but this nonsense was inserted there by the Masoretes<br \/> because the older codices do not state that the Supreme, i.e. Elion<br \/> He determined the boundaries of nations and assigned nations according to the number of the sons of Israel.<br \/> The oldest codices state that Elion did this according to the number of the sons of Elohim.<br \/> not according to the sons of Israel<br \/> according to the children of Elohim<br \/> which means that the capo counted his own, and made the allocations according to that number<br \/> blah blah<br \/> He made the allocations&#8230; and now, pay attention:<br \/> The work of Yahweh, his people is Jacob<br \/> Jacob is a portion of his inheritance<br \/> Jacob, Jacob, not Abraham<br \/> inheritance&#8230; what is inheritance? inheritance is something that is left by someone for someone else<br \/> It is not written here in the Bible.<br \/> that God chose that nation as the &quot;chosen people&quot;<br \/> it says there that Yahweh, after Elion counted his own and made those divisions<br \/> Yahweh got it as an allotment, an inheritance, that piece of family, not the nation, okay?<br \/> a tiny piece of a family<br \/> and in a moment we will see that the family was divided at least between Yahweh and two other colleagues, whom the Bible names<br \/> So this one will calculate his own.<br \/> He will make the division&#8230; and Jacob will be His.<br \/> When we read the Bible carefully, the Bible says that God<br \/> He called Abraham, in fact, he is not God.<br \/> but in reality it is not even Yahweh, it is El Shaddai<br \/> one El named Shaddai<br \/> after all, the Bible says that Abraham did not fall to Yahweh, but Jacob<br \/> one Jewish woman wrote to me that Yahweh<br \/> very likely<br \/> He was the younger son of one of the bosses here and was supposed to show what he was capable of.<br \/> he was supposed to stand up and so he was told: you take these here<br \/> it is not excluded that Yahweh was the son of El Shaddai<br \/> to whom Abraham was assigned<br \/> Thus Moses says in Deuteronomy 5<br \/> this covenant that Yahweh made with us, he did not make with our fathers<br \/> Do you understand? It&#39;s written in the Bibles you have at home.<br \/> He did not do it with our fathers, why? Because their fathers were probably not assigned to Him.<br \/> but they were assigned to someone else, and theoretically, that could have been the father of this one<br \/> listen carefully to what is written there in verse 12<br \/> Yahweh himself led that nation.<br \/> there was no foreign elohim with him<br \/> But how can there be a foreign elohim, when elohim is God?<br \/> that&#39;s what it says in the Bibles you have at home<br \/> &#8230;he did it himself, they&#39;ll tell him: you&#39;ll take care of these here, and he&#39;ll say: ok, I&#39;ll take care of them<br \/> he didn&#39;t let anyone help him<br \/> there was no foreign elohim with him<br \/> and that is understandable, because in Exodus it is written that Yahweh was &quot;ish milchama&quot;<br \/> man of war<br \/> He was a fighter, that&#39;s what he did.<br \/> So they will assign them to him there and he will say: I will take care of them<br \/> Don&#39;t get involved in this.<br \/> This is what it tells us.<br \/> also Plato<br \/> which says that the Greek gods, there they are called theoi, but they are still these characters<br \/> they divided it&#8230; exactly as Elion did<br \/> the nations divided<br \/> and some of them ruled by helping each other<br \/> such as Athena and Hephaestus<br \/> But here in the Bible it is clearly stated that Yahweh did everything himself.<br \/> He didn&#39;t want help from others.<br \/> in Sumerian-Akkadian stories, from which this story originates, because this story is not Jewish<br \/> Sumerian-Akkadian stories say something really nice.<br \/> &#8230;that when the boss of those who are called anunna, or anunnaki, depending on whether in Sumerian or Akkadian<br \/> when the boss made these allocations<br \/> many of them were satisfied because they received interesting rations<br \/> many were not satisfied because they received insignificant rations<br \/> and many were very dissatisfied because they were not assigned anything<br \/> &#8230;the biblical authors tell us only about the relationship between them and this one<br \/> he doesn&#39;t tell us about others, just a few mentions, then maybe I&#39;ll say something<br \/> while the others who didn&#39;t have&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;those whose stories did not end in the hands of theologians told us everything.<br \/> Plato tells us everything, the Sumerian-Akkadian texts tell us everything<br \/> so they tell us what was happening then, with those rations, the Bible tells us about this<br \/> but there is a nice trace in the Bible, every time they talk about Elohim, that is, about the plurality of these individuals<br \/> He keeps telling us that Yahweh had&#8230; and that&#39;s how he defines himself.<br \/> I&#39;m a jealous El<br \/> if you switch to another one, I&#39;ll kill you, and he did that regularly<br \/> regularly<br \/> because we cannot deny him one thing, He never betrayed his people, while they betrayed him constantly<br \/> when it was more interesting for those who were assigned to him to turn to others, they did so, and when He noticed it, He killed them<br \/> because Yahweh said: you will be with me<br \/> You made a pact with me, and you will be with me. If you go to another, I will kill you.<br \/> in one of these situations, when the n-th betrayal occurs&#8230;. Deuteronomy 32, translation by the Italian Episcopal Conference<br \/> Moses is furious<br \/> and he says, they even sacrificed to the grey ones<br \/> who are not Eloha, are not even&#8230;<br \/> which means that they belong to a hierarchical level lower than the Elohim, so you have started to serve<br \/> to individuals who are even lower than these&#8230; but listen<br \/> sacrificed to elohim whom they did not know<br \/> new ones who have arrived recently<br \/> which your fathers did not know<br \/> the Elohim who did not receive an allotment wandered the earth looking for someone to rule over and from whom they could be served<br \/> And Moses says: you have even started to serve those who have only recently come here.<br \/> The Bible you have at home, a translation by the Italian Bishops&#39; Conference<br \/> when I said that when such a much-maligned literal reading is done, there is never a need to introduce the category of mystery<br \/> because it&#39;s all clear<br \/> There is no need to interpret anything here, just read.<br \/> with a little attention, but just read<br \/> if your brother, the son of your father or mother&#8230; here is Yahweh, who speaks<br \/> Right away, one moment.<br \/> or a son, or a daughter, or a wife, or a friend who is like yourself<br \/> it will entice you with the words &quot;let&#39;s go, let&#39;s serve other elohim&quot;<br \/> to the elohim whom you and your fathers did not know<br \/> So don&#39;t listen to him, don&#39;t pay attention to him.<br \/> Don&#39;t spare him, you must kill him, your hand must be the first to cause his death.<br \/> Then the hands of all the people, all of Israel, will know it, they will be afraid of it and will no longer do something so evil.<br \/> so other elohim existed, and how, and were dangerous for Yahweh<br \/> and so He says, let it be your wife, your son, whoever, when your closest friend tells you: we will go to another elohim<br \/> You have to kill him.<br \/> he was so afraid that his people would leave him and go to others<br \/> but that&#39;s always written there<br \/> If you go after others, I&#39;ll kill you.<\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Lecture_2014_Part_2\"><\/span> Lecture 2014 Part 2<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p> <a href=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/OXG6bsljry4\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/youtu.be\/OXG6bsljry4<\/a><\/p><p>I wanted to ask: what power do the Elohim have compared to an ordinary human being?<br \/> knowledge and technology far exceeding all those subjected<br \/> So if I decide to kill you, I&#39;ll kill you, and you won&#39;t do anything about it, nor will you think of rebelling.<br \/> among themselves, when they were fighting each other, they used their weapons up to a certain point<br \/> among themselves<br \/> then they realized that their use was too dangerous even for them and stopped using them<br \/> Thank you&#8230; please&#8230;<br \/> Then we&#39;ll see in the Bible&#8230; please<br \/> I&#39;ll go back a little.<br \/> I was left with one doubt&#8230; I have more than one.<br \/> and it concerns&#8230; we have a very old language here and we use our language<br \/> or an old language that is a bridge to achieving some meaning<br \/> So there is a certain distortion in this as well&#8230; we have 3 consonants here and these 3 consonants can say completely different things.<br \/> and by the way, these consonants require a sentence that gives them meaning, there is no concept here, no corresponding word<br \/> there is no clear relationship between the code&#8230; in some cases yes, in some cases no<br \/> So there is a certain room for distortion.<br \/> as in this case of a woman&#39;s contact with an animal or a father-in-law with his daughter-in-law, as has been said<br \/> blah blah<br \/> how can you claim that the translation of the code is as you present it to us<br \/> You can never be sure when it comes to ancient languages.<br \/> By the way, this one is the younger of the old languages.<br \/> in the Middle East, this is probably the last addition<br \/> in the sense that all the others are much older<br \/> but when we talk about old languages<br \/> says, for example, Prof. Garbini, who teaches at La Sapienza in Rome, Professor of Semitic Philology<br \/> that even the agreement of all scholars in the world on a word is no guarantee of certainty<br \/> So this is an excellent question for theologians who derive truths from the Bible. I say that we only do as with the Bible.<br \/> because I realize this, we do as<br \/> at least we&#39;re trying to understand what&#39;s written there, but we&#39;re pretending<br \/> Chili, that&#39;s really a question relevant to the matter.<br \/> So, who were Adam and Eve?<br \/> and most importantly, what kind of relationship do we have with them?<br \/> And here, do the Elohim tell us in the Bible where they came from?<br \/> No, unfortunately not.<br \/> So, in one of my books, I dedicated a book<br \/> not directly to the potential origin of the Elohim, because there is nothing about it there<br \/> but to the potential origin of another cited race, namely the Nephilim<br \/> which are those translated as &quot;giants&quot;<br \/> The Greeks already translated Nephilim as gigantes, i.e. giants.<br \/> one thing that I&#39;m sure no one has talked about, I haven&#39;t read it anywhere, I documented it in the book<br \/> but it&#39;s not my interpretation, just take any dictionary of biblical Aramaic and Hebrew, even from the rabbis<br \/> nefilim is plural, like elohim, -im is the ending of the masculine plural<br \/> the term &quot;nefila&quot;, in the singular, has only one meaning in Aramaic: the constellation Orion<br \/> if nefilim is the plural of nefil<br \/> it would be like Italy and the Italians<br \/> This is the only message, as for the rest&#8230;<br \/> Excuse me? Yes.<br \/> significant, of course uncertain<br \/> that it refers to the constellation Orion, that&#39;s for sure, but it&#39;s just a hint<br \/> If we return to the Elohim, then Joshua, the successor of Moses,<br \/> when conquering the promised land, when they begin to conquer the promised land<br \/> and then, as a curiosity about this promised land, we read another passage, Joshua 13<br \/> This is Joshua 24, Joshua gathers the leaders and says:<br \/> Now we will start with the conquest, dear friends, now we have to make a decision.<br \/> and says: Yahweh, Elohim of Israel<br \/> because, mind you, every time, or almost every time, when Yahweh is mentioned, it is said that he is the Elohim of Israel<br \/> Yahweh, the one who rules over the Israelites<br \/> says this: your fathers&#8230; we&#39;ll see who they were right away<br \/> as Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor<br \/> they lived in ancient times beyond the river and served other elohim<br \/> Watch out, okay? When they lived there in Mesopotamia, they served other elohim, that&#39;s what Joshua says.<br \/> Then Yahweh says<br \/> I took your father Abraham, I let him pass through Canaan, etc. etc.<br \/> Joshua continues, saying:<br \/> But if you don&#39;t want to follow Yahweh&#8230; do you hear what freedom of choice they are given here?<br \/> and Yahweh is supposed to be God<br \/> Chapter 24, Verse 15<br \/> If you do not want to serve Jehovah, decide today whom you want to serve.<br \/> if you want to serve the elohim whom your fathers served there in Mesopotamia<br \/> or the elohim of the Amorites<br \/> &#8230; do you want to serve the Elohim whom your fathers served beyond the River? which means in Mesopotamia<br \/> or to the elohim of the Amorites, from the land in which you live<br \/> and before that, he immediately tells him: your fathers in Egypt served other elohim<br \/> you know that Abraham was led&#8230; by Yahweh, to simplify&#8230; it was El Shaddai<br \/> he is taken to Canaan, his family is there, and when famine occurs, they all move to Egypt<br \/> and here it says that they served other elohim in Egypt, but why did they serve other elohim?<br \/> because Yahweh couldn&#39;t even stick his nose into Egypt, not even in a dream<br \/> because his very powerful colleagues ruled there<br \/> he couldn&#39;t even think of stepping in there, they would have thrown him out immediately<br \/> So when Abraham and his family go to Egypt<br \/> Who does it serve? The Elohim ruling in Egypt, but that&#39;s what the Bible says, that&#39;s what the Bible says.<br \/> So he says: choose for yourselves, do you want to return to the Elohim whom your fathers served&#8230; so it was not &quot;God&quot;<br \/> or do you want to serve the Elohim who are here<br \/> As for me and my family, we follow Yahweh, and what about you?<br \/> How is it possible to give such freedom of choice with the words: do you want to serve God or stone idols?<br \/> it&#39;s stupid to even admit it<br \/> So even we uneducated people, at the 7th bite, when we read this, we say: it&#39;s absolutely clear&#8230;<br \/> He gave them the option, who do you want to be with?<br \/> and they say: ok, we will be with Yahweh, because Yahweh brought us out of Egypt<br \/> and he says, ok, now you have made a decision and from now on you will be responsible for this decision<br \/> but they could have said: we will serve those people because we like them more<br \/> Please.<br \/> Good evening, I would like to know the phonetic origin of JHVH, the famous tetragrammaton.<br \/> We&#39;ll get to Adam and Eve later, okay?<br \/> So, Elohim are a plurality of persons, among whom one can decide.<br \/> Yahweh is one of them, Yahweh is entrusted with a piece of the family and he tells that piece of the family<br \/> I will take care of you myself, but if you betray me, I will kill you.<br \/> Yahweh<br \/> When does this name appear?<br \/> It first appears in the Bible when Adam and Eve have Cain and Abel.<br \/> Cain kills Abel, Adam and Eve have another son named Seth, who has a son named Enosh.<br \/> And the Bible says: In the days of Enosh, the name of Yahweh began to be invoked.<br \/> which means that Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel and Seth did not invoke Yahweh<br \/> They did not know Yahweh, he showed up there later, in that Middle Eastern theater.<br \/> he came later, because his bosses were there before him<br \/> He disappears&#8230; and when will he reappear? When he leads those people out of Egypt.<br \/> I say those people, I never say Jews, because when we read the Targumim, the Aramaic Bible<br \/> it says there that only Egyptians left Egypt with Moses<br \/> I repeat: only Egyptians<br \/> soldiers, priests and ordinary people, no Jews<br \/> and it is written in the Targumim, where it is written in the Masoretic Bible that Moses was the son of Hebrews<br \/> in the same place in the Aramaic Bible, it is written that Moses was a descendant of the Jahud, who were Akhenaten&#39;s priests<br \/> So for the Targumim, Moses was an Egyptian.<br \/> choose for yourself what you like more<br \/> So when Moses led those people out of Egypt, in the name of this one here<br \/> At one point, he feels the need to ask God: and who are you, actually?<br \/> because I have to tell them there who we&#39;re going to see<br \/> but is such a question asked of God?<br \/> Who are you?<br \/> and he answers him: &quot;ehieh a\u0161er ehieh&quot;, which means &quot;I will be what I will be&quot;<br \/> Since 2010, when I talk about this, I say<br \/> that in my opinion, this Ten, who was a warlord, told him: &quot;take care of yourself&quot;<br \/> chili &quot;it&#39;s none of your business&quot;, &quot;you just carry out my orders&quot;<br \/> and says to him: you will remember me by this name<br \/> Two minor points&#8230; when Moses and Yahweh spoke, the Hebrew language did not exist.<br \/> when Moses and Yahweh spoke, the Hebrew language did not exist<br \/> So, in what language did Yahweh utter that sound?<br \/> We don&#39;t know.<br \/> since they were leaving Egypt, they undoubtedly spoke Egyptian, so we can assume that he told him in Egyptian<br \/> definitely not in Hebrew, because Hebrew did not exist<br \/> Hebrew appeared several centuries later.<br \/> but Yahweh did not tell him<br \/> he was told by a sound that, about 3-4 centuries later, was written down with these consonants<br \/> They laugh at their friend because of doubts.<br \/> was written with these consonants<br \/> 1600 years later, the vowels were added<br \/> Do you understand that we know nothing about that name?<br \/> not only, and not only these vowels were added, because in the Bible this name appears more than 6000 times<br \/> of which over 2600x is vocalized as Jehovah<br \/> chili D\u017eeova<br \/> so in the Bible we have both Yahweh and Yehovah<br \/> but the vowels were added 1600 years after the consonants were written down<br \/> which were recorded at least 3-4 centuries after they were uttered<br \/> We don&#39;t know anything about that name.<br \/> From time to time we hear Yahweh&#8230; 70 names of God&#8230; we don&#39;t even know the meaning of the first one, so what about the other 69?<br \/> We know one thing, that&#39;s for sure.<br \/> because it is documented by epigraphy that this trigram<br \/> JHVH was known in the Middle East long before the Jews appeared.<br \/> so other nations already knew the trigram or tetragram<br \/> and they knew it as the name of the one who ruled a certain territory<br \/> let&#39;s say the current Negev, Sinai, northern part of Arabia, etc.<br \/> There are Ugaritic inscriptions in Lebanon.<br \/> which to those who traveled south, i.e. from Lebanon to the Negev<br \/> it says here on these inscriptions: &quot;May the god Yahu of Teman accompany you on your journey,&quot; &quot;teman&quot; means &quot;south,&quot; and his Asherah, that is, his wife.&quot;<br \/> that He had a wife, even the Jews from the Egyptian colony on Elephantine knew that<br \/> and they called her Anat Jav<br \/> then, the masculine theological monotheism of the Jerusalem priests removed all traces of female presence<br \/> but He, like his colleagues, had his wife<br \/> First of all, I would like to ask for clarification, in which text is Moses described as a descendant of Egyptians and not Jews?<br \/> Talmud, the Bible written in Aramaic<br \/> and as for Joshua, the possibility of choosing and following other elohim<br \/> blah&#8230; theologians could simply say that elohim means deities<br \/> and the discussion would end with the words, when you were with the Sumerians<br \/> you worshipped other gods, in Egypt you worshipped Egyptian gods,<br \/> Now you have to decide whether you want to worship the One we offer you as the only one or those who host us.<br \/> so how to identify in Elohim, instead of metaphysical figures<br \/> flesh-and-blood characters present in that territory?<br \/> because the biblical elohim eat, drink, walk, get dirty, get tired, need to rest, have to wash, have to sleep<br \/> they have a whole range of clearly described physical needs<br \/> and translating &quot;elohim&quot; as &quot;god&quot;, and I would say that even in front of a whole amphitheater of theologians, is a pure fabrication<br \/> To say &quot;other deities&quot; means to introduce a Greek concept into Jewish thought.<br \/> which is more than just an eyesore, but really more<br \/> and there are actually rabbis who are angry about it and say: but it&#39;s not possible<br \/> that you take categories, especially the Neoplatonic ones, i.e. from Neoplatonic idealism<br \/> and they inserted them into Jewish thought, which has nothing to do with Neoplatonism<br \/> I already have a translation like &quot;there were other deities&quot;<br \/> it means to insert a concept that does not belong there<br \/> No, He speaks face to face.<br \/> Yahweh says directly, Jeremiah 25:<br \/> those of you who say that they receive messages from me in a dream<br \/> let them tell those dreams among themselves, because they only talk nonsense, because I speak face to face<br \/> that&#39;s what Jeremiah 25 says, he&#39;s just talking nonsense, let them tell their dreams among themselves, because I don&#39;t speak in dreams<br \/> This is what Yahweh says in Jeremiah.<br \/> as when we do a literal reading, a very concrete image emerges<br \/> clear, calm, simple<br \/> So Joshua will make this statement, he will give them the opportunity to choose<br \/> Let&#39;s see why this option was here.<br \/> this selection option<br \/> we read the names Terah, Abraham, Nahor<br \/> since there are very open rabbis&#8230; wait&#8230;<br \/> very open rabbis, but rabbis of a really higher category, a university teacher<br \/> who are members of the Rabbinical Assembly, and I asked them a few questions, they are Americans<br \/> I asked about Abraham because of certain hypotheses of mine.<br \/> and this is the reply email<br \/> which was sent to me by Prof. Robert Wexler<br \/> President of the American Jewish University in Los Angeles<br \/> writes about Abraham<br \/> most modern biblical scholars, &quot;scholar&quot; in English means a learned person and not a schoolboy&#8230;<br \/> do not consider Abraham to have been a real person<br \/> the majority, &quot;most&quot; of their biblical scholars believe that Abraham never existed<br \/> Let&#39;s just pretend with the Bible, that&#39;s better.<br \/> not everyone accepts that Moses was historical, not everyone accepts that Moses existed<br \/> them, ok? them, rabbis<br \/> with the Bible, it&#39;s better to just pretend, we pretend that the Masoretic Bible is the true one<br \/> and at least we try to read what is written there<br \/> because as far as I know, all of this, and I&#39;ll also say that when something is said there, it actually means something else&#8230;<br \/> we can take Tex Willer and do the same with him<br \/> At first I thought I was dreaming because I saw a shining full moon.<br \/> There was a strong wind, and I felt that the strong wind was making the moonlight vibrate.<br \/> the second time I saw my house all lit up at night, so I thought it was burglars and called the gendarmes<br \/> &#8230;the Carabinieri must be unbiased, and so they told me that I was looking into the air<br \/> but I was looking down because I thought there were thieves there<br \/> because they had 50 phone calls from Rivergana, Vigolzona and San Giorgio<br \/> which are the surrounding villages, that there is an alien flying saucer there<br \/> I had it over my head, I got up from the computer on the third try&#8230;<br \/> and my neighbors, such crazy people, saw my house lit up, they were looking for me, but they didn&#39;t find me<br \/> and when they came to the barn at 6 o&#39;clock in the morning, it was November, they found that they were missing a cow<br \/> but because they were ashamed to tell me that I had stolen a cow from them at 6 in the morning, they acted as if nothing had happened<br \/> A year later, I and those carabiniers were invited to a dinner in Piacenza, organized by Agriturismo.<br \/> and the carabinieri told me: the night your house was lit up, was that the day the cow went missing? yes<br \/> Conclusion: aliens are piranhas, thieves<br \/> I would like to know, when we talk about aliens of ancient times, but today they are among us, aliens<br \/> because when you go out at night in Bagnol, you can see paranormal phenomena that give you goosebumps<br \/> In Bagnols, 2 planes crashed in 1972, they were from San Damiano<br \/> In Monticello, there are the remains of those planes and tombstones.<br \/> They have control of the San Damiano military airport&#8230; question:<br \/> In my opinion, these local aliens are evil: they steal, they don&#39;t care about anything.<br \/> when they are bothered by planes overhead<br \/> so they let the planes and pilots fall, those two pilots have a memorial plaque there in Monticello<br \/> I would like you to tell us something about today&#39;s aliens instead of the aliens of ancient times.<br \/> because you can&#39;t rely on them, they&#39;re thugs<br \/> they are beings who consider us guinea pigs<br \/> Here, you can&#39;t be sure of anything.<br \/> I went there with my friends, to that Bagnol, one night<br \/> and there are light balls appearing, that the friends got scared<br \/> and they don&#39;t smell of Bagnolo at night anymore<br \/> I&#39;d like to hear something about aliens today.<br \/> So, let&#39;s put it this way.<br \/> There are those who deal with this topic, I deal with the Bible.<br \/> So even if I thought something about aliens today, it would really mean nothing.<br \/> in the sense that I am, let&#39;s say, lucky<br \/> I live under the ufologically famous mountain Musin\u00e0, if anyone knows it&#8230;<br \/> I have it opposite my windows.<br \/> my luck is, and I&#39;ll explain to you why it&#39;s luck, that I&#39;ve never seen a single light<br \/> and that&#39;s a good thing, because the things I&#39;m telling you are not influenced by the things I&#39;ve seen<br \/> I only interpret what I read.<br \/> I read the Bible and talk about the Bible.<br \/> others are dealing with current situations&#8230;<br \/> I mean: there are hundreds of people who are dealing with this&#8230;<br \/> This question is not for me, I don&#39;t want to make any excuses, but<br \/> I&#39;m into the Bible, so<br \/> Everyone has their own craft.<br \/> the question is whether there is any comparative study<br \/> because we have Vedic scriptures from India<br \/> from the Sanskrit period, whether there is any connection with the events<br \/> taking place in the area of Israel<br \/> \/\/comparative study with biblical events\/\/<br \/> So, I don&#39;t know of any comprehensive comparative studies.<br \/> I initiated, and this will be my next book, a comparative study between the Bible and Greek writings, especially the Iliad and the Odyssey.<br \/> Why the Iliad and the Odyssey? Because<br \/> and these are also considered poetic texts<br \/> purely epic poems<br \/> and in fact, I am convinced that even there it is necessary to &quot;do as if&quot;, because many things will come up<br \/> it is found that they tell the same stories, the same<br \/> as far as the Far East is concerned<br \/> Vedic texts, Ramayana, Mahabharata, etc. etc. etc.<br \/> we have stories here about those who are called devas there<br \/> but they are infinitely more explicit<br \/> there, directly in one text, such as Vimanika Shastra<br \/> which means the Treaty on Aviation<br \/> the substances from which the pilots&#39; overalls were to be made are described<br \/> seasonal diets that pilots had to follow are described there<br \/> The good thing is that those texts did not end up in the hands of monotheistic theologians.<br \/> and so they remained<br \/> they are extremely explicit, the Bible was probably like that originally<br \/> after all, those researchers, as I said, who are working on the Bible project<br \/> they write, and that remained in the Bibles we have at home<br \/> that when you are here<br \/> over time, they introduced monotheistic concepts that were not previously in the Bible<br \/> because the Jerusalem priesthood needed to proclaim itself the representative and thus the ruler of the people<br \/> they made all the texts that could not be edited disappear<br \/> at least 11 of them, for sure, were made to disappear<br \/> Why do I say for sure?<br \/> because those 11 are quoted in the Bibles we have at home<br \/> So, in the Bibles we have at home, 11 books are cited.<br \/> which, however, no longer officially exist<br \/> so the biblical authors knew them, considered them trustworthy, quoted them, but in the meantime they were allowed to disappear<br \/> they weren&#39;t burned, ok? because since they were books written by their ancestors, they didn&#39;t burn them<br \/> they ended up literally in a graveyard of books, they were buried<br \/> so that they are no longer available<br \/> one of these books was the Book of the Wars of the Lord<br \/> which, probably, was so explicit that they could not edit it<br \/> because it was clearly said there how He fought, and this is one of those that disappeared<br \/> one specific link, but<br \/> I haven&#39;t forgotten about Adam and Eve, we&#39;ll get to that.<br \/> However, we find one specific reference in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.<br \/> Why am I giving a specific reference?<br \/> because what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah is what happened in the area of today&#39;s Pakistan<br \/> At that time, the Indus-Sarasvati civilization, Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro were there.<br \/> by the way, it was also in the same period, i.e. between 2000 and 1800 BC.<br \/> when these civilizations were destroyed by fire coming from the sky<br \/> and which destroyed them in one moment<br \/> The story of Sodom and Gomorrah, it&#39;s in the Bible, and it is said that fire came from heaven.<br \/> No? They sent him down.<br \/> This story is found on the Oxford tablets, where the Sumerian-Akkadian tablets were published.<br \/> The relevant Oxford table describing the story is the Epic of Erra or Nergal, which are names<br \/> here, ok? who are called anunna or anunnaki<br \/> which correspond to the Assyro-Babylonian &quot;ilu&quot; &quot;ilanu&quot;, from which the Hebrew &quot;elohim&quot; comes, ok?<br \/> So, what do those stories say? They say that<br \/> they fought here, and for those 5 cities, because it wasn&#39;t just Sodom and Gomorrah, there were 3 other cities<br \/> cited in the Bible, Nergal sent from heaven, one to each city, a weapon of terror<br \/> and everything that was alive there turned into steam<br \/> In Mohenjo-daro, we can still see the effects of one such weapon.<br \/> &#8230;there is no radiation, so it wasn&#39;t atomic weapons<br \/> at least there<br \/> there are stones vitrified by temperatures<br \/> from 1800 to 2000 degrees, applied for 2-3 seconds<br \/> no fire in the world is capable of causing these temperatures<br \/> and human skeletons were calcined, meaning that the mineral substances evaporated<br \/> Okay? The Bible tells us that this happened in Sodom and Gomorrah, we can say, okay, fire came from heaven&#8230;<br \/> allegorical, metaphorical vision&#8230; unfortunately, unfortunately<br \/> that the Bible tells us about Sodom and Gomorrah 1000 years after this event and says<br \/> that the water in the territory of Sodom and Gomorrah is still bad and the soil is barren<br \/> 1200 years after the event, the Bible tells us that the valley of Sodom and Gomorrah&#8230; is a land of thorns and desolation.<br \/> in the Book of Wisdom, Chapter 10, this is 1800 years after the event<br \/> The Bible tells us that in the land of Sodom and Gomorrah, trees bear empty and unripe fruits.<br \/> What did they do there on that territory?<br \/> that they have devastated it for at least 2000 years<br \/> an archaeologist told me<br \/> that about 40, 30 years ago<br \/> Israel tried to grow citrus there, but the lemons were empty.<br \/> in Sanskrit, and there it is spoken much more explicitly<br \/> these weapons are called, in the Ramayana<br \/> &quot;t\u00e9d\u017eas-astras&quot;, which means &quot;energy-weapons&quot;<br \/> chili energy weapons<br \/> which they used, exclusively by themselves, as they did not give them to their subjects<br \/> your subjects fought as we know: with spears, swords, bows, knives<br \/> they, among themselves, used those &quot;t\u00e9d\u017eas-astras&quot; there<br \/> The effects are described.<br \/> we can say, well, okay&#8230; Sodom was punished because they were sodomites<br \/> Read Deuteronomy, it says that Sodom was punished.<br \/> because she no longer accepted the terms of Yahweh&#39;s covenant, because she changed her allegiance<br \/> not that they were sodomites<br \/> Why are sodomites being talked about?<br \/> because when<br \/> Genesis 18, Abraham is sitting in the shade of his tent and sees 3 men approaching, i.e. male individuals<br \/> he will immediately understand that he belongs to those there&#8230;. to the commanders<br \/> and he says, come here, before you continue, refresh yourselves, eat, drink, wash yourselves, refresh yourselves, etc.<br \/> they will do that and then 2 of them will continue their journey to Sodom to carry out their mission, one will stay there<br \/> And who is this? The following verse tells us: Yahweh<br \/> who came, hungry, thirsty, had to wash himself, etc. etc.<br \/> The two of them are going to Sodom, why? To warn Lot.<br \/> Abraham&#39;s nephews that they must leave the city because the next day the city will be razed to the ground<br \/> So the two of them come there, Lot and the others are sitting in the city gate.<br \/> he sees them coming, he immediately understands what they are<br \/> Lot tries to protect them, and the others want to lynch them because they know they belong to a hostile military alliance.<br \/> Lot saves them by taking them into his house, and it&#39;s really nicely described there.<br \/> Lot opens the door, grabs the two, pulls them into the house, and closes the door.<br \/> and so he saves them, and tells those outside: leave those two alone<br \/> I&#39;ll give you my 2 underage daughters, vent with them and leave these 2 alone.<br \/> The curious thing is that it says there that<br \/> Abraham and Yahweh are talking<br \/> And Abraham says: but if there are 50 righteous people in Sodom&#8230;<br \/> and righteous does not mean morally righteous, because the Old Testament is the most immoral book in the history of mankind<br \/> one of the most immoral<br \/> the righteous are on our side<br \/> Will it be possible to save them? Well, if there are 50 of them, then yes&#8230; and if there are 30? Or 20?<br \/> How was it possible to calculate a fair one?<br \/> Yahweh said<br \/> it is in the Bible that the sign of belonging to his alliance is circumcision<br \/> and circumcision is a sign that can be checked at any time, it&#39;s just veiled<br \/> So if I want to calculate the fair: lift your tunic and show me<br \/> and since they could also be there to count the righteous<br \/> the others could say, come here, we&#39;ll show you<br \/> and this is the whole point: do you want to see it? Come here, we&#39;ll show you<br \/> and this is the whole point of sodomy<br \/> In fact, Deuteronomy says that they stopped accepting Yahweh&#39;s conditions, i.e. they changed the alliance.<br \/> and because they changed their military alliance, they were told, we will wipe them all out, and they did<br \/> just as it happened in Harappa and Mohenjo-daro<br \/> by the way, in the same period, the same centuries<br \/> weapons with the same effects, here and there<br \/> then they began to be cunning, because on Sumerian-Akkadian tablets, such as<br \/> on the kappa 5004 table<br \/> the battle on the Sinai is described<br \/> where it is said that Nergal flew over the mountains<br \/> flew over the territory of the celestial chariots<br \/> chili above the &quot;airport&quot;<br \/> he released the weapon of terror that caused the internal explosion of Mount Mashu<br \/> which no longer exists<br \/> he dropped more weapons, and at the end of that battle, the table says<br \/> only the stumps of burnt trees remained, nothing else<br \/> So either they had an incredible imagination.<br \/> and they made up things that we know well<br \/> or they did nothing but write down the things that happened<br \/> Unfortunately, the Bible is silent about this.<br \/> They are silent because, from a certain point on, they decided that Yahweh must be God, etc., etc., etc.<br \/> but there are still small passages where something has remained<br \/> Any questions?<br \/> So I&#39;ll just finish this here&#8230;<br \/> e.g. in one passage, when the Israelites are about to go into battle, and they are afraid of losing, and Yahweh tells them: do not be afraid<br \/> because I am with you and<br \/> and I will send my cirah against the enemy<br \/> cirah is a term in the singular<br \/> translated by the plural as bees or hornets<br \/> So the doctrine tells us that God sent hornets to sting the enemies.<br \/> However, since the word for bee in Hebrew is Debora, they had the term for bees available.<br \/> cirah is a term in the singular, and when you look into rabbinical dictionaries, it says that it was something, but it is not known what<br \/> which affected the skin, caused burns and subsequently fainting or even death<br \/> So Yahweh says, don&#39;t be afraid, because I will use my sword against these people.<br \/> and says: none of those who escape you will remain alive<br \/> I&#39;ll kill you with my weapon.<br \/> So one trace of their weapons, although really small, remained, but unfortunately very little remained there.<br \/> Please.<br \/> I don&#39;t want to digress too much, but I&#39;d like to hear something about Genesis.<br \/> something completely about the beginning, about creation<br \/> This is how we get to Adam and Eve.<br \/> So, just as the Bible doesn&#39;t speak of God<br \/> The Bible never speaks of creation.<br \/> just as in Hebrew there is no term for God, there is no term for creation, and certainly not creation out of nothing<br \/> the verb &quot;bara&quot;, which is used in Bereishit bara Elohim et ha-shamayim ve&#39;et ha-aretz<br \/> In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.<br \/> it never means &quot;to create&quot;, not only in Hebrew, but in any Semitic language<br \/> always means intervening in a situation in order to change it for one&#39;s own use and need<br \/> So the first verse, and I dedicated 80 pages to this in the book The Bible Doesn&#39;t Say Creation<br \/> The first chapter of Genesis basically tells how the Elohim flew to one place<br \/> They chose the place and adapted it to their own needs.<br \/> They built a dam there.<br \/> separating the waters that are above from the waters that are below<br \/> fertilized the soil below<br \/> and there they began to produce their food, plants and animals<br \/> This is the story of the first chapter&#8230; I realize what I&#39;m saying, okay?<br \/> the story of the first chapter, which has nothing to do with creation<br \/> In the cited book, I analyzed all the places where the word bara appears in the Bible.<br \/> it never means to create, not even once<br \/> but I repeat, it does not mean to create only in Hebrew, that term, the root, it does not mean that in any Semitic language<br \/> So they didn&#39;t create anything for you here.<br \/> They got here, they found&#8230; they chose a territory, they adapted it to their use.<br \/> and at one point it is said that they decided to make Adam<br \/> and they will do it, as the translations tell us<br \/> to his image and to his likeness, in fact, this is not written in Hebrew here<br \/> In Hebrew, it is written that they will make him in their image.<br \/> &quot;with&quot; that something made of a material containing their image<br \/> which is something different from &quot;k&quot; in their form<br \/> but they will make Adam using their &quot;member&quot;, that&#39;s what the Bible says<br \/> and when we look again into the dictionaries of biblical Aramaic and Hebrew, we see that the whole<br \/> It comes from the Hebrew root &quot;calam&quot;, which means &quot;to cut&quot;.<br \/> so the whole thing is something made of a material containing an image<br \/> and in American dictionaries it says &quot;something cut out&quot;<br \/> something cut out\/removed<br \/> And now, what is this physical part?<br \/> containing an image and which can be removed and used for production<br \/> DNA<br \/> I read to you: that the Bible speaks of genetic engineering has been known to Jews since time immemorial through the Talmud<br \/> Well, let&#39;s say that.<br \/> Well, let&#39;s say that.<br \/> We were talking about earthly paradise, and now we&#39;re going to talk about Adam and Eve, right?<br \/> an earthly paradise is mentioned there, in the sense that they made Adam, and we know, we are told, that he was made in an earthly paradise<br \/> If anyone has heard any of my conferences from the past 4 years, I often explain that the term &quot;gan&quot;<br \/> Gan Eden, or Gan in Eden<br \/> &quot;Gan&quot; in Hebrew means an enclosed and protected garden.<br \/> Is there anyone here who has heard this explanation? Just so I&#8230;<br \/> from which the Iranian term &quot;pairidaeza&quot; was derived, meaning an enclosed garden<br \/> The Greek word &quot;paradaisos&quot; comes from the Iranian term &quot;pairidaeza&quot;.<br \/> which Xenophon and Diodorus Siculus use to refer to the enclosed gardens of the Babylonian lords<br \/> The Latin paradisum originated from the Greek paradaisos.<br \/> from the Latin paradisum then &quot;paradiso&quot;\/&quot;paradise&quot;, which with Gan Eden&#8230;<br \/> not related in any way<br \/> and then, about 3 years ago, I drew a map like that<br \/> where could this Gan Eden hypothetically be<br \/> I don&#39;t have it anymore because all my notes were stolen at the end of July&#8230;<br \/> However, the July 2014 issue of Le Scienze magazine<br \/> They speak of Gan Eden and present a map that places Gan Eden exactly in the place&#8230;<br \/> chili in northern Mesopotamia, west of the Caspian Sea<br \/> exactly to the place where we can consider&#8230; but listen to what is written here about Gan Eden<br \/> The name paradiso comes from pairidaeza<br \/> which means a walled orchard<br \/> typical of the gardens and parks of Persian rulers<br \/> Xenophon Hellenized pairidaeza into paradeisos, an enclosed place<br \/> Homer describes something similar in the Odyssey.<br \/> I have said many times at conferences that Alkino&#39;s Garden<br \/> described in the 6th and 8th books of the Odyssey, corresponds to the description of the biblical Gan Eden<br \/> chili experimental laboratory, center for the production of edible plants and animal husbandry<br \/> so I&#39;m glad to read these things here<br \/> but there&#39;s more to it<br \/> The Bible speaks about genetic engineering.<br \/> I always say: we only pretend to do the Bible<br \/> So I&#39;m telling you what I&#39;m reading.<br \/> and if what I&#39;m reading is a bunch of bullshit, then I&#39;m telling you a bunch of bullshit<br \/> The problem is not on my side, but on the side of theologians who derive absolute truths from it.<br \/> As for me, if we find out that the Bible is Pinocchio, we&#39;ll say it&#39;s Pinocchio, there&#39;s no problem with that.<br \/> So, what I read, I say, period. And whether it&#39;s true or not, I don&#39;t know, I don&#39;t know.<br \/> In recent years, however, I&#39;ve been getting my hands on things that give me goosebumps.<br \/> like this<br \/> studies by geneticists, of which there are a few pages&#8230; studies that were sent directly to me, okay?<br \/> a molecular biologist who is an associate researcher at King&#39;s College London<br \/> I devoted a few pages to it in the book The Bible Is Not a Holy Book&#8230;<br \/> He is writing a book that will be published in the spring; it was supposed to be published earlier, but it is delayed.<br \/> where he explains that<br \/> some hypotheses of genetic engineering would explain a whole range of things that science cannot cope with<br \/> Other geneticists are writing to me and sending me long studies.<br \/> in which it is said that there is a whole range of gene sequences<br \/> causing us to be homo sapiens<br \/> and no one can explain where they come from<br \/> No geneticist can explain&#8230;. and they are all described here<br \/> I will then publish these studies in the next book.<br \/> I won&#39;t read it, so as not to bore you, I&#39;ll read you the conclusion.<br \/> Amazing<br \/> the only explanation remains to consider mitochondrial Eve<br \/> Mitochondrial Eve is the name given by geneticists to the first &quot;Homo sapiens&quot;<br \/> and the chromosomal Adam Y<br \/> for clones produced in many copies<br \/> only a corresponding number of mutually genetically identical men and women<br \/> could successfully pass on unique and characteristic genotypes of the human race<br \/> this is what geneticists are starting to write, this is what the Bible tells us<br \/> Eve-woman is a clone of Adam-man<br \/> and it tells us where the cells were taken from, from the iliac crest<br \/> This is where science begins to say it.<br \/> but another thing that, honestly, gave me goosebumps<br \/> So you have seen that the earthly &quot;paradise&quot; was located there, in northern Mesopotamia.<br \/> They chose that place and did various experiments there.<br \/> Le Scienze, August 2014<br \/> This is about wheat.<br \/> to learn how our wheat came about, listen&#8230;<br \/> much earlier than the invention of agriculture, the official one<br \/> is a wild component from the Triticum urartu family<br \/> Urartu is a mountain range where Ararat is located.<br \/> So there, they called it &quot;Urartu&quot; because it is located there.<br \/> So, one wild component, Triticum urartu.<br \/> it suffered, the plant suffered<br \/> a genetic event that could never happen<br \/> it absorbed the entire genome of another plant<br \/> but they write that it happened, but it couldn&#39;t have<br \/> This could not have happened.<br \/> and that&#39;s not all<br \/> approximately 8,000-9,000 years ago<br \/> in the area between present-day Armenia and the southwest of the Caspian Sea, still there<br \/> another impossible genetic event occurred<br \/> Triticum dicoccum has completely absorbed the genome of another plant<br \/> which resulted in Triticum spelta<br \/> then a whole series of other genetic modifications gave rise to our Triticum aestivum<br \/> common wheat, from which we make bread and pizza<br \/> they write it, all things that cannot happen in nature<br \/> But if they can&#39;t happen and they did, will we take a step forward?<br \/> And we&#39;ll ask who did it?<br \/> old texts tell us who did it, there<br \/> they tell us that, they had Gan Eden there, they did experiments there, they grew all kinds of plants there, they kept animals that they needed there<br \/> and here it says that mutations occurred there that cannot occur in nature&#8230;<br \/> Shall we take a step forward?<br \/> instead of saying: no, it&#39;s all nonsense, it&#39;s all myths, it&#39;s all fairy tales<br \/> No! Let&#39;s try to act as if, and maybe a few things will become clear.<br \/> So the Bible tells us that they made Adam, and I explained to you how.<br \/> and then at one point it is said that they took Adam and put him in Gan Eden<br \/> which doesn&#39;t mean they made it in earthly paradise, they made it somewhere else<br \/> Current genetics identifies 4 human branches.<br \/> of which the oldest, which is the one we know as classic sapiens<br \/> which originated in the south<br \/> in southeastern Africa<br \/> so they did the first experiments with hominids there<br \/> Then, the Bible says, he took Adam and put him in Gan Eden.<br \/> Adam is a member, so it&#39;s not the name of one person, it means a group of men.<br \/> they took them, this group of Adams&#8230;<br \/> this &quot;Adam&quot; was supposed to work in Gan Eden for the Elohim<br \/> So, the Bible says, they will give him animals and plants, which he was supposed to take care of.<br \/> Then the Bible says, and this is interesting, that the Elohim noticed that the animal society was not sufficient for Adam.<br \/> and they decide to make him a wife<br \/> I imagine they used to witness certain scenes&#8230;<br \/> Because Adam&#39;s sons were normal male individuals with their own needs, they decided to make him a woman.<br \/> and here they will do it by cloning, because the Bible says that Adam was put into a deep sleep<br \/> they remove something from the curved side part, which is usually translated as a rib<br \/> They&#39;ll seal the meat&#8230; in the Bibles you have at home, okay?<br \/> They will close the meat where they took the sample, and with what they took, they will make a woman.<br \/> the woman was supposed to be&#8230; given that she was cloned, and perhaps even intentionally<br \/> &#8230;let&#39;s say that pair, those groups, should have remained sterile<br \/> they were not supposed to reproduce, because they were to remain under their absolute control<br \/> so they made the necessary number of them that they needed<br \/> then the one we know as &quot;the snake&quot; intervenes<br \/> The Hebrew term &quot;nacha\u0161&quot; does refer to a snake,<br \/> but the root refers to &quot;one who has deep knowledge&quot;<br \/> those whom we now call geneticists<br \/> those who have a deep knowledge of man, they go to the core, they go to the genetic heritage<br \/> which are those who made Adam with the help of all the Elohim<br \/> and at one point one of them, against the will of the bosses, makes the couple fertile<br \/> when the two become fertile<br \/> When you read the Bible, it says that they realized their nakedness and hid.<br \/> but it&#39;s not that they hid among themselves, that shame appeared there<br \/> after all, they were naked just a minute before<br \/> they hide from the Elohim<br \/> they don&#39;t want the elohim to find out that they understood what those things are for, and therefore that they can reproduce<br \/> Elohim, who of course were not fools<br \/> They said, &quot;Okay, you&#39;ve made this choice, now you&#39;re like us,&quot; that&#39;s what the Bible says.<br \/> So get out of here.<br \/> If you have made this choice, then go out and live it.<br \/> The concept of the tree of good and evil, the knowledge of good and evil, really has nothing to do with what we are told.<br \/> not even in Hebrew&#8230; some idea that they understood<br \/> a theoretical concept of evil, of what is right, what is wrong, what is good&#8230; no<br \/> Hebrew says that from that moment on they began to experience the positive and negative effects of the choice they made.<br \/> This is what they say to Adam: Now, when you are hungry, it will be your concern.<br \/> because as long as you were here, you didn&#39;t have a problem with food, but now out there it will be your concern<br \/> and they told the woman, now you will understand, but that is not a condemnation<br \/> it&#39;s just a post-eventum judgment<br \/> Did you want to make this choice? Now you&#39;ll understand that having children hurts a lot.<br \/> it&#39;s not that I condemn you to suffer<br \/> You wanted this choice? You&#39;ll see how much it will hurt you and why it will hurt so much? Because we are badly made.<br \/> We are born too early, with too big a head.