Holy cow Sunday School is over, you failed, and I'm done with you. I have more important things to do with my time than have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Thanks for the projection. The one true god and I get along just fine in our unity and diversity. You're actually talking to one of the people most sympathetic to Arius that you'll ever find, but suit yourself.
Thank you for being so responsive! Some of these may have been in queue merely because the autofilter held them but without true rule-based reason. It'd probably be more efficient for me to just message you a proposed list when it's done. I appreciate your attentiveness.
u/Thisisnotanexit, deletion reason not evident from title and thumbnail. Thanks for your attention.
Thisisnotanexit removed post by StolenCBSContent1 - 9/11 Predictive Programming Video
u/Thisisnotanexit, deletion reason not evident from title and thumbnail. Thanks for your attention.
Thisisnotanexit removed post by LastEvidence - Satanic leftists are trying to create an ICE storm in Minneapolis
The word used here πιστεύω (pisteúō) means to obey.
Don't know where you're getting that, pisteuo is the verb and pistis is the noun of the same thing, and the cluster of concepts is faith, belief, trust. Obedience is allied to these, and theologically manifests alongside them, but it's not the same thing. The actual Greek for hearken or obey is hypakouo G5219, which Jesus doesn't use about our relation to him. But Paul uses the same pisteuo G4100 as Jesus uses in the same way, Acts 16:31, 19:4, Gal. 2:16, Phil. 1:29, 1 Tim. 1:16. So even if there were distinction between pisteuo and pistis, Paul and Jesus are saying the same thing with pisteuo.
Ehrman is credentialed but not the guy you want for history as he has an axe to grind. However, if you choose to take his view against those who count Luke the most exact and accurate historian of the era, the message of Jesus can be proven without Luke, Acts, Paul, or Hebrews, if you like.
The Gnostics called it the divine spark.
So did the kabbalists, who informed Talmudism. But unless there's evidence they were more inspired than Matthew, Mark, and John, I stick with the direct testimony of what Jesus said, and he said "image" to reflect the language of Genesis. It's not that relevant what it's called, as long as we are clear on what it is.
But without the window, the light does not enter the room. All you have to do is create a space within your mind. That's what Buddhists do, just pay attention. In that gap lives your freedom. In that gap the spark becomes perceptible. The Gnostic teachers called this gap the bridal chamber.
I.e., the union of Christ and his bride. This doesn't happen without the will of both Christ and the bride. Thomas similarly describes the union of Self and Other (though this is partial). The kingdom manifests both within and without at the same time. (And, all of that seems the same in Jesus and in Paul.)
You are simply noticing what was always there.
Yes, always there but inactive until awoken.
It existed before this body and will exist after.
The divine nature preexisted; the image or "spark" is newly manifested at conception but its preexistence is in the divine plan, which is a little different but compatible.
Not as audible voices, not as visions, as knowing.
That's a fair way of saying it's internal. When guidance comes externally, it must be tested as it may be divine or it may be creaturely and brought to you as a test.
Igniting the divine spark means reclaiming your true identity.
I'll affirm that because it reminds me Jesus and Paul did use lots of fire language. One that comes to mind, often ignored, is 2 Tim. 1:6, "Stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands"; that's definitely a fire reference.
You don't need faith, all you need is recognition, that is recognize the divine spark in you.
What is your meaning for "faith" here? When I recognize something, I believe it. Perhaps you mean no further propositions are needed for "belief" than a core recognition of the divine? Oh, but that's Heb. 11:6, which interestingly doesn't mention Jesus.
Lucifer did not create your divine spark. He created the cage that surrounds it. And he appointed the archons to guard that cage and keep you from remembering what you truly are.
I don't attribute any creation or appointment to him. I don't count the physical as any prison; 1 Peter 3:19 said that death (separation) was the prison. The whole idea of the physical being a mistake comes from that cosmology, informed by Egypt and Greece, that attempts to get the Monad off the hook for evil existing but just complicates the narrative, as I've said. If John the Baptist can begin to testify from the womb, it seems that the fictive prison threats and guards are not able to convince everyone they are real. What good does it do to your system to give them any credit instead of just to say that all their pretense at control is just part of their deception? Why should we make lucifer out to be more powerful than Jesus says he is?
