Thanks! u/Graphenium:
The worldview expressed in the Law of One/“Ra Material” and the Hidden Hand interview
https://www.wanttoknow.info/secret_societies/hidden_hand_081018
The way I see things, these two sources explain existence, the state of our world, and the meaning of life far more accurately than any other. One is a “channeled” work, and the other is a long series of Questions and Answers between a conspiracy forum (RiP ATS) and a self-proclaimed world-controller. I see them as complimentary, showing a deeper reality by showing two sides of the same coin. One side being that of Service-to-Others, and the other being Service-to-Self
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ASG9Vy4Tl/round-table-suggestion-thread/c
Thread will stay open for 3-4 weeks thanks to a very helpful suggestion.
Fulfill != “affirm”
Im not inclined to spend the time pointing out and dealing with every other inaccuracy or unjustified assumption in your comment when I’ve found such a blatant error in the first 0.00005% of its contents.
Math abuse again. You were only joking, I know.
You seem to interpret the text as "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled, but I don't affirm the law". Funny. I did say there were many such affirmations and just listed one. I also said it turns on what you think Jesus's attitude toward Scripture was (e.g. unbreakable), so if you don't want to go there then you're bowing out when it's just getting good. I would think we could do that as a threshold issue without worrying about the rest yet (Rev. 19 matching Thomas 21 is kinda interesting), but suit yourself.
>You seem to interpret the text as "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled, but I don't affirm the law".
Uhh, yeah chief, considering his words immediately after, e.g. :
Tell me, does he go on to affirm the law after he says he fulfilled it?
InB4MassiveCope
>You were only joking, I know.
Upvote for divine spark of self-awareness
Have you noticed that "hate your enemy" is not the law? There he's cutting up what was added to the law. In the other cases what he says doesn't contradict the law but strengthens it. "Eye for eye" is a law of permission, not of demand, and he's saying you have a right not to demand. "Do not break your oath" is strengthened by "do not swear at all". So yeah, he affirms the law. The idea that Jesus contradicted the Mosaic law is a rather novel interpretation, but there's no point at which he contradicted it and there are many where he upholds. Even John 8, he affirms the law of stoning the adulteress but then points out that those who brought the woman were sinning themselves (by not bringing the man forward also since she was caught in the act); so he affirms it and then shows how its demands can be transcended by love without losing any of them.
If I can get you to realize that Jesus never rejected one bit of the Old Testament but took it all literally, that'll be an advance and I'll be thankful.
FOH lmao x (every instance of pilpul)