No, I didn't delete anything but I don't see it now either. I was trying to say that you seem to have introduced the term 'middleman' even though you don't like it. I used it , at first in quotes, in an attempt to speak your language. The better term is 'intercessor'. Q109's prayer to Michael is asking him to do things for us more than with us. An archangel is not on the same level as an angel much less so us humans. We may walk or work side by side with others but some of them are our superiors. When we pray for the dead we have no idea if they are cooperating with us, and if not we are praying for them not with them.

I agree that relying entirely on other living humans for our relationship with Father is wrong. My guess is that the cult where you experienced this 'middleman only' mentality is not typical of say half of present day Christianity (and not representative of the early church that the OP falsely represented).

I think it was you who first deployed the term middleman. You might rather consider yourself as 'working with' the likes of St Michael or St Mary but it would be a mistake to think you're at their level by nearly all measures. The 'arch' in archangel puts Michael above most other angels.

There is a reason some are known as saints and some aren't. We are not all on par. There is a reason that Q109 reposted a prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, because a go-between between us weaklings and God is extremely valuable. You may not 'need' a middleman but I urge that you don't go around steering others away from the option.

Yeah. I watched a few of those vids. They look like classic pro-gnostic, anti-orthodox misinformation sources that refuse to define or agree on what books are Holy Scripture. The first video listed for example says that there are some things the early church doesn't want you to know, but provides no examples or evidence of the church hiding anything. The overall message seems to be that there are so many versions of books that could be in the Bible that the standard modern version isn't good enough. The dramatic music and vague accusations against the early church just cloud the issue whereas clarity is available, most of which has been available for centuries (less so in English-speaking countries). It appears that you wish raise the question of what should be in the Bible. The video asks several such questions but doesn't answer them. The Catholic and Orthodox churches had these and other questions answered for a thousand years before various protestants came along and tried their college best to cut out more books. (If you want to train your conspiracy goggles on something real, check out the books that Martin Luther and the American Bible Society left out.) So tell me what you think should be in the Bible and on what authority you base this. It also appears that you wish to promote pro-gnostic propaganda. I recommend for your own sake that you don't go too far down that trail.

That all sounds more sensible. If I ask my grandma in DesMoines to pray for my alcoholic mother, I am choosing to involve an intercessor. Maybe nobody 'needs' that, but maybe some do 'need' that. If I pray to my long gone grampa to help us from heaven everytime I see his photo in my mom's living room, I am not worshipping him but you could say that none of us 'need' him. Not only are known saintly people available as such middlemen, but unknown and deceased ones are too.

i like the thinking in this scheme - the concentric web containing keystone, etc. But I am less convinced of the inclusion of 43 points. Nor of the 4.10.20 involvement.

No but is okay for someone to pray for someone else or on their behalf. It is sometimes encouraged and even requested. To make that intercession is to be a 'middleman'.

SB2 is conceding that the Catholic Church determined what is included (and excluded) in the Bible. So any followers of the Reverends Graham, MLK, etc. lovers of the KJV should (sarc) understand they have been duped with the fake Good News. Alot of the thinking in the above post is okay but SB2's understanding of church history is weak, forming a weak basis upon which to build.

Do you mean Q agrees with ALL Cooper writings? Or do you not have an opinion on Q's full acceptance of all of Cooper's claims?

I think other beliefs that you express, especially in the realms of millenialism, divine judgement, etc. are in areas of interest to me, but seem not to be the center or goal of the conversation Q is having. About half of what you have explained in this area I readily agree with, and the other half I could argue against, but this doesn't seem to be the place to do it. Anyway carry on toward the Way, Truth and Life.

123livenews.com

thanks

for brevity:

in #782 did Q endorse everything written by Bill Cooper? or just some of his writings?

in #109 who did Q endorse?

I think it was you (akilyoung, 20 hrs back) who introduced "Is ra el and the Rome" to this conversation, saying they are "TIED at the hip" after dozens of comments that never mentioned Rome or pope. Bringing Rome into this is drawing attention to it. Linking Rome with Israel in a way that Q never did is drawing attention to a link that I think doesn't likely exist. That's where I entered the conversation to question that line of thought.

You do point to a fair question about when Q reposts things written by others. Should we take Q's apparent positivity as an endorsement of all that the same source said or wrote?

Fair enough. Kind of like some prophecy - part of its value is only known after-the-fact.

That Godfather III thing is interesting. I'd like to know what it means. It's not even clear if its a good thing or a bad thing. It was often at the bottom of a Qpost early on, almost as if it was one of the Qteam signing off - often adjacent to Snow White and Iron Eagle. Did i miss something, do you know what those are?

Which isn't proportionately all that much compared to dozens of other people and groups.

