What is God's name? -Updated

Joined
Jun 1, 2018
Messages
879
Likes
936
Hey Douglas,

Disobedience is not the source of evil. Adam and Eve disobeyed the god of Eden, but they obeyed the serpent. If disobeying God is evil, then would obeying evil acts of God be good? Is something God does good because it's God who does it?

I agree that rebellion against God is evil, but rebellion against God is an intent from knowledge, there is also non-intent from ignorance. In the fullness of Heaven no knowledge of God can evoke rebellion because the Fullness is perfect. In Christian cosmology, it's when Wisdom tried to experience union with the Father through reason alone that the Fall was triggered which led to imperfection. From this falling away ignorance of the Father was born, from which error, sin and evil are derived.
That might be how you understand it, but that's not what God says...Did you read the scriptures I gave you? Read them and see if they explain evil.
 





Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
884
Likes
881
That might be how you understand it, but that's not what God says...Did you read the scriptures I gave you? Read them and see if they explain evil.
The scriptures you referred to do not start from the beginning. My explanation comes from Christian cosmology that precedes the beginning of Genesis.
 





Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,514
Likes
1,707
So you don't worship El or YHWH. Interesting ...
By now you should know that I tie myself to the same Entity that revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Lot, Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, etc... What you refer to Him as is none of my business

I never implored you to worship any god.
I know. Im just saying theres not a compelling case

The Father in Heaven never had His throne seized
Huh?

That's what happens when the devil seizes god's throne.
and I never said the Father didn't have the prescience of what would happen.
So if he knew what would happen and created the one who would bring evil, and didnt just NOT create him, who are you really blaming? If he created him and didnt stop him from "creating" evil then who are you really blaming?
 





Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
884
Likes
881
By now you should know that I tie myself to the same Entity that revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Lot, Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, etc... What you refer to Him as is none of my business
I'm afraid you don't understand the history of Semitic mythology. If you tie yourself to that entity you tie yourself to the product of religious syncretism.

The Father in Heaven never had His throne seized
Huh?
The One rules all. Nothing has authority over it.
It is the God.
It is Father of everything,
Holy One
The invisible one over everything.
It is uncontaminated
Pure light no eye can bear to look within.

The One is the Invisible Spirit.
It is not right to think of it as a God or as like God.
It is more than just God.

Nothing is above it.
Nothing rules it.
Since everything exists within it
It does not exist within anything.
Since it is not dependent on anything
It is eternal.

It is absolutely complete and so needs nothing.
It is utterly perfect
Light.

- Apocryphon of John

So if he knew what would happen and created the one who would bring evil, and didnt just NOT create him, who are you really blaming? If he created him and didnt stop him from "creating" evil then who are you really blaming?
Again, evil is a byproduct of ignorance of the Father (ie. the opposite of gnosis which is knowlegde of the Father). It came into being when Sophia (Wisdom) attempted to know the Father through reason alone, ie. not through knowledge. It initiated the fall which spawned the material substance. She repented for her mistake and prayed. This conversion spawned the soul substance. The Father answered her prayers and sent Christ and redeemed her by giving her knowledge again (gnosis) which spawned the spiritual substance. Sophia was redeemed but her creation was not. She used soul substance to create a likeness of the Father who would reign over this dimension, the creator of our universe, the Great Architect, Saklas "the fool" because he was ignorant of his origin, of that which was above him; the one who shaped / separated heaven and earth, the god of genesis, god of Eden, El, the Most High, the Lord of Hosts. This God, made of soul, is also, like man, caught between matter and spirit and is dependent on his choices to attain salvation. Void of gnosis, but trying to imitate perfection, he establishes a law to identify transgression and hands out justice against injustice.


