Mr. Novak,
"I will unambiguously address and do my level best to answer any questions you have regarding this whole Zeshua thing"
No. Not "this whole Zeshua thing". Only the points made in response by myself and jmpet to your interpretations of Zeshua. No more, no less.
"if you agree to unambiguously address and do your level best to answer my questions about this Zeshua thing."
I have only agreed to address your as-stated points above, because you continue to harp on them as if they are significant. I will address no more and no less.
"That is all well and good, but I'd like to propose that we raise the stakes a bit further than you suggested. I propose that we agree to do our level best to identify exactly where we agree and where we disagree on all points, and in the areas of disagreement, lets try to find out exactly why we cannot agree on those points."
Since you have demonstrably adopted the technique of applying your own thoughts, beliefs, and interpretations to the literal words of another (Zeshua), I am sure you would have no problem with me adopting this same technique with your words. So my interpretation of what Peter is saying here (which could well be true) is that he is playing a game. His use of the words "raise the stakes a bit further" reveals this interpretation to be a reasonable view. In "raising the stakes" it appears that Mr. Novak wants to continue this discussion ad nauseum so as to give him a platform for his continued "sales" of the Zeshua story, and to spread more propaganda that will assist "team Zeshua" in achieving their self-centered goals. I would like to ask jmpet if he thinks this is a reasonable interpretation of Mr. Novak's "code".
And now, I will do precisely what I committed to do. It is my hope that you will abide by your pledge to address those points made to you that you have yet to address.
{How did Zeshua, whoever you think s/he is, know the date of the Pope’s death a month in advance?}
S/he did not know this, and never did she specifically state that this was the date the pope would die. You have inferred it from several things that are not explicit. To be clear: Zeshua never stated "the pope will die on April 3rd 2005." Your inference that this is what Zeshua meant relies on one flimsy assumption: That an American who is overseas would necessarily adopt the European standard for citing a date. If this assumption cannot be proven to be true, then your link between the date cited when Zeshua asked "What would happen if the pope died?" is dead. Personally, I worked in Germany for a period of 8 months out of 12 in the early 1990s, and never did I write to my friends and countrymen in the USA and adopt the European form for citing a date. When dealing with Europeans I may have, but if I were writing to Americans on an American website I would use the American standard date format.
{How did s/he know in advance that Terri Schiavo and the Pope would die within days of one another?}
Zeshua never stated, nor even implied, this as a prediction anywhere in his/her posts here on this site. This was your interpretation (and thus subject to error) by stretching the literal meaning of the few words s/he made on this topic.
{How did s/he know that Terri would die first, and then the Pope quickly thereafter?}
Zeshua never stated, nor even implied, this as a prediction anywhere in his/her posts here on this site. This was your interpretation (and thus subject to error) by stretching the literal meaning of the few words s/he made on this topic.
{How did s/he know that Terri’s feeding tube would not be re-inserted?}
Zeshua never stated, nor even implied, this as a prediction anywhere in his/her posts here on this site. This was your interpretation (and thus subject to error) by stretching the literal meaning of the few words s/he made on this topic.
{How did s/he know that no violence in the streets would occur over Terri?}
Zeshua never stated, nor even implied, this as a prediction anywhere in his/her posts here on this site. This was your interpretation (and thus subject to error) by stretching the literal meaning of the few words s/he made on this topic. Moreover, predicting a "negative event" such as this is far from amazing, even if Zeshua did do it (which s/he didn't). Violence in the streets of America in response to a major news event is a rareity. Indeed lack of violence in such cases is the norm. So predicting this would be equivalent to predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow. Statistically it is insignificant, despite the fact that Zeshua did not predict this.
{How did s/he know to warn Sosuemetoo about a coming bad weekend that turned out to include both a divorce and an unexpected death in her family?}
The simplest of all. Because "Sosuemetoo" is part of your sycophantic Zeshua "clique" who, like you, does not critically question Zeshua's "predictions", and given her rush to always support the Zeshua story and you, she is simply part of the "clan". She can claim anything she wants, but claims do not constitute verifiable evidence that this did, in fact, occur. I could say more about the subjective nature of saying "you are going to have a bad weekend" and tying this to a specific event, but I will save that for later when you deny and/or argue against all of these answers.