Jesus's message is about compassion of forgiveness. Not about Moses or Caesar.
I quoted you how he applied it to Moses and Caesar. He said to submit to both of them what is their due. The spiritual message you cite, poverty of spirit, doesn't contradict that.
To me that's just another way of defining censorship.
Censorship is active, official suppression. There's no evidence church leaders suppressed all the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha; they relied heavily on Maccabees, Odes of Solomon, Didache, and quoted and circulated many others, including uncountable patristics. It's just that known apostolic books got quoted and circulated much more. I'm trying to think of a way where a lower level of attention (by leaders who were regularly persecuted) somehow connotes active, official animus, and I don't see it. I do see that Constantine personally censored Arius in 325 as a civil matter, requiring his works to be burned up on pain of death, but Arius was no gnostic and this has nothing to do with texts that circulated with public approval.
Summary: I've been looking for support for your distinctives and not finding it, while I'm happy to agree with a number of statements you make that are found in more systems than your own and often in the Bible or in Thomas. If you want to deprecate Luke and Paul, they're gravy but we can learn the truth without them (of course, Peter says Paul is Scripture, but that's a point that need not be made tendentious). If you want to glorify lucifer and the archons, you're free to do that but I don't participate and I think in the long run it's unhelpful to you. About my only concern is that I'm seeing a trend of the way you see things not lining up with the texts or with the history as we have them. When that's the case, the texts and history might be wrong, but it takes a good preponderance of evidence to overcome them. And by evidence I mean that which manifests to the spirit (the image or "spark"), because one word of truth dispels a multitude of lies. To tell people that I perceive this to be true and I perceive a massive, intersupportive collection of evidence to be all false, I need to present extraordinary evidence. (I do this all the time when I defend young earth against evolutionists, or lightspeed decay against physicists, or conspiracy facts against journalists.) It's not enough for me to perceive it, because I must test my own perception too when it might be deceiving me. When I do this, I agree that there are unrepaired difficulties in the mainstream narrative of Christian development, but I disagree that they affect the core. There are unresolved concerns in gnostic texts, but they can be harmonized without need of rejecting tradition. So I think you are on a good track, while it's those unsupported assertions that seem unnecessary that appear to me to be dampers on the robustness of your message. And, I'll repeat for my own sake, it may well be that the "spiritual body" has the freedom both to use and to eschew the material, and that Origenist harmony seems like it might address a core concern of gnostics from the very start.
What in the World are They Spraying? by G. Edward Griffin.
Community Rules
I agree with discussion but it need not be a roundtable since it's already going. Maybe a little more formality or analysis structure there.
I imagine we'll have the specific answer to that in due time, when the war ends. The signals that he permitted were the unusual public statements, including the public webpage declaration that his and Pence's terms in the 45th administration ended early. I doubt that Trump had zero control over significant events of the 46th.
Indeed, while Trump is enforcing some laws he's still in the rookie numbers range after 1 year, on no track to undo everything he permitted to be done during term 46. It's noted that the new Epstein replacement(s) are already in place, for us to hunt, and SRA and trafficking haven't slacked. A grand catharsis of arrests won't undo this and will make people wrongly think the job is done. I'm concerned that at some point in or before 2029 there will be massive regime changes faster than those Trump-aligned ones we've seen, and the next beast will be revealed. Each one is a dry run for the final, and my guess is that there will be a 2029 beast and he will not be the final but will be the best attempt to date and an end-to-end run (trying the full 7-year cycle as Arafat 1993-1994, Bush 2001, Obama 2008, and Clinton 2015-2016 did).