But there's an entity who does know what's above Saklas the fool, for he has seen the Logos, but instead rebelled against it and used the knowledge not for salvation, but for his own benefit and ambition to replace God. He would use sin to buy and eventually own the souls of the fallen and in so doing prevent any hope for the primordial restoration, a return to unity with the Father. This, the maintenance of our separation with God, is Evil with capital E. He was thrown by Saklas from Eden into the abyss, the lowest material dimension, rock bottom, Hell, where he became ruling prince. A battle ensued between the god of this universe and his rebllious son, the fallen angel, the prince of this world. This entity, his true identity hidden behind masks and names of different mythologies and pantheons, kept man in bondage to this world through sin, by having them believe he is God, by having them commit vice, by having them shed blood in his name to grant him power and everlasting life (because it would postpone / prevent the apocatastasis, man's salvation). Therefore the Father sent His only-begotten, manifested in Jesus of Nazareth, to do the inverse, to redeem their sin (ie. pay the debt owed to these lower powers) and shed His own blood to give eternal life to mankind.
 





Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,514
Likes
1,707
I'm afraid you don't understand the history of Semitic mythology. If you tie yourself to that entity you tie yourself to the product of religious syncretism.
If you're referring to the "other nations around them worshiped the same One" belief, then its not that I dont understand, its that I disagree. Not only with that, but the place you believe the "Semitic mythology" altogether...

The One rules all. Nothing has authority over it.
It is the God.
It is Father of everything,
Holy One
The invisible one over everything.
It is uncontaminated
Pure light no eye can bear to look within.

The One is the Invisible Spirit.
It is not right to think of it as a God or as like God.
It is more than just God.

Nothing is above it.
Nothing rules it.
Since everything exists within it
It does not exist within anything.
Since it is not dependent on anything
It is eternal.

It is absolutely complete and so needs nothing.
It is utterly perfect
Light.

- Apocryphon of John
I agree with this and many of it is biblical anyways just reworded differently.

Again, evil is a byproduct of ignorance of the Father (ie. the opposite of gnosis which is knowlegde of the Father). It came into being when Sophia (Wisdom) attempted to know the Father through reason alone, ie. not through knowledge. It initiated the fall which spawned the material substance. She repented for her mistake and prayed. This conversion spawned the soul substance. The Father answered her prayers and sent Christ and redeemed her by giving her knowledge again (gnosis) which spawned the spiritual substance. Sophia was redeemed but her creation was not. She used soul substance to create a likeness of the Father who would reign over this dimension, the creator of our universe, the Great Architect, Saklas "the fool" because he was ignorant of his origin, of that which was above him; the one who shaped / separated heaven and earth, the god of genesis, god of Eden, El, the Most High, the Lord of Hosts. This God, made of soul, is also, like man, caught between matter and spirit and is dependent on his choices to attain salvation. Void of gnosis, but trying to imitate perfection, he establishes a law to identify transgression and hands out justice against injustice.


But there's an entity who does know what's above Saklas the fool, for he has seen the Logos, but instead rebelled against it and used the knowledge not for salvation, but for his own benefit and ambition to replace God. He would use sin to buy and eventually own the souls of the fallen and in so doing prevent any hope for the primordial restoration, a return to unity with the Father. This, the maintenance of our separation with God, is Evil with capital E. He was thrown by Saklas from Eden into the abyss, the lowest material dimension, rock bottom, Hell, where he became ruling prince. A battle ensued between the god of this universe and his rebllious son, the fallen angel, the prince of this world. This entity, his true identity hidden behind masks and names of different mythologies and pantheons, kept man in bondage to this world through sin, by having them believe he is God, by having them commit vice, by having them shed blood in his name to grant him power and everlasting life (because it would postpone / prevent the apocatastasis, man's salvation). Therefore the Father sent His only-begotten, manifested in Jesus of Nazareth, to do the inverse, to redeem their sin (ie. pay the debt owed to these lower powers) and shed His own blood to give eternal life to mankind.
This helps me see what you believe and why you believe it. So your belief in summary is that theres god(s), the devil, and the Creator (along with other fallen angels)? Sorry if I got this wrong but Im going to base my response on what I took from it. My question is simple. Did whoever you say the Creator is, KNOW that evil would come to rise in existence? If so, why are you crediting someone else for evil's existence, when the Creator knew about it before it was even in existence?

