Pope Francis - Man of Mystery

RaXz

Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
557
Likes
90
#21
Don't worry, Jesuit Pope Francis and the Vatican already has accepted Donald Christ, as they were also a part of his holy tour of last year.

Not long ago he worked together with Shimon Peres to make a one-world religion to combat terrorism, unfortunately mr. Peres went the way of the dodo before it could be finished, so hopefully his newest partner can continue the holy Masonic work.


 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
5,674
Likes
8,478
#22
I thought this talk was excellent as it brings out how Catholicism and Reformed Christians came to understand what it means to be a Christian. If you have ever wondered why there is such a gap in thinking this explains it better than I possibly could.

 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,175
Likes
2,378
#27
In islam we don't claim to be God inspired ie by the holy spirit. We understand that we (as a nation/ummah) are capable of falling far from the ideals of islam without falling into major evil ie shirk/polythiesm.

The problem with christianity is you literally all claim to have the holy spirit. You usually play the holy spirit card against islam ie when logic defeats you then you pull out the 'unless you have tasted the holy spirit you do not know' card.
So assume the holy spirit is in every christian the moment they accept Jesus as their lord and saviour...
how do you account for the catholic church?

After that, how do christians determine the correct way and are certain this way is 100% the correct one? remember based on the previous example either you can't trust the holy spirit or the holy spirit wasn't there....so how the hell can you be sure christianity is properly revived?


I have said this already...

-Marthin luther, was a lunatic. He thought the pope was the anti-christ yet thought the church was the 'whore of babylon'. Well which one is it? Luther had some good in him to recognise the evil in the catholic church but again how would he determine which beliefs/ideas in christianity were pure and which were not pure?
-Henry the 8th attacked Martin luther for nothing else but vanity when he was 'right' with the pope. However he entered into a war with france (their king was his cousin) for vain reasons. In the fallout he fell out with the Pope and the emperor of the holy roman empire (spain) who was his nephew in law. Long story short, all these vain reasons caused him to divorce his wife..going against the teaching of Jesus.
Make no mistake about it, Henry's u-turn was/is the biggest reason why the reformation happened and why YOU are protestant.
So your 'rock' is King Henry the 8th.

-Still, the man who had his ear at that time was Thomas Cromwell, again how did Cromwell determine what aspects of catholicism to keep or leave? In the end, Thomas Cromwell went to germany to pick a protestant wife for Henry but due to their sectarian views Anne of Cleves wasnt allowed to show her face. When Henry didnt find her attractive he was pissed at the protestants, had cromwell killed then decided to do a half assed job of the reformation ie go half way and thus try and prevent a catholic rebellion.

My history is not perfect but i remember much of this from History class. What i thought at the time was 'these disgusting eople were the ones who determined the position of almost half of christians?'.

Basically it is like House Saud's alliance with ibn Wahab (the founder of the wahabi movement). These people are fanatical and vain, to follow them would be madness.
So if you don't follow catholicism but follow protestanism imo you are worse.



With that said, have you not noticed whenever I talk of the trinity these days I say it refers to the Trancendent Essence, the Macrocosmic expression and the microcosmic expression? ie the expression is God's Immanence........and God is in Immanent in the Logos (the son/image of God) and the Holy Spirit (in us).
THIS view, I realised it is THE original trinitarian view ie the belief is that the son and holy spirit are God's Immanence rather than God's Trancendence.
So why do we have a problem here? it's because for some reason, due to indoctrination no doubt, you have altered the Logos so it is Jesus exclusively and forget that the Logos is everywhere. It may have come in the flesh as Jesus but it is certainly everywhere and I have quoted from the NT before to prove this, yet never once had a direct reply to that point.
When you forget this then you remove yourself from God's Immanence in all things (to the pure all things are pure ie to see/feel God's Presence in all things).

