Dude, Christ is God. He is the second person of the Trinity and He shares the same will as God the Father.
I've read that book many times over, gaining deeper understanding each time. Now read the one I sent the link to. I predict you won't. That would be a lot simpler.
I'm sure you have the correct interpretation and you're getting deep into that hidden knowledge and meaning only the initiated can achieve, my gnostic friend. But that's not Christianity, you're doing your own thing based on the Bible and the Christian concepts. The fullness of the faith is the historic Church, which is the body of Christ - it includes the Bible, tradition, the apostles, the saints, the believers, the canons etc. and Christ is the sole head of that body. There is a very strict hierarchy. Christianity is not an esoteric occult religion - it is open to anyone who accepts Christ as their savior and seeks unity with God.
The body of Christ consists of those who understand the concept.
'Christianity' is currently different in each head of the 99.
I provided a source. I knew nobody would even look, let alone read, let alone understand. It isn't about a book.
Yes Christianity is a cult religion, who could legitimately deny that?
It's only esoteric in the highest of the hierachy. The higher the position, the more that one knows about the esoteric which means knowledge that is 'hidden' in the open from 'the profane'. A term used for the agnostic 'believer'.
The SOURCE of ALL languages.....all numbers/mathematics.....all names of things...Showing the blueprint map of creation aka 'the way/mind of god'. You're right, why should you, of all people, want to see and know and understand that and raise up from the 99?
I asked you to read the book before getting back to avoid the boring back-and-forth. I'm here to show things, not get into lower level arguments. See Elisha/Elijah as the principle of upbraiding the 'Church'
by Divine Inspiration (Q/17/The Star).
If you avoid knowledge, it will become your enemy.
Christianity is a cult religion only according to your distorted definition of it, which has zero historicity behind it.
You ask me to read a 400+ page book. If I asked you to read the writings of the Early Church Fathers against the heretics and gnostics would you do that? If you're so sure of your convictions why not see what the other side arguments are?
Re: read the writings of the Early Church Fathers against the heretics and gnostics would you do that?
Already did that. In fact, a lot of those fathers later became 'heretics' to the orthodoxy. They now are accused of being 'tainted' by gnostic ideas.
Interesting that they were the messenger, not the other way around.
The gnostic element of Judea was eliminated by mass murder at Massada and later eliminated from formation of the Roman Catholic Church by assassination at the Council of Nicea.
I now have no need for either 'side' of their arguments as they are misrepresented in the first place. The 'winners' by hook get to define the argument and answers both.
A 'borrowed' cult religion by definition. You can deny but it doesn't matter.
Who are these 'The gnostics'?
Gnosis of what? There are 'black' and 'white' understandings.
They too, oppose each other. The white wizards vs the warlocks. Both at 40k.
I claim no membership to any club because one vessel can't hold the ocean it swims in. Gnosis is a stage of development, a higher understanding than agnosis masquerading as 'belief'.
Two sides until conjoined:
Isis is feminine principle - in opposition to its counterpart
Ra is masculine principle - In opposition to its counterpart.
Conjoined as One is EL or Is-ra-el.
And so, Q as Divine Inspiration, 17, as only some KNOW, says "Saving Israel for last".
This includes all the minions of the beast, gnowing and unknowing.
Until the next round.
LOOK for yourSELF. That is in fact the message of both Q and the Bible.
I eventually asked you to read ONE PAGE and bring me some critique.
Failing as a 'seeker after smooth things' as the saying implies.
I've not asserted my convictions. It isn't about anyone's personal convictions anyway.
I eventually asked you to read ONE PAGE and bring me some critique.
My critique is at the worldview level and it's very basic. I don't need to read anything to make that argument, which is: How do you know what you're saying is the case? What is your epistemic grounding for the things you claim? Why should I trust the gnostic paradigm as opposed to the Christian paradigm? How do you know which historical source was "tainted" and which one is reliable, which leads me to the most basic question - how do you discern truth and what's the standard for truth?
There were 'two thieves' on either side of the 'cross/crucifix' of 'christ'.
I attempt to bring Manna to both. Here's a sop:
A circumstance brought me to a discussion about Cognition with a top Cognitive Behavior Psychologist and by relation, with his 'team' of metaphysicists. They had a new theory called String Theory. I asked him to explain. When he'd finished, to make a long story short, I had shown lacking in the theory and offered something to allow it to work. I introduced the concept of spirit into the equation, inserted between 'that which is seen, and that which sees it' the word 'Magic'. Why magic?
An invisible middle between all forces exist and that spirit is invisible yet constantly proven/inferred by the two. (thieves).
Micro to macro, one finds the two thieves as science and religion. They are enemies currently and always until the spirit is known, not guessed at or given a number of measurement or a 'name'.
This idea was excitedly accepted and introduced as their own of course. I let them do that, because I knew its fault and wanted no credit had they offered. lol
I was personally thanked, but you know what? They are currently trying now to remove the M (magic/spirit) from the equation, because they and science can't actually define it as a thing, and they don't believe in spirit.
What is known to the gnostic is magic to the agnostic 'believer'.