<br \/> we are animals that, statistically, have the most problems during childbirth<br \/> because we are made wrong<br \/> because from a certain point on, evolution stopped working on us<br \/> they worked here<br \/> and they made certain accelerations to obtain hominids<br \/> who will be able to understand and carry out orders<br \/> but this caused us a whole range of dysfunctions<br \/> it caused us to be strangers here on Earth<br \/> try to imagine any animal, any at all<br \/> you will see that any animal has<br \/> it is called: an ecological niche<br \/> some natural system to which it is perfectly adapted<br \/> and every natural system has its perfectly adapted animals<br \/> Try to imagine a naked person and find one natural system to which a person is naturally adapted.<br \/> There is no such thing, not a single one.<br \/> we have to intervene in the external environment and modify it<br \/> because we, naked, anywhere, alone, will perish, because nature will kill us<br \/> because we are no longer adapted to anything<br \/> if we are to use one term existing in Italian dictionaries, then we are alien to the Earth<br \/> which doesn&#39;t mean&#8230; in Italian it means different and foreign<br \/> so we are different and alien here on Earth, because at one point we were sewn with too hot a needle<br \/> &#8230;and the Elohim knew it.<br \/> and they will tell Adam at the expulsion: you will rule over the animals, because man can only dominate<br \/> To dominate means to interfere with the environment and adapt it to oneself if one wants to survive, otherwise one will die.<br \/> Really, we are not adapted.<br \/> and I&#39;ll tell you one more interesting fact about Eve, when a woman is tempted by the famous serpent<br \/> it is said that she ate the fruit<br \/> among the things that should not be read literally, because the Bible must be read with a symbolic key<br \/> and Biglino did not understand that the Bible must be read with a symbolic key<br \/> some of them have developed large symbolic constructions about Eve&#39;s apple<br \/> I think someone has read&#8230; you know it well&#8230;<br \/> large symbolic constructions about Eve&#39;s apple<br \/> but Eve&#39;s apple is not in the Bible<br \/> It&#39;s not there.<br \/> So whoever creates symbolic constructs about an apple, creates symbolic constructs about nothing.<br \/> Credere magazine, yesterday&#39;s edition, Monsignor Ravasi<br \/> Monsignor Ravasi is here with me.<br \/> Actually, I&#39;m sorry, it&#39;s me with him, because he&#39;s big and I&#39;m small.<br \/> In this interview, Mons. Ravasi says about the Bible: as a biblical scholar&#8230;<br \/> it happens when the original text is used, and you see it, or others point it out to you<br \/> to certain shades of language, hints and allusions that will surprise you<br \/> and still, as far as Genesis is concerned, it is nowhere written that the tree of temptation was an apple tree<br \/> The apple is not there, try to find it, and when you find it, send me a box of biblical apples.<\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Lecture_2014_part_3\"><\/span> Lecture 2014 part 3<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p> <a href=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/voQwsTs728k\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/youtu.be\/voQwsTs728k<\/a><\/p><p>The Bible says that Eve ate the &quot;fruit&quot;<br \/> The apple was created by the &quot;tree of good and evil&quot;&#8230; Have a nice evening&#8230;<br \/> When the Bible was translated into Latin, evil was called &quot;malum&quot;, but &quot;malum&quot; also means &quot;apple tree&quot;.<br \/> and from the apple tree came the apple, which is not in the Bible<br \/> it is said there that Eve ate the fruit, but it is clear from the Bible, the book of Proverbs, that &quot;eating the fruit&quot; means having sexual intercourse<br \/> So, the Bible says that Eve was seduced by Nachash.<br \/> she will have sexual intercourse, that is, she will eat the fruit, and then she will give it to Adam to eat<br \/> she had her first sexual intercourse with someone else<br \/> Then he&#39;ll teach Adam&#8230; because we men always come later.<br \/> I wanted to ask if in the Bible or texts of surrounding cultures<br \/> Where are we? Please raise your hand, yes, there, I&#39;m sorry.<br \/> whether there or in the vicinity<br \/> with regard to the similarity of some events<br \/> Is there also any mention, besides the arrival of these Elohim, of their departure&#8230; not in the Bible.<br \/> one hint of departure is in Josephus Flavius<br \/> who is a Judeo-Roman historian writing in the 1st century AD.<br \/> who wrote several books, and one of them is called Jewish Wars<br \/> and he, in the year 70 AD, when the Romans decided to conquer Jerusalem<br \/> because they were already tired of messianic movements<br \/> we&#39;ve already touched on how there were anti-Roman rebels there<br \/> In the 6th book of the Jewish Wars, Josephus tells us something very interesting&#8230;<br \/> says that when the Romans were approaching, the priests who were in the temple<br \/> they heard a voice: &quot;we are leaving this place&quot;<br \/> and then he says that in the month of Artemis, i.e. after the Jewish Passover<br \/> a scene was witnessed that, if it hadn&#39;t had so many witnesses, no one would have believed it<br \/> the number of heavenly chariots that surrounded the city in the clouds<br \/> that was in the year 70 AD<br \/> so with the arrival of the Romans, there was a change in the hierarchy<br \/> we come, with ours, you leave<br \/> &#8230;sure, but the old texts tell us about it, vehiculos volantes<br \/> but here, the gentlemen from CUN can provide you with all the explanations<br \/> and they talked about them<br \/> but we are not told this in history books because no one can explain it<br \/> Good evening&#8230; Thank you&#8230;<br \/> Wait, there was another lady here.<br \/> Good evening, thank you.<br \/> I wanted to know, when it is written in the Bible and other writings&#8230;<br \/> there is a trace of the fact that human beings had to obey&#8230;<br \/> Why were they given the option to choose?<br \/> to eat the apple or not<br \/> there was no choice&#8230;<br \/> in the battles between the Elohim, who were just like us<br \/> rulers and colonizers who fought among themselves<br \/> this is, for example, very evident in Sumerian-Akkadian stories<br \/> there are conflicts between two brothers, sons of the ruler of the empire, and they were always at odds<br \/> and one of those two brothers carried it out, through the biological engineer Ninchurshag<br \/> which is the one that did the genetic interventions<br \/> He liked those creations because he made them.<br \/> the other one had no relationship with them, those creations were supposed to be slaves, to work and be silent<br \/> the one who had it liked the creation, he wanted it to emancipate<br \/> So it was this one who gave the couple the opportunity to reproduce, the other one didn&#39;t want to.<br \/> Thank you, please.<br \/> Moment&#8230;<br \/> Yes, so<br \/> Good evening, thanks.<br \/> Adam and Eve have two sons, named Cain and Abel.<br \/> Cain kills Abel and is banished<br \/> When Cain is banished, he says: &quot;Whoever meets me will kill me.&quot;<br \/> but if they are the ancestors of mankind<br \/> grandparents&#8230; who was that anyone?<br \/> Adam and Eve, Abel was dead, there was only Cain.<br \/> while there were a lot of people there<br \/> there were plenty of ordinary homo sapiens there, who had been produced since<br \/> as official geneticists say, where they place the first mitochondrial Eve<br \/> about 250 to 200 thousand years ago<br \/> Adam and Eve are the ancestors of a special race, not the ancestors of mankind.<br \/> one special race, which they made for themselves<br \/> it was the Adams who were supposed to work for them in Gan Eden<br \/> so when Cain&#8230; so here they were genetically much closer to them<br \/> and when we have time, I will tell you when this closeness ended, because the Bible tells us that<br \/> and here they were very educated, because when they were to work for them, the Elohim taught them a lot of things<br \/> So Cain is banished&#8230; and he is terrified of ending up among the so-called barbarians, let&#39;s call them that.<br \/> He is afraid that they will kill him, but in reality, everything is going smoothly.<br \/> He&#39;ll find some women, have children.<br \/> and we see that in his entire generation there are those who master construction, agriculture, animal husbandry, and music<br \/> So, in Cain&#39;s generation, there is a complete civilization.<br \/> and now<br \/> we are, as you have seen, in the north of Mesopotamia<br \/> Sumer is located in the south-central region of Mesopotamia.<br \/> archaeology and anthropology tell us that the Sumerian civilization appeared there<br \/> without any historical development, it appears fully developed<br \/> so it wasn&#39;t<br \/> suddenly he appears with all the knowledge<br \/> mathematics, astronomy, writing<br \/> animal husbandry, agriculture, construction<br \/> So we have a book that tells us<br \/> some people of a high cultural level, thanks to contact with the Elohim<br \/> they were expelled somewhere in northern Mesopotamia, where they were told: get out of here<br \/> and at the same time we have a civilization that appears fully developed<br \/> when we put those two things together?<br \/> then maybe we will understand where the Sumerian civilization came from<br \/> In addition, the Bible names all the nations of the Orient, but it never names the Sumerians.<br \/> But how can he not mention the Sumerians?<br \/> which was a nation with the highest level of civilization and culture<br \/> It was them.<br \/> bla<br \/> I wanted to ask about the names Adam and Eve, whether they are proper names or if they have a translation.<br \/> Adam means &quot;the one from Adamah&quot;, i.e. &quot;the one from the earth&quot;<br \/> Eva, Hava is so called because she is the mother of chaims, i.e. living beings, the so-called Adam&#39;s generation.<br \/> first\/mother of Adam<br \/> Please.<br \/> bla<br \/> something about the longevity of Methuselah<br \/> The so-called antediluvian patriarchs lived, as the Bible says, 800-900 years.<br \/> and because this is supposed to be a fairy tale, of course, it is said that it is not true, it is ridiculous<br \/> It has to be divided by ten&#8230; in reality, they lived for about 80-90 years, ok<br \/> So we will divide the age by ten.<br \/> and if we divide it by ten, we find that Abraham lived 17 years and Moses 12<br \/> So when Moses led those people out of Egypt, he was 12 years old.<br \/> if we have to divide by ten, we must keep dividing by ten<br \/> we can&#39;t do it only when it suits us, and when it doesn&#39;t suit us, we don&#39;t do it<br \/> make each verse correspond to the idea we have in mind, but let&#39;s do it as if they lived for 800 or 900 years<br \/> and let&#39;s read what Genesis chapter 6 says<br \/> where it is written that the sons of Elohim at one point found the daughters of Adam attractive<br \/> and they took as many of them as they wanted for their companions<br \/> chili causes mixing, which should not have happened<br \/> at one point, to make a long story short<br \/> Elohim says: I will no longer argue with Adam.<br \/> it&#39;s just basar, meaning just meat&#8230;<br \/> breeding animal<br \/> his life will be 120 years<br \/> there is one Hebrew term<br \/> B\u0160GM<br \/> which is supposed to be be-sha-gam<br \/> &quot;because&quot; &quot;that&quot; &quot;only&quot; &quot;meat&quot;<br \/> I&#39;m not going to argue with them anymore, because they&#39;re just meat.<br \/> a professor from the American University of Beirut, Prof. Salibi, a Semitist<br \/> says no, this division is wrong, it should be divided as be-shagam<br \/> So this university professor says that the Elohim say there<br \/> I will no longer enrich Adam.<br \/> &quot;s&quot;, here it is a Semitic verbal root, passing into both Hebrew and Arabic<br \/> meaning &quot;to shed your organic fluids&quot;, including sperm<br \/> So Elohim says, I will no longer enrich Adam.<br \/> &quot;s&quot; &quot;sperm fluid&quot;<br \/> his life will be 120 years<br \/> So, according to that university professor, the Elohim will decide.<br \/> to stop the supply of their genetic material to the Adam&#39;s generation<br \/> and when we read the Bible, we see that from that moment on, the age is shortened from 800 to 600, 500, 400, 300<br \/> until he reaches 120 years with Moses&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;so at that moment they decided to stop the supply of their genetic material<br \/> So the first ones had a large amount of their genetic material, and thus had a much longer life.<br \/> I wanted to ask, in the Bible, Yahweh, Chemosh, and Milcom appear, are there any other known names of Elohim?<br \/> And one more thing, is it known that Elohim circled over our territory, from non-biblical sources?<br \/> So<br \/> as far as our territory is concerned, understood as Europe, i.e. classical Greek culture<br \/> Good evening.<br \/> Of course, the Bible doesn&#39;t tell us that.<br \/> As for the origin, Plato tells us in Critias<br \/> when he talks about those who divided it<br \/> Egyptian priests from the city of Sais, who spoke with Solon, from whom this information then reached Plato.<br \/> Good evening, thanks.<br \/> it is originally said that<br \/> that civilization, both the first, Egyptian, and the Greek, classical civilization<br \/> was entrusted to Athena, the blonde goddess with blue eyes<br \/> so at least part of the central Mediterranean was entrusted to one of their daughters<br \/> The second part of the question?<br \/> So after Noah&#8230; he had three sons, the first was Shem&#8230; &quot;Semites&quot;<br \/> Shem had sons and daughters until Heber.<br \/> from whom the &quot;Ivrim&quot;, or generally the Hebrews, originate<br \/> Heber will have sons and daughters until Terah is reached.<br \/> who has a son named Abram, and we will pretend that he existed because our Bible says he existed<br \/> the son of Nachor and the son of Haran<br \/> Abraham has Isaac and Jacob.<br \/> as we have already seen, Jacob was entrusted to Yahweh<br \/> so this whole part of the family did not belong to Yahweh<br \/> then we know that Yahweh<br \/> which, according to the doctrine, is God, who has chosen&#8230; who sets the boundaries of nations<br \/> He chooses you as the chosen people, but the Bible doesn&#39;t say he chose them, he got them as an inheritance.<br \/> and we also said before that the one who came after Abraham was called El Shaddai<br \/> So when El Shaddai comes to Abraham and says to him, &quot;You come with me.&quot;<br \/> it could have been Yahweh&#39;s father, who then said, &quot;Okay, you&#39;ll take care of this part of the family now.&quot;<br \/> and it is said&#8230;. simply that God made such a choice<br \/> he decided that he would only take care of that nation, and that he would not be interested in the others<br \/> ok, the secret of God&#39;s judgment<br \/> But when we read the Bible, we first notice that the Bible is a book of wars, because the Bible is only about wars.<br \/> and that Yahweh, or &quot;God&quot;<br \/> together with his people, he spends all his time fighting against the nations<br \/> which had only one flaw, if what the doctrine says is true<br \/> and that they are in the territories where He Himself placed them<br \/> And what will God do?<br \/> he will send his own to massacre them<br \/> and he keeps saying it, kill them all, including women, children and the elderly<br \/> Kill them all, because we have to be there.<br \/> So God will say to the other nations: you be here, you be here, you be here, I will only be interested in these ones.<br \/> but then he says, now I&#39;m interested in those there, so you, my people, go there now and massacre them all<br \/> this is in the Old Testament all the time, all the time<br \/> But I&#39;m saying, he didn&#39;t remember that he put them there, did he? That&#39;s the first thing.<br \/> Secondly: and he didn&#39;t even remember that he was a god?<br \/> because it would have been enough to say, now I&#39;m interested in those there, so I&#39;ll assign them to myself<br \/> it&#39;s all so obvious that it&#39;s enough to do the reasoning of the uneducated with Bibles translated by the educated<br \/> Like, imagine God saying, &quot;You, I put you there.&quot;<br \/> but because I&#39;m interested in that territory now, I&#39;ll send mine to murder them<br \/> But who were the others?<br \/> Moabites, Ammonites, Amalekites<br \/> Edomites, Midianites<br \/> And do you know who they were?<br \/> They all came from one family, the Moabites were the descendants of Lot, the son of Haran, the grandson of Abraham.<br \/> The Ammonites were descendants of Lot, son of Haran, grandson of Abraham.<br \/> The Amalekites were direct descendants of Esau, Jacob&#39;s twin brother.<br \/> The Edomites were the direct descendants of Esau, Jacob&#39;s twin brother.<br \/> The Midianites were direct descendants of Abraham through his wife Keturah.<br \/> they fought among themselves within the family, between cousins, uncles and nephews<br \/> and they were robbing each other of pieces of territory<br \/> meadows and hills, one with the other<br \/> It&#39;s like a really big epic about the conquest&#8230;<br \/> a pile of crap<br \/> so, Judges 11:24<br \/> I would just recommend the story of Alexander the Great&#39;s borders, which is really very interesting.<br \/> So, a great epic about conquest, a god who conquers&#8230; Have a nice evening, thanks.<br \/> who conquers the promised land<br \/> we&#39;ve already seen&#8230; have a nice evening, please<br \/> that in the territory of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon&#8230; Yahweh could not even stick his nose in, because He was so tiny, tiny<br \/> because his powerful colleagues ruled there, so he couldn&#39;t even show up there<br \/> So He fought, He sent His own to fight against the cousins and nephews.<br \/> to grab a piece of territory, ok?<br \/> take a black and white map<br \/> a black and white map<br \/> ranging from Greece to India<br \/> and draw with the color you want<br \/> territories that Yahweh, or God, conquered over several centuries<br \/> you will make a few colorful dots in today&#39;s Israel<br \/> Now color the territory that Alexander the Great conquered in 11 years.<br \/> from Macedonia, to India, and all the way to Egypt<br \/> Do you understand the difference between Yahweh and Alexander the Great?<br \/> it&#39;s not even possible to compare<br \/> it&#39;s not even possible to compare<br \/> Judges 11:24<br \/> They are fighting against the Ammonites here.<br \/> The Israelite warlord is named Jephthah.<br \/> and he discusses with the king of the Ammonites, and listen to what he says<br \/> so the commander of the Israelite army is talking to the king of the Ammonites<br \/> you hold the territory that your Elohim Kemosh gave you to own<br \/> In this way, we also hold the territory that our Elohim Yahweh gave us as property.<br \/> they were the same<br \/> You have Elohim, whose name is Kemosh, he gave you those territories, you hold them, ok<br \/> Our Elohim Yahweh gave us these, and we hold on to them.<br \/> the same<br \/> he was the commander of the Israelite army, not that God gave them to us, and you were given them by a stone idol that does not exist&#8230; no, no, no<br \/> yours is called Kem\u00f3\u0161, he gave them to you and you&#39;re holding on to them, okay, there&#39;s nothing to say about that, ours gave us these and we&#39;re holding on to them<br \/> normal<br \/> Excuse me, if it&#39;s about Joba&#8230; please<br \/> What about Job?<br \/> I wanted to ask you to tell us something about him.<br \/> About the Book of Job<br \/> It is a nice literary work.<br \/> didactic, which teaches us how to behave towards this potentate<br \/> In the book of Job, it is said that Job is tempted by Satan.<br \/> and it is clearly stated there that Satan is one of the Elohim.<br \/> because Satan<br \/> is not some spiritual entity, the capo of demons<br \/> Then we&#39;ll see how they came up with the demons.<br \/> but Satan is the name of a certain function, he was a public prosecutor, a prosecutor<br \/> so there was one Elohim who performed that function in agreement with Yahweh<br \/> he did it for Yahweh, not against Yahweh<br \/> and the function of Satan was often performed by humans<br \/> who pro tempore, i.e. for the necessary period of time<br \/> they played the devil, i.e. the public prosecutor, against someone else<br \/> when that need disappeared, they stopped making Satan<br \/> as if we were to say, I&#39;m going to be the prosecutor against you now<br \/> Then, after the process is over, I will no longer be a prosecutor.<br \/> Okay? So the book of Job rests on this peculiarity.<br \/> which helps us understand how<br \/> God sends one of his own and says: hey, go check on that one, see if he&#39;s really faithful to me<br \/> Don&#39;t kill him, but give him a good workout to see if he remains faithful to me.<br \/> So, do Satan against that one, and we&#39;ll see what happens.<br \/> Okay? Please.<br \/> this could also prove the function of darkness in relation to light on another level<br \/> And that?<br \/> because Satan is not Satan, as we were always told<br \/> but the fact that we still have that urge&#8230; &#8230;aha, I understand<br \/> that is another key to reading, the higher one, yes<br \/> exactly, which is of course possible<br \/> As I said at the beginning, I&#39;m really wading through the mud of materiality.<br \/> and so I tell a biblical story, and then it is clear that this represents the fact that there is a conflict of forces within us<br \/> that Satan can be inside us<br \/> as a subsequent key to psychoanalytic reading, it is certainly possible, of course<br \/> Bible&#8230;<br \/> Anyway, here you go.<br \/> and as we have just seen, one was called Kem\u00f3\u0161<br \/> Another name in the Bible is Milkom.<br \/> and these two were primarily concerned with these two nations, the Moabites and the Ammonites<br \/> so the family of Terah, Abraham&#39;s father, at least<br \/> was assigned to three elohim, Jacob is entrusted to Yahweh<br \/> To the Kemoshites&#8230; here the Masoretes actually made a substitution<br \/> The Moabites are entrusted to Chemosh and the Ammonites to Milcom.<br \/> They had other attributes here.<br \/> e.g. Baal-Peor and Baal-Zavuv<br \/> Baal-Peor was one of them.<br \/> he had a lot of sex and let her have her own<br \/> and in fact, the Israelites often abandoned Yahweh and fled to Baal-Peor, because it was a little more fun<br \/> &quot;peor&quot; is a Semitic root that means to show off, to show off genitals<br \/> Baal-Zavuv means Lord of the Flies<br \/> so, when we know at least one of their customs, which are clearly described in the Bible<br \/> it is not difficult to imagine that one of them, or even more of them, had a dwelling full of flies<br \/> If we have time, we&#39;ll say something more about it.<br \/> It is interesting that when theology took control of the text<br \/> Yahweh was made a god, transcendent, spiritual, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. etc. etc.<br \/> so she took his opponents and made demons out of them<br \/> Baal-Peor was transcribed into Greek as Baal-Fegor.<br \/> from which Belfagor was created<br \/> Baal-Zavuv became Beelzebub<br \/> So, they took Yahweh, made him a god, took the other elohim and made them devils.<br \/> It&#39;s all a fabrication.<br \/> I would like to know if there is a trace in the Old Testament or in other writings.<br \/> when the Elohim&#8230; if they left, and why they left<br \/> No, I&#39;ve already answered that, the only trace is with Josephus Flavius.<br \/> when he says, heavenly chariots in the clouds&#8230; I said that 10 minutes ago<br \/> I would like to fast-forward what has been done with the Bible.<br \/> when someone appropriates it and says: wait a minute, let&#39;s shuffle the cards on the table so they serve us for a certain game<br \/> and such a consideration, Eva could have been the first GMO, as far as those who were supposed to remain in that microcosm are concerned<br \/> This needs clarification, the first GMO in the generation of Adams.<br \/> because the first GMO of the genus sapiens was at least 200,000 years before that<br \/> Sure, so the GMO was the intervention of that geneticist who said: they shouldn&#39;t be fertile.<br \/> Let&#39;s make them fertile&#8230; it&#39;s normal when they reproduce by cloning, so they are sterile with each other.<br \/> so the possibility of fertility will appear there<br \/> the gentlemen of the microcosm will say<br \/> You&#39;re not answering now, go away, they might have thought they couldn&#39;t handle it.<br \/> and in fact, certain things are happening outside of that microcosm<br \/> among other things, there will probably be a purer race there<br \/> they mix together, and if there was a term before<br \/> depicting human beings, women, having contact with animals, it is likely that various cross-breeding occurred<br \/> from which the human race with certain differences could have been formed<br \/> So the question is, based on these improvised considerations<br \/> Is there anyone here who has greater knowledge and who at some point said: here are some branches that came out of Eden?<br \/> I want to maintain control and will use the interpretation of the Bible as a scarecrow to control.<br \/> I lost the reins and I want to get them back.<br \/> and to restore a certain level&#8230; and that also explains some episodes of recent history, between human groups&#8230;<br \/> Jews, Nazism, etc., all these movements, the Aryan race, etc. &#8230;I&#39;ll tell you some interesting facts about Nazism and the Shoah.<br \/> In my opinion, this is true, in the sense that the reworking process started later.<br \/> which resulted in the creation of a different control system<br \/> a system of control operating through religion, which is much more effective than that practiced using weapons<br \/> No? Because when I&#39;m being driven by someone armed<br \/> I harbor the thought that sooner or later I will take that weapon from him and turn it against him.<br \/> rule through religion, which primarily plays on one of the basic human needs, namely, that one does not want to die<br \/> He wants to hear that it won&#39;t end&#8230; and I don&#39;t know if that&#39;s true, I don&#39;t care.<br \/> so religions arise to provide this answer<br \/> The problem is that a person voluntarily surrenders to control in the form of religion.<br \/> that&#39;s why it&#39;s so effective<br \/> and here it is, by the way&#8230; when I read how the process of spiritualization of biblical interpretation began<br \/> in the period after the Babylonian exile, so we are around the 5th century BC.<br \/> It is interesting that around the 5th century BC, things were happening all over the planet that seemed to be interconnected.<br \/> there, where control was important, because the Middle East has always been important<br \/> the process of spiritualization of the interpretation of the relationship with the Elohim begins<br \/> In India, through Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, the process of spiritualization of the interpretation of Vedic texts begins.<br \/> which, as they are now being studied, are increasingly considered to be scientific texts<br \/> there wasn&#39;t much spirit in them<br \/> In the same century, Lao-tzu and Confucius appeared in China.<br \/> as if there was some kind of plan here<br \/> who went around planet Earth and said: now we will introduce a new kind of control<br \/> The controls are very effective because, as we know, it has been working for several thousand years.<br \/> and here, this control system rebels a lot when someone tries to find out how things are.<br \/> So, this is how we understand it, we don&#39;t understand it, sorry.<br \/> it seems that we can hypothesize that at one point an idea arose<br \/> we will start introducing a different mechanism<br \/> and maybe someone from elsewhere had already tried it and knew that it worked very well<br \/> After all, Napoleon said that mankind can live without God, but not without religion.<br \/> chili is needed here, for many people, of course<br \/> we need someone to stand behind us and say: be calm, I&#39;ll tell you how things are, don&#39;t worry, I&#39;ll tell you<br \/> Things are like this: if you do this, then that will happen.<br \/> and so we live in peace<br \/> so when things are said that cause the end of this peace<br \/> people are rebelling<br \/> because they don&#39;t want the peace to end, they want to stay in that control system<br \/> and that&#39;s something when someone adds to the good, so-called. awareness<br \/> fear of a free life, of thinking with your own head, of living in uncertainty, many people say: I don&#39;t want uncertainty<br \/> I want someone to tell me how things are.<br \/> and on the contrary, it is necessary to think with your own head, i.e. take all this nonsense that I&#39;m saying and make your own judgment about it<br \/> Then someone might say: it&#39;s a bunch of bullshit, ok, no problem.<br \/> especially when everyone achieves their own<br \/> certainties, and if his certainty gives him the opportunity for a good life, let him live according to it<br \/> There are people who tell me<br \/> &#8230;they write to me<br \/> I&#39;m talking to Dad and&#8230; listen, how old is your father? Eighty&#8230; let him live in peace.<br \/> in your eighties, destroying someone&#39;s life with the idea that the Bible is probably not&#8230;<br \/> If he lives happily in his faith, then let him live and die happy in his faith.<br \/> if he dies with the thought that he will go to paradise&#8230;<br \/> You want to take away his idea, are you crazy?<br \/> What&#39;s the point? Let him live in peace!<br \/> For the same reason, I don&#39;t offer any conferences, I don&#39;t have the profession of a preacher.<br \/> I do conferences, the organizers know it because they call me.<br \/> When they stop calling me, I&#39;ll quit tomorrow morning and go back to riding my bike, like I used to.<br \/> before this turned my life upside down<br \/> So&#8230; thank you.<br \/> So, is there anyone here who wants to listen to this nonsense? Call me and I&#39;ll tell them.<br \/> &#8230;I also write on Facebook only on my wall and for my group<br \/> If you don&#39;t want to listen to my things&#8230; sorry, I mean &quot;you&quot; in general&#8230;<br \/> You just need to not visit my group&#39;s wall, period.<br \/> but then everyone comes to me and writes to me that I am&#8230;<br \/> but I don&#39;t go to the believers&#39; bulletin boards to annoy them about what you believe&#8230; no, no, no<br \/> I&#39;m writing at my place, do you want to listen to me? Then come to my place&#8230;<br \/> You don&#39;t want to listen to me? Then don&#39;t go, what&#39;s the problem with that?<br \/> What&#39;s the problem with that?<br \/> I tell my things to whoever wants to listen to them.<br \/> &#8230;don&#39;t you want to listen to them? &#8230;everyone should drink the coffee they want<br \/> Who cares? Am I supposed to proselytize?<br \/> No, I did these things out of curiosity.<br \/> They told me to tell them, so I&#39;m telling them, period. Done.<br \/> You don&#39;t like it? Don&#39;t come to my house, don&#39;t come to my conferences, what&#39;s the problem with that?<br \/> space for another question<br \/> Hello, when you were talking about age<br \/> I would like to hear something about the psalm that says that even God dies.<br \/> Yes, Psalm 82<br \/> so we said, the problem with the Elohim is \/\/their plurality\/\/<br \/> So, we were saying, the plural expressing majesty, respect, abstractness, etc., etc.<br \/> Then someone says, when the verb is in the plural, it&#39;s pagan deities&#8230; all possible and imaginable explanations are invented.<br \/> and it is said: no, elohim is the plural of abstraction, so elohim always means an individual<br \/> So&#8230; have a nice evening, thank you&#8230; so<br \/> we saw that<br \/> since there are at least 3, Elohim by the name of Yahweh<br \/> so one plural abstraction, which is called Yahweh<br \/> one plural abstraction, which is called Milkom&#8230; one plural abstraction, which is called Kemosh<br \/> three individual plurals of abstraction, for us uneducated people, is three a singular or a plural, for us uneducated people, let&#39;s leave the educated aside<br \/> it&#39;s plural<br \/> Psalm 82 speaks of an assembly of elohim and says that one of them presides over that assembly.<br \/> and it is said that he is angry<br \/> angry at the Elohim because they are not ruling as they should<br \/> So if Elohim means God, we have to say that God is gathering with himself.<br \/> and he is angry with himself for not ruling as he should<br \/> so even those monotheistic theologians and exegetes who put not slices, but whole legs of Parma ham on their eyes<br \/> they cannot fail to see that elohim is plural<br \/> denoting a plurality of persons, and there precisely<br \/> the chairman of that assembly speaks to his own<br \/> and he says, yes, it&#39;s true&#8230; he lists a whole series of transgressions<br \/> and then he says, yes, it&#39;s true, for God&#39;s sake, you are elohim, but you will die like all adamim<br \/> Remember it, like don&#39;t think God more what<br \/> So God dies like all of Adam.<br \/> If it&#39;s God, which it obviously isn&#39;t, then it&#39;s clear they will die.<br \/> And do you know what the wise say? That Elohim means &quot;judges&quot; there.<br \/> So, I repeat, let&#39;s take Tex Willer, I read it as a child, when Tex Willer fought against Mephisto, that&#39;s the shaman&#8230;<br \/> we will make a fight between good and evil and construct what we want, just apply the same interpretative categories<br \/> when he says something, he means something else, and we create what we want<br \/> So, the plural of abstraction.<br \/> it represents the singular, when it is the plural, they are pagan deities<br \/> even the pagan deities cannot be there, so they will be judges&#8230;<br \/> If only you had a little honor&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;but who were the Anunnaki? And what was their role?<br \/> Anunnaki&#8230; so Elohim&#8230;<br \/> they were colonizers, rulers, and they behaved just like all ordinary colonizers and rulers do<br \/> in the Vedic scriptures<br \/> it is said that the universe is inhabited by 400,000 species of humanoids<br \/> many of whom have also come here<br \/> By the way, when we were talking about the Nephilim<br \/> in one of these stories&#8230; or just one of the possible places of origin of those<br \/> the star mass in Sanskrit is called Mrigashiras<br \/> which means the head of an antelope, which is located<br \/> let&#39;s say in the area of Betelgeuse, which is the right arm of Orion<br \/> No? The stars there are Betelgeuse, Bellatrix, Rigel, Saiph, Alnilak, Alnilam, Mintaka.<br \/> three stars of Orion&#39;s Belt<br \/> Bet-el, by the way, means &quot;the house of El&quot; in Hebrew.<br \/> Mrigashira is the head of an antelope, because Orion was a giant hunter from Boeotia.<br \/> he returns from hunting with a dead antelope on his shoulder, so it hangs there<br \/> So there is another indication that some of them certainly came from that area of the sky, which we call the constellation Orion.<br \/> here<br \/> I appreciate the restraint with which&#8230; I&#39;ll use the informal &#39;you&#39; with you, sorry.<br \/> you are limiting yourself to describing what is in the Bible<br \/> I would like to touch on the present a little.<br \/> in connection with what Luca said<br \/> and we know that the internet presents us with a whole market of possibilities<br \/> where is everything&#8230; lately, in recent years, there has been talk of the Illuminati, Freemasonry, etc.<br \/> and videos are even available on YouTube<br \/> explaining what happened in 2001 with the Twin Towers<br \/> not explanatory, but further confirming information that has been available for years<br \/> that even in cinematography, in some minor shots<br \/> like the movie The Matrix and others<br \/> it is clearly visible that the date was highlighted&#8230;<br \/> There is one, I don&#39;t know if he is a scientist or a researcher, he calls himself Felce Meltillo.<br \/> who presents interesting esoteric readings on YouTube<br \/> and he claims that in the Bible there is a key to reading what concerns the event with the Twin Towers&#8230;<br \/> So, a few years ago, the books of an American journalist named Michael Drosnin were published.<br \/> which takes over the studies of a professor of mathematics at the University of Jerusalem named Eliyahu Rips<br \/> who identified some code in Genesis<br \/> other people identified other codes<br \/> and the question I always ask myself is<br \/> If this mathematical code exists, which of the biblical codices should it be applied to?<br \/> because if it is true that there are 2000 variants between the Masoretic Pentateuch and the Samaritan Pentateuch<br \/> it is clear that if I apply it to one, it will not work with the other<br \/> The same applies to the Qumran scrolls.<br \/> For example, between the Book of Isaiah from Qumran and the Masoretic one, there are 300 variants in this book alone, including entire words.<br \/> so it is clear that the code can work on one codex and not on the other<br \/> in these visions that Eliyahu Rips had, the only one that seems<br \/> verified by the fact that it was perhaps recorded before the event, the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin<br \/> where it seems that before that event it was actually said that Rabin would be killed<br \/> all the others were drawn up retrospectively<br \/> e.g. the fall of a comet on Jupiter, etc.<br \/> For example, I&#39;m still waiting for them to kill Benjamin Netanyahu.<br \/> because his murder was predicted, but it did not happen within 1-2 years<br \/> So, I&#39;m always careful with these things.<br \/> I&#39;m always very careful, also because of how the Bible was formed.<br \/> Who inserted the code there? When she was working on it&#8230;<br \/> at least many tens of people<br \/> so I&#39;m always very careful&#8230; it&#39;s something else<br \/> Are there any other questions? Otherwise, I&#39;ll continue&#8230;<br \/> It&#39;s another thing that a certain cinematography<br \/> it gives us certain hints, that seems quite obvious to me<br \/> that over the decades, cinematography has given us, and not only cinematography, but also some literature<br \/> It gives us a whole range of information, they&#39;re shoving it under our noses.<br \/> but because these are movies, or maybe comics, everyone can choose whether to believe it or not<br \/> but we have them served<br \/> we saw that the singular of Elohim is El, we all remember that<br \/> Whoever read Nemo Kid, like me when I was little, it was the name of the current Superman.<br \/> he should know that Nembo Kid was invented by two Jews<br \/> and that Nembo Kid&#39;s original name, by the way, they&#39;ve now revived it, is Kal-El, which means &quot;fast and light el&quot;<br \/> His father&#39;s name is Jor-El, which means &quot;light el&quot; or &quot;el&#39;s light&quot;.<br \/> so if el was to mean god<br \/> it would mean that the Jews wanted to say it was a &quot;quick and easy god&quot;, but it doesn&#39;t mean god<br \/> It probably comes from the root &quot;ul&quot;, which means &quot;powerful&quot;.<br \/> So someone who is more powerful than a human, has more power, but it&#39;s el<br \/> and Nembo Kid was one el, for those two Jews<br \/> When you look at the first series of Star Trek, 30 years ago, it has all the technology we have today, all of it.<br \/> Everything is there.<br \/> chili they tell us these things decades in advance<br \/> So, at this moment, someone already has the technology that we will recognize in 30 or 40 years.<br \/> and it is a technology that is developing at a terrifying speed<br \/> in development and innovation, and this raises some suspicion<br \/> the fact that you are here<br \/> &#8230;that this book and the people associated with this book<br \/> it has a certain control, and we know what that control is<br \/> it leads us to think that there is a really big plan here<br \/> and a big plan<br \/> I don&#39;t know what time it is, I wanted to tell you something else about angels, but&#8230;<br \/> The Great Plan<br \/> or at least a suspicion of a grand plan<br \/> You know that the Shoah, history tells us that the Shoah killed 6 million Jews.<br \/> Nazism, we&#39;ve already talked about it today&#8230;<br \/> in 1915<br \/> No, I&#39;ll put it this way.<br \/> when Eve does the thing she shouldn&#39;t do, the chief of the Elohim says: I will put enmity between your race and the race of the serpent<br \/> chili among the Nacha race<br \/> When Eve had her first son, she said &quot;kaini ti&quot;, which means &quot;I have acquired a son&quot;.<br \/> &quot;and Yahweh&quot;, because they then put Yahweh everywhere, with many contradictions<br \/> in any case, &quot;et Jahve&quot; means &quot;with Yahweh&quot;<br \/> no &quot;thanks&quot;<br \/> but &quot;with&quot;, literally, so she probably ate the first fruit<br \/> with one of those there, and the first son was the fruit of one of those there<br \/> So another one, the boss, says, between the pure race, Adam&#39;s, which interests me<br \/> and I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers;<br \/> This phrase is taken from Hitler&#39;s Mein Kampf.<br \/> who says that there are two races here, one made in the image&#8230;<br \/> and one was the generation of the serpent, which, of course, must be exterminated<br \/> starting with&#8230; I won&#39;t read it all to you because it would take us a lot of time<br \/> since 1915, and in fact, I recently received an article dated 1906<br \/> the most important American daily newspapers<br \/> The Sun, New York Times, Atlanta Constitution and Gazzetta di Montreal<br \/> they have been saying continuously since 1906 that<br \/> 6 million Jews are to die in Europe<br \/> They keep saying 6, 6 million, 6 million.<br \/> and even, listen<br \/> September 8, 1919<br \/> Hitler was a corporal, a messenger in WWI.<br \/> The New York Times writes:<br \/> 6 million Jews in Ukraine and Poland received the message that they would be completely exterminated, 1919<br \/> So from 1906 to 1945, there was someone here who knew that 6 million Jews simply had to die.<br \/> If I were a Jew, I would want to know the truth about this.<br \/> because it is not possible after 40 years<br \/> it was always written that it was 6 million. Jews are to die and at the end of World War II, 6 million Jews were dead<br \/> This is another thing that should be explained.<br \/> history must be rewritten from the first verses of Genesis to the present day<br \/> 30 minutes?<br \/> I wanted to ask about angels, malakhims.<br \/> because I think it is important to recognize the function, and perhaps even survival outside the Old Testament, in the New Testament as well<br \/> so the term malachim is translated into Greek as angeloi<br \/> because the meaning is the same, it means &quot;messengers&quot;, &quot;couriers&quot;<br \/> in the Bible, in the Old Testament, it is clear<br \/> and maybe even in the new one, that these individuals were made of flesh and blood<br \/> and they were also dangerous, because in several places it says: I met one of those and I&#39;m still alive<br \/> it was very pleasant to meet them&#8230; I repeat: do angels exist? I&#39;m not interested, I don&#39;t deal with that<br \/> Just don&#39;t let anyone tell me that these are the ones from the Bible, because there&#8230;<br \/> Biblical malichim were individuals of flesh and blood, probably a certain hierarchical degree<br \/> I don&#39;t know if they belonged to the same race or not, it&#39;s probable.<br \/> a hierarchical level slightly lower than the Elohim, something like officers and non-commissioned officers<br \/> By the way, they also had camps here, read Genesis 32:1<br \/> where it is said that Jacob will meet his father-in-law Laban&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;Laban felt that he had been deceived by Jacob several times<br \/> So they meet and are unable to fight, they agree.<br \/> they will straighten the stele, the milestone, and swear with words<br \/> we both swear that neither of us will cross this stone with hostile intentions against the other<br \/> and they say<br \/> to guarantee this oath<br \/> to guarantee this oath<br \/> Jacob enumerates the elohim of Abraham<br \/> Laban enumerates the elohim of Nahor<br \/> which were those who remained in Mesopotamia, which means<br \/> that this part of the family&#8230; for protection, we invoke our Elohim<br \/> Laban says: I invoke my elohim for protection<br \/> When they part, Jacob continues on his way and suddenly two malakhim come to meet him.<br \/> He will see them, he will immediately understand the situation, no one has to explain anything to him.<br \/> and says: this is the camp of the Elohim&#8230; and he takes the horn<br \/> and he will name the place, and you have it in your Bibles at home, because it is usually not translated<br \/> And why is it not translated? Because if it were translated, someone would ask: what does it mean?<br \/> He called the place Mahanaim, but Mahanaim means two camps.<br \/> So when in Italian you say: he called the place T\u00e1bor, someone will answer: so what?<br \/> It&#39;s God&#39;s camp, so that means God had a camp, he probably had one A there, because he was alone&#8230;<br \/> and he called the place Two Camps<br \/> exegete Rashi of Troyes, who is one of the most important exegetes in Jewish history<br \/> in the commentary of that verse, he says that Jacob saw the camps of two armies there<br \/> who guarded the borders, one line on one side and the other on the other, so they also had camps here<br \/> to protect the borders, and Jacob and Laban, the descendant of Nahor<br \/> what will they do? They will say: in confirmation of my oath, I invoke my Elohim, and Jacob says: I invoke mine.<br \/> and there were those two camps<br \/> The Malakhims were so dangerous.<br \/> that in one Dead Sea Scroll, in the treatise Berachot, or in the treatise on blessings<br \/> it is written that girls, young, with long hair<br \/> who attend the assemblies where the malakhim are present<br \/> she has to cover her head to protect herself from them<br \/> Tertullian, one of the Church Fathers, in De virginibus velandis&#8230; good evening, thank you, good evening<br \/> in De virginibus velandis he writes that young girls<br \/> participants in gatherings where so-called angels are present<br \/> they have to cover their heads so as not to sexually arouse those angels<br \/> Paul in 1 Corinthians says that women participating in the assembly<br \/> must have a covering on their head because of the angels<br \/> not out of respect for God<br \/> because they were dangerous, sexually aroused and&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;<br \/> So, here you are.<br \/> they were not a very happy meeting<br \/> An interesting thing, explaining this, and it&#39;s related to another characteristic of those gentlemen.<br \/> that those gentlemen wanted to smell the smoke there<br \/> a certain type of burnt fat, because the smoke calmed them down<br \/> because he was full of endorphins&#8230; and I&#39;ve already received a lot of scientific studies on this<br \/> which are sent to me spontaneously, without me requesting them<br \/> without me asking for them<br \/> I have it somewhere here.<br \/> It was somewhere here.<br \/> where they send me chemical formulas directly<br \/> the chemical formulas of endorphins present in those smokes that calmed the Elohim<br \/> because they probably had a more developed sense of smell than we do<br \/> we know that we secrete sex hormones, pheromones<br \/> one of the centers of pheromone production is the hair shaft<br \/> So long hair, when it moves in the air, releases billions of pheromone molecules.<br \/> so someone with an exceptionally developed sense of smell, just like a dog can smell a female in heat<br \/> they smell pheromones, they get sexually aroused, so it was better for girls with long hair to have their hair covered<br \/> I&#39;m actually unlucky because I don&#39;t emit pheromones.<br \/> So, please?<br \/> is related, and how, because Muslim women say they cover themselves for their protection, so as not to excite men<br \/> it originated from that<br \/> May I?<br \/> blah blah<br \/> I&#39;m sorry.<br \/> &#8230;the Bible says that the Jewish people were accompanied by a cloud during the exodus in the desert.<br \/> with a column<br \/> with a pillar&#8230; and fire by night<br \/> was accompanied by a column from which Yahweh watched over<br \/> the question of that column sometimes states<br \/> into error, because we imagine a column as something vertical<br \/> but a column is a cylinder, and no one says it was vertical<br \/> So, during the day it looked as if it was covered by a cloud.<br \/> At night, the energy it emitted was visible, so the fire was visible.<br \/> when we read the book of the prophet Zechariah<br \/> So he tells us that one day, when he was accompanied by a malach, or angel, who explained some things to him<br \/> and Zechariah sees a flying megillah approaching, &quot;megillah&quot; means scroll<br \/> flying cylinder<br \/> a, so the cylinder is actually a column<br \/> it was the means by which Yahweh watched over his own<br \/> and he gave them a sign, so<br \/> when the column moved, they broke camp and followed it<br \/> and where the column stopped, they set up camp again, as if to say, now we&#39;re going there, I&#39;ll go ahead of you<br \/> He moved there, stopped, and they made a camp there.<br \/> So the Megila was a flying cylinder, this one was 20 meters long \/-\/cubits\/-\/ and had a diameter of 10, that&#39;s what the Bible tells us.<br \/> Zacharias sees another interesting thing, right behind this flying cylinder, he saw a flying &quot;efah&quot;, this fortunately does not translate<br \/> because no one knows how to translate it, so no one is really translating it<br \/> because efa is also a unit of measurement for grain<br \/> but this must have been something bigger, because it is said that this one came closer<br \/> It had one hatch, the hatch opened and a woman was sitting inside.<br \/> So, the EFA will fly in, stop, the hatch will open, and there&#39;s a woman inside.<br \/> another woman will arrive, they will both fly away together<br \/> And Zacharias says to Malachi: Where are they taking it?<br \/> and the angel answers him with the words: they are taking it to the land of Shinar, which is Sumer for the Bible<br \/> where they are building a platform for it, on which it will be placed<br \/> on which it will be placed<br \/> It couldn&#39;t be clearer&#8230;<br \/> you need to close your eyes to&#8230;<br \/> close your eyes<br \/> Sorry, Mauro, I wanted to ask you.<br \/> when you were talking about the relationship between man and nature, that<br \/> man on Earth is like a stranger, he is not<br \/> adapted, right? You used this term.<br \/> I don&#39;t agree with this view.<br \/> I want to tell you this, okay, I&#39;ll tell you in short<br \/> Western civilization has evolved into this schism between man and nature.<br \/> but it is the only one, because when we look at other civilizations, at least in the past<br \/> that split wasn&#39;t that big, they didn&#39;t have Descartes, the Bible, right? that determined us a lot<br \/> So I&#39;ll give you an example, you&#39;ll know more about it.<br \/> In the Amazon rainforest, the natives still live in full and harmonious contact with nature.<br \/> and that&#39;s not to mention the Andes, the Aborigines, the desert Bedouins, etc.<br \/> How do you look at it after all these years of studying? That a person is completely unadapted.<br \/> anthropologically, in certain environments, such as &quot;ours&quot;, there is certainly an unadapted person<br \/> but not in all of them&#8230;<br \/> So, let&#39;s look at Papua New Guinea, where there are about 740, 750 tribes living at the Neolithic level.