Has Farsight ever ventured (or thought of for it would be controversial and thought of as possibly violating) remote-viewing just HOW Mary or the "mother of Jesus" became pregnant? Was she artificially impregnated by aliens or was it the result of natural biological activity or enforced? I know this is intrusive but I've always wondered if Farsight would go there because they go where no one has gone before- and if so, WHERE is the material on it if Farsight has gone there? Thanks.
Richard L Buchanan
I've often thought of this as a target. It might be one of the more important ones ever done by Farsight.
Richard L Buchanan
Let's go over a bit of history lesson and hermeneutics;
The word «virgin» (alma) in the original Hebrew-language simply meant a young girl;
Its true meaning had nothing to do with whether she is/was sexually experienced or not.
The Messiah himself had already returned «like a thief in the night» and everybody missed it;
He lived a «normal» life like everybody else and some of his writings you can read here...
http://www.the-testament-of-truth.com/truth/web/burial.htm
Mary had a husband; his name was Joseph; putting two and two together...
I would say that Joseph was the biological-father of Yeshua ben Joseph;
Do you know why he was called Yeshua «ben Joseph» ?
I will quote a bit further from the Messiah's writings which you can also read at the following link...
http://www.the-testament-of-truth.com/truth/web/spirit2.htm
And I now quote...:
[Begin Quote]
~ The God given name ~
I am Terence son of Irene and David
That from now on I do see, is the way it should be. Let there be no “family” name, for through it man does o’er the woman gain a singular advantage of command, as his “lineage” he does demand as being the only one of value under this sun.
“Thus shall “each” have a say.” Says our God as my pen does sway.
“And when two “together” do walk, “of them” others may of their “given” names talk. The “old” surname shall now be “gone” once each soul has their journey won.
All will the “past” forget. Family names are what made all fret, using it to with pride command that “theirs” was a “blue blood” demand, seeking to use it to empower, as darkness through their veins did shower.
So when two now do “unite” for a lifetime or but one night, it will be but by their God given name that all know the “two” do for a “time” God’s love and light show.
So from now on let all “see” that the way to become free is to stand from their ‘past’ apart and with a new name make a fresh start.”
So to you you and you, let me be known but as Terence the soul true, and my son Timothy now be the son of Inge and me. So if his one day bank account does with some funds mount, then on its “name” shall be “driven”:
"Timothy, son of Inge & Terence," by God given.
[End Quote]
Biblical-Scholars who've looked into it (Elaine Pagels should know this) have also found and noticed and discovered that when Jesus spoke, his speech was often in poetic-verse, in the original-language(s).
Luke 1:34
King James Version
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? This sorta suggests she hasn't/didn't have sexual intercourse. Regardless, a project involving the conception would be EXTREMELY interesting.
2 Peter 3:16
«For man[kind] shall wrest the scriptures unto his his own [spiritual-]destruction.»
Note : The word «wrest» in modern-day vocabulary means «manipulate»
And how can you be so sure that she was not just simply trying to hide the identity of the father in order to protect him from being hunted down like some sort of witch during the witch-hunts or Jew during the holocaust ? Anyway, I can only assume that neither of you have watched the Crucifixion-Project(s) yet, for, just because «bible said so» doesn't mean it actually happened as scribed.
Anyway, anybody who believes that a girl can get pregnant without any actual PHYSICAL «semen» entering into her [censored] has most-certainly been taken for a ride, and, anybody who believes that a man walked on water or turned water into wine has also most-certainly been taken for a ride...
I also hope that everybody is familiar with this particular passage... : «Hypocrites ! First remove the beam(s)/log(s) out of your own eye(s) so that you may see clearly _before_ trying to remove the sliver/speck of dust out of the eye of your brother/neighbour true who is simply trying to help/assist you !» I am responsible as the Messiah's Voluntary Successor to try to put all of his teachings into correct/proper CONTEXT when I come across erroneous-interpretations (for which there are a lot).