The above point is important because the Logos is not a christian concept exclusively, the greeks had it, the persians, egyptians, hindus, chinese, they all had it. They also had the incarnation concept way before christianity.
No one can get to the Father without the Son, is true by default anyway since we can only know God through the Son in the first place. The attributes of God are revealed through the Son (the logos). So when I think of Allah as Al-Rahman (The All-Merciful) this Attribute is the Essence manifest through His Word (logos/son).

Now read my sig, that is from the Quran. We all come from the Logos. Throughout the Quran Allah tells us we will return to HIM.
the return to the universal consciousness (again the logos) or ocean or whatever term is it described under, this is a universal and ancient belief. The incarnation is a universal belief.
So the question is are people from other places 'saved' under their own understanding of God and this 'return to God'?
Yet in islam we believe that to reject any of the prophets is kufr. We also believe in Jesus. However I am looking at this for hindus and buddhists ie are they 'saved' in my view IF they aspire to reach the high point in their religious belief then the goal is the same. Even if they interpret it differently.

GOD with Attributes and personality and all else, is not 'real', this is an illusion of the Essence projected onto the mind of humans to give us a pathway to return to the source. God is meant to be worshipped as a sum of all our ideals and the perfect personality 'in heaven'.
God is who we're meant to place our limitations onto. God is given the role of the supreme controller of our karmic affairs ie heaven/hell etc...but all of these things are part of the 'game' of our spiritual descent and ascent.......but the goal is still the same. Buddhists call it Moksha/liberation and they don't strictly believe in God as 'real' but that's because they don't believe causation is real.
This view is actually shared by many sufis ONLY after they experienced 'enlightenment' ie after they reached the highest level (at least they claimed they did) then they believed heaven hell, earth, good/bad etc is all just an illsion and the only reality is beyond that ie something higherthan the manifest God..ie the Essence. They say we cannot really know the essence but can be close enough to it to realise it is the only truth.


don't get me wrong, the pope, catholicism is a joke but i still have to point out that other religions are not always false but still aspire to reach the same goal. it is the interpretation and path that differs.

oh and Allah is not a false god. Allah means The God and as you might already know, aramaic Elah, hebrew Eloh, these are the same letters, same God. THE God is ONE and universal. Even when arab christians refer to Jesus himself as their Allah, it still doesn't negate our core theological belief in a single/universal power that we call God.


Also the hindus like you believe the logos (they call it vishnu) is 'fully God' but when they project this belief in the real world they see Vishnu in all things, everywhere, in every soul etc. Yet you seperate the logos and make it into Jesus only. Theologically the hindus are more correct and more in tune with what Jesus taught ie to see the Oneness of God in all things. Hence when Jesus referred to the deity inside him he didnt mean himself n but God.
What you're doing is calculation as follows
The Word is God
THe Word made flesh
Jesus is God.
But you're ignoring that this is a reference to God's Immanence. since God is Immanent in all of us and in trees and animals and the sky then you're theologically flawed for not seeing God in all but only in Jesus.

I urge you to read this to understand the Logos them from the original jewish philosopher Philo. Since he introduced it to judaism, he is the true founder of christianity.



