You might want to tell the martyrs that Rome didn't attempt to define Christianity. It would be news to them.

I made a mixing of wine analogy. I didn't refer to the biblical example. But this is exactly what accepting literalist teachings as 'scripture' and therefore infallible is doing. (mixing in poor wine).

Saving Israel for last means pulling the literalist (satanic) snake from the tree yet agian. From belief in false teachings to knowledge of deep truths.

No the bible doesn't identify America.

You can't prove a thing by itself. You can't prove or disprove by 'belief' in something. I'm not attempting to do either. You are.

Go ahead and show me some example of my 'believing in gnostic fanfiction'.

I'll wait.

If you mean belief in the existence in a historic 'Judaic' gnostic movement, I'd be a fool not to. I'd be a fool, after studying it, not to see that it was that movement that brought the messianic message, and that it was their so-called messiah that was co-opted by Flavian Rome and perpetrated by the later so-called church it created through misrepresentation of dogmatic principles.

I didn't reluctantly come to the truth as i understand it. I sought it with every fiber of my being.

I don't 'identify' as gnostic, agnostic or a 'believer'. I seek truth and leave name calling to lesser individuals.

This isn't about me in any case, and it isn't about preaching dogma. You hoist theosophists up as proof of your search and then cast it aside, saying there was nothing there.

I found something there. The things that attract them and fool them in it. I see the half that is correct and the parts that their methods won't allow to be seen. Because two are taken up on a high place, but only one looks at the source.

You show your position whether you know it or not. And your style is as offensive as it is sophomoric.

You might want to tell the martyrs that Rome didn't attempt to define Christianity. It would be news to them.

I made a mixing of wine analogy. I didn't refer to the biblical example. But this is exactly what ccepting literalist teachings is doing. (mixing in poor wine).

Saving Israel for last means pulling the literalist (satanic) snake from the tree yet agian. From belief in false teachings to knowledge of deep truths.

No the bible doesn't identify America.

You can't prove a thing by itself. You can't prove or disprove by 'belief' in something. I'm not attempting to do either. You are.

Go ahead and show me some example of my 'believing in gnostic fanfiction'.

I'll wait.

If you mean belief in the existence in a historic 'Judaic' gnostic movement, I'd be a fool not to. I'd be a fool, after studying it, not to see that it was that movement that brought the messianic message, and that it was their so-called messiah that was co-opted by Flavian Rome and perpetrated by the later so-called church it created through misrepresentation of dogmatic principles.

I didn't reluctantly come to the truth as i understand it. I sought it with every fiber of my being.

I don't 'identify' as gnostic, agnostic or a 'believer'. I seek truth and leave name calling to lesser individuals.

This isn't about me in any case, and it isn't about preaching dogma. You hoist theosophists up as proof of your search and then cast it aside, saying there was nothing there.

I found something there. The things that attract them and fool them in it. I see the half that is correct and the parts that their methods won't allow to be seen. Because two are taken up on a high place, but only one looks at the source.

You show your position whether you know it or not. And your style is as offensive as it is sophomoric.

You might want to tell the martyrs that Rome didn't attempt to define Christianity. It would be news to them.

I made a mixing of wine analogy. I didn't refer to the biblical example. But this is exactly what you're doing. Accepting literalist teachings (poor wine).

Saving Israel for last means pulling the literalist (satanic) snake from the tree yet agian. From belief in false teachings to knowledge of deep truths.

No the bible doesn't identify America.

You can't prove a thing by itself. You can't prove or disprove by 'belief' in something. I'm not attempting to do either. You are.

Go ahead and show me some example of my 'believing in gnostic fanfiction'.

I'll wait.

If you mean belief in the existence in a historic 'Judaic' gnostic movement, I'd be a fool not to. I'd be a fool, after studying it, not to see that it was that movement that brought the messianic message, and that it was their so-called messiah that was co-opted by Flavian Rome and perpetrated by the later so-called church it created through misrepresentation of dogmatic principles.

I didn't reluctantly come to the truth as i understand it. I sought it with every fiber of my being.

I don't 'identify' as gnostic, agnostic or a 'believer'. I seek truth and leave name calling to lesser individuals.

This isn't about me in any case, and it isn't about preaching dogma. You hoist theosophists up as proof of your search and then cast it aside, saying there was nothing there.

I found something there. The things that attract them and fool them in it. I see the half that is correct and the parts that their methods won't allow to be seen. Because two are taken up on a high place, but only one looks at the source.

You show your position whether you know it or not. And your style is as offensive as it is sophomoric.

You might want to tell the martyrs that Rome didn't attempt to define Christianity. It would be news to them.

I made a mixing of wine analogy. I didn't refer to the biblical example. But this is exactly what you're doing. Accepting literalist teachings (poor wine).

No the bible doesn't identify America.

You can't prove a thing by itself. You can't prove or disprove by 'belief' in something. I'm not attempting to do either. You are.

Go ahead and show me some example of my 'believing in gnostic fanfiction'.

I'll wait.

If you mean belief in the existence in a historic 'Judaic' gnostic movement, I'd be a fool not to. I'd be a fool, after studying it, not to see that it was that movement that brought the messianic message, and that it was their so-called messiah that was co-opted by Flavian Rome and perpetrated by the later so-called church it created through misrepresentation of dogmatic principles.

I didn't reluctantly come to the truth as i understand it. I sought it with every fiber of my being.

I don't 'identify' as gnostic, agnostic or a 'believer'. I seek truth and leave name calling to lesser individuals.

This isn't about me in any case, and it isn't about preaching dogma. You hoist theosophists up as proof of your search and then cast it aside, saying there was nothing there.

I found something there. The things that attract them and fool them in it. I see the half that is correct and the parts that their methods won't allow to be seen. Because two are taken up on a high place, but only one looks at the source.

You show your position whether you know it or not. And your style is as offensive as it is sophomoric.

You might want to tell the martyrs that Rome didn't attempt to define Christianity. It would be news to them.

I made a mixing of wine analogy. I didn't refer to the biblical example. But this is exactly what you're doing. Accepting literalist teachings (poor wine).

No the bible doesn't identify America.

You can't prove a thing by itself. You can't prove or disprove by 'belief' in something. I'm not attempting to do either. You are.

Go ahead and show me some example of my 'believing in gnostic fanfiction'.

I'll wait.

If you mean belief in the existence in a historic 'Judaic' gnostic movement, I'd be a fool not to. I'd be a fool, after studying it, not to see that it was that movement that brought the messianic message, and that it was their so-called messiah that was co-opted by Flavian Rome and perpetrated by the later so-called church it created through misrepresentation of dogmatic principles.

I didn't reluctantly come to the truth as i understand it. I sought it with every fiber of my being.

This isn't about me in any case, and your style is as offensive as it is sophomoric.