Wow. Most cogent explanation ever.
The powers that be were busy creating an impressive network in the Roman Empire that centralized two great powers, transportation (Roman road) and communication (Roman post). BTW these were prophesied by Dan. 12:4. This was intended as, and served as, a consolidation of power towards controlling every individual and putting down dissent. Unfortunately for them, a simple truth preached in the wilderness has the asymmetrical power to remain alive and endure all suppression. Thus, at the time appointed, or in the fullness of time, when everyone knew it was the 70th sabbatical, a simple message of repentance and turning from sin was sufficient to revive myriads and eventually billions of people. The weapon designed by the enemy was used more lastingly by the unharmed covenant people. In the 16th century, the same happened: Rome had again consolidated its control over the new communication device (printing press), until a large number of people decided that some study notes from an obscure convent in Wittenburg were worth meming the entire network to oblivion. And we are in another phase of awakening today at another appointed, full time. We preach truth unharmed and nothing can stop us.
From time to time I will continue this series as interest indicates.
So you begin by saying Yaldabaoth = Demiurge = Yahweh = OT God = Jewish God = Self-Existent = Eternal = Mosaic = Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh. I'll agree.
Then you say none of these equal the Monad. How would we determine the truth or falsity of that assertion together?
You say Samael = an archangel = Accuser = Adversary = Seducer = Destroyer = Saklas = Masonic God = Illusion Programmer = Saturn. I'll agree.
Then you say that some of these equal some of the names of Yahweh. How would we determine the truth or falsity of that assertion together?
We agree on there being two concepts, Monad and Samael. You want to put the Yahweh concept onto Samael, I want to put it onto Monad. It's not sufficient for us each to argue that our own desire is self-evidently better. We'd need some common basis for realizing the truth of the things we are talking about. If Monad and Samael exist, it's a matter of truth or falsity whether any Yahweh title does or doesn't apply to either. If we were to agree on nuanced synthesis, neither of us would be dogmatic about putting the Yahweh concept any particular place. But if you sound dogmatic about it not belonging with the Monad you create a binary proposition that can be discussed under agreed rules on pursuing truth. Are you willing to pursue the truth of the matter wherever it leads?
Jesus's cup was defined in Gethsemane as the innocent suffering unto death that was reserved from eternity. It's often unnoted that Jesus said in Matthew, if there is no other way for the cup to pass except that he drink it, God's will be done. His prayer was answered and the cup passed, but the only way was for all punishment to be drained to the dregs. Jesus's baptism was not just the mystic trinity of water, blood, and spirit, present at his birth and his death and symbolized in Christian sacrament; it was a baptism of fire he had yet to undergo. And this can be rephrased as an enshrouding in light. Just as his destiny was to return humanity to being creatures of light, so he tells Boanerges that we too will be creatures of light. Which is the same that Daniel said, the righteous will shine like the stars forever, not just a clever metaphor. Hidden truths.
I appreciate that u/DresdenFirebomber is taking my advice to heart about it. You can always find it by searching the first two words "Hoaxes about", because adding "Jew(s)" to a search term invalidates it here.
I'm favoring the theory that Imp and one or two others are in fact females (possibly self-hating) because the ideation process is so stereotypical and infatuated that, in the absence of sheqalim, a stereotypical explanation is the best fit. Anytime Imp takes a point under advisement (as above) and/or retains a point made after some time, however, that's a temporary escape from a doom-spiral ideation, and it may even become a good habit.
Bridge-building is finding agreements between people of diverse experiences.
Your take on me is accurate enough in so many words, but part of the bridge-building involves recognizing that what I mean by Yahweh is not what you've come to believe Yahweh is. If there's a Monad, and also a part-time architect named Samael, I think the title or name Yahweh better describes the Monad. You seem to have become so familiar with assuming that Samael is automatically Yahweh that when I seek to remove that obstacle so as to lay a firmer foundation it may not come naturally at first. But think about it and it might. I don't give Samael any more credit or title than he deserves.
If you like Aramaic Christians (like Tewahedo) or Assyrian Christians (like Church of the East) or especially Orthodox, we can use them as good ground of agreement too.