11. Doctrine of the Logos in Philo's Writings
The pivotal and the most developed doctrine in Philo's writings on which hinges his entire philosophical system, is his doctrine of the Logos. By developing this doctrine he fused Greek philosophical concepts with Hebrew religious thought and provided the foundation for Christianity, first in the development of the Christian Pauline myth and speculations of John, later in the Hellenistic Christian Logos and Gnostic doctrines of the second century. All other doctrines of Philo hinge on his interpretation of divine existence and action. The term Logos was widely used in the Greco-Roman culture and in Judaism. Through most schools of Greek philosophy, this term was used to designate a rational, intelligent and thus vivifying principle of the universe. This principle was deduced from an understanding of the universe as a living reality and by comparing it to a living creature. Ancient people did not have the dynamic concept of "function," therefore, every phenomenon had to have an underlying factor, agent, or principle responsible for its occurrence. In the Septuagint version of the Old Testament the term logos (Hebrew davar) was used frequently to describe God's utterances (Gen. 1:3, 6,9; 3:9,11; Ps. 32:9), God's action (Zech. 5:1-4; Ps. 106:20; Ps. 147:15), and messages of prophets by means of which God communicated his will to his people (Jer. 1:4-19, 2:1-7; Ezek. 1:3; Amos 3:1). Logos is used here only as a figure of speech designating God's activity or action. In the so-called Jewish wisdom literature we find the concept of Wisdom (hokhmah and sophia) which could be to some degree interpreted as a separate personification or individualization (hypostatization), but it is contrasted often with human stupidity. In the Hebrew culture it was a part of the metaphorical and poetic language describing divine wisdom as God's attribute and it clearly refers to a human characteristic in the context of human earthly existence. The Greek, metaphysical concept of the Logos is in sharp contrast to the concept of a personal God described in anthropomorphic terms typical of Hebrew thought. Philo made a synthesis of the two systems and attempted to explain Hebrew thought in terms of Greek philosophy by introducing the Stoic concept of the Logos into Judaism. In the process the Logos became transformed from a metaphysical entity into an extension of a divine and transcendental anthropomorphic being and mediator between God and men. Philo offered various descriptions of the Logos.


How can any christian question pope francis then?
your religion is built on questionable foundations
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,175
Likes
2,378
#28
My belief is in line with original christianity. Look at what is written above about the Logos ie God's activity or action So God is The Creator......and therefore there is also the Creation. the result of God's attributes in turn bring about our dualistic descent from the state of unity (the logos). So we are like drops from an ocean and our goal is to return to the ocean. St Augustine When I, who conduct this inquiry, love something, then three things are found: I, what I love, and the love itself. … There are, therefore three things: the lover, the beloved and the love. This statement, is the essence of my own beliefs ie God's Trancendent Essence, the 'invisible father' is revealed through the Son and holy spirit ie God is Immanent in the Macrocosm and the microcosm. God is Love (Essence), the beloved (the Logos) and the lover (the holy spirit). As i've said many times over this is the Essence of the Bismillah IrRahman IrRaheem http://anaditeaching.com/who-is-the-lover-and-who-is-the-beloved/ the thing with this theme is, it is the basis of Bhakti yoga in hinduism. http://what-when-how.com/love-in-world-religions/divine-love-in-hinduism/ once again this was a hindu concept that went through persia, to greeks and hellenised jews and hence christianity. sufis obviously came out of that movement. Do christians 'get' this or are they so lost in literalism that they've forgotten the whole point of religion?
 





Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,248
Likes
4,064
#31
Further research has revealed that the Pope actually spoke at "Together 2016", held in Washington, DC, after Hall invited him and gave him the t-shirt. Here's what Nick Hall said after their meeting.

“That His Holiness would choose to speak into this historic day is a testament to the urgency and the need for followers of Jesus to unite in prayer for our nation and our world. We are humbled and honored by his involvement and are eager to share his message with the crowd that gathers at Together 2016.”​
 





Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
3,029
Likes
3,520
#32
@AspiringSoul

"oh and Allah is not a false god. Allah means The God and as you might already know, aramaic Elah, hebrew Eloh, these are the same letters..."

All spiritual beings are Elohim (that is the plural).

Jehovah is a proper name.

ELOHIM
Link above.. scroll down for the different usages.

A deity or the Deity


Check Psalm 82, as well. Its interesting stuff.
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,175
Likes
2,378
#33
@AspiringSoul

"oh and Allah is not a false god. Allah means The God and as you might already know, aramaic Elah, hebrew Eloh, these are the same letters..."

All spiritual beings are Elohim (that is the plural).

Jehovah is a proper name.

ELOHIM
Link above.. scroll down for the different usages.

