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.
FOH lmao, have you not noticed that “love your enemy” is a supercession of “love your neighbor”?
FOH lmao, just like “kill all the women and children” doesn’t actually mean that. Fuck off with that pilpulous bullshit
Again, FOH lmao
And if I can get you to realize that Jesus never once said the word “yahweh” in the entire New Testament, that’ll be an advance and I’ll be thankful
Supersession is when something replaces something else, not when something unfolds and expands on something else. For instance "love your enemy" also expands on "If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again" (Ex. 23:4).
Hammurabi also used "eye for eye" as a limiting requirement because (as Lamech shows) vengeance often exceeded the perceived slight. Ex. 21:30 makes clear that monetary valuation of compensation is also permitted.
All historians agree Jesus spoke Aramaic and so whenever he says "I AM" dramatically he is saying "Yahweh" and applying it to himself. John 8 appears ungrammatical in English for exactly this reason, indicating the more common verbal form of "I am" was not the one used.
You're quibbling over basic logic here (difference between agreeing and superseding, between imperative and permissive, between Greek and Aramaic, etc.). It comes from a presupposition that the OT has some evil provenance and therefore Jesus couldn't possibly have agreed with it. I thought I wouldn't need to emphasize that point but let's try. Jesus constantly refers to the OT as historical as to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and many others. He says not one letter or serif will pass from the law, he says all the law and prophets testify about him and all things written about him must come to pass, he says to study the Scriptures, he says the light matters of the law (tithing) are just as important as the heavy matters (mercy), he affirms (imperative voice) the law of stoning if the accusers are without sin, he predicts the destruction of the temple because of Moses and not in spite of Moses. He also isn't milquetoast: he speaks more about hell than anyone else in the Bible, he constantly threatens the wicked with judgment, he will condemn the "goats" of all nations (of all ages) to eternal fire, he calls down woes on the leadership that all came to pass within 40 years, so it's not like he's a stranger to just war against those who declare themselves enemies by word or deed. Do you think that there is no just war and we should let abusers of human shields and of our own laws run roughshod (you seem not to for Israel); or do you think there is just war and its regulations should be upheld such that there will be a time when it destroys the wicked? Do you think the NT lies about Jesus or does it present him historically and accurately? Maybe answering my questions will help, it's worked before.