<br \/> if they didn&#39;t have what we call technological prostheses here<br \/> basic weapons that every native makes, so they wouldn&#39;t live<br \/> it&#39;s not just a question of advanced technology<br \/> They, the natives, and the Yanomami all have bows and arrows.<br \/> while the animal has claws and fangs when it goes hunting, we no longer have them<br \/> We need at least one knife, flint.<br \/> we have to make a spear with a flint tip<br \/> So, when we put everything together,<br \/> In any case, we have to protect ourselves from the weather.<br \/> We have to protect ourselves from the sun.<br \/> &#8230;so even the most primitive civilizations<br \/> If there were nothing but flint tips and cutting knives, he would have to make them, because otherwise&#8230;<br \/> A human has to cut to do something, an animal doesn&#39;t.<br \/> Okay? In this sense.<br \/> relationship&#8230; I&#39;m sorry<br \/> Is there any relationship between the smoke pleasing to the Elohim and Baal-Zevuv?<br \/> The Lord of the Flies&#8230; yes, because they required it here&#8230;<br \/> a certain type of meat, a certain type of fat<br \/> and the fat they wanted was this one, the translation of the Italian bishop&#39;s&#8230; good evening, thanks<br \/> translation of the Italian Bishops&#39; Conference<br \/> fat surrounding the viscera, everything above it, both kidneys with their fat<br \/> fat around the hips and around the liver lobe, which you cut off above the kidneys, that&#39;s what God says<br \/> So it gives precise butchering instructions, so I want that bacon there.<br \/> and it also says in Leviticus 7: if you catch someone using this fat, you will kill them, because the fat is mine<br \/> and he had 2 animals killed every day, all year round, so that he would have that smell in his home all day, day and night<br \/> so the fat had to keep burning there<br \/> one of the Sumerian-Akkadian tablets says, because they really liked meat here<br \/> it says there that<br \/> Enlil with his wife and one of his sons<br \/> they almost died from intoxication with spoiled meat<br \/> and so they issued, let&#39;s say, a kind of bulletin<br \/> with instructions on how to process meat<br \/> In that bulletin, it was repeated: cleaned meat, cleaner meat.<br \/> so the fact that they were very dependent on meat here<br \/> because they were constantly surrounded by meat and burnt fat<br \/> we can easily imagine that flies&#8230;<br \/> they simply multiplied, and how<br \/> Okay?<br \/> Mauro&#8230; what would you tell us about the Ark of the Covenant, what was this machine?<br \/> yes<br \/> with the ark of the covenant, sorry Mauro, that&#39;s a really nice question<br \/> We&#39;ll close this here, thank you.<br \/> So I won&#39;t tell you this anymore&#8230;<br \/> however<br \/> These are the studies that were sent to me by doctors on the topic of smoke.<br \/> I have already published something in my book, I will just read you the end.<br \/> The decision to roast only meat and only a certain type of fat, as the Bible tells us, has obvious scientific reasons.<br \/> all those chemical formulas, etc., etc. are here.<br \/> No, animal-like.<br \/> children, because children have&#8230; we are born with so-called surface fat<br \/> that&#39;s the fat on top<br \/> which, when burned, produces a lot of smoke, while the fat in the muscles tends to dissolve<br \/> This one doesn&#39;t melt, the surface fat smokes a lot, so from this point of view it&#39;s very productive.<br \/> I don&#39;t know if they used that smoke there&#8230; sure, but I don&#39;t know&#8230;<br \/> I really don&#39;t know.<br \/> the Ark of the Covenant&#8230; so the Ark of the Covenant<br \/> it was a tool that probably produced and certainly stored energy<br \/> It had a dual function, it was used as a weapon in battle.<br \/> although the Bible does not explain to us exactly how it was used as a weapon in battle<br \/> The Bible only tells us that it was used by trained personnel.<br \/> by appropriately trained personnel dressed in a certain way, they were practically inside a Faraday cage<br \/> by the way, priests, as we call them<br \/> who entered the innermost parts of Yahweh&#39;s dwelling, where certain things happened<br \/> they had to be&#8230;. that&#39;s really very interesting<br \/> they had only a shirt on their bodies, and then other clothes on top of it<br \/> this thing with the flax, that&#39;s another thing they&#39;re sending me<br \/> a number of materials&#8230; it just has a number of properties that protect against electricity<br \/> electrostatic energy, etc.<br \/> and what&#39;s interesting is that someone wrote that to me<br \/> that when linen is combined with wool, it loses its properties<br \/> Do you know what is written in the Bible, what Yahweh says?<br \/> Do not use with wool only.<br \/> Do not mix them.<br \/> It&#39;s unbelievable, unbelievable.<br \/> So, the Ark of the Covenant, when it was carried into battle, was probably so charged<br \/> that in one case it is written that the Israelite army had to march at a distance of 2000 cubits, or 1 kilometer<br \/> no one who was not authorized, properly trained, and protected was allowed to touch it unintentionally<br \/> because he received a fatal blow, but not that someone killed him, the ark killed him, he was not allowed to touch it<br \/> it had another function through two systems at the top<br \/> which the Bible calls cherubim, because the root KRV denotes that which covers<br \/> and these were on the cover, so they covered the ark<br \/> there was one on each side, each had two side elements, two panels<br \/> and the Bible tells us that when Moses spoke to Yahweh, he heard Yahweh&#39;s voice between those panels<br \/> when Yahweh was away<br \/> so it was a tool for remote communication, in the camp<br \/> when they were outside the camp, they used another instrument called an ephod<br \/> which was a kind of bib worn by the wearer of the ephod<br \/> and who wanted to&#8230; e.g. David, where there are at least 2 opportunities when he wanted to talk to Yahweh<br \/> He said to the one carrying the ephod: bring me the ephod<br \/> and only when he had the ephod near him could he speak with Yahweh, because when he did not have the ephod, he could not speak with Yahweh<br \/> efod&#8230; iPhone&#8230;<br \/> look at the drawing of the ephod, and look at the iPhone<br \/> Apple has a bitten apple as its symbol.<br \/> Wow.<br \/> considering the hour and the customs of the Piacenza residents<br \/> I believe, so to speak, also for protection<br \/> your lack of interest in the commercialization of yourself<br \/> that I must, that I must ask for applause at the end of this meeting&#8230;<br \/> So, with short hair, one can have some success.<br \/> &#8230;<br \/> So, an aperitif awaits you downstairs&#8230;<br \/> There are also books by Mauro, which he will surely be happy to sign for you.<br \/> don&#39;t overwhelm him with endless conversations&#8230;<br \/> I wanted to say one thing.<br \/> Director Franco Scepi is here with us, and I believe that starting today, he will begin working on a new film about the history of the Bible.<br \/> Thanks again to everyone&#8230; Emanuel Perotti&#8230; Spazio Tesla association&#8230; good evening everyone<\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Lecture_2016_Part_1\"><\/span> Lecture 2016 Part 1<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p> <a href=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/780XYrmnn8o\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/youtu.be\/780XYrmnn8o<\/a><\/p><p>BEYOND THE LIMITS OF MAN 1<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> Mauro Biglino<br \/> We&#39;ll give him the floor right away.<br \/> Good.<br \/> Good, thank you.<br \/> I always enjoy coming here, I really enjoy it.<br \/> Really, this is not captatio benevolentiae, I mean it sincerely.<br \/> Look, since we&#39;re running late,<br \/> I can fit it into 15 minutes, I&#39;ll tell you something.<br \/> we will make a general consideration<br \/> standing outside all questions related to translations, interpretations, polemics, exegesis, philology, etc.<br \/> a general consideration based on the fact that for months I&#39;ve been saying that I&#39;m doing the stupidest job in the world<br \/> and the fact that I am interpreting what is written<br \/> which might not be necessary to do, because it would be enough to read&#8230;<br \/> and everyone would understand that the Bible we have at home<br \/> but this general consideration is here<br \/> we are talking about&#8230; we all, some more and some less, grew up in this Western religion, Christianity<br \/> and if we think about it a little<br \/> Let&#39;s take a few facts, first of all<br \/> The root of this religion consists of the Old Testament, that root<br \/> because then, on this root, the stem of the new law is grafted<br \/> Then we will look at some interesting things about this chapter of the new law, today we will say a little about it.<br \/> so the root here is this set of books<br \/> about whom we know nothing<br \/> except for the fact that we have some written pieces<br \/> chili papyrus, parchment&#8230; codices&#8230;<br \/> We don&#39;t know who wrote them, we don&#39;t know when they were written.<br \/> We don&#39;t know how they were originally written, we don&#39;t know how they were originally read.<br \/> When I say we don&#39;t know how they were originally written, I&#39;m just reminding you of what Israeli biblical scholars say.<br \/> professors of Jewish universities, e.g. in Jerusalem<br \/> they say, they write, that the only certainty we have is<br \/> that the Bible we have today is not the one that was originally written<br \/> because every time they rewrote it, whether by dictation<br \/> or simply by copying it, they changed it<br \/> So this is the only certainty we have.<br \/> So, no one knows how it was originally written.<br \/> In the Old Testament, there is not a single sentence, not one, that we could say with absolute certainty was written by that particular person.<br \/> nor when it comes to books attributed to an author<br \/> not even in the case of the book of Isaiah<br \/> we cannot say that Isaiah wrote it, what&#39;s more, we know that Isaiah did not write it<br \/> We already know that.<br \/> but we also say that it was written by Isaiah, because it fits<br \/> but this is written even in Catholic encyclopedias<br \/> not in those intended for households<br \/> e.g. in one of the most important Catholic encyclopedias, published by the Library of Christian Doctrine (LDC)<br \/> on which only papal scholars work<br \/> so it is written by super-experts and used by them as well<br \/> it is written that chapters 1-39 of the book of Isaiah are attributed to him, because we have no serious reasons to deny it<br \/> not because we know that he wrote them<br \/> except for books 13-23, which we know he did not write<br \/> Chapters 40-55 were written by Deutero-Isaiah<br \/> which is a nice invention, in Greek deutero means second<br \/> So, the Second Isaiah, because we don&#39;t know what to call him.<br \/> The only certainty we have is that the second one was written 2 centuries after the first one.<br \/> the last chapters were written by Trito Isaiah, who wrote several decades after the second one<br \/> such is the book of Isaiah<br \/> in which there should even be some messianic prophecies<br \/> which should concern<br \/> or it should refer, I say &quot;should&quot; because it is not true<br \/> referring to Jesus, but that&#39;s not true, ask the Jews if they refer to Jesus, ask them<br \/> they will immediately tell you: no<br \/> So, this is the root.<br \/> e.g. the first 5 books, i.e. the Pentateuch<br \/> is traditionally attributed to Moses<br \/> but everyone knows that Moses did not write them<br \/> if only because the Hebrew language did not exist in Moses&#39; time<br \/> so he couldn&#39;t have written the books<br \/> Furthermore, they contain things that Moses certainly could not have written.<br \/> thirdly, because it is known that the book of Deuteronomy<br \/> maybe even Leviticus, but Deuteronomy, which is one of the first 5 books<br \/> was written by the priests of the Israelite kingdom after the Assyrians entered their kingdom and they fled<br \/> to the Kingdom of Judah, let&#39;s say at the time of the so-called religious reform of King Josiah, that&#39;s around 620 BC<br \/> They wrote the book of Deuteronomy.<br \/> then they faked that they found it in the walls of the temple, so they could tell the people: this is the book that Moses wrote<br \/> So, deceiving the people is not the exclusive property of the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, it has already begun&#8230;<br \/> many centuries earlier, by priestly castes<br \/> tradition, however, continues to say that the Pentateuch was written by Moses<br \/> So we don&#39;t know anything, and that&#39;s the root of the problem.<br \/> about which we say something without knowing anything<br \/> that he was inspired by God and that often, when one thing is written there, he wanted to say another<br \/> and that is the root<br \/> then there are representatives, supporters, officials, advocates<br \/> religious thinking, which was constructed on the basis of those texts<br \/> Chilean church<br \/> over the course of 2000 years, to put it simply<br \/> we have popes, cardinals, bishops, theologians, priests, catechists<br \/> who preach truths<br \/> which should be based on that book<br \/> without knowing the language in which it was written<br \/> and so they tell us based on translations<br \/> translations that have been constantly changing over the centuries<br \/> which are still changing, and which will continue to change<br \/> Now I will tell you a few words that will finally disappear from the Bible.<br \/> finally disappear, so<br \/> We don&#39;t know anything about the root.<br \/> those who preach it do not know the language in which it was written<br \/> then they say, well, but there is a Bible written in Greek, so at least this, priests in the seminary study Greek, yes<br \/> when I held a meeting in Milan on March 6 with Catholic, Jewish, Protestant and Orthodox theologians<br \/> Chief Rabbi, representative of Jewish culture, head of the Jewish community in Turin<br \/> he said that the Bible written in Greek, i.e. the famous Bible of the Seventy<br \/> they consider it a disaster for mankind<br \/> However, all of Orthodox Christianity is based on that Bible, which, according to the Jews, is a disaster for mankind.<br \/> Do you understand?<br \/> thirdly<br \/> There are about 1 billion and 200\/300 million believers in the world.<br \/> if I really squint my eyes<br \/> 1 billion and one hundred million believers blindly believe<br \/> to what is to be written in the book, which they themselves have never read<br \/> Is it true? Or is it not?<br \/> So, we don&#39;t know anything about the book.<br \/> those who talk about it do not know the language in which it was written<br \/> Those who believe it have never read it.<br \/> So, if we look at it from the outside,<br \/> Should we say or not say that it&#39;s madness?<br \/> if it were instead of the largest organization in the world<br \/> It was a sect of 150 people, with one guru who says these things.<br \/> that guru would already be on trial for abusing human trust and would have been deprived of his legal capacity<br \/> but it is the largest organization in the world<br \/> and that&#39;s how we maintain it<br \/> but<br \/> A while ago, I was listening here about the distinction between conscience and awareness, etc.<br \/> I don&#39;t reach that level of conscience, sorry, I don&#39;t reach that level of awareness, but at least let&#39;s be aware of what it&#39;s about.<br \/> because it&#39;s about this<br \/> You understand? That&#39;s the reality.<br \/> and that has nothing to do with translations&#8230; we can discuss for decades<br \/> about each individual term, we can, after all, it&#39;s fun<br \/> but the essence is here<br \/> regardless of the meaning of the individual terms<br \/> and this is what we need to think about first and foremost<br \/> because otherwise we are really moving forward<br \/> and we act as if it were here<br \/> orthopedic surgeons&#39; consultation<br \/> who have an X-ray of their hand in front of them<br \/> where there is a hint of something on the bone of the finger joint<br \/> and they are discussing whether the hint is a real fracture or just a crack&#8230;<br \/> but they forget that the article belongs to a hand, the hand to an arm, the arm to a body, which was run over by a truck<br \/> Then let&#39;s talk about the mark on the fingertip, why not?<br \/> but let&#39;s not forget that it belongs to the body that was run over by a truck<br \/> such is the reality of the facts<br \/> on March 6, after two years of effort, not mine, because I did nothing<br \/> the efforts of the Uno Editori publishing house to organize this meeting<br \/> And why two years? Because the meeting was supposed to be with those who have weight.<br \/> chili meetings must be with those who know<br \/> The meeting must be with those who are officially recognized representatives of the individual schools of thought based on that book.<br \/> not with those who call themselves exegetes<br \/> but they are not recognized by anyone, they have no publications<br \/> maybe they are really good, but you can&#39;t invite them<br \/> and so it wasn&#39;t easy<br \/> to find exponents&#8230; I can tell you that the first person invited was Monsignor Ravasi, the Minister of Culture of the Vatican<br \/> but he was busy, we couldn&#39;t find a date that would suit him, so we went down a notch&#8230;<br \/> Professor of Theology at the Faculty of Theology of the University of the North<br \/> Orthodox Archbishop, Chief Rabbi<br \/> and as for the Protestant environment, one of the foremost Italian biblical scholars, i.e. one who signs dictionaries<br \/> publishes and signs dictionaries of Biblical Aramaic and Hebrew, so he is really top-notch<br \/> Okay? And why?<br \/> I repeat, because it is necessary to talk to those who know.<br \/> because otherwise you talk to those who parrot catechesis, which is useless, absolutely useless<br \/> the whole meeting, it&#39;s already done, it&#39;s done in the sense of the transcript<br \/> will be provided free of charge to all who want it<br \/> the entire transcribed text<br \/> word for word, including pauses, including the recording of applause, everything<br \/> so that everyone can verify what came out of it<br \/> I have to tell you that if, before, before the meeting<br \/> they asked me what I expected<br \/> I would really, in a moment of great optimism,<br \/> he said 30% of what came out of it, and I would be satisfied with that<br \/> I honestly tell you that at one point I asked myself what I was actually doing there.<br \/> They said everything.<br \/> And now we&#39;ll look at some fundamental things, but really fundamental.<br \/> with regard to what I said a moment ago, regarding the root and the New Testament stem<br \/> because in these years a lot of people tell me, ok<br \/> we somehow understood what the Old Testament is about<br \/> But the new one?<br \/> If one has truly understood what the Old Testament is, then one must say: therefore, the New Testament as well.<br \/> ne: but the new one? so the new one too<br \/> because that is the case, because the new one exists<br \/> if the old one is what they told us<br \/> if the Old Testament is not what they told us<br \/> the new one melts like snow in the sun<br \/> This is something that needs to be realized.<br \/> I&#39;m not saying that Jesus never existed, for God&#39;s sake.<br \/> it can be safely admitted that the historical figure of this<br \/> The Judean messianic rabbi existed, but what they built on him is melting like snow in the sun.<br \/> if the Old Testament is not what they told us<br \/> Let&#39;s take a few phrases&#8230; and how is it here today? Will there be any more speaking in the afternoon?<br \/> Okay, I don&#39;t know.<br \/> I am told: speak, and I speak, then I am told: stop, and I stop, and that&#39;s it.<br \/> and so<br \/> we will look at these things with regard to time, your questions, etc.<br \/> At the beginning of the meeting, there were 4 questions the same for everyone, 5 minutes for each to answer.<br \/> I will not read your answers here, you will find them in the transcript.<br \/> certainties about God, the first question was: what certainties do we have about God?<br \/> Jew, Ariel Di Porto:<br \/> it is not possible, at least in certain aspects<br \/> to speak of any evidence concerning our knowledge of God, i.e. to believe in God, is a certain axiom<br \/> If you want to: believe&#8230; If you don&#39;t want to&#8230;<br \/> Valdesian biblical scholar:<br \/> I cannot prove what a certain source of knowledge is, I cannot prove it.<br \/> But if you want, here is the trust that God&#39;s voice has truly been heard in those scriptures.<br \/> my fundamentalist cousins, that&#39;s talking about Catholics<br \/> those who believe they are doing God a service by deifying the scriptures are practicing idolatry of paper<br \/> When I wrote the book The Bible Is Not a Holy Book, they came after me.<br \/> He says: whoever deifies these scriptures, commits idolatry of paper.. that is absolutely evident<br \/> but here, only those who know can say it out loud<br \/> because when you meet&#8230;<br \/> I will use the term they use themselves: with sheep<br \/> they perform idolatry of paper and do not know that those above them say these things<br \/> That&#39;s why I had to meet with those gentlemen.<br \/> Professor of Theology, Priest:<br \/> I would like to say, somewhat bluntly, that it is necessary to remove the certainty about God.<br \/> because if we had certainty about God, God would not exist<br \/> Shall we go to eat?<br \/> What should I say, I&#39;ll sign it, right?<br \/> I&#39;ll sign, I&#39;ll sign everything.<br \/> The second question was<br \/> I am synthesizing&#8230;<br \/> Second question: so should the Bible be read literally or allegorically-metaphorically?<br \/> because it has been thrown in my face since 2010<br \/> You are so uneducated, Biglino, and that&#39;s the truth, I&#39;m learning.<br \/> You are so uneducated that you don&#39;t even know that the Bible needs to be read metaphorically-allegorically, ok, fine.<br \/> The first verse of Genesis, in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.<br \/> it doesn&#39;t mean that here, but we&#39;ll pretend it does<br \/> It&#39;s clear that it&#39;s an allegory, isn&#39;t it?<br \/> those people who didn&#39;t know how&#8230; we don&#39;t know either, but&#8230;<br \/> they didn&#39;t know how the universe came into being, so they created an allegory of someone who created it<br \/> No, no, that&#39;s literal&#8230; how so?<br \/> So how is it? Explain it to me, give me the rule.<br \/> Tell me, so that I understand, how to distinguish between verses and passages that are to be read literally and those that are to be read metaphorically, and how to do it.<br \/> and that rule does not exist<br \/> because the selection is made with individual verses, if the verse is liked, it is literal, if it is not liked, it is allegorical<br \/> but that&#39;s the reality<br \/> Such is the reality.<br \/> of that madness, which I told you about in the first 8 minutes<br \/> So, the first verse is, of course,<br \/> literal, because God had to create, surely<br \/> now we will see that it is not possible<br \/> Ariel Di Porto, Chief Rabbi:<br \/> The first verse of Genesis is very problematic.<br \/> because when you read his interpretation, you will find that everything contradicts itself<br \/> Instructions for reading passages in an allegorical way come from the rabbinic tradition.<br \/> some rabbi will say, this one is so&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;this is a great wealth of Jewish culture, so it&#39;s not a joke, it&#39;s not sarcasm, one proverb says: 2 Jews 3 opinions<br \/> and that is a great wealth, because it means that they are not closed in dogmatism<br \/> and when you read the Talmud, it says: when you meet a teacher who tells you one thing<br \/> and then you go to the second one, who will tell you something different, so go to the third one, so that he tells you something else<br \/> This is a cultural asset because it is freedom from dogma.<br \/> so naturally, every rabbi will say: this is literal, this is allegorical<br \/> Valdesian biblical scholar:<br \/> So here I have no doubt.<br \/> the Bible is not to be read allegorically, if we understand allegory in the technical sense, as it is used in the tradition of the church<br \/> Isn&#39;t that what I&#39;ve been saying since 2010?<br \/> The allegory is thus destroyed, the Bible is to be read for what is written.<br \/> Since 2010, I&#39;ve been saying, &quot;Let&#39;s pretend&quot; that when those gentlemen wanted to say something, they wanted to say it.<br \/> I at least say let&#39;s do it like<br \/> because I have no certainty, no truth<br \/> The authors of the Bible, for example, wanted to metaphorize things that were not metaphorical before, ok<br \/> I can sign it all the time<br \/> I can sign it.<br \/> when talking about translations<br \/> if anyone here has a Bible and can turn to Genesis 17<br \/> I hope I&#39;ll have it here, because at the last conferences<br \/> I had some notes, but another part of them disappeared.<br \/> This time I came out better, because before they stole them all from me, so&#8230;<br \/> Genesis 17: Abraham was 99 years old when the Lord, when Yahweh appeared to him and said: I am the almighty God<br \/> when you take the Jerusalem Bible<br \/> which is the Bible of the Dominican exegesis of the \u00c9cole Biblique de J\u00e9rusalem<br \/> there is one note that is not in regular Bibles, like in this Bible of the Christian Family<br \/> there is a note on the word &quot;almighty&quot;<br \/> take the 2013 edition, which is full of interesting notes<br \/> and it says there that the translation &quot;almighty&quot; is inaccurate<br \/> because Shaddai does not mean almighty, in the best hypothesis it means &quot;Lord of the Steppe&quot;<br \/> So<br \/> The word almighty is in the Bible 91 times.<br \/> every time it is in the Old Testament, in Hebrew it is shaddai<br \/> which all scholars know does not mean omnipotent<br \/> Everyone knows it.<br \/> How is it translated in the Bibles? Always as Almighty.<br \/> Why? Because theologians have determined that the Bible must speak of God.<br \/> and God cannot but be omnipotent, so he has to put it somewhere<br \/> but here, in Hebrew, the Almighty is not called<br \/> and they know that the Almighty is not written there<br \/> But if they know that, why do they keep writing it there?<br \/> if they know it and still write it there<br \/> so they don&#39;t publish one possible interpretation<br \/> they publish arbitrary fake news<br \/> which is different from the question of possible interpretations<br \/> because the omnipotent is not among the possible interpretations<br \/> Another interpretation is the Lord of the Mountain.<br \/> either the Lord of the mountain, according to the Babylonian &quot;\u0161addu&quot;<br \/> or the Lord of the Steppes<br \/> which is more likely based on reading the Bible, because the steppe region was entrusted to Him<br \/> You understand? So in all cases we have it translated as almighty, but we know that this is a wrong translation.<br \/> If it is wrong, let&#39;s remove it.<br \/> I say it more and more at conferences, because it has to be removed<br \/> as we are not sure, let them not translate it, let them write El Shaddai, then let everyone interpret it as they wish<br \/> Okay? It could also mean Piripacchio.<br \/> with &quot;r&quot;, I won&#39;t say it out of respect for my friends here&#8230;<br \/> who explained to me that I don&#39;t distinguish well between &quot;r&quot; and &quot;l&quot;<br \/> They are old friends who are laughing there.<br \/> So, let them put El Shaddai there.<br \/> but don&#39;t translate it as omnipotent, because that&#39;s wrong, it&#39;s not there<br \/> &#8230;when the Orthodox archbishop speaks, he says: but I think that we all agree with what Mauro says<br \/> that in many cases it is necessary to overlook biblical texts, to overlook the text, where the meaning of the word is often lost<br \/> as in the case of the term almighty, which has nothing to do with the original<br \/> Valdesian biblical scholar:<br \/> Sure, I sometimes notice that there is a bit too much Christian preconception in the choice of terms for some passages.<br \/> there is a bit too much Christian preconception there<br \/> that&#39;s a very elegant way of saying: we&#39;re putting incorrect translations in there<br \/> we are stating the obvious when we say that many mistakes need to be corrected<br \/> in our translations&#8230; but if we&#39;re stating the obvious<br \/> How much does it cost to call the editor and say: the Almighty does not belong there<br \/> if the doors are open and broken<br \/> We should no longer read about the Almighty in the Bible.<br \/> we don&#39;t have to read it there anymore<br \/> I understand that if the Lord of the Steppe is put there, some believer may have a problem with it, because they will say, &quot;My God.&quot;<br \/> But if this is what it means, gentlemen, and we want to translate it, then let&#39;s put this here, or let&#39;s not translate it at all, period.<br \/> but that&#39;s not all, but that&#39;s not all<br \/> We&#39;ll do it this way.<br \/> Dr. Daniele Garrone, who is one of the editors<br \/> the dictionary of biblical Aramaic and Hebrew of the British Bible Society, which was sitting there to my left<br \/> Shaddai is left there<br \/> sat to my left, the biblical scholar whom I quote<br \/> So in Hebrew.<br \/> &#8230;in the Bible, you still find the term &quot;eternity&quot;&#8230;<br \/> because the Bible speaks of God<br \/> God is eternal, therefore eternity&#8230; just like with the omnipotent, eternity must be there.<br \/> So the term that means, which is translated as eternity, is this one.<br \/> Can you read this? What is written here under the term Olam?<br \/> do not translate as &quot;eternity&quot;<br \/> So, in dictionaries it is written<br \/> &#8230;this is the dictionary of the British Bible Society<br \/> do not translate as eternity, because it does not mean eternity<br \/> Okay? And how do you find it translated? Always like an eternity.<br \/> The Italian edition is from 2001.<br \/> the French one is from 1991, the English one is of course even older<br \/> So<br \/> from 1991 \/-\/2001\/-\/ the Italian edition states that olam should not be translated as eternity<br \/> so from 1991 \/-\/2001\/-\/ to 2016, that is 15 years, it is still translated as eternity, when it is known that it is not eternity<br \/> Excuse me?<br \/> I&#39;m not a born mathematician, thanks.<br \/> 25 \/-\/15\/-\/ they translate it as eternity<br \/> even though they know, because it is written in the dictionary, that it should not be translated as eternity<br \/> and when we were talking about it here, Dr. Garrone said: I&#39;m surprised that Biglino is surprised by it<br \/> says: because<br \/> all dictionaries, all major dictionaries mention this, including theological dictionaries<br \/> and I told him: Doctor Garrone, I am surprised for two reasons<br \/> 1) because for the first time I see written in the dictionary: do not translate it like this<br \/> 2) because despite that, you still translate it that way<br \/> So let&#39;s stop, basta.<br \/> Do we know that it doesn&#39;t mean eternity? Let&#39;s remove the word eternity from the Bible, let&#39;s remove it, because it&#39;s not there.<br \/> We know that it doesn&#39;t mean omnipotent? Let&#39;s remove the word omnipotent from the Bible, because it&#39;s not there.<br \/> What are we waiting for?<br \/> There is a long interview on YouTube that a journalist from Rome, who came to Turin, did with me.<br \/> and before that he was with the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni, with whom he did an interview about me<br \/> and in a conversation with me, he also mentioned some passages&#8230;<br \/> where it is said, but we have always known the things I am saying here<br \/> when the topic of eternity came up, when he was asked, he said: it&#39;s here, there, that one, i.e. Biglino<br \/> who says it doesn&#39;t mean eternity, and the answer isn&#39;t even transcribed there, you can see in the video how he says: and who says it&#39;s eternity?<br \/> How?<br \/> But if we all know that it doesn&#39;t mean eternity, should we remove it from the Bible? If it&#39;s not there?<br \/> and not only eternity is not there<br \/> because here it is, of course, part of a whole range of concepts related to what we call metaphysics, right?<br \/> and when a Catholic theologian speaks, he says, for example, that in the Semitic world and culture<br \/> there are no philosophical metaphysical concepts<br \/> there is no concept of eternity there<br \/> nor immortality<br \/> and the concept of creation from nothing is something that is completely outside the Semitic mentality<br \/> creation from nothing is not there<br \/> So, when there is no omnipotent, when we have no certainty about God<br \/> In the Bible, there is no omnipotence, in the Bible, there is no eternity, in the Bible, there is no immortality, in the Bible, there is no creation from nothing, so what are we talking about?<br \/> about the madness I was talking about in the first 8 minutes<br \/> chili is here something that was built on that book, as if that book had never been written<br \/> because they read what they want in it<br \/> and we have documented that they read what they want in it<br \/> because when you talk to those who know, and they talk<br \/> in peace, without arguments&#8230; and actually, after that meeting, many people wrote to me<br \/> that they were actually disappointed because they expected us to fight to the death<br \/> which is the stupidest thing in the world, because in tears and blood no one gets anything, people just argue and compete<br \/> but when people talk calmly and everyone says their piece<br \/> but when everyone says their piece, we&#39;ll understand everything<br \/> when talking to those who know<br \/> when you talk to those who are below, who parrot catechesis, there is really no dialogue<br \/> that&#39;s why the meeting was being prepared for 2 years, and during those 2 years I was getting:<br \/> Biglino doesn&#39;t want any meetings, Biglino is afraid of meetings, Biglino avoids meetings<br \/> No, Biglino wanted a meeting with the representatives.<br \/> because if we invited someone else, they would say: who did you invite there? these guys&#8230;<br \/> Nobody knows&#8230;. No, they are recognized here, and how<br \/> We need to talk to these people here.<br \/> so all these things are not there<br \/> and one of the elements, or indeed the most important element, on which all Christianity is based<br \/> is that we are structurally born sinners<br \/> we are born tainted by original sin<br \/> Thanks to this, there must be some structure here, which through rituals<br \/> and through his mediation, he will reconcile us with the supreme leader<br \/> because otherwise we are condemned to eternal death<br \/> It is called &quot;eternal&quot;.<br \/> so there was a question about original sin<br \/> Chief Rabbi:<br \/> I have a bit of a problem talking about it&#8230; because for Jews, original sin doesn&#39;t exist, because it&#39;s not in the Bible.<br \/> I have a bit of a problem talking about it because I don&#39;t want to hurt the feelings of others.<br \/> There was a Protestant, a Catholic, an Orthodox Christian&#8230;<br \/> as for the burden of original sin on humanity, in the Jewish tradition<br \/> it is a much weaker burden than what we find among Catholics&#8230; it&#39;s simply not there<br \/> and the others actually overtook him in the bend<br \/> Listen to what the Valdese Bible scholar says:<br \/> So, original sin is a concept that Paul created, he started to invent it.<br \/> and then, so to speak, codified it<br \/> Augustine, Saint Augustine<br \/> I will not comment on Augustine of Hippo.<br \/> So it was Paul who began to elaborate on this concept in the letter to the Romans.<br \/> Valdesian biblical scholar, the one who signs those dictionaries:<br \/> So, between Genesis 3&#8230; that is, the sin committed by Adam and Eve<br \/> and Romans 5<br \/> where the Apostle Paul says that death entered the world through man<br \/> no connection<br \/> In fact, when we read Paul, we may ask ourselves where he got that idea?<br \/> So Christianity exists on the fact that we are sinners, that we must be reconciled, etc.<br \/> and he says: we can ask ourselves where Paul got that idea?<br \/> when you read&#8230;<br \/> I might have it here, I have some left.<br \/> still in the Jerusalem Bible, in the note to Genesis 3<br \/> it is written&#8230; you know how Adam and Eve are expelled&#8230;<br \/> This is not about punishing a person for a sin committed, but about a preventive measure&#8230;<br \/> and that&#39;s clear, read the bible&#8230; read it<br \/> The Elohim will drive them out because they are afraid of the power they were beginning to gain.<br \/> But that&#39;s clear, there is no punishment for any guilt there.<br \/> as if you said: now it would be better if we sent them away, because these people can become very dangerous for us<br \/> So, watch out.<br \/> preventive measures<br \/> it is not necessary to look for everything that was read there later<br \/> whether it is a recapitulating reading of the Bible, as Paul did in the letter to the Romans<br \/> or about the dogmatic formulations of the church<br \/> you don&#39;t have to look for them there&#8230; because they are not there<br \/> because these are fabrications of the church<br \/> but it&#39;s written here<br \/> it is written<br \/> and he says: but where did Pavel find that idea?<br \/> and a Catholic theologian:<br \/> I would separate that concept from the clan concept of sin.<br \/> meaning that if the parents sinned, the children bear the consequences<br \/> something like that is widely denied in the new law<br \/> although, unfortunately, it was widely used in theology<br \/> What was I doing there?<br \/> but this happened again two weeks ago, at a conference<br \/> I arrived there by car, half an hour in advance&#8230; hey&#8230;<br \/> There will be a priest at your conference who has some comments.<br \/> so you&#39;ll have 15 minutes&#8230; I say ok, that&#39;s all right<br \/> and the priest, when I spoke, said: he&#39;s stating the obvious<br \/> Someone from the audience got up, I swear, you can see it on the recording.<br \/> Excuse me, I&#39;m starting to get a little frustrated because every time Biglino meets one of you<br \/> you&#39;re just saying that Biglino is stating the obvious<br \/> So how is it?<br \/> So the original sin is not there.<br \/> They say it everywhere.<br \/> On the contrary, those who advocate catechesis say: we are sinners, so every morning 3x Pater, 3x Ave, 3x Gloria<br \/> because we are born with a stain on our soul<br \/> 1854<br \/> Pius IX.<br \/> declared the Marian dogma of the Immaculate Conception<br \/> For many Christians, this means that the Madonna conceived Jesus without that thing which is sexual intercourse.<br \/> Okay? No, the Immaculate Conception means that the Madonna is the only human being in the entire human history.<br \/> who was born without the stain of original sin<br \/> But what if there is no original sin?<br \/> that dogma dogmatizes untruth<br \/> or, in the best hypothesis, dogmatizes nothing<br \/> because we are all born immaculate<br \/> 1858<br \/> Bernadette Soubirous begins to see the one she calls Aquer\u00f2 in the Pyrenean dialect.<br \/> which means Tam ta, because she never called her Madonna, she only became Madonna when the church took over everything<br \/> He calls her Aquer\u00f2.<br \/> and 4 years after the declaration of the false Marian dogma, Aquer\u00f2 says, what a coincidence, I am the Immaculate Conception<br \/> But did that Madonna know what she was talking about? Or was it not a Madonna?<br \/> and they made her say something she never said<br \/> if there is no original sin, this dogma dogmatizes nothing<br \/> Madonna confirmed nothing, so everything needs to be rewritten.<br \/> nothing can be done about it, they have to resign<br \/> they have to resign, because that&#39;s how it is&#8230;<br \/> How much do we have left? So I know if I should start something else.<br \/> So<br \/> Tell me, you who are in charge here, I&#39;ll click my heels.<br \/> ok<br \/> So, as for&#8230;<br \/> if in the Old Testament there is no God the Father, about whom we have no certainty, what then, when we read the Old Testament, we have one certainty<br \/> that, fortunately, there is no God there, there is That One<br \/> Then, whether God exists is a problem that each of you must resolve through your faith and your conscience.<br \/> Don&#39;t ask me about it, because I don&#39;t know.<br \/> I don&#39;t even have the certainty of atheists, I have no certainty&#8230; and actually, there are a lot of atheists among my enemies.<br \/> because in many ways they are as dogmatic as the fideists<br \/> So go to someone who knows, I don&#39;t know how things are.<br \/> I do a stupid job, I&#39;m just telling you what&#39;s written, that&#39;s the job of the biggest idiot in the world.<br \/> but if God the Father is not in the Old Testament<br \/> and if there is no original sin in the Old Testament<br \/> So who sent Jesus Christ here? And what did he come here to do?<br \/> because Jesus Christ came to free us from the consequences of the stain of original sin<br \/> But what if the stain isn&#39;t here?<br \/> If this stain isn&#39;t here, he came for nothing.<br \/> as a historical figure, when he was active, he operated with very precise goals<br \/> which, however, do not concern humanity<br \/> The Christ-like figure is the figure of the Son of God according to Greek thought.<br \/> because talking about him as the son of God, according to Jewish thinking, is nonsense<br \/> because no one can be the son of God in Jewish thought, but in Greek thought it is possible<br \/> and the gospels are the fruit of Greek thought, not Jewish<br \/> are the fruit of Greek thought&#8230; the Christ-like figure<br \/> So, Jesus Christ<br \/> we&#39;ll pretend it existed<br \/> What did they say about him at the beginning?<br \/> before Constantine gathered the followers of the 30\/40\/50 different Christianities that were preached<br \/> and know that they were not even in agreement on the name<br \/> the name Jesus, they were not in agreement<br \/> and actually in the last book, where I analyze<br \/> events of Jesus&#39; life, I always call him Joshua<br \/> because his name was Joshua<br \/> and all those Josuas in the Bible we call Joshua<br \/> only he must be Latinized like Jesus, because he must be distinguished<br \/> he was&#8230; by the way, that was the most common name<br \/> he was one of the thousands of Joshua&#39;s of his time<br \/> and that is why I call him Joshua in the book<br \/> what is the correct name<br \/> So here we have<br \/> 2nd century AD, Celsus and Justin Martyr<br \/> one was then declared a heretic after<br \/> Constantine saw that this form of Christianity could be used politically.<br \/> He drove them to Nicea and said: and now you will leave here with one truth<br \/> any, he didn&#39;t care, just once<br \/> the others will be&#8230; gone<br \/> and we have this one, which was chosen by a show of hands<br \/> after they got a beating, like a really physical one<br \/> So, by raising their hands, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was created, the one that is recited: I believe in God the Father, etc.<br \/> Celsus, when speaking of Christians, says:<br \/> they omit all the points that their master would use to refute<br \/> but for example, was he the first and only one to come down here, or did others come here before?<br \/> Here we are in the True Narrative, Chapter 5<br \/> if they want to claim that he is the only one, he can be caught in flagrante delicto with a lie and a contradiction<br \/> They claim that&#8230; they&#39;re talking about Christians, okay?<br \/> that others came, even in the number of 60 or 70 at once<br \/> He speaks about Christians.<br \/> who said that he was one of many<br \/> than they made him the only one<br \/> and they also say that another messenger appeared on his own grave<br \/> or, according to another version, they saw two of them, and they answered the women that he had been resurrected<br \/> so he, as it seems, was not able to open the grave himself<br \/> but he needed others to release him<br \/> and another messenger came to the carpenter about Mary&#39;s pregnancy<br \/> and another one who told them to flee to Egypt<br \/> There were plenty of them, all like him.<br \/> that&#39;s what Christians said, and Celsus reminds us of that, then he was of course declared a heretic<br \/> but when Gabriel<br \/> I&#39;ll try to squeeze it into a quarter of an hour.<br \/> when Gabriel goes to visit Mary<br \/> Gabriel, as you know, in Hebrew, gever means some el, or the strength of some el, someone whom some el has empowered for something.<br \/> so it&#39;s not the name of an individual, then there&#39;s another one that Daniel met, but there&#39;s no time for that here<br \/> When Gabriel meets Mary, she becomes pregnant without knowing a man.<br \/> but here Gabriel told her, in Greek, we&#39;ll pretend it&#39;s true: chaire, kecharitomen\u00e9<br \/> which translates to: be healthy, rejoice, full of grace<br \/> but kecharit\u014dmen\u0113 is an adjective that comes from the mediopassive perfect form of the verb charit\u014d<br \/> which means becoming physically attractive<br \/> to become pleasant, charming<br \/> So this Gavriel could have easily told her: ciao, you who have blossomed so beautifully, rejoice<br \/> because we chose you for what we have to do<br \/> chili further implantation<br \/> since they had already made several of them in the Old Testament<br \/> not full of grace, which we don&#39;t know what it is, no no<br \/> You, who have blossomed so beautifully, have taken good care of yourself.<br \/> in my latest book, which has just been published<br \/> I present contemporary texts of the New Testament<br \/> where the doubts that Joseph had are calmly discussed<br \/> who feared that Marie had been deceived by someone impersonating someone else<br \/> You understand? It&#39;s clear that this<br \/> everything was gone, but these papers are here and luckily we can read them<br \/> and Joseph was afraid that she had been deceived by someone who had pretended to be someone else<br \/> Do you understand?<br \/> But what does Justin Martyr say? A contemporary.<br \/> who speaks to the emperor Antoninus Pius&#8230; hey, why are you picking on those Christians, why?<br \/> listen to what he says<br \/> but if we&#8230; here we are in Apologies, chapters 20 and 22<br \/> if we, therefore, hold theories similar to those of the poets and philosophers you celebrate<br \/> and some even better, why are we unfairly hated more than all of them<br \/> the Son of God called Jesus, even if he was an ordinary man<br \/> Isn&#39;t it like the logos you&#39;re talking about?<br \/> aren&#39;t there so many of your sons of God?<br \/> Justin Martyr, celebrated as a saint, father of the church<br \/> and then he quotes: he is like Heracles, like Asclepius, who was also a physician<br \/> is like Dionysus<br \/> He quotes them and says: Look, the one we are talking about is like yours.<br \/> Why are you picking on us so much?<br \/> This is said by Justin Martyr, a father of the church, sorry, a doctor of the church, there are only a few doctors.<br \/> one of them was Teresa of Avila, a saintly anorexic and orgasmic<br \/> You understand? And Hermes, Hermes.<br \/> Dionysus, Heracles, Asclepius, says: why are you picking on us so much?<br \/> After all, we&#39;re talking about someone who is the same as your people.<br \/> I am in books for publishing. Mondadori, you have one there, the other will be published&#8230;<br \/> We have finished the editing, I don&#39;t know when it will be published.<br \/> I am doing a parallel analysis between the Old Testament and the writings of these people, and classical texts.<br \/> The first book is Homer, and this second one, which will be published, includes Homer, Tacitus, Pliny, Strabo, and Heliodorus.<br \/> to show that they all told the same stories, the same stories<br \/> But this is what Justin Martyr, a doctor of the Church, tells us.<br \/> Since they told me 3 minutes ago that there were only 5 minutes left, I&#39;m finishing up, we&#39;re going to eat, and then&#8230;<\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Lecture_2016_part_2\"><\/span> Lecture 2016 part 2<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p> <a href=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/jb5_bb1sZm8\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/youtu.be\/jb5_bb1sZm8<\/a><\/p><p>BEYOND THE HUMAN 2<br \/> So, now we&#39;ll hand over to Mauro Biglin.<br \/> he will tell us what he has prepared&#8230; then at the end<br \/> \/\/ask questions right away\/\/<br \/> \/\/use microphones so that you can be understood\/\/<br \/> all of it is breathtaking, while<br \/> There was talk about harmony, how animals move naturally in harmony, and we don&#39;t.<br \/> So I realized that we&#8230; when someone tells me: but the evidence that we are<br \/> genetically modified organisms, which, as it seems, old texts are telling us about, where is the evidence?<br \/> the point is that we are not adapted to any environment on Earth, naturally we are not adapted to any environment<br \/> while animals are born with genetic predispositions for one or several ecosystems<br \/> we are not born with predispositions to any ecosystem<br \/> we are as we are, naked and bare<br \/> we are not suitable for the jungle, nor for the Sahara, nor for the North Pole<br \/> we adapt to all systems because we are not naturally adapted to any of them<br \/> We adapt, but some people say: but they&#39;re primitives&#8230;<br \/> No, no primitives, primitives have at least flint knives.<br \/> because we don&#39;t have claws, we don&#39;t have fangs, we don&#39;t have protection on our bodies<br \/> we are not adapted, we are really badly made<br \/> So while animals move in harmony, we don&#39;t, we have a lot of problems.<br \/> and to fix them, we have to do everything he said here<br \/> but here it has a clear explanation, clear<br \/> which is in the old writings, we were made in a hurry<br \/> we were made by insertion<br \/> small genetic elements that caused<br \/> that from individuals who were already structured in some way<br \/> very fast, I say very fast in the sense of evolution<br \/> in times of evolution<br \/> we were enabled to understand and carry out orders, that&#39;s what interested them<br \/> and whether they worked well or badly, that wasn&#39;t so important<br \/> because they copied them, they had to copy them, and when someone broke, they threw them away<br \/> because it cost much less than repairing it<br \/> it cost much less than repairing them, so they were copied<br \/> and what was necessary to do was done, and it was sufficient<br \/> &#8230;in the first part, I talked about a Catholic theologian and others&#8230;<br \/> that there is no concept of creation in the Bible<br \/> there is no concept of creation, and certainly not creation out of nothing<br \/> And if there is no concept of creation, then who created man?<br \/> No one, Homo sapiens was made, not created.<br \/> and this bible says<br \/> just read it<br \/> &#8230;the human was created by genetic engineering<br \/> and the Bible says so, just read it<br \/> when they decided&#8230; I&#39;ll put it this way<br \/> The Bible says that one day the Elohim decided<br \/> he will simply establish this garden in the Eden area<br \/> they grow all kinds of plants in this large garden<br \/> trees that bear good fruit to eat, but beware, the Earth was already full of plants<br \/> in that Gan Eden, which means an enclosed and protected place located in Eden<br \/> they grow special things<br \/> and paleogenetics also tells us what was happening there<br \/> Then, for those who are interested, I will give them links to three articles in the magazine Le Scienze.