Well keep fighting. Going to give up just because they make us suffer? There was life before the internet and there will be life after it. I didn't give in to the fucking jabs after two years of house arrest. I'm not giving in to this Zionist shit because discord is gone.
Also, there are alternatives. It just takes effort.
I am not required to do anything for you to do anything.
Yes, we have collectively given up, as of 80 years ago.
There is no we. This is not a collective. We are not a hivemind.
Not human life.
You sound American. Human life existed before and will exist after your civilisation collapses.
They’re just going to kill you now.
We all die eventually. You just sound like your killing yourself on their behalf. If they want my life they'll have to earn it.
All alternatives will be made illegal.
Then become an outlaw.
Listen, you wanna give up and be a slave that's your choice. You won't convert me to your slave ideology. If you wanna be a slave, just shut the fuck up and do it. Stop being mad at me because I still have my soul and won't surrender it.
I am not required to do anything for you to do anything.
Keep that in mind.
There is no we. This is not a collective. We are not a hivemind.
Congratulations. You are beyond saving. You will never fight back. You have absolutely no comprehension of what is going on or why. You’ve admitted that you are conquered and that you’re openly an enemy.
You sound American.
You sound jewish.
Human life existed before and will exist after your civilisation collapses.
Nah. Enjoy what’s coming for you, I guess.
We all die eventually.
“lol people are killing me this is fine ha ha don’t bother resisting”
What a leader you are.
You just sound like you’re killing yourself on their behalf.
That’s my line.
If they want my life they'll have to earn it.
They already have. You refuse to do anything about it and you parrot their own narrative.
Then become an outlaw.
No, you’ll simply lose access to the Internet entirely.
Listen, you wanna give up and be a slave that's your choice.
Yes, you already made the choice.
You won't convert me to your slave ideology.
YOU ARE LITERALLY OPENLY CHAMPIONING IT RIGHT NOW.
If you wanna be a slave, just shut the fuck up and do it.
My line.
Stop being mad at me because I still have my soul and won't surrender it.
All the psycho lefties who realized after kirk's shooting that they too have been having Robinson style chats that might be compromised by discord went to STOAT, which had to rebrand from their name "revolt" shortly after.
Matrix is another alternative either through API bridges or through element, their straight up discord replacement.
The only hurdle you'd have is getting your friends to also get on board, which shouldn't be too hard considering your friends should also be the ones hesitant to upload their ID to random internet jews.
Otherwise, just don't enable any age-restrictions on your server or even locally host one on a vpn, and it's like nothing ever happened, as far as I can tell, for now.
Discord is known for being dangerous and its similar to reddit or twitch in that it is loaded with adult content while encouraging kids to join the "gaming community". Idk if its as bad as reddit or twitch that are basically just porn sites, but we've heard reports of pedos using it to contact kids so maybe its worse.
Also, wasn't there a country that recently used Discord to organize their revolution and new election? Free speech via anonymous communication platforms threaten corrupted governments. Removing privacy and anonymity from all discourse is a zog dream and goes along with they'd mass surveillance and tracking systems for expensive prediction algorithms.
Look, I was right, now you're just getting dogmatic and sectarian. You decided to tell everyone a "narrative" without any backing about Jesus and his disciples, and you're now backing it by the "narrative" of Plato's cave, without any respect to whether things happened or not.
Since you're not getting my own allegory but supplying your own, Frakes hosted a show where elaborate urban legends were acted out to let the audience determine which actually happened and which were entirely fabricated. Your idea that Jesus rejected Scripture, when there is 100% testimony (even at Nag Hammadi) that Jesus affirmed Scripture more than anyone, is unhelpful to your moving forward. You're stuck in a story someone told you that you believe in telling others as the only way to validate it.
I told you that I refuse all those titles upon the satan and you continue to pretend I accord them to him. The satan is not self-existent (Yahweh) or architect (demiurge) or environment molder or divinity or wise (Sophia-spawned). You're not listening to that.
If our past was erased (as to emanations, although it wasn't), then you don't get to write a new past about Jesus rejecting Scripture. We must inquire together. I haven't objected to the parts of your gnosticism that speak of awakening and theosis, but they cannot proceed in the escape you desire without a firm recognition that what happens happens and cannot be lied about. Jesus on earth had a particular character shown in all sources and if we reject that character we reject our best Guide.