I fight thieves on both sides of the invisible middle (silence) from which is born the Logos/light, who's 'mantle' is to be worn, Until then, one could only hope to touch the hem of the garment. Let he who has ears hear.
Dude, Christ is God. He is the second person of the Trinity and He shares the same will as God the Father.
I'm sure you have the correct interpretation and you're getting deep into that hidden knowledge and meaning only the initiated can achieve, my gnostic friend. But that's not Christianity, you're doing your own thing based on the Bible and the Christian concepts. The fullness of the faith is the historic Church, which is the body of Christ - it includes the Bible, tradition, the apostles, the saints, the believers, the canons etc. and Christ is the sole head of that body. There is a very strict hierarchy. Christianity is not an esoteric occult religion - it is open to anyone who accepts Christ as their savior and seeks unity with God.
The body of Christ consists of those who understand the concept.
'Christianity' is currently different in each head of the 99.
I provided a source. I knew nobody would even look, let alone read, let alone understand. It isn't about a book.
Yes Christianity is a cult religion, who could legitimately deny that? It's only esoteric in the highest of the hierachy. The higher the position, the more that one knows about the esoteric which means knowledge that is 'hidden' in the open from 'the profane'. A term used for the agnostic 'believer'.
The SOURCE of ALL languages.....all numbers/mathematics.....all names of things...Showing the blueprint map of creation aka 'the way/mind of god'. You're right, why should you, of all people, want to see and know and understand that and raise up from the 99?
I asked you to read the book before getting back to avoid the boring back-and-forth. I'm here to show things, not get into lower level arguments. See Elisha/Elijah as the principle of upbraiding the 'Church' by Divine Inspiration (Q/17/The Star).
If you avoid knowledge, it will become your enemy.
Lot's and lot's of claims made here.
Christianity is a cult religion only according to your distorted definition of it, which has zero historicity behind it.
You ask me to read a 400+ page book. If I asked you to read the writings of the Early Church Fathers against the heretics and gnostics would you do that? If you're so sure of your convictions why not see what the other side arguments are?
Already did that. In fact, a lot of those fathers later became 'heretics' to the orthodoxy. They now are accused of being 'tainted' by gnostic ideas. Interesting that they were the messenger, not the other way around. The gnostic element of Judea was eliminated by mass murder at Massada and later eliminated from formation of the Roman Catholic Church by assassination at the Council of Nicea.
I now have no need for either 'side' of their arguments as they are misrepresented in the first place. The 'winners' by hook get to define the argument and answers both.
A 'borrowed' cult religion by definition. You can deny but it doesn't matter.
Who are these 'The gnostics'?
Gnosis of what? There are 'black' and 'white' understandings.
They too, oppose each other. The white wizards vs the warlocks. Both at 40k.
I claim no membership to any club because one vessel can't hold the ocean it swims in. Gnosis is a stage of development, a higher understanding than agnosis masquerading as 'belief'.
Two sides until conjoined:
Isis is feminine principle - in opposition to its counterpart
Ra is masculine principle - In opposition to its counterpart.
Conjoined as One is EL or Is-ra-el.
And so, Q as Divine Inspiration, 17, as only some KNOW, says "Saving Israel for last".
This includes all the minions of the beast, gnowing and unknowing.
Until the next round.
LOOK for yourSELF. That is in fact the message of both Q and the Bible.
I eventually asked you to read ONE PAGE and bring me some critique.
Failing as a 'seeker after smooth things' as the saying implies.
I've not asserted my convictions. It isn't about anyone's personal convictions anyway.
My critique is at the worldview level and it's very basic. I don't need to read anything to make that argument, which is: How do you know what you're saying is the case? What is your epistemic grounding for the things you claim? Why should I trust the gnostic paradigm as opposed to the Christian paradigm? How do you know which historical source was "tainted" and which one is reliable, which leads me to the most basic question - how do you discern truth and what's the standard for truth?
There were 'two thieves' on either side of the 'cross/crucifix' of 'christ'.
I attempt to bring Manna to both. Here's a sop:
A circumstance brought me to a discussion about Cognition with a top Cognitive Behavior Psychologist and by relation, with his 'team' of metaphysicists. They had a new theory called String Theory. I asked him to explain. When he'd finished, to make a long story short, I had shown lacking in the theory and offered something to allow it to work. I introduced the concept of spirit into the equation, inserted between 'that which is seen, and that which sees it' the word 'Magic'. Why magic? An invisible middle between all forces exist and that spirit is invisible yet constantly proven/inferred by the two. (thieves).
Micro to macro, one finds the two thieves as science and religion. They are enemies currently and always until the spirit is known, not guessed at or given a number of measurement or a 'name'.
This idea was excitedly accepted and introduced as their own of course. I let them do that, because I knew its fault and wanted no credit had they offered. lol
I was personally thanked, but you know what? They are currently trying now to remove the M (magic/spirit) from the equation, because they and science can't actually define it as a thing, and they don't believe in spirit.
What is known to the gnostic is magic to the agnostic 'believer'.
I fight thieves on both sides of the invisible middle (silence) from which is born the Logos/light, who's 'mantle' is to be worn, Until then, one could only hope to touch the hem of the garment. Let he who has ears hear.
How's the book coming? Read one page.