Artful Revealer
Star
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2017
- Messages
- 4,574
It doesn't matter what A Freeman claims about Jesus Christ.It's more significant than that. He claims Christ is Lord of Lords. The Old Testament says God is Lord of Lords. Thus the Bible says Christ and God are Lord of Lords. Either there are two Lord of Lords, or Christ and God are the same.
You're still seeing everything upside down and backwards, through human eyes, trying to hammer fit your triangular Roman Catholic programming into a round hole.@A Freeman
Re Peter:
There's no contradiction. Your conclusion is drawn from non-sequiturs. Look:
Your scriptural reference:
Matt 10
5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.
This is in the context of the Little Commission where Jesus instructed His disciples to aid in the conversion the lost sheep (Israel). This does not include the Great Commission of the risen Jesus and the dispersion of the Apostles to go and baptize unto all nations:
Matt 28
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Peter obeyed Jesus Christ and went to the Gentile nations, which is testified in the First Epistle of Peter:
1 Peter 1
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:
Grace to you and peace be multiplied.
Really ... "satanic nonsense" (smh). The Knowledge of Good and Evil from a slave of the Law in all its glory! You're the living proof that people's minds are blinded in the reading of the Old Testament (2 Cor 3:14).
Why not show me the satanic content of the Acts of Peter instead of this mindless zealotic slandering.
As we have seen above, Peter going to Rome in no measurable way contradicts the command of Christ for He said "go and baptize unto all nations". Rome was not off-limits.
That same Eusebius, in that same book, wrote that Peter was crucified at Rome. See below.
Your scriptural reference:
John 21
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?”
And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.”
Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep. 18 Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me.”
The above verses do not say Peter would die of old age, it says he would die in old age. Again, you've made a non-sequitur fallacy, which is weird, since you're the logics expert and all.
Not only does it not say what you said it says, it has symbolic language possibly alluding to Peter's destiny being crucified (stretched out hands, girded (= binded) by another (to a cross?), carried where he doesn't wish to go (place of execution?)). It is typical Christian scripture that is subject to different levels of (non-contradictory!) interpretations. The literal or somatic sense of scripture, that which speaks to the body. The more profound deeper or psychic sense of scripture conveying earthly wisdom, which speaks to the soul. And thirdly, the spiritual or pneumatic interpretation, for those capable of hearing / understanding higher wisdoms, the mysteries of God.
Each one, then, ought to describe in his own mind, in a threefold manner, the understanding of the divine letters — that is, in order that all the more simple individuals may be edified, so to speak, by the very body of Scripture; for such we term that common and historical sense: while, if some have commenced to make considerable progress, and are able to see something more (than that), they may be edified by the very soul of Scripture. Those, again, who are perfect, and who resemble those of whom the apostle says, We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, who will be brought to nought; but we speak the wisdom of God, hidden in a mystery, which God has decreed before the ages unto our glory; — all such as these may be edified by the spiritual law itself (which has a shadow of good things to come), as if by the Spirit. - Origen, De Principiis, Book IV, 1:11.
With regards to Peter's death, the following is by no means conclusive proof, but it sure contrasts your perverted opinion of the Acts of Peter with the possible truth contained within.
+/- 200 AD:
How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! - Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, 36.
At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith. Then is Peter girt by another, when he is made fast to the cross. - Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15.
Peter appears to have preached in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia to the Jews of the dispersion. And at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer in this way. - Eusebius, Church History, Book III, 1.
Written in 1st century AD:
First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (5)
1 But let us pass from ancient examples, and come unto those who have in the times nearest to us, wrestled for the faith.
2 Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death.
3 Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles.
4 Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him.
You would render the Petrine Cross satanic solely because of modern Satanists' tendencies to invert Christian symbols. This has zero historical relevance and never did this have any negative connotations in the Church until modern history. It's a symbol of the Rock on which the Church of Christ was built, who gave his life for Christ by sharing His passion, but refused to be crucified as His Lord because he deemed himself unworthy. That's the Catholic meaning and anything else is nothing more than a rabid expression of anti-Catholic hatred which is manifest in your typicial Protestant and Islamic talking points.You're still seeing everything upside down and backwards, through human eyes, trying to hammer fit your triangular Roman Catholic programming into a round hole.