Many people don’t even know what Aramaic Peshitta is, and think the original NT was written in Greek, but scholars know better.
I have a nuanced synthesis on this scholarly problem too, but it's usually not necessary for me to object to Peshitta primacy because it doesn't result in any useful distinctions.
The language Jesus spoke didn't have a framework for eternal punishment.
My joke is I've been through hell very thoroughly and now I can go in and out anytime I please. Yes, Jesus spoke often of Gehenna, and, yes, sheol-hades is very different from Norse nastrond-hell. I have a nuanced synthesis there too, where the most important point is that it's relatively useless to argue about eternal states since we basically have forever to learn about them.
Jesus wasn't claiming to be uniquely divine in a way that separated him from the rest of humanity. He was claiming to be fully human in a way that revealed what all humans could become.
Porque no los dos? I agree that Bar Enosh (my spelling) is paradigmatic humanity as you say, but the nature of divinity in Jesus was in fact unique compared to the the nature of divinity in the rest of us, and so that calls for very exact technical language. I have my last month's study on Bar Enosh sitting around here with the OT and Apocryphal references that indicate a number of supernatural scopes to it, all of which are compatible with fully realized human nature.
So the upshot is that I agree there are forces in traditional Christianity that suppress people and potential via misunderstandings such as Gehenna and Bar Enosh. What I mean above is that also in traditional Christianity are the seeds that can reawaken these original understandings anytime they are watered, and (considering what human potential means) the church potential is unspeakably vast.
So I appreciate your clarifying things so that I can see our positions in a map where we aren't too far apart. That leaves me without an immediate followup question. If you're willing to suffer me in my interpretation of the true meaning of "Yahweh", or if you're willing to disabuse me of some errors I may make about it, please feel free. I certainly encourage you to post or comment more about the unblurred entities that are doing the manipulation all along; that's what this forum is for, and I've dropped links to other forums where similar thoughts are welcome.
Funny you should say that, Pepe. Perhaps we should leave it right there and continue to monitor the situation. I might even start upvoting you again myself.
With the Church is not about right or wrong.
Good! That allows bridge-building.
it's not separate from you to receive prayers. You can't disappoint it because it has no expectations. You can't be judged by it because it's not a judge. It's the very awareness within which the concepts of judgment arise and pass away.
This is very close to "apophatic theology", which I define as talking about Being via what it is not. There's a second way of talking about Being ("cataphatic"), namely how it reconciles spectra of things that are. In the first way, the Monad isn't even a monad or a plurality because those are words for emanated things: it is both undivided and unmixed. It's not separate from us, and it's not joined to us. It's not expecting, and it's not failing either. It's not judging and it's not judged. It's not awareness and it's not lethe. In the second way of talking, we do use words like this recognizing that they describe aspects that are transcended and harmonized, and that form of speech is common and valid as well.
What bothers churchmen is that speaking of the attribute of impersonality carries a risk that we demote the attribute of personality. Ultimately this need not be done, but so many have created an impersonal god in their own imaginations and gone far astray in everyone else's judgment that there is a warning against it. Francis Schaeffer took the bull by the horns by writing Beyond Personality to awaken Christians to this reality; he might interest you!
What's the purpose of institutions claiming to speak for God? The entire structure of religious authority collapses when people realize that the deepest truth isn't a being you need intermediaries to reach, but the very awareness you already are. The political implications are staggering.
Good human institutions only survive because they humbly refuse to speak for God. "Nature" speaks for itself, though we call it impersonal, and all revelation works the same way. Yet people who can't get the experience of monism right ("general revelation") need not to be too assertive when describing an experience of "special revelation".
there exists a reality so fundamental that even Yahweh, the biblical creator, is merely a distant shadow of it.
I would say instead that "Creator" and "Yahweh" and "Reality" and "Fundament" and "Distance" are all shadows that only approximate; no merely human word is final. Our always striving to know reality better allows our words to be sufficient and actionable without being exhaustive. But what's happened (and it started with Jews inventing "Ein Sof" or "Infinity" IMHO) is that people who find one label insufficient for one purpose then put their trust in ... another label. I kept seeking the root of it all and realized I could never apprehend the root and remain myself. I then started using all the words as shadows of various states of being, and I recognized that they fit together into many different isomorphic structures. In the structure you posit above, "Reality" is Fundamental and "Yahweh" and "Creator" are Distant, which might be true in many applications, but the words could be rearranged several ways to yield many truths in other applications, and all the arrangements have nuanced meaning and value without contradiction.