It says "be respectful" and "respect other views and opinions", not just those of contributors. When I demonstrate a view, opinion, or behavior as wrong, I still must have the human decency to respect that there's a person behind it who must have a reason for it. Using a slur for some characteristic of birth or faith is judging the innocent along with the guilty. But this might be a good thing to discuss in a roundtable about who are the levels of the exousiai.
How can he be one and true and God all at the same time, since those are three names or attributes? Diversity and unity always appear together and one.
Jesus mission was not to bring a Law, but to demonstrate it.
Okay, to fulfill what was already brought, yes.
He came to end the need for religion by showing the direct path to divine consciousness.
James 1:26-27 promoted true religion. Jesus contrasted that with vain religion (vain worship), Matt. 15:9, Mark 7:7. The word itself is neutral. I think what Jesus ended is more rightly called legalism.
He didn't die for your sins.
When 1 Cor. 15:3 says "I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures", scholars are agreed that "received" means an oral creed "Christ died for our sins" was circulating formally among the apostles 2-5 years after the resurrection. 1 Peter 2:24 has it, "His own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." There are several theological theories on the meaning, but in addition to nullifying sin he certainly also removed sin from us, bearing the illusion away. These distinctions sound semantic.
He didn't perform miracles. He demonstrated natural laws that include consciousness as a creative force.
Yeah, mostly, because the meaning of miracle has changed. The Bible calls them miracles in the sense of "unexplained". When people know the natural laws he used, they become more "explained", more commonplace and less wondrous. So both he and we perform the unexplained in our eras.
Jesus said you must know what you are, not believe.
I showed you John 14:1 and I don't know your thoughts on it. When Jesus speaks of knowing yourself it's in more of a negative sense, Luke 9:55, but it doesn't contradict the much greater emphasis he places on knowing him, John 17:3 etc. Why would knowing yourself contradict Jesus's statement to believe in God and in himself?
His message clearly says: you are a divine spark temporarily housed in a material body.
Calling it a "spark" isn't clear at all; he obviously taught on the "image" of God in man, Matt. 22:20 ff. He constantly affirmed the covenant reliance on the resurrection of the body and on the difference between this age and the coming age, and those two traditions balanced the temporal and the everlasting. Yes, 2 Peter 1:13-14 speaks of putting off this tabernacle without speaking of what is to come, but I acknowledged the mystery by pointing out that there may not be a conflict between the Christian tradition of general resurrection and the power to manifest as spiritual instead of material-pragmatic. So framing the message this way doesn't seem the "clearest" form.
You are not your fears. You are not your failures. You are not the story the world has told you about yourself. You carry the light of the Monad. You do not ask. You do not beg. You do not request. You speak as what you are. As a declaration of what is already true at the deepest level of existence. This is the revolution that Jesus started. This is the truth that has been hidden. This is the power that has always been ours.
Okay.
On the other hand Paul's teachings are on belief: Faith in Jesus, Predestination (he argues that faith is a gift from God, not something self-generated), Conversion and Belief in the Resurrection.
Jesus taught faith (believing) in himself. The apostles taught predestination, Acts 4:28, in accord with the tradition saying all is foreknown and determined and yet free will is given. Now, you make a distinction between faith being a gift (not the literal language of Eph. 2 though) and faith being something one does, but those are two sides of the same coin. You can't have faith without believing, and you can't have faith without the gift of God being involved (none come unless the Father draws them, John 6:44). So the two always manifest together, implying they are the same thing. Jesus taught conversion, Matt. 18:3, and he taught that he was the resurrection, John 11:25. So I see that if you think that believing and being given faith are contradictory, you'd have a problem, but why would they be contradictory? Whatever man does, God is doing the work of ensuring man does it.
He radically changed the meaning of faith and religion itself.
Still looking.
Before Paul, faith meant lived experience. Faith meant your relationship with the divine that you cultivated through practice, through study, through ethical living. Faith was something you experienced directly.
Faith is tied to that but isn't precisely synonymous. Lately this might be called "faith walk" or "working faith". James 2:18 says we show faith by what we do, so they are different. Yet he emphasizes faith always accompanies this relationship and experience.
