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.
Don't know. I presume it's some conservatives who want to continue r/TheDonald energy but don't have an immediate new upbump for it after J6 and are investing millions in speculating that another takeoff will occur. I believe the "no racism" rule was already present at Reddit, so even if it plays into Jewish hands it wasn't original with this admin.
Okay, I see he got 7 posts deleted, so that suggests that it's part of a spam compilation, while I was thinking of judging it on its own merits. Perhaps I give Guy too much slack, but I try to give him the same amount I give you, fren.
Right. Using the "Manage Rules" tool in the toolbox will allow you to add to the list that appears when you click the first category there (local rules). If you don't see that tool, pester admin to give you access!
I previously commented on the subject and had the thread open to post my details in without realizing it had been deleted. It wasn't spam, it was meta; and I will agree the topic need not get special treatment here, even though I was upholding the topic and pointing out the facts I had access to. The community should be able to judge its members based on the objective facts, but having a mod keep the process orderly and direct matters to a different forum is perfectly fine.
Yes, Jesus and Paul cut against much tradition, and aligned with much other tradition, just as the NT says.
-
Purity: Tradition understood there was natural law for all people (the Ten Commandments, the laws of Noah) and there were Mosaic laws specifically for the tribe of Jews (e.g. circumcision and kashrut and antimiscegentation). Tradition also admittedly added to Moses with commands about not associating with Gentiles (as well as candle-lighting, keeping Purim, and other things added at this time). Jesus taught and kept Mosaic purity and taught that the disciples' righteousness should exceed that of the Pharisees (emphasizing that it cannot be done by mere human effort). Paul said very specifically how he applied these first two bodies of law (Noah and Moses) and how he didn't always follow the third body (oral tradition). "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law" (1 Cor. 9:20-21). This is standard rabbinical paradox, meaning two senses apply. He is under the law to (of) Christ and so he can operate "as" under the law; and he is also free from all human law (19) so he can operate "as" without law. This is the meaning of neither circumcision nor uncircumcision mattering, it's the teaching of Christian liberty to judge all things. When Paul defended himself before the Romans, according to Luke, he claimed not to have offended the law of Moses in the slightest (Acts 22:3, 24:14, 25:8); he also prepared for this, at the counsel of representatives of myriads of Torah-observant Messianic Jews, by paying for sacrifices to be offered, which they hoped would prove "that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law" (Acts 21:24). So it's not open-and-shut to say that, even though Paul (and the whole Jerusalem Council of Acts 15) agreed on not putting laws of Moses forcibly upon Gentiles, he thereby had anything against the law; in fact, to say so agrees with his Jewish accusers, who also persecuted all the other proto-Christians before Paul. I showed you that Paul preaching faith in Jesus was the same as Jesus preaching it. But Paul never preached to Jews not to circumcise their children to gain Greco-Roman networking power; the Hellenists did that, but Paul aligned with the Torah-observant ("many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law", 21:20). There was never a message of allowing Jews to become Roman and not Jewish, it wasn't ever a Jewish concept.
-
Persecution: I wouldn't describe this as a complex in the first place; it was more, unique role requires special resignation about suffering. Paul (who was tried and executed by Rome) just didn't preach a message of Romanism saving anyone, nor did he do anything to distract from Jesus's message of crossbearing, but perpetuated it. Under house arrest by Rome for two years, he didn't preach citizenship; he preached salvation of God to Jew and Gentile, the kingdom of God, and the lordship of Jesus Christ (Acts 28:28-31). I don't see evidence for your idea that he taught Hellenism. Now, Philo of Alexandria taught Hellenism, but I know of no historical linkage to Saul of Tarsus. (Greek Philo and his Hebrew name Yedidyah mean "beloved"; Latin Paulus means "small".)
