people were called Jews in various spellings for many centuries prior
But I said "Before the Jews were of course the Israelites. Now we have the Jews.". We can talk about the word "Jew" and even the letter J. For instance many argue the first time the word Jew was used was in 18th century CE, when Sheridan used it in his play "The Rivals". And that the letter J was only invented in the 15th century. Or, Judean or Judahite ("Yhuwdiy") of the bloodline of Judah, an Israelite.
But I don't think that's correct. "Jews" is a Persian term, let me explain. First let's talk about Jerusalem, the area. So, this area is only a very small part of the Levant. But this part is specifically for the Jews. And it's part of this Persian province called Beyond the River. And they call it the province of Yehud. That's why we have the term Jews. Okay? Because they are part of the province of Yehud. So Yehud was established by the Persian king Cyrus the Great in 539 BCE. I don't know what you have against the word "invented", maybe I should have used the word "established" instead. My point, and to repeat myself, Jews is actually a Persian term. So, the Jews were created/established (not invented) by the Persians to control the Levant.
Anyway, they are surrounded by enemies. The Samaritans are Israelites, like I said, who have stayed in the land. So most people around them are in fact Israelitess who adapted to local circumstances and that means that they practice different religions. So what happens is that these exiles from Babylon, they come back and they say, "No, we're the true Israelites. You guys are the false Israelites. The reason why we're true is we have stayed loyal to our religion.". So what's going to happen over the next few decades is almost a civil war between Israelites who've stayed and Israelites who left but came back. And this is exactly what the Persian Empire wants in order to maintain stability in the Levant. Because you have this small minority of exiles from Babylon who've come back and they're in conflict with everyone else. This is divide & conquer rule and strategy. Worked then and works now.
The irony was lost on you. You can't invent "Jews" and then have them return somewhere they were before
You didn't understand anything I said. And I made sure to end my long message with: "So the Jews were invented by the Persians to administer and control the Levant. Before the Jews were of course the Israelites. Now we have the Jews. So Israel and the Jewish identity are constructs of the imperial imagination.".
The Jews have been used by empires throughout history. Probably the first was Cyrus who discovered that these exiled Israelites in Babylon were really good administrators. And Cyrus used them, that's why I'm saying they were invented by the Persian Empire (before they were Israelites). Subsequently they were re-invented by the Greek Empire, and by the Roman Empire, and by the British Empire, and by the American Empire... But they have always been willing to serve the imperial interests, as long as they're in-charge and can administer and control the nations. "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" - Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild (a Jew)
Why is so hard for you to understand what I'm really saying. As opposed to playing a game with words? I'll tell you what, you really try and make an effort to understand what I'm saying, or there's no point in communicating any further. It's a waste of time for both of us.
And Iran perfectly able to remove this shitty Israel from the map
So, why doesn't Iran just erase the Wall for now. No one in the streets of Jerusalem right now, they're all hiding in bomb shelters. That would be almost as significant as what Nebuchadnezzar II did in 586 BCE. And also the Romans did in 70 CE.
How does an invention return?
You should know. We talked about this before, maybe you forgot, here it goes.
Israelis are hailing Trump as Cyrus, the King of Persia, returned. You can see “Cyrus the Great is Alive!” billboards in Jerusalem, comparing Trump to Cyrus the Great. But, who was Cyrus the Great, anyway?
There are a few things we know, for instance, Cyrus the Great was the founder of the Achaemenid Persian empire (550 BCE to 330 BCE). Under Cyrus, the Persian empire stretched across a vast array of territories, beyond modern day Iran. We also know a key moment in this imperial expansion was Cyrus’ capture of Babylon and its surrounding territory, Babylonia, (mostly in modern-day Iraq) in 539 BCE. Soon after he defeated the Babylonian king, Nabonidus, Cyrus issued a decree freeing captive Israelites (and others) in Babylon. We know this from the surviving Nabonidus chronicle clay tablet. Cyrus, according to the version of the story in the Hebrew Bible (OT), had been supposedly commanded by God to rebuild a temple at Jerusalem that Nebuchadnezzar II had destroyed. Just like today Donald Trump was commanded to build the 3rd Temple. Pete Hegseth, Trump's pick for Defense Secretary, proclaimed his heartfelt belief that the Third Temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem. The decree by Cyrus released the exiles from Babylon, known in the story as Israelites, to return to Jerusalem and rebuild it. For this reason, Cyrus became (and remains) a legendary figure in Jewish history, though he was not Jewish himself and there were no Jews at that time. Only Israelites. He was more likely a devotee of Zoroastrianism embraced by his successors, including Darius I.