And I disagree that the Creator would send a "messiah" (or himself) through the devil's and/or the deceivers CHOSEN people. Yet this is what you say happened with Jesus. I disagree that the Creator would then send words to the prophets of the devil and/or deceivers prophets, to prophesy about this Messiah. Yet you say/believe this happened with Jesus. I also disagree that the Creator would send His son to QUOTE from what the devil/deceiver god said verbatim (without denouncing said devil/deceiver god openly and clearly) as he did in the NT. Yet you say/believe this happened. Lastly, I disagree that the Creator sent His son to be SACRIFICED to these lower gods so that a "debt" (that was deceitful/wrong/in error/in ignorance according to you I assume)could be paid when He wouldnt even have to acknowledge the debt if He didnt want to. Yet you say/believe this happened. Then you get to the gnostic gospels that have Jesus speaking with a forked tongue. Where he'll say one thing to the public, then take ONE disciple in private to say another. And he does this with VARIOUS "followers" according to the gnostic gospels from Peter, to Thomas, to John, to Mary Magdalene. All the same story of Jesus saying things in public and saying different things in private. Fork tongued like a serpent. Its based on this (and more) that I disagree with your beliefs. Me disagreeing doesnt make me right, Im just saying that personally it doesnt make sense to me.

If the elite was actually cool with the Creator described in the old testament, then whats there to show for it? I can bring up companies named after pagan gods whether Egyptian, Greek, Roman, or Babylonian. Where are the companies named after the biblical Creator? Right now they're in power and the world is promoting transexuality and homosexuality. Why was the bible against that? The world is saying that the father and mother dont have specified roles. They're cool with the Creator in the old testament, then wheres the land they set up that tries to follow His laws? Wheres the month named after Him like they name them after the pagan gods? Where are His holy days followed and celebrated like the holidays of the pagans are (Christmas, Easter, Valentines etc...)? In all actuality the elite are gnostic. They too tell the public one thing in public while saying another in private amongst the "chosen" or "elect". Biblically Jesus even did this to an extent. Its all of this that stands in the way of me ever believing gnosticism (again)
 





Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
884
Likes
881
And how do you decide what is accurate? The Lord is coming for His own (The Church), He is not looking for philosophers. You must be born again.
Not untrue, I think. But the Logos isn’t subject to interpretation. It is God-given truth that brings order in chaos. The Wife can remain veiled, but I seek to understand more.
 





Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
884
Likes
881
The simplicity is in Jesus The Christ of God.
Jesus said:

"Blessed are ye poor of spirit: for yours is the kingdom of God."

"Blessed are ye that hunger now: for you shall be filled."


And also:

"Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

"Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all."
 





Joined
Jun 1, 2018
Messages
879
Likes
936
Jesus said:

"Blessed are ye poor of spirit: for yours is the kingdom of God."

"Blessed are ye that hunger now: for you shall be filled."

And also:

"Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

"Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all."
Christ is not hidden, nor must you be educate or a scholar...Not many wise men after the flesh, not many noble, not many mighty are called, but God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty, and the base things of the world and the things that are despised and God has chosen the things that are not to bring to nothing to the things that are. The simplicity is in Christ. It is Spiritual (Supernatural)...not carnal!
 





Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
884
Likes
881
Koncrete,

Many of the objections you've made derive from the amalgam I have previously mentioned, namely between El (the demiurge) and YHWH (the fallen angel). These are the images of two conceptual dieties at odds with one another, each representing a part of the tripartite structure of the universe. The Demiurge was formed of soul substance. He can be interpreted as God without spirit / without gnosis / without Christ. When the demiurge is baptized / acquires gnosis / with Christ, he becomes God. This is why gnostics sometimes referred to him as Father and God as well.

The Fallen Angel represents the material substance. He can be interpreted as the one who seeks to prevent the soul (and the demiurge) from becoming spiritual/ from acquiring gnosis, by binding souls to his dominion (the world), by making them believe he is God of all things, by having them perform material rituals and sacrifices in honour of him. When people fall in this trap and follow him, they are the Whore of Babylon, the Wife (body of believers) who gives her faith and affection to the wrong Husband (which should be Christ and Christ alone). Jerusalem was the Whore of Babylon for it was she who worshipped this fallen pretender-god, who imposed the most ridiculous material rituals and sacrificial laws in his name, under the banner of spirituality. Therefore Christ was sent by the Father in Heaven (above the demiurge) to retrieve the prostitute (mirrored in the story of Christ and Sophia, and Jesus and Mary Magdalene) and make her His Wife.

