warning that the genocide against the Gentile race is around the corner
Genocide against the Gentiles has been going on for a long time. IMO, that was one of Jesus's objectives, to warn us about it. Let me tell you a story; late one evening in the quiet hills of Galilee, Jesus sat with his inner circle reading from the Torah. The fire light danced on the parchment illuminating the ancient Hebrew letters. They had just finished a passage in Exodus, a terrifying passage where Yahweh commands the Israelites to "slaughter entire cities, men, women, children, livestock, everything that breathes. Leave nothing alive.". The words hung in the air like smoke. Peter looked up from the scroll, his face pale and disturbed. he asked in a low voice. Master, why is the god of our fathers so violent? Why is he so jealous? Why is he so angry? You teach us about a father of infinite love, a father of light, but this he gestured at the scroll with a trembling hand, this does not feel like love. This feels like rage.
Jesus closed the scroll slowly. He looked at each of them in the eyes, Peter, John, Mary Magdalene, and he said something that would eventually get him killed. Something the church would spend 2,000 years trying to erase from human consciousness. He said, "That is not the Father. That is not the the supreme god. The god you are reading about. The one who demands blood sacrifices. The one who drowns the world in floods. The one who commands genocide and calls it holy. He has a name. Yaldabaoth, the demiurge, the chief archon. And he has been pretending to be the most high since the beginning of this realm. This teaching never made it into the Bible.
I assume you're referring to the American actor and director. Neither you nor Jonathan have any idea what happened or didn't happen 2,000 years ago. And Hollywood would be the last place I would turn to for answers. The demiurge, you call him Yahweh, within the Gnostic narrative emerges as the pivotal revelation. The entity who molded our lived environment, yet not the supreme divinity, spawned from Sophia's solitary emanation. Jesus and Christ are not the same thing. Jesus was the man. Christ is the consciousness he achieved. Jesus became the Christ, but Christ consciousness existed before Jesus and remains available after Jesus. This isn't diminishing Jesus. It's understanding his true accomplishment.
Have you ever watched the Truman Show movie? it was released in 1998, and is an American satirical science fiction film directed by Peter Weir and written by Andrew Nickel. The Truman Show is one of the most precise Gnostic allegories ever put to film. a nearly perfect cinematic translation of ancient Christian texts discovered at Nag Hammadi that described reality as a prison created by a false god, humanity as divine beings trapped in ignorance, and awakening as the dangerous process of seeing through the illusion and escaping toward true freedom. every major element of the film. Kristoff as the demiurge, Seahaven as the material world prison, Truman's glitches and suspicions as Gnosis beginning, Sylvia as Sophia calling from beyond the dome, and Truman's final crossing of water and ascent through the door as the souls escape from Archons control maps directly onto Gnostic cosmology with such precision that it's impossible to believe it's accidental. This isn't subtle symbolism open to interpretation. This is a deliberate, carefully constructed retelling of the Gnostic spiritual narrative for a modern audience.
Have you asked yourself why so many things are being revealed to us these days? you talk about history, but our past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth. Until now... IMO we're living in interesting times. People are becoming awake, and starting to ask themselves "am I living in a simulation?". And it's not because any of our actions, it's just happening...
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.
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
No, I was right. You are a person with an agenda and proved it with this message. If you were only looking for truth you would not use harsh language like "you decided to tell...". I haven't "decided" anything, I don't have an agenda. I believe you do and to you if it's not in the canonical gospels is not proof. Well, you're not going to find the secret teachings of Jesus in the canonical gospels. For that you will have to read the manuscripts found at Nag Hammadi, 52 of them. You mentioned to me you will brush up on that. Any progress? There, in 1945 they discovered more than a dozen other gospels which were never included in the Bible. That is where you will find backing for my story. You will also find my story mentioned by early Christian theologians and evangelists like Marcion of Sinope.
Frakes hosted a show
I'm not interested in what Jonathan Frakes has to say, unless you can prove to me he's not connected with Jeffrey Epstein. Many in Hollywood are.
you don't get to write a new past about Jesus rejecting Scripture
Jesus's mission was not to confirm the scriptures. 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. A being who demands the blood of infants. A being who drowns the world in a fit of rage and requires the smell of burning flesh to be appeased. Why would you think Jesus came to earth to tell us about Yahweh? we already knew, by reading the Old Testament. Was Marcion right? Marcion preached that the benevolent God of the Gospel who sent Jesus into the world, as the saviour, was the true Supreme Being, different and opposed to the malevolent deity, the Demiurge or creator deity, identified with Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible. 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. The early church leaders were reacting to his influence. 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.