-
Messianism: Have looked into this recently and can say, the development of messianism in the centuries before Jesus was not monolithic. Daniel, Enoch, the apocrypha, and the Mishna make clear that there were tensions among many messianic pictures floating in the culture. He might arise suddenly or be born in Israel and quietly grow up Jewish; he might be supernatural or very human; he might destroy the evil empire or he might be utterly cut off by them; he might suffer for his people or he might deliver them victoriously. There was no single notion of warrior-king "only" at this time (it was only much later that Jews pushing back against Christians played that side up and played the suffering side down). For instance, Ps. 110, quoted so often in Jesus's time, emphasized both victory, and a repose where the Messiah sits patiently at God's righthand until the time comes for him to demonstrate peace by drinking freely from the brook. It was a deliberate paradoxical teaching and the people who were honest admitted that, which is why many couldn't determine if Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus said he would bring a sword at the right time, and John saw the same, but that his immediate purpose was to build a community founded on Peter's confession of the Messiah. His clever teachings were more ambiguous about Rome than people think: render Caesar's image to Caesar, but man is God's image and cannot be rendered to Caesar; and turning another cheek to a striker publicly shames the striker for his injustice just as going the second mile shames the Roman soldier who demands the first one under color of law. Again, both Paul and Jesus preach the same Messiah, the epitome of love who will yet crush rebellion at the right time and deliver all creation in a final reconciliation.
this is a very radical view about Paul you haven't heard before. That he is a spy working for the Roman empire.
Parts I haven't heard, yes. But that's because the evidence doesn't point most people there. How far could I go with it? Perhaps Paul's citizenship led him to desire a chief gatekeeper position in the Messianic sect, but it didn't make good Roman citizens in his day because he and the other apostles led many myriads to go to martyrdom rejecting the Roman gods. Rome hated Jews and Christians equally for the same reason, as Tacitus shows. So is he just infiltrating to remove a message of gnosis that would take primitive Christianity in another direction? That appears plain from his calling it pseudognosis, but it doesn't mean his track is Roman (in fact Rom. 16 shows how big the Roman church was before he ever arrived, and it just kept getting more a thorn in Rome's side). So can we find a message of gnosis that was suppressed? A little bit, but it wasn't taught by Jesus or any apostle as such. They didn't have a problem with gnosis, they had a problem with apostasy (separatism, standing against), as John says. It's just that gnostics so often formed separatist schools; those who didn't had schools that were accepted and integrated, notably Montanus. And it was centuries before a long series of compromises allowed the Christian system to be coopted by Rome, so Paul's contributions to offer concessions to Gentiles (never to Jews) were only one of many steps in that direction.
You do offer a rationale that current political Judaism would be appealed to by a Hellenizing message. As one who's studied the current situation, I take a different approach, going back to Jesus's words that the Pharisee types should do even more than they do. 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). They should be willing so much more to suffer that they risk their comfort zone of associations with other Jews and begin to step out of their entire safety net, as so many Messianic Jews have done who have been disowned by family and culture alike. They should be so much more demanding of "Moshiach Now!" that they bring him into their hearts where he's always wanted to reign the most. That is their salvation within their own system much more than Hellenization could ever be. Yes, Philo's message is still a draw for many secular Jews today, but it's not real Judaism and it's not their destiny. They should become more risky and unpredictable because Jesus's followers are known for turning the world upside down, and that's a threat to the state that can never be undone. Resistance is futile: statism will be assimilated. Not by dead organization, but by a living organism.
Jews who had Greek fathers and Jewish mothers.
Paul ensured one such was circumcised, Timothy; he never preached Hellenism. It was only the Jerusalem Council en masse that continued Judaism by affirming that there was no pressure on Gentiles to be proselytized, or not to be.
I will grant that Rom. 13 preaches acceptance of the powers that be (Jewish or Gentile), insofar as conscience permits, while Peter and John made the conscience factor much more explicit in Acts 4-5. But even in Rom. 13 Paul appeals back to Jesus's statement of rendering unto Caesar, which as I pointed out creates a perfect delineation: powers have the right to claim taxes but not the right to claim your conscience, which is God's possession. Timothy Baldwin points out in detail that this passage is not a suicide pact with Rome but a recognition that peaceful civil disobedience is limited to true appeals to conscience. So even there I don't see that Paul's demarcation was different from Jesus's cagey one. You note "Jesus had nothing against the Roman Empire", but then you appear to fault Paul for having nothing against the Empire either.