<br \/> where it is clearly stated that there, i.e. in the territory between<br \/> let&#39;s say in northern Mesopotamia, i.e. between Turkey and the Caspian Sea<br \/> in the period of 10 to 8 thousand years ago, on wild wheat, in wild wheat<br \/> a number of genetic events occurred that are impossible in nature<br \/> that&#39;s what&#39;s written in those articles, that&#39;s what&#39;s written in those articles<br \/> and those who were there were the ones who did the thing that turned that wheat into the wheat we use today<br \/> At the same time, in Central and South America, on potatoes<br \/> another genetic event occurred, according to articles in the magazine Le Scienze<br \/> which only occurs with GMOs in the laboratory<br \/> and it is an event that made it edible<br \/> So, we know that the cereals here and the potatoes there<br \/> They were the food of millions of people, millions of workers.<br \/> both were created by genetic events that are impossible in nature<br \/> that&#39;s what the articles in Le Scienze magazine, which I have here, say<br \/> Here you are.<br \/> So whoever wants to can make a note of it and read them.<br \/> We&#39;ll do it this way because we don&#39;t have much time.<br \/> So they not only created a human there&#8230;<br \/> by the way, in those articles you will also find that some genetic strains<br \/> domestic animals originated there in the same period<br \/> They really worked here in such a way that they created their own system, what they needed, what was functional for them.<br \/> The Bible then tells us that at one point the Elohim took Adam.<br \/> and placed him in Gan Eden<br \/> So&#8230; beware, because the Bible does not mention the creation of homo sapiens.<br \/> The Bible tells us about the creation of one special species.<br \/> within Homo sapiens, it speaks of Adams<br \/> which was a group that was genetically pure in a special way<br \/> which they created specifically for themselves, for placement in their centers<br \/> So the Bible says, they took Adam and placed him in Gan Eden.<br \/> so, in contrast to what we are told, it is not the case that man was created in an earthly paradise<br \/> First: he was not created; second: it was not in an earthly paradise<br \/> they took it from another place and put it there<br \/> Then, what a coincidence, the Bible tells us that after some time<br \/> God will notice, because he hadn&#39;t noticed it before, it hadn&#39;t occurred to him.<br \/> that the animal community for Adam, they only took men, was not sufficient<br \/> So, you know that I also edit, at least in terms of biblical references.<br \/> one edition of comics called The Saga of the Elohim<br \/> I do it because at least there I have the same freedom as theologians have.<br \/> I can write whatever I want without having to prove it.<br \/> while in my books I have to prove, fortunately, every written line, in comics I don&#39;t have to, because a comic is a comic<br \/> and therefore I have the same freedom as theologians, so those comics have the same weight as theological treatises<br \/> They are loosely inspired by the Bible, period.<br \/> but I admit it<br \/> and I&#39;m not saying that the truth is in those comics<br \/> I say that in comics there is creativity, loosely inspired by the Bible, exactly as it is in the case of theological treatises.<br \/> This is not a joke, I know what I&#39;m saying, this is not a joke.<br \/> I really think so.<br \/> So, we can imagine what scenes the Elohim must have witnessed between the male-Adamy and the sheep they kept.<br \/> and so they said, we&#39;ll make him a woman<br \/> This is what is written in the Bibles you have at home, ok?<br \/> But God notices that the company of animals is not enough for Adam and decides to make him a woman.<br \/> And how will he make the woman? Given that he had to make her genetically pure.<br \/> he will put Adam, I&#39;m quoting this from memory now, into a deep sleep, not that he will put him to sleep, but into a very deep sleep<br \/> it takes something from one curved side part, which is what is usually translated as a rib<br \/> but it doesn&#39;t mean rib, it means &quot;curved side part&quot;<br \/> which could be the crest of the hip bone, it could be a rib&#8230; then we&#39;ll see what the rabbis say<br \/> close the meat where the sample was taken<br \/> and with what they took away, they will make a woman<br \/> this is written in the Bible<br \/> Okay?<br \/> when I tell you<br \/> Genesis, we are at the very beginning, that is, chapter 2.<br \/> when I tell you<br \/> I&#39;ll tell&#8230; my friend up front here<br \/> this time the pasta is cooked just right<br \/> So, I&#39;m eating pasta with you&#8230; this time the pasta is&#8230; what does that mean?<br \/> The Elohim will present the woman to Adam, Genesis 2:23<br \/> Then Adam said, &quot;This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.&quot;<br \/> In Hebrew, there is even an article: this &quot;that&quot; time.<br \/> she is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called woman<br \/> because it was taken from &quot;i\u0161e&quot;, &quot;i\u0161&quot; means a male individual<br \/> i\u0161\u0161a is the feminine form of the term i\u0161<br \/> OK? This time it will be called &quot;man&quot; because it was taken from I\u0161e.<br \/> this time it&#39;s the right one, not the ones you gave me before<br \/> and in non-biblical Jewish literature it is even written that he rejected those previous women<br \/> says: this is the right one, you made this one with me\/from me<br \/> It&#39;s here, okay? Translation: Christian families, just read the Bible.<br \/> just read it and think about it using the intelligence we all possess<br \/> Then, the wise must be clever, because they let the Bible say what it does not say.<br \/> It&#39;s enough for us to be intelligent, we don&#39;t have to be clever.<br \/> you just have to be intelligent and read what is written there<br \/> This time it&#39;s the right one, not the others, it&#39;s here.<br \/> when Dolly the sheep was cloned in 1997&#8230; you remember that, don&#39;t you? in Scotland<br \/> Of course, all imaginable and predictable questions, bioethical questions, came to the surface.<br \/> because when we clone animals, we will also clone humans, and so&#8230;<br \/> discussions, performances, round tables, interviews, scientists, philosophers, thinkers, bioethicists, theologians&#8230;<br \/> It took months, and everyone had their own opinion.<br \/> Then, of course, the rabbis were also called&#8230;<br \/> and they said, but&#8230; now there&#39;s this problem of animal cloning, which will then affect humans&#8230; and do you know what the rabbis answered?<br \/> Prof. Safran, professor, rabbi, teacher of medical ethics at the Jewish University in Jerusalem<br \/> Cloning? But what&#39;s the problem? It&#39;s already in the Bible, just look at how Adam and Eve came into the world.<br \/> They&#39;ve known it forever.<br \/> since forever<br \/> We don&#39;t know that.<br \/> because Christianity has told us that since the Bible speaks of God<br \/> since man had to be created by God, but that is not true<br \/> The Bible does not speak of God and does not speak of the creation of man.<br \/> The Bible tells us how man was made, and for the rabbis, this is normal.<br \/> Cloning? But what&#39;s the problem with that?<br \/> it&#39;s already in the Bible<br \/> These are copies of articles that you can find on the Internet.<br \/> articles from newspapers, magazines&#8230; what&#39;s the problem with that?<br \/> We have known about cloning for 4000 years, you have barely woken up.<br \/> on sites where I&#39;m not written about very well&#8230; I talked about it over there with a friend<br \/> No? Where does it say that Biglino is a patented donkey&#8230; it&#39;s all right, it&#39;s part of the game.<br \/> it is written: the fact that the Bible speaks of genetic engineering has always been known to Jews through the Talmud<br \/> You&#39;re following those pages&#8230; is it true or not?<br \/> has always been known to Jews through the Talmud, it is we who are not allowed to talk about it because it is taboo for us<br \/> For them, it&#39;s normal.<br \/> January of this year<br \/> Prof. Ziony Zevit<br \/> from the Jewish University of Maryland says: it is wrong to translate it as &quot;rib&quot;<br \/> You know, Eve taken from the rib.<br \/> because what they took to create a woman, they took from Adam&#39;s penis, not from a rib<br \/> For rabbis, the question is not whether a person was created by God or not.<br \/> It is a question of understanding from which part of the man&#39;s body the staminal cells were taken to produce the woman.<br \/> because it is obvious that this happened here<br \/> &#8230; for them, but it&#39;s written in the Bible&#8230; it&#39;s clear<br \/> The creation of man is not in the Bible, it is not, it is not talked about here.<br \/> And if they know it, why don&#39;t they tell us?<br \/> And who is supposed to ask them? Like, right now.<br \/> Christians took that book, the Old Testament.<br \/> &#8230;which is a book in which&#8230; not one nation, mind you, not the Jews&#8230;. we don&#39;t have the space here to explain everything<br \/> and as I speak, hundreds of things are running through my head<br \/> but one family, the family of the Israelites, which was one family<br \/> She told about the relationship of that family and its descendants with an individual named Yahweh.<br \/> Christians took that set of books and transformed them into something they were not.<br \/> they took Yahweh and made him a universal God<br \/> but for the Israelites, that book remains their book<br \/> and so they say: you took her from us<br \/> you made her into something she wasn&#39;t<br \/> you did with her what you wanted, and now you believe the fairy tales you made up<br \/> We know how things are, and we have no obligation to tell you.<br \/> and they are right<br \/> and they are right, from this point of view, they are right<br \/> we did everything ourselves<br \/> but they say: we&#39;ve always known that it&#39;s like that<br \/> You understand? That&#39;s the reality.<br \/> such is the reality of biblical events<br \/> of course, still assuming that the Bible tells us<br \/> that the biblical authors wanted to tell us exactly what they wrote, because we act as if<br \/> Of course, because I leave the truth to those who have it, I don&#39;t have it.<br \/> but we have this text, the text I already mentioned: we know nothing, we know nothing&#8230;<br \/> But I say, let&#39;s at least see what the text says.<br \/> because if we don&#39;t know anything about it and we still make up what we want based on it<br \/> and we let it resonate in a sense that is not in it, then you understand that it is absolute chaos<br \/> at least let&#39;s see what is written there, and this is what is written there<br \/> This time you are&#8230; the right one&#8230; this one fits me&#8230; not the others.<br \/> It&#39;s there.<br \/> I repeat, in Hebrew there is even an article: this &quot;to&quot;-time<br \/> this time it&#39;s the right one, the others are not<br \/> That&#39;s right.<br \/> Enrico was talking about the flood here, I was sitting in the back because it was cooler there.<br \/> bla<br \/> He spoke here about the flood.<br \/> you know that even here, we have a biblical story that corresponds to these 650 \/\/-6500?\/\/&#8230;<br \/> but for example, Josephus, who is a Judeo-Roman historian<br \/> writing in the 1st century AD, in the book Jewish Antiquities<br \/> which is a book that wants to give credit to Jewish things in the Roman world, i.e. Jewish thought and history<br \/> He discusses the whole Bible and talks about the flood.<br \/> and when he speaks of the flood, he quotes Nicolaus of Damascus, another historian<br \/> and he says that Nikolaos of Damascus, when speaking of this flood, says that in the end, when the waters began to recede<br \/> There were a lot of people on the mountain.<br \/> and then on that mountain, says Nikolaos Dama\u0161sk\u00fd, one vessel landed<br \/> in which there was one family, and Nikolaos Dama\u0161sk\u00fd says:<br \/> It could be the one the Jewish Bible speaks of.<br \/> But if what Nikolaos Dama\u0161sk\u00fd says is true, when Noah and his family landed there, there were plenty of people.<br \/> How can we know if what the Bible says is true, or if what Nikolaos Dama\u0161sk\u00fd says is true?<br \/> we can&#39;t know that, so we do as if<br \/> but if we do it like this, we can imagine<br \/> that history can be completely different from how it was explained to us<br \/> because who decides here whether Nikolaos Dama\u0161sk\u00fd is right<br \/> or the biblical author, who of course we do not know who he is<br \/> who told us his story: only our family remained here<br \/> from the generation of Adam, and so we have a whole range of rights here<br \/> Who can prove it here? No one.<br \/> Let&#39;s say that in the biblical story there is, how to put it, at least a conflict of interest.<br \/> No? Because one nation speaks about itself and says, so we are the ones who&#8230;<br \/> while Nikolaos Dama\u0161sk\u00fd says that when they arrived, there were already a lot of people there<br \/> Josephus speaks of Moses&#39; non-death<br \/> Do you know that<br \/> but now I&#39;m saying what comes to me<br \/> you know that at one point Moses decides that he has to go and die<br \/> because he is not allowed to enter the so-called promised land due to his transgressions<br \/> so he looks at her from the mountain, and then with his most faithful, that is, with Eleazar and Joshua<br \/> one of many Jozus, as I&#39;ve already said<br \/> He goes to the land of Moab, he goes to this valley, and from that moment on, no one knows anything about him.<br \/> The nice thing is that the Bible says that when Moses decides to go and die<br \/> He was in perfect health, the Bible says, he was in perfect condition.<br \/> and the fact is that no one saw him die<br \/> Josephus tells us this and says<br \/> Moses went to the Moabite valley.<br \/> Then a cloud appeared and carried him away.<br \/> and the cloud, in the Old Testament, is one of the terms used to refer to the means they used to travel there<br \/> But beware, do you know what Josephus writes?<br \/> writes: then Moses was forced to write that he died, so that no one could say that he left with the deities<br \/> Do you understand?<br \/> That&#39;s fantastic, isn&#39;t it?<br \/> that&#39;s what they tell us, he had to write that he died, because someone might think that he left with the deities<br \/> as Elijah did, for example, as Enoch did, for example<br \/> &#8230;other undead, just like Moses, taken away by those<br \/> This is what Josephus Flavius, a Jewish-Roman historian, tells us.<br \/> Do you understand?<br \/> it&#39;s all much more breathtaking than the fairy tale we were told<br \/> That&#39;s why I keep saying: read the Bible!<br \/> because it&#39;s breathtaking, it&#39;s not some dry stuff&#8230; someone says: Christ&#39;s foot&#8230;<br \/> No, read it like any other book, with a clear and open mind.<br \/> without the filters they put before our eyes<br \/> and so it is every time&#8230; who knows what it means&#8230; no, it means exactly that<br \/> it&#39;s written there, so for now we&#39;ll pretend that it&#39;s written there<br \/> If it is to mean something else, someone will have to prove it to us, but it definitely says so there.<br \/> something else, we don&#39;t know&#8230; it says so there for sure<br \/> and he&#39;s telling us these things here<br \/> so here we are faced with situations that are<br \/> I don&#39;t know if they are true, let it be clear here, I always clarify this, because I don&#39;t have the truth.<br \/> I don&#39;t know if they are true, but they are coherent and make sense.<br \/> Therefore, to understand them, it is not necessary to introduce the exegetical category of the mystery of faith, the mystery of God, no.<br \/> Let&#39;s assume that what is written is true, and a certain mosaic will emerge.<br \/> without the need to invent anything<br \/> that is crucial, and then, whether that mosaic is true or not, I don&#39;t know<br \/> because, of course, I have no evidence<br \/> but since I&#39;m dealing with that book, I&#39;m just telling you: pay attention, because the book says this<br \/> there are people who visit my wall, now even my opponents have created a closed group<br \/> where they are plotting<br \/> No? And someone wrote there: don&#39;t read Biglin&#39;s books&#8230; ok, that&#39;s acceptable, no problem.<br \/> On the contrary, I say, on the contrary, I say&#8230; read books&#8230; Biglina \ud83d\ude42<br \/> Read the books of theologians, read them, read them!<br \/> but the way it has to be done with Biglin&#39;s books<br \/> I&#39;ll take the liberty of advising you on one thing: keep a Bible handy when you read, and the same goes for my books, okay?<br \/> Keep a Bible handy.<br \/> because otherwise you are only reading interpretations without knowing the text on which those interpretations are based, including mine<br \/> including mine<br \/> So, a book and the Bible.<br \/> Is this quoted here? Let&#39;s see what the Bible says.<br \/> because otherwise we listen to interpretations, including Biglin&#39;s<br \/> without knowing the text, and then this happens<br \/> &#8230;I was talking to a friend over there, who reminded me that I had been massacred for months.<br \/> because at the beginning, in one book, where I talked about the smoke that calmed them down there<br \/> I wrote &quot;nichocha&quot; by mistake, I rewrote it into Italian, &quot;nichocha&quot; instead of &quot;nichoach&quot;<br \/> I messed up &quot;chet&quot; there&#8230; then I corrected it.<br \/> They massacred me for months and months for that mistake, okay?<br \/> and I have no problem with that, because I have to justify every comma I make<br \/> So from this point of view, I&#39;m lucky because it forces me to be careful.<br \/> but those who have been massacring me all these months have forgotten one thing<br \/> that the Old Testament in the Masoretic version, studied by Prof. Menachem Cohen, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University in Tel Aviv<br \/> it contains 1800 errors that he described in 21 volumes<br \/> So I was massacred for 7 months.<br \/> for the substitution of one phoneme<br \/> not a single word about the 1800 errors committed by the Masoretic editors<br \/> Here&#39;s something&#8230; but okay, no problem.<br \/> So, for example, the Pope, when he was the Angelus at Easter<br \/> That&#39;s why I&#39;m telling you, it&#39;s always interesting to read the Bible.<br \/> He said: God&#39;s mercy is eternal.<br \/> and by the way, there is a book by the Pope called In the Name of God, Mercy<br \/> &quot;God&#39;s mercy is eternal&quot; is a biblical passage.<br \/> now we will leave aside the &quot;eternal&quot; that we saw in the morning, so we will pretend that it is there, even though we already know that it is not there<br \/> God&#39;s mercy is long-lasting, but let it be eternal, let it be eternal, that&#39;s not a problem<br \/> and in Psalm 136, this statement is written about 20 times<br \/> God&#39;s mercy is eternal&#8230; because God&#39;s mercy is eternal<br \/> and so someone says: well, of course<br \/> He struck Egypt in its firstborn, for his love is eternal.<br \/> He let Israel pass through their midst, for his love is eternal.<br \/> with a firm hand and an outstretched arm, because his love is eternal<br \/> He parted the sea in two, for his love is eternal.<br \/> He let Israel pass through it, for his love is eternal.<br \/> the chariot of Pharaoh and his army, because his love is eternal<br \/> He killed mighty kings, because his love is eternal.<br \/> &#8230;then Sihon, king of the Amorites, Og, king of Bashan<br \/> blah blah&#8230; He gave them their land as an inheritance because his love is eternal.<br \/> in the inheritance of Israel his servant, because his love is eternal<br \/> So God&#39;s love is eternal, because it is a killer working for the benefit of Israel.<br \/> This is what it says there.<br \/> so just like they do with me<br \/> and it says: look, there in that book you wrote nichocha instead of nichoach<br \/> So now we&#39;ll be kicking you in the ass for the rest of your life.<br \/> it would be necessary for someone in St. Peter&#39;s Square to raise their hand and say: sorry, Francis, but&#8230;<br \/> I wish I had never been the object of this god&#39;s love.<br \/> let him look elsewhere<br \/> because we all know this part of the story, he exterminated the Egyptian firstborn<br \/> even those who have not read the Bible will remember that when Moses is to lead those people<br \/> I say &quot;those people&quot; because Jews are really just a figment of the imagination here.<br \/> He led those people out of Egypt.<br \/> you know the whole story of those &quot;wounds&quot;, in one place the Lord says<br \/> I will harden Pharaoh&#39;s heart.<br \/> so that he would not give you permission to leave, so that I could then show my power<br \/> and to show his power, he kills innocent firstborns<br \/> to soften the heart that He Himself has hardened<br \/> Is he a psychopath or not?<br \/> and I&#39;m not afraid of blasphemy, because luckily it&#39;s not a god<br \/> \u0160mitec<br \/> I&#39;ll be there right away.<br \/> So God&#39;s mercy lasts forever, because he killed innocent children.<br \/> God&#39;s mercy endures forever, for he killed mighty kings, took their territory and gave it to Israel.<br \/> How come no one raises their hand in St. Peter&#39;s Square?<br \/> how is it that&#8230; rightly, rightly<br \/> I have to say that this is a stroke of luck for me.<br \/> For example, in the new book published by Mondadori, there is one really harsh chapter.<br \/> The publishing house was very cautious about this, because there are a number of rabbinical studies.<br \/> non-biblical, thanks to two people who carry out certain research, Omar Di Benedetto, etc.<br \/> and there, if a single comma is wrong, they will massacre us<br \/> So, I publish a whole range of things for people to understand.<br \/> that the Bible speaks of one particular individual who does things&#8230;<br \/> I&#39;ll read this to you, it&#39;s really disgusting.<br \/> we&#8230; Today they told me that there was an attack in Baghdad, 80 dead&#8230;<br \/> and we say: barbarism<br \/> Barbarism, right?<br \/> Of course, that would be the last straw.<br \/> The problem is that it&#39;s biblical, there&#39;s no difference.<br \/> when we hear about a holy war<br \/> we say: hey, holy war, please&#8230;<br \/> here<br \/> In Numbers 31, there is a definition of holy war against the Midianites.<br \/> The Midianites are direct descendants of Abraham through his wife Keturah.<br \/> they are therefore the cousins of the Israelites<br \/> first cousins once removed<br \/> The order is: exterminate them all.<br \/> exterminate all the Midianites, direct descendants of Abraham<br \/> Moses was angry with the commanders of the army, the leaders of thousands and the leaders of hundreds, who were returning from the war campaign.<br \/> Moses said to them, &quot;You have left all the women alive?&quot;<br \/> &#8230;so you do it like this<br \/> Of the children, you shall kill every boy and every woman who has had intercourse with a man.<br \/> all the girls who have not been with a man, you will leave them alive for yourselves<br \/> these are God&#39;s commandments, whose mercy endures forever<br \/> So: a woman with a little boy, you kill them both.<br \/> girls&#8230; no&#8230;<br \/> The translation of &quot;d\u00edvky&quot; is softened because the original says &quot;hol\u010di\u010dky&quot;.<br \/> because in that culture it was legal to have sex with girls from the age of 3 and one day<br \/> So, you&#39;ll keep the little girls for yourselves.<br \/> in Hebrew, it&#39;s girls<br \/> when you buy a Bible from the Giuntina publishing house, i.e. a Jewish Bible translated by Rabbi Dario Disegni<br \/> So it says there: keep all the little girls for yourself<br \/> In Bibles intended for families, it says girls, because one thinks: ok, they took girls&#8230;<br \/> No, there&#39;s a little girl there.<br \/> and then there is the division of the spoils<br \/> God<br \/> 675 sheep, 72 bulls, 61 donkeys, and 32 survivors<br \/> Given that the only survivors are girls, what will God do with those 32 girls?<br \/> but that&#39;s what it says here, ok?<br \/> It&#39;s here, in the Bible.<br \/> you just have to think about it<br \/> The Bible talks about it, which is probably the most immoral book ever written in the history of mankind.<br \/> it takes courage to say these things<br \/> Please, no, sorry, there was another hand raised, where was it, yes, there.<br \/> So, how is it that Psalm 136&#8230; the question is&#8230; why is the word &quot;love&quot; used there, here it says &quot;mercy&quot;<br \/> &#8230;the word mercy is also used, they are synonyms<br \/> &#8230;and the word in the original?<br \/> &#8230;it&#39;s really interchangeable, it can mean all these things<br \/> I have a feeling ????&#8230; I can&#39;t remember now&#8230;<br \/> Please.<br \/> in the polysemy of the Hebrew language, these are all interchangeable meanings&#8230;<br \/> love, mercy, compassion, etc.<br \/> And then, this concept, that is, attributing a certain meaning to words, can&#39;t we do that with the whole Bible?<br \/> &#8230;so, this is inevitable in any type of translation<br \/> especially in a language such as Hebrew<br \/> which has very few words, so it is necessarily polysemous<br \/> &#8230;because here we have words like &quot;ruach&quot;, which, thanks to your work, we have given the meaning of &quot;spaceship&quot;<br \/> In Ezekiel, for example, when we apply this here, we have something strange.<br \/> I&#39;ll use the translation &quot;spaceship&quot; right here, okay?<br \/> his holy spaceship, the raging spaceship is screaming at me<br \/> to you, Ezekiel 1:20, spaceship blah blah blah<br \/> Ezekiel 2:2: a spaceship entered me, made me stand up, and I heard the one who spoke&#8230; how can this be explained?<br \/> This is explained by polysemy, I will give an example in Italian for better understanding.<br \/> The term ruach, like many other Hebrew terms, is a polysemic term.<br \/> in the sense that its original meaning is &quot;wind&quot;<br \/> Then we move from the wind to &quot;that which causes the wind by its movement.&quot;<br \/> when we get the extension, we would say &quot;spirit\/ghost&quot;<br \/> Okay?<br \/> For example, in one American dictionary by Dr. Jeff Benner, it is said that ruach even refers to a character disposition.<br \/> but then he says that its original meaning is &quot;that which passes along a predetermined path&quot;<br \/> Okay? This is a dictionary of ancient Hebrew, he has that specialization.<br \/> So, what is it that gives us meaning? Context.<br \/> this thing with the ambiguity of the Hebrew language, which is real<br \/> is often used in an attempt to obscure certain meanings<br \/> No? Because the Hebrew language is ambiguous, mysterious.<br \/> so we need to get to the core to understand what exactly they wanted to say<br \/> and when it comes to &quot;ruach&quot;, the same exegetes forget the ambiguity and still translate it as &quot;spirit&quot;<br \/> So, there are times when it may mean that this one has had some kind of effect on him.<br \/> We don&#39;t know how, of course.<br \/> to let him do something, he could have told him that too&#8230; like I&#39;m passing on my strength, my determination, etc.<br \/> but there are other places, e.g. Ezekiel 3, where it is clearly stated that the ruach pulled him up<br \/> while behind him the noise of wings and wheels could be heard<br \/> it is clear that ruach means different things<br \/> but we will make an example in Italian, because<br \/> this thing, which in the case of Hebrew is called a mystery<br \/> in fact, it is nothing mysterious<br \/> because Italian is more polysemic, more polysemic than Hebrew<br \/> I was in low spirits yesterday.<br \/> So I went to visit a friend who always cheers me up because he is a man of spirit \/\/he is soulful\/\/, he is funny<br \/> his passion is to distill spirit from pomace, he makes spirits<br \/> I helped him with the distillation&#8230; and I told him that I&#39;m giving it at the beginning of August<br \/> Plums &quot;under the spirit&quot; \/\/I pour spirit over them\/\/, i.e. I put them under 90% alcohol<br \/> He plays football and is very popular because he can be the &quot;spirit&quot; of the team.<br \/> near his house is an 18th-century building, which is said to be haunted by ghosts<br \/> we already have 6 meanings of the word &quot;spirit&quot;<br \/> It&#39;s clear that the brandy has nothing to do with ghosts, right?<br \/> So, what is it that tells us the meaning from case to case?<br \/> context<br \/> Did you have any doubts when I was speaking?<br \/> about every case I gave you? None, that&#39;s how it was with them.<br \/> The problem arises when<br \/> since the Bible must speak of God, since the Bible must speak of the Almighty God<br \/> that when he talks about that, he has to talk about the spirit, right?<br \/> ruach is used in the same way as in Italian, I&#39;ll drink some spirit<br \/> or I&#39;ll go see the spirits in an 18th-century house<br \/> so I&#39;m not going to look at the spirits<br \/> By the way, I really do pickle plums in alcohol.<br \/> and on some bottles with 90% alcohol, it says at the bottom: ideal for fruit &quot;under spirit&quot;, that&#39;s the wording of the label<br \/> I imagine how in 2000 years, some exegetes who find a bottle with a label in my house<br \/> in the middle of the ruins&#8230; but what spirit did he give&#8230; what does it mean to &quot;give fruit under the spirit&quot;<br \/> and they will start making all sorts of interpretations<br \/> since the fruit has seeds<br \/> since the seed is the carrier of life, the fruit must rot<br \/> but for a new life to be born, the seed must awaken&#8230;<br \/> and behold, why it was put in the spirit&#8230; no, I was watering the plums with spirit<br \/> Is it clear?<br \/> it&#39;s all simple, just read the context<br \/> and there is no need to enter the interpreter&#39;s twists and turns&#8230; please<br \/> whether anyone has ever done a psychological study of Yahweh<br \/> I was thinking about it, not that I would do it myself, but really with a psychiatrist.<br \/> This could be a whole book.<br \/> because it is a really very interesting personality<br \/> So, I discussed this in one of my books, where I analyzed Yahweh&#39;s decision.<br \/> I analyzed them in the light of purposefully elaborated legal principles.<br \/> subsequently used at the Nuremberg Trials<br \/> to show that it is precisely with those legal principles, assuming retroactivity<br \/> to see if it would be possible to charge Him with crimes against humanity<br \/> because when you read the Bible, when you read it<br \/> you will see that He is the first great historically documented and identified anti-Semite in history<br \/> in the sense that He used His own, i.e. Jacob&#39;s family, to exterminate the Semitic peoples<br \/> they were all direct relatives of Israel&#39;s family<br \/> when you read the Bible, you will see that He fought against<br \/> Moabites, Ammonites, Amalekites, Edomites, Midianites, as we have seen, were all relatives through the first degree.<br \/> over the first knee<br \/> Israel, all were of Abraham&#39;s lineage<br \/> so they were all Jews like them, all Semites like them<br \/> The Bible is a story about how one Semitic family exterminated, tried to exterminate, whenever they could.<br \/> other Semites, by carrying out the orders of one non-Semite<br \/> and if&#8230; not if&#8230; and as if they were applied&#8230; and as if it is said that Yahweh, if he is a god, is still alive<br \/> he should be tried in absentia for crimes against humanity<br \/> because we learn about extermination, genocide, the murder of women, the murder of children, the selective murder of children<br \/> laws approved on a racial background<br \/> which is exactly what was the subject of the indictment in the Nuremberg trials, there is no difference<br \/> None, I realize what I&#39;m saying&#8230;<br \/> bla<br \/> this morning Elio was talking about Jacob, who fought all night, I asked him about it, then I found the passage<br \/> It is Genesis 32:23.<br \/> My question concerns the title.<br \/> Penuel, this Penuel, as they say there<br \/> Jacob asks&#8230; excuse me<br \/> Jacob asks<br \/> It&#39;s not in my Bible, but the term will be Elohim, he asks: who are you? he gives him that question<br \/> I would like to know if in this passage, El is Yahweh, or if it is someone else.<br \/> It is not known, it is not known.<br \/> that is not known, also because<br \/> there is no certainty in it, because the problem is that from a certain point on<br \/> Yahweh was inserted by the editors even where he had not been before.<br \/> So, what do I know, when you compare<br \/> Masoretic texts<br \/> in my version, he appears as an angel, there is a fight with an angel&#8230; Elio said that we already know that&#8230;<br \/> exactly, when you compare the Masoretic texts with the Qumran texts, which are much older<br \/> it can be seen that, for example, in newer texts, Yahweh appears where he was not present in older texts<br \/> &#8230;so it&#39;s difficult to determine, and it understands where it hasn&#39;t been before.<br \/> when, for example, Yahweh goes to swear before Melchizedek<br \/> and swears allegiance to the great boss, Melchizedek, who was the governor of Elion<br \/> in the oldest texts, Yahweh does not appear there<br \/> in more recent texts, Yahweh is even identified with Elion<br \/> because they tried, from a certain point, after the Babylonian exile<br \/> to make him the most important person first, and then even the only one<br \/> while He was not only not the only one before, but He was not even the most important, He was among the smallest<br \/> therefore, in Deuteronomy 32, one family is entrusted to him<br \/> family, not nation<br \/> and this family, the Bible says, is found scattered in the desert<br \/> They didn&#39;t even have territory&#8230; he was told: you take those there.<br \/> &#8230;El, who will appear<br \/> after all<br \/> I&#39;ll try to find it.<br \/> Yeah, here.<br \/> still Genesis 35<br \/> I&#39;ll read it to you as it is translated&#8230; or no, let&#39;s do it differently.<br \/> Giuseppe came to pick me up at the airport this morning.<br \/> when I tell you now<br \/> Giuseppe, you now, then you have to offer coffee to that Mauro Biglin.<br \/> the one you met at the airport this morning&#8230; I&#39;m telling you, it&#39;s me<br \/> what will you think of me when I say it like that<br \/> God said to Jacob: Arise<br \/> Go up to Bethel, Bethel means &quot;the house of God&quot;, and stay there.<br \/> build on that place, that&#39;s what God says to Jacob<br \/> build an altar there to the God who appeared to you when you were fleeing from Esau<br \/> Is it the same, or is it not?<br \/> offer coffee to Mauro Biglin&#8230; and I&#39;m telling you this<br \/> God says: build an altar to the God who appeared to you in that place<br \/> Do you understand? And do you know what it is in Hebrew?<br \/> The first term is Elohim, so the group of elohim tells Jacob<br \/> build an altar to that El&#8230;. singular<br \/> who showed you there<br \/> that is, to the one of us who appeared to you there, build an altar to him, because he is the one who follows you<br \/> not the whole group<br \/> and he built an altar there and called the place &quot;el bet-el&quot;, meaning &quot;el of the house\/family of el&quot;<br \/> because there El revealed himself to him when he was running away from his brother<br \/> that is, he made an altar to the one of the elohim who appeared to him there, because it was he who watched him<br \/> no, the name Yahweh is not there, here it is still elohim and el, it cannot be determined here<br \/> no no, it could be him too, he&#39;s just not identified, but&#8230;<br \/> considering that it is said in Deuteronomy<br \/> that Jacob was assigned to Yahweh<br \/> of course it can be, but it is interesting<br \/> the fact that the group of elohim tells him, make an altar there to the one you saw<br \/> by the way, we often find here: &quot;the god who appeared to you&quot;<br \/> but that is not written in Hebrew at all<br \/> in Hebrew it is written &quot;to the god who appeared to you&quot;<br \/> if you don&#39;t see a friend for 2 years, do you say to him &quot;how long have you not appeared to me&quot;?<br \/> In Hebrew it is like this<br \/> &quot;&#8230;showed himself to you&quot;<br \/> as such translations are common, as far as I know, for example in the book of Judges<br \/> the meeting is described in chapter 6<br \/> Gideon and one Malachim, i.e. one angel<br \/> who, when you read the Bible, are individuals of flesh and bones, they eat, drink, get tired, can be irritated, are dirty, etc.<br \/> &#8230;so they speak and then here the angel says: go prepare food for me<br \/> Gideon goes home, an angel is waiting for him<br \/> Gedeon returns with the meat broth and he tells him: put it all here on the stone<br \/> Gideon places it on a stone and the malach takes one of the cylindrical objects in his hand and sets it on fire<br \/> and everything will burn<br \/> and he leaves&#8230; in the Bibles you have at home, check it, it&#39;s verse 21<br \/> always check it<br \/> it is written: then the angel disappeared from Gideon&#39;s eyes, the angel disappeared&#8230; in Hebrew it is written: he went his way<br \/> is there anyone here who can speak hebrew?<br \/> halak, halak, he went his own way<br \/> so, since angels are spiritual entities, according to&#8230; the biblical ones&#8230; if there are angels, I have nothing to say about that&#8230;<br \/> unless someone tells me that they are the biblical ones, because I have something to say about that&#8230;<br \/> since for the bible angels are spiritual entities, how do they leave? that it disappears<br \/> no, because for the Bible they are not spiritual entities, they go their own way<br \/> just like&#8230; I&#39;ll be there right away<br \/> when one Gabriel comes to Daniel<br \/> Daniel says: I saw one coming<br \/> that is, I saw a male individual coming<br \/> men<br \/> and in the Bibles that you have at home, it is written that he came so that he flew with ease<br \/> by light flight<br \/> these are dictionaries, including etymological dictionaries<br \/> which quote that verse here, and the Hebrew verbs are most clear<br \/> he came and was tired by exertion, not by easy flight<br \/> it is written here, in etymological dictionaries citing that verse<br \/> He came very tired.<br \/> you understand that when I told you at the beginning, this morning<br \/> that the one who represents this religion<br \/> he does not know the language in which it was written<br \/> and whoever believes that has never read the book<br \/> because whoever preaches these things, of course says Gabriel came, and since he is an angel, of course he flew<br \/> no, he came sweaty<br \/> tired<br \/> &#8230;but they say he flew in, he&#39;s an angel<br \/> but he&#39;s not an angel and he didn&#39;t fly, apparently he came in a hurry, he was tired, period.<br \/> is it there<br \/> in dictionaries, not in my inventions<br \/> the funny thing is that then accusations like Biglino make up the translations come from that world<br \/> ???? you translate it like this, while the dictionaries say something else<br \/> something else is, as we have seen, the ruach<br \/> that is something else, there is some context that tells us every time what it is that this ruach is doing<br \/> eg Ezekiel 3:12<br \/> Then a spirit picked me up.<br \/> and I heard behind me the noise of a great earthquake<br \/> while kavod&#8230; glory to the Lord, that&#39;s how it&#39;s translated<br \/> the glory of the Lord rose from that place<br \/> in Hebrew, ruach picked me up, while Yahweh&#39;s kavod was rising from that place<br \/> so<br \/> here Ezekiel tells that some ruach pulled him up<br \/> and as he pulled it out, behind him was Yahweh&#39;s kavod, which took off, and as it took off, it made a noise<br \/> I heard the noise of the wings beating against each other, and at the same time the noise of the wheels<br \/> and the noise of a great din, ruach picked me up and carried me away<br \/> Here it is written there.<br \/> Yahweh&#39;s &quot;kavod&quot; translates as &quot;glory&quot;<br \/> but as they explain that the glory of God is behind you, you do not see it, but when it rises from the earth, it makes a noise and you hear it<br \/> but it says here<br \/> and the context tells us what it is, case by case<br \/> exactly like the ghost<br \/> if I go to that house from the 18th century, I will see ghosts<br \/> if it&#39;s in the context of matolin, I&#39;m distilling schnapps&#8230; spirit&#8230; spirit&#8230;<br \/> no one can mistake that, and no one did, let&#39;s be clear<br \/> those who could read and write were very few<br \/> they wrote things down for themselves to preserve their memory and had no doubts about what they were talking about<br \/> do you understand while they could interpret what they wanted to the others<br \/> like them, they did not hide anything from each other, because they had no need to hide anything<br \/> they had a need to preserve memory<br \/> Even here it, the kavod, is the term for which they have been attacking me since the beginning<br \/> I have it here somewhere&#8230; who can&#8230;? a few words in English<br \/> just two words, come here<br \/> here is the dictionary I already talked about<br \/> Ancient Hebrew dictionary, is that so?<br \/> for the term kavod<br \/> The definition is here.<br \/> the original concrete meaning of kavod is battle armaments<br \/> shall we translate? the original meaning of the term kavod is &quot;armor of war&quot;<br \/> armor, that&#39;s a dictionary, ok?<br \/> that is a dictionary<br \/> Israeli weapons<br \/> by the way, if anyone here can access the internet<br \/> let him write kavod custom, no, yes, kavodcustom.com<br \/> aha, we don&#39;t have internet<br \/> you will see that these are armory sites<br \/> and when you go to check it, you will see that the kavod, the logo, is written in Hebrew biblical letters, not modern ones<br \/> Hebrew biblical letters<br \/> Is it true? Did you succeed?<br \/> found? ok<br \/> that kavod there, those are Hebrew biblical letters<br \/> and what is the content there? weapons<br \/> weapons<br \/> What should I tell you?<br \/> What should I tell you?<br \/> yes<br \/> so&#8230; if I understood correctly, I&#39;ve been following your work for the last few years<br \/> the bible is not a holy, monotheistic book<br \/> but he is talking about many elohim who came to rule the earth, is that right?<br \/> exactly<br \/> one of them was entrusted with one nation, or part of a nation<br \/> according to what you just said, they were having sex with the closest relatives<br \/> evidently, the one who makes the promise to Abraham is not the one who makes the promise to Jacob<br \/> probably<br \/> but in the bible it is said: I am the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob<br \/> because for me they are all alive, how to understand it here?<br \/> that means that when He introduced himself, and that&#39;s another interesting thing, he always had to present his ID card<br \/> so He had to say: I am the one there<br \/> so imagine a single, transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent god<br \/> who, when he introduces himself, always has to say who he is<br \/> how can someone think of something like that?<br \/> but He had to keep saying: look, I&#39;m the one there, look, I&#39;m the one there<br \/> and that is another proof that He had the need to prove His identity every time<br \/> because there could have been a confusion, after all, Moses asks him his name, he says: but who are you?<br \/> how can anyone ask God about this?<br \/> and God answers him, God, so it is said: I am who I am<br \/> and here it was being worked out<br \/> for centuries, and it&#39;s still being worked on<br \/> I have been saying one certain thing for several years, which comes to me when reading the Bible&#8230;<br \/> which I also found in a note of a Jewish Bible<br \/> He basically answers him: I am what I am, you take care of yourself<br \/> and just do my bidding<br \/> and don&#39;t worry<br \/> and there in that note of a Jewish Bible it is written: this answer probably means<br \/> that his name did not have such importance<br \/> imagine a general who says to his commander: but who are you?<br \/> and the commander tells him: what the hell do you want, I am what I am, you do what you have<br \/> do my bidding, I think he told him this<br \/> and then this was elaborated and is still being elaborated, because it is clear that such an answer cannot be accepted<br \/> but if<br \/> in the book of Judges<br \/> Israel, for a change, is fighting against the family of its cousins, against the Ammonites<br \/> The Israelite general is debating with the king of the Ammonites and listen to what he says:<br \/> the territory that your Elohim Chemosh gave you to possess, do you keep it?<br \/> this is how we also keep what Yahweh, our Elohim, has given us to possess<br \/> no difference<br \/> so your Elohim gave you those territories and you keep them? ok, mine gave me these here and I&#39;m keeping them, period.<br \/> it takes centuries of theology to explain such a verse<br \/> so it is clear, not to explain, to hide<br \/> centuries of theology to hide such a claim<br \/> did yours give it to you there? mine gave me this here, period.<br \/> there is no: mine is god, yours&#8230; no no no<br \/> equal powers, equal rights, equal privileges<br \/> Do you understand?<br \/> in the book<br \/> in the first book published by the Mondadori publishing house&#8230; now we continue&#8230; I started<br \/> doing a parallel analysis between the Old Testament and the Greek texts, while with Enrique<br \/> could then be a parallel analysis with the texts of the East<br \/> and it is not excluded that we will do it<br \/> now, that is 1.5 years to 2 years ago I chose the Greek texts because from this point of view<br \/> they seem beyond suspicion&#8230; who would have thought that Homer would tell stories in which there might be a grain of truth?<br \/> that&#39;s what Schliemann thought, who &quot;acted as if&quot; the Iliad was true<br \/> and we know what he discovered&#8230; I still &quot;do as&quot;<br \/> and I noticed, and I document it in the books, that<br \/> Homer and the Bible basically talk about the same individuals<br \/> which for the Bible are elohim, for the Greeks theoi, or the so-called gods<br \/> Homer calls the Greeks the Danaans<br \/> The Danas are descendants of Danao, who is the son of B\u00e9la in Greek stories<br \/> There are Danites in the Bible.<br \/> which are the descendants of Dan, who is the son of Bilhah<br \/> Danaos, son of \/\/king\/\/ B\u00e9la; Dan, son of the \/\/maid\/\/ Bilha<br \/> That&#39;s interesting.<br \/> who studies the history of Sardinia, knows the history of the Sardans<br \/> anyone who studies the Nordic peoples knows the history of the Tuatha D\u00e9 Danaan<br \/> and according to Greek legends, the Danaos, or Danaos<br \/> he lived in Egypt in brotherhood until Egypt began to abuse Danaus, so Danaos had to flee<br \/> and in the bible it is said that here you<br \/> these individuals, then transformed into 12 tribes<br \/> they lived as brothers in Egypt until Egypt began to abuse them, so they had to flee<br \/> so the story is similar<br \/> The Danaans go to the north, where they found the Mycenaean civilization<br \/> listen to what the bible says about Dan and his<br \/> in chapter 5 of the book of Judges there is Deborah, one of the judges of Israel<br \/> which is planning one of many battles&#8230; after all, they were doing nothing else<br \/> and complains that some of the tribes do not participate<br \/> and they say: why is Gilead behind the Jordan?<br \/> and Dan, why did he leave on the boat?<br \/> since when do goat breeders have boats?<br \/> while the Danes are on ships, just like the Danes<br \/> won&#39;t it be necessary to rewrite this part of history as well?<br \/> when those things come together<br \/> because when<br \/> still Schliemann, went to dig up the graves of the Mycenaean rulers<br \/> so he found interesting things<br \/> first of all, he found 3 steles there<br \/> which graphically represent, two-dimensionally<br \/> crossing the water divide<br \/> just as it is described in the Bible<br \/> that is, on the first of the three stelae, a person in a tunic can be seen walking with a stick in his hand<br \/> chased by an Egyptian war chariot in the middle of the waters, in vertical view of course, because it&#39;s two-dimensional<br \/> on the second stele, the one in the tunic can be seen turned, a little higher, as he is covered by a staff<br \/> and the waters as they come upon the chariot<br \/> on the third stele you can see a chariot with a horse overturned and swept away by the waters<br \/> which is exactly the biblical description&#8230; How is it that it is in the Mycenaean tombs?<br \/> and then they found a piece of jewelry there, of course, an iconic piece of jewelry&#8230; whenever something is found, they say it&#39;s an iconic piece of jewelry<br \/> it is 12 centimeters high, and from the perspective it shows<br \/> &#8230;what was visible upon entering the inner part<br \/> the dwelling that Yahweh had built was demountable, he had it built in the desert of the exodus<br \/> the Ark of the Covenant is visible there<br \/> and this is two-dimensional, the Ark of the Covenant, three steps that went up, those were the steps at the back<br \/> which led to the altar, where they burned the fat he loved so much<br \/> so, when only a member of Aaron&#39;s family could enter<br \/> Who could have known what was inside the Mycenaeans&#39; dwellings?<br \/> The Bible says that the people who built those things there were craftsmen from the tribe of Dan, what a coincidence.<br \/> So if they were the Danes, or the Danaeans, they knew well what was inside.<br \/> Do you understand?<br \/> so they could make a piece of jewelry containing a memory of what they knew<br \/> and by the way, the Bible never mentions the Red Sea<br \/> They crossed, the Bible says so, it talks about it 3 times, and in all three cases it says that they crossed Yam Suf.<br \/> the Red Sea<br \/> chili reed bed, swamp<br \/> so the Red Sea is another nice later invention<br \/> they did not cross the Red Sea, they crossed the swamps, which are still called batufi in Egyptian today<br \/> located in the northeastern part of the Nile Delta<br \/> and the Bible also tells us how the shallows appeared<br \/> it appeared due to the strong wind that blew from the east all night<br \/> and in the morning there was that free shoal, which they used to cross, and then when the wind stopped blowing, the water returned<br \/> Yes, so, no, that&#39;s not a myth.<br \/> I&#39;ll try it, I draw worse than a cat, but<br \/> Let&#39;s assume that this is the bottom of a swamp with reeds, okay?<br \/> There&#39;s water everywhere here, okay?<br \/> a strong wind will come and cause this shoal to loosen<br \/> they will pass, the waters are on the sides, and as the Bible says, they protect<br \/> not that it was a wall, they protected, so no one could pass by, because there was water around<br \/> and when the wind stopped blowing, the water returned&#8230; but there could have been 1.5 meters of water there<br \/> Exactly&#8230;<br \/> So this is a potential explanation of the event.