To me sounds like they were building an entirely new narrative just to shut him up. Like I said many times before, use critical thinking, imagine you have a groundbreaking blueprint and then someone comes along and says, "Nope, we need the standard model.". And you re-engineer the whole building. It's counter-programming at its best. And then there's Marcion's theology itself. He claimed the god of the Hebrew scriptures, the Demiurge as he called it, was a legalistic, violent figure, totally separate from the merciful God revealed by Jesus. That's also what my story tells. Scholars like Adolf von Harnack even went on record calling Marcion the first Christian theologian, kind of the original canon creator. It's like he was the architect behind what we might have otherwise considered early Christian theology. Then the Church started attacking him, why? because Marcion was very popular. They literally wrote about how Marcion's followers were everywhere, even in every nation. As Justin Martyr and Tertullian noted, Marcion's church stretched from Italy across Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, North Africa, and even into Arabia, and Cyprus. It was a phenomenon. Marcionite communities were notably well organized, arguably more so than the proto-orthodox churches, which were somewhat fragmented at the time. So, for at least a 70 years period, his version might have been the most coherent form of Christianity around. That's pretty incredible, but not widely understood.
To me the New Testament canon seems in many ways like a reaction against Marcion's version. For example, Irenaeus writing around 180 AD insisted there must be exactly four gospels. No more, no less. Interesting, because Marcion's had only one gospel. So the inclusion of say Acts and the Old Testament cannon came in as a sort of counterpoint. These became deliberately essential to the new narrative that emerged to contrast with his selective cannon. It's like a built-in rebuttal. But isn't it a little bit of a stretch to say that the entire NT was constructed solely as a response to Marcion? not in my opinion. Furthermore, many modern scholars argue that the NT was published as a collection specifically constructed against Marion's challenge, not just organically inherited. This challenges the comforting narrative that the canonical Bible just dropped fully formed from the heavens. It suggests instead that what we received was a hard-fought outcome of doctrinal battles. So, if Marcion's version was so dominant and coherent, why did it eventually get erased? and his church thrived for over 70 years and persisted in some regions into the fourth and even fifth centuries, why its sudden disappearance? as I said before to you, the history as we know it was written by the eventual winners. It's like the voices of the vanquished were deliberately silenced. So, if history is written by the winners, then perhaps our understanding of early Christianity is missing, has deliberately omitted a whole perspective. I don't believe you are a person who thinks the Bible just fell from the sky fully formed. So, think about what I'm saying, the story of religion isn't a straightforward path but a battleground of ideas, sometimes even forbidden ones.
Genocide against the Gentiles has been going on for a long time. IMO, that was one of Jesus's objectives, to warn us about it. Let me tell you a story; late one evening in the quiet hills of Galilee, Jesus sat with his inner circle reading from the Torah. The fire light danced on the parchment illuminating the ancient Hebrew letters. They had just finished a passage in Exodus, a terrifying passage where Yahweh commands the Israelites to "slaughter entire cities, men, women, children, livestock, everything that breathes. Leave nothing alive.". The words hung in the air like smoke. Peter looked up from the scroll, his face pale and disturbed. he asked in a low voice. Master, why is the god of our fathers so violent? Why is he so jealous? Why is he so angry? You teach us about a father of infinite love, a father of light, but this he gestured at the scroll with a trembling hand, this does not feel like love. This feels like rage.
Jesus closed the scroll slowly. He looked at each of them in the eyes, Peter, John, Mary Magdalene, and he said something that would eventually get him killed. Something the church would spend 2,000 years trying to erase from human consciousness. He said, "That is not the Father. That is not the the supreme god. The god you are reading about. The one who demands blood sacrifices. The one who drowns the world in floods. The one who commands genocide and calls it holy. He has a name. Yaldabaoth, the demiurge, the chief archon. And he has been pretending to be the most high since the beginning of this realm. This teaching never made it into the Bible.
No thanks. Jonathan Frakes said, "Never happened."
I assume you're referring to the American actor and director. Neither you nor Jonathan have any idea what happened or didn't happen 2,000 years ago. And Hollywood would be the last place I would turn to for answers. The demiurge, you call him Yahweh, within the Gnostic narrative emerges as the pivotal revelation. The entity who molded our lived environment, yet not the supreme divinity, spawned from Sophia's solitary emanation. Jesus and Christ are not the same thing. Jesus was the man. Christ is the consciousness he achieved. Jesus became the Christ, but Christ consciousness existed before Jesus and remains available after Jesus. This isn't diminishing Jesus. It's understanding his true accomplishment.
