Neville reads a letter from a woman present that evening who, meditating alone in her living room after her husband retired with a toothache, felt the Presence of God, looked up and saw Neville standing in her dining room clothed in golden light, knowing him at once to be both Neville and God and altogether beautiful; Neville says this qualifies her for apostleship, as Paul made having seen the Risen Lord the prerequisite.
Date (happened)
between 4 May 1959 and 10 May 1959
unresolved
between 4 May 1959 and 10 May 1959
stated · preferred
between 11 June 1971 and 18 June 1971
relative · probable
Why
Append-only corrected interval; the legacy 1959 interval remains historical.
Reasoning
The whole passage supplies a one-week relative window but no independent year. The authoritative nid 1055 adjudication rejects 1959-05-10 and retains 1971-06-18, so the supported interval is the prior week through the telling day. Confidence is capped at the live carrier's probable claim.
Told
18 June 1971
conclusion · probable
Why
dc1-agreement-20261004, pm-actor-551 (PM 8702)
Reasoning
1 claim, no conflict: 1971-06-18 (node:1055).
18 June 1971
estimated · probable
Why
Lane L7 (#2354) re-derivation. Supersedes in substance, not in storage, the refuted-date told claim(s) on this event; those rows stand per append-only.
Reasoning
Re-derived, not walked down. The existing told claim(s) on this event took their date from a delivery claim on node 1055 that the corpus has since REFUTED, so the corpus was asserting that Neville told this on a day it separately says he did not lecture. That is a contradiction rather than an over-confidence, and lowering the confidence would have hidden it instead of resolving it. The refutation stands and the told claim is the wrong side of it. Node 1055 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1971-6-18 at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1959-5-10 refuted; 1971-6-18 probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1959-05-10 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`) | delta 1: 1959-05-10 at `probable` (run `v1.1/l4/ceiling/c2`). The telling is dated by its lecture, so with the refuted date removed from consideration the surviving claim is what the telling inherits, at that claim own confidence and no higher.
10 May 1959
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1055, 1959-5-10) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1971-6-18. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
10 May 1959
stated · refuted
Why
Corrects the confidence of the told claim written by run `corpus v1 / phase3b` at delta 0 on this event; that claim is left standing per append-only. Ceiling rule #2132.
Reasoning
Confidence only; the date is not re-adjudicated and is left exactly as written. This claim is derived from the delivery claims of node 1055 and asserts `certain`, but the strongest claim that node carries is `probable`, so there is nothing for `certain` to inherit from. nid 1055 delivery claims: 1959-5-10 doubtful; 1971-6-18 probable. Walked back to `probable`, the ceiling. Whether the DATE is right is a separate question this row does not touch; if the evidence turns out to support more confidence, it will have to come from a source other than this node. || v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1055, 1959-5-10) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1971-6-18. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- Who Paul Really Is ¶29 (“Neville, I was sitting in my living room. My husband had a toothache, and he retired. I thought, Well, I would just sit and meditate. I was meditating in my living room, and suddenly I felt the Presence of God! I looked up, and there in my dining room .…)