Channel
@Miscellaneous_Illuminations
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
448subscribers
-3 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001375928983 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @Miscellaneous_Illuminations |
| Created | 1 September 2021 — measured — cross-checked against a third-party dataset (ext.tg_channel) |
| First recorded | 7 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 15 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 3 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 15 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/Miscellaneous_Illuminations |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 15 Aug 2026, 03:18 | 448 | -3 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 01:47 | 451 | no change |
| 7 Aug 2026, 01:35 | 451 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 25 July 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate. It is computed over the 3 of 20 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 4 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 20 (25 July 2026 – 4 August 2026) |
| Views total | 818 |
| Reactions total | 0 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 7 Aug 2026, 01:47 UTC |
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
'Hudson Taylor in Early Years -The Growth of a Soul' (1911) - Volume 1 of 2 by Dr. and Mrs Howard Taylor Read online https://archive.worldinvisible.com/library/hudsontaylor/hudsontaylorv1/hudsontaylorv1tc.htm
‘The Dawkins Letters’ by David Robertson. https://www.bethinking.org/atheism/the-dawkins-letters David Robertson is a minister in the Free Church of Scotland, based at St Peter's Church, Dundee. This resource is in 11 parts 1. Dawkins' Delusion 2. A Religious Non-Believer 3. Respect 4. The God Hypothesis 5. Arguments for God's Existence 6. Why there almost certainly is a God 7. The Roots and Evil of Religion 8. The…
‘What Is the Evidence for Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch?’ by Rev. Ian M. Thomas, updated on 24.7.26 https://bibleproclaimer.com/q1143-evidence-for-mosaic-authorship-of-the-pentateuch/ 'Authorship of the Pentateuch' by James Rochford https://evidenceunseen.com/authorship-of-the-pentateuch 'Did Moses really write the Pentateuch?' by Anna Kitko, 5.6.19 https://ratiochristi.org/did-moses-really-write-the-pentat…
Thought-provoking presentation from Dr. James Anderson https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=rmDQ6G4mZcM&ra=m
‘Acharya S is a skeptic with an interest in mythology who has written a book entitled The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. This book presents an hypothesis of how Christianity came into being. Although it has received no attention from scholarship, with the lone exception of a negative book review and that from an atheist scholar,[1] The Christ Conspiracy has nonetheless gained support from a number o…
‘Although Jesus claimed to be the divine Son of God, His favorite self-designation by far was ‘Son of Man’. How do we know that Jesus actually referred to Himself as the Son of Man and what does it mean?’ Quote from the opening of an article by Mike Licona called "Jesus - The Son Of Man?" https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/jesus-the-son-of-man
‘If Jesus didn’t claim to be divine, then, when his disciples claimed that he was, were they promulgating a deliberate lie about their teacher? That seems highly unlikely: ‘if the story in the Gospels is a myth, if the historical Jesus never claimed divinity . . . then this myth was invented by Jesus’ apostles themselves, not by later generations or the early Christian community. But why would the apostles lie? What…
‘How could the Jewish disciples of a Jewish rabbi so radically misunderstand their teacher’s self-image in so blasphemous a manner? As Craig A. Evans writes: To assert that Jesus did not regard himself as in some sense God’s son makes the historian wonder why others did. From the earliest time “Jesus was regarded by Christians as the son of God. Why not regard him as the great Prophet, if that is all that he had c…
‘In sum, the author and audience of the Epistle of James were early-mid first-century Jewish monotheists who considered Jesus Christ to be their divine Lord. The evidence favors the traditional attribution of authorship to James of Jerusalem, the (half) brother of Jesus. This attribution both makes the high Christology of the letter all the more startling and suggests a publication date before AD 62 (when James was m…
‘In The God Delusion Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “Jesus probably existed . . .”623 Nevertheless, the admission is begrudging. It seems calculated to plant doubt in the uninformed reader’s mind. Dawkins writes that “it is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all, as has been done by, among others, Professor G.A. Wells of the University of London…
‘Having been content to draw attention to the existence of “historians who doubt the historical existence of Jesus”620 in 2011, Lawrence Krauss conceded in 2013 that Jesus “was a real, historical person.”621 Krauss said: “If you asked me, is the weight of historical evidence such that Jesus was a real historical figure, I would say, the weight of historical evidence is that Jesus was a historical figure . . . I do …
“I don’t think you can take the easy way out by denying that Jesus ever existed . . .” —Michael Ruse [1940-2024] 619 Quote from chapter 2 in ‘Getting at Jesus’ (2019) by Peter S. Williams
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @Miscellaneous_Illuminations. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Citation-graph rank — 1,121,618 of 1,350,102entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 15 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Miscellaneous Illuminations” (@Miscellaneous_Illuminations), 448 subscribers as measured 15 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/Miscellaneous_Illuminations.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.