Have you ever watched the Truman Show movie? it was released in 1998, and is an American satirical science fiction film directed by Peter Weir and written by Andrew Nickel. The Truman Show is one of the most precise Gnostic allegories ever put to film. a nearly perfect cinematic translation of ancient Christian texts discovered at Nag Hammadi that described reality as a prison created by a false god, humanity as divine beings trapped in ignorance, and awakening as the dangerous process of seeing through the illusion and escaping toward true freedom. every major element of the film. Kristoff as the demiurge, Seahaven as the material world prison, Truman's glitches and suspicions as Gnosis beginning, Sylvia as Sophia calling from beyond the dome, and Truman's final crossing of water and ascent through the door as the souls escape from Archons control maps directly onto Gnostic cosmology with such precision that it's impossible to believe it's accidental. This isn't subtle symbolism open to interpretation. This is a deliberate, carefully constructed retelling of the Gnostic spiritual narrative for a modern audience.
Have you asked yourself why so many things are being revealed to us these days? you talk about history, but our past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth. Until now... IMO we're living in interesting times. People are becoming awake, and starting to ask themselves "am I living in a simulation?". And it's not because any of our actions, it's just happening...
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.
No, I was right. You are a person with an agenda and proved it with this message. If you were only looking for truth you would not use harsh language like "you decided to tell...". I haven't "decided" anything, I don't have an agenda. I believe you do and to you if it's not in the canonical gospels is not proof. Well, you're not going to find the secret teachings of Jesus in the canonical gospels. For that you will have to read the manuscripts found at Nag Hammadi, 52 of them. You mentioned to me you will brush up on that. Any progress? There, in 1945 they discovered more than a dozen other gospels which were never included in the Bible. That is where you will find backing for my story. You will also find my story mentioned by early Christian theologians and evangelists like Marcion of Sinope.
I'm not interested in what Jonathan Frakes has to say, unless you can prove to me he's not connected with Jeffrey Epstein. Many in Hollywood are.
Jesus's mission was not to confirm the scriptures. 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. A being who demands the blood of infants. A being who drowns the world in a fit of rage and requires the smell of burning flesh to be appeased. Why would you think Jesus came to earth to tell us about Yahweh? we already knew, by reading the Old Testament. Was Marcion right? Marcion preached that the benevolent God of the Gospel who sent Jesus into the world, as the saviour, was the true Supreme Being, different and opposed to the malevolent deity, the Demiurge or creator deity, identified with Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible. 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. The early church leaders were reacting to his influence. 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.
To me sounds like they were building an entirely new narrative just to shut him up. Like I said many times before, use critical thinking, imagine you have a groundbreaking blueprint and then someone comes along and says, "Nope, we need the standard model.". And you re-engineer the whole building. It's counter-programming at its best. And then there's Marcion's theology itself. He claimed the god of the Hebrew scriptures, the Demiurge as he called it, was a legalistic, violent figure, totally separate from the merciful God revealed by Jesus. That's also what my story tells. Scholars like Adolf von Harnack even went on record calling Marcion the first Christian theologian, kind of the original canon creator. It's like he was the architect behind what we might have otherwise considered early Christian theology. Then the Church started attacking him, why? because Marcion was very popular. They literally wrote about how Marcion's followers were everywhere, even in every nation. As Justin Martyr and Tertullian noted, Marcion's church stretched from Italy across Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, North Africa, and even into Arabia, and Cyprus. It was a phenomenon. Marcionite communities were notably well organized, arguably more so than the proto-orthodox churches, which were somewhat fragmented at the time. So, for at least a 70 years period, his version might have been the most coherent form of Christianity around. That's pretty incredible, but not widely understood.
To me the New Testament canon seems in many ways like a reaction against Marcion's version. For example, Irenaeus writing around 180 AD insisted there must be exactly four gospels. No more, no less. Interesting, because Marcion's had only one gospel. So the inclusion of say Acts and the Old Testament cannon came in as a sort of counterpoint. These became deliberately essential to the new narrative that emerged to contrast with his selective cannon. It's like a built-in rebuttal. But isn't it a little bit of a stretch to say that the entire NT was constructed solely as a response to Marcion? not in my opinion. Furthermore, many modern scholars argue that the NT was published as a collection specifically constructed against Marion's challenge, not just organically inherited. This challenges the comforting narrative that the canonical Bible just dropped fully formed from the heavens. It suggests instead that what we received was a hard-fought outcome of doctrinal battles. So, if Marcion's version was so dominant and coherent, why did it eventually get erased? and his church thrived for over 70 years and persisted in some regions into the fourth and even fifth centuries, why its sudden disappearance? as I said before to you, the history as we know it was written by the eventual winners. It's like the voices of the vanquished were deliberately silenced. So, if history is written by the winners, then perhaps our understanding of early Christianity is missing, has deliberately omitted a whole perspective. I don't believe you are a person who thinks the Bible just fell from the sky fully formed. So, think about what I'm saying, the story of religion isn't a straightforward path but a battleground of ideas, sometimes even forbidden ones.