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?
By seeking in the right places - for the sake of Truth itself. This is how God knows one is seriously seeking Him, as 'salvation'. The answer can not be opposed and this is it's proof.
One might looks for lost keys under the lightpost because he can see better there, but he shouldn't expect much success. Again, It isn't for 'seekers after smooth things'.
'When I was a child, I spake as a child.....'
'....but when they asked how would man be perfect, he took them aside and gave them the secret teaching.' This is the 'one lost sheep' to be sought as opposed to the 99. Who has the Desire - enough to leave the flock to find this 'One'?
Gematria proves that numerals and letters were concurrent developments used to name things including Gods, based from their sig-nificance within ratios of Divine Geometry...God's blueprint for production of life.
These paradigms....they differ by culture and time. They can all be brought together by comparitive religion, showing what is shared. But ONLY IF YOU HAVE THE KEY.
'Ancient Christian Cosmology'.....emphasis on Ancient meaning it came before the flood.
Finding and using the key provides proofs everywhere and everytime it is used.
Q Team understands this and is why Q is 17/The Star/Divine Inspiration as Ideation.
Vague gnostic schizo Q drivel doesn't substitute for epistemic grounding and a coherent hermeneutics. You just pick concepts from completely different worldviews and systems and mix them together assuming they are somehow connected, meaningful and are not contradictory. The result of course is an incoherent and arbitrary all-you-can-eat-buffet worldview.
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?
"What is truth?" asked Pilot, washing his hands.
By seeking in the right places - for the sake of Truth itself. This is how God knows one is seriously seeking Him, as 'salvation'. The answer can not be opposed and this is it's proof.
One might looks for lost keys under the lightpost because he can see better there, but he shouldn't expect much success. Again, It isn't for 'seekers after smooth things'.
'When I was a child, I spake as a child.....'
'....but when they asked how would man be perfect, he took them aside and gave them the secret teaching.' This is the 'one lost sheep' to be sought as opposed to the 99. Who has the Desire - enough to leave the flock to find this 'One'?
Gematria proves that numerals and letters were concurrent developments used to name things including Gods, based from their sig-nificance within ratios of Divine Geometry...God's blueprint for production of life.
These paradigms....they differ by culture and time. They can all be brought together by comparitive religion, showing what is shared. But ONLY IF YOU HAVE THE KEY.
'Ancient Christian Cosmology'.....emphasis on Ancient meaning it came before the flood.
Finding and using the key provides proofs everywhere and everytime it is used.
Q Team understands this and is why Q is 17/The Star/Divine Inspiration as Ideation.
Vague gnostic schizo Q drivel doesn't substitute for epistemic grounding and a coherent hermeneutics. You just pick concepts from completely different worldviews and systems and mix them together assuming they are somehow connected, meaningful and are not contradictory. The result of course is an incoherent and arbitrary all-you-can-eat-buffet worldview.