But Paul introduced a new concept. Faith became belief. Faith became accepting certain propositional claims. Jesus is the son of God. Jesus died for your sins. Jesus was resurrected. If you believe these things, you're saved. If you don't believe them, you're damned. This is radically different. This makes debate about theological positions not about lived spiritual experience.
"Pistis" is translated both faith and belief. Now, I agree with the criticism that faith is more than propositional trust but involves personal trust in the individual; James 2:19-20 agrees too. And I agree with the idea that it shouldn't be oversimplified, although 1 John gives several simple tests distinguishing saved from damned that are very propositional. But these tests work because they rightly reflect whether the person has the whole relationship or not. What we've corrupted that into is the idea that saying the words is a free ticket and lifestyle is irrelevant, but in the culture your words would be proven by your lifestyle. And Paul didn't change that, it came much later. Debate about theological position isn't very effective (unless it distinguishes the god one believes in from another); experience in Christ's body is indeed everything. But that's why I'm working with you experientially (even as I present texts to you as I experience them).
So on this point, I agree there is a difference between propositional faith and the personal faith Jesus taught, but taking everything Paul said he is not teaching mere propositional faith in Eph. 2 and should not be taken as if he is.
Paul also introduced a concept of miracles as explanatory devices. If something doesn't make logical sense, it's a miracle. How was Jesus born of a virgin? Miracle. How did Jesus walk on water? Miracle. How was Jesus resurrected? Miracle. The function of miracles in Paul's theology is to explain away contradictions and inconsistencies. Don't question the logical problems. Don't try to understand it rationally. Just accept it as miraculous.
Well, the disciples accepted "miracles" in the sense "unexplained", throughout the gospels and indeed as a mark of Jesus's character in secular sources. Obviously some things happen that we don't have explanation for, and even good scientists admit that despite the fullness of the known laws of physics. It would be silly to say Jesus did nothing unexplained because we've found all the explanations, or worse to say it's because Jesus couldn't possibly have used deeper laws we haven't explained yet. It's unclear what you're going for. If you're saying any account of Jesus doing something inexplicable is spurious, that would mean we should talk about whether we understand all the laws of the world or whether there are still unknowns. But if Jesus did rise from the dead bodily, then there's no problem in saying so and calling it a miracle, and raising people from the dead bodily ourselves.
Another major innovation was elevating tradition above scripture. Paul's church, which eventually became the Catholic Church, taught that tradition, the teachings passed down through church authority is more important than the Bible itself.
The Bible was still open canon then. Peter and Jude followed the same rules by which their Hebrew Bible was approved, saying that new Scriptures might arise that were equal to the old; only John was able to discern when the canon closed. Thus if it was passed down from authority (as the OT was) and accepted by many generations of believers, it became a Scriptural teaching; if it didn't, like the Didache (which is very good teaching), it was treated as secondary and often forgotten. Paul rejects mere human tradition, Col. 2:8, like Mark 7:13, but I see he also affirms received tradition, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6. But this word, which means "received" or "delivered", also refers to what Jesus received from the Father to share with us, Matt. 11:27, 25:14. I don't see anything about tradition transcending the Bible. After creeds were formed, an impression could be taken that they were regarded as more important than Biblical texts, but good churches affirm they are merely summaries of the inspired Bible. So this sounds like a criticism of medieval Christianity, not of Paul.
In fact, for most of Christian history, ordinary people were not allowed to read the Bible. The Bible was kept in Latin, which most people didn't understand. Only priests could read it and interpret it because the church taught that if ordinary people read the Bible, they might misinterpret it. They don't have the spiritual authority to understand it correctly.
That was a major medieval error, but hardly "most of Christian history" because the disuse of Latin only crept in maybe about the 8th or 9th century, and vernacular Bibles were published from maybe the 12th century on. That really has little to do with Paul.