Therefore:
... that the Creator would send a "messiah" (or himself) through the devil's and/or the deceivers CHOSEN people ...
... is exactly what happened. The Son of God came to the lost sheep of Israel, the whore of Babylon, the adulterous, because once worshipping the Father (El, the demiurge, the Most High) of Jesus (the man Jesus, not Christ) they gradually replaced him with the antichrist (Baal, the fallen angel, the rebellious son of El). It is obvious that the Father of Christ (not El, the demiurge, the Most High but the Father in Heaven) would light the fire where it is darkest; that the Logos, the Word that brings order, would be uttered where Chaos reigned most; that the true Christ would be sent to conquer the throne of the antichrist. He did: the temple of the whore (the Temple of Jerusalem) was destroyed, the majority of the adulterous people converted to Christ (ie. diaspora) and the body of Christ became the ruling force in the world.

This helps me see what you believe and why you believe it. So your belief in summary is that theres god(s), the devil, and the Creator (along with other fallen angels)?
I believe in the Valentinian tripartite structure of existence.

God, demiurge, devil.

Spirit, soul, matter.

Pneumatic soul, psychic soul, hylic soul.

Seth, Abel, Cain.

Good, just, evil.

Did whoever you say the Creator is, KNOW that evil would come to rise in existence? If so, why are you crediting someone else for evil's existence, when the Creator knew about it before it was even in existence?
Imagine you're a father (maybe you already are, I don't know). You've created a child. You love your child and your love is best expressed in allowing your child free will, to let it make its own choices. Even though you nurture it and teach it the ways of a good, moral life, to grow it in your likeness because you know you're a good man, you also know for certain that your child will go off-road from time to time and make mistakes. Your child will sin, but you've taught it to sincerely acknowledge its mistakes as a part of personal and spiritual development, to which it is granted forgiveness. But your child will continue to make mistakes as it grows up, for it keeps finding itself in new situations, new encounters, perhaps friendly, perhaps hostile, and, especially when alone / without its father, must improvise its reactions to these new experiences. In one of these experiences, your child slips up and makes another mistake (insert transgression). It is caught by the Sheriff, arrested, tried, found guilty and sent to a youth facility (this is the demiurge, imposing and applying the law to maintain order in chaos, but separating the child from its father nonetheless). In this facility, your child falls under the supervision of the Warden. The Warden knows of the child's origins, but keeping children locked in his facilitity will extend the Warden's purpose of being. The more children he gets under his supervision, and the longer they stay, the more the Warden grows in power. The Warden knows what it takes for the children to become free and reunited with their father, namely good behaviour, so he does what he can to prevent that. He tricks the children into wrongdoing. He tempts them with treats only to buy from them longer sentences. He conspires with some of the children, "his children", offering them privileged treatment, if they provoke and agitate the others and spur them on to committing sins that will prolong their stay at the facility. As time progresses and years go by, the children start getting used to the workings within the facility and begin to forget the life they had before, their origins, their father. They all start to see the Warden as their father and have stopped hoping to leave this prison. They've embraced it as their world, their home and they will know nothing else because they believe, as the Warden has convinced them of, that it's all there is.

Who is responsible for the evil in this tale? The Father who created the child knowing it would err? The Sheriff who applied the law? Or the Warden who knowingly kept the child away from its Father and and took the father's place?

I disagree that the Creator would then send words to the prophets of the devil and/or deceivers prophets, to prophesy about this Messiah.
This is not a claim I make. I do believe it possible that there were prophets, but they were prophets of El, the demiurge, the Most High, the Father of Jesus (the man), rebuking those who followed Baal (YHWH).

I also disagree that the Creator would send His son to QUOTE from what the devil/deceiver god said verbatim (without denouncing said devil/deceiver god openly and clearly) as he did in the NT.
There's no contradiction when Jesus quotes from the prophets of El, the Most High, the Father of Jesus. Also necessary to keep in mind is the accuracy of the statement. A truth statement is true when it's true regardless of the source.