If the so-called "Gospel of Peter" or "the Acts of Peter" were actually genuine, or at least believable enough for them to pass them off as genuine, the RCC would have long ago incorporated them into their corrupted versions of the Bible long ago.
But they didn't. Because they are obvious forgeries, written well AFTER the death of Peter by someone else, probably in an attempt to back-fill the so-called early papal history before Constantine.
There is absolutely no historical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome, nor any historical evidence that he was crucified on an inverted cross, which is an overtly satanic symbol.
This is all fairly irrelevant because the only stumbling block concerns the actual date of Peter's presence in Rome, not whether or not he was actually there at some point.Furthermore, there are additional Scriptural references that tell us Peter was never in Rome.
Galatians 2:7-9
2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision (Gentiles, including Gentile Rome) was committed unto me (Paul), as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision (Israelites), the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
2: 9 And when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision*.
Peter’s assignment: Circumcision = Jews (Jerusalem, Joppa, etc.)
Paul’s assignment: Uncircumcision = Gentiles (e.g. Rome)
Paul, in his letter to the Romans sent during the time that Peter was purportedly in Rome according to the RCC (c. 41-66 AD), sent instructions to the faithful there, along with greetings to at least two dozen people in Rome, none of which were Peter. Not only would it have been very rude for Paul to send a letter to Rome and purposefully exclude sending his greetings to their alleged leader, but it would have been completely unnecessary for Paul to send instructions at all had Peter actually been there. And in that letter, Paul wrote the following:
Romans 15:20 -Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:
So are we to believe Paul went to Rome to build/preach the gospel on Peter’s “foundation/territory”???
Right. Does it say "go and baptize unto all ISRAELITE nations"? Or are you twisting scriptures to your own benefit? Or are you inferring what the scriptures do not explicitly say? Hm. Pickle.Or that Paul was trying to take Gentile Rome back from a disobedient Peter, who could only have gone to Rome if he violated Christ's COMMAND? It doesn't matter what the Roman Catholic church wishes to call it in a vain effort to belittle Christ's COMMAND to His Disciples, it was still a COMMAND. “Do NOT go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.
This wasn't a "little commission", nor was it in contradiction with Christ's Command make disciples of all nations. The the Disciples were sent out to the all of the Israelite nations of the world, which were already scattered at that time, as you've quoted from 1 Peter 1:1.
I asked if Jesus broke the Law. A simple yes or no would suffice.And with regard to The Law, it's this simple...
God wants us to love and obey Him and His Law.
Satan wants us to disobey God and His Law.
That's why Satan has everyone looking for convenient excuses for not keeping The Law.
Father gave us The Law to protect us from evil and to set and keep us free. It isn't grievous to keep The Law, nor is it "slavery" as the Christian churches wrongly teach; it is the exact opposite.
Sin = breaking The Law, so all those who aren't keeping The Law are slaves to SIN. And the wages of sin are DEATH. Always have been, always will be (Ezek. 18:4, 20, Rom. 6:23).
Christ paid for our past sins (Rom. 3:25); He did NOT suffer the agony of the cross to grant us the freedom to sin (break The Law) with impunity. That's why Christ said that heaven and earth would pass away before the slightest punctuation mark (neither jot nor tittle - Matt. 5:18) would pass from the National, Moral Law of Israel (God's Law - found in the first give books of the Bible, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy).
If we would all keep The Law, the world would become the Kingdom of Heaven on earth that it was always meant to be. As long as the world continues to rebel against it, it will become more sinful and evil, until we would completely annihilate each other without Divine Intervention to save those few who should be saved.
Matthew 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the Elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
It seems also noteworthy to share that Paul, in his letter to the Romans, told us that he himself was living by The Law (Rom. 7:25), that The Law is Holy, Just and Good (Rom. 7:12), that he was establishing it everywhere he went (Rom. 3:31), and that only DOERS of The Law would be JUSTIFIED (Rom. 2:13).
Give up the Roman propaganda, lies and false idols and come to Christ, The Law made flesh. Only by knowing the Truth (Christ) can the Truth set you free (from sin and death).
