Well, when people do that here I generally ask why they use a nebulous term "the Jews" that would mean every man, woman, and child, and I get little response. If people just said "it's Jews" instead of "it's the Jews", then they wouldn't be referring to the collective but to whichever individuals are guilty, but for some reason people wish to collectivize their enemy, which actually removes guilt from the guilty and places it upon an imaginary construct. But we don't have to go that route. Suffice that there is a cabal, they are satanists, and satan will use whomever he can (good of you to allude to City of London and Masonry); I'm trying to finish writing a post on the subject.
Monad is the supreme/absolute consciousness, complete fullness (Pleroma) and total absence of evil. And this is not an insignificant theological detail .... not ... a deity subject to moods and preferences, but ... the immutable source, the Monad. Who does not judge, who does not decide who deserves to be heard. The Monad is pure consciousness.
Great. Now, I use "God" capitalized to mean the supreme fullness and total good, and I use "Yahweh" to mean the self-existent (absolute), and I use "Creator" capitalized to mean that from which all emanates. ("Demiurge" similarly but it's less important.) It sounds like you want to use those words for lesser being(s), as if the emanator of a creator or god is not the Creator of creators or God of gods.
I also appealed to history of religion to demonstrate that the gnostic demiurge came from the Egyptian ogdoad and was not the god conceived by any of the Jews of Jesus's day (two of that ogdoad were literally Heh (Yahweh-coded) and Hauhet (Eve-coded)). Now you say things like:
Jesus never prayed to God. He prayed to the Monad
.... Luke 6:11-12 KJV: "Jesus ... went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God" (cf. Rom. 8:34, Heb. 7:25).
When Jesus uttered the words, "I and the father are one," he was not claiming to be Yahweh
I believe Jesus constantly says "I am" in Aramaic, which is "Yahweh" applied to himself.
So my question comes up again: How would we decide among these options? If we both pursue truth, then I come with this historiographic evidence about the Greek roots of your belief, and you come with some historical observations where you indicate the belief was original to Jesus and his Jewish-then-Gentile followers, so how would we select and refine our two evidences? I would presume that we'd have agreeable standards that history is judged by preponderance of evidence and inference to the best explanation, but so far we're just laying out two lines of inquiry without a meeting of the minds about how to resolve those lines. See why I think that's important to judging how to direct people's understanding of Christianity?
It got autofiltered, maybe try it again without the links.
The log preserved "I think we can agree the Sabbatean-Frankists founded the state of Israel and they are in prominent positions in Israel." That's tenuous agreement, but there are also many factions involved as I've hinted. Looking forward to more.
Nope, still filtered. Your other comment comes through all right. There are a few words and phrases and sites that admin doesn't like anywhere, even in Wild West communities, and those are usually easy to avoid with self-reflection. It might not be worth trying to get past the filter here, or it might be worth posting as a new post in c/FreeSpeech (where I can rescue it even if autofiltered) or someone else's community (c/Aposemitism is pretty active nowadays).
Well, when people do that here I generally ask why they use a nebulous term "the Jews" that would mean every man, woman, and child, and I get little response. If people just said "it's Jews" instead of "it's the Jews", then they wouldn't be referring to the collective but to whichever individuals are guilty, but for some reason people wish to collectivize their enemy, which actually removes guilt from the guilty and places it upon an imaginary construct. But we don't have to go that route. Suffice that there is a cabal, they are satanists, and satan will use whomever he can (good of you to allude to City of London and Masonry); I'm trying to finish writing a post on the subject.
Great. Now, I use "God" capitalized to mean the supreme fullness and total good, and I use "Yahweh" to mean the self-existent (absolute), and I use "Creator" capitalized to mean that from which all emanates. ("Demiurge" similarly but it's less important.) It sounds like you want to use those words for lesser being(s), as if the emanator of a creator or god is not the Creator of creators or God of gods.
I also appealed to history of religion to demonstrate that the gnostic demiurge came from the Egyptian ogdoad and was not the god conceived by any of the Jews of Jesus's day (two of that ogdoad were literally Heh (Yahweh-coded) and Hauhet (Eve-coded)). Now you say things like:
.... Luke 6:11-12 KJV: "Jesus ... went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God" (cf. Rom. 8:34, Heb. 7:25).
I believe Jesus constantly says "I am" in Aramaic, which is "Yahweh" applied to himself.
So my question comes up again: How would we decide among these options? If we both pursue truth, then I come with this historiographic evidence about the Greek roots of your belief, and you come with some historical observations where you indicate the belief was original to Jesus and his Jewish-then-Gentile followers, so how would we select and refine our two evidences? I would presume that we'd have agreeable standards that history is judged by preponderance of evidence and inference to the best explanation, but so far we're just laying out two lines of inquiry without a meeting of the minds about how to resolve those lines. See why I think that's important to judging how to direct people's understanding of Christianity?
It got autofiltered, maybe try it again without the links.
The log preserved "I think we can agree the Sabbatean-Frankists founded the state of Israel and they are in prominent positions in Israel." That's tenuous agreement, but there are also many factions involved as I've hinted. Looking forward to more.
Nope, still filtered. Your other comment comes through all right. There are a few words and phrases and sites that admin doesn't like anywhere, even in Wild West communities, and those are usually easy to avoid with self-reflection. It might not be worth trying to get past the filter here, or it might be worth posting as a new post in c/FreeSpeech (where I can rescue it even if autofiltered) or someone else's community (c/Aposemitism is pretty active nowadays).