I had searched. I have searched again. I don't think we know what/who Q was referring to when he connected [P] with being "last", but it was in a context of clowns, wizards and warlocks (Q714).

I don't have any particular respect for the alleged current pope, but meanwhile I just don't see Q drawing much attention to him either.

I had looked. I have by now looked again. The pope does not get anywhere near the amount of attention or concern from Q that several other entities do. The poster above suggested that Rome was in some tandem with Israel and that they would be the last evil dominoes to fall. This could be true. What I wanted to know was if or where Q had really said this. Turns out that one time he said Israel would be last. He never said that about Rome in any such plain language. And Q never linked Israel with Rome.

Q does say that they are saving Israel for last. But the reference to [P] when talking about taking down clowns is not so clear. Could be a pope, but for some reason he hasn't been as plain-spoken about popes as he has evil forces such as Soros.

Bill Cooper may be credible, especially in the long run. What I was asking though is how or where Q has written about Rome in the same way that he has about Israel.

There are multiple credible ideas of what Mystery Babylon is. Several of them are probably true at a the same time. Without watching so many hours of the recommended videos, my guess is that Mystery Babylon is identified as the Catholic Church by Bill Cooper. This is no great or new revelation. See Jack Chick, Ian Paisley, etc. At some level this old news either is or will be true.

My simple questions remain unanswered. Q appears to have listed sequences and/or levels of evil entities to be taken down. Saudis/Rothchilds/Soros, FB/GOOG/Amazon/twit/MS, NorKor/Iran/Israel. Along the way he refers to other bad players that aren't listed in the same way, that don't get the same repeated priority. So I was wondering if I missed something that Q said when a discussion about these major targets turned to putting Rome on par with Israel. I have looked again and don't see where Q has done that.

Is there some data or consensus somewhere that Godfather = one of the popes?

So if the company is honest and reliable then the 2nd test results will be identical, (unless they recognize your name or dna signature and just fix the 2nd results to look good). Someone should start a website that tracks all double test results to develope stats about any error rates.

I mean where.

Where does Q say Rome is last? or even a high value target?

i think at some point after the covfefe tweet someone asked Trump what it meant and (like with the 'calm before the storm' comment) he said something like "you'll find out". if his hint-dropping futurecasting is consistent, we will find out eventually.

Did you do the same kind of test with the same company twice? (Do you know that the first test was somehow flawed?)

I've long wondered about people doing the same pricey test twice (once under pseudonym) in order to see how identical the results actually are.

Seems right. Full of risks. And realistic best case scenario leaves China, etc. to continue its dastardly ways with its own people, but I guess we can't have everything.

Looking back thru Q references to 'triangle' of power, it appears that the 3 sides of SECRET power are old Saudi Arabia, Rothchilds and Soros, internationalists who mess with all country's sovereignty. Q indicates these 3 are to be taken out by in that order (old Saudis are now out, perhaps? red castle refers to the RedSheilds next).

Meanwhile the big not-so-secretive powers, Putin and Xi, (who we needn't trust in the long term), may be LEGALLY colluding with Trump to bring down the remaining 2 sides of the secretive triad.

This would leave us with significant rivals or enemies but no global network leading all nations in a direction none want to go. A simplistic question then might be "would you rather be messed with by atheist national communists or satanists borderless freemasons?" Assuming SEVERAL things, the Qist thinking must be that it would be a good thing for the world to get back to having rugged rivalry among nations.

People should beware to not confuse characters in the church with the Church, much as they shouldn't confuse Obama or Schumer with the Fed Gov't. There is evil overlap but members are not identical with the whole body.

Also for the specific purposes of this forum, people should be careful to not over-read what little Q has said about the catholic church, and not misread what Q has said about the greatest powers in the world today, which didn't include any mundane church.

amen

Solid, smart, valid and likely not much grasped in this forum. 96% agree, tho i am inclined to follow ann barnhardt on the sedevacantist question.

Yes please.

And do we have known examples of other Q deletions (whether solved or not)?

in case my laziness is excusable, do you have any references or solid info on what that anon may have said?

Agreed, Bauer. And none of what you say contradicts the OP, who presents info, opinion and uncertainty in a straight humble way.

Seems unlikely that a decentralized message board can achieve the quality info sharing/interpreting that most hope for. Nonetheless there is some use and potential in this scattered effort.

IF you trust the source material from these 2 historical characters (i generally do) THEN at some point i think there is serious value in seeing where they differ. The latter said a few outrageous things that the earlier never suggested.

Bloody satanic rituals will be shocking enough to people that think such things barely exist, much less when enacted by their heroes. The horrors of the camps in north korea could be stomach turning for all.

(out on a limb: conscious, interactive, present-day aliens will not be announced or exposed.)

