All A.I. and its false histories aside:
The names of the old testament bible are analogous names, not names of actual characters given this name at birth. What an impossible coincidence that would be.
Resurrection was NOT a thing until the messianic hyperdispensation had began during the Maccabean period regardless of attempts at backdating by more recent writers. The multi-varied semitic religions were all influenced by Egypt and later modified.. Hence the names Ra-moses (sic) and moses being concurrent with Moses being said to carry 'the ark' out of egypt. No, this was not a literal boat.
'As primitive Christians, we have enough knowledge to get past that..." This word primitive isn't correct as used here. No, the chrism was not a translation of mashach...mashach was a ritual of annointment, while the chrism was the word for the result of the process that produces the 'christ' or one who takes the chrism. This was lowered to 'annointment' due to lack of understanding of the difference between esoteric spirit and literalist, exoteric ritual. Try annointing yourself and see if you become christ or a christ or if any change occurs whatsoever. It won't. It's just oil....an imitation of the spirit. Like holy water sprinkled on a sinner. It changes nothing. That's called 'magic' which is indeed the religion of primitive man. More importantly, the story of Jesus annointing the maid servant's feet was to show that this ritual is to be RAISED to apply to this woman who seemed to 'know' what it was about as she served without asking. It's not about annointing one man to make him a god. This is covered in the link I include. From whence the word 'annoint' if it means exactly 'christ'? You misunderstand by missing information.
You tell me that Rome changed things, and then use those changes to argue against the reality. The contingencies of Judea were in total chaos and disagreement as to what their actual history and cosmology was and this is what allowed Rome and others to create their own per-version. Watered down dogma to 'agree with' rather than 'finding the christ in you'. Both 'sides' rule by magick until one knows the trick.
Yes you need to discover something more. You diligently look and search for answers, right? You want to know how names were chosen? Would you rather KNOW how and why? Take a look here and get back to me. It isn't enough to be a little smart and a little not.(sophomoric).
Because......the name Sophia.....it meant something to some people. Those people who knew it, knew it as principle, not a literal physical god. That would be error. Sophia is unknown now to modern roman christianity as a result. The fact that she represents spiritual knowledge makes her removal totally understandable as that is exactly what was removed to create a sacrificial messiah movement to solidify Roman rule.
Feel free to pass that around. Send it to your A.I. program of choice.
All A.I. and its false histories aside:
The names of the old testament bible are analogous names, not names of actual characters given this name at birth. What an impossible coincidence that would be.
Resurrection was NOT a thing until the messianic hyperdispensation had began during the Maccabean period regardless of attempts at backdating by more recent writers. The multi-varied semitic religions were all influenced by Egypt and later modified.. Hence the names Ra-moses (sic) and moses being concurrent with Moses being said to carry 'the ark' out of egypt. No, this was not a literal boat.
'As primitive Christians, we have enough knowledge to get past that..." This word primitive isn't correct as used here. No, the chrism was not a translation of mashach...mashach was a ritual of annointment, while the chrism was the word for the result of the process that produces the 'christ' or one who takes the chrism. This was lowered to 'annointment' due to lack of understanding of the difference between esoteric spirit and literalist, exoteric ritual. Try annointing yourself and see if you become christ or a christ or if any change occurs whatsoever. It won't. It's just oil....an imitation of the spirit. Like holy water sprinkled on a sinner. It changes nothing. That's called 'magic' which is indeed the religion of primitive man. More importantly, the story of Jesus annointing the maid servant's feet was to show that this ritual is to be RAISED to apply to this woman who seemed to 'know' what it was about as she served without asking. It's not about annointing one man to make him a god. This is covered in the link I include. From whence the word 'annoint' is it means exactly 'christ'? You misunderstand by missing information.
You tell me that Rome changed things, and then use those changes to argue against the reality. The contingencies of Judea were in total chaos and disagreement as to what their actual history and cosmology was and this is what allowed Rome and others to create their own per-version. Watered down dogma to 'agree with' rather than 'finding the christ in you'. Both 'sides' rule by magick until one knows the trick.
Yes you need to discover something more. You diligently look and search for answers, right? You want to know how names were chosen? Would you rather KNOW how and why? Take a look here and get back to me. It isn't enough to be a little smart and a little not.(sophomoric).