"you decided to tell...". I haven't "decided" anything
Yeah, people who tell have decided to tell, that's just logic.
I don't have an agenda. I believe you do and to you if it's not in the canonical gospels is not proof.
I have one agenda, namely Jesus. Something not in the gospels might well be proof. But if you contradict every fact of history on a subject, in or out of the gospels, that requires extraordinary evidence. Jesus 100% upheld Hebrew Scripture, no historical evidence teaches that he told his disciples secretly that Scripture was wrong, there would be no movement without dedication to Scripture. That's why your narrative on that point is just a narrative. Nothing in Nag Hammadi has your narrative.
my story mentioned by early Christian theologians and evangelists like Marcion of Sinope
Nope. No text mentions such an imaginative retcon as you propose. If you had said you're just Marcionite, it would've made more sense, because he did teach that, but he didn't say that Jesus and the Apostles taught it (as you did): he implied that the Apostles worked for the Demiurge (WP); his Scriptural canon still included details contrary to the Demiurge theory, against his edit attempts otherwise; and his work on antitheses is now lost, and does not even appear in the newly uncovered documents. So what you're doing is imagining something that could've happened if only Marcion was totally right in his view and had a perfect tradition from Jesus's time and every other indication of history is wrong. No historian would view this as a workable theory of what actually happened.
So yeah, when you double down on apparently rejecting facts of history instead of interacting with them, my tone does tend to change.
For 2,000 years, we have been told that God is love, that he is the father of light. Yet, open the Old Testament, and you meet a different entity entirely.
The evidence is that Jesus's teachings made headway among the Jews because they agreed with the God depicted in Hebrew Scripture. All the apostles and evangelists emphatically used Scripture as a final authority, and several times they recognized that each others' works were Scripture too. The fact that Marcion invented a duality narrative, or based it on other gnostics, doesn't mean that narrative existed in primitive Christianity.
Could it be that our so-called official New Testament might have actually been deliberately reassembled later to counteract Marcion's version? IMO, that's exactly what happened.
Marcion admitted that confirmed evangel and confirmed apostolic writings were Scripture. The difference between the NT and Marcion's canon is entirely one of degree. Because Scripture is holistic, you can prove any core tenet of traditional Christianity with reference to Marcionite Scripture alone. If you admit the Marcionite canon, you would have no reason to reject other gospels or epistles that say the same thing (just as I do not reject all the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, but only hold them to a lower standard of authority).
They took his challenge so seriously that they constructed a new cannon, four gospels, Acts, and everything else in such a way to police his ideas.
The books of the canon were already circulating, nothing was constructed anew, even as your own (liberal) dating would prove. His ideas may have been "policed" (though there was no political power to force anything for another 200 years) but only because all other churches but the Marcionite "church" recognized the internal contradictions of the system early. You say the Marcionite church was regarded as very widespread, so without arguing that either way I'll note it, but if it were "coherent" Christianity it would have survived instead of essentially disappearing in the 3rd century. The orthodox arguments and texts stand, and Marcion's works didn't survive, which is not an indication that Marcion was so much better but an indication that he had nothing to say that wasn't expressed by his canon and the quotations of him that survived. Althist is fun, but must be admitted as such.
Scholars like Adolf von Harnack
Didn't I say 19th-century German unbelievers? Harnack was counted as a Christian but he rejected the Apostles' Creed on Jesus and rejected the Bible.
So the inclusion of say Acts and the Old Testament cannon came in as a sort of counterpoint.
No, the Hebrew canon had been getting closed in the 1st century BC and 1st century AD. All the Hebrew books were recognized as Scripture, and taught to be so by Jesus and the Apostles, with the exception of a couple late disputes persisting for a time over books like Esther. The only reason Marcion could reject the OT utterly was that he was in a Greek milieu where reliance on the Hebrew had begun to wane (but was still extant throughout 2nd century patristics). It wasn't about the OT "coming in", instead the NT shows that it was the NT books that were slowly coming in to join the OT.
