No, you definitely meant affect lmao
Why do you seem angry?
Because that’s twice now you’ve responded to me, unprovoked, with condescending faggotry because I mention ai
I tagged you because I thought you wanted to know my thought
No, I wanted you to understand why I was opposed to this faggots post in the first place, because of what he was asking from us. Which you 100% failed to produce. Maybe you didn’t read OP’s post. HE WANTED YOU TO WATCH A 50 MINUTE VIDEO AND WRITE HIM A SUMMARY.
Apology accepted.
Walk into traffic you fucking waste of space
He asked you to summarize a 50 minute video and this is what you produce? Why tf are you tagging me
Btw it’s affect not effect, maybe you should ask ChatGPT to proofread your spelling
Totally unnecessary because you mistakenly believe I’m using ai - I’m just opposed to this faggot treating us like slaves, which should be obvious
I notice you haven’t provided him with a summary? (Once you’ve prepared one, blow it out your ass)
, lmao even
You 6 month old account, zero post sockpuppet faggot
Ask ChatGPT you fucking faggot
A lot of it is fake and gay (aka individual hoaxes/larger scale psyops) - see Mirage Men as an example
Couple things are however true
Every single ancient civilization unanimously claim to have observed/interacted with entities from the sky
There were giants on the earth in those days, and also after - i.e. non-humans who interbred with humans. Terrestrial (Neanderthals? Something else?) or otherwise (Nephilim), I think it’s pretty clearly related to the original question, though how, exactly is the part that’s difficult to know with any certainty
Could Aliens/Angels be the same thing? Could they be a group of humanoids who, in the face of cataclysm escaped to, e.g. the “dark” side of the moon?, or somewhere else?
I find ideas along these lines making the most sense, and fitting best with the evidence we do have
This thing from the Atacama desert always stood out as weird af to me
There’s an excellent (and suppressed) documentary on the subject:
Mhmm, that’s why you go around being a petty tyrant douchebag on a dead forum, truly a vivacious existence
Get a life you fucking loser
Well, look at the link you posted earlier, even there, where you perceive a distancing between the DSS and the NHT, they too echo the idea that the Gospel of Thomas predated the synoptic gospels.
Further, I would just suggest not letting yourself get bogged down in what “the experts” or even what any other person labels as Gnostic or not - what I mean by that is, any “gnostic” would believe that their interpretation is (atleast an approximation of) the “original” “true” interpretation of / nature of existence - or in other words, “Adam was the first gnostic” or something along those lines, hence why Enoch could be called gnostic as well - hope I’m conveying my point here adequately
Have you read about the Essenes before? That’s a group I would call “gnostic” (jews), whereas groups like the Sethians or the Marcionites would probably more accurately be called Gnostic (Christians). My overarching point being there’s way too much nuance to accurately convey in (even a series of) comments lol. More important I think is the lowercase g “gnostic line of thought” which we can arguably trace back to the beginning (depending on how literally you want to take the gnostic cosmogonies)
Dawww did baby learn a new word with the recent news cycle? How cute
We know you by your fruit
Define apocryphal as you’re using it, because I don’t think those two words are mutually exclusive? Apocryphal just means “not included in the canon”, and considering who selected that canon, it seems logical that {they} would exclude the gnostic texts
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch
Specifically id point you towards:
The main peculiar aspects of this Enochic Judaism include:
the idea that evil and impurity on Earth originated as a result of angels that had intercourse with human women and were subsequently expelled from Heaven;[55]: 90
the absence of references to terms of the Mosaic covenant (such as the observance of Shabbat or the rite of circumcision), as found in the Torah;[58]: 50–51
the concept of "End of Days" as the time of final judgment that takes the place of promised earthly rewards;[55]: 92
the rejection of the Second Temple's sacrifices considered impure: according to Enoch 89:73, the Jews, when returned from the exile, "reared up that tower (the temple) and they began again to place a table before the tower, but all the bread on it was polluted and not pure"; the presentation of heaven in 1 Enoch 1–36, not in terms of the Jerusalem temple and its priests, but modelling God and his angels as a court, with its king and courtiers;[59]
a solar calendar in opposition to the lunar calendar used in the Second Temple (an important aspect for the determination of the dates of religious feasts);
an interest in the angelic world that involves life after death.[60]
Edit4edit:
it seems to predate
Yeah hence my use of “lowercase g, gnostic” - I don’t mean to link it to the neoplatonists or anything like that
My rationale for calling the DSS Gnostic is its prominent inclusion of the (lowercase g, “gnostic”) Book of Enoch, otherwise wiped from Church history, bar the Ethiopian Church
There is also the Essene hypothesis which further supports the claim of “gnosticism” wrt the DSS
In order to entertain such a thing I would have to disregard the New Testament in its entirety and give regard only to the gnostic texts - which I believe are much later than the canonical ones.
There’s good reason to think the opposite actually, that the Gnostic texts (some atleast - the label has been distorted into covering a huge swath of ideologies and groups at this point) predate and color the synoptic/NT texts
Firstly the two largest sources of Gnostic texts are the Dead Sea (Qumran) and Nag Hammadi troves, with the DS Scrolls being provably among the oldest extant manuscripts and secondly the Q Source hypothesis which posits that the 4 synoptic gospels are expansions and elaborations on the original “Sayings Gospel” or Q Source, which has as its most likely candidate the Gospel of Thomas
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
I don’t know if you quite need to toss out the NT, but you definitely need the ears to hear and the eyes to see from the suggested perspective, which is something Jesus says repeatedly
One thing I find quite interesting about Gnostic Jesus is what he said about making women into men in the gospel of Thomas I believe. This feels quite in tune with Jewish mysticism to me and what would go on to become Kabbalah.
Firstly, props for actually reading a text before starting to make your mind up, that’s more than can be said for 98% of Christians
Regarding that specific logion/saying that you raise, I would just point you in two directions: firstly I would point to the fact that there is nothing {they} love more than the inversion of the holy to the unholy and secondly I would point you towards the notion that Yin(female) and Yang(male) combine and merge to form the undifferentiated Tao, and this was established reality long before the Kabbalists attempted to pervert it. So I think there is a valid spiritual reality underneath that saying, and I also think you’re right, that this notion has been used corruptly by some esoteric orders (like kabbalists and their offspring orders)
I would still disregard Gnosticism for upholding the fundamental premise of YHWHs plan for the world and of Jesus as the deceitful destroyer portrayed as hero.
What do you think of the possibility that you’ve got these things mixed up? I think a fair analysis of things points to the idea that Jesus works to undo the plans of the demiurge (aka YHWH, aka the “Lord of Hosts” aka the God of War of a tribe of desert hucksters) by bringing this knowledge (aka gnosis) to the masses
I’ll let you figure it out for yourself
What have you done to convince him that Jesus serves the true God? I don’t see anything done by you which accomplished or even began to work towards that. Whereas what I’ve provided does do that.
Why don’t you think about that before u/#vomit -ing on other people again?
Is that what you think you did? All you did was prove his point lmao
You don’t see a problem with someone saying “it’s not worth my time to watch this video, but im going to post it anyway, and one of you losers with less valuable time than me can write me a summary”? Well you must be unemployed.
If you think ai is bad for people to use, go make a post about that and present your argument. Commenting “Lay off the ai sauce” in response to someone saying “we aren’t your slave, use the tools at your ready disposal and do something yourself” is condescending faggotry though