{How did s/he know that America’s next “major event†after May 2005 would be a “crisis†that came from “the sky�}
This is the one that deserves the most detailed response because it is so clear that you are invoking "confirmation bias" to make this fit. First, it has already been pointed out to you that hurricanes come from the sea and not from the sky. Further evidence that this is not a match is proven that the major damage that occurred in New Orleans was not due to wind, but due to the levees bursting and thus it was damage from the sea, not the sky. But more evidence of your confirmation bias in your decision to "assign" Katrina to Zeshua's "prediction" is evident when you look at the long list of other potential events in the US that happened after Zeshua's "prediction" that would just as easily prove her prediction was incorrect.
The first, and most ironic "next major event for the US" was one that you also try to assign so much hype to Zeshua. Terri Schiavo. So tell me, why do you ignore the potential of "the next major event for the United States" being the very hotly-debated issue of allowing Terri Schiavo to pass on? This was clearly a major national issue, so much so that Congress even got involved and attempted to prevent her feeding tube from being removed. If Congress gets involved to attempt to enact legislation with regard to something going on in the news, there is little argument that this news story is a "major event". Now you could make the argument that "well, this had nothing to do with anything coming from the sky", and indeed this would serve to prove Zeshua was wrong about the next major event. But this (the death of Terri Schiavo) was only the first of many potential candidates for what some might consider "the next major event for the United States." Clearly, we would need a solid definition of "major event" to even begin to assess what Zeshua was really trying to predict. My view is she was not predicting anything. She was casting a wide net and hoping to catch something. But now let's look at other potential "major events" that happened before Katrina:
1) Georgia court suspect escapes from custody and kills 3 people in the process - March 11, 2005.
2) Minnesota shooting rampage of Jeff Weise - March 21, 2005.
3) Off-course general aviation airplane strays off-course near the White House - May 11, 2005.
4) US Senate standoff on GW Bush's supreme court nominees - Resolved in late May 2005.
5) Watergate era informant known as "Deep Throat" revealed to be Mark Felt - Also late May 2005.
6) Justice Sandra Day O'Conner resigns from the supreme court - July 1, 2005.
7) Reporter jailed for failing to testify in the Valerie Plame CIA leak case - July 6, 2005.
8) Presidential advisor Karl Rove named as the source of the Valerie Plame leak - July 10, 2005.
9) Senate approves making most of the provisions in the PATRIOT Act permanent - July 29, 2005.
10) Governors of New Mexico and Arizona declare "states of emergency" in their states due to the border issue and illegal immigration - August 12-16, 2005.
{How did she know in May 2005 that Australia’s drought would last at least another 18 months?}
Zeshua never stated, nor even implied, this as a prediction anywhere in his/her posts here on this site. This was your interpretation (and thus subject to error) by stretching the literal meaning of the few words s/he made on this topic.
{How did s/he know all of this stuff? If you think you’ve got everything all figured out, then explain this to me, because I’d really, honestly, like to disbelieve in Zeshua. Show me a way.}
I and others have been showing you a way, but you are not acknowledging it perhaps because you do not agree it is "a way". However, logical, critical analysis looking for specific "hits" and "misses" does not permit using vague generalities. But like I say, you are not likely to see this as "a way to disbelieve Zeshua". So let me give you another:
Instead of focusing on those "predictions" (or inventing predictions s/he did not make) how about also considering those things s/he said that clearly were predictions, and which it would seem were complete misses:
- A Pre-emptive strike occurs between two war bound countries in Europe/Asia.
- 2 Federal buildings are completely destroyed.
- A Sudden outbreak of influenza.
- The Patriot Act ends up in court, its powers used to spy on civilians "For their own good"
- A 3rd becomes next.
- A Massive Financial meltdown that puts the Euro as the preferred Global Currency. Repercussions abound to the almighty US Dollar.
- A New form of computer virus programmed by a small team of individuals sweeps the globe within 24 hours.
- The Telluride Occurrence
There we go. Nicely wrapped-up and tied with a bow, just in time for Christmas for you Mr. Novak. I hope you enjoy and appreciate these logical answers to your ficticious "predictions" you have assigned to the words of Zeshua. I certainly hope you now keep your end of the bargain. However, if I might do a little predicting of the future, you will likely not keep your end of the bargain, and instead you will begin to argue the logical statements I have made above to address your "burning issues".
Now that I have addressed your issues, they can go away. But somehow I feel that you will not let them go away. That is your choice, not mine.