A deity or the Deity


Check Psalm 82, as well. Its interesting stuff.

Islam rejected certain terms that were once used.
for example our prophet even rejected someone calling him 'rabb'/lord but he accepted Sayyed/master as a term.
That's because Rabb can be used for men and also for Allah..so it is a dangerous term to get mixed up. just like how in the OT Jesus was the lesser rabb ie 'adoni' vs God 'AdonAI' yet most christians don't even realise this small factor when they use the word 'lord' for Jesus.
since lord became associated with diety in christianity, naturally islam/our prophet would restruct it's usage for God alone.

terms like elohim and bene elohim, ben elohim are all rejected.
btw i find it funny if Jesus is ben elohim
he is not the son of God but the son of gods.
he has many fathers...


of course, in that context elohim was singular not plural.
you can't pick and mix brah.


As for Yahweh, my take on Yahweh, He is/was the collective thoughtform of God for the israelites.
A thoughtform is artificial and not the real thing which is why it/he needed blood sacrifice ie etheric energy. That's why it took Jesus as the fountain of life (ie etheric energy) to appease him.
why else do you think Yahweh was so sadistic? He was made in the image of the israelites.
justifying killing every living thing in an entire village.

am I forgiven for saying that is not fucking God?
anyone who thinks the real God does that is a knobhead.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,175
Likes
2,378
#34
but for the sake of keeping the ultimate God mythos real you know, these abrahamic religionc inc islam can't directly address that. it would create too much doubt in the minds of the ave pleb.
 





Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,248
Likes
4,064
#35
since lord became associated with diety in christianity, naturally islam/our prophet would restruct it's usage for God alone
Lord is used to refer to God in literally thousands of instances in the Old Testament, starting in Genesis 2, so the association of the title with the Almighty is one that predates Christ's earthly ministry by thousands of years. Jesus was and is called Lord by Christians because he is God.
 





Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
3,029
Likes
3,520
#36
Islam rejected certain terms that were once used.
for example our prophet even rejected someone calling him 'rabb'/lord but he accepted Sayyed/master as a term.
That's because Rabb can be used for men and also for Allah..so it is a dangerous term to get mixed up. just like how in the OT Jesus was the lesser rabb ie 'adoni' vs God 'AdonAI' yet most christians don't even realise this small factor when they use the word 'lord' for Jesus.
since lord became associated with diety in christianity, naturally islam/our prophet would restruct it's usage for God alone.

terms like elohim and bene elohim, ben elohim are all rejected...

of course, in that context elohim was singular not plural.
you can't pick and mix... .
I quoted directly from the concordance-- it still applies in that context that your term means God or god.. little "g." And I suppose you would have little choice but to reject certain parts of an established language.

As for Yahweh, my take on Yahweh, He is/was the collective thoughtform of God for the israelites.
A thoughtform is artificial and not the real thing which is why it/he needed blood sacrifice ie etheric energy. That's why it took Jesus as the fountain of life (ie etheric energy) to appease him.
why else do you think Yahweh was so sadistic? He was made in the image of the israelites.
justifying killing every living thing in an entire village.

am I forgiven for saying that is not fucking God?
anyone who thinks the real God does that is a knobhead.
It's clear you've only half-assed studied that. You know just enough to mangle it.
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,175
Likes
2,378
#37
I quoted directly from the concordance-- it still applies in that context that your term means God or god.. little "g." And I suppose you would have little choice but to reject certain parts of an established language.



It's clear you've only half-assed studied that. You know just enough to mangle it.
Half assed..which part?
If Jesus is Ben elohim then that makes him the son of 'gods'..
But here it is singular.

@Thunderian in Psalm 110 David refers to God as Adonai and the one sat at his right hand (ie Jesus) as adoni.
Adoni is the lesser lord ie like lord Alan Sugar..
It doesn't mean God ie The Lord.
 





