I made him so mad he had to spin up a new alt
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (65)
sorted by:
Jesus is the Son of God who sits at the right hand of God. So of course replacing Him with Hitler is blasphemous.
The Bible is the guide book for mankind to get right with our Holy Father and be saved. Repent and turn to God while you still have breath.
The bible.
There are/were and will be many bibles.
Only ONE god.
It sounds like you reject the one and only gospel which is recorded in the Bible. The attacks on the Bible is really only an attempt to deny that truth.
Repent and turn to the ONE, TRUE God who Rome and cohorts blasphemed by stealing the prior greek concept of christos and made into a polytheistic fictional human character to rule in the Pax Romana. Those who accept myth in place of truth were called 'Seekers after smooth things' by the Essenes in their scriptural writings for reasons. They were then martyred/destroyed at Masada by those same cohorts in order to bring the ruse. People here are supposed to be research minded rather than simply accept what has been given by TPTB or popular 'history'. Josephus was a traitor historian journalist,for Rome, and Roman citizen Saul/Paul, called 'The Liar' was an inserted infiltrate who's purpose was to co-opt Judaic Christianity to solidify that same Pax Romana. That's exactly what did happen. Do the work.
Never happened. What did happen is Jesus really did what He did and God inspired the Bible. It takes lots of faith to believe the greeks were as powerful as you say they were. What about the parable of the Pearl? Ah yes because Greeks would give up their things for something higher. LOL. Contrary to human nature to do that. People are stupid and selfish.
If his mission was merely to infiltrate, people wouldn't still believe him today. Your theory is more myopic than a bat.
Its no theory that tax collector Saul's father taught comparative religion at Tarsus and his son used his expertise in renting the fabric, then sewing it back together under the new Pax Romana. It's no theory that Saul said that a voice in the light TOLD HIM to join the community led by James. (see infiltration). It's no theory that James was murdered immediately thereafter with the alt 'Paul' taking his place like some huge coincidence. It's no theory that most any serious study of the era and the accompanying histories, including the ones of 'Roman' historian Josephus admit exactly that. It's revealing that you see everyone's nature as 'stupid and selfish' and think that is a defense of position or a point of discussion. He certainly infiltrated whether you 'still believe him' or NOT. Historic facts prove the so-called theory, but that doesn't deter the stupid or selfish.
So whether it infiltrated anything has absolutely no bearing on Christianity being true.
Who is the ONE, TRUE God? The Monad? I'm already turned to the Monad. How can we discuss the one true God without needing to fight against unallied notions?
If discussed, it is lowered to the level of discussion. Nevertheless, when discussed between two who see it in agreement, God says 'There Am I'.
Correct, the word "Monad" is lower than the Monad. The word is sufficient for limited purposes but incomplete for perfect purposes. Only the Monad is complete in itself for its own perfect purposes, a reality we don't participate in, since all our experience is incomplete but sufficient.
Because it's sufficient, we can agree that "Monad" ("One"), and "True", and "God" are positive attributes that reflect this indescribable without describing it. When two seek meeting of minds, sufficiency of experience means sufficient agreement arises. Logically parsed, your statement says God affirms his being in discussion among two in agreement; so the surface sense doesn't say that much, although we might say it teaches another attribute, "Immanence". And you might want to say that God is "Agreement" itself.
None of this indicates any contradiction with developed Christian creed, which is why I'm mystified by your animus about it. It seems that you're affirming some core monistic concepts and you're denying some perversions of Christianity but that neither gets to a core that requires a parting of ways.