You would render the Petrine Cross satanic solely because of modern Satanists' tendencies to invert Christian symbols. This has zero historical relevance and never did this have any negative connotations in the Church until modern history. It's a symbol of the Rock on which the Church of Christ was built, who gave his life for Christ by sharing His passion, but refused to be crucified as His Lord because he deemed himself unworthy. That's the Catholic meaning and anything else is nothing more than a rabid expression of anti-Catholic hatred which is manifest in your typicial Protestant and Islamic talking points.
Secondly, you would say the Gospel and Acts of Peter are forgeries because they weren't accepted by the Catholic Church, which is a fake church in itself according to you. Great bit of lucid reasoning there.
What do you consider historical evidence anyway? (this is a rhetorical question, you need not answer) The accounts mentioning Peter in Rome would be accepted as evidence (evidence does not equal proof) according to historical method.
This is all fairly irrelevent because the only stumbling block concerns the actual date of Peter's presence in Rome, not whether or not he was actually there at some point.
Re Peter going to the circumcised:
1. That he was assigned to go to the circumcised at one point, doesn't mean he didn't go to Rome at another point. (non-sequitur)
2. Gentiles does not equal Rome. Gentiles means those are are not Jews, which isn't limited to Rome.
3. It was James who stayed at Jerusalem with the Israelites. Peter was sent to the Jews outside of Israel who had or had not already converted to Christianity, because Christian Jews had also been persecuted and expelled by the Jews.
None of what you say proves Peter was not in Rome. There's absolutely no way to extract that from scripture. And even one could (which one couldn't), applying sola scriptura to establish historical facts is not a game I entertain, or should anyone, for that matter.
Right. Does it say "go and baptize unto all ISRAELITE nations"? Or are you twisting scriptures to your own benefit? Or are you inferring what the scriptures do not explicitly say? Hm. Pickle.
But this is an extension of your erroneous understanding of Gentile, it seems. It does not mean Rome, it means anyone who is not Jewish. After Jesus' mission in Israel was completed, the risen Jesus instructed the disciples to go to all nations, gentile or jew, and baptize them. This is Christianity 101. I've seen Judaizers before, but you're a special case.
I find it disturbing that you and your JAH brothers can get away with this butchering of Christian teachings and history whle making a claim to Christ.
You would go so far as to strip Jesus' greatest disciple, the one who recognized the Christ, the Son of the Living God, without revelation from flesh or blood, of his martyrdom, to validate your belief. There's some prince watching over this world who smiles at that.
More historical evidence:
Ignatius of Antioch's Epistle to the Romans, 4
I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.
Ireneaus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 1
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.
Eusebius, Church History, Book II, 14
But this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome against this great corrupter of life. Clad in divine armor like a noble commander of God, He carried the costly merchandise of the light of the understanding from the East to those who dwelt in the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven.
Eusebius, Church History, Book VI, 14
5. Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner:
6. The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.
The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Ireneaus
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.
Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries
His apostles were at that time eleven in number, to whom were added Matthias, in the room of the traitor Judas, and afterwards Paul. Then were they dispersed throughout all the earth to preach the Gospel, as the Lord their Master had commanded them; and during twenty-five years, and until the beginning of the reign of the Emperor Nero, they occupied themselves in laying the foundations of the Church in every province and city. And while Nero reigned, the Apostle Peter came to Rome, and, through the power of God committed unto him, wrought certain miracles, and, by turning many to the true religion, built up a faithful and stedfast temple 302unto the Lord. When Nero heard of those things, and observed that not only in Rome, but in every other place, a great multitude revolted daily from the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, went over to the new religion, he, an execrable and pernicious tyrant, sprung forward to raze the heavenly temple and destroy the true faith. He it was who first persecuted the servants of God; he crucified Peter, and slew Paul:
St. Jerome, On Illustrious Men, Chapter 1
Simon Peter the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion — the believers in circumcision, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia — pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord.
It's not that Peter was the Bishop of Rome himself, but that the body of bishops succeeded the body of Apostles. Rome was "passed the keys of heaven" symbolically and it became the Church built on the Rock to shelter the flock from being led astray. This is symbolically represented in the building of the Saint-Peter basilica on the tomb of Peter. (symbolically!) Even if Peter never went to Rome, it would symbolically make no difference.You're trying to argue that up is down and black is white, and it will NEVER work.