It was Persia's Cyrus the Great who invented the Jews. He needed to control the Levant because the Levant gave him access to Egypt, which is historically, the wealth part of the world. So what you do is you set up a group of people in the Levant that are only loyal to you. You set up people in the Levant that only exist because you, the empire, allow them to exist. If you, the empire, did not support them and the locals, everyone in that region would get rid of them right away. And that's why we have the Jews. So the Jews were invented by the Persians to control the Levant.
Important to note, alongside the Jews there were the Samaritans who are Israelites and have stayed in the Levant. So most people around them are, in fact, Israelites who adapted to local circumstances. And that means that they practice different religions. That also means that they married foreign women as well. You also have this small minority of exiles from Babylon who've come back and they're in conflict with everyone else. Over the next few decades is almost a civil war and this is exactly what the Persian Empire want in order to maintain stability in the Levant. This is the dividing rule strategy. So, Persia helped the Jews to reconstitute their nation and build their 2nd temple. Why did Cyrus do that? because when he conquered Babylon, he discovered that these exiled Israelites are really good administrators. They are literate intellectuals and they rise up very high in the Babylon administration. Another reason, the Persians encouraged cultural diversity. They saw the world as a cosmic struggle between good and evil, concepts that profoundly influenced Jewish and Christian theology. So the Jews were invented by the Persians to administer and control the Leavant. Before the Jews were of course the Israelites. Now we have the Jews. So Israel and the Jewish identity are constructs of the imperial imagination.
protect Israel from Iranian strikes
Their goal is not protecting Israel from anything. That's the official narrative designed to make us look somewhere else (magic trick). They don't care about the people in Israel, just as they don't care about people anywhere else in the world. Their goal is to build the 3rd temple, but it has to be done in a certain way. Just as it happened during the Persian King Cyrus the Great, who helped the Jews built their 2nd Temple. Have you seen Donald Trump King Cyrus Third Temple Coin 70 Years 70 Nations?
In fact it was Persia's Cyrus the Great who invented the Jews in the first place. He needed to control the Levant because the Levant gave him access to Egypt. If they need to install a fake King now, so be it. Whatever it takes, it's only temporary anyway. As long as their goal is fulfilled and the Temple gets built.
It was Persia's Cyrus the Great who invented the Jews. He needed to control the Levant because the Levant gave him access to Egypt. In Cyrus's time it was common knowledge whoever controls Egypt controls the World. So Persia, today Iran, set up a group of people in the Levant that were only loyal to the empire. It's called divide & conquer strategy. These minority of exiles from Babylon who came back to the area soon were in conflict with everyone else. They only existed because the empire allowed them to exist. So the Jews were invented by the Persians to control the Levant.
So, Cyrus the Great, the Persian king, allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. The original structure of the Second Temple was built by Zerubbabel, before it was refurbished by the Hasmoneans, and later, more extensively by Herod. It was built, as already mentioned, at the decree of Cyrus the Great. That's what needs to happen now, 3rd Temple must be built, so Moshiach could come. So, do you see how important Iran (former Persia) is to them? they will even install a fake King in Iran to make sure it aligns to the script. This current war in Iran is about regime change, but according to a script/plan conceived a long time ago.
Trump just turned on yet another giant vacuum cleaner that suck military resources and he can't turn it of
Sure he can. That's what the stupid Europeans are for. Plus, all the other vassal states in Middle East: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan and Kuwait. To clean up the mess in Middle East, the US & Israel made.
This just in from France24 News: "France, Germany, UK ready to take 'defensive action' against Iran." and "Gulf states vow collective defence after Iranian strikes".
will US have enough power to do anything with Cuba?
The only thing US wants to do with Cuba is destroy it. Just like they have done in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and many other places. Some not in Middle East, Vietnam comes to mind. All the countries they brought "democracy" to.