Now, let's take a look at the Gospel of the Egyptians which goes further, explaining that all creator gods, including the one who made our physical universe, are just source. There exists a hierarchy, God at the top, angels below, humans at the bottom.
That is indeed Near East divine-council theory, but it seems like it cuts against the idea that we never use the word "God" for the "Top". Whatever is revealed to us is mediated by our incompleteness and so in one sense we can never know what is beyond and in another sense we can know "God" or any "Thing" with sufficient, actionable substance.
John reveals "before anything existed, the Monad was.". Not in the beginning, God created.
I don't see a contradiction, they both sound like John 1:1-3.
Genesis gives us a God who speaks, who walks in the garden, who gets angry, who makes plans. But, the Monad doesn't speak because it's the silence from which all words emerge. It doesn't create because it is the space within which all creation unfolds. Are you beginning to see the difference between the Monad and El?
No, in the fundamentals I don't. By calling it Monad and Silence and Space you're applying labels that simply put it at a different pole of the spectrum of being than calling it God and Speaker and Creator. Genesis uses a lot of personal language (because personality came from somewhere and isn't a power that creatures have over the Monad), but it doesn't lead to contradiction, but paradox (i.e. something resolvable via nuance). For instance after the general introduction we are told that the Spirit broods (silently) before a Word is said (audibly). But the word for brooding and the word for speaking both come down to the same phenomenon, vibration in waves, expressed differently. So silence and speech are set by the text as a paradox, and we now have a scientific ("gnostic") way of resolving the paradox with nuance.
I would argue this is consciousness that's present before any thought appears, during the thought and after it disappears. Thoughts don't create this awareness. They manifest within it. Now imagine that awareness without any thoughts at all, without any content whatsoever, infinite and eternal. That is the Monad.
Okay, the experience is real, and the imaginative extrapolation is useful to a point, but not to all points. To say the Monad "is" awareness without thoughts is merely to apply a perceived experience to the whole of reality, which falls short because the map is never the territory.
beyond any boundaries
Yeah, I discovered that if there are boundaries they are indiscernible.
the invisible light
Use of paradox then, which is not monad but dyad and synthesis.
There's no divine command, no big bang, no let there be light moment.
Well, when we look at history there's an origin to spacetime, but there are still lots of views about that (including denying it).
you don't serve the Monad in the way a created being serves a creator. Not the way the Church and every religion on earth teaches. We're witnessing the natural overflow of infinite consciousness recognizing itself in ever-expanding ways.
Here the paradox is that if we were to teach how the Monad is served we would be just another religion. So in one sense the Monad cannot be served, but in another sense you truly imply we do serve the Monad somewhere between the Me (experience) and the Myself (reflection). That is because we could say the Monad "is" the Me and "is" the Myself and "is" the service. That gets us back to all relative words having a natural pattern of active, inactive, action (lover, beloved, love). That pattern is, however, isomorphic with the pattern of All being One. So, having beheld the Monad, and having beheld the Other (reflection) that is Self that have a relationship (reflective surface), we rejoice in the beholding, but when we come back to speaking English to our fellow man we end up using words that are like those already spoken, sometimes better and often worse. And all those words have sufficiency and substantiality without needing perfection or exhaustiveness. And that's what we build bridges on.
Glad you chimed in. Yes, by everyone except a particular group of conspiracists. The official Jewish position is that they are against idolatry and they might rule individual Christians idolaters but to judge all of Christianity as idolatry would not honor God's name (in whatever sense you may take that). Maimonides is key on that, but he's ambiguous: he says Jesus hasn't done the work of Messiah yet, but he says if someone starts doing the work of Messiah he's a Messiah candidate, and sometimes he admits the supernatural and sometimes he rejects it. So there's no official route by which Judaism can call Christianity idolatry, nor can they officially influence Gentile courts (other than by approving them or rejecting them as legitimate courts, but then anyone can do that to anyone).