Lastly, I disagree that the Creator sent His son to be SACRIFICED to these lower gods so that a "debt" (that was deceitful/wrong/in error/in ignorance according to you I assume)could be paid when He wouldnt even have to acknowledge the debt if He didnt want to.
Sin binds souls to this world. This world is ruled by the prince / rebellious son of the Most High / the devil and souls' bondage to this world extend his rule. In order to free man from this bondage, sin must be redeemed, the debt must be paid. Of course the devil doesn't want the debt to be paid in full lest he'd lose his dominion, so instead, like a proper usurer, creates interest rates that endlessly perpetuate payment. Man could never repay this debt, but Man has to repay the debt in order for Man to be free. So the perfect man came, Jesus, the perfect man, born from a Virgin (opposite of the Whore, the faithful Mother untainted by the lower powers) and perfect soul (of soul substance because he is the Son of the Most High, El, the demiurge). During his baptism, Christ, the Heavenly Jesus, the Son of the Father in Heaven, descended and the two (soul and spirit) became one. Jesus Christ's ministry started to teach mankind how to be free and achieve eternal life in union with God.

The demiurge has no authority to remit the debt because if he had it would mean the debt satan collects is for the demiurge. This is not Satan's role. Satan is the antichrist, the ultimate adversary who sabotages Man's reunion with God and he will do everything in his power to prevent that from happening. I've come to believe that there are forces at work that transcend us, battles being fought in the realms above, battles fought over dominion / freedom, battles that are mirrored down here below. The event of Jesus Christ's crucifixion was the event where Satan lost the battle. Thinking he was winning all along by having the Son of God killed, he played right into God's hand. Because while Satan tricked his people into sin by the law, making them shed blood of others (in this case, the blood of the Son of God) to give himself eternal life, the perfect man shed his blood to pardon all sin, gave eternal life to mankind and ended Satan's reign. Powerful symbolism.

Then you get to the gnostic gospels that have Jesus speaking with a forked tongue. Where he'll say one thing to the public, then take ONE disciple in private to say another. And he does this with VARIOUS "followers" according to the gnostic gospels from Peter, to Thomas, to John, to Mary Magdalene. All the same story of Jesus saying things in public and saying different things in private. Fork tongued like a serpent.
This is a non-sequitur. You assume evil intent when evil intent can't be inferred from the private nature of these sayings alone. If all he said publicly is true, then what he says privately will most likely also be true. The problem lies not with the messages that Jesus gives privately, the problem lies with the reception of the message given publicly. Jesus came to reinterpret things, to render things good. In order to achieve a successful conversion of evil, it is possible that some hard truths are better not expressed publicly (which is probably a fault of mine).

Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."

Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended."

And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"

Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."

If the elite was actually cool with the Creator described in the old testament, then whats there to show for it? I can bring up companies named after pagan gods whether Egyptian, Greek, Roman, or Babylonian. Where are the companies named after the biblical Creator? Right now they're in power and the world is promoting transexuality and homosexuality. Why was the bible against that? The world is saying that the father and mother dont have specified roles. They're cool with the Creator in the old testament, then wheres the land they set up that tries to follow His laws? Wheres the month named after Him like they name them after the pagan gods? Where are His holy days followed and celebrated like the holidays of the pagans are (Christmas, Easter, Valentines etc...)? In all actuality the elite are gnostic. They too tell the public one thing in public while saying another in private amongst the "chosen" or "elect". Biblically Jesus even did this to an extent. Its all of this that stands in the way of me ever believing gnosticism (again)
- The biblical creator is El, the Most High. The elite you have in mind does not worship El, the Most High, but most likely Baal.

- That no companies are named after the biblical creator (I assume you mean the deity identified as YHWH here) is further evidence that the elites consist of those people who deem it blasphemous to mention his name or use it in such a way. If you would ever reach the highest echelons of Masonic or other occult esotericism you would come to know that YHWH is Baal. And then you would see that my theory stands.

- It is El, the Most High, the demiurge who is against the degenerate acts now promoted in the West, not Baal. In fact, during Baal's reign, prostitution and homosexuality were considered normal, even up for sale in his temples.