Good day, sir.
"I will unambiguously address and do my level best to answer any questions you have regarding this whole Zeshua thing"
No. Not "this whole Zeshua thing". Only the points made in response by myself and jmpet to your interpretations of Zeshua. No more, no less.
"if you agree to unambiguously address and do your level best to answer my questions about this Zeshua thing."
I have only agreed to address your as-stated points above, because you continue to harp on them as if they are significant. I will address no more and no less.
"That is all well and good, but I'd like to propose that we raise the stakes a bit further than you suggested. I propose that we agree to do our level best to identify exactly where we agree and where we disagree on all points, and in the areas of disagreement, lets try to find out exactly why we cannot agree on those points."
Since you have demonstrably adopted the technique of applying your own thoughts, beliefs, and interpretations to the literal words of another (Zeshua), I am sure you would have no problem with me adopting this same technique with your words. So my interpretation of what Peter is saying here (which could well be true) is that he is playing a game. His use of the words "raise the stakes a bit further" reveals this interpretation to be a reasonable view. In "raising the stakes" it appears that Mr. Novak wants to continue this discussion ad nauseum so as to give him a platform for his continued "sales" of the Zeshua story, and to spread more propaganda that will assist "team Zeshua" in achieving their self-centered goals. I would like to ask jmpet if he thinks this is a reasonable interpretation of Mr. Novak's "code".
And now, I will do precisely what I committed to do. It is my hope that you will abide by your pledge to address those points made to you that you have yet to address.
{How did Zeshua, whoever you think s/he is, know the date of the Pope’s death a month in advance?}
S/he did not know this, and never did she specifically state that this was the date the pope would die. You have inferred it from several things that are not explicit. To be clear: Zeshua never stated "the pope will die on April 3rd 2005." Your inference that this is what Zeshua meant relies on one flimsy assumption: That an American who is overseas would necessarily adopt the European standard for citing a date. If this assumption cannot be proven to be true, then your link between the date cited when Zeshua asked "What would happen if the pope died?" is dead. Personally, I worked in Germany for a period of 8 months out of 12 in the early 1990s, and never did I write to my friends and countrymen in the USA and adopt the European form for citing a date. When dealing with Europeans I may have, but if I were writing to Americans on an American website I would use the American standard date format.
{How did s/he know in advance that Terri Schiavo and the Pope would die within days of one another?}
Zeshua never stated, nor even implied, this as a prediction anywhere in his/her posts here on this site. This was your interpretation (and thus subject to error) by stretching the literal meaning of the few words s/he made on this topic.
{How did s/he know that Terri would die first, and then the Pope quickly thereafter?}
Zeshua never stated, nor even implied, this as a prediction anywhere in his/her posts here on this site. This was your interpretation (and thus subject to error) by stretching the literal meaning of the few words s/he made on this topic.
{How did s/he know that Terri’s feeding tube would not be re-inserted?}
Zeshua never stated, nor even implied, this as a prediction anywhere in his/her posts here on this site. This was your interpretation (and thus subject to error) by stretching the literal meaning of the few words s/he made on this topic.
{How did s/he know that no violence in the streets would occur over Terri?}
Zeshua never stated, nor even implied, this as a prediction anywhere in his/her posts here on this site. This was your interpretation (and thus subject to error) by stretching the literal meaning of the few words s/he made on this topic. Moreover, predicting a "negative event" such as this is far from amazing, even if Zeshua did do it (which s/he didn't). Violence in the streets of America in response to a major news event is a rareity. Indeed lack of violence in such cases is the norm. So predicting this would be equivalent to predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow. Statistically it is insignificant, despite the fact that Zeshua did not predict this.
{How did s/he know to warn Sosuemetoo about a coming bad weekend that turned out to include both a divorce and an unexpected death in her family?}
The simplest of all. Because "Sosuemetoo" is part of your sycophantic Zeshua "clique" who, like you, does not critically question Zeshua's "predictions", and given her rush to always support the Zeshua story and you, she is simply part of the "clan". She can claim anything she wants, but claims do not constitute verifiable evidence that this did, in fact, occur. I could say more about the subjective nature of saying "you are going to have a bad weekend" and tying this to a specific event, but I will save that for later when you deny and/or argue against all of these answers.