<br \/> by the way, he described the event in 1860<br \/> an English officer<br \/> Alexander Tallock, who witnessed the phenomenon because he was there with the army, before the Suez Canal was dug<br \/> and he just described that one night, a strong wind in that area had exposed a shoal<br \/> the next morning, the Bedouins who knew it&#8230;<br \/> they used it to cross, and when the wind stopped blowing, the water returned<br \/> So Moses, who had been there for many years, could have known the phenomenon well, and so he used it.<br \/> So, there was a raised hand.<br \/> Excuse me, I&#39;d like to ask<br \/> as regards the very important dissemination of your work<br \/> because when I spoke to my brother, who lives in Denmark, we noticed<br \/> that your extraordinary work changes people&#39;s lives, at least in terms of understanding the Bible<br \/> are in the vast majority, if not completely, limited by the Italian borders<br \/> because all the conferences on YouTube are held in Italy<br \/> although some books have already been translated into English<br \/> So&#8230; when my brother talks to his friends there in Copenhagen<br \/> They are very interested in your work.<br \/> and they ask where we can find something to prove it<br \/> \/\/conferences are the most immediate way\/\/<br \/> blah blah<br \/> blah blah<br \/> \/\/have the best of your conferences translated\/\/<br \/> blah blah<br \/> bla<br \/> one is already there, one is already there<br \/> it is, and when it was made, it ended up on a big American forum<br \/> which has millions of users and reached the top overnight, and then disappeared<br \/> Chili? They removed it&#8230;<br \/> but it can be found<br \/> they removed her from that forum<br \/> &#8230;then the books are much more comprehensive&#8230;<br \/> but for a start, this is important<br \/> So, books, if you&#39;re asking&#8230;<br \/> At the moment, there are 2 books in France, and another 2 will be published this year.<br \/> then 1 book in Germany, which 3 or 4 months ago was 12th in some ranking&#8230;<br \/> then there is 1 book in Latvia, 1 book in Croatia<br \/> now 1 book is being published in Portugal and Brazil<br \/> in Spain<br \/> In November, an American event will be presented in the United States, which will start in the spring of next year.<br \/> In the meantime, I was translated into Russian.<br \/> there is supposed to be a publishing house there that wants to publish me in Russia<br \/> I was in Romania to do a conference at the invitation of the Italian Honorary Consul, 3 months ago.<br \/> and a Romanian publishing house is starting to publish these books in Romania<br \/> Nothing in Hebrew?<br \/> Okay, thanks.<br \/> I don&#39;t know what the order was.<br \/> I wanted to change the subject a bit.<br \/> A hand was raised here too&#8230;<br \/> I wanted to ask about John&#39;s apocalypse, because there is some ambiguity there.<br \/> it&#39;s the passage where the Bible says<br \/> \/\/number 666\/\/<br \/> blah blah<br \/> bla<br \/> blah blah<br \/> bla<br \/> What do you think it is?<br \/> in response<br \/> I&#39;m just saying that, in my opinion, it&#39;s the apocalypse.<br \/> a text written in code for the nascent churches of that time against the Roman Empire<br \/> at the time when the persecution was taking place<br \/> 666 is the number that<br \/> it is a numerical transposition<br \/> the Greek name Kaisar Nero, or Emperor Nero<br \/> numerically converted<br \/> It&#39;s interesting&#8230; so when it is said that the beast is Emperor Nero&#8230;<br \/> It is interesting that on older papyri, e.g. on the papyrus from Oxyrhynchus<br \/> The number is not 666, but 616.<br \/> which was the numerical transcription of Caligula, who was the emperor before Nero<br \/> so they could have actually been codes designating the emperors of that time<br \/> because if it is true that on the papyrus from Oxyrhynchus there was 616<br \/> &#8230; before Nero was&#8230; ob&#8230;<br \/> Caligula, or 616, referred to Caligula<br \/> when Nero came, 616 became 666<br \/> This is one possible explanation, I don&#39;t know if it&#39;s true, but it&#39;s possible.<br \/> we must proceed&#8230;<br \/> Greetings.<br \/> such a question<br \/> When the Elohim were mentioned here, I lost the thread a bit&#8230;<br \/> Not everyone knows those things&#8230;<br \/> So, when it comes to Elohim, can it be determined in some way?<br \/> How many of them were there? How many of these Elohim were there in the world?<br \/> Are they still alive, are they here or not?<br \/> whether they have created any generation<br \/> So<br \/> Then one more question&#8230; this one already stretches for kilometers&#8230;<br \/> Okay, so? As for the Jewish religion<br \/> Jews who accept the Old Testament, as opposed to the Christian Catholic approach<br \/> How do the two approaches differ? They differ mainly in&#8230; so let&#39;s start with the second question&#8230;<br \/> There are many books of the Old Testament that are accepted by the Catholic canon but are not accepted by Jews.<br \/> such as a large part of the Books of Wisdom<br \/> which, being the product of Greek Hellenic thought, are not part of the Jewish canon<br \/> So the difference is basically that the Jewish canon is much more truncated.<br \/> and then, they basically have the Torah, those first 5 books, which are the core<br \/> then there are the prophets, or &quot;I don&#39;t know&quot;, and the writings, or &quot;I know&quot;<br \/> Another interesting thing is that for us, Daniel is one of the major prophets.<br \/> for them, Daniel is not even part of the prophetic books<br \/> so even those who make calculations of the future based on the book of Daniel<br \/> they should know that for the Jews he was not even a prophet<br \/> because it is included in Ketuvim, i.e. in the common writings<br \/> and then, when we talk about the Jewish world<br \/> we&#39;re talking about the world, I said that this morning<br \/> where interpretations of the Bible range from absolute atheism<br \/> up to the most fundamental orthodoxy<br \/> in the Jewish world, there are all possible imaginable attitudes<br \/> So when you say, what do Jews think about the Bible? Everything.<br \/> everything you can think of about the Bible<br \/> so it is meant within the Jewish culture<br \/> So you can&#39;t say: but when the Jews say it&#8230; no.<br \/> These people say this, and those people say the exact opposite.<br \/> Okay? So this must be clear.<br \/> So it&#39;s not that they&#39;re right, no, they have them all.<br \/> As for Elohim, when reading the Bible, there are dozens of Elohim.<br \/> I can&#39;t say how many, because I don&#39;t know, but there are dozens of them.<br \/> some are named in the Bible, and it is said over whom they ruled<br \/> I just quoted one here, Kemosh, another was Milkom, another was Kos, another was Astarte, etc.<br \/> and the Bible tells us who they ruled over<br \/> So the Bible is knowledgeable.<br \/> she knew well that especially those she was dealing with were all of low and the same level<br \/> who were treading around the same pieces of land<br \/> So Solomon, the wisest of all men, as tradition says<br \/> He had cult sites built for two others, besides Yahweh, and Yahweh gets pissed off and then takes the kingdom away from him.<br \/> But Solomon was no fool, he knew well that Yahweh was here today, and might not be here tomorrow.<br \/> so he wanted to be on good terms with everyone who was circling there<br \/> so he built places of worship for Chemosh, Milkom, etc.<br \/> so he proceeded diplomatically<br \/> and he had more irons in the fire, because you never knew who would prevail<br \/> over the others, ok? Only in later tradition did Yahweh become the one and the greatest<br \/> However, there are dozens of them in the Bible.<br \/> What happened to them?<br \/> from a certain time, especially from the time of the Babylonian exile, i.e. from the 6th\/5th century BC.<br \/> there is basically no news about direct contacts<br \/> while before that the contact was continuous<br \/> then the Jerusalem priestly caste will get there and take over the government<br \/> and he will become the sole intermediary<br \/> Now, of course, I&#39;m simplifying it.<br \/> Josephus tells us that in 70 AD, when the Romans came to Jerusalem<br \/> tired of messianic rebellions, and therefore determined to take it all and put an end to the whole mess<br \/> Josephus tells us that<br \/> when the Romans were approaching<br \/> The priests who were in the temple heard a great noise inside.<br \/> in the innermost part, which was their dwelling<br \/> a voice said: we are leaving this place<br \/> and then Josephus says that he was seen&#8230; you can find it in the 6th book of the Jewish Wars<br \/> a great phenomenon was seen, which, if it hadn&#39;t had so many witnesses, no one would have believed it<br \/> celestial chariots as they surrounded the city in the clouds<br \/> that was in the year 70 AD<br \/> The nice thing is that the greatest of the Roman historians, Tacitus, tells us the same thing.<br \/> who in the 5th book of History<br \/> he says that in Jerusalem, when the Romans came there<br \/> there was a battle in the sky&#8230; there were just these vehicles in the sky<br \/> and a voice from afar said: the deities are leaving this place, that&#39;s what Tacitus writes<br \/> in the 5th book, I quote the verses in a new book, in Latin, so anyone can check them<br \/> verses in Latin<br \/> This is never given to be translated in schools.<br \/> because then it would have to be explained<br \/> Okay? But Tacitus says so.<br \/> Pliny the Elder in the 8th book of Naturalis historia<br \/> tells us that at the time of the Cimburk wars<br \/> this was in the period 113-101 BC<br \/> when Gaius Marius was proconsul, in the Umbrian sky<br \/> there was a battle of celestial chariots<br \/> one of which came from the east and the other from the west, and the one from the west was defeated<br \/> Pliny<br \/> Has anyone heard about it at school?<br \/> Never, but it&#39;s there.<br \/> but it&#39;s there<br \/> they probably weren&#39;t ufologists&#8230;<br \/> neither Tacitus, nor Pliny, nor Josephus<br \/> so it is possible that in 70 AD. there has been a change of leadership in the Middle East<br \/> Then the Romans came with their own, and those who ruled there left.<br \/> Meanwhile, one interesting thing<br \/> in the Norse sagas, where the \u00c6sir are mentioned<br \/> which is the Nordic equivalent of those there<br \/> it is said that they came to rule there later, because before that they ruled in the East<br \/> so there was a change of type, the Romans came with their own, so these guys took to their heels and went up there<br \/> Who knows?<br \/> Strabo, when speaking of the Celts<br \/> He says that when they captured prisoners, they burned them alive.<br \/> but they didn&#39;t do it because they were exceptionally cruel<br \/> and actually, so they wouldn&#39;t have to listen to the shouting<br \/> They danced and sang because they didn&#39;t want to hear the screams of those poor people.<br \/> but they were burned alive, says Strabo, because<br \/> the smoke produced by this meat was very tasty for their deities<br \/> just like the biblical elohim, just like the Greek theoi, in the book I state<br \/> more than 30 cases where this is told in the Iliad and the Odyssey<br \/> exactly as in the case of Roman deities<br \/> which required<br \/> in the early phase of Roman religion<br \/> they wanted to reserve the omentum for themselves<br \/> and omentum, I don&#39;t know if I have it here<br \/> and the omentum is the fat covering the viscera<br \/> that part was reserved for them, you can find it in the studies of academics, like this one<br \/> Dei e religione dell&#39;anticha Roma, the author is academician Gian Matteo Corrias<br \/> He has a specialization at the Paris school Hautes Etudes, it is described there.<br \/> So, they asked for the fat covering the entrails, which had to be burned to create smoke.<br \/> Do you know what is written in the Bible, in Leviticus 3, in the translation of the Italian Episcopal Conference?<br \/> in this offering, you will present the fat covering the entrails by burning it in the fire for Yahweh<br \/> everything that is above it, both kidneys with their fat<br \/> fat around the hips and around the liver lobe, which you cut off above the kidneys<br \/> God says so, okay?<br \/> he gave absolutely clear butcher&#39;s instructions, that fat is mine<br \/> and elsewhere it is written<br \/> He says to his people: if you catch someone using that fat for themselves, you will kill them, because that fat is mine.<br \/> Excuse me?<br \/> the Elohim gather in flocks<br \/> The story here is the same everywhere, it&#39;s exactly the same everywhere.<br \/> someone wrote to me that in Tharros, Sardinia<br \/> sacrificial instructions were found, where they burned children<br \/> and so that they wouldn&#39;t hear the children&#39;s screams, they danced and sang, but they burned them for those there<br \/> so not out of cruelty<br \/> but because they were forced, because they wanted it from them<br \/> &#8230;exactly as Yahweh required&#8230; please<br \/> you have repeatedly quoted the Book of the Wars of the Lord, which has been lost<br \/> Before, Enrico was talking about the Vedas, about combat\/war techniques in India.<br \/> it&#39;s something normal, explicit there<br \/> in biblical texts, or the classical ones that you are analyzing now<br \/> Did you come across anything similar there in terms of the art of war?<br \/> No details, no, no, not in the Bible at all, and actually when I hear Enriko speak<br \/> So I&#39;m thinking, how small the Bible is, the Bible is the youngest of all.<br \/> for example, the Mahabharata, which is the Iliad and the Odyssey combined x 20<br \/> Do you understand?<br \/> What is the Bible? It&#39;s a handbook for little marmots.<br \/> as opposed to that, you know? that&#39;s just the way it is<br \/> there, the narratives are much more explicit and extensive<br \/> The Bible is a story about the relationship of one family with one of them.<br \/> so we know the ones who are there, and then a few who are named<br \/> Okay? As for the Greeks, I started 1.5 &#8211; 2 years ago, I started with the Iliad and the Odyssey.<br \/> I started with books that are considered to be the product of purely poetic fantasy.<br \/> No? But when it comes to martial arts, I didn&#39;t find that there, I found technology.<br \/> e.g. in a new book for Mondadori publishing house, there will be a study on Homeric technology as described by Homer<br \/> which takes over the studies carried out by technical universities<br \/> e.g. the University of Patras<br \/> where, with absolute calm, university teachers define Hephaestus<br \/> chili of theoi, who was involved in metal processing, as a design engineer<br \/> thanks to what he did, and they say that to their understanding<br \/> of the things he did, we have to put all our current knowledge on the table<br \/> as, for example, when talking about the two maids he used<br \/> as an escort, because he was limping on both legs<br \/> because he was thrown off a cliff, so he practically couldn&#39;t walk<br \/> Here, these two maids are specifically said to have had thought and word in them, which is absolutely normal for any maid.<br \/> &#8230;they had skin like gold<br \/> and the description ends with the words: in everything they resembled living maids<br \/> such cyborgs&#8230;<br \/> that&#39;s how it&#39;s written there<br \/> now in a new book I also present Heliodorus, who speaks of special<br \/> the ways in which these people moved around, he quotes Homer<br \/> they were tying knots under their feet&#8230;<br \/> Do you remember the flying carpets?<br \/> Islamic cultures?<br \/> they were tied under their feet&#8230; and then they flew quickly with them<br \/> just above the ground, above the water, or even above the treetops<br \/> Heliodorus in Aethiopica writes: this is the reason why<br \/> Egyptian deities are always depicted with their feet together.<br \/> wings on the feet<br \/> It&#39;s already being done.<br \/> And one more quick question, the name of the piece of jewelry?<br \/> it has no name, it is referred to as a cult jewel<br \/> It has no name&#8230; thank you&#8230; please<br \/> Excuse me, a little curiosity.<br \/> in my baby, so tiny<br \/> I read the word turbines in Ezekiel.<br \/> But does this word exist? Yes.<br \/> that&#39;s exactly what a rapidly rotating circle means<br \/> So&#8230; it&#39;s a strange little word&#8230;<br \/> But Ezekiel describes flying machines&#8230;<br \/> blah blah<br \/> it&#39;s &quot;Gilgal&quot;&#8230;<br \/> a wheel that spins quickly<br \/> and one more thing<br \/> &#8230;the Bible draws on older Sumerian stories and Sumerian tablets, doesn&#39;t it? Yes.<br \/> I would like to know what you think about Sitchin, who did that research&#8230;<br \/> I think the core will be correct.<br \/> but there is more in the Sumerian texts, and it is more comprehensive<br \/> because, fortunately, they did not end up in the hands of theologians<br \/> they did not pass through the filter of the priestly caste, like the Jewish one<br \/> which wanted to present Yahweh as<br \/> first the most important, and then even the only one<br \/> and did her best to remove what could be removed<br \/> Sumerian-Akkadian texts that had no religious purpose, but were simple records of memories<br \/> are much more eloquent, because it is there that the production of adams is told<br \/> However, Sumerian-Akkadian texts also describe unsuccessful attempts.<br \/> while the Bible, which must speak of God, says that when God decides to make Adam, he makes him and that&#39;s that.<br \/> It tells about all the attempts they made, but they ended badly.<br \/> until they manage to make the right one, and lo and behold, his name is Adam<br \/> Exactly, which means &quot;earth&quot;, if I&#39;m not mistaken&#8230; so the one from Earth, an earthling, from Earth.<br \/> It is also called lulu, which means mixed.<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> There is more truth in those texts than in the Bible.<br \/> By the way, for a large part of the Jewish world, the Talmud is truer than the Bible, okay?<br \/> The Talmud is a collection<br \/> the thoughts of hundreds of rabbis, collected over centuries<br \/> and for a large part of the Jewish world, the Talmud is truer than the Bible<br \/> which is quite possible<br \/> But we have the Bible here, because the religion here is based on the Bible.<br \/> I&#39;ll come back&#8230; to compare&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;to the flood<br \/> The biblical story of the flood comes from the story of the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh.<br \/> No? Noah is there.<br \/> Sumerian-Akkadian, named Utnapishtim or Ziusudra<br \/> and as the end approaches&#8230; a piece of land is finally visible<br \/> exactly as in the Bible, where it is written that Noah took a large number of animals and burned them for the Elohim<br \/> Someone might say: he barely managed to save them on the ark&#8230;<br \/> and as soon as he lands on solid ground, he immediately takes them and burns them<br \/> So he probably took something else into the ark.<br \/> Thus, it is written in Sumerian-Akkadian texts that he put animal semen into her.<br \/> The Bible says that he put pairs into it&#8230; but seed in pairs?<br \/> DNA, i.e. they preserved the DNA of the animals they had created and needed.<br \/> However, it says there that<br \/> will make this great sacrifice of a large number of animals<br \/> and God says, he&#39;ll get high, he&#39;ll fly, he&#39;ll be lured<br \/> and says: I&#39;ll never do something like that again, and immediately calms down<br \/> exactly as it is written in the Bible, that the smoke calmed them down<br \/> The Epic of Gilgamesh says that when the Sumerian-Akkadian Noah<br \/> a large number of animals are burned<br \/> So the Elohim gathered like flies attracted to meat.<br \/> not the Elohim, they are called the Anunnaki there&#8230;<br \/> The announcers flocked like flies attracted to meat.<br \/> Excuse me, so they brought the tradition of eating meat here?<br \/> Yes&#8230; that habit&#8230; let&#39;s say<br \/> let&#39;s say we also worked our way up to eating meat<br \/> since we are not adapted to any environment and are not adapted to anything<br \/> In principle, we are not adapted to any type of food.<br \/> because we don&#39;t even have the digestion of herbivores<br \/> nor the typical digestion of granivores<br \/> not even the typical digestion of carnivores, we have a little bit of everything<br \/> So we started eating meat somewhat by chance, probably because we found dead animals, burned by fires.<br \/> Then we started eating meat, following the example of hyenas&#8230;<br \/> to eat meat killed by others<br \/> which, by the way, we do all the time, we behave exactly like hyenas<br \/> we eat meat killed by others<br \/> So, I&#39;ll ask on camera, because I&#39;m relaying this to my friend at our place&#8230;<br \/> A friend asks why the Elohim fought among themselves and did not cooperate, when&#8230;<br \/> because they were the same as us, or rather, we are the same as them<br \/> They behaved like ordinary rulers.<br \/> everyone tried to expand their sphere of power<br \/> their territory, their well-being and their wealth, just like others, there is no difference in that<br \/> Thank you, please.<br \/> First of all, congratulations&#8230; where? Yeah, there.<br \/> I have a thought, we are now at a certain point&#8230;<br \/> We went through a time when we were not allowed to own a Bible, we were not allowed to read the Bible, under penalty of death&#8230;<br \/> now there is greater openness&#8230; this morning there was talk of the Holy Roman Church as the most powerful organization in the world<br \/> why, intentionally or unintentionally<br \/> Does he leave this space, this gap, open?<br \/> I wanted to know your opinion.<br \/> because I might be lucky<br \/> in the sense that<br \/> &#8230;because with new communication tools, it is no longer possible to keep things under wraps.<br \/> Nothing, practically.<br \/> in the sense that if someone has some information, they put it on the internet, and the next minute a billion people can read it<br \/> and in my opinion it is possible, I&#39;m not saying probable, but possible<br \/> that they are preparing to start saying some things<br \/> the fact that there is someone here like me<br \/> who started to interpret it for their own benefit<br \/> so it may be useful at that moment&#8230;<br \/> if these things spread here<br \/> because they are &quot;obvious&quot;<br \/> They can say: but we never intervened.<br \/> if these things disappear because it turns out that they are all my fabrications<br \/> because we do as&#8230; they say: but we never intervened<br \/> Is it understandable?<br \/> so that is, as usual, the absolutely most sensible behavior<br \/> but really the most sensible behavior<br \/> It&#39;s called plausible deniability.<br \/> The CIA developed it 30 years ago.<br \/> It&#39;s no coincidence that those who have always ruled are intelligent.<br \/> because the worst thing they could do would be to make me visible by attacking me<br \/> Those at the bottom do it because they can&#39;t take it anymore, they have to rebel, those at the top&#8230;<br \/> deniability, in the sense that&#8230; we&#39;ll see what&#39;s appropriate for us to do<br \/> Well, we&#39;ll wait and see, we can always say: but we&#8230;<br \/> Greetings, hello Mauro<br \/> I wanted to ask you about one thing that you brought up at the last conference.<br \/> and which I have heard in other conferences on YouTube<br \/> when you were talking about the 6 million Jews<br \/> Yes, okay.<br \/> I may not be able to formulate the question well, but you know what I&#39;m talking about.<br \/> You said that this extermination of Jews was planned, it was discussed in 1915, etc., in various articles, etc.<br \/> and here the question remained open<br \/> &#8230;I didn&#39;t find an answer to it&#8230;. and then Rh+ and Rh-<br \/> Ask Pietro Buffa about Rh+ and Rh-<br \/> because it&#39;s not my field, I know that<br \/> it may have some external origin<br \/> I also know that the origin does not theoretically necessarily require external intervention.<br \/> chilli, so both answers are possible here<br \/> or when you ask your peer Pietro Buffa<br \/> he is a molecular biologist with whom we collaborate<br \/> He will explain it to you very well&#8230; I know that both options exist.<br \/> Okay? So let&#39;s be open&#8230; and then&#8230;<br \/> as regards the question of the Jews<br \/> My friend means that the Holocaust caused the death of 6 million Jews.<br \/> The strange thing is that those 6 million Jews, precisely those 6 million who were supposed to die in Europe<br \/> This was discussed and written about in Jewish magazines at the end of the 19th century.<br \/> and then it was said in the most important American newspapers since the beginning of the 20th century.<br \/> and it was written in some editions of the British Encyclopedia<br \/> I will only read some of them to you.<br \/> The Sun of June 6, 1915<br \/> 6 million Jews in Russia are persecuted, prosecuted, suppressed, left to starve, massacred<br \/> New York Times, October 18, 1918<br \/> 6 million Jews need help.<br \/> New York Times, September 8, 1919<br \/> 6 million Jews in Ukraine and Poland received the message that they would be completely exterminated.<br \/> So here, 50 years before Hitler, there were 6 million Jews, who in one way or another<br \/> must die<br \/> I always say&#8230;<br \/> Excuse me?<br \/> No, no, no, still 6.<br \/> for the whole 50 years, it&#39;s still 6 million<br \/> and then Nazism comes and exterminates 6 million of them<br \/> Previously, their death was said to have been caused by the Tsarist Empire.<br \/> then the Soviet Union, and only Nazism succeeded, ok?<br \/> So, I&#39;m leaving the question open, I always say<br \/> that if I were a Jew, I would want my historians to give me some credible explanation<br \/> So, who is it that knew 50 years before Hitler that 6 million<br \/> Is he supposed to die? And it was still 6 million.<br \/> no nation will remain the same in number<br \/> still 6 million, from the end of the 19th century until 1945, still 6 million<br \/> Then we&#39;ll talk about it privately, certainly not publicly.<br \/> Good day, Professor, one question.<br \/> I would like to learn more about the ephod, the device that the Elohim used to communicate.<br \/> and whether the ephod has any technological connection to the iPhone we use today<br \/> So, let&#39;s say it&#39;s an iPhone.<br \/> which we use today is very similar to it<br \/> as regards the layout<br \/> efod is, by the way, a Hebrew term that is never translated because it is not known how to translate it<br \/> Fortunately,<br \/> Even Elohim should not be translated, because there is no certainty about it, it should be left as it is, but&#8230;<br \/> Fortunately, efod is not translated.<br \/> It was a device worn by the high priest, it was a kind of&#8230;<br \/> it was a bib with a cover, it was a rectangular element<br \/> it was tied at the back with a string, and two straps<br \/> it had 12 colored stones, which were used for remote communication<br \/> and the Bible tells us how David used it in battle on two occasions<br \/> when he didn&#39;t know what to do, and so<br \/> bible literally bible: calls the bearers of the ephod<br \/> and says to him: bring me the ephod, and only when he has it with him<br \/> so he can communicate with Yahweh, who is distant<br \/> when he didn&#39;t have the ephod with him&#8230; I was there for 15 months<br \/> in one NATO combat company, and I saw it there<br \/> several times, and when I read it in the Bible, I said: here it is, the telegrapher<br \/> The company commander says to him: come here, bring me the radio<br \/> and then they use the radio to talk to their superiors, who are&#8230; exactly the same.<br \/> By the way, Enrico, who was recently in Sardinia, told me<br \/> by the way, among the components of the ephod, which is described as a kind of circuit<br \/> There is one substance that is very rare and difficult to produce: byssus silk&#8230;<br \/> he&#39;s still there&#8230; as Enrico told me&#8230; we also met in Sardinia<br \/> There is another woman in Sardinia who does it, it is made from one mollusk<br \/> now it is protected, etc., etc.<br \/> chili, now the question is how they had that silk in the desert of the exodus<br \/> among other things<br \/> but what is interesting is that byssus silk is a complete electrical insulator<br \/> It is an electrical insulator.<br \/> and the whole description&#8230; by the way, when the Bible says&#8230;<br \/> translated as: the work of the artist<br \/> No, the Bible says: the work of the designer<br \/> not an artist<br \/> because the thing was under the tunic, so no one saw it<br \/> so there was no reason for it to be nice, because no one saw it, it was covered<br \/> still covered<br \/> and in the Bible it is said: the work of the designer, i.e. a technical work<br \/> not a work of art<br \/> and then the Bible says that this was the use here<br \/> and we were just talking about it&#8230; he told me before that he was going to go and see it in Sardinia&#8230;<br \/> and now I have received confirmation: it is an electrical insulator<br \/> but look, I don&#39;t know how much time we have left, there are myriads of things we can talk about&#8230;<br \/> I&#39;ll read this to you because it&#39;s interesting.<br \/> when<br \/> If someone has to go, let them go, I won&#39;t be angry, I&#39;m telling you straight&#8230;<br \/> we can chat here in peace&#8230;<br \/> when 2 years ago, the founder of the newspaper La Repubblica, Scalfari<br \/> He debated with the Roman Jewish community and Benedict XVI through open letters.<br \/> through the newspapers&#8230; as what you present to us as the God of love, in reality&#8230;<br \/> What you&#39;re telling us is not very palatable for a human being&#8230;<br \/> So they answered him: look, Scalfari, it&#39;s enough if you read the Bible.<br \/> it is clear there, and they quoted this verse to him<br \/> Leviticus 19:18<br \/> Do not take revenge or bear a grudge against the descendants of your people, love your neighbor as yourself, I am the Lord.<br \/> It couldn&#39;t be clearer&#8230;<br \/> here, here<br \/> whoever commits adultery with a married woman, as well as whoever commits adultery with his neighbor&#39;s wife, both adulterers shall be killed<br \/> without animosity&#8230;<br \/> If someone had an affair with their daughter-in-law, both will be killed, they have committed something abominable.<br \/> Whoever mates with an animal must die, and the animal must also be killed.<br \/> If a woman approaches an animal to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal.<br \/> I mean, when someone says &quot;read the Bible&quot; and quotes one verse, you also need to read the sauce around it, right? Because otherwise&#8230;<br \/> and when we read that sauce&#8230; I&#39;ll tell you something interesting<br \/> it says: do not mate cattle&#8230; immediately after &quot;love your neighbor&quot;<br \/> By the way, do you know that the &quot;neighbor&quot; in Hebrew means your fellow countryman with whom you are in contact, not humanity?<br \/> humanity, as we have seen, needed to be wiped out&#8230;<br \/> that is, whenever a nation was in a place that interested them, everyone was to be murdered<br \/> including women, children and the elderly<br \/> Love your neighbor means love your neighbor, i.e. a member of your clan<br \/> this is clear in the Bible<br \/> You shall not sow two kinds of seed in your camp, nor shall you wear clothing made of two different fabrics.<br \/> So, I don&#39;t use it, but if any of you have underwear where cotton is on the skin and wool is on top, God doesn&#39;t like it.<br \/> But there is one reason here.<br \/> Here&#39;s one reason.<br \/> in priestly robes, and especially in those of the high priest, i.e. specifically Aaron<br \/> who entered the innermost part of Yahweh&#39;s dwelling, where the Ark of the Covenant was involved in extremely dangerous things<br \/> that person had to be dressed in a specific way<br \/> because he was inside a Faraday cage<br \/> on the surface he had&#8230; then we&#39;ll get under the surface<br \/> on the surface, it had a large cloak with a single opening<br \/> with the stitching&#8230; it says there: made so that it can never be torn<br \/> because it was not allowed to be torn<br \/> there were bells on the outside<br \/> and the Bible says: this is how the bells will ring and he will not die<br \/> So, what does that mean? That when God didn&#39;t hear the bells ringing&#8230;<br \/> when the priest was inside and moving, those who were outside could hear the bells, and that meant he was moving<br \/> when the bells stopped ringing, it meant that it was necessary to pull it out immediately<br \/> because he could have died<br \/> and he was to be clothed in linen<br \/> and just, as we all know<br \/> It has significant anti-static properties.<br \/> but it loses them immediately when it is interwoven with wool<br \/> you shall not wear clothing made of two different fabrics<br \/> and you won&#39;t just mix with wool<br \/> he knew well what he was doing here<br \/> He knew well what he wanted&#8230; you understand?<br \/> so it&#39;s not an absurd command<br \/> They then put it all together, but this command served its purpose.<br \/> precisely the one who used the linen and entered there had to be protected<br \/> before what was happening inside<br \/> \/\/connections with the Divine Comedy\/\/<br \/> \/\/type Giugliano Di Benedetti\/\/<br \/> So, I quoted the work of Giuliano Di Benedetto.<br \/> because he did it with the Divine Comedy<br \/> similar to the work I did with the Bible, the book is called La via di Dante&#8230;<br \/> By the way, I&#39;ll tell you&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;you know, this morning I was talking about the Marian dogma<br \/> the dogma of the Immaculate Conception&#8230; there is a nice book by Laura Feziy<br \/> which is called: Marian apparitions, a big fraud&#8230; who is interested in that<br \/> let him think about it, because it&#39;s really worth it, you&#39;ll understand all the nonsense that is said about Marian apparitions<br \/> end of insert<br \/> So, Giuliano Di Benedetto&#39;s book is based on the assumption<br \/> that the letter that Dante wrote to Cangrande della Scala<br \/> in which he says that in his comedy<br \/> there is more truth in the literal than in the metaphor<br \/> as if he were saying: &#39;Be careful here, understand that I am basing this on things I have seen.&#39;<br \/> &#8230;and he acted as if it could be true<br \/> and an extremely interesting analysis came out of it<br \/> which refers to, or rather lets surface<br \/> knowledge&#8230; by the fact that Dante belonged to certain &quot;esoteric&quot; groups&#8230;<br \/> which was knowledge concerning Sumerian-Akkadian stories<br \/> as in Purgatory&#8230; and also biblical&#8230;<br \/> as, for example, when Dante sees approaching<br \/> the so-called heavenly class, so in those chapters of Purgatory he says<br \/> but I won&#39;t tell you more about that<br \/> because that is exactly what Ezekiel saw<br \/> chili: I saw the same things as Ezekiel saw<br \/> so there is no need for me to tell you more<br \/> in the sense that when you just &quot;pretend&quot;<br \/> so certain results can be achieved this way, at least it&#39;s worth a try<br \/> certain things are coming to the surface<br \/> but which, if not done as if, will never surface<br \/> By the way, there is still a book about the Divine Comedy.<br \/> by Chiara Dainelli, married Hohenzollern<br \/> listing Dante&#39;s astronomical references<br \/> where she, based on Dante&#39;s concreteness<br \/> the sky, which Dante describes as having been seen in Mesopotamia, i.e. in that territory, at the time of Adam and Eve<br \/> it situates Adam and Eve&#8230; and actually, when I first heard her speak in Rome, I said: that&#39;s not possible<br \/> to the same period where I place them, when I start<br \/> from biblical calculations, i.e. 4200 BC<br \/> and she says, Dante, based on<br \/> The cross that was visible is no longer there, but it was visible then.<br \/> Adam and Eve were in that period.<br \/> which is exactly what I calculated retrospectively<br \/> based on biblical generations<br \/> chili between 4500 and 4000 BC. BC<br \/> because, I repeat, Adam and Eve are not the ancestors of mankind<br \/> they are the ancestors of the Adam race<br \/> So when<br \/> Cain kills Abel and is banished from the tribe.<br \/> He says: &quot;But if you drive me out, whoever meets me will kill me.&quot;<br \/> But if they are the ancestors of mankind, then who is this &quot;anyone&quot;?<br \/> Adam and Eve were here, Abel was already dead, and he<br \/> but he knew very well that if he was expelled from that group, which was privileged because<br \/> lived in contact with the Elohim, so that group had a high cultural level<br \/> and he would end up among the savages, so he says: if I end up among them, they will slit my throat<br \/> but it worked out for him, he found a wife, he built a city<br \/> and so on, ok?<br \/> blah blah<br \/> books inspired by God, then they were lost<br \/> bla<br \/> Biblical exegesis turns a book of war into a collection of religious hymns.<br \/> but it doesn&#39;t say that they were war songs&#8230;<br \/> blah blah<br \/> blah blah<br \/> I would like to know if it is possible to know<br \/> &#8230;among the Qumran scrolls there is a book on the principles of combat<br \/> the scroll of the war, whether there is a reference to the Book of the Wars of the Lord in that scroll<br \/> No&#8230; it&#39;s a book about war.<br \/> between<br \/> the Messiah, the Lord of Light, and the Lord of Darkness, so between the two Messiahs<br \/> Yes? That doesn&#39;t concern the Wars of Yahweh.<br \/> it was a messianic war that they expected at any moment<br \/> in which<br \/> by the right Messiah should triumph over the Messiah of darkness<br \/> so there is no reference to the Wars of Yahweh there<br \/> As for those lost books&#8230;<br \/> is there a book that could be considered related to this&#8230;<br \/> and thus add something that goes on forever&#8230;<br \/> lost, it doesn&#39;t mean forever, because they didn&#39;t destroy them<br \/> bla<br \/> they did not destroy them<br \/> and when there were synagogues, they put them in one room in the synagogue<br \/> it was a room located in every synagogue<br \/> until they were taken to the cemetery of books, but they burned them<br \/> because they were written by their ancestors<br \/> they simply made them unavailable<br \/> so in my opinion they are in some library<br \/> as regards the Holocaust of the Jews<br \/> if what we have been told and testified to until today<br \/> To this day, in the matter of the Holocaust, I still ask myself<br \/> Hitler, who did he work for?<br \/> This question here&#8230;<br \/> Let&#39;s say it without microphones, okay?<br \/> because my attitude is too delicate&#8230;<br \/> Can you hear me? Good day.<br \/> I&#39;ll stick to this gentleman&#39;s question for a moment, you once spoke<br \/> about the generation of Adam, about the generation of the serpent<br \/> The Bible talks about it&#8230; and that in connection with Hitler.<br \/> if you could elaborate on this matter&#8230;<br \/> I read about the Jews, the Khazars, who converted to Judaism.<br \/> only because they are from elsewhere<br \/> whether by any chance they can figure in that context&#8230;<br \/> that&#39;s a completely different song<br \/> Let&#39;s put it this way.<br \/> when Eva<br \/> he commits his disobedience here, which was then transformed into the non-existent original sin<br \/> that disobedience actually consisted of sexual intercourse with one of the elohim<br \/> with whom she conceived Cain, who was the son of one of those there<br \/> and in the first Christian groups there were the so-called Cainite sects<br \/> who said that the generation of Cain is superior to that of Abel, because Cain was the son of one of those<br \/> Not Abel, so even among Christians this was said.<br \/> when this happened, this mixing, which should not have happened<br \/> The head of Gan Eden says: between your generation and the generation of the serpent there will be enmity<br \/> the term Nachash refers to that elohim-rival<br \/> rival of those who controlled Gan Eden<br \/> chili, there will be hostility, and therefore your generation<br \/> Adam&#39;s generation, which was to remain genetically pure<br \/> crushes the head of the other<br \/> Hitler says in Mein Kampf that the task is<br \/> to remedy the poisoning of the breed that occurred at that time<br \/> so that the Creator would have the pure race that He wanted<br \/> &#8230;so he, too, apparently took over this biblical passage<br \/> about the existence of two&#8230; one poisoned race<br \/> and he speaks directly of the poisoning that occurred at the beginning, that is, of the biblical poisoning<br \/> and one that, on the contrary, is to be returned clean<br \/> You can find this in Mein Kampf published by Kaos<br \/> it was edited by the historian Giorgio Galli&#8230; so, why 6 million<br \/> When we look at what is written in the Bible, 600,000 people left with Moses.<br \/> people, sorry, 600 thousand, people in full strength<br \/> people in full strength, that meant<br \/> basically young<br \/> between 20-30 years old, i.e. those who could fight<br \/> since each of them had<br \/> family members, so he could have had a few wives because they practiced polygamy<br \/> several children and several relatives of advanced age<br \/> we can say that there could have been 7-8-9 people, 10 with each of them<br \/> 600 thousand times X makes about 6 million<br \/> so the first calculation could have originated there<br \/> and it could have persisted there over time<br \/> Yeah? And then?<br \/> &#8230;as for the Khazars, just read the book by Prof. Shlomo Sand<br \/> who teaches history at Tel Aviv University, who is talking about this<br \/> Please.<br \/> I wanted to add something about the tussah silk.<br \/> I recently studied iconography, and I know Byzantine silk as<br \/> a special fabric made of valuable fine linen<br \/> used as a base on a wooden board<br \/> chili as the first layer of iconographic painting<br \/> but I would like to ask about something else<br \/> When we move to the period after Christ, I would like to understand the figures of Peter and Paul.<br \/> How much time do we have for this?<br \/> So Peter and Paul were two who couldn&#39;t stand each other, they didn&#39;t agree on anything.<br \/> they disagreed on everything concerning the possible figure of the Master, assuming he really existed<br \/> then the church lumped them together to replace the pagan figure<br \/> Romulus and Remus and the Dioscuri<br \/> They needed two twins, so they put Peter and Paul together.<br \/> but they put together a hodgepodge<br \/> with everything included<br \/> because Peter had an opinion<br \/> and that was the Jewish view of Jesus, Paul had and developed a Hellenistic idea<br \/> So they didn&#39;t agree on anything.<br \/> By the way&#8230; a curiosity<br \/> there could be more of them&#8230;<br \/> when Judas betrays Jesus<br \/> we know that after the resurrection&#8230; which never happened, because they took him down from the cross alive<br \/> Jesus appears to the eleven<br \/> we read that Jesus appeared to the eleven<br \/> and then it&#39;s said, well, of course, there are eleven of them, because Judas is not there<br \/> but read the Gospel of John<br \/> It says there are 11 of them because Thomas was missing, not Judas.<br \/> because Judas probably did something that was predicted<br \/> he should have done it<br \/> and when he says: one of you will betray me tonight&#8230; and everyone asks: will it be me? will it be me? and he says: who&#39;s going to get wet?<br \/> which means: is there a volunteer here?<br \/> and Judas says: I&#39;ll do it<br \/> and then among those 12&#8230; Jan says: Thomas is missing<br \/> called Didymus, or the twin<br \/> And now I&#39;ll ask you a question, still according to the most normal and stupid common sense.<br \/> is there a group of 12 people<br \/> with a charismatic leader, so the difference between those 12 and the leader is abysmal<br \/> and it is said that these 12 people are followed by women<br \/> This is Marie, this is Franti\u0161ka, this is Laura.<br \/> and here is the wife<br \/> Whose wife is she?<br \/> Thomas, called Didymus, the twin, period.<br \/> Whose twin is it?<br \/> So not a twin of&#8230; a twin, period.<br \/> Be careful, when they did implantations here, sometimes they ended up with twins.<br \/> as in the case of Jacob and Esau&#8230; look, I&#39;m dangerous when I continue like this indefinitely&#8230;<br \/> Jacob and Esau, you know there is a story about Esau who steals the birthright from Jacob, because Esau was born first.<br \/> but every gynecologist will explain to you<br \/> that in the case of twins, the one who is born second is the one who was conceived first<br \/> so the real firstborn is Jacob, not Esau<br \/> and Jacob always calls him his firstborn.<br \/> if this conception of twins occurs after the Elohim perform a procedure on the mother<br \/> because she was barren, and the same thing happened to Sarah<br \/> that is, when there were infertile women in the family, they performed a procedure and they conceived<br \/> So, Jacob and Esau, Jacob is the firstborn.<br \/> the first one conceived, he will be born second, but the birthright is his<br \/> and if Jesus&#8230; it is said that &quot;the&quot; Twin was there<br \/> and if Jesus is the fruit of the implantation performed by that Gabriel I told you about this morning<br \/> Anyway, we&#39;re just pretending, who cares what happens next.<br \/> we&#39;re doing it like, putting together mosaic pieces and watching what comes out of it<br \/> Does something that makes sense come out of it? Then we&#39;ll stick with it&#8230; Does something that doesn&#39;t make sense come out of it? Then we&#39;ll throw it away&#8230; What&#39;s the problem with that?<br \/> we don&#39;t have to create sects, groups, or religions, nothing<br \/> we think freely among ourselves<br \/> As the organizers know, I only speak where I am invited.<br \/> I, since 2010<br \/> I have never organized or requested a single conference.<br \/> When they stop calling me, I&#39;ll stop doing conferences from the next day.<br \/> &#8230;<br \/> &#8230;because this year I wanted to conquer the Col de l&#39;Iseran<br \/> which is 2840 meters, but I don&#39;t have enough time to train<br \/> So, I&#39;ll stop immediately, because I don&#39;t have the profession of a preacher.<br \/> When you call me, I will present my doubts and my considerations to you.<br \/> If you like it, keep it in your head, if you don&#39;t like it, forget it.<br \/> Something about the new law&#8230; because we talked a lot about the old one&#8230; I&#39;d like to hear something new.<br \/> I already said something new about the new law today, didn&#39;t I?<br \/> Yes, but not much.<br \/> I wrote something in the book.<br \/> &#8230;I was talking about Gabriel.<br \/> when Joseph feels that Mary was deceived by someone who pretended to be someone else<br \/> but let&#39;s put it this way<br \/> I was talking about Moses, who was not supposed to die.<br \/> when Jesus is on that famous mountain, where the so-called Transfiguration takes place<br \/> Who will visit him there? Two.<br \/> Elijah and Moses, two who did not die in the Bible<br \/> Where did they come from?<br \/> We&#39;re just pretending and asking ourselves, what&#39;s the problem with that?<br \/> We are not inventing any new truth, we are asking and thinking, period.<br \/> That&#39;s it.<br \/> &#8230;you know that it all ends with the Ascension<br \/> the output in the concept indicates<br \/> that the person who is performing is active<br \/> all the Greek verbs in the New Testament that describe the event<br \/> they are all passive, he was pulled up<br \/> He did not ascend, he was drawn up.<br \/> and I don&#39;t know if this actually happened here<br \/> but if they are holy scriptures, and they are inspired by God, then it is written there that he was drawn up<br \/> and if they are true, then this is true, and not something else<br \/> and when Paul says in the new law<br \/> don&#39;t forget to practice hospitality<br \/> because maybe one of you, without knowing it, hosted one of them<br \/> they resemble us so much<br \/> This is what Paul, the founder of Christianity, says, so Christians are obliged to believe him.<br \/> and Paul also says&#8230; although there are many so-called deities in heaven<br \/> as in, it is true that they are there, but for us, only one applies, but they are there &#8211;\/\/= monolatry\/\/&#8211;<br \/> and if they are there, then they are there<br \/> when Pavel says it&#8230; I don&#39;t really trust Pavel, but<br \/> if it is in the scripture, which is sacred to the power of two, then it is written there<br \/> and if it is sacred squared, then we are obliged to believe it<br \/> otherwise we are again choosing what to believe and what not to believe, we can take Tex Willer and do the same with him<br \/> I respect it.<br \/> By the way, Bonelli dedicated an entire episode to someone other than Tex in one of his editions&#8230;<br \/> But, I can&#39;t remember which one it was now&#8230;. so I have nothing against it<br \/> It&#39;s holy.<br \/> Where? Over there.<br \/> as for original sin<br \/> Perhaps this is not so much a question for you, but rather for a Catholic theologian.<br \/> but that original sin, if it really happened<br \/> during that world flood, one family will be saved, Noah&#39;s<br \/> which was supposed to be &quot;clean&quot;<br \/> chili not burdened by original sin<br \/> How do Catholic theologians explain this?<br \/> why do we remain sinners, when<br \/> the entire human race has been wiped out<br \/> and was only saved<br \/> one branch, one family, two clean persons<br \/> Why do we remain sinners even after these pure people?<br \/> Yes, theologians should answer this question because, of course, if there was no original sin<br \/> So there&#39;s no sinner here&#8230;<br \/> The first part of the question provides a very interesting insight&#8230;<br \/> if the story of Noah is taken as a normal story<br \/> Noah comes from Adam, he is a descendant of Adam and Eve.<br \/> and if Adam and Eve committed the original sin, then it is tainted, period.<br \/> and then they say he was a pure and righteous man<br \/> In Hebrew, a pure and righteous person meant pure from a phenotypic and genotypic point of view.<br \/> Thus in the Ethiopian Book of Enoch, when speaking of Noah&#39;s birth<br \/> The Ethiopian Book of Enoch is apocryphal for us.<br \/> it is canonical for Coptic Christians<br \/> it is written that when his father Lamech saw him<br \/> He looks at him, sees his white skin.<br \/> red hair<br \/> large and bright eyes, as if they were shining<br \/> and immediately exclaims: but that&#39;s not my son, that&#39;s the son of those people over there<br \/> and asks for an explanation<br \/> Lamech follows Methuselah, his father, who follows Enoch.<br \/> which was the one who left with&#8230;<br \/> and he asks for an explanation, and the explanation calms him down<br \/> But for Lamech, it is clear that Noah is the son of those, he is the son of those.<br \/> and it is indeed said there that purity is restored through Noah<br \/> but it was genotypic and phenotypic purity<br \/> because the flood they caused, it probably wasn&#39;t the great flood&#8230;<br \/> 9-10 thousand BC, but it was a local flood<br \/> which was supposed to wipe out all the descendants of that mixing<br \/> which occurred after Genesis Chapter 6<br \/> Yes, I&#39;ve finished speaking.