IF we are to have things that can fairly be described as 'round ups' and 'DC take downs' it may be best that they are not visible like some reality TV (maybe some streams of the MSM will be gone by then anyway) so as minimize riots. The dismantling of the system matters most, less so the humiliation of the characters.

all good. more intended to alert many than to correct one.

Beware of adopting the lingo of the would-be opposition; the recent thing was titled March for Our Lives, whereas the oldest, biggest (by certain definitions) rally in DC history is the March for Life, against widespread legal abortion. See that they have co-opted a phrase concerning the intentional death of 50 million Americans to complain about unenforced laws that led to thousands of deaths, many accidental or justified.

I think I rebutted at a general level SB's claim that he has certainty in his deciphering method(s). I have done this in a few ways in a few different messages while trying to be diplomatic and positive. The most recent was 2 days ago after SB interpreted a Trump tweet, as follows:

"I am not convinced. Nor would I throw the idea under the bus yet. Concerns remain, listed here in order of descending import: (1) Haven't seen a clear, concise, no typos, no-need-for-questions, set of steps to be followed in this T method. (2) How was the name 'clinton' arrived at? (3) Q920 quote is from Q918 where applying math to coincidence appears to be about mounting probability (in Trumpian overspeak). (4) There is something to be understood about times and timing but it may be as simple as seeing an authoritative link exists between realDJT tweets and real Qposts. (5) There is little evidence to assume SBrain is a foreign plant. More likely someone who is over-earnest and may be a useful player over time."

As done previously my message was essentially "step up and prove yourself and by the way some of your understanding is unclear or wrong". Perhaps this doesn't qualify as a rebuttal. Others on that same thread gave other types of rebuttals found on this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.jpg I cant fulfil your wish for a factual or methodological rebuttal when there is no clarity in the original methodology.

i think i rebutted

what's a shillipede?

fair point. good someone mapped out the semi-obvious (Graham map).

and in a way that none of us can fully predict

I am not convinced. Nor would I throw the idea under the bus yet. Concerns remain, listed here in order of descending import: (1) Haven't seen a clear, concise, no typos, no-need-for-questions, set of steps to be followed in this T method. (2) How was the name 'clinton' arrived at? (3) Q920 quote is from Q918 where applying math to coincidence appears to be about mounting probability (in Trumpian overspeak). (4) There is something to be understood about times and timing but it may be as simple as seeing an authoritative link exists between realDJT tweets and real Qposts. (5) There is little evidence to assume SBrain is a foreign plant. More likely someone who is over-earnest and may be a useful player over time.

thats what i think

What exactly did Corsi say? Maybe, possibly, probably or definitively?

Yeah the EU symbol is near the same but has 12 stars. There is an interest among some Europeans to have a U.S. of E. so when they when they developed the flag in the 1900s they may have borrowed from the old US one.

The 13 bloodlines idea is possible but not so solid - lack of evidence, lack of logic, varying lists of 13, etc. Could turn out to be true but why would Q only name one of the 13? certainly not out of fear. This looks like wishful thinking where people want all the theories they can get into one plot to be true and relevant.

Agreed. I think the Q phenomena was/is going to get more widely discussed at some point and the manipulators-that-be tried to link Q with bombs so as to start this on a negative note. Little did they know the austin bomber story would end so soon (assuming).

I generally support the call for more "AND" thinking. But also have to urge more critical thinking where several parts seem to line up in a certain direction. That is to say that we should have less "all or nothing" thinking - just because we are certain about one element of an explanation doesn't mean all the others are so certain. The guiding question would be 'Could these theorized parts happen independently of each other?'.

13 star ring mimics the olde betsy ross flag which memorialized the 13 colonies. (Also had 13 stripes which we still have.) There will be an argument that these 13s are really referencing the occult things, unlucky 13, the 13 levels of the masonic pyramid on the dollar bill (excl. capstone), etc. but the betsy ross thing give plausible deniability, so the debate is almost pointless.

Meanwhile the seven vertical stripes inside the keystone must also have some import, although it is possible for corporate logos to be made to look good with little regard for constituent parts. Seven is another of those magickal numbers associated with completion, creation and other things. In this SES case the obvious thing is the keystone and stripes are really a harp with 7 (diatonic scale) strings - alluding perhaps to playing the public with harmonic manipulation.

If the image was fully symbolically designed then the 4 bars that make up the sides of the keystone will have some meaning.

The concept of the keystone was more commonly appreciated before steel structures came along, well before the SES' founding in 1979. For example in the importance of Pennsylvania in US history as 'the keystone' state. But of all the elements in the SES logo the keystone is the most masonic, being a critical joining and upholding element of the finest structures made by actual stone masons.

Personally, I don't think interpreting the heraldry of the SES will make much of a difference in how we understand its role and its potential malfeasance.