- The names of our months are Roman dating from the 1st century BC under Julius Caesar. All the names are of Roman deities. Why would one be named after "the" biblical god when Judaism, and subsequently Christianity, was seen as pagan by the Romans for more than 300 years after the Julian Calendar came to be?

- Easter is the celebration of Jesus' Resurrection. Forgotten in the (post-Catholic) West, but still heavily celebrated in the (Orthodox) East. Same for Christmas. The Orthodox still celebrate it as the birth of Jesus. In large parts of the West it's been converted to a consumerist holiday.

- The dissolvement of the traditional male-female roles is an attack on the male-female union essential to Christian theology. It's an attack against Logos, against the family, against Life itself.

I think all your questions in this last quote are easily answered when you take into account the ideals of Zionism (what's bad for Israel is good for the rest of the world) and Judaism (the Jew is he who rejected Christ, who rebels against Logos) and if you accurately distinguish between the demiurge El and the rebellious son YHWH (Israel = he who rebelled against god). None of your conundrums are even remotely confusing to me, so all I can say to you is to give this perspective a try and see for yourself. If not, no harm done.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,514
Likes
1,707
Koncrete,

Many of the objections you've made derive from the amalgam I have previously mentioned, namely between El (the demiurge) and YHWH (the fallen angel). These are the images of two conceptual dieties at odds with one another, each representing a part of the tripartite structure of the universe. The Demiurge was formed of soul substance. He can be interpreted as God without spirit / without gnosis / without Christ. When the demiurge is baptized / acquires gnosis / with Christ, he becomes God. This is why gnostics sometimes referred to him as Father and God as well.
Do YOU become "God" when you're baptized, acquire gnosis, and with Christ? Because to me, that sounds luciferian....

The Fallen Angel represents the material substance. He can be interpreted as the one who seeks to prevent the soul (and the demiurge) from becoming spiritual/ from acquiring gnosis, by binding souls to his dominion (the world), by making them believe he is God of all things, by having them perform material rituals and sacrifices in honour of him. When people fall in this trap and follow him, they are the Whore of Babylon, the Wife (body of believers) who gives her faith and affection to the wrong Husband (which should be Christ and Christ alone). Jerusalem was the Whore of Babylon for it was she who worshipped this fallen pretender-god, who imposed the most ridiculous material rituals and sacrificial laws in his name, under the banner of spirituality. Therefore Christ was sent by the Father in Heaven (above the demiurge) to retrieve the prostitute (mirrored in the story of Christ and Sophia, and Jesus and Mary Magdalene) and redeem her and save her from the clutches of death.

Therefore:
... is exactly what happened. The Son of God came to the lost sheep of Israel, the whore of Babylon, the adulterous, because once worshipping the Father (El, the demiurge, the Most High) of Jesus (the man Jesus, not Christ) they gradually replaced him with the antichrist (Baal, the fallen angel, the rebellious son of El). It is obvious that the Father of Christ (not El, the demiurge, the Most High but the Father in Heaven) would light the fire where it is darkest; that the Logos, the Word that brings order, would be uttered where Chaos reigned most; that the true Christ would be sent to conquer the throne of the antichrist. He did: the temple of the whore (the Temple of Jerusalem) was destroyed, the majority of the adulterous people converted to Christ (ie. diaspora) and the body of Christ became the ruling force in the world.
Who was it, in your view, that spoke to Moses?

I believe in the Valentinian tripartite structure of existence.

God, demiurge, devil.

Spirit, soul, matter.

Pneumatic soul, psychic soul, hylic soul.

Seth, Abel, Cain.

Good, just, evil.