So religious truth comes not from direct study of sacred text but from submission to church authority. The church tells you what to believe and you believe it. That's faith.
Do you submit to what direct study of sacred text reveals? I've cited much sacred text. We all have personal duty to interpret rightly. But, as with math, the same text gives the same core answers to everyone. If you doubt the view of the majority, you stand on your conscience while also seeking whether a miscommunication or semantic difference might solve the disharmony. Again, the Reformation happened because the medieval church abused the personal duty to interpret (i.e. prohibiting personal interpretation), but the other direction of abuse (i.e. wrong interpretation) is also a problem.
But, all his innovations serve institutional power. So there 's no issue for Rome. They make religion about control, about hierarchy, about obedience to authority rather than about direct spiritual experience.
Reformers have always agreed that institutional power and hierarchy are easily corrupted and need regular auditing.
Because at this time, there were many people, especially Jewish Christians, who hated Paul. They believed Paul had corrupted the teachings of Jesus. They believe Paul was a traitor who had sold out to Rome.
Yes, and those who did believed the same of the other apostles, and treated them the same.
Jesus taught the exact opposite of submission to any authority.
Why did he say to honor everything that comes from Moses's seat, and everything belonging to Caesar?
Paul takes Jesus’s message of spiritual autonomy from the Monad and reconstructs it as a message of spiritual submission.
Autonomy means law unto oneself. Jesus and Paul taught we are judged by a law external to oneself. We have managerial (limited) autonomy in the sense of responsibility, and, when we take the law into our own hands rather than uphold the external we've received, that's where our responsibility and limited autonomy fails as a result of the total autonomy of the Monad. Once again you're getting this word "autonomy" that isn't in the text, and I don't know why you speak as if your words not in the text are better summaries than the text itself.
Jesus says “listen to my words”, Paul says “believe me of who Jesus is”.
Paul appeals to Jesus's words just as other apostles do. They all experienced Jesus's words and invite others to experience them, initially mediated by them as teachers until we are mature enough to experience them immediately for ourselves. Paul said, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1), meaning that when he fails to follow Christ we are not to follow him (Gal. 1:8). Paul never says "believe me" (though he might affirm that Isaiah 52 says "believe me"). Why do you say this?
Later the Roman Empire's adoption of Christianity under Constantine wasn't the triumph of spiritual truth over paganism that Church teaches today. It was the hijacking of a liberation movement and its transformation into a control system. Constantine needed a version of Christianity that would support imperial authority, not undermine it.
Okay.
The Gnostic teachings with their emphasis on individual direct experience and their rejection of external religious authority were completely incompatible with maintaining an empire built on hierarchy and control. The Council of Nicaea in 325 CE wasn't really about establishing the correct doctrine. It was about eliminating any version of Christianity that could make people spiritually independent.
Gnosticism had essentially disappeared before then; it had migrated into Montanism, Ebionitism, and other more sustainable systems. These forms did persist after Nicea and were not persecuted over experience or conscientious disagreement with other authorities; the only deprecation was over teaching a different Jesus or different gospel, but disagreements between churches were routinely hammered out by focus on unity (until the bishop of Rome started the idea of demanding submission, which was some time after Nicea). Nicea didn't "eliminate" any version of Christianity except by deprecating Arianism, which survived for centuries in western Europe anyway. Yes, independence was lost over time, I agree with you in mourning that, but that's why we had a Reformation. It's not related to Paul.
The Gospel of Thomas was rejected because it taught the kingdom is within you.
They weren't rejected, they just never rose to become Scripture. The "kingdom within" was accepted as gospel.
the official narrative has significant problems
I agree. What it doesn't show is how to correct the narrative or how blaming Paul does any good. The whole true narrative can be shown without any reference to Paul, because people were already showing the whole true narrative before Paul came.
I'm asking questions about what is true and you're not answering. Do you want people to repent and turn to the one true God? But how can he be one and true and God all at the same time, since those are three names or attributes? Of course diversity and unity have a perfect reconciliation. If you want people to repent, you don't make it hard for them by avoiding simple questions.