Some rabbis speak very triumphally, and so do Christians and Muslims, because in all the eschatologies the unbelievers are automatically servant-class. Christians don't talk about it much because we have an idealized millennium, but we and Christ rule with the iron rod and nations (presumably Egypt) who don't keep Tabernacles are punished with drought, so it's not like we treat eschatological unbelievers as getting full citizenship in the kingdom. So when compared there isn't too much difference between various idealisms.
If a rabbi derails Judaism (and some have) with propositions like (1) Jews should work toward political control of the world, (2) states with majority non-Jews should be forced to obey laws drafted according to the morals of Jews, (3) capital punishment for rejecting the religion of Jews is permissible, that would be basically the entirety of the anti-Noachite caricature. However if you change the word "Jews" to "Christians" or "Muslims" there are plenty advocating for that too ("restorationists" and "jihadists"). Nobody can advance that theory in a truth realm because it's inherently dehumanizing and contrary to the Golden Rule (including self-determination). Therefore treating whole classes of people as if they are seeking to advance that theory, without solid evidence, is just as unhelpful as those individuals who are actually advancing it.
The solution is the One who is Truth and he'll tell Jews, Christians, and Muslims where they're getting it wrong so that they can either join him or descend into the darkness that falsehood leads them into. And we are his mouthpiece right now.
We could always try more threads, maybe enough regulars have figured out that we'd be better off with a mod, or maybe enough bots are keeping people distracted from organizing themselves so that it doesn't matter. Only way to know is to test ....
Never forgive? You sound like the "reparations forever" crowd. Those who aren't terrorists negotiate terms and get over things. Not even sure that you qualify for membership in the class aggrieved by Simon's death.
This is from Paul's famous Ephesus sermon in his first missionary journey, recounting the entire history of Israel. Note in context (14, 42, 44) that everyone there is keeping the same Sabbath as the historical one (27), there's no Sunday rest in sight; and the words were heard by Jews, proselytes, and Gentiles. This is where Paul lays down the dictum that when some Jews refuse him, he gives the word to Gentiles too (Rom. 11): some Jews blasphemed (45), but many Jews followed Paul (43). The right answer then is that the door has been opened to Gentiles but it is still open to Jews on exactly the same terms, namely acceptance of their Messiah and repentance of their sin. This is shown by Paul's resolution, on his return, along with other church leaders in Jerusalem, that Gentiles can enter the church by following Noah's laws and that Moses's laws need not be forced upon non-Jews because Moses is "read in the synagogues every sabbath day" (15:21). So it was the early church, not the rabbis, that rescued Noah's laws from obscurity (being Christian isn't idolatry, it's acknowledging the Father in the Son).
New cascade for u/jamesbillison (maximum depth reached).
He began with "Our Father" indicating the Monad as the source of all consciousness. "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" - here, the kingdom is not a distant thing to hope for but the fullness of consciousness to be realized. Which is Pleroma. Prayer in the context of Gnostic philosophy is recognition, declaration, and alignment. Jesus thanked the Father for outcomes as if they had already occurred.
Very nice, a fair summary of a well-taken point. Prayers are indeed alignment work (albeit culturally there are ways to frame that in imperative voices). To me what's missing is how to resolve statements of theology, and what difference it makes. For instance, we could argue that it's significant that manuscripts about addressing God are few and disputed, but then decide to agree that it doesn't matter because the church's language isn't so wrong that it requires our opposition. Alternately, we could argue there's a binary tension there and a side must be taken, and then we'd need a path for resolution.
If the Monad is Father and Pleroma, what difference does it make if we call it our El or Theos as well, or if we don't? There are several Scriptures I could ask your opinion about, but I would hold on those since I'm still working on getting the foundational understandings.
John and Jesus worked both sides of the Jordan river because the kingdoms of the Herods included that whole area. This is the paradigm of "Greater Israel", not just river to sea (Jordan to Mediterranean), but river to river (Euphrates to Nile), which includes several other sovereign nations nowadays. Israel's latest incursions demonstrate their perceived manifest destiny as growing into ability to manage this land again, as Solomon apparently did for a season. The prophecies indicate not that the world will fight Israel in a climactic war, but that designated powers will, not from Israel's local borders but from greater distance. This is why modern Israeli polity has always been fixated on control of relations with immediate neighbors so as to manage its ability to grow. There's a certain right for a tech state to have managed relations with its neighbors, but there's also an imperial risk that peoples join who don't have common interests (iron-clay) and create greater instability.
u/Paleo says this content is unwelcome.