These became deliberately essential to the new narrative
No, they were not regarded as essential until late 4th century. They were regarded as inspired, useful, beneficial, and sufficient, but there was no argument of essentiality. Look, if the church has Luke-Acts for 100 years, and then suddenly Marcion says only most of Luke is good and none of Acts, it's clear to everyone that he is innovating on received tradition, and it's clear from history that they continued to preserve the whole Luke-Acts because Marcion's version didn't have a slate of dedicated copyists throughout the known world like the established tradition did. There is no althist available where Marcion's Luke existed as Scripture, and Acts, which was written by the same man around the same time to the same audience, was accorded universally as useless until somebody got it to be thought of as inspired as if it counteracted Marcion. It's Luke, it's the same author! Did you know that Papias, quoted by Eusebius, mentioned and named the four gospels around the 120s, long before Marcion or Irenaeus step up?
many modern scholars argue that the NT was published as a collection specifically constructed against Marion's challenge
Nope, nobody published the "NT" until Constantine, much later. Nor was his canon "constructed" but it consisted of all Greek Scriptures that rose to the level of inspiration and acceptance that other works (including some verses added by Marcion) didn't.
the comforting narrative that the canonical Bible just dropped fully formed from the heavens
I agree with you in rejecting that narrative. All mature Biblical Christians recognize and admit the same.
So, if history is written by the winners, then perhaps our understanding of early Christianity is missing, has deliberately omitted a whole perspective.
I'm very empathetic to Romanism omitting perspectives and have consistently appealed here for primitive Christianity. Gnosticism isn't primitive Christianity and never had approval from Jesus's apostles or their appointed successors at large. When gnosticism is tested as a theological system (as it was), it fails logic, history, and inspiration.
Now, in all our conversations I've been attempting to find out how you know what is true. I don't see that answer. I see you sticking to a storyline, even imagining what Jesus might have said that totally contradicts what history shows he did say. If you had quoted Gospel of Thomas, I wouldn't object because Jesus may have said everything in there in context, and there may be an echo of apostolic tradition in it. But you're coming in with Marcion whose only tradition, if any, comes from either part of the holistic Bible (which was accepted along with the rest), or Valentinus or Simon or Menander before him, who were never accepted. It was apostate (standing aside from Christianity), never something that acted as if part of the same Christianity as everyone else kept. So you don't seem to be committed to seek the truth wherever it leads and to accept the facts of history. You're free to show me otherwise.
What exactly is your Jesus agenda? The Church’s goal is to convert people to Jesus, is this what you mean? is this your agenda?
If there's an agenda, Jesus the person is it. When I interact with people, I have one goal, Jesus's goal. The word "convert" should simply mean "turn", and people being turned to God the Father is a good thing, although if you think it means turning to something else it would be a bad thing. When you say "On the contrary I would say I'm committed to seek the truth wherever it may lead", you're turned to God the Father.
If your pursuit of truth leads you to Islam, your keen grasp of issues will reveal to you the issues with Islam too, just as their are issues in the practice of (rabbinical) Judaism and Christianity. However, the original covenant, which came to be called both (messianic) Judaism and Christianity, is one, and the people are one, and this includes people outside the known covenant if they still accept its terms in their own culture (e.g. Muslims having visions of Jesus). So, just for accuracy, I'll briefly note there are answers to the issues you see in the covenant.
"Hard to pick out a definite message from the Bible": Not the experience of people who read it in pursuit of truth. The message of the Hebrew Bible is the identity of God, whose name is Lovingkindness. "Yahweh is very problematic": This objection never arose from within the covenant but only in 19th-century Germany; the text explains the core but leaves a few details to be discerned by seekers. "Why are you being persecuted all the time": This is well explained in the later Hebrew Scriptures about the first diaspora and there is no confusion about it in Judaism.
"Why would God come down to earth, manifest himself as a human, and then sacrifice himself?" You allude to the "normal person" but you mean the normal American who is thoroughly separated from the culture in which these things were understood. Close reading of the Torah reveals the culture sufficiently to answer. "God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are separate but equal": I understand your confusion seeing as the church doctrine is that they are not separate. Again, recognizing the original culture, all kinds of things are known to be diverse unities, to be one and to be diverse at the same time and in different senses. If we are too Greek in our logic, we make assumptions from propositions without synthesizing our views with other propositions of equal value. "God is out there somewhere": You know this is not the teaching of Christianity (though it comes closer to Islam). Jesus taught the kingdom of God is within us, and the immanence of God was well-known.