So why do you attempt to summarize his position without reference to his actual words? And what is the right way to talk about it? And
Why do you say "To discover the name and the source from which it comes is to understand" if a name and a source are two? It's possible for a name and a source to be one, but two concepts are seen just like you have two eyes but are one person. How could there be a monism without any distinction in it? As soon as you conceive of it, you conceive that it is not what it isn't, and that means it is revealed as plurality at the same time as it is revealed in another aspect as monism.
Why do you say his position is "God as three" or "God having a human son as God" when those words are not in any Bible?
Why do you say "To discover the name and the source from which it comes is to understand" if a name and a source are two? It's possible for a name and a source to be one, but two concepts are seen just like you have two eyes but are one person. How could there be a monism without any distinction in it? As soon as you conceive of it, you conceive that it is not what it isn't, and that means it is revealed as plurality at the same time as it is revealed in another aspect as monism.
IANAL for all intents and purposes. However, I interpret the law as a sovereign human. But that's not legal advice. Pleased to meet you.
Predetermination, Freewill, and Souls
Absolutely! Have you considered that none of them contradict one another?
Looks like I'm on my way to voting every suggestion up.
No, I'm just a guy who came here after J6 representing SwampRangers.com, being a volunteer for Scott Lively. By God's grace I obtained a nice modship by being in the right place at the right time, and have had the same kind of contact with admins as anyone. What I said is my best guess based on everything I've seen revealed here. I appreciate your attributing me with being an admin alt, but they are just as mysterious with me as with anyone. Doggos reported that there are 4 owners with 24% and one with 4% to break ties, and I believe that, but I don't know who any of them are, and they were all well settled long before I approached this site to share the Swamp Rangers goals in 2021. What you've already posted is pretty well the extent of what I've seen, I couldn't add to what you've already seen.
Are you referring to the UN/Lancet report that extrapolated from reported deaths and used a multiplier to estimate how many Palestinians died from all causes attributable to war over two years? And calling all such deaths "killing"? Are you willing to wait until the UN court hears and answers South Africa's formal charges of genocide against Israel?
I gave you two dates before 3 BC (add: and before 3rd century BC), one was about Solomon's son; sounds like you're reading too quickly.
Yes, Moses, David, and Solomon are generally unattested as such in archaeology. But the Hyksos expulsion of the 1530s BC is well-attested in archaeology, and it involves hundreds of thousands of Semites leaving the realm of Aravis (Goshen) and returning to the Levant.
There are many more records. If you judge them the same way Egyptian and Sumerian history are judged, you obtain the evidence you seek. Every time I've tested this I've found it true.
However, I respect that you have a body of evidence and disagree, which is why I asked you questions that you don't seem to have answered. You make an extraordinary claim that the entire gamut of Biblical characters are not historical, but we have inscriptions and records about Caesar Augustus and Pontius Pilate, about Nebuchadnezzar and Artaxerxes. So your claim appears insufficiently stated. I'm interested in your theory of how the alleged deception could have happened historically, and what the historical proof is, and what you think humanity ought to do as a result. If you answer by batting away my questions, it might indicate to people that you have no argument and are just overreaching.
u/InevitableDot, continuation:
I'm open to hearing lots of stuff I disagree with, it's just that if I have a lot of evidence otherwise I don't tend to move because I tend to share the evidence I have. Please speak your peace!
He taught when you do evil, evil comes into you and corrupts your soul. When you do good, good comes into you and brightens your soul and you brighten the world with it. He said the answer is the spark in you.
Why do you say that's contradictory to being all things to all men while remaining subject to Jesus's law?
Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All.". Show me one place where Paul teaches any of these.
Seek, find, troubled, astonished, rule:
"To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life" (Rom. 2:7).
"If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God" (Col. 3:1).
"But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well" (2 Tim. 1:17-18). Not perfect, but reflects the principle.
"We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair" (2 Cor. 4:8).