{How did s/he know that America’s next “major event†after May 2005 would be a “crisis†that came from “the sky�}
This is the one that deserves the most detailed response because it is so clear that you are invoking "confirmation bias" to make this fit. First, it has already been pointed out to you that hurricanes come from the sea and not from the sky. Further evidence that this is not a match is proven that the major damage that occurred in New Orleans was not due to wind, but due to the levees bursting and thus it was damage from the sea, not the sky. But more evidence of your confirmation bias in your decision to "assign" Katrina to Zeshua's "prediction" is evident when you look at the long list of other potential events in the US that happened after Zeshua's "prediction" that would just as easily prove her prediction was incorrect.
The first, and most ironic "next major event for the US" was one that you also try to assign so much hype to Zeshua. Terri Schiavo. So tell me, why do you ignore the potential of "the next major event for the United States" being the very hotly-debated issue of allowing Terri Schiavo to pass on? This was clearly a major national issue, so much so that Congress even got involved and attempted to prevent her feeding tube from being removed. If Congress gets involved to attempt to enact legislation with regard to something going on in the news, there is little argument that this news story is a "major event". Now you could make the argument that "well, this had nothing to do with anything coming from the sky", and indeed this would serve to prove Zeshua was wrong about the next major event. But this (the death of Terri Schiavo) was only the first of many potential candidates for what some might consider "the next major event for the United States." Clearly, we would need a solid definition of "major event" to even begin to assess what Zeshua was really trying to predict. My view is she was not predicting anything. She was casting a wide net and hoping to catch something. But now let's look at other potential "major events" that happened before Katrina:
1) Georgia court suspect escapes from custody and kills 3 people in the process - March 11, 2005.
2) Minnesota shooting rampage of Jeff Weise - March 21, 2005.
3) Off-course general aviation airplane strays off-course near the White House - May 11, 2005.
4) US Senate standoff on GW Bush's supreme court nominees - Resolved in late May 2005.
5) Watergate era informant known as "Deep Throat" revealed to be Mark Felt - Also late May 2005.
6) Justice Sandra Day O'Conner resigns from the supreme court - July 1, 2005.
7) Reporter jailed for failing to testify in the Valerie Plame CIA leak case - July 6, 2005.
8) Presidential advisor Karl Rove named as the source of the Valerie Plame leak - July 10, 2005.
9) Senate approves making most of the provisions in the PATRIOT Act permanent - July 29, 2005.
10) Governors of New Mexico and Arizona declare "states of emergency" in their states due to the border issue and illegal immigration - August 12-16, 2005.
{How did she know in May 2005 that Australia’s drought would last at least another 18 months?}
Zeshua never stated, nor even implied, this as a prediction anywhere in his/her posts here on this site. This was your interpretation (and thus subject to error) by stretching the literal meaning of the few words s/he made on this topic.
{How did s/he know all of this stuff? If you think you’ve got everything all figured out, then explain this to me, because I’d really, honestly, like to disbelieve in Zeshua. Show me a way.}
I and others have been showing you a way, but you are not acknowledging it perhaps because you do not agree it is "a way". However, logical, critical analysis looking for specific "hits" and "misses" does not permit using vague generalities. But like I say, you are not likely to see this as "a way to disbelieve Zeshua". So let me give you another:
Instead of focusing on those "predictions" (or inventing predictions s/he did not make) how about also considering those things s/he said that clearly were predictions, and which it would seem were complete misses:
- A Pre-emptive strike occurs between two war bound countries in Europe/Asia.
- 2 Federal buildings are completely destroyed.
- A Sudden outbreak of influenza.
- The Patriot Act ends up in court, its powers used to spy on civilians "For their own good"
- A 3rd becomes next.
- A Massive Financial meltdown that puts the Euro as the preferred Global Currency. Repercussions abound to the almighty US Dollar.
- A New form of computer virus programmed by a small team of individuals sweeps the globe within 24 hours.
- The Telluride Occurrence
There we go. Nicely wrapped-up and tied with a bow, just in time for Christmas for you Mr. Novak. I hope you enjoy and appreciate these logical answers to your ficticious "predictions" you have assigned to the words of Zeshua. I certainly hope you now keep your end of the bargain. However, if I might do a little predicting of the future, you will likely not keep your end of the bargain, and instead you will begin to argue the logical statements I have made above to address your "burning issues".
Now that I have addressed your issues, they can go away. But somehow I feel that you will not let them go away. That is your choice, not mine.
Good day, sir.