Ultimately, I will point to his very own writings, the TRUE «Gospels» actually start here...
http://www.the-testament-of-truth.com/truth/web/gospel.htm
Getting «Truth» (the REAL version) requires a great deal of one's ability to be humble; I strongly suggest not to ignore any of the links I have dropped herein with my responses thus far, and, because I know that fundamentalists and evangelicals always require «biblical-backing» for any claim, I will back that up with another passage with which I hope you are all familiar : «For God uses the [seemingly] foolish things of the world to confound (i.e. : topple the arrogance) of the wise (i.e. : those who think that they are intellectual-elites). God uses the [seemingly] weak to fell the strong (i.e. : they who believe themselves to be invincible or untouchable).» (e.g. : David and Goliath)
And for «a project involving the conception» you would most-likely be getting the thoughts and pre-birth experiences of the Messiah prior to his incarnation into becoming the son of Mary, whom Mary regards and acknowledges as the father (definitely going to end up being Joseph), and, which-ever other prompts that should be assigned to the target. Subject A would of course be Mary, Subject B would be the father of Subject C if Subject C even had any fathers, whilst Subject C would be the Messiah himself. Focus 1 would be Mary's thoughts about Subject B if Subject B exists; Focus 2 would be Mary's thoughts about Subject C; Focus 3 would be would be the Messiah's thoughts about Mary; Focus 4 would revolve the relationships regarding Subjects A through C.
Feel free to add or modify or clarify any «prompts» that I may have missed in the above paragraph...
"Hi, I wanted Farsight to prove my religion is correct".
"Hi, I wanted Farsight to prove my religion is false."
Which one do you think Farsight are going to do, given their current track record?
Elemi
I think the data would provide the truth or at the very least, suggest what occurred. Who, what where etc.
Would be profound with serious implications. The type you won't hear on the NBC nightly news. Not yet at least. May not be necessary as the data to date from other FS projects suggest 3 of the major religions were initiated and maintained by nhi. Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This is the sort of information that comes with disclosure that many will find troubling. At the very least.
I am of the opinion that project involving «bible» or Qur'an should be done in conjunction w/biblical-scholars and/or Qur'anic-scholars, such as Elaine Pagels, Paul Anthony Wallis, Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, with them first being briefed about SRV-Protocols, then, have Tasker(s) collaborate w/said biblical-scholars as to which prompts are to be assigned.
Something like this would involve at least four subjects...
Subject A : Mary who is popularly known to be the mother of Jesus
Subject B : Who/what is the father of «Yeshua ben Joseph (popularly known as Jesus»
Subject C : Yeshua ben Yoseph who is popularly known as Jesus
Subject D : Who or what is the «angel» spoken of in the passage
Subject E : The «scribe» who «recorded» the passage about Mary's dialogue w/Subject D
Something like this would also necessarily need at least four focuses...
Focus 1 : Whom does Mary regard as the father or «sperm-donor» of Yeshua ben Joseph ? (And, here, I should probably also mention that, just like in the modern-day scenes where women get «drunk» from alcohol, and, therefore, have no memories of any «sexual» interactions from the previous-night, she could most-certainly have gotten «hammered» and simply «forgot» what kind of wild bed-room action she was engaging in last night...)
Focus 2 : The real source of who or what caused Mary's pregnancy (this is obviously going to end up being Subject B, and, should dispel the myth of a «virgin» birth from NO sex)
Focus 3 : What decisions went on in the MIND of Subject C (Jesus) that resulted in his «incarnation» into this earth-life and whom he acknowledged as his father both after and prior to being born (Spoiler-Alert : He regards everybody's true Father and Mother to be the Dual-Source of God, the Dark of God representing the Father, the Light of God representing the Mother, not in the biological-sense, but, via Spiritual-Reality; biological it would definitely be Joseph for his earth-life).