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel" (Gal. 1:6). So Paul doesn't use this word much in this sense; but this is probably the most ambiguous word in this verse in Thomas.
"If we suffer, we shall also reign with him" (2 Tim. 2:12); this is probably the closest to the meaning of trouble and astonish.
So a quick check shows it's pretty close. Paul certainly doesn't say you won't find, be troubled, be astonished, or rule. Why would you see the disparity there? I don't want to be obtuse about it. Are you taking the Scriptures about "faith saves" and then assuming that nothing accompanies faith? Some theologians do that, but when Paul says faith saves he stresses all the holy living that accompanies faith too.
I showed you that Paul preaching faith in Jesus was the same as Jesus preaching it
No you didn't. Again here we have a strong disagreement.
Um, maybe you think "believe" and "have faith" are different? Jesus says to believe in him John 14:1, Paul says to believe in Jesus Rom. 3:26. Why do we have disagreement on this?
Why is belief more important than behavior?
Nobody teaches one is more important, they must accompany each other. Professing Christians who act like belief is more important are oversimplifying, and other Christians call that easy believism, greasy grace, and sloppy agape. If you believe, you behave, they always accompany each other. But if you believe like the thief, and have no opportunity to behave other than to do that very important work of confessing, you still get credit for believing and behaving, because you turned from your sins as Ezekiel says.
Why would a loving God send good people to hell just because they were born in the wrong culture and never heard of Jesus?
I answered that's not Christianity according to Rom. 1.
Why does there need to be a second coming if Jesus already accomplished his mission?
Why did Jesus say he would come back, Matt. 24:30? Same answer.
And why do we have to worship Jesus if salvation is supposed to be about God's grace, not about our actions?
I've pointed out that the word "worship" isn't applied to Jesus the same way it's applied to God the Father. The meaning of worship in most cases is the same kind of respect that created beings receive; in a couple cases the meaning of worship is indeed that which is due to God alone, but it is offered to God in Jesus. Here's my deep dive. It's not about "having to" worship Jesus, it's that people are so grateful that they give him a dozen kinds of ordinary respect, and worship God in him. They "get to" worship, it's a joy.
And the standard Christian answer to all these questions is miracle, mystery, and magic.
I apologize on behalf of standard Christians. Our bad. I will be happy to make it up to you.
What's the purpose of exploring Church doctrine. You're not going to convince me of anything that way.
I'm mostly avoiding doctrine and just sticking to interpretation of texts. I gave you two texts about "believing in Jesus", and I presume you see that the same words are talking about the same thing, that doesn't have to become a doctrinal rarefaction.
He who can understand the present, could understand the past.
The present is indeed always capable of interpreting the past (retconning), which is why we are sharing with each other in the present.
They should strive for Mosaic purity so much more that they realize it can't be done except supernaturally (as Jesus and gnostics both agree).
Again I disagree. A lot of Jesus's teachings go against Jewish religious authority.
Correct, and not against Mosaic purity. Jesus and Moses always agree, he proves it's the authorities that are the outliers.
And these Jewish priests teach people to follow the law, to follow the Sabbath, meaning do not work on Saturdays, to obey the law of Moses, to keep all the customs and traditions of the Jewish faith. But according to the Bible, Jesus says, "No, what's important is not following the letter of the law, but following the spirit of God. What matters is the condition of your heart, not whether you perform the correct rituals."
The first is accurate. Jesus said don't work on Sabbath. The second is not, IMHO. He said no letter of the law will depart until everything be fulfilled, Matt. 5. He did disagree with the leaders about what is work on Sabbath, and pointed out that in one sense the Father "works" on Sabbath, meaning that the leaders' view of what "work" is was suspect; but the leaders had added to Moses in a known way (Moses said no labor, the leaders said spitting is labor because it creates mud, that was a spurious, scrupulous addition). I pointed out that Jesus said follow both the letter of tithes and the spirit of mercy, Matt. 23:23. Jesus affirmed temple rituals and told people to follow them, such as cleansing after healing. So Jesus upheld purity, and among the Jews Paul upheld purity too. Do you see texts otherwise? I mean, Hezekiah said something like the last part, but he wasn't quoted on this.