Well, when there's a dispute about the text I don't quibble (especially if the person is doubtful of texts in the first place), and Step Bible at 6:12 gives "τοῦ θεοῦ] Byz ς WH omit] D itd", which means that "to God" is in three traditions including the received text and omitted in two including an uncial text. But questions like this are based on preponderance of many types of evidence and you're indicating you're deciding it based on cohesion of a gnostic system that filters through Valentinus and others. That's why I asked about how we can decide such matters because a mere note about what textual critics hold today, or in the past, isn't enough when broader truth claims are in view.
Nope, still filtered. Your other comment comes through all right. There are a few words and phrases and sites that admin doesn't like anywhere, even in Wild West communities, and those are usually easy to avoid with self-reflection. It might not be worth trying to get past the filter here, or it might be worth posting as a new post in c/FreeSpeech (where I can rescue it even if autofiltered) or someone else's community (c/Aposemitism is pretty active nowadays).
It got autofiltered, maybe try it again without the links.
The log preserved "I think we can agree the Sabbatean-Frankists founded the state of Israel and they are in prominent positions in Israel." That's tenuous agreement, but there are also many factions involved as I've hinted. Looking forward to more.
c/Christianity hasn't banned him.
With Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes all building special baptismals (mikvoth) to monopolize this ancient practice, John hit upon the opportune time (the 70th week beginning after the sabbatical of 27 AD) and the opportune populace (a prosperous but oppressed nation) to teach that no patriarchy can force the definition of baptism but that anyone can wash in the water freely. He went to Aenon near Salim in the wilderness to demonstrate this independence. In the same way, residents of witchery capital Salem, Massachusetts, declared independence and founded a nearby city, called Wenham (after Aenon), now the site of Gordon College. Recently Gordon was slapped down by Obama and Salem government for upholding marriage and the religious right to regard homosexuality as sinful. So the Establishment continues.
Larken is on the right track but stopped when he discovered a single abnormality, section 861 of the Code. He then preached that alone for many years, and went to jail for it. To oversimplify, he basically said all "income" is automatically foreign. If he had continued his research he would have understood why courts don't allow that defense and why there exists domestic income.
If you tell the IRS anything invalid and unsupported by law, such as "my earnings aren't income because 'income' is foreign", they laugh at you and enforce. It's essential to read the law for yourself and understand how much income you earn and to determine if there are any mistakes in any information returns that make incorrect income allegations. I answer questions but I don't explain too much at a time because it's essential that each person take responsibility. Larken is one who took responsibility for being wrong, but he hasn't done the research necessary to understand what he did wrong.
Rome wanted Canada to be American, they lost the thread with NAFTA, but now people like it a lot more when it's conceived of as a Trump shopping spree. Apparently as long as we pretend that America's in charge (guns blazing strategically) we can continue signing bad treaties as normal. "We have a little time."
John got started in 28 because the 70th sabbatical cycle of 27-34 AD had begun and everyone knew it (counting from 457 BC, 457+27-1=69*7; four sabbatical cycles are verified by history as noted by Benedict Zuckermann). John was killed because of a pedophile dance, one that Oscar Wilde called the Dance of the Seven Veils. This is a reference to the gradual sevenfold denudation of Inanna as she descended into the underworld after the fall of Dumuzid, which is an Eve-coded mythos. Therefore the powers that had both John and Jesus killed were of the same cabal that caused Eve to discover her nakedness. Jesus was crucified specifically because the Rephaim (Remphan) represented their power as being a sin-bearer in a tree, same coding.
The phrasing is bad, as so often seen at this instruction level. Both instructions and exact problem wording should unambiguously specify the intended method. Here the instructor has a very narrow specialized meaning of "reasonable" in mind, which is not a word to hang a specialized definition on as it creates an unnoticed seed of schizophrenia in the kids.