Because......the name Sophia.....it meant something to some people. Those people who knew it, knew it as principle, not a literal physical god. That would be error. Sophia is unknown now to modern roman christianity as a result. The fact that she represents spiritual knowledge makes her removal totally understandable as that is exactly what was removed to create a sacrificial messiah movement to solidify Roman rule.
Feel free to pass that around. Send it to your A.I. program of choice.
The characters of the old testament bible are analogous names, not names of actual characters in history. Resurrection was NOT a thing until the messianic hyperdispensation had began during the Maccabean period regardless of attempts at backdating by more recent writers. The multi-varied semitic religions were all influenced by Egypt and later modified.. Hence the names Ra-moses (sic) and moses being concurrent with Moses being said to carry 'the ark' out of egypt. No, this was not a literal boat.
'As primitive Christians, we have enough knowledge to get past that..." This word primitive isn't correct as used here. No, the chrism was not a translation of mashach...mashach was a ritual of annointment, while the chrism was the word for the result of the process that produces the 'christ' or one who takes the chrism. This was lowered to 'annointment' due to lack of understanding of the difference between esoteric spirit and literalist, exoteric ritual. Try annointing yourself and see if you become christ or a christ or if any change occurs whatsoever. It won't. It's just oil....an imitation of the spirit. Like holy water sprinkled on a sinner. It changes nothing. That's called 'magic' which is indeed the religion of primitive man. More importantly, the story of Jesus annointing the maid servant's feet was to show that this ritual is to be RAISED to apply to this woman who seemed to 'know' what it was about as she served without asking. It's not about annointing one man to make him a god. This is covered in the link I include. From whence the word 'annoint' is it means exactly 'christ'? You misunderstand by missing information.
You tell me that Rome changed things, and then use those changes to argue against the reality. The contingencies of Judea were in total chaos and disagreement as to what their actual history and cosmology was and this is what allowed Rome and others to create their own per-version. Watered down dogma to 'agree with' rather than 'finding the christ in you'. Both 'sides' rule by magick until one knows the trick.
Yes you need to discover something more. You diligently look and search for answers, huh. You want to pretend to know how names were chosen or would you rather KNOW how and why? Take a look here and get back to me. It isn't enough to be a little smart and a little not.(sophomoric). Because......the name Sophia.....it meant something to some people. Those people who knew it, knew it as principle, not a literal physical god. That would be error. Sophia is unknown now to modern roman christianity as a result. The fact that she represents spiritual knowledge makes her removal totally understandable as that is exactly what was removed to create a sacrificial messiah movement to solidify Roman rule.
Feel free to pass that around.
The characters of the old testament bible are analogous names, not names of actual characters in history. Resurrection was NOT a thing until the messianic hyperdispensation had began during the Maccabean period regardless of attempts at backdating by more recent writers. The semitic relifions were all influenced by Egypt and later changed. Hence the names Ra-moses (sic) and moses being concurrent.
'As primitive Christians, we have enough knowledge to get past that..." This word primitive isn't correct as used here. No, the chrism was not a translation of mashach...mashach was a ritual of annointment, while the chrism was the word for the result of the process that produces the 'christ' or one who takes the chrism. This was lowered to 'annointment' due to lack of understanding of the difference between esoteric spirit and literalist, exoteric ritual. Try annointing yourself and see if you become christ or a christ or if any change occurs whatsoever. It won't. It's just oil....an imitation of the spirit. Like holy water sprinkled on a sinner. It changes nothing. That's called 'magic' which is indeed the religion of primitive man. More importantly, the story of Jesus annointing the maid servant's feet was to show that this ritual is to be RAISED to apply to this woman who seemed to 'know' what it was about as she served without asking. It's not about annointing one man to make him a god. This is covered in the link I include. From whence the word 'annoint' is it means exactly 'christ'? You misunderstand by missing information.
You tell me that Rome changed things, and then use those changes to argue against the reality. The contingencies of Judea were in total chaos and disagreement as to what their actual history and cosmology was and this is what allowed Rome and others to create their own per-version. Watered down dogma to 'agree with' rather than 'finding the christ in you'. Both 'sides' rule by magick until one knows the trick.