So it's a very interesting case, and I'd be happy to look at any neglected aspects. I'm not seeing a historical narrative in which Paul's contribution to Christianity is the problem, or in which some other contribution was unduly silenced. The judgment against any gnostic teaching was always local over the entire gnostic period and not targeted against a gnostic position in general; and Christians accepted many texts on gnosis that were nonbelligerent, such as the wonderful Odes of Solomon, the Shepherd of Hermas, of course the Gospel of Thomas, etc. The only reason these faded is that they didn't have the staying power that Christians saw in the books that they eventually approved as canonical. I have every respect for your proposal that there is more to look at, but when it comes to your motivation narrative for Paul it sounds like you're just assuming Philo's motives onto him even though they don't appear in the Pauline corpus. Sure there were many Hellenists in the Philo school, many Alexandrians, but they were strongly quashed from 66 on, and they were only later represented by Athenians who carried the Hellenist trend in their place, i.e. Athenagoras and Clement. The Alexandrian school was always a distinct movement from the Jerusalem and Rome movements in Christianity. So I just continue not to see a fit of your narrative to the facts about Philo and Paul, even granting the best hypotheticals to you.
keep an open mind
Open-mindedness is then the honor code.
without using derogatory (disrespectful) language
we recognize that not every one of any people group are all the same
Disrespect, collectivism: I'll reserve the right to report those gradually to the level I think fitting. Disrespect includes ad hominem, collectivism includes all dehumanizations.
use the report function for violations but not to overuse it for petty reasons
Misuse: The logs will show if a particular user is getting overreported and people can then inquire if report misuse has occurred.
low quality, trolling, stalking, spam, and those submissions/comments determined to be intentionally misleading, calls to violence and/or abuse of other users here, may all be removed at moderator's discretion.
Hypermeta, low-quality, disruption, stalking, spam, misleading: Speak for themselves.
we are not tolerating calls to viole[n]ce (death wishing) and verbal abuse or harassment
Violence: I'm glad people are steering clear of that.
Harassment: This one is loosely defined and abusable because anyone can report "feeling harassed". I presume this is limited to objective categories like gaslighting, excessive sarcasm, or illogic.
I'd suggest that briefly stated subcategories of rules, such as the one-word summaries above or the margin text, be added to the report function (using the Manage Rules page, aka /config/reports). The disclaimer should be broken into several report categories rather than left a single category. Currently you can only report for site rules or rule 1.
Thanks. As I said, my chronology has been posted here (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9) where parts 7-9 are about future events.
Some of your text suggests you think AI, or its sources, will have a better view of "how it'll go down in reality" than the Bible will. Those other sources are mostly wishful thinkers, with a few hints from cabal plans thrown in (but most of those plans are public anyway like UN "goals" agendas). They've also been batting horrendous averages on getting those plans done; they just rework them and churn them like any human institutions that fail regularly. IMHO, Jesus has revealed all that we need to know about specific times and sequences in the Bible, which I tried to summarize in the links above. Everything else is just geopolitics analysis and can change without notice.
From appointment on 2026-01-30 17:10:26 (GMT) through 2026-02-01 00:00:00, u/Thisisnotanexit engaged 360 mod actions. A few duplications, a single unspecified "other" action, and a handful of "ignores" that were appended to other actions, are not filtered out in the counts below, making them imperfect but sufficient totals.
Accounts listed with actions and counts [and percent adverse]:
amberscornful removed post 1 [100%]
Antero ignored reports on comment 1, removed comment 2 [67%]
BeefyBelisarius ignored reports on comment 1 [0%]
BuckeyePatr1ot ignored reports on post 1 [0%]
ChippingToe ignored reports on comment 1 [0%]
CrusaderPepe ignored reports on post 6, removed post 6 [50%]
defenderOfMontrocity ignored reports on post 1, removed post 1 [50%]
Dps1879 removed post 1 [100%]
Dregan_ya ignored reports on comment 1 [0%]
DresdenFirebomber approved comment 1, banned 1, ignored reports on comment 5, ignored reports on post 5, removed comment 53, removed post 9 [85%]
ErnestWorrell removed comment 1 [100%]
FallenNephilim ignored reports on post 1 [0%]
freedomlogic ignored reports on comment 1 [0%]
gaw-mods-are-gay approved comment 1, removed post 1 [50%]
Graphenium removed comment 2 [100%]
guywholikesDjtof2024 approved post 1, ignored reports on comment 4, ignored reports on post 7, other 1, removed post 7 [35%]
Halivxu ignored reports on post 1 [0%]
HangYourself banned 1, ignored reports on comment 14, removed comment 40 [75%]
hl65 removed post 1 [100%]
jamesbillison approved comment 4 [0%]
