>>2491521 (pb)

They get floated as being incredibly similar quite a bit, but as someone obsessively traces things to philosophical axioms, the narratives are vastly different in virtually every way. Even if you take them all as fiction, the morals points us in different directions.

But to your point, there are a lot of interesting parallels to Christ. I'm extremely fond of the Hopi Indian prophecies. The Aztecs' prophecy and mythos. Even that little modern day tribe and the legend of Tom Navy.

It would appear to me that while Christ is God accomplishing and "going public" so to speak, that it is improper to think of Him as "the God of Christians" or something similar. It would appear to me He's visited other peoples at other times.

I also find it interesting that if you were to take the Hero's journey to the logical extremes at every possible term, you have the Christ story. Who's the most noble and blameless hero? A perfect, sinless, God. What's the most unfair obstacle they could face? Being executed for blasphemy despite being God. Being hated as a enemy, despite coming to bring peace and salvation. What's the most noble sacrifice? Your life in exchange for others. What's the highest possible stakes? Literally everyone who has ever lived facing eternity in Hell. What's the highest possible low point/odds to overcome? Literally being tortured to death. And the most surprising triumph? Defeating death and returning from it.

All cultures write the hero's journey. The story of Christ is the literally perfect hyperbolic distillation. The greatest Being coming from the lowest station, to face the greatest injustice, overcoming the greatest odds to give the greatest sacrifice, to save the most people, from the worst conceivable fate.

I can't help but wonder if part of the way we were created to view the world and good/evil was through the lens of this narrative. If this was put in our subconscious and intuition as "hero," because it is the story of what our God did for us.

In that way, God has made His triumph the actual subject of almost every story we ever tell, He has made Himself the basis of every hero we invent.

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with you. I think He's been telling us the story of who He is and what He's up to far longer and in many more ways, to many more people and cultures than in Christ and Christianity. And while I believe God became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, and I believe the Gospels as written, I think it puts God in FAR too small a box and almost dismisses who He actually is to think of Him as "the Christian God," the "God of the Bible," and diminishes what He's done for us and who WE are as His creation and children to put us in the box of "Christian."

There's far more going on here between God and Man than can be understood through the context of a religion. I think conceptualizing God as part of your religious identity really short changes what's really going on here.

>>2491551 (pb)

How does God refer to us in the Bible? He never says the new world/heaven is made up of Christians. He never says that God loves Christians. Early Christians called themselves "followers of The Way." They were tongue-in-cheekly referred to as "Christians," which means "Little Christs." It caught on. It's not inaccurate, but in the present day and age our relationship with the word "Christian," both for believers and non-believers is incredibly distorted.

I say, we follow Jesus' example and God's terms to talk about our identities and who God is to us. We talk about what we believe in, not the group who believes in the same stuff that we do. We should be thinking of ourselves as children of God. Followers and/imitators of Christ.

The impression that Christians often give off is toxic. There is an implication that you must convert to Christianity in order to be saved. Is that was saves you? Religious affiliation? Did Jesus ever say that this life is a knowledge test of guessing the right religion? We're giving the religion too much importance, and really not driving home the point of the gospel.

You don't convert to Christianity.

You turn back to your Creator, repent for your sin, and get to know Him. Yes, people who do this tend to congregate together. But that's an effect, not a focus.

This thing is so not about Christianity. It's us and our relationship with God.

>>2491880

>>2491856

>>2491884

>>2491898

Just thinking through this logically, who did Alex Jones’ show ultimately benefit, and who does his removal ultimately benefit?

His show did contain a lot of opposition to and truth about the powers that be. However, I think we can also agree that if we’re being generous, AJ was mistaken in a few important or key details and conveniently silent on some important and key topics.

Who watched his show?

His persona was just outrageous enough to be unappealing or unconvincing to someone who disagrees with him but just quirky enough to be tolerable or even charming to those who agree with him.

Additionally, his brashness on shocking topics is delivered in such a way to be laughable and look insane to someone who doesn’t agree with him, while just eye roll inducing or even funny to those who already do.

The purpose of infowars doesn’t seem to me to be persuasive or eye opening. It seems to be geared to people who already agree.

If key points were disinformation, it seems InfoWars style would be most effective as a weapon of keeping the redpilled just misdirected enough to not be able to actually unite against the right forces. If that was the goal, it would have the potential to be more useful and successful than if it’s goal was to redpill normies.

Further, who does the takedown benefit? If the program wasn’t waking people up, even if it was truthful just not persuasive, then it doesn’t necessarily benefit the cabal. Red pilled people will stay redpilled without infowars, and if anything may find more accurate or persuasive sources for news to learn and spread.

It’s not a harm to those seeking truth, really.

However, some people who have never watched the program or who have watched it, given it some thought and questioned some things, then decided it was too ridiculous to be true info, may see that an oppositional voice was silenced and wonder if they were actually saying suppressed truths. That could spark some people to look into conspiracies at the highest levels and find legit info in that pursuit.

Some people who have never heard of it or cared may hear the story about infowars being silenced for the first time on their Mockingbird network of choice and google what exactly infowars was and stumble upon some redpilled.

Something else interesting: the country is celebrating a news source being shut down. Regardless of what you believe about the news source, this does psychologically prepare people in a gentle way to accept or even find it to be a good thing when news networks are revealed to be harmful and are shut down.

This inadvertently helps POTUS’ fight against fake news, and makes any action he may take against them less jarring. The recent precedent in the zeitgeist is that taking down harmful news sources is good.

This move seems to benefit us and this movement. InfoWars seemed to benefit the powers that be more than us and this movement.

This was either white hats, or just the most recent example of THOSE PEOPLE being stupid and their plans backfiring.

