Did Catholicism Create Islam?
(youtu.be)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (36)
sorted by:
You stated: You are incorporating a lot of non-scriptural teachings and trying to apply them to what is stated in the Bible.
This is the wrong direction. Instead, you need to start with the Bible and work outward as it is the foundation of Truth. You need to let the Bible define itself and not apply foreign definitions to biblical symbols. Doing so is considered a form of idolatry.
Reply:
I've done both. You need to do both. This word 'scripture' is tossed around loosely and always was, especially within the neo roman churches. You need to deep dive christian history in establishing 'scriptural teachings'.
The cause of idolatry is most often anthropromorphism. I'm careful to avoid such pitfalls as idolatry as it is said to be 'the only thing that angers God', with that itself being an anthropromorphic statement.
You say: When I say God has nothing to do with it, I am saying that God has nothing to do with death. This is stated clearly by scripture. He is the God of the living. He is a God of creation and light. He is perfect and there is no darkness or sin in Him. As a created being, you are made with the capacity to stay in creation or leave it because you have free will. To choose the teachings of man and the world, to choose sin, is to pursue a path that cannot lead to God. Instead, you are only lead to a path that results in death as you are willingly separating yourself from the very thing that sustains existence.
The religion of Rome, however, has everything to do with death. The life within the symbol of the cross has been turned into an instrument of torture/death, Christ is a man who died and that 'fact' is to be 'confessed' or you'll be eternally tortured and so on.
This will thing is never free and doing what thou wilt isn't it, and neither is doing something based from fear. Fear and desire are the mind killers and this is what the Heaven/Hell dichotomy of the Roman religion rests upon. The ancient truths it hides are another thing altogether.
The god of creation and light is the Demiurge, akin to Lucifer, the god of the material world. Gnostic Christians schooled Roman Christians on the difference, were not understood, were killed, and the esoteric line went underground.
It waits to be discovered by those who know how and where to look.
Roman Christianity is nothing BUT the mixing of pagan traditions with their own.
The word 'pagan' meant simply commoner or peasant as it was meant to be a derogatory statement for those deplorables who weren't ready to accept the new head placed on the old body.
The problem here is that you attempt to measure something without the proper training and the issue is the very same in reverse of what you accuse.
You need to get outside your box. It isn't even yours.
You are incorrectly comparing Roman Catholicism to Christianity. The Roman Catholic Papacy is the little horn power. It is the first beast that comes from the sea in Revelation. It is the mother of harlots. It has been successfully identified as what most people would understand as the antichrist. Rome does in fact worship death, you can’t have mass unless you are conducting it over a crypt. It inherits its ideologies from Rome, who got it from Greece, who got it from the Medo-Persians, who got it from Babylon. The Bible warns you of Rome if you let it define its own symbols. Saying the Roman Catholics persecuted the Gnostics is like saying heretics were persecuting heretics. If you actually learn what the Papacy believes, you realize they worship the same thing as the gnostics. Lucifer always gives the same basic points and then embellishes them in a million different ways to let people pick and choose which flavor of the teachings they prefer.
You are extremely confused when you mix Catholicism with Christianity and then look to Gnosticism as the key to unlock it all. The reason why you walked into this confusion is precisely because you “do both”. Again, you can’t. The Bible is the foundation of all truth and you have to work outward. If you don’t approach it from that stance, the Bible becomes just another book and you are walking around blindly with no foundation and no way other than your feelings to discern what is true. The Bible warns against this saying to not trust your own feelings because they can be manipulated. When you learn how to spot fake money, do you study the known forgeries? No, you study the genuine article. Real Christianity is a very different religion from what you appear to believe it is.
Btw, I came to Christianity after many years of studying Gnosticism and the occult believing it to be correct. I’ve read Crowley, Blavatsky, Bailey, Pike, Hall, The Emerald Tablets, Kabbalah: I could go on and on. It leads nowhere and it all boils down to Lucifer worship in one way or another at the top. I was very reluctant to come to Christianity at first. The teachings of God go against what we find appealing as fallen man and require a lot of change and sacrifice but if you are genuinely honest and approach things logically, you will eventually arrive at the truth of Jesus Christ.