And they have plenty of power to do that, they don't need aircraft carriers for Cuba, if any will survive the Iran missile attacks in the Gulf. For now however, they need the bombs in Middle East.
US didn't touch Cuba on purpose
I think that's a likely scenario. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, their priorities were expansion in Europe. Specifically Central and Eastern Europe. The project was important, New Khazaria (aka Israel 2.0, or Heavenly Jerusalem) and the main targets were Ukraine and Georgia. But, they had to expand first into the Baltic states. Also Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria were important due to their strategic location. And of course the Greater Israel project in Middle East.
And we have no idea if that purpose still in place
And if I'm correct then we do have an idea, the purpose is still in place. Because they haven't achieved either of the two goals. There is a war in Eastern Europe and another one just started in Middle East.
I didn't say they will succeed. But, I'm sure they're going to try. In fact it's happening right now with agitating the population in Havana and elsewhere in Cuba.
They still have the C.I.A. and Mossad, don't they?
Trump says US will take over Cuba: “We could very well end up having a friendly takeover of Cuba.”. https://newrepublic.com/post/207142/trump-friendly-takeover-cuba
Yes, both sides have dirty hands. I do think there's a lot of blackmailing going on. Epstein is just the tip of the iceberg. It's been going on forever.
Colonel Edward Mandell House, who was aligned with the bankers before World War I and who was the right-hand man of President Woodrow Wilson, wrote a book called Philip Dru: Administrator, published in 1905–1906, where he talked about the fact that they find someone who has a scandal in their past and they utilize that as leverage against them to blackmail them and then they put them in power. And President Wilson had letters from a lover he had, the wife of his Princeton colleague, which Samuel Untermeyer and Marshall purchased from her that they used to blackmail President Wilson.
Next President Wilson appointed to the first vacancy on the United States Supreme Court, the Zionist and Talmudic Jew, Louis Dembitz Brandeis. Then they got in the Federal Reserve Act and the income tax so that they could fund World War I. Then they instigated World War I. And then they had Wilson bring in America on the side of the British in exchange for the Balfour Declaration.
Why aren't people connecting dots?
Good question. “My ancestors, who came from a family of Jewish immigrants from Bessarabia (South Ukraine), bore the surname Nudelman, but my father changed it to Nuland,” - Victoria Nuland
Antony Blinken has roots in Ukraine. Blinken granddadfather, Meir Blinkin, was born in 1879 in Pereiaslav (now in Ukraine, then in the Russian Empire) to Yankel Blenchen (Blinkin) and Rys (Ruth) Kelman. There he studied at a religious Jewish primary school, followed by a business education in Kyiv. After starting a family, Blinken moved to the United States at age 25 in 1904.
and many more.
2015 flight logs confirm: CHUCK SCHUMER was flown to Little St. James, Epstein’s Island, aboard a private jet registered to a shell corporation out of Delaware.
Chuck Schumer family is from Chortkiv, Galicia, in what today is western Ukraine.
Pritzker ancestors are from the village of Velikiye Pritski, near Kiev. They emigrated to the United States in the 1880s, when the area, today we call Ukraine, was known as Pale of Settlement. Where Jews were allowed to reside, but not relocate from. The surname “Pritzker” is a Jewish habitational name for someone from Pritski in Ukraine.
If Jesus was a model that makes him unique by definition
Yeah, we have totally different definitions of "model" in this context. To me Jesus identified himself as the representative of humanity, the fully realized human being, the prototype of what humanity can become. Let me explain, I think I mentioned this before, but anyway... Jesus frequently uses a word to refer to himself in Aramaic as "Bar Nasha" or "bar enash". And this also appears throughout the canonical gospels. This has been translated as son of man. In English, it sounds like a claim to humanity, perhaps a humble counterpoint to son of God. Scholars have debated its meaning for centuries, spinning elaborate theological explanations. But in Aramaic, Jesus called himself Barnasha. And Barnasha doesn't mean son of man in the genealogical sense. It's an idiom that means the human being. Or more accurately, the human one, the representative of humanity, the fully realized human being, the prototype of what humanity can become. My point, 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. He was the pattern, the template, the demonstration model. When he said the barna has authority to forgive sins, he wasn't claiming exclusive divine power. He was demonstrating human potential when fully aligned with the divine. This understanding transforms the entire gospel message. Every time Jesus said Barnasha, he was pointing to human potential, not divine exclusivity.