RaXz

Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
557
Likes
90
#38
Fools ignore obvious signs, but they'll end up getting what they've been bargaining for, especially those that put so much faith in the very rich that have much to lose. while their rebellion is growing worse by the day, good luck with that worldly folks.


 





Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,248
Likes
4,064
#39
@Thunderian in Psalm 110 David refers to God as Adonai and the one sat at his right hand (ie Jesus) as adoni.
Adoni is the lesser lord ie like lord Alan Sugar..
It doesn't mean God ie The Lord.[/QUOTE]

And the other few thousand references? What does Lord mean in those?

For instance, Numbers 15:41

I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the LORD your God.

If it was Christianity that associated the term Lord with deity, you need to explain all the references in the Old Testament to God as the Lord, especially since it's a title he gives himself.
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,175
Likes
2,378
#40
@Thunderian in Psalm 110 David refers to God as Adonai and the one sat at his right hand (ie Jesus) as adoni.
Adoni is the lesser lord ie like lord Alan Sugar..
It doesn't mean God ie The Lord.
And the other few thousand references? What does Lord mean in those?

For instance, Numbers 15:41

I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the LORD your God.

If it was Christianity that associated the term Lord with deity, you need to explain all the references in the Old Testament to God as the Lord, especially since it's a title he gives himself.[/QUOTE]

You have misunderstood what's being said.

The hebrew words are ADONAI ie THE LORD/GOD and ADONI ie master, ruler etc. What was used in Psalm 110 for Jesus specifically was adoni. I am talking about adoni, the lesser 'lord' that is misused by christians for Jesus. It's also important to keep in mind that jews do not say Yahweh so when they recite the torah they instead say 'Adonai' but the writing really says Yahweh. I know because I have listened to it. I would not be saying this without some research.

If you look at Numbers 15:41 the correct word used is Yahweh.
http://biblehub.com/lexicon/numbers/15-41.htm
Psalm 110
http://biblehub.com/lexicon/psalms/110-1.htm
translated, it reads like this
A Psalm of David. The LORD (ie Yahweh but the jews recite the word Adonai in it's place) says to my Lord (adoni)

but if it was me translating I would have written
A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my lord

notice the subtle difference?

Luke 20:4 references Psalm 110, yet here is how it has been worded in english

David therefore calls Him Lord, and how is He his son?

the use of capitals here just like how christians have translated Psalm 110, 'Lord' is dishonest. It makes a big difference in how it is interpreted..and whilst I know you consider Jesus to be God regardless of this, it still doesn't make it right to alter the way words are used in ANY context.



Btw i'll tell you a story about how my approach tends to go. This may seem long and irrelevant but do read everything, it's about understanding these themes and being intellectually honest even with minor details.

backstory
There was a supposed convert to islam, former christian on a previous forum I was on but he was generally ignorant of religion and kept saying Jesus told him to convert to islam (he was a very basic american) He kept saying 'Lord Jesus Christ' which angered some of the muslims on the forum who were assuming he was a fake trying to corrupt the deen. There was a real herd mentality on there (those lot were salafis but against the christians they were regularly using Ahmad Deedat and Zakir Naik material on the forum). Ironically if you caught me on there you would think i'm christian at one point, or an apologist. I got accused of that but as you may have noticed I also talk about hindu ideas too so I also got called hindu. Although this did pass, it isn't that i can't let go or anything silly like that, it is moreso about understanding the way people argue and present their 'truth' and how they are supposedly backed by lies.....big topic when you started looking deeper.

So initially I defended that man's use of the word 'lord' as an ignorant mistake and nothing devious, because to me in the pre-islamic context 'lord' was used generally inc for man (as I have just explained). So instead of accepting my answer, they challenged me to produce evidence from the Quran that the term 'lord' was once acceptable. Since they also believed the bible is altered and therefore anything i quote from the bible is questionable. This was a poor tactic but an attempt to silence me because a few of them were hell bent on going after me for...a number of things id said inc saying the crucifixion happened. These experiences btw made me realise, muslims lie too.....but it also made me seperate myself from that 'herd'. So it's funny when people question whether i am even muslim. I think im more muslim than most?