Yes you need to discover something more. You diligently look and search for answers, huh. You want to pretend to know how names were chosen or would you rather KNOW how and why? Take a look here and get back to me. It isn't enough to be a little smart and a little not.(sophomoric). Because......the name Sophia.....it meant something to some people. Those people who knew it, knew it as principle, not a literal physical god. That would be error. Sophia is unknown now to modern roman christianity as a result. The fact that she represents spiritual knowledge makes her removal totally understandable as that is exactly what was removed to create a sacrificial messiah movement to solidify Roman rule.
Feel free to pass that around.
The characters of the old testament bible are analogous names, not names of actual characters in history. Resurrection was NOT a thing until the messianic hyperdispensation had began during the Maccabean period regardless of attempts at backdating by more recent writers.
'As primitive Christians, we have enough knowledge to get past that..." This word primitive isn't correct as used here. No, the chrism was not a translation of mashach...mashach was a ritual of annointment, while the chrism was the word for the result of the process that produces the 'christ' or one who takes the chrism. This was lowered to 'annointment' due to lack of understanding of the difference between esoteric spirit and literalist, exoteric ritual. Try annointing yourself and see if you become christ or a christ or if any change occurs whatsoever. It won't. It's just oil....an imitation of the spirit. Like holy water sprinkled on a sinner. It changes nothing. That's called 'magic' which is indeed the religion of primitive man. More importantly, the story of Jesus annointing the maid servant's feet was to show that this ritual is to be RAISED to apply to this woman who seemed to 'know' what it was about as she served without asking. It's not about annointing one man to make him a god. This is covered in the link I include. From whence the word 'annoint' is it means exactly 'christ'? You misunderstand by missing information.
You tell me that Rome changed things, and then use those changes to argue against the reality. The contingencies of Judea were in total chaos and disagreement as to what their actual history and cosmology was and this is what allowed Rome and others to create their own per-version. Watered down dogma to 'agree with' rather than 'finding the christ in you'. Both 'sides' rule by magick until one knows the trick.
Yes you need to discover something more. You diligently look and search for answers, huh. You want to pretend to know how names were chosen or would you rather KNOW how and why? Take a look here and get back to me. It isn't enough to be a little smart and a little not.(sophomoric). Because......the name Sophia.....it meant something to some people. Those people who knew it, knew it as principle, not a literal physical god. That would be error. Sophia is unknown now to modern roman christianity as a result. The fact that she represents spiritual knowledge makes her removal totally understandable as that is exactly what was removed to create a sacrificial messiah movement to solidify Roman rule.
Feel free to pass that around.
The characters of the old testament bible are analogous names, not names of actual characters in history. Resurrection was NOT a thing until the messianic hyperdispensation had began during the Maccabean period regardless of attempts at backdating by more recent writers.
'As primitive Christians, we have enough knowledge to get past that..." This word primitive isn't correct as used here. No, the chrism was not a translation of mashach...mashach was a ritual of annointment, while the chrism was the word for the result of the process that produces the 'christ' or one who takes the chrism. This was lowered to 'annointment' due to lack of understanding of the difference between esoteric spirit and literalist, exoteric ritual. Try annointing yourself and see if you become christ or a christ or if any change occurs whatsoever. It won't. It's just oil....an imitation of the spirit. Like holy water sprinkled on a sinner. It changes nothing. That's called 'magic' which is indeed the religion of primitive man.
You tell me that Rome changed things, and then use those changes to argue against the reality. The contingencies of Judea were in total chaos and disagreement as to what their actual history and cosmology was and this is what allowed Rome and others to create their own per-version. Watered down dogma to 'agree with' rather than 'finding the christ in you'. Both 'sides' rule by magick until one knows the trick.
Yes you need to discover something more. You diligently look and search for answers, huh. You want to pretend to know how names were chosen or would you rather KNOW how and why? Take a look here and get back to me. It isn't enough to be a little smart and a little not.(sophomoric). Because......the name Sophia.....it meant something to some people. Those people who knew it, knew it as principle, not a literal physical god. That would be error. Sophia is unknown now to modern roman christianity as a result. The fact that she represents spiritual knowledge makes her removal totally understandable as that is exactly what was removed to create a sacrificial messiah movement to solidify Roman rule.