You probably object to the formula "Jesus is God" because
No, I object to the understanding of this within the Christian communities. Jesus never said he was God. Bart Ehrman explains this in his book: "How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee".
Now it's my belief that any attribute of deity is shared by Yahweh-Jehovah and Yeshua-Jesus
It's your belief and that's fine. It's not mine.
Bart Ehrman says, "I no longer go to church, no longer believe, no longer consider myself a Christian."
That's exactly my experience and I didn't even know of Bart Ehrman when I decided to stop going to church. Today Bart Ehrman calls himself a historian of early Christianity. That's one of the main reasons I decided to look into his work.
We do know why Rome crucified Jesus, as Tacitus and Josephus and the Talmud agree: as a rebel against Caesar
Rome saw Jesus as someone who was threatening their power, their authority, their control over the region. Whether Jesus actually was trying to start a rebellion or whether the Romans just perceived him that way, we don't know.
But accepting Jesus for who he says he is, neither more nor less, is what unites you with him and protects you from all threats of all institutions (Rome included).
This sounds like a statement from Hebron Los Angeles Christian Mission. Their Mission Statement: “To share Jesus’s call and true path with all people willing to follow him.”. This church has placed its mission statement on its website’s home page next to its welcome message. Visitors don’t struggle to find the church’s purpose and get a feel for the organization immediately. Language like “Jesus is calling us to walk closer to him” is beautiful. It probably works on some people.
According to the gnostics, Jesus was divine too
No. That's not correct. The Gnostics were in agreement with the “proto-orthodox” Christians of their time about many things concerning Jesus. They saw him as an extension of God that had existed before the world was made, and who came to earth on a divine mission to bring salvation to humankind. But the Gnostics and the proto-orthodox disagreed with each other on several points including the nature of his being. And here we could also include the degree to which Jesus was a unique being rather than a model for others to follow. The Gnostics believe the whole purpose of Christ’s coming to earth had been to impart gnosis to people by awakening them to their true, divine nature, which had been covered over by the material world and forgotten. There is support for these views even in the canonical gospel of Luke, "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation, Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." - Luk 17:20-21
We discovered at Nag Hammadi 13 leather-bound papyrus codices, over 50 texts, the voice of Jesus that had been silenced for over a millennium. What these texts reveal is simple, dangerously simple. The divine is not located somewhere else. And that includes Jesus himself. The divine is accessible where you are. There is a piece of the source expressing through you. The Gnostics called it the divine spark. A fragment of the original light not trapped in your body like a prisoner but radiating through your body like light through a window. The window is not the light. But without the window, the light does not enter the room. The church cannot teach you this because if you know how to access the divine directly, you do not need a building to find it. You do not need an ordained intermediary. You do not need to pay, confess, or beg anyone for permission to connect with what was always accessible.
All Christians agreed Jesus died on a cross, as do all historians
Not all. For instance Bart Ehrman disagrees. According to him "We don't know. we don't have any eyewitness accounts of Jesus dying on the cross. We have records that are from probably 40 to 60 years later. Our first author who mentions Jesus is the Apostle Paul and he's writing in the 50s. Jesus died around the year 30. So, the first time we have Jesus mentioned in any source is about 20 years after his death.". Ehrman also mentions the first depiction of Jesus, a drawing: Donkey-Headed Jesus in Ancient Roman Graffiti, is from late second or early third century. He continues by saying "And it's a much debated thing. People say they know what it is, but in fact, it's debated among experts what it actually represent. It's clearly Jesus on the cross with a donkey's head, and a a graffiti next to it. But no, it's much later. So the first reference to Jesus at all would our our first Christian writing is the book of first Thessalonians and it's usually dated to the year 49 or 50. Jesus died around the year 30. So it's about 20 years later.".