Imagine you're a father (maybe you already are, I don't know). You've created a child. You love your child and your love is best expressed in allowing your child free will, to let it make its own choices. Even though you nurture it and teach it the ways of a good, moral life, to grow it in your likeness because you know you're a good man, you also know for certain that your child will go off-road from time to time and make mistakes. Your child will sin, but you've taught it to sincerely acknowledge its mistakes as a part of personal and spiritual development, to which it is granted forgiveness. But your child will continue to make mistakes as it grows up, for it keeps finding itself in new situations, new encounters, perhaps friendly, perhaps hostile, and, especially when alone / without its father, must improvise its reactions to these new experiences. In one of these experiences, your child slips up and makes another mistake (insert transgression). It is caught by the Sheriff, arrested, tried, found guilty and sent to a youth facility (this is the demiurge, imposing and applying the law to maintain order in chaos, but separating the child from its father nonetheless). In this facility, your child falls under the supervision of the Warden. The Warden knows of the child's origins, but keeping children locked in his facilitity will extend the Warden's purpose of being. The more children he gets under his supervision, and the longer they stay, the more the Warden grows in power. The Warden knows what it takes for the children to become free and reunited with their father, namely good behaviour, so he does what he can to prevent that. He tricks the children into wrongdoing. He tempts them with treats only to buy from them longer sentences. He conspires with some of the children, "his children", offering them privileged treatment, if they provoke and agitate the others and spur them on to committing sins that will prolong their stay at the facility. As time progresses and years go by, the children start getting used to the workings within the facility and begin to forget the life they had before, their origins, their father. They all start to see the Warden as their father and have stopped hoping to leave this prison. They've embraced it as their world, their home and they will know nothing else because they believe, as the Warden has convinced them of, that it's all there is.

Who is responsible for the evil in this tale? The Father who created the child knowing it would err? The Sheriff who applied the law? Or the Warden who knowingly kept the child away from its Father and said He actually didn't exist?
If the Father in that tale is also the Father to the Warden, then it would be him that would be responsible for the evil in this tale... In other words your analogy doesnt fit. The father in your analogy, didnt create the warden, the jail was created underneath his nose with him having the ability to nix its creation. You're just trying to shift blame instead of understanding that EVERYTHING exists because of the Creator.

This is not a claim I make. I do believe it possible that there were prophets, but they were prophets of El, the demiurge, the Most High, the Father of Jesus (the man), rebuking those who followed Baal (YHWH).

There's no contradiction when Jesus quotes from the prophets of El, the Most High, the Father of Jesus. Also necessary to keep in mind is the accuracy of the statement. A truth statement is true when it's true regardless of the source.
Theres a contradiction when you say Jesus came to free them from the bondage they were placed under with Moses and who he worshiped yet then turn around and say Jesus, at times, quoted from this same source. Its either all or nothing. Because picking and choosing when God is speaking, and when the devil is speaking is based on your personal interpretation. You have no source subject that you can point me to that will lead me to the exact same conclusions you do. Not history. Not one book or group of books that are together and coherent. Its like I have to go to YOU to understand any of this. And Im speaking in general (and in terms of my opinion)
Sin binds souls to this world. This world is ruled by the prince / rebellious son of the Most High / the devil and souls' bondage to this world extend his rule. In order to free man from this bondage, sin must be redeemed, the debt must be paid. Of course the devil doesn't want the debt to be paid in full lest he'd lose his dominion, so instead, like a proper usurer, creates interest rates that endlessly perpetuate payment. Man could never repay this debt, but Man has to repay the debt in order for Man to be free. So the perfect man came, Jesus, the perfect man, born from a Virgin (opposite of the Whore, the faithful Mother untainted by the lower powers) and perfect soul (of soul substance because he is the Son of the Most High, El, the demiurge). During his baptism, Christ, the Heavenly Jesus, the Son of the Father in Heaven, descended and the two (soul and spirit) became one. Jesus Christ's ministry started to teach mankind how to be free and achieve eternal life in union with God.

The demiurge has no authority to remit the debt because if he had it would mean the debt satan collects is for the demiurge. This is not what Christian theology teaches. Satan is the antichrist, the ultimate adversary who sabotages Man's reunion with God and he will do everything in his power to prevent that from happening. I've come to believe that there are forces at work that transcend us, battles being fought in the realms above, battles fought over dominion / freedom, battles that are mirrored down here below. The event of Jesus Christ's crucifixion was the event where Satan lost the battle. Thinking he was winning all along by having the Son of God killed, he played right into God's hand. Because while Satan tricked his people into sin by the law, making them shed blood of others (in this case, the blood of the Son of God) to give himself eternal life, the perfect man shed his blood to pardon all sin, gave eternal life to mankind and ended Satan's reign. Powerful symbolism.
None of what you're saying makes sense to me. Because you'll say the demiurge has no authority to remit the debt, but my question is, doesnt the Creator? Why would any false debt to some lower god mean anything to the Creator? Thats not what Im understanding in your view. If Im trillionaire righteous rich man and I see my son deal evilly with some other people with MY MONE, then it would be totally within my power to ignore the debts of those he dealt evilly with then deal with him. Not pay his false debts, especially since you say it was thru sacrifice of a human...