Focus 4 : Why it was written (scribed) that Mary (Subject A) responded to Subject D (the allegèd «angel») that she had not known any man and what relationship Subject E (the «scribe») had with Subject A (Mary) and Subject D (the supposed «angel») if any and the thoughts of Subject E (the «scribe») as he or she was writing down (scribing) the «passage» in question and whether Subject E actually witnessed said dialogue.
Focus 5 : The role that Subject D (the supposed «angel») plays in the interactions involving Subjects A through E that resulted in said passage and its relationship towards them all.
Keep in mind that «angels» HAVE been «remote-viewed» (by Far-Sight) in the past, and, said «angels» turned out NOT being whom they «claimed» what they are/were, but, were typically deceptive aliens/extra-terrestrials who were «manipulating» simple man(kind).
Oh. I see a conflict of interests here.
It's down to arguing about belief and conjecture, which is futile.
What do you expert religious experts to do? Meekly accept a Remote Viewing project as "proof"?
It's not going to work, ChatGPT.
What would the conflict-of-interest be ?
Do you even know that Dr. Bart D. Ehrman is an ATHEIST Biblical-Scholar ?
Do you know that «religious» people in Evangelical & Fundamentalist camps have a LOT of «hatred» out for Elaine Pagels /because/ her «biblical-scholarship» includes Dead Sea Scrolls which goes over «Gnostic» writings which DEBUNKS Christendom ?
Do you know that Paul Anthony Wallis recognises the so-called «gods» of the «bible» (some people like to spell it : «buy-bull») as extra-terrestrials and various ancient-words, such as chariots, referring to space-ships ? He even has done videos about where he's asked «skeptical» friends of his to actually re-construct the blue-prints where units called «cubits» are mentioned in the «bible» and, that, upon completing their project, the blue-prints really did turn out to resemble the shape of what are often called UFOs or UAPs...?
Exactly where would be any «conflict-of-interest» here from the choice-selections ? I specifically chose these particular biblical-scholars, RATHER than any of the «evangelical» or «fundamentalist» scholars like William Lane Craig, SPECIFICALLY because of their ability to be both «scientific» AND thus therefore «HONEST and objective» (Bart D. Ehrman was a /former/ fundamentalist though). Heck, I am willing to offer to throw myself here into the mix, simply because I, also, know FAR more about the «bible» than ANY of the pastors or preachers or anybody else «calling» themselves «Christians» which would make «target-tasking» a LOT more «objective» than ANYTHING that would EVER come out of people who /actually believe/ in a so-called «immaculate-conception» or that «angels» really are «winged people» as is often depicted in popular-media or that some MAN could actually walk on water or turn water into wine or that some MAN conjured up thousands of other loaves of bread from one loaf of bread or that a MAN was God in the flesh and /various/ other «mythical-beliefs» that REALLY DO NEED to be DEBUNKED.
And I don't use Chat-GPT for anything in the category of controversial, Gemini (formerly Google-Bard) is also definitely out of the question because of its extreme biases, but, I find that Co-Pilot from Micro-Soft has an acceptable level of bias-mitigation; speaking of Micro-Soft, a joke exists about Bill Gates as to why he can't get a date, and, the punch-line to that joke-question is because there are two things that girls do not like... : Micro and Soft...
Yup, angels (demons most likely) Lucifer, even Satan perhaps...extraterrestrials. It's been that way since those personages were installed. A long time..
Ah. You are neglecting a phenomena which RV indicates as likely.
There isn't a time factor involved, "Evil" beings might not actually be corporeal lifeforms at the current period.
"Good" and "evil" are not helpful terms here, IMO. Not that I deny that evil exists, in the sense of an intensely selfish drive which excludes the needs of any other, leading to the detriment of other beings.
I would also note that the idea of an immaculate conception is very helpful for stigmatizing normal conception or things like invitro fertilization. Especially when it comes to male dominance over female behaviour.