So we're told that the Romans crucified Jesus. We don't know why. We are told that the Romans killed Jesus. And crucifixion is when the Romans nail you onto a wooden cross. And it's an awful way to die because how you're dying is actually not through the bleeding. You got nails hammered to the cross. You're dying because you have no energy. So your head hangs low, which means you're suffocating slowly. And it takes about 3 days for you to suffocate to death. And so this is like one of the worst punishments that the Romans could ever inflict on you. And really there's only two sets of people that the Romans will use crucifixion as punishment. The first type are thieves and bandits. These are considered like the lowest type of people. The second type of people are rebels. People who are trying to overthrow the Roman state. So Jesus, in other words, was probably a rebel or the Romans considered him a rebel. But, neither is correct. Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor couldn't find any fault in Jesus and didn't want to even kill him. Let alone agree to his crucifixion. So, I beg to disagree.
When I interact with people, I have one goal, Jesus's goal. The word "convert" should simply mean "turn", and people being turned to God the Father is a good thing
That's what I thought all along. Thanks for confirming.
I'm not saying I agree. To me this is exactly what the empire did not long after Jesus's death. And in the 4th century under Constantine, Church's transformation was complete. A movement that began as Jewish resistance to Rome, became Rome's official religion. A teacher who preached against wealth and power, became the spiritual justification for a hierarchical church that accumulated vast wealth and power. A message about inner transformation, became a message about institutional obedience.
If your pursuit of truth leads you to Islam, your keen grasp of issues will reveal to you the issues with Islam too
The Ebianites who believed Jesus was a human prophet, not divine, who continued to follow Jewish law, and who rejected Paul theology were declared heretics. Same thing happened later to the Marcionites, also declared heretics. Their texts were destroyed. Their communities were suppressed. James the Just who led the Jerusalem community for decades, was written out of the story in the NT. He barely appears. Paul is a hero, James is a footnote. The Ebianites eventually left Jerusalem. Some went to Arabia where their ideas influenced the development of Islam. If you read the Quran carefully, you'll see every slight influence. Jesus is revered as a prophet. He's not divine. He didn't die on a cross. He taught submission to God. The kingdom of God is both spiritual and political. So in a way, the original Jesus movement survived, but not as Christianity. It survived as a threat within Islam.
Later we have Medina in Arabia. There is a prophet Muhammad who is promising religious tolerance for all. All can practice their faith in peace. So it makes sense for a lot of these Jews, not all of them but a lot of them to join this early movement. At this point Islam Muslim is not a distinct religion. All these people are called believers because Muhammad himself is the final messenger of God. Abraham was the first. Then you had Moses. Then you have Jesus and now Muhammad is the very last. So all these three different traditions, the Christian tradition, the Jewish tradition and the Islamic tradition in the beginning were all just one religion, one idea which is to bring God to earth and make everyone understand that God is the true God. To create monotheism on earth, that's the origin of this new religion of Islam. And this is the constitution of Medina which is in the Quran and which we know to be historically true.
"God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are separate but equal": I understand your confusion seeing as the church doctrine is that they are not separate.
I'm not the only one confused by this church doctrine. This is the kind of logical paradox that has caused theological debates for 2,000 years, and we still don't have a clear answer. So, remember before the Council of Nicaea in 325, societies were paganistic or polytheistic. Then with emperor Constantine God became the Holy Trinity. The Holy Trinity is the weirdest idea in human history. The Holy Trinity is this; God is nothing and everything. And what this means is God is both real and not real. God is a symbol and reality itself. And because of this idea, people are now forced to think abstractly about the world. And it gives rise to money, nation state and science. Serves perfectly the imperial interests.
I have one agenda, namely Jesus.
You said this before. What exactly is your Jesus agenda? The Church’s goal is to convert people to Jesus, is this what you mean? is this your agenda?
Christianity it would have survived instead of essentially disappearing in the 3rd century. The orthodox arguments and texts stand, and Marcion's works didn't survive, which is not an indication that Marcion was so much better but an indication that he had nothing to say
My guess is you have no idea how power works. Don't take this the wrong way, most people have no idea how power works. So, let me summarize the concept of power. So, you've been brainwashed into thinking certain ideas about who we are. They're not true. The first myth is we humans are driven by material desires. So, why do we want what we want? We want to pass on our genes. We want to marry a lot of beautiful women who are young and so they can give us a lot of babies because we want to pass on our genes. And we want to maintain our status. All we care about is power. Fundamentally we humans are nothing but imagination. And we care about three things. The first is we want to express our religion through art, music and rituals. We want to know where we came from, why we're here, where we're going. That's who we really are. That's the first thing. Second thing is we are diverse and want to differentiate ourselves. We want to stand out. We want to be different. We want to be creative. The third thing is we are curious and want to explore. And that's what explains why we go everywhere. This has been true throughout human history.