<br \/> in the sense that<br \/> if it is said within that group that this is a Twin<br \/> instinctively, we all understand that this is Jesus&#39; twin<br \/> if it is Jesus&#39; twin, and if Jesus is the product of implantation<br \/> the implantation, exactly as in the case of Jacob and Esau<br \/> she could have had twins<br \/> of which Jesus was the first to be conceived, i.e. he was pre-selected<br \/> just like Jacob<br \/> no one died on the cross<br \/> Professor<br \/> &#8230;<br \/> A quick question&#8230;<br \/> when speaking of the Old Testament<br \/> there is talk of transport technology, war technology, transmission technology<br \/> but it is possible that from an archaeological point of view<br \/> wasn&#39;t there a fragment of any of this?<br \/> two possible answers<br \/> First: let&#39;s imagine<br \/> that these people got here with a certain amount of resources<br \/> Of course, they got here with a limited number of resources, it wasn&#39;t the whole invasion.<br \/> that on the whole planet<br \/> we do not find residues of 50-60-70% of the means<br \/> is, in my opinion, a statistical norm<br \/> Okay? It&#39;s like you want to find the remains of 70-80 trucks that were all over the planet.<br \/> second possible answer: here I refer to the work of Jim Marse<br \/> which is a giant of counter-information, published by the New York Times<br \/> who says that a lot was found, but it&#39;s all locked up<br \/> in some places, e.g. at the Smithsonian Institution<br \/> in whose depositories are those things that must not be known<br \/> Okay?<br \/> and if you want to learn more, you can read the books of Marco Pizutti<br \/> Unauthorized archaeological excavations<br \/> where you can find a lot of things<br \/> it&#39;s just not talked about<br \/> I have a letter from an official archaeologist in my notes.<br \/> who writes to me: when I embarked on an academic career, I thought that truth was being sought there<br \/> I can&#39;t say who it is, because&#8230;<br \/> but he says: no, there are a number of things that must not be talked about<br \/> Alas, it&#39;s simply not allowed.<br \/> It&#39;s not allowed, it&#39;s written there&#8230; so&#8230;<br \/> Mauro&#8230; Mauro, where?<br \/> Aha, here.<br \/> I would need your comment or explanation.<br \/> one passage of the Old Testament<br \/> which seems to be the case, according to what you have taught us over the years<br \/> that it was written after the new law and then crammed into the old one<br \/> I&#39;m talking about the 2nd Book of Maccabees.<br \/> Chapter 7, verse 9 and also 28<br \/> It talks about the story of 7 brothers&#8230;<br \/> who are captured&#8230; and are told<br \/> choose a meat dish, which they were forbidden to have<br \/> or we will torture and kill you<br \/> and they would each choose torture rather than betray the law of Moses<br \/> and they are sure that they will be resurrected and live forever, Jesus was not yet, Paul was not yet<br \/> So, this certainty of eternal life, of resurrection, where did they get it from?<br \/> &#8230;<br \/> and there is even a mother who, when I think, the last son remains<br \/> So he says to him: hold firmly to your faith in that God who created everything out of nothing.<br \/> so there is even this concept of creation from nothing<br \/> Indeed, the Books of Maccabees are not accepted by the Jewish canon.<br \/> because they are the fruit of Greek Hellenistic thought<br \/> but where does it come from? From Platonism and Neoplatonism<br \/> but the idea of an afterlife, when&#8230;<br \/> from the spiritual ideas that were used in Hellenistic thought<br \/> could it have been written after, after Jesus?<br \/> after St. Paul and inserted there? Be that as it may, it was written in the heyday of the Hellenistic period<br \/> after all, the names of the protagonists are Greek names<br \/> the names of the protagonists are Greek names<br \/> so the idea that the books of the Old Testament were written before Jesus<br \/> and you, after Jesus, can be misguided?<br \/> Could there have been some mixing? For example, the Book of Wisdom.<br \/> which is not part of the Jewish canon<br \/> some researchers say that it was completed in the 1st century AD.<br \/> It&#39;s interesting.<br \/> that according to the doctrine, the entire Old Testament is nothing but a preparation for the coming of the Messiah<br \/> The Book of Wisdom, which was certainly written a few years before Christ<br \/> and according to some, it was completed after Jesus&#39; death<br \/> They don&#39;t talk about Christ.<br \/> It&#39;s like I&#39;ve done all the preparation, and then when it comes&#8230;<br \/> I don&#39;t know anything about him anymore.<br \/> The Old and New Testaments are really two different things.<br \/> those books are not really accepted<br \/> because they are the fruit of Greek thought, because they contain concepts that do not belong to Jewish thought<br \/> although in Jewish thought there were disputes between the Pharisees<br \/> and the Sadducees, because the Pharisees believed in the afterlife and the Sadducees did not<br \/> and the Sadducees were the high priestly caste, they said that there is nothing after death<br \/> Yes? So I&#39;ve already talked a little bit about it before, in the Hebrew world we can encounter all possible contradictions.<br \/> that is their wealth, and actually<br \/> in the book of Kohelet<br \/> 3.19<br \/> it is indeed written that the fate of people is the same as the fate of animals, as one dies, so the other dies<br \/> both have the same breath of life<br \/> without a person having anything more than an animal<br \/> both are vanity, all go to the same place<br \/> both come from dust and both return to dust<br \/> This is written in the Bible, but I don&#39;t know if it&#39;s true.<br \/> So, whoever says that there is a soul, etc., will say: who wrote Kohelet, of whom we do not know who he was?<br \/> He didn&#39;t know anything, okay, we&#39;ll take note that he didn&#39;t know anything, but it&#39;s written there.<br \/> then we can safely say that he was a poor man who did not believe in the soul<br \/> Okay, but it&#39;s in the biblical canon.<br \/> Greek re-evaluation?<br \/> Which one?<br \/> No, in the Maccabean one, I don&#39;t think so.<br \/> Yes, theoretically, but there is a story about a rebellion.<br \/> against those customs imposed against Jewish tradition, yes, theoretically yes, but&#8230;<br \/> I wouldn&#39;t say that for sure&#8230;<br \/> Good day.<br \/> You keep talking about a literal interpretation of the Bible.<br \/> I would like to know what you think.<br \/> about the esoteric, numerological interpretation of the Bible, which is presented, for example, by Arie Ben Nun<br \/> chili, as far as kabbalah is concerned<br \/> You want me to make a few thousand more enemies, don&#39;t you?<br \/> Kabbalistic thinking is the fruit of Sephardic Jews, i.e. medieval Spanish Jews.<br \/> and it is a reading using a mystical key<br \/> Let&#39;s realize<br \/> that they had an absolute need<br \/> not to let them understand that the Bible says that the ultimate promise is that the Jews will rule over all<br \/> so the elaboration of mystical, mysterious reading served<br \/> it was used to make it acceptable<br \/> and to avoid the risk of being completely wiped out, which would naturally happen<br \/> Okay? Please.<br \/> Sorry, Mauro, Zecharia Sitchin<br \/> &#8230;he was heavily persecuted for things about the Anunnaki.<br \/> bla<br \/> They&#39;re talking about Planet X, what do you have to say about that?<br \/> Who is from X? Zecharia Sitchin talks about her&#8230;<br \/> Yes, about Nibiru, but I didn&#39;t understand the question.<br \/> What do you know about it?<br \/> &#8230;no, no, no, I don&#39;t know anything more than what&#39;s written, I&#39;m one of those who are waiting for something specific<br \/> because even NASA&#8230;<br \/> the existence or non-existence of Nibiru will not change a single line in my work<br \/> So when they discover it one day, I&#39;ll say: ok<br \/> if one day it turns out that it doesn&#39;t exist, I&#39;ll say: ok<br \/> that&#39;s really my clear answer<br \/> I don&#39;t really deal with that&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;I&#39;m waiting for those who are looking for it to say something specific<br \/> Excuse me, you said that Jesus did not die on the cross, and that no one died on the cross.<br \/> Are you deducing that from something that is written, or is it your own&#8230;<br \/> from evangelical excerpts<br \/> And that?<br \/> in the sense that<br \/> one part of that story<br \/> when they let him sniff the so-called &quot;soaked sponge&quot;<br \/> he had the exact opposite reaction to what would be expected<br \/> when someone inhales vinegar<br \/> so he wakes up for a moment, while he immediately breathes his last<br \/> So what did they give him to smell?<br \/> &#8230;they did it in such a way that what happened to everyone else wouldn&#39;t happen to him.<br \/> to break his legs, because at that moment they would not have been able to save him<br \/> then they take him, they take him down<br \/> As for the piercing of the side, there are medical studies that directly&#8230;<br \/> it simply served to prevent death by suffocation<br \/> then they will put him in the grave<br \/> the fragrances and ointments used to treat his body were those used to treat the wounded in the war<br \/> the women go to visit him at Sunday dawn<br \/> So, they put him in the grave around 5-6 p.m. on Friday.<br \/> those women go there around 5-6 am on Sunday, at most 36 hours have passed, not 3 days<br \/> The tomb is already empty, and he is no longer there.<br \/> So, no one knows how long he was inside.<br \/> so they probably pulled him out after a few hours<br \/> Let us remember that important figures of the Sanhedrin were interested in him.<br \/> the high priestly castes, who were on his side<br \/> Exactly.<br \/> so they were on his side<br \/> and they belonged to the group<br \/> if he was indeed a Jewish, anti-Roman messianic preacher<br \/> to the group that<br \/> She worked in secret, even without the knowledge of the 12 who were put on the front line.<br \/> they killed those whom everyone knew<br \/> So, there are a number of things here.<br \/> which suggest that the grey eminences, who were nevertheless in contact, probably intervened there<br \/> with the Roman world, and they managed to get him down alive<br \/> because, such a consideration, and I&#39;m asking both Biglina and Baccarini<br \/> &#8230;it&#39;s here, isn&#39;t it?<br \/> and the reasoning is this:<br \/> The Bible does not speak of God, I am convinced of that.<br \/> blah blah<br \/> Sumerian-Akkadian texts, from what I&#39;ve read, do not speak of a god<br \/> in the sense that we understand it, etc.<br \/> in the sense of an omnipotent god, etc.<br \/> &#8230;while in the Vedas there is the idea of God as we understand it, that is, the absolute God<br \/> and the gods are only<br \/> with the depiction of that absolute god, I wanted to ask<br \/> What do you think about it?<br \/> Thank you both.. You answer, I&#39;ve been talking until now.<br \/> as for the Vedic gods, the Indian gods<br \/> there is a supreme being there, and the individual deities were not so much<br \/> emanations, but they were beings<br \/> they were physical beings who could die, they were incarnations of the deity<br \/> who, as Krishna, could have lived a long time<br \/> but then, as a result of the battle, old age, etc., she could have died<br \/> divinity, that is something that is not attainable<br \/> something immanent but unattainable, it was more of a concept<br \/> who was so distant that he remained so&#8230;<br \/> bla<br \/> there is no depiction&#8230; Brahma, who is considered the supreme being, was the supreme deity that was&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;Brahma was not depicted<br \/> and all other deities were a manifestation of his idea<br \/> So, I would like&#8230; Giuseppe&#8230;<br \/> usually introduced at the beginning<br \/> &#8230;but better late than never<br \/> So, here is Giuseppe, with whom we organized this small conference.<br \/> We want to thank you.<br \/> to the speakers&#8230;<br \/> blah blah<br \/> bla<br \/> Thank you endlessly.<br \/> I am infinitely grateful to Mauro Biglin&#8230;<br \/> and to all of you&#8230;<br \/> I hope that these performances will find fertile ground in each of us.<br \/> and that they will help us raise our awareness<br \/> &#8230;<br \/> and we&#39;ll let you know as soon as we organize the next event<br \/> Thanks to everyone, thanks.<\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Lecture_2017\"><\/span> Lecture 2017<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p> <a href=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/hMWuvx5b84k\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/youtu.be\/hMWuvx5b84k<\/a><\/p><p>A BRIDGE BETWEEN WORLDS<br \/> So, your friends were telling you here<br \/> on the conditions, etc., so we will follow up on that right away<br \/> and we&#39;ll change the topic a bit<br \/> Let&#39;s assume that we are&#8230;<br \/> It was said here that one of the strongest tools of conditionality is religion.<br \/> but we are all really the product of training<br \/> constant training, precise and very effective<br \/> Let&#39;s make an example: let&#39;s assume that I am one embryo<br \/> in a nice belly on the island of Cyprus&#8230; can&#39;t you hear it?<br \/> So, I said I was that embryo there.<br \/> in a nice belly on the island of Cyprus, which is partly Turkish and partly Greek<br \/> and this beautiful belly is traveling<br \/> and I decide to leave him a few meters from the border<br \/> and I&#39;m on the Greek side now, so I&#39;ll be born there<br \/> I am given a yellow ear tag, like some cow, according to which &quot;you are a Greek&quot;<br \/> you have this language, this history, you have these customs, you have these traditions<br \/> you have these values, you have this religion<br \/> and one day you may be asked to fight against those over there<br \/> I&#39;m still the same embryo<br \/> I&#39;ll wait a few more meters for the birth.<br \/> I&#39;ll be born 4 meters further away<br \/> I will get a green tag.<br \/> I am told that you are a Turk, you have this language, this religion<br \/> you have these customs, these traditions, this history and these values<br \/> and when I am born on one side, I am trained to be a Greek<br \/> and when I am born on the other side, I am trained to be a Turk<br \/> but I am so well trained that I am then convinced that I am a Turk or a Greek<br \/> just as I am now convinced that I am an Italian<br \/> if I had been born a little further away than I was<br \/> I would now be absolutely convinced that I am French.<br \/> This is the result of training, because I am neither Greek, nor Italian, nor Turkish.<br \/> I, like all of us, am DNA.<br \/> who are born with some potential, and then they are made into &quot;something&quot;<br \/> is stuck in some kind of enclosure<br \/> because it is in the enclosures that people are kept under control<br \/> Right? Especially when those enclosures are then built against each other, one against the other.<br \/> and that is the reality, whether we like it or not<br \/> we are a species that is trained, just as we train our puppies<br \/> just as when we talk about<br \/> for God&#39;s sake<br \/> whose follower, I&#39;ll say it straight, I am not<br \/> this way I can freely love whoever I want and whoever I don&#39;t<br \/> in the sense that those who are followers of the God of love have a duty to love everyone<br \/> compulsorily<br \/> in fact, they must love above all those whom they would hate with great pleasure<br \/> But I&#39;m free, I love who I want.<br \/> I can&#39;t hate, because that&#39;s a word I don&#39;t know&#8230;<br \/> I can at least choose.<br \/> but we are told to consider everyone as brothers<br \/> but then we live in the same society<br \/> which says that if you want to become a boss<br \/> you have to get around the other one, because otherwise he will get around you<br \/> So we live in a schizophrenic society.<br \/> all brothers, but one against the other<br \/> in the sense that we are social animals&#8230; then we&#39;ll get to the Bible, don&#39;t worry<br \/> we are forced social animals<br \/> the other animals are social due to their genetic structure<br \/> we are forced social animals, because if we are not together, nature kills us<br \/> so we have to be together, we have to be united, at least in groups<br \/> forced&#8230; I repeat&#8230;<br \/> when you take two dogs and put them in an empty train carriage<br \/> the two dogs will approach and sniff each other<br \/> When you put two people in an empty carriage, one will sit there.<br \/> and the second one to the opposite end<br \/> when the third one comes, they sit somewhere in the middle<br \/> and when the fourth one approaches, they will carefully choose a place at the same distance from the others<br \/> Is it so or not?<br \/> dogs sniff each other, we don&#39;t<br \/> because we are forced social animals<br \/> and we are also trained to become social animals<br \/> and by the way, trained in the name of<br \/> especially in the West, in the name of one<br \/> I say especially in the West, because<br \/> that&#39;s what interests us, what surrounds us<br \/> in the name of one religion<br \/> in which, perhaps<br \/> none of us&#8230; or with whom, that&#39;s better<br \/> maybe none of us has anything to do<br \/> I don&#39;t know if any of you are Jewish.<br \/> but if we read the Bible correctly<br \/> so it&#39;s not enough to be a Jew at all<br \/> if we read the Bible correctly, then that covenant<br \/> was not between Yahweh, the supposed god, who fortunately is not a god, and the Jews<br \/> but it is a covenant between Yahweh and the family of Israel<br \/> who is Jacob<br \/> Jacob&#39;s twin brother and his descendants have nothing to do with that covenant.<br \/> and they were actually supposed to be exterminated<br \/> the cousins of the Israelites, i.e. the descendants of Lot, Abraham&#39;s nephew, were to be exterminated<br \/> so one of the many clich\u00e9s we are used to<br \/> is that there are Jews and others&#8230; no<br \/> you need to be careful, because he made this contract with the Israelites<br \/> with one family, out of thousands of Jewish families<br \/> I know what these things cost me, because<br \/> last time I was told that I was being monitored for antisemitism<br \/> So&#8230;<br \/> then, since I&#39;m doing that example with the embryo there<br \/> So they tell me I&#39;m a sovereigntist.<br \/> I didn&#39;t even know that any sovereignist movements existed.<br \/> these are the ones according to which no individual may be subordinated to any<br \/> no powers, but at the same time, those same groups tell me<br \/> that I work for the new world order, which is supposed to be the highest order<br \/> the last time they drew me in the uniform of a Nazi officer<br \/> because they want to make an anti-Semite out of me<br \/> if they manage to indict me&#8230; you know that here in Italy there are<br \/> certain laws on the Holocaust, on revisionism, etc., and so they try to<br \/> some groups, to accuse, and so they make me &quot;something&quot;<br \/> because everyone is used to it<br \/> thinking in boxes<br \/> So when someone says something, they immediately put you in a box.<br \/> If you say something different, they&#39;ll put you in a different pen.<br \/> and they do it without realizing it<br \/> that sometimes the same persons are simultaneously placed in different enclosures<br \/> even contradictory enclosures that are not even mutually compatible<br \/> but so be it<br \/> I&#39;m telling it like it is.<br \/> I have been studying texts of Jewish theology for some time now.<br \/> e.g. in one of these texts published by Mamash<br \/> are edited exclusively by rabbis<br \/> it is written that Bere\u0161it, or Genesis<br \/> it is also called the Book of Creation, but the essence of that creation<br \/> it is not a story about mountains and valleys, about oceans and deserts<br \/> and not about animals and people<br \/> It is a story about the birth of Israel.<br \/> the people who inherited a certain task from Adam and Havy, that is, from Adam and Eve, period.<br \/> that&#39;s what they say<br \/> but it&#39;s enough to read the Bible and you&#39;ll understand it<br \/> So, let&#39;s leave.<br \/> these clich\u00e9s, these thought processes, into which we have been very skillfully trained<br \/> in which we find ourselves<br \/> the thought processes that led to the creation of this religion<br \/> based on a certain set of books<br \/> about whom we actually know nothing<br \/> We don&#39;t know who wrote them.<br \/> we don&#39;t know, in principle, when they were written<br \/> we don&#39;t know how they were originally written<br \/> we don&#39;t know how they were originally read<br \/> and when I say this, I mean the new law, right? Beware, not just the old law<br \/> Let&#39;s not think that the 4 Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, that&#39;s not it.<br \/> We don&#39;t know who wrote them, we don&#39;t know.<br \/> tradition attributes them to those<br \/> there are thousands of codices of the so-called canonical gospels and no two are the same<br \/> So we don&#39;t know anything about those texts.<br \/> those texts, by the way, and now I mean mainly the Old Testament<br \/> are preached to us as true, as inspired by God<br \/> are preached to us by those who are ninety&#8230; when I really close my eyes<br \/> who in 95% of cases do not know the language in which they were written<br \/> chili, pope, bishops, theologians<br \/> priests, catechists, etc. do not know Hebrew<br \/> and so they preach based on translations<br \/> translations that have been constantly changing over the years, are still changing and will continue to change<br \/> and these translations are always served to us as true in sermons<br \/> so at that moment we have to believe those things<br \/> So, we don&#39;t know who wrote it, we don&#39;t know when it was written&#8230; Israeli biblical scholars say<br \/> professors at Israeli Jewish universities<br \/> they say, they write, in complete calm<br \/> that the only certainty we have is that the Hebrew texts that we now have<br \/> they are not the same as those originally written, because they were altered with each transcription<br \/> So the only certainty we have is this one.<br \/> so we can only do as, we can only do as<br \/> so I have to laugh when I remember<br \/> to those groups of opponents, as I mentioned<br \/> because they are all in agreement: atheists, Catholic theologians, evangelical exegetes<br \/> Everyone is united against me.<br \/> They are all right.<br \/> these are all truths that differ from one another<br \/> everyone is united against someone who says: I don&#39;t have the truth and I&#39;m just pretending<br \/> This would be worth analyzing psychologically and sociologically.<br \/> But they are not stupid.<br \/> they are not stupid, because if by chance my &quot;acting as if&quot; was true<br \/> then everyone will collapse<br \/> regardless of the truth they proclaim<br \/> that&#39;s why&#8230;<br \/> Their only bond is being against Biglin, right?<br \/> I don&#39;t have a problem with it, I enjoy it.<br \/> So we don&#39;t know who wrote it, when they wrote it, how they wrote it, or how it was read.<br \/> it is preached by someone who does not know the language in which it was written<br \/> It is absolutely believed by 1.5 billion people who have never read it.<br \/> Is it so or not?<br \/> This is Christianity.<br \/> if we were talking about a sect with 300 members<br \/> 300, with one guru<br \/> who preaches based on a text about which nothing is known<br \/> This guru has about 15 envoys who help him spread his message.<br \/> 15 plenipotentiaries who do not know the language in which the text was written<br \/> and then they have 250 loyal followers who blindly believe<br \/> to what the guru and the envoys say<br \/> without ever reading that text&#8230; what would we think of that sect?<br \/> So, what we think about that sect, let&#39;s think about Christianity&#8230; you don&#39;t have to tell me.<br \/> Let&#39;s think about Christianity, because it&#39;s exactly the same.<br \/> There is no difference, none at all.<br \/> Is there anyone here yet&#8230;?<br \/> Aha, a blue Fiat 600, a gray Ford Fiesta.<br \/> Sure, not that they were stolen, but they need to be re-parked.<br \/> When I was doing a conference in Lisbon 2 months ago, there was a letter there.<br \/> &#8230;I had several conferences in Portugal<br \/> It was in the center of Lisbon, and when I got there, a sealed letter was waiting for me on the table.<br \/> to be Mauro Biglino<br \/> and I immediately had it read out by the moderator who was hosting the conference<br \/> It said: you are Satan, you are the Antichrist, you will be punished&#8230; I still have it, as a memento.<br \/> too nice, it was handwritten<br \/> with those blue highlighters, like when someone is really pissed off&#8230;<br \/> so I thought that someone had already come here, but&#8230;<br \/> So, I was saying, Christianity is here, there&#39;s nothing to be done about it&#8230;<br \/> this is not yet related to translations, meanings, or anything<br \/> that&#39;s just a fact<br \/> texts are given to be believed, about which nothing is known<br \/> and are believed by those who have never read them, that&#39;s what I think<br \/> dramatic, because then they are considered true on the basis of preaching<br \/> maybe in about 2000 years they will do excavations here<br \/> then they won&#39;t find it<br \/> thousands of statues of someone nailed to a cross<br \/> from wood, from iron, from anything, from glass, from plaster&#8230; thousands, thousands<br \/> then they will do historical research and find out how it is now<br \/> that certain evidence&#8230;. here, be careful<br \/> there is no certain evidence of his historical existence<br \/> I say this calmly because I am one of those who believe that this person physically existed.<br \/> So I don&#39;t deny his existence.<br \/> But if you ask me: how do you know he existed? I&#39;ll tell you.<br \/> I&#39;m pretending that he existed, because if he did, it would explain a lot of things.<br \/> but I am not in a position to give you evidence of its existence<br \/> and no one is able to give them to you<br \/> So they won&#39;t find this here.<br \/> and they say: they worshipped someone, but it is not known who, there is no certainty whether he existed or not<br \/> then they find millions, millions of statues, pictures<br \/> in the quotation marks of the middle deities<br \/> chili of the saints<br \/> and they say: here you go<br \/> besides praying to the one who was supposed to be the son of God<br \/> son of the only God<br \/> They also prayed to all these intermediary deities.<br \/> &#8230;after which they asked for mercy, favor, intercession<br \/> asked for intercession from&#8230;<br \/> big boss<br \/> Can someone explain it to me, but in a convincing way?<br \/> the difference between the Padre Pio statue on the nightstand<br \/> and with the statues of Lares and Penates, which the ancient Romans had on their nightstands?<br \/> convincingly but&#8230; explain<br \/> No difference.<br \/> It is said: The Lari and Penati were considered their ancestors.<br \/> but when we are at a funeral, doesn&#39;t the priest say<br \/> Let us pray for our dead.<br \/> and we ask our deceased to intercede for us with God<br \/> What is the difference compared to the Roman Lares and Penates?<br \/> None, none.<br \/> In 2000 years, they will say: Christianity was idolatry.<br \/> without any doubt<br \/> if they use it against Christianity<br \/> the same critical, exegetical categories that contemporary Christianity uses<br \/> to so-called pagan religions, Christianity is an idolatrous religion<br \/> There&#39;s nothing that can be done about it.<br \/> they also say that this one on the cross at one point<br \/> &#8230;they said that his mother was also divine, but that was later<br \/> Council of Ephesus, so after several centuries<br \/> They said his mother was divine, because of course<br \/> If he was a god, his mother had to be divine.<br \/> but that was after several centuries&#8230; if we read the gospels correctly<br \/> Find me someone who is treated worse than Mary in the Gospels.<br \/> her son himself treated her badly<br \/> who, at the age of 12, says to her: what the hell do you want from me?<br \/> Two slaps, right? Or is it not like that?<br \/> Nowadays, two slaps are not given, but they are useful.<br \/> That&#39;s right.<br \/> He was discussing with Mistry there.<br \/> that&#39;s exactly what all twelve-year-old Jewish children do at their bar\/bat mitzvah<br \/> they were just transitioning into adulthood, they didn&#39;t do anything special<br \/> just like all Jewish children, it&#39;s called a bar\/bat mitzvah<br \/> they become children of the Law, and he was of that age and was becoming a son of the Law<br \/> and for this purpose, he is discussing with rabbis, he did this here<br \/> and whenever his mother intervenes, he always pushes her away<br \/> but of course, this was not suitable here<br \/> so she became Theotokos, the Mother of God<br \/> but it was also because the church knew well<br \/> that if he is to take the followers of the so-called pagan cultures<br \/> she had to present a female deity, because they all had a female deity<br \/> if Christianity had not provided them<br \/> it would hardly have gained all those believers<br \/> that&#39;s not the only reason, there are of course others<br \/> and Christianity knew that if it did not provide all these mediating deities<br \/> then it would not have gained those believers again&#8230; but the fact is<br \/> that the so-called pagan cults<br \/> they could do that<br \/> Christians no<br \/> there is a ban pronounced by their god<br \/> you will never create an image<br \/> and you shall not worship any image<br \/> all churches are blasphemy against this divine command<br \/> all churches are blasphemy against this divine command<br \/> I know that sooner or later they&#39;ll shoot me&#8230;<br \/> So you should go to church with the Bible and say: gentlemen, away with everything.<br \/> then they make up some justification for what they&#39;ve done here<br \/> but they made it all up to justify it<br \/> because that order has never been revoked<br \/> There&#39;s nothing that can be done about it.<br \/> images must not be worshipped<br \/> but if the church did not give permission, it would not be able to keep those believers<br \/> The church, however, gave permission because it knows well<br \/> that the god who will charge you for those images does not exist<br \/> because they made it up, so they&#39;re fine<br \/> they will never have to answer to anyone<br \/> for all those paintings with which they filled the churches and on which they make money, because they also sell them&#8230; you understand?<br \/> This is a complete deviation.<br \/> Idolatry &#8211; forbidden and economically exploited<br \/> last Sunday, when&#8230; or tomorrow morning&#8230; is today Saturday?<br \/> Yeah, sorry, it&#39;s not a joke, I really&#8230;<br \/> how many times has the priest told you<br \/> So, this week, have you sold all your property?<br \/> How many times has he told you?<br \/> And if he told you that, did you answer him yes or no?<br \/> and if you answered no, the priest should tell you<br \/> So, I&#39;m sorry, you&#39;ll do it next week, because otherwise there&#39;s no point in you going to mass next Sunday.<br \/> The Gospel According to Mark<br \/> Christian families<br \/> A young man comes to Jesus and asks him: what should I do to become your follower? Keep the commandments.<br \/> I followed them all.<br \/> Chapter 10, Verse 17<br \/> Please, always verify what I tell you when I read the Bible, okay?<br \/> Verify everything, so I&#39;ll be at ease.<br \/> they are a little less calm when you verify what they are saying, I am calm<br \/> So&#8230; I&#39;ve been following all those things since my childhood.<br \/> Jesus looked at him and said, &quot;But you lack one thing.&quot;<br \/> Go, sell everything you have and give it to the poor, and follow me.<br \/> You are missing&#8230; so if you don&#39;t do it, keeping my commandments is not enough.<br \/> It&#39;s here, okay?<br \/> How many times have you been told that in church? Never.<br \/> because if they start telling you this, they will immediately lose&#8230; all believers<br \/> within a minute&#8230; please<br \/> No, no, I didn&#39;t understand it&#8230;<br \/> as long as there&#39;s some order in it&#8230;<br \/> I enjoy questions, just keep it organized&#8230;<br \/> So, that&#39;s what it says there, that&#39;s what the son of God said.<br \/> that&#39;s what they say&#8230; but for them, he is the son of God<br \/> It is clearly written there, there is no doubt about it, it is not some interpretation.<br \/> Then, sell everything you have and give it to the poor, that&#39;s not<br \/> as we think: I&#39;ll go, sell, and then I&#39;ll go look for the poor<br \/> the poor ones were them, that group<br \/> to whom the money had to be handed over, because the money was managed by the group<br \/> In Luke 8, we read<br \/> that many women followed the 12 with Jesus<br \/> who followed him, this public appearance according to the synoptic gospels lasted about 3 years<br \/> since they did not work a single day in those 3 years, and since there was no social support<br \/> and if someone wanted to eat, they had to work<br \/> it says there that there were women who constantly followed them<br \/> and secured them with their property<br \/> so they let themselves be supported by well-situated women<br \/> which in itself is not&#8230;<br \/> it&#39;s a free choice<br \/> but if Jesus allowed himself to be supported by well-off women<br \/> What is the difference compared to today&#39;s gurus, those cunning people who let themselves be supported by well-situated women?<br \/> Do you understand? Luke 8, read it.<br \/> were supported by well-off women<br \/> It&#39;s there.<br \/> in translations, in Bibles of Christian families<br \/> and if, then<br \/> &#8230;when Jesus left<br \/> Peter was there, the one who was giving orders<br \/> and in that group, which we would call a sect today<br \/> that law was in force there<br \/> it was necessary to sell the property and \/\/money\/\/ put it on the table, that is, to give it, as they say<br \/> in the Acts of the Apostles, it had to be laid at the feet of the apostles<br \/> So the money was to be handed over to the bosses.<br \/> because the money was managed by the bosses<br \/> Ananias and Sapphira, a couple<br \/> They sold their field, but they did not hand over all the money, they kept some of it.<br \/> Peter calls Ananias and says to him:<br \/> Why did you think you could fool the spirit like that?<br \/> How dare you? And Ananias will die.<br \/> they will take him away to bury him<br \/> his wife comes, and Peter, with perfect police manners, says to her:<br \/> How much did you sell the field for? And she will say the same figure that she agreed on with her husband.<br \/> and he says: look, those who left to bury your husband<br \/> he&#39;ll be back soon and they&#39;ll bury you too<br \/> But wasn&#39;t that the group where the 7&#215;7 forgiveness was supposed to be practiced?<br \/> he should not have said to Ananias: look<br \/> You sold it&#8230; we know you kept something, look&#8230;<br \/> That&#39;s not good behavior, the right thing to do would be to hand everything over, this time I&#39;ll forgive you&#8230; no<br \/> There was no forgiveness there&#8230; did Ananias have a heart attack?<br \/> Did he have a stroke?<br \/> Did he die laughing? Or, as Porphyry says, Peter killed him.<br \/> and when you read the passage, you will understand that the only explanation is that Peter killed him<br \/> I&#39;ll tell you right away, at least I won&#39;t mix up the verses<br \/> Acts of the Apostles, chapter 5, from the beginning of chapter 5<br \/> those two will die and<br \/> When those who went to bury the husband return, they find the woman already dead.<br \/> and there was only Peter and the woman, Zafira<br \/> and Jerome, who is the one who translated the Bible into Latin<br \/> in his epistle 109 he recalls the severitas<br \/> says: the hardness of Peter when he killed Ananias and Sapphira<br \/> and indeed that excerpt, the lady will read it when she finds it<br \/> says that the whole group was afraid<br \/> it was necessary to make it clear: here, gentlemen, the rules are followed<br \/> all the money must be handed over to us<br \/> you can&#39;t do what you want<br \/> A slightly different story&#8230;<br \/> and it is Petr who, a short while ago<br \/> to save his life, he swore and falsely swore that he did not know Jesus<br \/> that he is not part of his group, you remember the scene of Jesus&#39; arrest, don&#39;t you?<br \/> still him, but when it came to money<br \/> he will send two people to make sure everyone understands<br \/> what needs to be adapted to<br \/> the whole processing<br \/> the plot is very &quot;modern&quot;<br \/> in the sense that there is no difference here when compared to today&#39;s sects<br \/> There is no difference.<br \/> absolutely<br \/> The rules must be followed.<br \/> I know exactly about such sects, where they also require a tithe, etc.<br \/> where those members have to hand over 10% of their gross earnings<br \/> not from net, from gross<br \/> These are some Protestant sects, etc., so<br \/> Luckily, they don&#39;t kill them now if they don&#39;t do it&#8230;<br \/> they don&#39;t kill them, because fortunately there are secular laws here that prevent it<br \/> non-religious laws<br \/> because according to religious laws, they could easily kill them<br \/> because Yahweh had the one who gathered wood on the Sabbath killed<br \/> in the desert, he has him killed, saying: take him out and stone him<br \/> because my orders are not questioned<br \/> and so the whole community must understand how things are<br \/> so here it was the norm<br \/> That&#39;s why I&#39;m not a follower of the god of love.<br \/> because I don&#39;t really believe that it was the god of love, but&#8230;<br \/> you don&#39;t have to worry, because<br \/> I&#39;ll read this to you because it directly concerns me.<br \/> It&#39;s from a university professor, the full name is here, it&#39;s public.<br \/> from a professor at the University of Naples<br \/> who, in one published email, where he talks about me, writes<br \/> that Biglino is nothing but a madman<br \/> or someone who has lost the light of reason<br \/> So here it is, when I saw it, it was shared in some groups<br \/> where there are about 150 members<br \/> I&#39;m reading it at conferences now, so it&#39;s already over 400,000.<br \/> But I want more than a million people to know that Biglino is a nutcase.<br \/> because if Biglino is a madman, then like all madmen, he can say whatever he wants<br \/> because there is nothing more liberating than being a madman<br \/> The problem is that if someone really thinks someone is a moron, they don&#39;t waste time.<br \/> by proving that the things he says are not true&#8230;. right? Because when you meet someone who says: I am Napoleon<br \/> how many minutes do you spend on historical research to convince him that he is not Napoleon<br \/> How many minutes?<br \/> Those who publish these things work in groups, all day and night.<br \/> in an effort to dismantle what one madman says<br \/> So&#8230;<br \/> they are afraid of this madman here<br \/> &#8230;I help him because I got it from those 200 readers<br \/> gave more than 400 thousand from my conferences<br \/> So I help him a lot, and I&#39;m happy to do it&#8230;<br \/> Then, of course, there are other things here.<br \/> a little nicer, but I&#39;ll only read one to you here<br \/> because this one is interesting<br \/> Yesterday afternoon I was invited to the University of Turin.<br \/> I attended two anthropology thesis defenses there.<br \/> they were master&#39;s theses<br \/> and their subject was paleoastronautics<br \/> exobiology, ancient contacteeism<br \/> the mysteries of some buildings, etc.<br \/> and here are the two of them, one boy and one girl<br \/> got 110 cum laude<br \/> I was quite pleased when I saw my name projected during the defense.<br \/> I had goosebumps&#8230; seeing myself cited in theses<br \/> &#8230;I was pleased that some arguments are starting to reach the academic level.<br \/> one book by an academic will be published in the autumn<br \/> even having a specialization at the Paris Haute \u00c9cole<br \/> It is a book about ancient Roman religion.<br \/> and he quotes K\u00e1roly Ker\u00e9nyi&#8230; who studies<br \/> classical culture, then they know who he is, he is one of the greats&#8230; and he says that K\u00e1roly Ker\u00e9nyi<br \/> when discussing Roman religiosity and also Jewish religiosity, he says:<br \/> it is easy to recognize in this form<br \/> a certain type that is not only Roman in the history of religion<br \/> In this respect, we can take into account the Jewish religion.<br \/> to compare the Roman religion with the Israelite one<br \/> which is what I do in the books published by Mondadori<br \/> and this academic writes:<br \/> it seems to us that despite a clear and distinct awareness of the need for a comparative analysis of the two systems<br \/> it does not seem that the researchers have done it<br \/> it&#39;s the other way around&#8230; sorry, but that&#39;s how it&#39;s written here<br \/> one valid and courageous researcher of the Old Testament, Mauro Biglino<br \/> who devoted entire pages to the study of important parallel places<br \/> between the Jewish religious mindset and the Roman one<br \/> and played out fascinating scenarios in the ancient world<br \/> which must be questioned<br \/> some of the most established certainties of Western historiography<br \/> So I&#39;m really satisfied.<br \/> that like a madman, from my considerations&#8230;<br \/> I am achieving this here<br \/> The question is what.<br \/> The question is this:<br \/> as I said, the Bible is preached<br \/> based on translations<br \/> translations that are constantly changing and will continue to change<br \/> translations but also passages<br \/> really very, very significant, very, very serious<br \/> I have said this many times in recent years<br \/> that there are no prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the Christian Jesus<br \/> there are things concerning the Jewish Messiah<br \/> which is something else, i.e. the hope that the Messiah will come, etc. etc. etc.<br \/> but there is not a single thing about the Christian Jesus, as he was presented to us then<br \/> and I said<br \/> when you find any of these alleged prophecies, do one thing<br \/> have it explained by a Christian theologian and a Jewish exegete<br \/> you will get two completely different explanations<br \/> and the Jew is right<br \/> because I repeat, Jesus has nothing to do with it<br \/> I remember well when I said these things.<br \/> reactions, written<br \/> under the conferences&#8230; &#8230;here are centuries<br \/> traditions that say something, and then Biglino comes and changes everything&#8230; no<br \/> I always say: Biglino doesn&#39;t discover anything<br \/> He never discovered anything, Biglino does the most idiotic job in the world.<br \/> He tells you: look, it says here this, period. Then do with it what you want.<br \/> But know that it says this, not what is being interpreted.<br \/> So the prophecy, which you all surely know, concerning Jesus Christ, is: A virgin will conceive.<br \/> and she will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Emmanuel&#8230; this is in Isaiah<br \/> Isaiah is one of those books where it is not known who wrote it.<br \/> Okay? They say: how come, Isaiah didn&#39;t write it? Well, that would be too good to be true&#8230;<br \/> to know that Isaiah wrote it<br \/> actually, until recently it was said that chapters 1 to 39<br \/> we attribute it to him because we have no serious reasons to deny it<br \/> from 40 to 55, we know that they were written by another, whom we call<br \/> usually Deutero-Isaiah, who wrote 2 centuries after Isaiah<br \/> Chapters 56 to 66 were written by someone else.<br \/> which we commonly call Trito Isaiah, or the third Isaiah<br \/> who wrote several decades after the other one<br \/> this was just a few months ago<br \/> because a few months ago a study by Israeli biblical scholars was published<br \/> who say that chapters 33 to 39 as well<br \/> can certainly no longer be attributed to Isaiah<br \/> but they must be shifted 2 centuries later, so we know nothing<br \/> We don&#39;t know anything.<br \/> Do you understand?<br \/> and based on this &quot;we know nothing&quot; we say that Isaiah predicted<br \/> that a virgin is to conceive<br \/> and the fact is that in Hebrew, it was never written that a virgin would conceive<br \/> never<br \/> in Hebrew it is written ALMaH<br \/> HaRaH<br \/> JoLeDeT<br \/> almah harah joledet<br \/> German Bishops&#39; Conference finally<br \/> in 2017, it was decided to change the translation of this verse<br \/> and the translation of the German Bibles, which are now being published, states<br \/> still a &quot;virgin&quot;&#8230; but then they write in the note<br \/> &quot;Alma&quot; in Hebrew doesn&#39;t actually mean virgin, but young girl&#8230; all scholars know that.<br \/> because the Hebrew word for virgin is betulah, so when they wanted to write &quot;virgin&quot;, they wrote &quot;betulah&quot;<br \/> When they wanted to write &quot;young girl&quot;, they wrote &quot;alma&quot;.<br \/> So, &quot;virgin&quot; with a note<br \/> &#8230;&quot;conceived&quot;<br \/> not &quot;will conceive&quot;, they write now, &quot;conceived&quot;<br \/> joledet is a participle, and &quot;will give birth&quot;<br \/> so they are finally taking note of the fact<br \/> that in the Hebrew Bible it was never &quot;conceived&quot;<br \/> because &quot;arah&quot;<br \/> not only is it not a verb indicating the future, but it is not even a verb, it is an adjective<br \/> and means &quot;pregnant&quot;<br \/> So when they wrote this verse, this girl was already pregnant.<br \/> And in the second book of Kings, the name of this girl is also written, do you know that?<br \/> Her name was Abija.<br \/> it is written in the 2nd Book of Kings, not a Madonna<br \/> it was the wife of King Hezekiah, who was pregnant<br \/> &#8230;of King Ahaz of Judah, who was pregnant<br \/> and they hoped, the Israelites of that time, that the child<br \/> he will finally free them when he becomes king<br \/> from the Assyrian yoke, into which they had fallen under the Judean king Ahaz<br \/> by the way, the child will be named Hezekiah, not Emmanuel<br \/> Just to be clear, so even here in this, the prophecy&#8230;<br \/> So<br \/> This young girl, whose name was Abija, was pregnant.<br \/> she was about to give birth, and<br \/> They hoped that&#8230; the Bible says this<br \/> not that some virgin will conceive sometime in the future, no, that&#39;s not there<br \/> that&#39;s not in the Hebrew Bible<br \/> it&#39;s in the Greek Bible, the one translated into Greek<br \/> where the term parthenos, which&#8230; in Greek does not distinguish between<br \/> a young girl and a virgin&#8230; both are called parthenos, so it can be translated as you wish<br \/> and then there is a verb in the future tense: exei kai exetai<br \/> chili &quot;will conceive and give birth&quot;, but that is written in Greek in the Bible<br \/> which is for Jews<br \/> that&#39;s what the chief rabbi of the Turin Jewish community said when we had that meeting in Milan<br \/> in front of 600 people, he said: it is a disaster for mankind, that bible<br \/> That Greek Bible is a disaster for humanity because they wrote whatever they wanted in it.<br \/> because it was written by Jewish intellectuals in Alexandria<br \/> for their own reasons, due to cultural disputes<br \/> with Greek intellectuals, etc., etc., etc.<br \/> but this is what is written in the Hebrew Bible<br \/> so this prophecy was never there<br \/> and now how will the German priests do it, when by December 31, 2016<br \/> They preached that prophecy there, and now they can&#39;t preach it anymore?<br \/> Let&#39;s imagine two Germans, one holding a Bible from 2015 and the other from 2018.<br \/> and one will say: no, look, it&#39;s written here too, that the Virgin&#8230;<br \/> and the second one: no, look, it&#39;s not written here&#8230; it&#39;s written&#8230; it&#39;s not written&#8230;<br \/> You understand? These are the foundations on which the absolute truth of religion is built.<br \/> by the way, when it comes to absolute truths<br \/> if you are afraid that you will end up in purgatory<br \/> because&#8230; how to put it&#8230;<br \/> you are not quite sure that you have been really good, good, good<br \/> but you want to remain Christians, you want to remain faithful to the same God<br \/> If you want to remain faithful to the same Jesus Christ, become Orthodox.<br \/> because purgatory does not exist for them<br \/> chili<br \/> Roman theologians invented purgatory, because, like hell and heaven, they are inventions of Roman theology.<br \/> Orthodox theologians no<br \/> So, for the Orthodox, there is no purgatory.<br \/> So, just bear with it tonight.<br \/> Convert to Orthodoxy tomorrow morning, and from tomorrow you will no longer end up in purgatory.<br \/> Do you want to be sure that you will not spend eternity in hell? Become Orthodox.<br \/> because for the Orthodox, hell ends with the end of time<br \/> because all the souls that are in it<br \/> thanks to the funeral sacrifices and prayers of the living<br \/> it will turn, and so when everything is over, when the last judgment comes<br \/> everyone will be penitents and converts<br \/> and hell will cease to exist<br \/> and so you won&#39;t spend eternity in hell<br \/> at most, you&#39;ll spend some time there<br \/> if you don&#39;t want to believe<br \/> papal dogmas, become Orthodox<br \/> and you no longer have to believe in the dogmas of the Pope<br \/> Actually, even&#8230; you know that Orthodox churches don&#39;t have a Pope.<br \/> they are all autocephalous churches<br \/> No? They all have their own patriarch, they are independent.<br \/> There are Orthodox patriarchs who have excommunicated the current Pope Francis.<br \/> They really excommunicated him for what he says.<br \/> You understand? It&#39;s an amazing fight between all these followers of the god of love.<br \/> You know that there was a famous schism between the Eastern and Western churches.<br \/> which occurred because of the filioque, i.e. because of<br \/> to the addendum, which one party accepts and the other does not<br \/> In fact, this fight took place because of the control of Bulgaria&#8230; but let&#39;s leave that aside&#8230;<br \/> As always, it was about money.<br \/> the rest was all the same to everyone<br \/> and so, the Virgin is not there<br \/> there is something else here that is not in the Old Testament<br \/> which, however, is a structural part of the control system from which we came<br \/> and that is the concept of original sin<br \/> the concept of original sin, according to which we are all born sinners, we are all born tainted<br \/> that death came into the world because of original sin&#8230;<br \/> because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve<br \/> and that, therefore, by the fact that we are all born<br \/> sinners<br \/> We need intermediaries to bring us back.<br \/> into a good relationship with the Father, and to receive eternal life<br \/> so that this cruel consequence of the stain may be taken away from us<br \/> when we were talking there in Milan&#8230; by the way, I wanted to tell you<br \/> It exists&#8230;<br \/> this entire meeting was transcribed<br \/> and you can download it for free from the Uno Editori publishing house website<br \/> It&#39;s 123 pages, it&#39;s a free book, download it.<br \/> everything is there, that 4-hour meeting I had with<br \/> one Catholic theologian, one Orthodox bishop<br \/> one of the most important Italian biblical scholars, Dr. Garron of Vald\u00e9s<br \/> and the Chief Rabbi of the Turin Jewish community<br \/> It was in Milan in front of 600 people, it lasted 4 hours.