Lastly, anything that takes a higher priority in your life than God is an idol. It can be a literal statue, it can be an activity like alcoholism or gambling, or it can be a mindset like atheism in which you functionally declare yourself to be a little mini-god.
I did the same from an early age. I won't give you a list of books, I spent my whole long life doing it. How are you on comparative religions east and west?
I'm not extremely confused about how extremely confused people are about the history of Christianity. I'm extremely aware of it and how much a person can confess to know and not show it by act or word.
The Catholic Flavian Christianity defines modern Christianity. It's YOU who mixes the wines together not I. You're simply evangelizing and attempt to degrade with false characterization of my understanding to make it easier. it won't work and is an ugly way to converse. So....
I don't let Rome define shit. I just told you that Rome defined modern Christianity.
Funny, you told me that you were reluctant to come to the teachings, yet I was supposed to start with the bible. Actually i did. I was reluctant to come to false teachings, still am, and always will be.
Here's more fun; There was a REASON that anons were put onto Reddit, then 8 chan/4chan and then over to the goats at VOAT.
It was for the two thieves to 'butt heads' and let Divine Inspiration reign in the end.
Orthodox literalist beliefs masquerading as deep truths are the next thing to be exposed and the final piece to recovery. Saving Israel for last.
Rome does not define Christianity. The Bible defines what Christianity is. The Bible also clearly identifies and calls out what Rome is. It gives a specific timeline in its prophecies that perfectly predict the ministry of Christ, the various kingdoms that rule earth through history, and even the reign of the Catholic Church in the dark ages. It even identifies America. If you really know what the Bible actually says, you could tell me what time period we are in according to scripture and where it is paralleled in scripture. Who is America in the Bible? What role will it play? If you’ve been studying scripture your whole life and know the symbolism so well, you should be able to answer these critical questions.
Again, you are letting manmade symbolism direct your thought and not the Bible. You aren’t even referencing the symbolism of the mixed and unmixed wine correctly.
For someone who is reluctant to embrace false teachings, you certainly seem to enjoy believing in gnostic fanfiction. I reluctantly came to Christianity because I approached the subject with a completely open mind and gave each version of the story it’s own careful consideration. Coming to God essentially meant that I had to acknowledge that I had been studying lies for years.
You might want to tell the martyrs that Rome didn't attempt to define Christianity. It would be news to them.
I made a mixing of wine analogy. I didn't refer to the biblical example. But this is exactly what accepting literalist teachings as 'scripture' and therefore infallible is doing. (mixing in poor wine).
Saving Israel for last means pulling the literalist (satanic) snake from the tree yet agian. From belief in false teachings to knowledge of deep truths.
No the bible doesn't identify America.
You can't prove a thing by itself. You can't prove or disprove by 'belief' in something. I'm not attempting to do either. You are.
Go ahead and show me some example of my 'believing in gnostic fanfiction'.
I'll wait.
If you mean belief in the existence in a historic 'Judaic' gnostic movement, I'd be a fool not to. I'd be a fool, after studying it, not to see that it was that movement that brought the messianic message, and that it was their so-called messiah that was co-opted by Flavian Rome and perpetrated by the later so-called church it created through misrepresentation of dogmatic principles.
I didn't reluctantly come to the truth as i understand it. I sought it with every fiber of my being.
I don't 'identify' as gnostic, agnostic or a 'believer'. I seek truth and leave name calling to lesser individuals.
This isn't about me in any case, and it isn't about preaching dogma. You hoist theosophists up as proof of your search and then cast it aside, saying there was nothing there.
I found something there. The things that attract them and fool them in it. I see the half that is correct and the parts that their methods won't allow to be seen. Because two are taken up on a high place, but only one looks at the source.
You show your position whether you know it or not. And your style is as offensive as it is sophomoric.