Let me give you a concrete example, Islam. So, what is the power of Islam? And I want you to remember this. Islam's power comes from how Islam is able to unite two major intellectual traditions in the world. The first is paganism. Remember the Vikings? The Vikings told stories. They acted out rituals. And therefore, there was an intimacy, concreteness, an interconnectedness to paganism that made us feel happy and good. It made us understand the world. It made us feel as though we could influence the world. That's the power of paganism.
But Islam is doing the same thing by making God concrete. You can feel God. God is everywhere. He knows everything. But what Islam is also doing is it's seeing the simplicity, clarity, and absoluteness of monotheism. Monotheism is nice because with monotheism, everything becomes clear to you. There's one God. Therefore, I just have to follow him. I just have to believe in him. There's like a million gods in paganism. So, it's unclear what you should do or how you should relate to these million gods. But here in monotheism, the relationship between God and you, it's very clear. So, in other words, Islam is a major intellectual revolution in human history. And we have forgotten this because Islam the idea has embedded itself into modernity itself. We forget that Islam really built the basis for modernity. Fulfillment of the law and the prophets is completing the story in the Bible. It's bringing God to the people. You can now touch God. You can now know God. That's the beginning of the idea of Protestantism and create heaven on earth.
So you don't seem to be committed to seek the truth wherever it leads and to accept the facts of history.
On the contrary I would say I'm committed to seek the truth wherever it may lead. That's why I'm studying Kabbalah and Islam, both at the same time. Why? because God wants us to make the world better. Let me ask you three questions. First question is why did Islam enter its golden age and Christian Europe enter its dark ages? Second question is why did the Islamic golden age end? And third question is how did Christian Europe overtake the Muslim world? IMO, to answer these three questions, all we have to do is compare and contrast these three major religions together. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. There are both strength and weaknesses to all religions.
For instance Judaism, you could say it's very hard to pick out a definite message from the Bible. And that's why the oral tradition is actually much more important. And so Jews have to go to the synagogue all the time where the rabbi will explain to them the meaning of the Bible because if you read it by yourself, it's almost impossible to understand. Second problem is their God Yahweh is very problematic. He doesn't seem to know what he's doing and he's very, violent. He often commands the Israelites to go kill all their enemies. The third major problem in the tradition is faith versus history. If you believe that you are the chosen people, if you believe that Yahweh is the only true God, then why are you being persecuted all the time? Why were the Romans able to kick you out of Jerusalem and burn down your temple, which is the house of God? Why do you lack a homeland? And this has been going on for thousands of years.
So the Christian faith was created in many ways to try to resolve a lot of the issues within the Jewish tradition. The first major advantage of the Christian faith is it's the purification and perfection of divinity. Remember how we said that Yahweh is problematic? Well, now we have Jesus who we can understand and Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice. Therefore, we know him to be the ultimate good. Second advantage is now that there's a person, we can have him deliver a consistent message of being kind, being merciful, being loving. The third advantage is the idea of progress, of history ending. History is leading to the return of Jesus the second coming. So you may suffer now but don't worry because Jesus is returning and that will end history for us. So these are the advantages of Christianity. But when you do that when you have Jesus personify God you create a lot of issues. The first issue is it's a really confusing story. Why would God come down to earth, manifest himself as a human, and then sacrifice himself? That's really, really confusing. Like, I know there's a lot of really good explanations as to why this is the case. Still, if you're just a normal person, you can't understand the story. It makes no sense to you. Second a lot of the ideas in Christianity, it's just counterintuitive. The Holy Trinity must be the strangest idea in religion where God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are separate but equal. It makes no intuitive sense to anyone. The third is distant divinity. God is out there somewhere. You don't know where. You can't talk to him. You can't see him. You have absolutely no idea where he is. It's a very distant divinity. And so these are the disadvantages of Christianity.