<br \/> everything is transcribed word for word, download it for free and that&#39;s it<br \/> when they were talking about original sin<br \/> the first one to receive that question from the moderator was<br \/> dr. Ariel Di Porto, the chief rabbi, who said:<br \/> I have a bit of a problem talking about it because I don&#39;t want to hurt the feelings of others.<br \/> because the concept of original sin does not exist in the Jewish world<br \/> and because he had a Catholic, an Orthodox, and a Protestant next to him<br \/> So he said: I don&#39;t want to hurt anyone&#39;s feelings.<br \/> But what did the Protestant say?<br \/> That Protestant, he&#39;s someone who signs dictionaries, okay?<br \/> one who prepares dictionaries of biblical Hebrew and Aramaic<br \/> one of the leading Italian biblical scholars<br \/> The concept of original sin was introduced by Paul&#8230; who is the one who invented Christianity.<br \/> in the letter to the Romans, in chapter 5, he introduces this concept<br \/> listen to what the Valdese biblical scholar says<br \/> between Genesis 3&#8230; which is supposed to be<br \/> a story about disobedience, or sin<br \/> and Romans 5<br \/> where the Apostle Paul says that death entered the world through man<br \/> there is clearly no connection<br \/> And actually, when we read Paul, we can ask ourselves where he got that idea?<br \/> Where did he get that idea? And you&#39;ve been serving it to us for centuries.<br \/> If I said something like that, it would be&#8230;<br \/> This is said by one of the most important Italian biblical scholars.<br \/> What does a Catholic professor of theology say?<br \/> whom I met once again in Turin at the book fair, we had another meeting<br \/> in two, it took 1 hour<br \/> in one stall<br \/> and at the end of that hour-long meeting, he said: these meetings should last<br \/> the whole weekend<br \/> So, he says: I would separate that concept from the clan concept of sin.<br \/> that if the parents have sinned, the children bear the consequences<br \/> something like that is, in my opinion, as he says, widely denied in the new law<br \/> although, unfortunately, it was widely used in theology<br \/> I swear to you, at that meeting I asked myself several times: what am I doing here?<br \/> What am I doing here? The original sin is not there.<br \/> when you take the Jerusalem Bible<br \/> so you will read in the notes that original sin does not exist<br \/> it&#39;s not there, you can read about it in the notes<br \/> so it&#39;s not a madman&#39;s invention<br \/> when reading the Bible, you understand that it&#39;s not there, but when a madman says it, it obviously has no weight<br \/> When those gentlemen say it, it&#39;s starting to mean something.<br \/> but if original sin does not exist<br \/> 1854<br \/> Pius IX declares the dogma of the Immaculate Conception<br \/> The dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not mean that the Madonna conceived Jesus without that disgusting thing.<br \/> which is sexual intercourse&#8230; then we&#39;ll talk about it<br \/> we&#39;ll talk about it later<br \/> that means that the Madonna is the only human being<br \/> born without the stain of original sin<br \/> that she was conceived as immaculata<br \/> But what if original sin doesn&#39;t exist?<br \/> What does dogma dogmatize?<br \/> nothing, fake<br \/> because we are all born without the stain of original sin, all of us<br \/> So the dogma doesn&#39;t dogmatize anything.<br \/> 1858<br \/> Bernadette Soubirous sees the Virgin Mary in the Grotto of Massabielle.<br \/> Here and there, it&#39;s not my term, that&#39;s what Bernadette Soubirous said.<br \/> who always calls her that, in the Pyrenean codex&#8230; codex&#8230;<br \/> in the Pyrenean dialect, she called it Aquer\u00f2<br \/> which means Tam ta, then Tam t\u00e9 became the Madonna when the whole thing was taken over by the church<br \/> So there you are, Aquer\u00f2, what a coincidence.<br \/> He comes and says: I am the Immaculate Conception.<br \/> But if the Madonna was there, did she know how things were?<br \/> And if it wasn&#39;t Madonna, then what did they put in her mouth that she never said?<br \/> but it served the Roman Church to substantiate the dogma it had proclaimed 4 years ago<br \/> There&#39;s not much that can be done about it.<br \/> There&#39;s nothing to be done, when you think like a madman, those things come to the surface.<br \/> because we all have reason<br \/> &#8230;<br \/> it is necessary to ask why popes prefer to go to Fatima rather than Lourdes<br \/> Okay&#8230; then when we have time, we&#39;ll talk about it.<br \/> &#8230;ok, so<br \/> if this thing with original sin is not here<br \/> and if, as is evident<br \/> Fortunately, Yahweh is not a god, omnipotent, transcendent, creator of heaven and earth.<br \/> And the word &quot;b\u00e1rah&quot; doesn&#39;t actually mean to create from nothing, it&#39;s not there.<br \/> in the Bible, the term &quot;olam&quot;, which is translated as &quot;eternity&quot;, is even written in dictionaries<br \/> dictionaries signed by that Vald\u00e9sian father&#8230; father&#8230; excuse me<br \/> with the Valdese pastor I already mentioned<br \/> and those dictionaries say<br \/> do not translate as &quot;eternity&quot;<br \/> do not translate as &quot;eternity&quot;, and you will always find it translated as eternity<br \/> Why? Because theology has established that the Bible must speak of God.<br \/> and theology has established that God must be eternal<br \/> so that eternity had to be inserted somewhere<br \/> but dictionaries say: do not translate as eternity<br \/> but you always find that term translated as eternity<br \/> so if all these things are not here<br \/> it&#39;s not that almighty&#8230; listen to this<br \/> Does anyone have a Bible here?<br \/> I mean, like for a check-up&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;let&#39;s take Genesis 17<br \/> because it is best to verify it immediately in the Bibles<br \/> Can we read the first verse?<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> So, it says there that when Abraham was 99 years old<br \/> Mr&#8230; Jehovah&#39;s Witnesses translate it as Jehovah, and that&#39;s fine.<br \/> appeared to him and said to him: I am the Almighty God&#8230; here it is, the Jerusalem Bible<br \/> The notes state that the translation of &quot;almighty&quot; is not accurate.<br \/> in the best possible case, it means Lord of the Steppe<br \/> Jerusalem Bible, Dominican Exegesis<br \/> Mr. Stepa&#8230; I understand.<br \/> that if the church were to publish Bibles, where the Lord would be the steppe<br \/> and believers will read it, so they will ask themselves a question<br \/> but it is the most coherent translation<br \/> because when we read all that biblical sauce, we see<br \/> that He had just been assigned that territory, the Negev steppe<br \/> So when the Lord of the Steppe is there, it&#39;s right, it&#39;s true.<br \/> So, there is no omnipotent, there is no verb in the sense of creating.<br \/> there is no term for eternity<br \/> there is no original sin<br \/> So, when we return to the figure of Christ<br \/> Whose son is this?<br \/> Who sent him here? And for what reason?<br \/> because here we can&#39;t say: okay, now we understand that the Old Testament is there&#8230;<br \/> but the new one&#8230; no<br \/> the new one, as it was presented to us, exists<br \/> only if what we have been told about the Old Testament is true<br \/> but if what we are told about the Old Testament is not true<br \/> the new one must be completely questioned<br \/> because there is no sender, there is no motive<br \/> There&#39;s nothing that can be done about it.<br \/> there is no sender and there is no motive<br \/> because he did not come to liberate man<br \/> from death caused by original sin, because original sin is not there<br \/> because death on Earth was and everyone died, animals died, Adams died, it is not the result of any guilt<br \/> all living things on Earth are dying, death is not man&#39;s fault<br \/> So what did he come here to do? If he came here.<br \/> I came here to perform a certain task.<br \/> Jewish Messiah<br \/> that is, the one who was to liberate Israel from a foreign yoke, because that is<br \/> the task of the Jewish Messiah<br \/> and that does not concern humanity, absolutely not<br \/> The Bible never concerns humanity.<br \/> when you read carefully<br \/> the whole new law, you will find that Jesus says<br \/> I am not praying for the world, I am praying for you&#8230; i.e. for my own.<br \/> for my friends, who carry out my commands<br \/> I don&#39;t pray for the world<br \/> read it, but read it<br \/> because these are the things that are never said, but he says it: I am not asking for the world<br \/> So, he came here because of the Israeli House.<br \/> and<br \/> The church tells us that he was born of a virgin.<br \/> in the first centuries<br \/> in early Christianity<br \/> and here, if you want, you can read Justin&#39;s Apologies<br \/> from the holy martyr Justin, father of the Church<br \/> who, when writing to the emperor Antoninus Pius<br \/> so he says to him:<br \/> But why are you picking on us who worship that one?<br \/> when the one we worship is exactly the same as yours<br \/> We&#39;ll do it like this&#8230; here are the Apologies<br \/> Paoline publishing house<br \/> so it&#39;s not some atheistic publishing house<br \/> says: all writers who love God the Father, both people and gods<br \/> when then, as we have argued above, we claim that Jesus was born a god<br \/> as a logo<br \/> God himself<br \/> but it is common to your<br \/> a way of thinking, when you clearly say that Hermes is the logo of Zeus, it&#39;s the same, there&#39;s no difference<br \/> if someone were to reproach us for the fact that he was crucified<br \/> but this is also common to the sons of Dyaus listed above<br \/> when we say that he was born of a virgin, this is also an element that is common with Perseus<br \/> when we claim that he healed the lame and the paralyzed, the unfortunate from birth<br \/> that he raised the dead, this claim also coincides with what your tradition attributes to Asclepius<br \/> says: there is no difference between ours and yours<br \/> Why are you picking on us? This is the father of the church.<br \/> This is one of the Church Fathers.<br \/> Do you understand? What was meant in the first Christian centuries?<br \/> anything but the uniqueness of Jesus Christ<br \/> I&#39;ve been carrying these books with me for a while, I&#39;ve never used them before, but today&#8230;<br \/> Celsus<br \/> &#8230;but if we are to call all those who are attributed the same things that are attributed to him the sons of God<br \/> So all those who cast out demons from the human body<br \/> They heal diseases with their breath and summon souls.<br \/> who have opulent feasts and overflowing tables materialized<br \/> So when they do these things, do you want us to believe that they are the sons of God?<br \/> they do the same things as yours does<br \/> Celsus<br \/> I talked about it before with a lady&#8230; over there, the one who&#39;s raising her hand.<br \/> Celsus was against Christians, ok?<br \/> while Justin Martyr was a father of the church<br \/> he wrote in favor of Christians<br \/> Do you understand?<br \/> in another book, in the introduction, a theologian, Sergio Quinzio<br \/> He writes something really nice&#8230; when he talks about Julian the Apostate, the Roman Emperor, etc.<br \/> Theologian Sergio Quinzio says:<br \/> compares the Apostate to John Paul II.<br \/> and the effect of both is a desperate attempt to keep it alive<br \/> a religion that is already doomed to extinction<br \/> Julian the Apostate as regards the Roman religion<br \/> John Paul II, as far as Catholicism is concerned<br \/> says theologian Sergio Quinzio<br \/> it writes<br \/> So, the things that have been told to us from the beginning<br \/> They are different&#8230; we are facing a story.<br \/> which we must consider to be absolutely true, and when we believe that it is true<br \/> so we are intelligent and devout believers<br \/> Is there a god who is there?<br \/> up there<br \/> at one point, he decides and creates the universe<br \/> because<br \/> he had a need to love something, to do something, he will create the universe<br \/> it should end here, because God before the universe, and God after the universe<br \/> it means that before that, he does not have something that he has afterwards, so at that moment he ceases to be God<br \/> But we won&#39;t get into that, we&#39;ll pretend he&#39;s still a god.<br \/> several billion years will pass, and then he will say:<br \/> I will decide to make a creature that will love me and serve me.<br \/> and makes a man<br \/> Then we&#39;ll see how he does it, and what the Catholic theologian says.<br \/> he will make a man&#8230; and say: I will give him some rules<br \/> I&#39;ll give him some rules and, of course, if he doesn&#39;t follow them, I&#39;ll punish him.<br \/> I will make him immortal, but if he does not follow the rules, I will punish him severely.<br \/> Of course, if it&#39;s an omniscient God, then he already knows that he won&#39;t keep them, otherwise what kind of omniscient God is he?<br \/> and he does not keep them and He makes him mortal<br \/> thousands of years will pass, millions of people will die, and He will say: but now<br \/> I want to give a person the opportunity to return, to become immortal&#8230; how do I do that?<br \/> I will send my Son down<br \/> I don&#39;t even know if he knew about it before or not&#8230; I&#39;ll send my Son down.<br \/> How do I send him down there?<br \/> I will send him there as a Spirit, as the third part of me.<br \/> who gets one girl pregnant in such a way that she remains a virgin<br \/> and who will remain a virgin even after childbirth, because, as in Greek stories,<br \/> there were a lot of virgin births there, so it wouldn&#39;t look good if this one wasn&#39;t born of a virgin<br \/> and so he is born of a virgin&#8230;. then he says:<br \/> the people to whom I send him, who are his, will take him, massacre him<br \/> He will kill him, I will intervene, I will have him resurrected.<br \/> and thanks to this massacre, I will give all of humanity the opportunity to return to live eternal life<br \/> but if they want to be really consistent, then they must also eat the flesh of my Son<br \/> This is a story.<br \/> who we should believe, and when we believe this story<br \/> We are intelligent and devout believers.<br \/> because it is a logical story that makes sense<br \/> when someone says: look, the universe might<br \/> it is inhabited by other beings, and all the old texts talk about them, so you&#39;re an idiot<br \/> Such is the reality.<br \/> The first one is a story full of meaning.<br \/> You&#39;re an idiot with the second one.<br \/> And how was Jesus born?<br \/> is born after one Gabriel<br \/> One Gabriel&#8230; why do I say one Gabriel?<br \/> because Gabriel is not the name of an individual<br \/> Gabriel in Hebrew is &quot;gever of some el&quot;, it is a functional designation<br \/> denotes someone who performs a certain task&#8230; someone who performs<br \/> a task on behalf of one of the Elohim, or for one of the Elohim<br \/> This is the case in the Old Testament, where Gabriel is defined as &quot;i\u0161&quot;, i.e. a male individual.<br \/> without any doubt&#8230; in the book of Daniel<br \/> ja: I saw one of the isha coming, when Gabriel comes<br \/> and in the Bibles you have at home, it is written that he flew in with ease<br \/> in literally translated Hebrew Bibles<br \/> with all those dictionaries of Hebrew etymology, etc., etc., etc. it is written<br \/> Of course, he came exhausted.<br \/> If you want, I&#39;ll give you all those verses, you can check it.<br \/> So this one came to Daniel exhausted, not that he flew in with ease.<br \/> The problem is that Gabriel must be an angel, and angels come by flying&#8230;<br \/> But Gabriel is not an angel, he is an individual of flesh and blood.<br \/> and how the other elohim did it&#8230; and if you read the Bible, you&#39;ll find it<br \/> who visited some women and those women became pregnant<br \/> and they often had twins<br \/> So this Gabriel first visits Elizabeth, she becomes pregnant and has John the Baptist, the one who will be John the Baptist.<br \/> Then Gabriel visits Mary, she becomes pregnant and has Jesus.<br \/> The Gospels say that Mary was overshadowed by the Spirit.<br \/> Do you know what the Jesuit Jean Dani\u00e9lou says?<br \/> Cardinal, professor of theology, French academic<br \/> that there is no doubt, that it is not a matter of interpretation, he says, he writes&#8230;<br \/> The Holy Spirit is the Christian transposition of the Old Testament Gabriel.<br \/> The same is in the Quran.<br \/> and the Quran says that the Spirit is Gabriel<br \/> So, when the Gospel tells us that the Spirit enveloped the Madonna,<br \/> So Gabriel covered this Madonna.<br \/> and he says: even the cardinal ???? he says the same thing as me, these are not interpretations<br \/> the study of this argument directly forces this interpretation<br \/> enforces it<br \/> So, Gabriel will cover the Madonna and she will get pregnant.<br \/> there are canonical gospels that we must consider true<br \/> Then there are the so-called apocryphal gospels, which we are not supposed to believe.<br \/> Do you know what is written in James&#39;s Protoevangelium?<br \/> that once Joseph came home from work<br \/> He was a carpenter, after 6 months, he returns and finds that the Madonna is pregnant.<br \/> and he gets pissed off<br \/> and says: who did this to me?<br \/> How will I explain this to my master, who entrusted this girl to me?<br \/> who was supposed to stay as she was, and now she&#39;s pregnant, who did this to me?<br \/> and is afraid that someone<br \/> He came to Madonna and pretended to be someone he was not.<br \/> Look at it.<br \/> Look what they were saying back then, but most importantly, there&#39;s one amazing sentence in there.<br \/> he says: it happened to me<br \/> When there&#39;s time, I&#39;ll say something about it.<br \/> What happened to Adam happened to me.<br \/> who had a partner, then someone came and seduced her<br \/> because in the Old Testament, Eve was seduced by the so-called serpent<br \/> and Cain was the son of that one<br \/> not Adam&#39;s<br \/> In non-biblical Jewish literature, it is said that Eve was probably raped.<br \/> and Joseph says: what happened to Adam happened to me&#8230; that means, in Jesus&#39; time<br \/> they thought, they knew, they wrote that Eve was seduced by someone else<br \/> at least as far as Cain is concerned<br \/> This is what is written in the Gospels, which we are not supposed to believe.<br \/> However, if what the Jesuit Jean Dani\u00e9lou says happens to be true, we must take note.<br \/> that Jesus is the fruit of a completely normal sexual act<br \/> or implantation, because they did that too<br \/> they did it in the case of Abraham&#39;s wife, in the case of Jacob and Esau, Samson<br \/> when they had the interest, they made direct interventions<br \/> and on formally infertile women<br \/> they visited them and they got pregnant, what a coincidence<br \/> in the Gospel of John&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;in Genesis chapter 6 it is clearly stated that when<br \/> The sons of Elohim saw the daughters of Adam, they saw that they were good.<br \/> they said they were nice, attractive<br \/> They took as many as they wanted.<br \/> as much as they wanted<br \/> So, if we have these stories here<br \/> whom we should not trust<br \/> it&#39;s a choice we can make<br \/> I pretend they&#39;re true like the others, I always pretend.<br \/> and when I&#39;m doing it, I obviously read them, because otherwise&#8230;<br \/> it is clear that I would exclude them, but I do not exclude them<br \/> because they excluded them for very specific reasons, of course<br \/> because it is unacceptable that the Madonna&#8230; who must remain a virgin even after childbirth<br \/> she had normal sexual intercourse, this cannot be accepted<br \/> but in fact, this is what emerges from the texts<br \/> and when the Gospel of John speaks, after the so-called resurrection of Jesus<br \/> that those 11 were gathered in the Upper Room<br \/> So someone will say, well, of course, there were 11 of them, because Judas was missing.<br \/> No, John writes that there were 11 of them, because Thomas, called Didymus, was missing.<br \/> Didimos, I&#39;ll explain it to you right away.<br \/> Let&#39;s imagine a group of 12 people.<br \/> which has a charismatic leader<br \/> these 12 people are followed by women<br \/> someone introduces them to us and says: this is Anna, this is Francisca, this is Magdalena<br \/> that&#39;s Roberta, that&#39;s his wife, without telling us whose<br \/> Who do you think his wife will be?<br \/> the boss, that&#39;s the first thing we imagine, right? otherwise, we would just say that&#39;s someone&#39;s wife<br \/> when you say that&#39;s a wife, and there&#39;s a charismatic leader, then&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;because Thomas, called Didymus, the twin, was missing.<br \/> Whose twin?<br \/> when it was their next procedure, did they succeed in having twins again?<br \/> Do you know that twins occur during artificial insemination?<br \/> that&#39;s how it&#39;s written there, in the gospels you have at home, not in my translations<br \/> called Didymus, the twin, period. without specification<br \/> If it were a twin of Petr, Ond\u0159ej&#8230; they would have said so.<br \/> No, just a twin, a twin by antonomasia means a twin there.<br \/> No? That&#39;s the first thing that comes to mind.<br \/> these are the thoughts of a madman, so of course take them as such<br \/> but when he is taken down from the cross, they do it without breaking his legs, because otherwise they would not be able to save him<br \/> In Peter&#39;s Gospel, do you know what it says about how he came out of the tomb?<br \/> that at night<br \/> light descended from heaven<br \/> in that light there were two beings<br \/> who opened the gate of the tomb, entered<br \/> Then they came out in threes, one of the three being supported because he could not walk.<br \/> and we must not believe this<br \/> we must believe that he rose from the dead and passed through the stone, we must believe this<br \/> that two came, opened the door, entered and left as three<br \/> and they were supporting the third one because he couldn&#39;t walk, that&#39;s not it<br \/> That&#39;s not true.<br \/> I&#39;m telling you this, then of course you can do whatever you want with it.<br \/> Do what you want with it, but you need to know that those things are there.<br \/> because we listen differently&#8230; because we don&#39;t read the texts<br \/> we only listen to what we are told<br \/> Someone then says: but Biglino is selective&#8230; sure, but he selects those pieces that no one would naturally read to you.<br \/> I won&#39;t choose something you already know, because they read that to you all the time.<br \/> Let&#39;s also read what they will never read to you.<br \/> to understand and at least get some idea of what was written at that time<br \/> because otherwise we live in the belief<br \/> that what is written there is what we are told<br \/> No, something very different was written, but very different.<br \/> which allows us to reconstruct a completely different story<br \/> given that John the Baptist<br \/> He had the task of preparing the way for what was to be the new messiah.<br \/> you know that it is written that John the Baptist baptized in the Jordan for the forgiveness of sins<br \/> and now, in the Jewish world, anyone will tell you that no one can forgive sins but God<br \/> so John the Baptist could not forgive anyone&#39;s sins<br \/> In Greek, it is written that those who went to be baptized for their sins were exhomologoumenoi.<br \/> exhomologeo is a verb that means<br \/> loud declaration, with a certain emphasis<br \/> they were exhomologoumenoi t\u00e1s hamat\u00edas aut\u00f3n their guilt<br \/> So they went there and loudly declared what they had done.<br \/> So, if I have to prepare an army of fighters<br \/> which will then be used by the one who comes after me<br \/> Who will they be looking for?<br \/> pious souls? or will I look for someone who already&#8230;<br \/> So: what did you do? I killed three&#8230; so join us.<br \/> your sins with us are no longer counted<br \/> What did you do? I killed two&#8230; come here.<br \/> and then he turns to the scribes and Pharisees<br \/> viper breed<br \/> If you don&#39;t do metanoia, that is, if you don&#39;t change your mentality, the axe is already at your feet.<br \/> we will kill you, so either you join us or we will kill you<br \/> and when Jesus speaks of the Last Judgment<br \/> and says that the condemned will be thrown into Gehenna<br \/> No? What is presented as hell&#8230; that&#39;s not related at all.<br \/> Ge Hinnom was a valley behind the walls of Jerusalem<br \/> where waste, including corpses, was thrown and burned, it was always burning there<br \/> So the day we carry out this action, we&#39;ll throw your corpses in there.<br \/> to waste<br \/> Do you understand?<br \/> It&#39;s a completely different way.<br \/> readings of these texts that respect what is written<br \/> and it is coherent, it is coherent with what is written in the Old and New Testaments<br \/> I don&#39;t know if it&#39;s true, I mean no, I don&#39;t know if it&#39;s true, because I don&#39;t have the truth.<br \/> Whoever wants the truth, let them ring another door.<br \/> It must be said clearly, clearly.<br \/> I&#39;m telling you what is written.<br \/> and you can do whatever you want with it<br \/> If it&#39;s interesting for you, then consider it, if you don&#39;t like it, then throw it in the trash.<br \/> and we&#39;ll go for coffee just like before<br \/> I don&#39;t need to make any groups, sects, nothing&#8230; I speak because they call me to speak.<br \/> The day they stop calling me, I&#39;ll stop talking, I don&#39;t have a preacher&#39;s profession, I don&#39;t need to do&#8230; anything.<br \/> I started doing this work for myself, and now I&#39;m here&#8230;<br \/> I fed my curiosity, and now I&#39;m here to talk&#8230;<br \/> I like doing it, but I want to say<br \/> I am explaining to you what is written.<br \/> But I&#39;m trying to explain everything to you, because otherwise we only listen to one side.<br \/> like, for example<br \/> we&#39;ll do it this way, since we were talking about Adam and Eve<br \/> Here&#39;s something that&#39;s coming to the surface and that really gives you goosebumps.<br \/> I am working on it with Dr. Massimo Barbetta, who is an expert in rabbinic literature.<br \/> non-biblical<br \/> and apart from the possible places from which those &quot;gentlemen&quot; come<br \/> things concerning the production of Adam are coming to the surface<br \/> By the way, regarding the production of Adam<br \/> as we talked about it on March 6, listen to what the Catholic theologian said<br \/> The presenter asks: according to the literature&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;as the Catholic theologian had said shortly before<br \/> that they don&#39;t exist in the Bible&#8230; please, download this book, it&#39;s free, so you&#39;re not sponsoring me by doing so<br \/> it&#39;s free and it says that the Catholic theologian says:<br \/> there is no concept of creation, there is no concept of eternity, there is no concept of immortality&#8230; this is what a Catholic theologian says<br \/> These concepts are NOT in the Bible.<br \/> They are not there.<br \/> Thus, the concept of eternity, immortality, e.g. the concept&#8230;. which does not exist in the first law<br \/> it doesn&#39;t exist, because it DOESN&#39;T EXIST, there&#39;s nothing you can do about it, it doesn&#39;t exist<br \/> So they preach the Bible as if the Bible had not been written, because people do not read it anyway.<br \/> Therefore, it is right that you verify all the verses that I quote to you.<br \/> They are lucky because no one verifies the verses they quote.<br \/> but do it with me and them too, I&#39;m calm though<br \/> I guarantee you that.<br \/> So, when we&#39;re not talking about creation<br \/> The presenter says: so based on the biblical reading<br \/> Can we really speak of the creation of Adam?<br \/> Catholic theologian:<br \/> Adam was&#8230; pause&#8230;<br \/> it was done, that&#39;s a little different<br \/> and the moderator: so you agree with Mauro Biglini?<br \/> Hmm, that means he was&#8230; someone else&#8230; it happened&#8230; as for that hint<br \/> that man was made something else, yes, he was made something else<br \/> Certainly, man was made into something else, because the Bible tells us what made man.<br \/> it is made of the DNA of the Elohim, the Bible tells us so<br \/> He couldn&#39;t go on, I understand him&#8230; I already have recognition.<br \/> for the intellectual honor he had in saying this: man is made of something else<br \/> not created<br \/> and when it is written&#8230; you know the story of the potter god<br \/> to the god modeling the clay<br \/> But you know that it&#39;s not in the Bible?<br \/> it is not written there that Adam was made &quot;from&quot; afar<br \/> that Adam was made from the dust of the earth<br \/> It says there that the Elohim made Adam-Afar.<br \/> that means they made that model<br \/> which they called Adam-Afar, which is the one they planted here<br \/> not by means of\/from afar, there is no &quot;s&quot;<br \/> when you take the literally translated Jewish Bible<br \/> the &quot;s&quot; is not there<br \/> when you take the interlinear Hebrew Bible from San Paolo Publishing House<br \/> the &quot;s&quot; is not there<br \/> because these are Bibles intended for theological faculties, for universities, where people know Hebrew<br \/> so that &quot;s&quot;<br \/> using dust from the ground or with clay is not there<br \/> because it is not in Hebrew<br \/> It says: they made Adam-afar<br \/> this is the model<br \/> and when we compare it with what is written in the Vedic texts<br \/> that the universe is inhabited by 400,000 species of humanoids<br \/> many of which have made their way here<br \/> we are one of those there<br \/> We are one of them.<br \/> So they did the Adam-Afar thing&#8230; then the Bible tells us<br \/> actually<br \/> The Book of Genesis<br \/> Then Elohim took Adam and put him in Gan Eden.<br \/> Gan Eden is what is translated as earthly paradise, &quot;gan&quot; means &quot;an enclosed and protected place&quot;<br \/> So, we were always told that man was created in an earthly paradise.<br \/> man was not created, and certainly not in an earthly paradise<br \/> because the Bible says that he was taken from where he was made and given to Gan Eden<br \/> which is something else<br \/> and they put him there to work and take care of it<br \/> then there&#39;s this god who knows everything and foresees everything<br \/> after some time<br \/> he notices that the company of animals is not enough for that group of men<br \/> Do you know what is written in the texts of Jewish theology that I quoted here?<br \/> from Mamash publishing house<br \/> It says there that Adam mated with all the animals.<br \/> and he was forbidden to do so only after a woman was made for him<br \/> before that, he was mating with all the animals<br \/> that&#39;s what it says in the notes of those Jewish Bibles<br \/> but that&#39;s obvious, and actually<br \/> when they make him a woman<br \/> Is it a female?<br \/> fantastic, fantastic, gorgeous, gorgeous, gorgeous<br \/> So<br \/> So, to create a woman, what does God, who creates the universe with a snap of his fingers, have to do?<br \/> put the man into a very deep sleep<br \/> then he takes one part from him<br \/> it takes &quot;something&quot; from one curved side part, which translates as a rib<br \/> In Hebrew, there is no &quot;rib&quot; in fact, there is a &quot;curved side part&quot;<br \/> close the meat where the sample was taken<br \/> and with what he took, he makes a woman, I say &quot;makes&quot; because that&#39;s the Hebrew verb<br \/> The verb is &quot;jacar&quot;, the verb &quot;barah&quot; is not even used here.<br \/> which is incorrectly translated as &quot;to create&quot;<br \/> the verb &quot;jacar&quot; is located there, meaning he made a woman<br \/> using something he took from the man&#39;s iliac crest, i.e. from staminal cells<br \/> and then she will introduce her to the man<br \/> deep sleep, or anesthesia<br \/> So, he formed a woman, here they translate it correctly, he formed<br \/> then he brought her to Adam<br \/> and Adam said<br \/> Let&#39;s put it this way.<br \/> I go to eat at Elio Lupo&#39;s all week.<br \/> and I&#39;ll say: Elio, listen, today the pasta was cooked properly<br \/> What does it mean?<br \/> that the other days&#8230;<br \/> Then he brought her to Adam, and Adam said:<br \/> This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.<br \/> not the other females you gave me<br \/> it is translated there as &quot;finally&quot;<br \/> Even Jews who translate the Bible into English in the United States translate &quot;finally&quot;<br \/> Finally, you gave me the right woman, not the others who were before.<br \/> and I imagine God saying: I&#39;m lucky, he liked this one<br \/> Finally&#8230; but that&#39;s how it is&#8230;<br \/> this time it&#39;s the right one, this time, not the other ones before<br \/> and in non-biblical Jewish literature it is written that he rejected those other females<br \/> and he says: this time it is a bone of my bones&#8230; and here is something really interesting&#8230;<br \/> They left I\u0161 and I\u0161\u0161a there, or what is there?<br \/> right after that<br \/> And then? She&#39;ll be called&#8230; oh, so nothing.<br \/> Fortunately, it is left here&#8230; here it is the Bible, San Paolo publishing house<br \/> the two Hebrew terms are also left as they are, because in Italian it doesn&#39;t make sense<br \/> this time, as this time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh<br \/> she will be called woman, because she was taken from man, but that doesn&#39;t make sense<br \/> but in Hebrew it makes sense, and what a sense<br \/> because in Hebrew it is written: she will be called &#39;ishshah&#39; because she was taken from &#39;ish&#39;<br \/> i\u0161 means a male individual, i\u0161\u0161a is the feminine form of the word i\u0161<br \/> chilli will be called male-a, let&#39;s put it this way<br \/> or a man, because she was taken from a male, from a man<br \/> The meaning is clear, clear.<br \/> and here, fortunately, they leave it, they say woman&#8230; they leave i\u0161\u0161a<br \/> because it was taken from the i\u0161e, luckily they left it here<br \/> What? There&#39;s a &#39;\u0161&#39; there too, ok.<br \/> You know? We have those things in front of our eyes.<br \/> We have it in front of our eyes, but we don&#39;t read the Bible.<br \/> we hear her explaining, we hear her telling<br \/> but when we read it with even a little attention, we also notice<br \/> that it&#39;s not that tome&#8230; which in a certain sense they make us believe it is<br \/> because when we think it&#39;s a tome, we don&#39;t read it<br \/> or they tell you: feel free to read it, but then have it explained to you by someone who&#8230;<br \/> We are not educated, they are educated, we are uneducated.<br \/> I am one of them&#8230; otherwise I wouldn&#39;t be studying if I didn&#39;t have this realization.<br \/> I am uneducated, but I have the same understanding as the educated.<br \/> They are educated, but we have the same understanding.<br \/> So, I read the Bible and I understand what is written there.<br \/> Everything is there, and I don&#39;t have to invent anything.<br \/> because there&#39;s no need to invent anything here, when it&#39;s said: this time it&#39;s the right one<br \/> so that means that in the other cases it was not the right one<br \/> When they say: finally it&#39;s the right one&#8230; finally&#8230; what does finally mean?<br \/> that there were other cases where it was not the right one<br \/> You don&#39;t have to be educated to understand this.<br \/> The reason we have is sufficient for that, we don&#39;t have to be educated.<br \/> but it needs to be read, calmly<br \/> with a clear mind&#8230; as it is necessary to read&#8230;<br \/> with a clear and calm mind&#8230; psalms&#8230; which are those amazing prayers<br \/> sweet, addressed to God<br \/> You know that this Pope emphasizes God&#39;s mercy a lot, don&#39;t you? God&#39;s mercy&#8230;<br \/> and actually, here are the psalms, where it is repeated a lot<br \/> for example, Psalm 136<br \/> His love is eternal, his love is eternal, his love is eternal.<br \/> Shall we read it?<br \/> He struck Egypt in its firstborn, for his love is eternal.<br \/> He let Israel go through them, because his love is eternal.<br \/> He divided the sea in parts, because his love is eternal.<br \/> He cast Pharaoh and his army into the sea, for his love is eternal.<br \/> He killed mighty kings, because his love is eternal.<br \/> then there is a whole list&#8230;<br \/> He gave their land as an inheritance, because his love is eternal.<br \/> in the inheritance of Israel his servant, because his love is eternal<br \/> God&#39;s love is eternal, because he kills, he exterminates the enemies of Israel<br \/> takes their territory and gives it to Israel<br \/> when they tell us that the psalms say that God&#39;s love is eternal<br \/> we are to raise our hands and say: yes, that&#39;s true, but why don&#39;t you tell us the whole rest of it?<br \/> Please.<br \/> and you only tell us what you like<br \/> still psalms&#8230; daughter of Babylon<br \/> Blessed is he who repays you for what you have done to us.<br \/> Blessed is he who takes your young and dashes them against the rock.<br \/> It is immense bliss.<br \/> immense<br \/> Psalm 18, if I&#39;m not mistaken, which certainly&#8230;<br \/> it is a psalm that you have heard several times in church<br \/> I love you, my Lord, my strength, Lord, my rock, my fortress, my deliverer<br \/> My God, my refuge, to which I flee&#8230; you&#39;ve heard that many times before.<br \/> still Psalm 18, ok?<br \/> I pursued my enemies and caught up with them, and I did not return without having defeated them.<br \/> I threw myself at them and they didn&#39;t get up, they fell at my feet.<br \/> You have given me strength to fight and have broken my adversaries before me.<br \/> and I wiped out those who hated me<br \/> God be praised<br \/> who granted me vengeance and subjected the nations to me<br \/> Here the Israelite people say to their commander<br \/> You are my rock, my deliverer, my cliff to which I flee&#8230; humanity does not belong here, for God&#39;s sake.<br \/> No way, he has no business being there.<br \/> it is necessary to read it, it is necessary to read it<br \/> otherwise we are only referred to preaching<br \/> and whoever has more, let them give more<br \/> Excuse me?<br \/> no no no no no<br \/> So, here are these things.<br \/> which are evident, are evident when one reads them<br \/> as is often said<br \/> it&#39;s bullshit to say that<br \/> The Bible speaks of flying objects.<br \/> It&#39;s bullshit.<br \/> So&#8230; I&#39;ve read this verse many times over the last two years.<br \/> and every time, every time I waited for someone at the conference to raise their hand and protest<br \/> it never happened<br \/> but one thing should have been questioned there, according to the Bible&#8230; no one has ever done it<br \/> And do you know what I did? I myself raised doubts in the new book The Fall of the Gods.<br \/> so I attacked myself<br \/> I didn&#39;t answer myself, I let Jewish exegesis answer.<br \/> so when no one questioned me, and the questioning would have been justified<br \/> compared to all the nonsense they&#39;re spouting&#8230; we&#39;ll let it be&#8230;<br \/> They make up anything they can to question something&#8230;<br \/> It was obvious here, because it was enough to take a Bible and say: but&#8230;<br \/> It&#39;s written differently here&#8230; they never did it, so I did it myself.<br \/> and I let Jewish exegesis answer<br \/> It&#39;s not that I wrote an answer there, I put it there directly.<br \/> I scanned it there so that there could be no doubt.<br \/> &#8230;no doubt<br \/> Ezekiel says: then one spirit, in Hebrew ruach<br \/> He lifted me up, and behind me I heard the noise of a great earthquake.<br \/> while the kavod of Yahweh rose from that place<br \/> I heard the noise of wings beating.<br \/> and at the same time the noise of wheels and the noise of a great racket<br \/> Ruach picked me up and carried me away.<br \/> Ezekiel 3<br \/> &#8230;this is then related to Ezekiel 8:10&#8230;<br \/> flying machines are mentioned there several times<br \/> when you take&#8230; blah<br \/> the study by Prof. Luigi Moraldi, who is not only an expert<br \/> He is considered an expert of experts&#8230; unfortunately, he died.<br \/> is considered an expert of experts, in the sense that he is quoted by experts<br \/> He is not only a profound expert on the Bible, his publications can be found at UTET publishing house&#8230;<br \/> but also of the Old Testament apocrypha<br \/> and he clearly says, for example, based on Jonathan&#39;s Targum, etc.<br \/> that there are at least 23 different types of flying machines described there<br \/> 23 different types of flying machines<br \/> this is written by prof. Luigi Moraldi, not Mauro Biglino, who is a nobody<br \/> who&#39;s the nutcase who makes up these things<br \/> 23 types of flying machines<br \/> So, if you don&#39;t like it here<br \/> I understand that you don&#39;t like it.<br \/> not? to hear that the Bible speaks&#8230;<br \/> but you need to have intellectual integrity and say: the Bible says so<br \/> but when it says that, it means something else<br \/> and let them give us an explanation, by all means<br \/> Everyone is free to do what they want.<br \/> what he cannot freely do is deny what is written there<br \/> because that&#39;s what it says there<br \/> and Jewish exegesis says that the correct translation is this one<br \/> here it is<br \/> The Jewish Wars, Book 6, Verses 290 to 300<br \/> not only Josephus, in one of my books published by Mondadori, I state that Tacitus also mentions it<br \/> in the 5th book of his History<br \/> who says that in 70 AD there were celestial chariots in the sky over Jerusalem<br \/> and a voice said: the deities are leaving<br \/> because the Romans were coming with their deities<br \/> I also quoted Pliny the Elder, who says that<br \/> during the Cimbrian Wars, i.e. 113-100 BC<br \/> a battle took place in the sky over Umbria between two ranks of celestial chariots<br \/> one came from the west and one from the east, and the one from the west was defeated<br \/> But we can&#39;t talk about these things here.<br \/> because when you talk about it, you&#39;re an idiot, as I said before<br \/> So Tacitus was a ufologist ante literam, Pliny was a ufologist, Josephus was a ufologist.<br \/> &#8230;but listen to this<br \/> you know that Moses<br \/> at one point he decided to go and die<br \/> right? when they are approaching the so-called promised land<br \/> He says: I am not allowed to enter there, and so he leaves with his two.<br \/> the most faithful, Eleazar and Joshua<br \/> to the land of Moab and he goes to die, but no one saw him die<br \/> No one saw him die and no one knows where his grave is.<br \/> So it&#39;s a rarity that one of the founders of the nation doesn&#39;t have a mausoleum where the nation could&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;turn to and worship their founder<br \/> listen to what Josephus says<br \/> in his book Jewish Antiquities<br \/> So, the Bible says that when Moses was about to die, he was in perfect health.<br \/> that&#39;s what the Bible you have at home says, it was perfectly fine<br \/> Josephus says<br \/> that Moses went to the valley of Moab<br \/> Then a cloud appeared and carried him away.<br \/> and the cloud is one of the terms in the Bible referring to the means by which they traveled there<br \/> and the Hebrew term anan in dictionaries of Hebrew etymology<br \/> including those issued by the University of Haifa<br \/> it is written that it is something that will quickly become visible to the eye<br \/> and emits a long, dull, and weak sound<br \/> For that, you need&#8230;<br \/> so a cloud appeared there and took him away, and Josephus then adds<br \/> Moses was forced to write that he had died.<br \/> so that no one could say that he left with the deities<br \/> Isn&#39;t it amazing?<br \/> I get goosebumps from it, I can show you.<br \/> I&#39;m into it, but&#8230;<br \/> he was forced to write that he died so that no one could say that he was taken away<br \/> but he was not the first to be taken away, Enoch was taken away, Elijah was taken away<br \/> Do you remember Jesus&#39; Transfiguration on Mount Tabor?<br \/> Who will come to Jesus? Elijah and Moses, two who did not die.<br \/> the two that the Elohim took away, that&#39;s a coincidence<br \/> What a coincidence!<br \/> These are all things that come to mind when you think like a madman.<br \/> and puts together what is written&#8230; please?<br \/> but it all fits, nothing has to be invented<br \/> and that&#39;s what&#39;s nice, charming about it<br \/> just read it carefully and put it together, anyone can do it<br \/> because we all have reason, all of us<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> So, in the book The Fall of the Gods, which probably won&#39;t be<br \/> half of the book is dedicated to this<br \/> So, what did we do in that book?<br \/> as I have been saying for years that the Bible should be studied by scientists and not theologians, because it does not concern them<br \/> So I coordinated 3 aviation engineers.<br \/> working for the Italian aerospace research center Ricerche aerospaziali, they work for NASA<br \/> Okay? We had a video conference every week.<br \/> and they prepared a whole chapter for the book<br \/> in which they reconstructed Ezekiel&#39;s machines<br \/> Baccarini, who in turn knows the Eastern writings<br \/> He coordinated the work of 2 Hindu engineers who studied the aerodynamics of vimanas.<br \/> and it&#39;s all in that book, it&#39;s all there<br \/> The book has 600 pages, but we did it this way, it could have had 1000.<br \/> if it were in the usual format of our books&#8230; so there is a real confrontation there<br \/> between the technology described in the Bible and the technology described in Indian scriptures<br \/> the one described in Indian scriptures is infinitely richer<br \/> Why? Because while the Bible ended up in the hands of monotheistic theologians<br \/> who therefore tried to cover up&#8230;<br \/> there, among them, talking about this topic is completely normal<br \/> normal<br \/> for them, talking about the heavenly battles of the devas is completely normal<br \/> When we talk about it, we&#39;re idiots.<br \/> Excuse me, when I talk about it, I&#39;m an idiot.<br \/> but for them it&#39;s normal<br \/> there are not only descriptions of those machines<br \/> but they say, which could only fly in the atmosphere<br \/> which could swim underwater, which could leave the atmosphere<br \/> the substances from which the pilots&#39; overalls were made are described there<br \/> there are pilot diets, like NASA has<br \/> By the way, do you know what nasa means in Hebrew?<br \/> to carry up, to pick up<br \/> when it is read<br \/> when it is read with &quot;sin&quot;<br \/> so it means to carry up, to pick up<br \/> when this dot here makes it &quot;shin&quot;<br \/> &quot;na\u0161a&quot; means to deceive, to mislead, to make fun of<br \/> Do you know that the foundations of NASA were basically laid by Nazi scientists?<br \/> who were taken there after World War II because they were much further away than the Americans<br \/> so they took them and took them there, and so they laid those foundations<br \/> and here it is, simply&#8230;<br \/> Excuse me, but there was a gentleman who said he had signed up first&#8230;<br \/> Do you have several of them?<br \/> So, I&#39;m going to play devil&#39;s advocate a little bit.<br \/> because when I read all the objections that are raised against you from morning to night&#8230;<br \/> one of the most important objections is that ruach and spirit are not the same<br \/> I&#39;m thinking of the example you gave here, that the spirit will rest on Mary.<br \/> Someone might say: how could a flying disc lie on Mary?<br \/> &#8230;I&#39;ll answer right away&#8230; I&#39;m laughing because I&#39;m imagining the honesty of that person<br \/> So<br \/> So, the Hebrew language&#8230; I&#39;ll try to be as brief as possible.<br \/> just like all other languages, it is polysemous<br \/> so there are words that have more than one meaning<br \/> so you just need to read the Bible to understand when ruach means<br \/> spirit, and when it means something else, and I&#39;ll give you an example right away&#8230; sorry, I&#39;m addressing you informally&#8230;<br \/> Yesterday I was down in the dumps.<br \/> I went to visit a friend who makes me laugh to death because he is a man of spirit.<br \/> Now in mid-August, I&#39;m picking plums. I have a few trees, and I&#39;m putting them under the p\u00e1linka.<br \/> This friend of mine has a hobby of distilling pomace spirit.<br \/> He plays football because he has a sporting spirit, and he is very popular because he knows how to create team spirit.<br \/> 7 meanings of the word &quot;spirit&quot;&#8230; did you have trouble understanding what &quot;spirit&quot; means in each of these cases?<br \/> No, because it&#39;s clear that when I put plums under the spirit, then&#8230;<br \/> but the people there say that a ghost always means&#8230; or always means a flying disc&#8230;<br \/> it is clear that the objection does not make sense<br \/> but the same people would say, if they found it after 1000 years<br \/> The bottles I use&#8230; it&#39;s not brandy, it&#39;s alcohol.<br \/> where the labels say: ideal for fruit under spirit<br \/> and here, in 1000 years, those exegetes will say: but under what spirit did he give that fruit?<br \/> &#8230;a moment ago you said that for someone&#8230;<br \/> If they thought about it a little, they wouldn&#39;t write those things.<br \/> Okay, go ahead, I like objections.<br \/> &#8230;sometimes I give them to myself&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;<br \/> I won&#39;t say the name&#8230; but you&#39;ll understand right away&#8230; someone says it there<br \/> that according to him, Jesus was a descendant of Herod<br \/> Cleopatra&#39;s nephew&#8230; and it challenges your theory<br \/> but you both believe that Jesus historically existed&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;<br \/> This one wrote a book.<br \/> where in the first part he presented undeniable evidence that Jesus never existed<br \/> in the second part, he presented undeniable evidence that<br \/> Jesus was a Zealot from the family of Judas of Gamala<br \/> and in the third part, he presented undeniable evidence that Jesus was from the family of Herod<br \/> This does not require a response&#8230; ok&#8230;<br \/> blah blah<br \/> The next question concerns that excerpt.<br \/> as it was said at the beginning of the conference, where Jesus says: go sell everything you have&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;as the one there says to him: I have kept all the commandments<br \/> What commandments did Jesus have in mind? The 600&#8230;<br \/> No, no&#8230; the 10<br \/> those 10 basic ones for contact with others, it wasn&#39;t those 613<br \/> &#8230;but if Jesus knew the Jewish law well, shouldn&#39;t he have referred to those 613?<br \/> Yes, he should refer to them.<br \/> but since the Gospels were written with certain intentions, those 613<br \/> they were no longer essential for the addressees of the Gospels, nor was it necessary to tell them<br \/> No? Because to say to a member of the Hellenic culture:<br \/> Do not boil the kid in its mother&#39;s milk&#8230;<br \/> So he would say: are you crazy?