You
Noah (our hero) performs a sacrifice after the flood
Copilot
After the flood, Noah performed a sacrifice as a gesture of thanksgiving and dedication to God. In Genesis 8:20, it is described that Noah built an altar and offered burnt offerings of clean animals and birds. This act was not a payment for sin but rather a symbolic expression of contrition, gratitude, and obedience12. God was pleased with the sacrifice and made a covenant with Noah, promising never to destroy the earth by flood again34. This event is often referred to as the Noahic Covenant3.
So it's like.. what the fuck is this.. Yahweh is doing like I don't know.. those gods of the devil worshippers where you gotta sacrifice something for it, right.. like Moloch. lol. But he's doing burnt offerings of clean animals and birds. Hey, that's nice, taking some of those creatures, obviously from the fucking ark and killing them for Yahweh. Never heard of Yahweh being into these sacrifices things like the devil worshippers.
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?