And so Islam now makes sense because it's trying to remedy and rectify these failings of Christianity. The first is that it takes the Jewish tradition and the Christian tradition and makes it part of itself. So it is really the continuation and the perfection of the Jewish Christian tradition. Second is the absoluteness of God. This is now true monotheism where God is everywhere and you can see him. But if God is everywhere then what's amazing is that you can now that God can come inside you through your faith, through your devotion and through your practice. And so what this means is you now know how to behave in the world. There's a clarity of purpose and action. You know that as long as you do those five things, those five pillars of Islam, your life will be good. God is in you and that gives you strength and purpose and power.
archon (ruler) is from Greek archein (reign);
I'm not sure why you bring this up, I consider it unimportant. But, here you go "Archon (Greek: ἄρχων, romanized: árchōn, plural: ἄρχοντες, árchontes) is a Greek word that means "ruler", frequently used as the title of a specific public office. It is the masculine present participle of the verb stem αρχ-, meaning "to be first, to rule" - Wikipedia
That's just what the Kenites and Pharisees from the Synagogue of Satan want you to believe. The serpent seed Edomites who have infiltrated Christianity... because their god is literally satan/lucifer
I'm looking forward to your upcoming video. Have you ever heard of the Reality of the Rulers, a Gnostic text, whose title is also sometimes translated as the Nature of the Rulers or the Hypostasis of the Archons? this is one of the manuscripts discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi in upper Egypt. The texts contain insights which are valuable today, and describe the same ruling principles and the war against inner and external truth, which can only be overcome through the understanding of governing principles. The Nature of the Rulers is a short text which describes the manipulation of Adam and Eve, the blind god Samael, also known as Lucifer, and the archons. It was originally composed in Greek sometime in the second century AD. And was probably written in either Alexandria, Egypt or in Syria, since the text features a number of Syriac words.
Archons are referred to in this text as the rulers. The word archon comes from the Greek arcane to rule, and archon meaning ruler. This also referred to the nine magistrates of Athens. The term was resurrected in the 16th century, ecclesiastically pertaining to a ruling status as in archdeacon and archbishop. In Gnostic Christian terms, they are thought to represent fallen angels, which explains Samael leading the archons. In another Nag Hammadi text, The Origin of the World, the archons impregnate Eve. From this we get the Freemasonic Brotherhood of Cain. The Lucifer spirit impregnated earthly Eve, and she gave birth to Cain. As this was before the union with Adam, Cain was the son of a widow, as Lucifer or Samael had left Eve before the birth of Cain. Well, this is the belief system of the Luciferian Brotherhood of Cain. The highest goal of Freemasonry is to control through the sons of Cain and destroy the force they feared by the non-spiritual enemies of these early Christians. So, this force that was feared by the opposers of the early Christianity led into the formation of Freemasonry and this belief system.
Look, I was right, now you're just getting dogmatic and sectarian. You decided to tell everyone a "narrative" without any backing about Jesus and his disciples
No, I was right. You are a person with an agenda and proved it with this message. If you were only looking for truth you would not use harsh language like "you decided to tell...". I haven't "decided" anything, I don't have an agenda. I believe you do and to you if it's not in the canonical gospels is not proof. Well, you're not going to find the secret teachings of Jesus in the canonical gospels. For that you will have to read the manuscripts found at Nag Hammadi, 52 of them. You mentioned to me you will brush up on that. Any progress? There, in 1945 they discovered more than a dozen other gospels which were never included in the Bible. That is where you will find backing for my story. You will also find my story mentioned by early Christian theologians and evangelists like Marcion of Sinope.
Frakes hosted a show
I'm not interested in what Jonathan Frakes has to say, unless you can prove to me he's not connected with Jeffrey Epstein. Many in Hollywood are.
you don't get to write a new past about Jesus rejecting Scripture
Jesus's mission was not to confirm the scriptures. For 2,000 years, we have been told that God is love, that he is the father of light. Yet, open the Old Testament, and you meet a different entity entirely. A being who demands the blood of infants. A being who drowns the world in a fit of rage and requires the smell of burning flesh to be appeased. Why would you think Jesus came to earth to tell us about Yahweh? we already knew, by reading the Old Testament. Was Marcion right? Marcion preached that the benevolent God of the Gospel who sent Jesus into the world, as the saviour, was the true Supreme Being, different and opposed to the malevolent deity, the Demiurge or creator deity, identified with Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible. Could it be that our so-called official New Testament might have actually been deliberately reassembled later to counteract Marcion's version? IMO, that's exactly what happened. The early church leaders were reacting to his influence. They took his challenge so seriously that they constructed a new cannon, four gospels, Acts, and everything else in such a way to police his ideas.