If you want to pursue the works of the five pillars of Islam, you will find that as soon as you fail you are left without access to the God who comes inside "through your practice". The covenant teaches a God who provides access, by love and mercy, to those who have failed in their practice.
Time to delete discord and move on to something they haven't corrupted yet
And guess what? There is none.
Well keep fighting. Going to give up just because they make us suffer? There was life before the internet and there will be life after it. I didn't give in to the fucking jabs after two years of house arrest. I'm not giving in to this Zionist shit because discord is gone.
Also, there are alternatives. It just takes effort.
You’d have to start first.
Yes, we have collectively given up, as of 80 years ago.
Not human life.
They’re just going to kill you now.
All alternatives will be made illegal.
I am not required to do anything for you to do anything.
There is no we. This is not a collective. We are not a hivemind.
You sound American. Human life existed before and will exist after your civilisation collapses.
We all die eventually. You just sound like your killing yourself on their behalf. If they want my life they'll have to earn it.
Then become an outlaw.
Listen, you wanna give up and be a slave that's your choice. You won't convert me to your slave ideology. If you wanna be a slave, just shut the fuck up and do it. Stop being mad at me because I still have my soul and won't surrender it.
Keep that in mind.
Congratulations. You are beyond saving. You will never fight back. You have absolutely no comprehension of what is going on or why. You’ve admitted that you are conquered and that you’re openly an enemy.
You sound jewish.
Nah. Enjoy what’s coming for you, I guess.
“lol people are killing me this is fine ha ha don’t bother resisting”
What a leader you are.
That’s my line.
They already have. You refuse to do anything about it and you parrot their own narrative.
No, you’ll simply lose access to the Internet entirely.
Yes, you already made the choice.
YOU ARE LITERALLY OPENLY CHAMPIONING IT RIGHT NOW.
My line.
You already have. You’re a fucking humiliation.
Damn, you're just encouraging people to give up, saying, in essence, that there's no point because it's already over.
"Embrace slavery! There is no possible way to fight it!"
This is just sad.
Yeah, he's clearly retarded and not worth continuing to speak to.
Neat. Thanks for confirming you didn’t read the post.
vibe code one
it's never been easier to be the change
All the psycho lefties who realized after kirk's shooting that they too have been having Robinson style chats that might be compromised by discord went to STOAT, which had to rebrand from their name "revolt" shortly after.
Matrix is another alternative either through API bridges or through element, their straight up discord replacement.
The only hurdle you'd have is getting your friends to also get on board, which shouldn't be too hard considering your friends should also be the ones hesitant to upload their ID to random internet jews.
Otherwise, just don't enable any age-restrictions on your server or even locally host one on a vpn, and it's like nothing ever happened, as far as I can tell, for now.
Who cares about discord
pedos
Honeypot
Discord is known for being dangerous and its similar to reddit or twitch in that it is loaded with adult content while encouraging kids to join the "gaming community". Idk if its as bad as reddit or twitch that are basically just porn sites, but we've heard reports of pedos using it to contact kids so maybe its worse.
Also, wasn't there a country that recently used Discord to organize their revolution and new election? Free speech via anonymous communication platforms threaten corrupted governments. Removing privacy and anonymity from all discourse is a zog dream and goes along with they'd mass surveillance and tracking systems for expensive prediction algorithms.
This is like the 3rd 1st warning, you could and probably should have put them all in one large thread. Still can too.
How goes intentionally killing the conspiracies forum to obfuscate discussion of the Epstein Files?
hmm 🤔 has that happened?
?
It's not a mod warning, it's about title.
I can't wait to hear this phrase when I'm in my 90s
I can't wait to hear this phrase when I'm in my 90s
No thanks. Jonathan Frakes said, "Never happened."
Look, I was right, now you're just getting dogmatic and sectarian. You decided to tell everyone a "narrative" without any backing about Jesus and his disciples, and you're now backing it by the "narrative" of Plato's cave, without any respect to whether things happened or not.
Since you're not getting my own allegory but supplying your own, Frakes hosted a show where elaborate urban legends were acted out to let the audience determine which actually happened and which were entirely fabricated. Your idea that Jesus rejected Scripture, when there is 100% testimony (even at Nag Hammadi) that Jesus affirmed Scripture more than anyone, is unhelpful to your moving forward. You're stuck in a story someone told you that you believe in telling others as the only way to validate it.
