Talk:Michael Servetus/Archives/2013/March

The cut in half of the Baby Servetus before Solomon, instigated by DeMarcos
All in the name of who knows what. A reflection on how editions occured lately. Basically we have here as an editor a Trustee from the Michael Servetus Institute, which refers secondary sources which do not lead to any primary source. So his interest is not truth. Basically, he has to diminish the Hebraism of Michael, so the theory of Tudela might sound more unlikely, and so they can kind of say he learnt it in that small village in the north or Aragon. (Aparently you do not know anything on the Hebrew University of Jerusalem when it comes to study Biblical Hebrew, Sephardi, and all their branches)  Yes, he also learnt there astronomy,  medicine,  pharmacology, geography  greek and Latin, and all those "non related to Jewish culture" branches, even before attending schools. It is hillarious. But it is required. No hebraism, it is dangerous it  gets closer the " Tudela Hypothesis"  as DeMarcos defines it,  when  it is indeed  " New Identity "  theory, but well that is what he cares of. Ah, and we have an awful attempt to cut the works in half, or more than in half, in a senseless try not to  infer indirect authority on the  Idenitity research branch of Gonzalez,  for he is the author of borth branches, the  10 new works, and the theory on the  De Villanueva name. Readers can assist to a persistent amputation of Michael's  skills, and works,  in the name of taking a theory away. For those joints, vital ones have been reassembled by Dr Gonzalez. We can see the blood Jaume de Marcos. And we can see who cuts the baby in half. You, the works, the skills, and anything required. As long as you can " keep him " for your insitute. More than a responsible search for truth and meaning, sounds like a  responsible   calculated  attempt to  control perception, and retain in your world what you got used it. I will support a COI again, if this goes on. Do you ever stop to think on what Michael would say to you if he would meet you? Or what the UUA would say if they figure out what you have been doing? Amputating- in vain - one of their martyrs? Denying em the righ to know why Michael gets interested in the Trinity when he was just 20 years old?That is solved. Or one of the main reason for him to go to Geneva besides confronting Calvin, for sacrifying himself for his friends the printers of Lyon? That is solved. Andidentifying as a beloved father  someone who  basically traumatized Michael in who knows what ways for him to send the Inquisition against him 4 times, after 2 decades? What I can do is denounce your COI. Too explicit, too gross. Too bad faith. Too repetitive. Know this readers, the references you guys are seeing are mainly from drummond, a very old reference,  not in quality but in ignorance of documents that showed up after. WHen it comes to Baron, he   refers to  Castro Y calvo, another historian, and this Historian refers to  a senseless Act, not possibel to adulterate as any act, with  data of events which would occur 40 years after. Michael Doctor, Juan Priest. Explicit. Basically we have an article full with references that go to no document, but letters. Wikipedia needs a stronger policy in references. The strength of a  secondary  source- study relies on if they have. or NOT,  a primary source. One thing is not to let a   fringe issue  flood the  article, and another is not to let  a sand castle ever fall down, just cause many people say  they like the castle. Just for you guys to reflect, on what we say that happened, and why. Solomon would identify which mather has bad intentions. The mother that discovers the Jewish converso Heritage, 10 works,  documents of the brother Juan Serveto, finds the connexion between  " I am not Servetus but I take the person of "Servetus" for confronting Calvin, and answer him as  "Servetus".... and  " Jesus takes the person of the Chirst" or " All this matter is on the concept of "Person", and Calvin does not understand it " or  " there are three persons, dispositions, aspects, of the divinity"  all  sentences by Michael.  That is the key for knowing what goes on. And, the world, and even your Unitarian Universalists Fellows, have the right to know about it.The Reason for him to be interested in the trinity, his names, the persons  and the Trinity. So basically for all this was  found out by the same researcher who defends the birth of Michael somewhere else, it must be amputated from Michael, works, the Persons allegory, the key issue, and some of his skills, in order for all to fit i I know few people with a  deep love for Servetus but it is   also difficult to find such bad faith, go play with ur castle Demarcos. If beachwatchers do not see what you do, it will not be me who will be wasting my time with people who basically defend nothing but themselves, proyected on historical figures, in an inerte and destructive-patriotic way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice Alaster (talk • contribs) 10:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As someone else recently wrote to you, "Alice Alaster, those editors agreed with you on promoting fringe research. The proof is that you only quote from one source, i.e. www.michaelservetusresearch.com (Dr. Echeverría's own website), or his book El amor a la verdad (paid and edited by the regional government where Tudela is located), or you refer to congress minutes and unknown publishing houses that have proven impossible to verify..." Good luck in your quest... Azx2 06:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That someone else was DeMarcos himself, so lets not say biased things.I think you mean I refer to  academic Journal Vesalius (  two different scholars, which I cited, after Aug2012), Pliegos de Bibliofilia, Historia 16, Vesalius,   Aki Yerusalahim,  Sociedad Navarra de Bibliotecarios, Raices Revista juida de Cultura,  Principe de Viana Magazine,  and many more.  Those are accesible from the website I mentioned, yes, profile section  25 pdfs. But they are not " The website" but  actuall magazines anyone can check. So your comment is just biased. It was paid by  a  sixth of the total, 1000 euros as anyone can check, if you refer to the last book of Gonzalez, contrary to DeMarcos,  who was paid  TOtaly,  two books, by the Michael Servetus Institute So I guess DeMarcos needs better luck than I do. . And I guess that according to your reasoning, then the book Gonzalez got paid by the same institute De Marcos is a part now,  1997 Michael Servetus Editor of the Dioscorides,says nothing to you now. Nor it does why they intensely deny what they published, promoted,  released to the press,  and made special lectures  about. Everyone knows what goes on and the proofs are here. www.scoop.it/t/discovered-new-works-and-true-identity-of-michael-servetus-proofs?page=4. Here first thing, you can check how things were in 1995 and how are now www.scoop.it/t/discovered-new-works-and-true-identity-of-michael-servetus-proofs?page=1. All that needs to be amputated by this user, and it will not be allowed. Thanks anyway for your good wishes.--Alice Alaster (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)