So here's how my experience went when 'trying' to find this evidence.
I had absolutely no idea where to start and was more than likely going to reject their silly challenge, but those guys had real egos so I felt I needed an answer.

here's what I found
(43) But she in whose house he was, sought to seduce him from his (true) self: she fastened the doors, and said: "Now come, thou (dear one)!" He said: "Allah forbid! truly (thy husband) is my lord! he made my sojourn agreeable! truly to no good come those who do wrong!" (سورة يوسف, Yusuf, Chapter #12, Verse #23)

BUT just as I have pointed out a relatively minor christian act of dishonesty in translating ie using a single capital letter makes a huge difference in how it reads...the above translated verse from the Quran is rather accurate. but here are the others


Shakir:
And she in whose house he was sought to make himself yield (to her), and she made fast the doors and said: Come forward. He said: I seek Allah's refuge, surely my Lord made good my abode: Surely the unjust do not prosper.

Pickthall
And she, in whose house he was, asked of him an evil act. She bolted the doors and said: Come! He said: I seek refuge in Allah! Lo! he is my lord, who hath treated me honourably. Lo! wrong-doers never prosper.

Mohsin Khan
And she, in whose house he was, sought to seduce him (to do an evil act), and she closed the doors and said: "Come on, O you." He said: "I seek refuge in Allah (or Allah forbid)! Truly, he (your husband) is my master! He made my living in a great comfort! (So I will never betray him). Verily, the Zalimun (wrong and evil-doers) will never be successful."


in the arabic language, there is only the word 'rabb' whereas in hebrew there is Adonai and Adoni. In the Quran, the word used here was rabb. So depending on how the translations were written it would change the entire meaning.

the arabic transliteration
Warawadathu allatee huwa fee baytiha AAan nafsihi waghallaqati alabwaba waqalat hayta laka qala maAAatha Allahi innahu rabbee ahsana mathwaya innahu la yuflihu alththalimoona

now since muslims use rabb exclusively for Allah, seeing prophet Joseph AS use the word rabb in a context other than for God would have presented a little problem...and i am dead certain some of these translators deceitfully altered the meaning in order to 'fit' with our theology. They could have been intellectually honest, worded it correct (like the Yusuf translation) but explained in footnotes the background context, but did they even know it?

so you can see from these translations which ones are intellectually dishonest and change the meaning of the verse entirely (literally writing the Quran with their own hands, the irony).

now in the context when prophet Mohammad SAW was called 'rabb' (ie lord) by someone, he rejected it
(1) Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "You should not say, 'Feed your lord (Rabbaka), help your lord in performing ablution, or give water to your lord, but should say, 'my master (e.g. Feed your master instead of lord etc.) (Saiyidi), or my guardian (Maulai), and one should not say, my slave (Abdi), or my girl-slave (Amati), but should say, my lad (Fatai), my lass (Fatati), and 'my boy (Ghulami)." (Book #46, Hadith #728)

even trying to present this info to those guys on that forum was a challenge, they refused to even acknowledge the point made.


Now going back on topic, just to summarise incase you missed it
Jesus is adoni/lord in the lesser sense, not as deity. Even if you believe he is God, you cannot change the meaning of adoni.
since Jesus himself directly referenced the 'lord' in Psalm 110, that is the one that should be used indefinitely. There should never be any context, ever, where you adopt the word 'Adonai' ie The Lord for Jesus (which in the correct context was Yahweh anyway).

Now in my life, ever since i was a kid, I only ever heard christians use LORD to mean God specifically. Even when I was young and asked 'why do you call him Lord' they said 'the bible says he is LORD'
surely it's about time things changed?