I told you that I refuse all those titles upon the satan and you continue to pretend I accord them to him. The satan is not self-existent (Yahweh) or architect (demiurge) or environment molder or divinity or wise (Sophia-spawned). You're not listening to that.
If our past was erased (as to emanations, although it wasn't), then you don't get to write a new past about Jesus rejecting Scripture. We must inquire together. I haven't objected to the parts of your gnosticism that speak of awakening and theosis, but they cannot proceed in the escape you desire without a firm recognition that what happens happens and cannot be lied about. Jesus on earth had a particular character shown in all sources and if we reject that character we reject our best Guide.
Yeah, people who tell have decided to tell, that's just logic.
I have one agenda, namely Jesus. Something not in the gospels might well be proof. But if you contradict every fact of history on a subject, in or out of the gospels, that requires extraordinary evidence. Jesus 100% upheld Hebrew Scripture, no historical evidence teaches that he told his disciples secretly that Scripture was wrong, there would be no movement without dedication to Scripture. That's why your narrative on that point is just a narrative. Nothing in Nag Hammadi has your narrative.
Nope. No text mentions such an imaginative retcon as you propose. If you had said you're just Marcionite, it would've made more sense, because he did teach that, but he didn't say that Jesus and the Apostles taught it (as you did): he implied that the Apostles worked for the Demiurge (WP); his Scriptural canon still included details contrary to the Demiurge theory, against his edit attempts otherwise; and his work on antitheses is now lost, and does not even appear in the newly uncovered documents. So what you're doing is imagining something that could've happened if only Marcion was totally right in his view and had a perfect tradition from Jesus's time and every other indication of history is wrong. No historian would view this as a workable theory of what actually happened.
So yeah, when you double down on apparently rejecting facts of history instead of interacting with them, my tone does tend to change.
The evidence is that Jesus's teachings made headway among the Jews because they agreed with the God depicted in Hebrew Scripture. All the apostles and evangelists emphatically used Scripture as a final authority, and several times they recognized that each others' works were Scripture too. The fact that Marcion invented a duality narrative, or based it on other gnostics, doesn't mean that narrative existed in primitive Christianity.
Marcion admitted that confirmed evangel and confirmed apostolic writings were Scripture. The difference between the NT and Marcion's canon is entirely one of degree. Because Scripture is holistic, you can prove any core tenet of traditional Christianity with reference to Marcionite Scripture alone. If you admit the Marcionite canon, you would have no reason to reject other gospels or epistles that say the same thing (just as I do not reject all the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, but only hold them to a lower standard of authority).
The books of the canon were already circulating, nothing was constructed anew, even as your own (liberal) dating would prove. His ideas may have been "policed" (though there was no political power to force anything for another 200 years) but only because all other churches but the Marcionite "church" recognized the internal contradictions of the system early. You say the Marcionite church was regarded as very widespread, so without arguing that either way I'll note it, but if it were "coherent" Christianity it would have survived instead of essentially disappearing in the 3rd century. The orthodox arguments and texts stand, and Marcion's works didn't survive, which is not an indication that Marcion was so much better but an indication that he had nothing to say that wasn't expressed by his canon and the quotations of him that survived. Althist is fun, but must be admitted as such.
Didn't I say 19th-century German unbelievers? Harnack was counted as a Christian but he rejected the Apostles' Creed on Jesus and rejected the Bible.
No, the Hebrew canon had been getting closed in the 1st century BC and 1st century AD. All the Hebrew books were recognized as Scripture, and taught to be so by Jesus and the Apostles, with the exception of a couple late disputes persisting for a time over books like Esther. The only reason Marcion could reject the OT utterly was that he was in a Greek milieu where reliance on the Hebrew had begun to wane (but was still extant throughout 2nd century patristics). It wasn't about the OT "coming in", instead the NT shows that it was the NT books that were slowly coming in to join the OT.