Feel free to pass that around.
The characters of the old testament bible are analogous names, not names of actual characters in history. Resurrection was NOT a thing until the messianic hyperdispensation had began during the Maccabean period regardless of attempts at backdating by more recent writers.
'As primitive Christians, we have enough knowledge to get past that..." This word primitive isn't correct as used here. No, the chrism was not a translation of mashach...mashach was a ritual of annointment, while the chrism was the word for the result of the process that produces the 'christ' or one who takes the chrism. This was lowered to 'annointment' due to lack of understanding of the difference between esoteric spirit and literalist, exoteric ritual. Try annointing yourself and see if you become christ or a christ or if any change occurs whatsoever. It won't. It's just oil....an imitation of the spirit. Like holy water sprinkled on a sinner. It changes nothing. That's called 'magic' which is indeed the religion of primitive man.
You tell me that Rome changed things, and then use those changes to argue against the reality. The contingencies of Judea were in total chaos and disagreement as to what their actual history and cosmology was and this is what allowed Rome and others to create their own per-version. Watered down dogma to 'agree with' rather than 'finding the christ in you'. Both 'sides' rule by magick until one knows the trick.
You want open secrets to discover? You diligently look and search for answers, huh. You want to pretend to know how names were chosen. Take a look here and get back to me. It isn't enough to be a little smart and a little not. That is called sophomoric. You see......the name Sophia.....it meant something to some people....and a lot less to other, more primitive types.
Feel free to pass that around.
The characters of the old testament bible are analogous names, not names of actual characters in history. Resurrection was NOT a thing until the messianic hyperdispensation had began during the Maccabean period regardless of attempts at backdating by more recent writers.
'As primitive Christians, we have enough knowledge to get past that..." This word primitive isn't correct as used here. No, the chrism was not a translation of mashach...mashach was a ritual of annointment, while the chrism was the word for the result of the process that produces the 'christ' or one who takes the chrism. This was lowered to 'annointment' due to lack of understanding of the difference between esoteric spirit and literalist, exoteric ritual. Try annointing yourself and see if you become christ or a christ or if any change occurs whatsoever. It won't. It's just oil....an imitation of the spirit. Like holy water sprinkled on a sinner. It changes nothing. That's called 'magic' which is indeed the religion of primitive man.
You tell me that Rome changed things, and then use those changes to argue against the reality. The contingencies of Judea were in total chaos and disagreement as to what their actual history and cosmology was and this is what allowed Rome and others to create their own per-version. Watered down dogma to 'agree with' rather than 'finding the christ in you'. Both 'sides' rule by magick until one knows the trick.
You want open secrets to discover? You diligently look and search for answers, huh. You want to pretend to know how names were chosen. Take a look here and get back to me. It isn't enough to be a little smart and a little not. That is called sophomoric. You see......the name Sophia.....it meant something to some people....and a lot less to other, more primitive types.
The characters of the old testament bible are analogous names, not names of actual characters in history. Resurrection was NOT a thing until the messianic hyperdispensation had began during the Maccabean period regardless of attempts at backdating by more recent writers.
'As primitive Christians, we have enough knowledge to get past that..." This word primitive isn't correct as used here. No, the chrism was not a translation of mashach...mashach was a ritual of annointment, while the chrism was the word for the result of the process that produces the 'christ' or one who takes the chrism. This was lowered to 'annointment' due to lack of understanding of the difference between esoteric spirit and literalist, exoteric ritual. Try annointing yourself and see if you become christ or a christ or if any change occurs whatsoever. It won't. It's just oil....an imitation of the spirit. Like holy water sprinkled on a sinner. It changes nothing. That's called 'magic' which is indeed the religion of primitive man.
You tell me that Rome changed things, and then use those changes to argue against the reality. The contingencies of Judea were in total chaos and disagreement as to what their actual history and cosmology was and this is what allowed Rome and others to create their own per-version. Watered down dogma to 'agree with' rather than 'finding the christ in you'. Both 'sides' rule by magick until one knows the trick.