To me sounds like they were building an entirely new narrative just to shut him up. Like I said many times before, use critical thinking, imagine you have a groundbreaking blueprint and then someone comes along and says, "Nope, we need the standard model.". And you re-engineer the whole building. It's counter-programming at its best. And then there's Marcion's theology itself. He claimed the god of the Hebrew scriptures, the Demiurge as he called it, was a legalistic, violent figure, totally separate from the merciful God revealed by Jesus. That's also what my story tells. Scholars like Adolf von Harnack even went on record calling Marcion the first Christian theologian, kind of the original canon creator. It's like he was the architect behind what we might have otherwise considered early Christian theology. Then the Church started attacking him, why? because Marcion was very popular. They literally wrote about how Marcion's followers were everywhere, even in every nation. As Justin Martyr and Tertullian noted, Marcion's church stretched from Italy across Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, North Africa, and even into Arabia, and Cyprus. It was a phenomenon. Marcionite communities were notably well organized, arguably more so than the proto-orthodox churches, which were somewhat fragmented at the time. So, for at least a 70 years period, his version might have been the most coherent form of Christianity around. That's pretty incredible, but not widely understood.
To me the New Testament canon seems in many ways like a reaction against Marcion's version. For example, Irenaeus writing around 180 AD insisted there must be exactly four gospels. No more, no less. Interesting, because Marcion's had only one gospel. So the inclusion of say Acts and the Old Testament cannon came in as a sort of counterpoint. These became deliberately essential to the new narrative that emerged to contrast with his selective cannon. It's like a built-in rebuttal. But isn't it a little bit of a stretch to say that the entire NT was constructed solely as a response to Marcion? not in my opinion. Furthermore, many modern scholars argue that the NT was published as a collection specifically constructed against Marion's challenge, not just organically inherited. This challenges the comforting narrative that the canonical Bible just dropped fully formed from the heavens. It suggests instead that what we received was a hard-fought outcome of doctrinal battles. So, if Marcion's version was so dominant and coherent, why did it eventually get erased? and his church thrived for over 70 years and persisted in some regions into the fourth and even fifth centuries, why its sudden disappearance? as I said before to you, the history as we know it was written by the eventual winners. It's like the voices of the vanquished were deliberately silenced. So, if history is written by the winners, then perhaps our understanding of early Christianity is missing, has deliberately omitted a whole perspective. I don't believe you are a person who thinks the Bible just fell from the sky fully formed. So, think about what I'm saying, the story of religion isn't a straightforward path but a battleground of ideas, sometimes even forbidden ones.
The Christ energy within can't be controlled so as it rises
Yes, people are beginning to understand, a soul that knows it carries eternity within cannot be controlled. A soul that sees reality as layered illusion cannot be confined by fear. And a soul that awakens to the real light of Christ cannot be enslaved by any false power, no matter how vast.
people will refuse to be treated like a slave
True, however, IMO, they know that. That's why they want to make humans slave to AI. Anytime you let a bureaucratic elite take over, they will think of ways of how to reinforce the power for technology. And this has led to the rise of AI. The bureaucrats in charge have no imagination. They have no empathy. All they care about is well, are we checking off the boxes?
Let me share with you the AI results: "The province of Yehud was established by Cyrus the Great in 539 BCE. It was created to absorb the Babylonian province of Yehud, which had been established by the Neo-Babylonian Empire to absorb the Kingdom of Judah after the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. 13 The province was named Yehud Medinata, which is the Aramaic designation for the Persian province of Judah. It was an autonomous administrative unit within the larger satrapy of Eber-Nari (Beyond the River). 135 The establishment of the province reflected the empire's decentralized governance model, which permitted local ethnic groups to maintain customary laws and religious practices under appointed officials to ensure regional stability and minimize administrative costs in peripheral areas. 3".