<br \/> You understand? So in the Gospels it is reduced to those<br \/> norms that could have been proclaimed in the Greco-Roman world, in Hellenistic thought<br \/> where the person was supposed to be served, ok?<br \/> One last question and I&#39;m done&#8230; that&#39;s a pity, I like questions.<br \/> I would like to know the criterion.<br \/> elections at the Council of Nicaea<br \/> as regards the apocryphal and canonical gospels<br \/> because if I consider Peter&#39;s Gospel, the Gospel of Christ&#39;s deputy, to be apocryphal, then something doesn&#39;t add up.<br \/> mainly there&#8230;<br \/> Peter himself says that the two of them took Jesus out of the tomb, and that then, Magdalene<br \/> was recognized as his wife<br \/> So, the selection actually started before Nice.<br \/> she started with Irenaeus of Lyon, Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon<br \/> and then subsequently with Athanasius of Alexandria<br \/> which are those who pointed to the 4 Gospels that we know today as canonical<br \/> and they pointed to them because they considered them the most useful for conveying the message that was to be conveyed<br \/> by the way, when reading Christian literature of that time, it is well understood<br \/> the difference when they spoke among themselves, among the educated, and when they told those things to people&#8230;<br \/> for a change<br \/> So, for example, Irenaeus of Lyon, whose teacher was supposed to be a Gnostic.<br \/> one of the adherents of gnosticism<br \/> there he inserted the Gospel of John, which is actually a Gnostic gospel<br \/> The Gospel of John is a Gnostic gospel, but it was included.<br \/> because it is the only one of the four that contains a definition<br \/> Jesus as the Son of God in the Greek sense<br \/> which was supposed to be load-bearing<br \/> but for the Jewish world, it is an unacceptable blasphemy<br \/> blasphemy that cannot even be forgiven<br \/> but it wasn&#39;t for the Jews, it was for the Greco-Roman world, and so they inserted it there<br \/> then Athanasius of Alexandria confirmed it&#8230;<br \/> and they then stuck to them&#8230; and also because especially the 3 synoptic ones, i.e. Matthew, Mark and Luke<br \/> was the most requested by people to read<br \/> because when you read them well, they are the easiest<br \/> and that council&#8230;<br \/> If you feel like it, read the Gospel of Mark, which is very short, you can do it in one evening.<br \/> Read it&#8230;<br \/> as many times as you need until you can say, &quot;Now I&#39;ve got it down pat, I know Mark&#39;s Gospel&#8230;&quot;<br \/> then read John&#39;s<br \/> I won&#39;t tell you anything so as not to influence you.<br \/> but read Mark&#39;s first and then John&#39;s&#8230; when you really have it in your head, then read John&#39;s<br \/> I won&#39;t tell you anything, because then they say that Biglino influences&#8230;<br \/> So, do it as you want&#8230;<br \/> I wanted to ask about a verse from the Apocalypse.<br \/> What kind?<br \/> the one who, as they say, will descend&#8230; will descend&#8230; and show himself to the world&#8230;<br \/> I think it&#39;s the apocalypse.<br \/> is a coded text written for the then-emerging churches<br \/> to be wary, and to have hope&#8230; so there is none<br \/> prophetic value or intention for the future.. so it doesn&#39;t concern us anymore<br \/> it was the maximum hope of that time, which, however, was not fulfilled<br \/> just as Jesus Christ messed up all the prophecies&#8230;<br \/> by a landslide&#8230;<br \/> None of that&#8230; because he also hoped that those things would happen.<br \/> at any moment&#8230; just read the Christian Didache immediately afterwards<br \/> where they were waiting for him to arrive any minute<br \/> not in the future, from minute to minute<br \/> after all, they used the Aramaic term &quot;marana tha&quot;, come on, come now, we&#39;re waiting for you here<br \/> That&#39;s why Paul had to come up with the resurrection of the body&#8230; but that would take too long.<br \/> So<br \/> so it was about that time<br \/> when, for example, the number 666 is mentioned<br \/> about that code&#8230;<br \/> on the Oxyrhynchus papyrus, which is an older papyrus than the ones on which the apocalypse we have is based<br \/> It wasn&#39;t 666, but 616&#8230; why?<br \/> 666 is the numerical transcription of the Greek name Kaisar Nero, i.e. Emperor Nero.<br \/> on the Oxyrhynchus papyrus, which is older, 616 corresponds to the name Caligula<br \/> and he was indeed the emperor not immediately before Nero, but&#8230;<br \/> So, under Caligula, the number of the beast was 616.<br \/> under Nero, the number of the beast changed to 666<br \/> Okay?<br \/> Excuse me?<br \/> Excuse me, but there was already a gentleman here&#8230;<br \/> bla<br \/> &#8230;it&#39;s in the Bible in only one place<br \/> I also noted down the verses where he is mentioned.<br \/> Leviticus 16, from verse 7<br \/> &#8230;Yahweh says to Moses: tell Aaron to do certain things&#8230;<br \/> and at one point he says to him: then he takes the goats<br \/> and he shall present them before the Lord, at the entrance of the tent of meeting<br \/> and he will draw lots, which of the two is to be the Lord&#39;s, and which Azazel&#39;s.<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> blah blah<br \/> blah&#8230; then he will be sent to Azazel in the desert<br \/> Azazel is mentioned only in the 16th chapter of Leviticus&#8230;<br \/> then he is mentioned in the apocrypha, in the Apocalypse of Abraham and in the Book of Enoch<br \/> In the Book of Enoch, it is said that when he was punished<br \/> he was sent to the desert into exile&#8230;<br \/> So, two questions.<br \/> Why does he make a sacrifice for Azazel, who then became a demon?<br \/> and the second question: can this Azazel from the desert be related<br \/> with El Shaddai, the Lord of the steppe<br \/> who was in the desert&#8230; and so&#8230; could it be one person?<br \/> So, I think that Azazel could have been primarily Yahweh&#39;s external associate.<br \/> or someone who checked those things from the outside<br \/> Chili was far away, but with a precise task, and that&#39;s why they sometimes gave him<br \/> some of the things the Elohim liked so much&#8230; like this one here&#8230;<br \/> El Shaddai was, in my opinion, higher, more powerful, in the sense that&#8230;<br \/> So it&#39;s something else when I say: this is written in the Bible.<br \/> and it&#39;s something else when it&#39;s my assumption, and here it&#39;s my assumption, so just get it out of your head<br \/> In my opinion, El Shaddai was the father of Yahweh.<br \/> father of Milkoma, father of Kem\u00f3\u0161a<br \/> who divided Abraham&#39;s family among his children<br \/> I don&#39;t think so, because<br \/> In my opinion, El Shaddai was very powerful.<br \/> He was a high-ranking commander and I can hardly imagine him.<br \/> punished and fed by his son, but I repeat&#8230;<br \/> It&#39;s a presumption, so&#8230;<br \/> Yes, Azazel lived there too, but he doesn&#39;t look like he has much power.<br \/> It was someone who had been excluded.<br \/> so not someone who would be given power<br \/> but someone excluded, who could also have played a role<br \/> &#8230;<br \/> &#8230;yes, let&#39;s say it out loud&#8230;<br \/> when in Deuteronomy 32, Yahweh is assigned the family of Israel<br \/> it says there that Yahweh took care of them himself<br \/> without the help of any foreign, other elohim<br \/> Then, later, this character Azazel appears.<br \/> and it&#39;s a very mysterious character, so I&#39;m making a hypothesis<br \/> and I say that it is a hypothesis<br \/> Of course, I&#39;m not sure.<br \/> &#8230;but there is little information there&#8230;<br \/> Yes, exactly, exactly.<br \/> There is also a problem with the etymology of the name, which may have multiple meanings&#8230;<br \/> bla<br \/> blah blah<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> It is a character that is only mentioned there, nothing is known about it&#8230;<br \/> It&#39;s interesting, for sure.<br \/> just as it&#39;s interesting&#8230; were there questions?<br \/> because as I speak, they come to me&#8230;<br \/> blah blah<br \/> bla<br \/> Two quick questions.<br \/> Is there any historian who wrote it down at that time?<br \/> this whole history, which was then manipulated anyway?<br \/> Are there any sources, such as Sumerian ones?<br \/> &#8230;do you consider the source to be verified and recognized?<br \/> or at least understand who wrote these stories<br \/> as a historian: that the Elohim did this, in Gan Eden&#8230;<br \/> It is not known.<br \/> and a second, simple question: in your opinion<br \/> Is mythology as real as biblical stories?<br \/> I&#39;m pretending to&#8230; Me too, thank you.<br \/> in the sense that the Bible does not speak of God in the book and in another book called False Law<br \/> I have directly made a parallel study between the Greek texts and the Bible.<br \/> between those figures, the Greek theoi and the biblical elohim<br \/> They do the same things, require the same things, and have the same neurophysiological needs.<br \/> they behave in the same way, they have the same technology<br \/> technology that is studied by Greek universities, I mentioned it there<br \/> and according to them, Hephaestus was the engineer of that time<br \/> Hephaestus was the one who processed metals and made special things for them.<br \/> and he made special things for himself<br \/> I&#39;ve put it there with Greek citations, so that everyone can be at ease.<br \/> As a child, he was thrown off a cliff and both his legs were damaged, he was limping.<br \/> God<br \/> so that he could walk, he made two maids<br \/> which had the thought and the word within<br \/> and it&#39;s clear that the maids have thought and word in them, why was it so surprising<br \/> their skin glowed like gold<br \/> and in everything they resembled living girls<br \/> They were two robots.<br \/> who accompanied him&#8230; then he constructed tripods<br \/> on wheels that moved by themselves<br \/> they served them at banquets<br \/> and they returned to the depot by themselves<br \/> he made metal guard dogs for Alkinoos&#39; palace, which did not break or age<br \/> They are called watchdogs because they were watch elements.<br \/> and there are a lot of beautiful things that give you goosebumps<br \/> there is a description of how they moved and flew here<br \/> with those wings under my feet<br \/> they were tying it under their feet<br \/> and we must not imagine that they flew up like this<br \/> because Homer describes it to us exactly, they were &quot;cutting&quot;<br \/> they were descending from Olympus, not taking off<br \/> they descended along the slopes, then flew just above the ground<br \/> just above the water, and at the same time they caused the water to ripple<br \/> and just above the trees, so that they bent them<br \/> with those things they put under their feet<br \/> there are really accurate descriptions<br \/> I&#39;m pretending that it&#39;s true&#8230; I&#39;m pretending that they&#39;re true.<br \/> just like the descriptions of &quot;clouds&quot;, there too&#8230;<br \/> just like in the Bible, a cloud appears when there is&#8230;<br \/> the chariots of the Greek theoi created clouds<br \/> exactly the same as there<br \/> they were transformed&#8230;<br \/> then we&#39;ll get to that, to Lilith, etc.<br \/> when Poseidon goes, in the Iliad, to warn the Greeks not to lose their ships<br \/> He goes to provoke them and disguises himself as Kalchant, introducing himself to them in the form of Kalchant.<br \/> when he leaves, Oileus&#39; Ajax<br \/> he says, but this is not Kalchas<br \/> From the legs and the footprints, I understood that it was one of the theoi, because theoi can be recognized.<br \/> by the way he walks, even though he was disguised as Kalchanta<br \/> &#8230;<br \/> Excuse me?<br \/> Yes, yes, according to the tracks.<br \/> paws&#8230;<br \/> Thanks for the clarification.<br \/> they were changing<br \/> Now I&#39;m going to ask the women a question.<br \/> You&#39;ve been with one man for 3 years.<br \/> So imagine you are Magdalena.<br \/> who, since she had let her hair down in front of him, which a woman could only do in front of<br \/> by a husband, son or brother, before any other man<br \/> So if she let her hair down before Christ, she was his companion.<br \/> especially when he performs the royal anointing<br \/> with a special oil, etc.<br \/> You&#39;ve been with one man for 3 years.<br \/> Then the man is detained in front of your eyes.<br \/> he is tortured, he is massacred<br \/> He is nailed to the cross, you are still there.<br \/> He is taken down from the cross, he is laid in the tomb.<br \/> You will return there in 18 hours.<br \/> He&#39;s out there and you don&#39;t recognize him anymore.<br \/> You saw him massacred, you saw him laid to rest.<br \/> and you no longer recognize him<br \/> Isn&#39;t it strange?<br \/> during that kiss of Judas&#8230; the old texts say that Judas kissed him<br \/> to be sure, to take him<br \/> because the apocryphal texts say that he appeared in various forms<br \/> exactly like the Greek gods<br \/> So Judas will kiss him, so they don&#39;t get it wrong, so they take him.<br \/> I don&#39;t know if it&#39;s true.<br \/> but that&#39;s how it&#39;s written<br \/> and that corresponds to the Greek gods<br \/> As Justin Martyr says: why are you picking on us so much?<br \/> when ours is the same as yours<br \/> That&#39;s what&#8230; a Church Father says&#8230; please?<br \/> even the disciples from Emmaus did not recognize him&#8230;<br \/> These are all such mysteries&#8230;<br \/> So&#8230; was there a question?<br \/> blah blah blah \/\/Lilith, Eve\/\/<br \/> blah blah blah \/\/A\u0161\u00edra\/\/<br \/> that&#39;s enough for the whole conference<br \/> We&#39;ll do it this way, I&#39;ll give you the answer of a priest.<br \/> blah blah&#8230; and then, Moses only synthesized<br \/> the 42 rules of the Egyptian goddess of justice Maat<br \/> and it was only for the Egyptians who followed him, not for the Jews&#8230; thank you<br \/> Well, Moses took Egyptian soldiers with him.<br \/> to be able to suppress any rebellion&#8230; because maybe<br \/> Yahweh had a task&#8230; because it&#39;s not that Yahweh fought against<br \/> the powerful Egyptian elohim and managed to win<br \/> he could have been authorized to take away unwanted people<br \/> and so Moses took the Egyptian soldiers to prevent any possibility of return<br \/> and actually, when there were revolts, they immediately suppressed them and killed potential rebels&#8230;<br \/> as is the custom in the best of traditions&#8230; it was nothing else<br \/> So, Eva and Lilith, I will answer you with the words of a priest, Don Guido Bortoluzzi.<br \/> who did the same work as me, but he went much further<br \/> much further, because he says he received certain revelations&#8230; which I don&#39;t get&#8230;<br \/> I have to read and that&#39;s it&#8230;<br \/> I don&#39;t know how to do it any other way.<br \/> so in the production of Eve using Adam<br \/> Geneticists say<br \/> that it is a clear cloning operation<br \/> using staminal cells<br \/> By the way, that&#39;s really nice&#8230; they&#39;ll take the whole thing.<br \/> Excuse me, they&#39;ll take &quot;celah&quot;, it&#39;s similar.<br \/> celah translates as rib, celah means &quot;curved side part&quot;<br \/> The root of the word, but in Hebrew it also means to limp<br \/> So, who is the operation of the hip bone crest performed on?<br \/> so there will be anesthesia and suturing<br \/> so he&#39;s been limping for a few days, so there&#39;s also this connection, without making anything up<br \/> So<br \/> Geneticists say that this is a completely common protocol for cloning, as it is today.<br \/> but one phase is missing<br \/> the intermediary, i.e. the uterus, into which the new being is implanted<br \/> Don Guido Bortoluzzi says: that intermediate link is Lilith<br \/> through that woman-link<br \/> which enabled the procedure for the production of Eva<br \/> and&#8230; please<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> blah blah blah<br \/> Exactly, and actually<br \/> Eva is subordinate.<br \/> up to a certain time\/degree<br \/> in the sense that a certain part of extra-biblical Jewish literature<br \/> it speaks of the years when Adam and Eve were separated<br \/> and they both put it inside like ????<br \/> everyone with their own, Adam with his own, Eve with hers<br \/> so they also had some fun<br \/> They were lucky.. Excuse me, I have to finish this.<br \/> So, when Adam had Eve&#8230;<br \/> he would probably continue to mate with Lilith<br \/> but neither Lilith nor the bosses liked that, and so&#8230;<br \/> because of the position, exactly<br \/> Lilith didn&#39;t like it either, because of her position, as she didn&#39;t want to be subordinate.<br \/> Then there is another female figure that you mentioned, and that is Asherah, or Ashira, etc.<br \/> &#8230;that is one of the female names<br \/> which, for example, in the locality of Kuntillet Ajrud, in the Negev<br \/> is cited as the companion of Yahweh<br \/> just as she is mentioned as Yahweh&#39;s consort on the Ugaritic tablets<br \/> on ostraca, where blessings were given to those who travelled from Lebanon towards the Negev, and where it was said:<br \/> May Yahweh of Teman accompany you on your journey, &quot;teman&quot; means &quot;south&quot;<br \/> so whoever went from Lebanon to the Negev, went south, and his Asherah<br \/> she also knew this companion of Yahweh<br \/> Jewish community in Egyptian Elephantine<br \/> where she was called Anat Jav<br \/> so they knew Yahweh&#39;s companion and called her Anat Jav<br \/> which, among other things, means<br \/> that we actually have one of the possible Bibles<br \/> in the sense that we have a Bible that originated from Judaism formed in Babylonia<br \/> which was therefore anti-Egyptian Jewry<br \/> if we had a Bible created in Egypt<br \/> the Bible would probably look different<br \/> and that is why the slavery of the Jews in Egypt is also mentioned<br \/> and when you read the Bible, you ask yourself: where is this slavery?<br \/> It is written everywhere that they left well-equipped.<br \/> they left with seven tons of precious stones and metals<br \/> of which one ton and three hundredweights were gold<br \/> they left with hundreds of thousands of animals<br \/> How can slaves leave so rich?<br \/> &#8230;and then, why did they keep complaining? They said: why did you bring us to this f&#8230;ing country?<br \/> when we were so happy there?<br \/> and they wanted to go back&#8230; how come?<br \/> the story was worked out<br \/> as such, a form of flattery for the Babylonian rulers, then the Median&#8230;<br \/> it was functionally anti-Egyptian&#8230; as if to say: He freed us because we were slaves there<br \/> I&#39;m not so convinced about that&#8230;<br \/> in those books of Jewish theology, as I mentioned, it is written, for example,<br \/> that the tribe of Levi in Egypt was never enslaved<br \/> They say it directly, and the Levites are those whom Yahweh has chosen for himself.<br \/> and the Levites are the ones Moses has intervene to suppress the rebellion after the golden calf<br \/> so that the others would murder them, they killed several thousand of them<br \/> The Levites will intervene there, so&#8230;<br \/> it could have been some Egyptian soldiers that Moses needed<br \/> to suppress any potential revolts, to prevent their return<br \/> to Israel \/-\/to Egypt?\/-\/<br \/> possible<br \/> For example, this particular priest understands it as a transitional article.<br \/> from 48 to 46 chromosomes&#8230; right? Because we have 46 chromosomes.<br \/> compared to our monkey cousins<br \/> this was the so-called Robertson translocation, which occurred between chromosomes 2 and 3<br \/> which is something that, when it occurs in nature, leads to the death of that individual<br \/> while here, what happened?<br \/> it happened that this Robertson&#39;s translocation occurred randomly in one male<br \/> in south-central Africa, the male survived<br \/> it happened in one female<br \/> The male and the female met in Central-Southern Africa.<br \/> They had sex, had children, and those children survived.<br \/> those children, that son has contacted his mother<br \/> The daughter united with the father, and so a generation with 46 chromosomes was created, that is, us.<br \/> So all the scientists say, and they wrote it to me.<br \/> that this can only happen in a controlled manner in a laboratory<br \/> meaning you take a group of males, a group of females<br \/> you have them under control, and you release them into the wild only after you have cloned a sufficient number of them<br \/> because if you release them into the wild, they will die immediately<br \/> so this can only happen experimentally<br \/> only experimentally, that&#39;s really interesting<br \/> Excuse me.<br \/> yes<br \/> Eva&#8230;<br \/> In my opinion, it is necessary to distinguish well.<br \/> between the creation of the genus Homo sapiens<br \/> which is something that started some 250 years before<br \/> and Adam<br \/> because Adams are a special breed<br \/> a special race, in a special way pure, made within sapiens<br \/> and they made her to work for them in Gan Eden<br \/> Sapiens was already out there, but they made him anyway.<br \/> starting with the so-called mitochondrial Eve, as official geneticists call her<br \/> that Eve, from whom the mitochondria originate<br \/> which we all have&#8230; because men cannot pass on those mitochondria<br \/> through sperm, but are transmitted only through eggs<br \/> because they are too large to fit into the sperm<br \/> and so&#8230; the Adams are a special breed<br \/> and actually the story with Adam<br \/> for a whole range of reasons&#8230;<br \/> can be JUSTIFIABLY situated<br \/> around 4500 BC<br \/> so it&#39;s very close to us, it was the day before yesterday<br \/> Adam&#39;s&#8230; and there, as I read it<br \/> the story of the Israelite nation, which inherited the task of Adam and Eve<br \/> In Chile, they say: we are the direct descendants of that special race.<br \/> separate and distinct from the rest of the genus Sapiens<br \/> and actually when Cain kills Abel, because of rivalry, because he was a direct descendant of those&#8230;<br \/> when Cain is banished<br \/> He says: &quot;But if you drive me out, whoever finds me will kill me.&quot;<br \/> But if they are the ancestors of mankind, who was that anyone?<br \/> because there was a lot of sapiens out there<br \/> but they were much more backward than them, because they<br \/> they were a privileged nation because they were in direct contact with the Elohim<br \/> They were privileged from a genetic point of view.<br \/> privileged from a cultural point of view<br \/> and when they are then expelled from Gan Eden, completely by chance<br \/> a fully developed Sumerian civilization appears<br \/> because Sumerian civilization appears without any &quot;before&quot;<br \/> when they appeared in history, they already knew agriculture, animal husbandry, and construction<br \/> astronomy, mathematics, geometry&#8230; but where did they come from?<br \/> they were probably the Adams expelled from Eden<br \/> who swarmed into the Mesopotamian valley<br \/> That&#39;s my opinion, so get it out of your head right away, okay?<br \/> Exactly.<br \/> 3200 BC, the biblical flood, the biblical<br \/> No, the biblical flood could have been around 3200 BC.<br \/> Okay? Please.<br \/> so we have already touched on Babylonia here<br \/> I&#39;d be interested in the other Ls.<br \/> who were then the enemies of Yahweh<br \/> My question is: how is it that<br \/> a Jewish society was formed, which now has the same religion<br \/> they are all under Yahweh, and according to the Bible, the first anti-Semite was Yahweh himself&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;how is it that all the Jews united<br \/> under Yahweh, under the same god<br \/> the biblical God, who was actually the first anti-Semite<br \/> who killed direct relatives<br \/> So, in my opinion, this is a contradiction.<br \/> rather than a contradiction, it is a mystery<br \/> in the sense that it is not understood how it<br \/> that He remained<br \/> that He stayed with His nation&#8230; so were they that clever?<br \/> it was they, the most faithful, who waited&#8230;<br \/> that the promise given to them will be fulfilled<br \/> or<br \/> as part of something we have no idea about, he was entrusted with a task<br \/> whether he will stay here and make a difference, I can&#39;t say for sure<br \/> because when my Elohim colleagues left me here alone to do the work, and they left<br \/> Well, they didn&#39;t tell me, so&#8230;<br \/> As soon as I see them, I&#39;ll pull their ears and make them explain it to me&#8230;<br \/> No, really, I don&#39;t know, it&#39;s a secret.<br \/> So, let&#39;s say it was an element.<br \/> around which the nation maintained its unity, and in fact its Jewishness<br \/> I have many Jewish friends, despite the fact that some people consider me an anti-Semite.<br \/> and they tell me: being a Jew is not belonging to a religion, it is a way of being<br \/> simply a different way of being&#8230;<br \/> it&#39;s a different way of being for us&#8230; even without the money thing&#8230;<br \/> They feel they are part of a special community.<br \/> which received a special promise, by the way<br \/> from a messianic point of view, because their messiah is delaying his arrival<br \/> because their Messiah was to intervene, liberate them and place them above all nations<br \/> So at one point in the Jewish world, they also developed the idea<br \/> that Israel itself is the Messiah<br \/> through which the whole of humanity will be liberated<br \/> This is one of the many keys to reading&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;but<br \/> it is one of the keys they created<br \/> why some things still haven&#39;t happened<br \/> as the theologian Sergio Quinzio says: Christians<br \/> deserve special recognition because they are<br \/> 2000 years of promises unfulfilled by children<br \/> That is evident.<br \/> Jesus missed the mark with all the prophecies.<br \/> prophecies&#8230; rather hopes&#8230; not prophecies<br \/> So&#8230; I have a few thoughts.<br \/> of which may be the question<br \/> I noticed that it exists<br \/> Another nutcase who talks about spaceships, rockets, weapons, etc.<br \/> Zecharia Sitchin&#8230;<br \/> He&#39;s a nutcase, poor guy.<br \/> and I noticed<br \/> repetition of the number 12<br \/> in a variety of situations that are not necessarily Christian-Catholic<br \/> You have already mentioned the 12 apostles here.<br \/> but there are 12 months in a year<br \/> In the Greek and Egyptian pantheon, there were 12 gods.<br \/> There are 12 zodiac signs.<br \/> Is it a coincidence? Or does it have some justification?<br \/> and one more thing<br \/> The Jews, everyone wanted to exterminate them, they haven&#39;t succeeded yet.<br \/> but the last one, that is, Hitler himself<br \/> the worst being in the world, that&#39;s what he was, I don&#39;t want to excuse him<br \/> but he is the last person we remember<br \/> he has become a dictator stereotype<br \/> who wanted to promote the Aryan race<br \/> which has something to do with the Elohim<br \/> Egyptians<br \/> the king of the Ammonites&#8230; I captured it all<br \/> Can you connect it somehow? Thanks.<br \/> Yes, as for the last part, I wouldn&#39;t want to end up in court&#8230;<br \/> as for the first one<br \/> given that in ancient times there was evidently talk of hexadactyl civilizations<br \/> When I have five fingers on my hands, I count by tens.<br \/> when I have six fingers on my hands, I count by twelves<br \/> with all the consequences&#8230;<br \/> a circle of 360 degrees, all multiplied by twelve<br \/> division of twelve&#8230; so<br \/> It&#39;s like these civilizations&#8230; the Bible talks about them too, okay?<br \/> This clearly states: they had 6 fingers on each limb.<br \/> so this explanation could be here<br \/> that&#39;s another explanation, if I disregard that remark, so I don&#39;t end up in court<br \/> I didn&#39;t understand what exactly you were asking me?<br \/> So, let&#39;s say that the plot with Hitler is related to the Bible.<br \/> I have read it several times, so I can say it with confidence&#8230;<br \/> If I were a Jew, I would want to know the truth.<br \/> I put it in one of my books.<br \/> since the end of the 19th century<br \/> in Jewish magazines, then in the most important American newspapers&#8230; I can read it to you<br \/> I have it here&#8230; it&#39;s still being talked about<br \/> about the 6 million Jews who are to die in Europe<br \/> from the second half of the 19th century<br \/> So when Hitler was born<br \/> So, those 6 million Jews were supposed to die under the Tsarist Empire.<br \/> then there was the Soviet Union, then there was Nazism, and they died under Nazism<br \/> The Holocaust wiped out 6 million Jews.<br \/> We are not denying anything like that, shhh&#8230;<br \/> that astonishment<br \/> So there is no doubt about the 6 million Jews.<br \/> the astonishment is that after 60 years<br \/> there was still talk of 6 million Jews who were supposed to die<br \/> and if I were a Jew, I would want my historians<br \/> They explained to me how it is that after 60 years<br \/> there were still 6 million Jews there<br \/> so their number neither increased nor decreased<br \/> after 60 years, it was still 6 million who were supposed to die, and then 6 million of them died<br \/> If I were a Jew, I would want to know the truth.<br \/> about who decided that 6 million of us had to die<br \/> because it was obviously not Hitler alone who decided<br \/> when it was written at the time he was born<br \/> I can read it to you&#8230; New York Times, Atlanta Constitution&#8230;<br \/> I have no comment on that.<br \/> What surprises me is the 6 million and 6 million.<br \/> Another interesting thing is&#8230; you know that Elena Lowenthal, a Jewish intellectual and journalist<br \/> 2-3 years ago, she wrote an article in La Stampa.<br \/> Finally, in Israel, the number of Jews in the census has exceeded 6 million again.<br \/> as if those 6 million<br \/> it&#39;s a number that keeps coming back<br \/> I don&#39;t know, I don&#39;t know&#8230;. The Bible says that when leaving Egypt<br \/> there were 600,000 young men in their prime<br \/> even young men who could fight<br \/> each of them, of course, had a family<br \/> they also practiced polygamy, so they could have 1-2 wives<br \/> some children, parents, grandparents<br \/> and then the Bible says that she was there<br \/> and a mixture of other people who joined them and left<br \/> So, if we calculate it,<br \/> but I repeat, that&#39;s another thing you should throw away, because it&#39;s mine, it has no weight<br \/> Let&#39;s say that each of these young men capable of fighting could have 1-2-3 wives.<br \/> 3-4 children, 2-3-4 older family members<br \/> So there could have been about 8-9-10 people for each of them.<br \/> 600 thousand x &quot;X&quot; = some 6 million<br \/> it&#39;s like some kind of reference to the moment when<br \/> it starts from the ground up, because that foundation<br \/> the Jewish nation was Moses, the departure from the land of Egypt, that&#39;s where the nation really began<br \/> So if there is the question of the potential 6 million<br \/> other books say that there were about 3 million who left<br \/> These are all calculations that are sucked out of the fingers, no one can know for sure.<br \/> but this thing with the 6 million caught my attention<br \/> I found it interesting to read Jewish magazines from the late 19th century.<br \/> that 6 million Jews&#8230; or at the beginning of the 20th century, when it is said<br \/> I think in the New York Times<br \/> it is said that 6 million Jews in Ukraine and Poland received the information<br \/> that they will be completely wiped out&#8230; but that was at the beginning of the 20th century<br \/> At the beginning of the 20th century, Nazism did not yet exist.<br \/> So I find this interesting&#8230;<br \/> Yes, as a special nation.<br \/> blah blah<br \/> blah blah<br \/> blah blah<br \/> gijur, or conversion, is practiced there<br \/> Yeah, but&#8230;<br \/> not that he becomes someone&#39;s son, he is<br \/> officially recognized as a member of the Jewish community<br \/> but it&#39;s a long process, it&#39;s not like it turns around&#8230;<br \/> and there&#8230;<br \/> and there&#8230; there is a part of history that is not well explained to us, it is<br \/> descendants of the Khazar empire<br \/> conversion to Judaism in one fell swoop<br \/> but that&#39;s a distant history&#8230;<br \/> historians are not very interested in it, so it is left&#8230;<br \/> Exactly, what surprises me is the 6 million over 60 years.<br \/> because any nation will increase or decrease its numbers<br \/> Please&#8230; Good day, Professor.<br \/> May I?<br \/> May I? So, I with my wife, who is a Muslim,<br \/> we&#39;ve been playing around a bit lately, pretending that&#8230;<br \/> and certain assonances emerge between the Bible and the Quran<br \/> where Jesus&#8230; Jesus didn&#39;t die there either<br \/> is mistaken for someone else and enters heaven<br \/> apart from this, which corresponds nicely with your works<br \/> also the thing with Gabriel, who is met<br \/> who meets Mohamed, who is in a state of panic because of him<br \/> because he will press it firmly against him<br \/> I wanted to ask for your opinion on Jesus and Gabriel in the Quran.<br \/> So, we&#39;ll do it this way, I&#39;ll give you another confirmation a posteriori.<br \/> when it says there that he was taken to heaven<br \/> &#8230;in canonical texts<br \/> when speaking of the Assumption<br \/> we often find &quot;performance&quot; in Italian<br \/> which is incorrect, because all the verbs used in Greek are passive<br \/> chili was pulled up<br \/> he didn&#39;t get out, he was sucked in<br \/> all verbs in the canonical gospels are passive<br \/> so he was pulled up<br \/> so that would be another confirmation, it was taken away<br \/> So there are a lot of similarities&#8230; Sure, sure&#8230;<br \/> and then the fact that he was afraid of meeting Gabriel<br \/> In general, the encounter with the so-called angels was unpleasant.<br \/> Gideon, for example, when he meets an angel<br \/> and by the way, even here it is written in ordinary Bibles that the angel disappeared from his sight<br \/> while in Hebrew it is written that the angel left on his own<br \/> but because it&#39;s an angel, it has to be said that he disappeared&#8230; no<br \/> The Bible says he left on his own.<br \/> it didn&#39;t disappear, but that&#39;s okay<br \/> and there he tells him: don&#39;t be afraid, you won&#39;t die<br \/> So there was always fear when someone met them, because it wasn&#39;t very pleasant.<br \/> So these are confirmations.<br \/> Another confirmation is given to us by Paul, the founder of Christianity.<br \/> when he says to women<br \/> at gatherings, women should have their heads covered<br \/> because of the angels<br \/> not out of respect for God, but BECAUSE OF the angels<br \/> in Tertullian&#39;s De virginibus velandis<br \/> it is said that women participate in gatherings where angels are present<br \/> must cover their head for their own protection<br \/> so as not to sexually arouse the angels<br \/> in the Qumran texts&#8230;<br \/> In the texts of the Essenes&#8230; it is written that young girls participating in gatherings where malachim, or angels, are present<br \/> they must cover their heads for their own protection<br \/> because they were sexually aroused by girls&#39; long hair<br \/> they were sexually aroused, but Pavel says: because of the angels, not out of respect for God<br \/> so even the veiling of Muslim women still has this&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;or to protect women, to protect women<br \/> or be covered up so as not to sexually provoke<br \/> That&#39;s very accurate, nothing is made up there.<br \/> then, for us, it became a gesture<br \/> In addition to the respect that a woman should have for God, it is not like that, it is not like that.<br \/> For the angels&#39; sake, it&#39;s written there, read it&#8230;<br \/> in Paul&#39;s letters&#8230; what you have at home&#8230; in peace<br \/> there, the question of those long hairs that sexually aroused<br \/> Let&#39;s ask another question&#8230; and tell me when it&#39;s time to finish&#8230;<br \/> Let&#39;s ask another stupid question.<br \/> &#8230;what is long hair for?<br \/> in nature, in nature&#8230;<br \/> on the savannah, in the forests, in the desert<br \/> What is the benefit of long hair?<br \/> they even have a negative effect, they are counterproductive<br \/> Anyone with long hair knows what it means to keep it clean.<br \/> Imagine you are in a jungle and you have 80 cm long hair.<br \/> imagine what is happening in them, what is growing in them<br \/> how long will it take you to finish&#8230; or when you have to run away from a wild animal<br \/> or when you end up in the water, with 80 cm long hair pulling you down<br \/> but long hair excited those who made us<br \/> Don&#39;t we make braids for puppies? Don&#39;t we adorn their ears and fur?<br \/> Not me, I really didn&#39;t turn out well.<br \/> There is one animal whose fur grows indefinitely.<br \/> but that&#39;s not in nature&#8230; sheep<br \/> The sheep is another animal that they made.<br \/> one of the homemade types, which they made<br \/> all cattle in the wild have short hair<br \/> If you let a sheep loose in the wild, it will die.<br \/> the sheep was made artificially<br \/> like many other animals<br \/> and was artificially produced 12-8 thousand years ago<br \/> exactly in those places where ancient texts tell us that they were there<br \/> and that&#39;s interesting<br \/> even animals that live in cold regions do not have fur that grows 80 cm long<br \/> because it&#39;s useless<br \/> &#8230;they don&#39;t grow, for us they do<br \/> we basically have a muted coat<br \/> and hair no, I no, you<br \/> they even suppressed that for me<br \/> Fortunately, because if I were to be the object of sexual attraction of the Elohim<br \/> Where? Here&#8230; just two questions.<br \/> The first one is linguistic, so it concerns your specialization.<br \/> Sorry, I&#39;ll use the informal &quot;you&quot; with you&#8230;<br \/> I wanted to ask if you&#39;ve read the book The Secret of the Exodus about the Egyptian origin of the Jews by the brothers&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;Roger and Messod Sabbath<br \/> What do you think about it? More about the theory than the content.<br \/> that Hebrew is related to hieroglyphic<br \/> Egyptian, this is the first question, rather scientific.<br \/> and then, when you cooperate with those laboratories that study the Bible, working for NASA<br \/> prominent exponents of the theory of paleocontacts&#8230;<br \/> they insist that interstellar journeys<br \/> are not only unlikely, but almost impossible<br \/> Is there any?<br \/> I&#39;ll answer that in a jiffy.<br \/> theories&#8230; and especially, where could they come from?<br \/> and whether there were more races<br \/> Mamma mia, how beautiful!<br \/> So, what was the first question?<br \/> The first question was about the Egyptian origin of the Jews&#8230;<br \/> brothers Roger and Messod Sabbath<br \/> These are two researchers from a rabbinical family.<br \/> wrote this book<br \/> which is based on the study of the Bible written in Aramaic<br \/> In the Aramaic Bible, the story is completely different from what is in the Bibles we have.<br \/> For example, while in the Bibles we have, it says<br \/> that Moses was a descendant of the Ivrim, or a descendant of the Hebrews<br \/> It is written in the Bible that Moses was a descendant of the Yahudis.<br \/> The Jews were the priests of Pharaoh Akhenaten.<br \/> Moses would thus be of Egyptian origin, but that is actually what the Bible says.<br \/> when Sipora shows him to her father, she says: there&#39;s that Egyptian&#8230; so she also calls him an Egyptian<br \/> and if we start from the Aramaic Bible, those who came out<br \/> from Egypt were all Egyptians<br \/> not a single Jew<br \/> the Jewish nation was created then<br \/> So when you ask me where the truth is, I don&#39;t know.<br \/> &#8230;what do you think about it?<br \/> &#8230;I think it&#39;s possible, it&#39;s possible<br \/> &#8230;it&#39;s no coincidence that I work as<br \/> I treat it like the other Bible, because it was from it&#8230;<br \/> extracted truths that rule us all<br \/> If they were extracted from that one, I would do it like with that one.<br \/> the monotheism introduced by Akhenaten could be&#8230;<br \/> it could easily be the Jewish one<br \/> So, either some rebels<br \/> either intentional refugees or people who were forced to leave<br \/> Okay? As for the scientific question of possible interstellar travel?<br \/> and the races that came here?<br \/> So, Psalm 24<br \/> This is a psalm that Monsignor Corrado Balducci used to read.<br \/> who was a Vatican monsignor in charge of the study<br \/> potential life&#8230;<br \/> off Earth, and its connections with the Bible&#8230;<br \/> He said about Psalm 24<br \/> that it is a psalm that contains certain proof<br \/> that the Bible knew about extraterrestrial life<br \/> and quotes the first verses<br \/> Let&#39;s do it this way, so we can be at ease.<br \/> Then I&#39;ll tell you an interesting fact that will give you goosebumps.<br \/> me, me, I&#39;m the madman<br \/> Psalm 24: The Earth is the Lord&#39;s and everything in it<br \/> The universe and who inhabits it<br \/> so here we distinguish between the Earth and space and those who inhabit it<br \/> &#8230;this is a translation&#8230;<br \/> it can be the world, the Earth, the universe<br \/> Exactly, yes.<br \/> and by the way, that term &quot;tevel&quot;&#8230; let&#39;s not, so we don&#39;t stray too far<br \/> according to the vocalization, it can mean the universe<br \/> or sexual intercourse between a father-in-law and daughter-in-law, or sexual intercourse between a woman and an animal<br \/> according to vocalization&#8230;<br \/> so here we distinguish between the Earth and the rest of the world<br \/> from verse 7 onwards&#8230; I am currently studying this with Massimo Barbetta, what I have quoted here<br \/> there are areas of the sky identified directly, which are called Kimah<br \/> These are the areas where these gates, which I will now tell you about, can be found.<br \/> because those who say<br \/> Interstellar travel is impossible, they forget the scientists from the late 19th century.<br \/> who said with the same certainty<br \/> that the human body is not able to withstand a speed exceeding 30 km\/h, because it would fall apart<br \/> So I say: when science claims something, let it say &quot;maybe&quot;<br \/> let him say: we don&#39;t know now<br \/> but we don&#39;t know how we will travel in 100 years<br \/> so let&#39;s be careful with these claims<br \/> It&#39;s impossible&#8230; it&#39;s not&#8230;<br \/> It&#39;s not impossible, because the University of Naples, the same one where they say I&#39;m a nutcase<br \/> So they say&#8230; there is one article&#8230;<br \/> Here it is.<br \/> University of Naples: A prototype of a wormhole for time travel has been constructed<br \/> Okay? Based on Einstein&#39;s theory&#8230; they made a prototype, okay?<br \/> it means traveling through space-time<br \/> &#8230;<br \/> Listen to this: Psalm 24<br \/> here, the gates are referred to by two different names<br \/> shari&#39;a and petachim<br \/> So, the first ones are called: raise the gates\/barriers<br \/> it translates to gate in English<br \/> Lift up your gates, you upper gates!<br \/> Let the gates be lifted, O le olam&#8230; and here le olam is translated as eternity.<br \/> Olam in Hebrew means<br \/> in all extra-biblical Jewish literature, it means &quot;unknown place&quot;<br \/> because the king of Kavod is entering<br \/> Who is this king of Kavod? Yahweh, the strong man, the hero, the hero in battle<br \/> lift the upper part of the sari<br \/> Get up, Petachim le Olam<br \/> chili gates that you open in an unknown place<br \/> because the king is passing by with his retinue<br \/> What does that mean? That there are some gates here that open.<br \/> the king of Kavod enters, then other gates open in a place that no one knows<br \/> which is the place where they come from.. Psalm 24<br \/> petachim le olam<br \/> It gives me goosebumps&#8230;<br \/> &#8230;and here you can find it in the book The Fall of the Gods, in the section concerning Vedic writings.<br \/> that there are certain areas of the sky where they are in the Vedic scriptures<br \/> the gates through which those gentlemen came were identified<br \/> they are identified there&#8230; by the way, in that study with Massimo Barbetta<br \/> there is a route, but there are space-time gates through which they come<br \/> in that study with Dr. Massimo Barbetta<br \/> Yes, he showed it at a conference.<br \/> there is an area of the sky, identified by the Jewish world, it is called Kimah<br \/> which corresponds to one of the areas marked by the Vedas, where these space-time gates are located<br \/> Yes, yes, it&#39;s a large area called Kimah.<br \/> &#8230;it includes the Pleiades&#8230;<br \/> Exactly, it&#39;s a very large area.<br \/> So, these are the areas from which they could come through those gates.<br \/> space-time&#8230; that&#39;s really very interesting&#8230;<br \/> it would be worth exploring this further, because&#8230;<br \/> and that it is here in this Psalm 24<br \/> where the gates that open are located<br \/> &#8230;by the way, the timing is not observed here<br \/> because in Hebrew it is the present tense<br \/> So the first gates are opening, in the present tense.<br \/> then there is the kavod that enters, and the others are in the future tense<br \/> that they open afterwards<br \/> and this corresponds to Egyptian culture<br \/> to the paths of the god Ra<br \/> who was passing through a tunnel that had gates<br \/> in that tunnel, there was a very high speed, which, however, did not depend on the passenger<br \/> whoever enters there, goes at that speed<br \/> and that then opens into Am-Duat, i.e. the other world, but that is not the world of the dead<br \/> that is the world on the other shore, from where they come<br \/> We are working on it now and will release it.<br \/> Sure, we&#39;ll release it, we&#39;re working on it.<br \/> &#8230;<br \/> blah blah<br \/> Where was the hand raised? Yeah, there.<br \/> First of all, I&#39;d like to hear something about&#8230;<br \/> as you quoted the laboratory-made sheep here, it&#39;s no coincidence<br \/> &#8230;Dolly, who was the first cloned animal<br \/> I don&#39;t know if it&#39;s a coincidence or not&#8230;<br \/> The question here is: when it comes to flying machines<br \/> It&#39;s mentioned somewhere in the Bible, I don&#39;t remember where, so I&#39;m asking.<br \/> and the term flying machine<br \/> is cleverly disguised by the word &quot;glory&quot;<br \/> so I wanted to know what exactly was being said there<br \/> and where exactly, in which verse<br \/> So, the same applies to Kavod as I said about Ruach.<br \/> ruach primarily means &quot;wind&quot;<br \/> and what the wind causes by its movement<br \/> then a ghost was made out of it&#8230; so I don&#39;t know at all<br \/> I don&#39;t need to argue that it also means spirit.<br \/> but let them argue, I don&#39;t give a damn<br \/> Let&#39;s say that in some situations it can mean a ghost, I have no problem with that.<br \/> in others, it is guaranteed not to<br \/> It&#39;s the same with kavod, the root KBD means &quot;heavy&quot;, something that is heavy.<br \/> so, something that is difficult, by transposition of meaning<br \/> then it refers to something that is &quot;famous&quot;<br \/> Example: we say that a person &quot;has weight\/is weighted&quot;, is famous<br \/> Okay?<br \/> but everything is based on the concept of &quot;heavy&quot;<br \/> So, if we are going to discuss,<br \/> about the etymology of each individual word, we will never come up with anything<br \/> because it is necessary to understand these things<br \/> do the most normal thing: read the sauce<br \/> and I&#39;ll summarize it for you in two minutes<br \/> if kavod means &quot;glory&quot;<br \/> So, Moses spoke with Yahweh, face to face.<br \/> and Yahweh promised him that they would conquer the promised land<br \/> At one point Moses says: Yahweh, I must see your kavod.<br \/> chili: I have to see your glory<br \/> If it means glory, then when you look into the face of God, He does not have glory with Him, because He does not carry it with Him.<br \/> So, if you want to see her, you have to tell him&#8230;<br \/> You have to tell him about it if you want to see her&#8230; ok?<br \/> Yahweh tells him: &quot;All right, get ready tomorrow morning.&quot;<br \/> I&#39;ll show you my glory tomorrow morning&#8230; I left it at home for now.<br \/> I&#39;ll show it to you tomorrow morning&#8230; but be careful.<br \/> But when I ride through here with that glory, and you&#39;re in front of it, you&#39;ll die.<br \/> because God is not able to control the effects of his glory<br \/> but when I ride by with my glory, and you hide here behind these stones<br \/> and if you look at her from behind as she passes, you won&#39;t die<br \/> so that means that the stones can protect Moses from the effects of that glory<br \/> which God cannot do<br \/> Do we have to reason so much about it to understand what it is?<br \/> one must reason endlessly to make it God&#39;s glory<br \/> Indeed, entire volumes are written about this to convince us that it is God&#39;s glory.<br \/> but I&#39;ve already read to you here what that divine glory does<br \/> it has wheels, it has wings, it rises from the ground<br \/> and when it rises, it makes a lot of noise<br \/> That&#39;s what the Bible says&#8230; when we put these things together, let&#39;s do one reasonable thing.<br \/> Let&#39;s not translate the word kavod.<br \/> because when we start translating, we start arguing<br \/> but we have to say: what is kavod? It&#39;s the thing that does all those things&#8230;<br \/> \u0160mitec, then let everyone imagine it as they wish.<br \/> but he does all those things<br \/> There is no doubt about it.<br \/> that&#39;s what it says there, not in my translations<br \/> when I read you the translations of Dr. Jeff Benner, he says that kavod<br \/> He is the founder of the Center for Old Testament Studies.<br \/> He says that the kavod is a weapon with which Yahweh traveled and fought, but that is evident.<br \/> just read the Bible, it&#39;s evident<br \/> Okay?<br \/> So, if we&#39;re finished, thank you all.<br \/> So, thank you all for being here.<br \/> and that you made this event possible<br \/> To be continued.<\/p><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Vatican biblical scholar Mauro Biglino, his video lectures with subtitles","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3410","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-christianity"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/krestanstvo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3410","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/krestanstvo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/krestanstvo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/krestanstvo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/krestanstvo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3410"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/krestanstvo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3410\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/krestanstvo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3410"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/krestanstvo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3410"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/krestanstvo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3410"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}