It absolutely does follow that Peter would not disobey Christ, as the RCC falsely claims he must have done, to allegedly become their first pope. There is zero scriptural evidence that Peter ever visited Rome, much less led a Roman church there, against Christ's Commandments.
That doesn't mean Gentile refers to Rome exclusively.It likewise absolutely follows that NON-JEWISH Rome was GENTILE.
In Catholic tradition, the Catholic Church became the New Israel since the old had rejected Christ's new covenant. Therefore the city and temple of Jerusalem were destroyed and the new Israel was born among the Gentiles. (This is Catholic tradition, this isn't my personal view.)And for reference, the word "gentile" means "foreigner", i.e. a non-Israelite. So it applies to all those who were not descendants of the 12 tribes of Israel; both the 10-house "House of Israel" and also the 2-tribed "House of Judah" (Judah and Benjamin). Also, ALL Biblical prophecy about God's People is about the PEOPLE Israel, NOT some church or organized religion, nor even the land of Israel, currently occupied by counterfeit Jews (Ashkenazis).
But the Israelites didn't distribute it all over the world. They killed their Messiah and many continued in their old ways of the priests and elders. They even beat Paul to near-death because they thought he was preaching not to follow the law of Moses.That's why the good news message (Gospel) had to go to Israel first, so that they could then distribute it all over the world, just as the British (Ephraim) and Anglo-Saxon American people (Manasseh) have done.
The Great Whore refers to the Wife who beds the wrong Husband, the Harlot who sleeps with the Devil, in other words, the church who worships the wrong Father. It refers to Jerusalem, not Rome.Of course an upside down cross is a satanic symbol. Only Satan's "mother-church" (the great whore) could actually con people into believing such an obvious satanic symbol is somehow not a satanic symbol.
It specifically means to not be led astray by ones who are called "father" or "teacher" when it contradicts the Word of God the Father.Revelation 17 and 18 describes the Roman Catholic church in great detail. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 calls the pope the "son of the destroyer". Christ told His TRUE Followers to call NO MAN FATHER UPON THE EARTH (Matt. 23:8-10 - He told His Disciples not to be priests, either) for good reason: because we all have ONE FATHER, Who is in HEAVEN.
This only works on those with anti-Catholic dispostions. It's pure slander and demonisation. It doesn't make sense either. Use of the Christian Cross originates with the proto-orthodox which became the standard symbol of Catholicism. Why would the Catholic Church do the exact opposite of itself? The Church introduced both symbols to begin with.So what does Roman Catholicism do? The exact opposite of course (Satan is Hebrew and means "the Opposer"). And then there's the pope, who has the supreme audacity to call himself "the Holy Father", a name reserved for God ALONE - John 17:11, i.e. he claims to be God Himself just as it says in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 in its description of the pope.
It's the same old videos and images we've been seeing for 10 years. Lucifer is Latin for "Lightbringer". The identification of Satan as Lucifer is meaningless and popularized by Alice Bailey. If you want to know the actual name of Satan, I think you'd be in for a suprise.Apparently, the only people that don't know (or won't admit) the Roman Catholic church actually worships Lucifer at their highest levels are their unwitting(?) parishioners.
Look man, you can't have these double standards, on one hand say that Peter didn't go to Rome because scripture doesn't say so, but then say Simon Magus went to Rome even though scripture doesn't say so either. It's written that Simon Magus went to Rome in the Acts of Peter, whose alleged inauthenticity you used against Peter having gone to Rome. It's amazing how you can think that Simon Magus founded the RCC after all this, considering you're using the exact method to arrive at such conclusion (with less evidence) which you yourself have so vigorously rejected when it concerned Peter.The Roman Catholic church will always defend its lies with its fabricated propaganda (more lies). That's all the so-called Gospel of Peter and the "Acts of Peter" are, and that's all they are: Roman propaganda, meant to bolster a made-up story about Simon Peter coming to Rome, to hide the fact it was Simon PATER, aka Simon the Sorcerer -- from Acts 8:9-24 - that actually went to Rome and founded the organization which eventually became the Roman Catholic church.
This is all mediatized baloney. The Catholic has no bigger p***philia problem than the average institution. On the contrary, it's on average less prevalent than the global average. And the p***philia problem in the Church has grown because of the rise of homosexuality in the Church over the past decades. The people within the Church know this.If Peter never went to Rome, then their entire house of cards comes tumbling down even if people aren't taking notice of the other overtly satanic things they do (e.g. raising and hiding p***phile priests, hoarding worldly wealth and treasures whilst people starve, etc. - see Matt. 6:24). So they have to hide the truth as much as they can, or it's game over for them and their lucrative business empire.