JosephGoebbel5 ignored reports on comment 2, ignored reports on post 9, removed comment 16, removed post 17 [75%]
JosephMalta banned 1, ignored reports on comment 1, ignored reports on post 1, removed comment 8 [82%]
KarlSumeran removed comment 1 [100%]
LastEvidence removed post 1 [100%]
lightupthesequence removed post 1 [100%]
LilyThread removed post 1 [100%]
Mindhunter removed post 1 [100%]
Mrexreturns ignored reports on post 1, removed comment 1 [50%]
Neo1 ignored reports on comment 3, removed comment 2 [40%]
newfunturistic ignored reports on post 2 [0%]
normandis removed post 1 [100%]
Psalm50 removed post 1 [100%]
qboro_nyc removed comment 1, removed post 2 [100%]
RealityWiener removed comment 3 [100%]
RealWildRanter ignored reports on comment 2, ignored reports on post 5, removed comment 4, removed post 5 [56%]
StolenCBSContent1 removed post 1 [100%]
SystemGayAlt ignored reports on comment 1, removed post 1 [50%]
TallestSkil ignored reports on comment 1, removed comment 2 [67%]
TCDforver ignored reports on comment 1, removed comment 2 [67%]
thatware removed post 1 [100%]
Theunpopular1 ignored reports on comment 1, removed comment 1 [50%]
Third-Eye-Vision removed post 1 [100%]
Thisisnotanexit ignored reports on post 1, stickied post 2 [0%]
TurnToGodNow approved comment 1, ignored reports on comment 31, ignored reports on post 3, removed comment 22, removed post 1 [40%]
Vlad_The_Impaler ignored reports on comment 1, removed comment 3, removed post 1 [80%]
WeedleTLiar ignored reports on comment 1, removed comment 1 [50%]
Xsaymoklash removed comment 1 [100%]
This suggests to me that (1) all accounts at 0%, 50%, or 100% are the result of very few actions and, when adverse, are likely minor points that the account holder learned from; (2) all accounts between 0% and 50% are likely to have been subject to reporting abuse; and (3) all accounts between 50% and 100% are likely to need to review the rules better. Reviewing the list with these categories in mind yields categorizations that objectively agree with the rough impressions I had previously formed of these accounts. Though others are free to disagree, this indicates objectively at a first pass that moderation is being conducted moderately, i.e. with thought and attention rather than reflexively. While each person's conception of rules is different, I'm at least gratified that my own are not too different from those implemented, suggesting that refusal to follow the rules as stated is indeed a choice that can be disciplined, not a misunderstanding.
I propose that the community uses objective tests such as analyses like the above to make decisions about Not Feeding The Trolls. In particular, I said at Meta that two accounts, u/DresdenFirebomber and u/JosephGoebbel5 (in that order) are the first and second most likely to post large numbers of objectionable contributions at once, triggering the antiabuse filter when someone attempts to downvote conscientiously and thereby annulling the downvotes. I propose that, when a community member identifies another as a trolling account by some formal definition, one should not interact at all with such a person except for downvotes, and possibly rare attempts to wake the person up from troll behavior. (Note that even "troll" is not the best word, because dehumanizing, but it does have technical applicability.) I don't know whether paid shills are receiving anything for downvotes, so I can't comment on whether downvoting or ignoring is better.
I said I'd comment separately on appeals people have made about the reasons for mod actions. This survey doesn't cover that but I haven't seen anything untoward. I'll probably handle that by general public questions and comments in specific places rather than in a compiled report.
Other note to TINAE: We're probably ready for rotating stickies now, I find about 1-4 new stickies per day at a set check-in time, with unstickying after 2-4 days' time, are pretty good rules of thumb. This allows viewers of the main page to go directly to the best content and has no adverse effects (other than the mod getting accused of favoritism!).
If discussed, it is lowered to the level of discussion.
Correct, the word "Monad" is lower than the Monad. The word is sufficient for limited purposes but incomplete for perfect purposes. Only the Monad is complete in itself for its own perfect purposes, a reality we don't participate in, since all our experience is incomplete but sufficient.
Nevertheless, when discussed between two who see it in agreement, God says 'There Am I'.
Because it's sufficient, we can agree that "Monad" ("One"), and "True", and "God" are positive attributes that reflect this indescribable without describing it. When two seek meeting of minds, sufficiency of experience means sufficient agreement arises. Logically parsed, your statement says God affirms his being in discussion among two in agreement; so the surface sense doesn't say that much, although we might say it teaches another attribute, "Immanence". And you might want to say that God is "Agreement" itself.
None of this indicates any contradiction with developed Christian creed, which is why I'm mystified by your animus about it. It seems that you're affirming some core monistic concepts and you're denying some perversions of Christianity but that neither gets to a core that requires a parting of ways.
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).