No, they were not regarded as essential until late 4th century. They were regarded as inspired, useful, beneficial, and sufficient, but there was no argument of essentiality. Look, if the church has Luke-Acts for 100 years, and then suddenly Marcion says only most of Luke is good and none of Acts, it's clear to everyone that he is innovating on received tradition, and it's clear from history that they continued to preserve the whole Luke-Acts because Marcion's version didn't have a slate of dedicated copyists throughout the known world like the established tradition did. There is no althist available where Marcion's Luke existed as Scripture, and Acts, which was written by the same man around the same time to the same audience, was accorded universally as useless until somebody got it to be thought of as inspired as if it counteracted Marcion. It's Luke, it's the same author! Did you know that Papias, quoted by Eusebius, mentioned and named the four gospels around the 120s, long before Marcion or Irenaeus step up?
Nope, nobody published the "NT" until Constantine, much later. Nor was his canon "constructed" but it consisted of all Greek Scriptures that rose to the level of inspiration and acceptance that other works (including some verses added by Marcion) didn't.
I agree with you in rejecting that narrative. All mature Biblical Christians recognize and admit the same.
I'm very empathetic to Romanism omitting perspectives and have consistently appealed here for primitive Christianity. Gnosticism isn't primitive Christianity and never had approval from Jesus's apostles or their appointed successors at large. When gnosticism is tested as a theological system (as it was), it fails logic, history, and inspiration.
Now, in all our conversations I've been attempting to find out how you know what is true. I don't see that answer. I see you sticking to a storyline, even imagining what Jesus might have said that totally contradicts what history shows he did say. If you had quoted Gospel of Thomas, I wouldn't object because Jesus may have said everything in there in context, and there may be an echo of apostolic tradition in it. But you're coming in with Marcion whose only tradition, if any, comes from either part of the holistic Bible (which was accepted along with the rest), or Valentinus or Simon or Menander before him, who were never accepted. It was apostate (standing aside from Christianity), never something that acted as if part of the same Christianity as everyone else kept. So you don't seem to be committed to seek the truth wherever it leads and to accept the facts of history. You're free to show me otherwise.
If there's an agenda, Jesus the person is it. When I interact with people, I have one goal, Jesus's goal. The word "convert" should simply mean "turn", and people being turned to God the Father is a good thing, although if you think it means turning to something else it would be a bad thing. When you say "On the contrary I would say I'm committed to seek the truth wherever it may lead", you're turned to God the Father.
If your pursuit of truth leads you to Islam, your keen grasp of issues will reveal to you the issues with Islam too, just as their are issues in the practice of (rabbinical) Judaism and Christianity. However, the original covenant, which came to be called both (messianic) Judaism and Christianity, is one, and the people are one, and this includes people outside the known covenant if they still accept its terms in their own culture (e.g. Muslims having visions of Jesus). So, just for accuracy, I'll briefly note there are answers to the issues you see in the covenant.
"Hard to pick out a definite message from the Bible": Not the experience of people who read it in pursuit of truth. The message of the Hebrew Bible is the identity of God, whose name is Lovingkindness. "Yahweh is very problematic": This objection never arose from within the covenant but only in 19th-century Germany; the text explains the core but leaves a few details to be discerned by seekers. "Why are you being persecuted all the time": This is well explained in the later Hebrew Scriptures about the first diaspora and there is no confusion about it in Judaism.
"Why would God come down to earth, manifest himself as a human, and then sacrifice himself?" You allude to the "normal person" but you mean the normal American who is thoroughly separated from the culture in which these things were understood. Close reading of the Torah reveals the culture sufficiently to answer. "God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are separate but equal": I understand your confusion seeing as the church doctrine is that they are not separate. Again, recognizing the original culture, all kinds of things are known to be diverse unities, to be one and to be diverse at the same time and in different senses. If we are too Greek in our logic, we make assumptions from propositions without synthesizing our views with other propositions of equal value. "God is out there somewhere": You know this is not the teaching of Christianity (though it comes closer to Islam). Jesus taught the kingdom of God is within us, and the immanence of God was well-known.
If you want to pursue the works of the five pillars of Islam, you will find that as soon as you fail you are left without access to the God who comes inside "through your practice". The covenant teaches a God who provides access, by love and mercy, to those who have failed in their practice.
"Individuals named Humam are frequently depicted as leaders, warriors, and figures of considerable moral standing, underscoring the valorous implications of the name." https://venere.it/en/the-meaning-and-history-of-the-name-humam/
https://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Sakhnin/index.html