Yes, that's the Talmudo-Zionist conspiracy in a nutshell, to destroy the Church. Good to know where you stand on this, not that I'm surprised. But the prophecy concerns the actual Beast, the actual Whore of Babylon, friend, and it's not Rome.Not to worry though, it will be destroyed soon enough, exactly as Christ prophesied in His Revelation to John.
There's a subdivision in Christian teachings dividing humans along tripartite lines. The human soul can be carnal (hylic), those who surrender to the world of flesh, seeking material wealth and bodily gratification; animate (psychic), those torn between matter and spirit, capable of having faith and operating within the realm of justice; and spiritual (pneumatic), the god-breathed, those that transcend the realm of justice and are geared towards good and forgiveness.God Incarnate in Jesus+Christ (the human+Being) does not make Jesus (the temporary human) God.
human = human
Spirit = Spirit
The Spirit (i.e. Being, inside of the man who was named Jesus/Yeshua/Joshua) is Christ (and God Himself was also in Jesus along with Christ).
God Incarnate in Christ Jesus:
2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us The Word of reconciliation.
Emmanuel "God with us":
Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
The human that Christ (God's Eldest Son Michael) used 2000 years ago (born of Mary's body - i.e., the "son of Mary") was called Jesus/Yeshua/Joshua which means "Saviour".
Saul (the human), Paul (the being) who was a born-again babe student of Christ Jesus (The Master), was not God either:
1 Corinthians 7:40 ...I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
Humans (human animals) don't understand this (and they can never ever understand it, because humans can think only carnally - about human and material things only - because that is all that makes sense to a human).
To a human animal, the things of the spirit are not even real, because it cannot comprehend them (John 3).
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man (the human) receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they make no sense to him: neither can he understand [them], because they can ONLY be spiritually discerned [by the spirit - the Being part of the human+Being].
A human (someone who still believes that they are only human) cannot discern things of the Spirit (because they don't believe and therefore cant see that they are also spirit / a being).
1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
Jesus did not claim to be God and Paul did not claim to be God either, even when Paul said this:
1 Corinthians 7:40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
Until a person (awakens to the truth and) begins to understand the difference between what spirit is and what flesh is, it cannot be understood, because humans (flesh) are not only extremely thick, but they (the human animal body/"self") can only see and comprehend material things and not spiritual things. The Law (Torah) is also spiritual, which means humans can't understand it, because it (and being un-"self"-ish) is completely ALIEN to humans (to be unselfish and think about being of service to others, instead of existing only to be of service to "self" - selfish) and it makes no sense whatsoever to a human (human nature is entirely focused on "self" - selfish).
The Different Effects Of Nature And Grace.
Why should anyone believe this man-made doctrine/tradition over the Commandments of God?The Law of the Torah is not spiritual. It is partly (the Decalogue) an unveiling of sin to keep the "hylics" from sinning, and largely written by the hylics:
Now, as for the things which came forth from the <race> of the Hebrews, things which are written by the hylics who speak in the fashion of the Greeks, the powers of those who think about all of them, so to speak, the "right ones," the powers which move them all to think of words and a representation, they <brought> them, and they grasped so as to attain the truth and used the confused powers which act in them. - Tripartate Tractate
That seems to be describing three possible conditions; in that it can be either completely the "human condition" (completely unaware of spirit and existing as no more than a base animal; seeking only to gratify it's base animal instincts and not caring about others, unless they can be of use to add to it's own comfort or welfare - 100% selfish), to an intermediate state that is somewhere in the middle (an awareness that spirit exists but still confused and not sure as to who/what one is, the human-animal body, or the spiritual-being, and flip-flopping in between the two states, therefore confused and also confusing) to the state of "pure"/really "being" (awakened and aware of not being "the human" but that you are a spirit-being locked inside of the human-animal body and then through a continual conscious effort, acting accordingly and overcoming the human condition, daily (crucifying the "self" and it's selfish nature daily, until it is completely dead).There's a subdivision in Christian teachings dividing humans along tripartite lines. The human soul can be carnal (hylic), those who surrender to the world of flesh, seeking material wealth and bodily gratification; animate (psychic), those torn between matter and spirit, capable of having faith and operating within the realm of justice; and spiritual (pneumatic), the god-breathed, those that transcend the realm of justice and are geared towards good and forgiveness.