Jesus is essentially rebelling against the authority of the Jewish priests.
I don't see that he ever rebels against their authority; he tells people to obey their rulings but not to mimic their behavior, Matt. 23:2-3. When he disagrees with them it's about questions where people are free to judge opinions, and they called him a rebel because he showed up when their opinions were sometimes foolish.
Nothing wrong with Paul going along with the system.
Then when Jesus goes along with Caesar's tax system, is he shilling for Rome too? Why is it okay when Jesus affirms Rome but not when Paul does? It seems they're both right, they both teach obedience insofar as conscience permits. If Jesus were poor and Paul rich, that shouldn't make a difference as to their message.
And the message he preached served Roman interests perfectly. It neutralized the most dangerous threat Rome faced. It turned potential rebels into peaceful citizens. It transformed a movement that could have ignited empire wide Jewish revolt into a religion of personal salvation that taught submission to earthly authority. Whether Paul was consciously working as an asset or whether he was unwitting tool, the result was the same.
This sounds speculative. Jesus already taught submission to earthly authority, both Jewish and Roman, as I showed. Paul didn't improve on that, he only spread the same message; granted that more efficient spread benefited Rome in some ways, but it also created many more who rejected Caesar worship, which was no benefit to them. But Jesus's preaching of paying Caesar was enough catalyst to "benefit of Rome" that the benefit had already begun. And of course Jesus successfully quelled rebellion for a long time, by taking all the blame for it on himself, literally.
So I still hear a narrative that someone has templated over historical facts that doesn't fit all of them very well. I appreciate your continuing despite my inability to make it click. Maybe there are things you don't like about the Biblical Jesus (or Paul) that you doubt are the real teachings? We can weigh these things according to probability, but that would need to be applied across the board so it might not have the effect desired. But to hear how obvious it is to you that Paul contradicted Jesus, and then not to see it in your statements when there are easy Biblical references otherwise, well, that approach hasn't yet carried the case for me. I appreciate you hearing my sincere questions.
Who did Shoshenq I conquer in Taanach, Esdraelon, Aijalon, Megiddo, Zemaraim, Bethel, and Tirzah in 925 BC, as depicted in the Great Karnak Inscription, Hall K?
Who is the Ysrỉꜣr conquered by Merneptah according to his stele of 1207 BC?
The Control System
Agreed. It's easier to run with discussion topics the community is behind than to post a fresh one when there's a good one already.
I'm going to stick with the Bible as usual and emphasize that the top is always "the satan" whether or not more than one entity has claimed this title in history. We can also safely call all active advocates satanists, but we should also be cautious about quick assignment of individuals as satanists.
There is no formal structure (see C. S. Lewis's chapter on "Elasticity") but there are unwritten and thus malleable rules. Everything is fear-driven and nothing is dependable. Important: This allows everyone to think their circle is the innermost and to think they are the real movers and shakers, such that nobody can tell who really is (Lewis again, and Quigley on Rhodes's will).
I would love to spend a week reviewing the historical "cabal" (still looking for the best word for it; maybe PTB or Exousiai) and its methods, especially collaboratively with others who are seeking a community consensus we can run with. This is only a taste.
Thanks so much! I'll just add three comments from handshakes that are of the same character and leave it there for tonight (I really appreciate the review):
u/ErnestWorrell - Does anyone else see a white collar, tie and jacket in the above sigil? https://propercloth.com/images/collars_overview/english_spread/tie_thumb.jpg
u/KarlSumeran - Maybe this made them do it: https://x.com/AdameMedia/status/2007248844585873632
u/Xsaymoklash - 155. But for their violation of their covenant, and their denial of Allah’s revelations, and their killing of the prophets unjustly, and for their saying, “Our minds are closed.” In fact, Allah has se