>>2491911

Could we be watching Operation Mockingbird being taken down before our eyes?

About InfoWars being banned: I'm trying to figure out the significance. If they're legit, this is obviously censorship of the opposition by the powers that be.

However, I think anons will agree there is at least significant chance they are controlled opposition by Mockingbird. In which case, this signals something completely different.

In the case of the pedophile rings being taken down, we understand the plan. They can't go right for Hussein and Bono, who the public idolizes and trusts, or it will cause massive unrest. They go after who the public expects first–the cartels, the no-named criminals, etc. Then they go after those the public doesn't necessarily expect, but isn't surprised by: the Harvey Weinsteins of the world, leaders of organized religion, etc. Working their way to the shocking people once the public is primed to know it happens everywhere, and sometimes in places you'd least expect.

Could this be the strategy with dismantling the Mockingbird media? You can't just start with shutting down all of CNN. The public expects InfoWars to be shut down, and doesn't bat an eye. Then you move on to slightly more mainstream, but not exactly newspapers/shows with massive viewer bases or that have trusted reputations, and once the public starts catching on that things presenting themselves as news media are in fact paid for propaganda, you expose the big players.

We could finally be witnessing the implementation of the take down of Mockingbird.

Alex Jones going down obviously doesn't seem like politically motivated revenge from the Trump administration, like CNN going down would (to the general public). Just like exposing NXIVM doesn't seem like politically motivated revenge the way that arresting Hillary Clinton or Hussein would.

It depends on whether or not Alex Jones is legit.

>>2491902

Not sure of the implications, but let me clarify. I'm not saying to beat around the bush about the fact or refrain from talking about the fact that Christ is God come in the flesh who died for our sins so that we may be reunited with and reconciled to God.

I'm talking about whether or not we should be getting our identity from a religion or a group or from God Himself. I'm talking about whether or not we should frame the gospels as a list of religious beliefs, or fundamental spiritual claims about our reality. I'm talking about whether or not we should frame God as character in the Bible, or a belief of a group, or the God of this world who is alive and present here and now.

I'm talking about not making the focus "Christianity" but making the focus "Christ."

>>2491992

Not sure you read my post. I'm not claiming they are controlled opposition by Mockingbird. I'm thinking about whether or not it's more likely that IW is controlled opposition or if they're legit opposition.

The conclusion I'm coming to is that I don't know. But, their show would appear to benefit Mockingbird more than MAGA and their takedown seems to benefit MAGA more than Mockingbird.

Make of that what you will. I still genuinely don't know if AJ is genuine or not. Thinking out loud.

>>2492076

He responded to a post that came to the conclusion that AJ and Corsi are controlled opposition with "There is a reason we came to this board."

It does not 100% mean that Q is confirming they are controlled opposition, but I can definitely see why that seems like the most compelling understanding of that exchange.

>>2491973

What? Isn't that in agreement with what I posted? Looks like we are saying the same thing.

>>2491956

You've got to brush up on your Greek if you care enough to look into this. That's our English understanding of the suffix, but if we're talking about the Greek word we got "Christian" from, we are indeed talking about the phrase "Little Christ."

The original modifier is more similar to "ette" like cigarette (meaning little cigar, more or less) than "ian" as we understand it. But because of the way that their dialect of Greek works vs. the way that modern English works, you can indeed validly translate the word to either something like "Christette" or "Christian."

But if you get a chance to study a little Koine Greek and take a look at early writings of non-Christians about Christians, they were indeed calling them "Christettes" with all the silliness and slight mockery that it brings to mind in English.

>>2492239

Exactly. You have to frame the Church properly, as described int he Bible. God's children make up the church. Whoever and wherever they are.

There's a very significant, but perhaps not immediately obvious, distinction between that understanding and "God's children are those at the churches." And I see the culture and Christians alike latching on to the second definition for the most part.

>>2492131

"If you can't look at 20+ years of Anderson Cooper faithfully reporting the news…"

How is that convincing? And how does that account for the idea of infiltration along the way?

But again, you're not actually processing what I'm saying. Which is that regardless, if you think through it, it appears Alex Jones would benefit the deep state more than it would benefit the fight against him. His take down is the inverse.

I'm saying that's interesting to consider and think through together.

The way you're reacting so hostilely to something I'm not actually saying seems to indicate you're either not reading/processing what I'm actually saying, or you have an agenda you're here to promote rather than actually engaging with the discussion.

>>2492303

I'm not complaining about his tone. I'm pointing out that those who complain about his tone are the people who most need to hear and process what he's saying, and the people who are most likely to tune out.

I also said that if you're on board with him, his tone can be charming.

>>2492332

I cannot fathom what your agenda is here to have a hostile reaction to this and to lie about it. But, man do you sound ridiculous to anyone who has even a remote understanding of ancient Greek.

I would suspect you're lying, but even so, do you understand that modern Greek and Koine Greek have about as much in common as Middle English and olde English?

Being a native English speaker doesn't mean you can read Beowulf in the original text. It's like having to learn a new language.

Regardless, what does it matter? I mean, you can do a little research with the original texts in which the word we eventually translated to "Christian" appears and a Koine Greek translation guide. But even so, it really doesn't change a single thing about my point.

Say it does mean the English connotation of "of Christ." The point stands. If the word means "of Christ" then we should be thinking of ourselves as human beings who are of Christ. Not as part of a group called "Christians."

I do not understand your motives, here. Unless your intentionally attempting to slide because you don't like discussion of God or Christ.

>>2492025

Very well said. I am frustrated by how even those who are believers frame this understanding. It must be felt as reality in the present. A genuine prayer to a listening and present God for salvation is very different from converting to a religion.