Those belonging to the thought and those of the representation are called "the Right Ones" and "Psychic" and "the Fiery Ones" and "the Middle Ones." Those who belong to the arrogant thought and those of the likeness are called "the Left", "Hylic", "the Dark Ones," and "the Last." - Tripartite Tractate
The "Being" you refer to seems more akin to the angels, our twins in Heaven (our "husbands") with whom we've been separated before the separation with our divine origins (which you would call Home) and who we have to meet in the bridal chamber for reunification.
The Law of the Torah is not spiritual. It is partly (the Decalogue) an unveiling of sin to keep the "hylics" from sinning, and largely written by the hylics:
Now, as for the things which came forth from the <race> of the Hebrews, things which are written by the hylics who speak in the fashion of the Greeks, the powers of those who think about all of them, so to speak, the "right ones," the powers which move them all to think of words and a representation, they <brought> them, and they grasped so as to attain the truth and used the confused powers which act in them. - Tripartate Tractate
How could "The Law made flesh" break The Law (Torah is Hebrew and means "The Law" in English). Did Christ do harm to anyone?
You know what, I might take you up on that offer. It's been a while since I've read the Gospels from front to back. Can I make you a counter offer?@Artful Revealer If I might offer a suggestion (of what has worked for me). Presumably, you have read the Torah (first 5 Books of the Old Testament/Covenant before - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy)?
If they seem like a struggle, here is something (only a suggestion, if) you may wish to test this approach, as an experiment.
If you struggle with the Torah, then go and re-read the New Covenant/Testament. The New Testament does not really take that long to read. Read it as much as you feel you wish, until you start to feel like you should read something else, (or, you may even feel like it's time to read the Old Covenant again) but then, once you have freshened up on the NT, now go back to reading the Torah. And while you read it, keep the NT in mind, don't forget about it and what happened in it.
I'm suggesting this since it is an approach that has worked at a particular time for me personally.
It's all in the Gospels. Christ's Teachings (God's Teachings that He gave to the world in/through His Son Jesus+Christ) is what takes "the veil" away to be able to see the spiritual meaning in the Torah.
The Levitical priesthood was also abolished by God in the NT (as God prophesied He was going to do, in Exek. 34) so this is essential to keep in mind as well.
"When THE "High-Priest of all time" was crucified by the jewish priests; lawyers and politicians, for challenging their authority, and the "Temple Veil" to the "Holy of Holies" was destroyed, this was to show the world that, from that moment on, the priest-hood was abolished FOR EVER, except for Christ Himself." - http://JAHTruth.net/passnot.htm
The ceremonial part of The Law (animal sacrifices & priesthood) have also been abolished. These were only there to serve as a schoolteacher/schoolmaster to bring people to Christ.
"Therefore the parts of The Old Covenant that relate to the priesthood, churches and the animal sacrifices, for redemption from sin, are now OBSOLETE." http://JAHTruth.net/nsong.htm#Lamb
As long as it's not on any condition, then yes of course (as was mine was to you, being offered only as a suggestion, if that suggestion happened to appeal to you). I've currently actually been hoping to be able to spend some more time catching up on reading more and commenting less.You know what, I might take you up on that offer. It's been a while since I've read the Gospels from front to back. Can I make you a counter offer?
I've been reading some chapters of the Way Home in order to stop being taken aback by some of your (plural) insights. So I offer as a suggestion that you would do the same to see where I'm coming from. Have the feeling you (plural) are sometimes equally taken aback by my responses as I am with yours.As long as it's not on any condition, then yes of course (as was mine was to you, being offered only as a suggestion, if that suggestion happened to appeal to you). I've currently actually been hoping to be able to spend some more time catching up on reading more and commenting less.
Thanks for being straightforward. That's all I ask.How could "The Law made flesh" break The Law (Torah is Hebrew and means "The Law" in English). Did Christ do harm to anyone?
Matthew 5:46-47
5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
What are your thoughts on the matter please?