In my view(view as in understanding), none of that matters. I dont have to worry about a demiurge. I dont have to worry about a Jesus. I dont have to worry about a "virgin" (*cough * cough* sign for King Ahaz of JUDAH, not "messiah") Mary. All I have to focus on is the Most High and His commandments. So when I see christianity/new testament ,judaism/talmud, islam/quran, and gnosticism piggybacking off the Hebrew scriptures or characters FIRST introduced in the scriptures then I see that the foundation is whats important. Thats what matters and thats where the value lies. And if the foundation says not to add unto the foundation, then I dont have to believe anything that comes after that, that doesnt go along with that. So when the foundation says "no human sacrifice" then, according to the foundation, I am not to believe you who is now saying that the Creator sent His son to be a human sacrifice to a lower god to a remit a false debt of a lower god. That doesnt make any sense to me.

This is a non-sequitur. You assume evil intent when evil intent can't be inferred from the private nature of these sayings alone. If all he said publicly is true, then what he says privately will most likely also be true. The problem lies not with the messages that Jesus gives privately, the problem lies with the reception of the message given publicly. Jesus came to reinterpret things, to render things good. In order to achieve a successful conversion of evil, it is possible that some hard truths are better not expressed publicly (which is probably a fault of mine).

Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."

Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended."

And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"

Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."
The Gospel of Judas says that Judas was the chosen disciple and the rest of the disciples (including Jesus own brother) got it wrong and worshiped lower gods and not the Creator. It also said that no one of the age would see the "holy generation". Totally different than what he said publically. And each gnostic gospel has that take with one disciple being chosen to receive the "truth" while the rest are left in the dark... Its a theme repeated thru most of the gospels...

And while we're on the GoJ, it also says that sacrifice was for lower gods which directly contradicts your claim that the Creator sent His son to be a human sacrifice for debts owed to lower gods. I mean it doesnt make sense and it never will to me. And I feel this is how our convo will continue going. You explaining your position and me explaining it doesnt make sense to me. I mean we can do this as I try to only be going back and forth when Im really really free, but it will just be us running in circles repeating ourselves in different ways. Its your call though
- The biblical creator is El, the Most High. The elite you have in mind does not worship El, the Most High, but most likely Baal.

- That no companies are named after the biblical creator (I assume you mean the deity identified as YHWH here) is further evidence that the elites consist of those people who deem it blasphemous to mention his name or use it in such a way. If you would ever reach the highest echelons of Masonic or other occult esotericism you would come to know that YHWH is Baal. And then you would see that my theory stands.
Your theory doesnt stand because "YHWH" said not to make mention of other gods yet the people you say that they worship Him, name everything after the pagan gods. They dont follow His laws nor do they encourage anyone else to. So all Im left with is you saying that they worship Him. But when I look, they dont worship Him in word or deed..

- It is El, the Most High, the demiurge who is against the degenerate acts now promoted in the West, not Baal. In fact, during Baal's reign, prostitution and homosexuality were considered normal, even up for sale in his temples.

- The names of our months are Roman dating from the 1st century BC under Julius Caesar. All the names are of Roman deities. Why would one be named after "the" biblical god when Judaism, and subsequently Christianity, was seen as pagan by the Romans for more than 300 years after the Julian Calendar came to be?

- Easter is the celebration of Jesus' Resurrection. Forgotten in the (post-Catholic) West, but still heavily celebrated in the (Orthodox) East. Same for Christmas. The Orthodox still celebrate it as the birth of Jesus. In large parts of the West it's been converted to a consumerist holiday.

- The dissolvement of the traditional male-female roles is an attack on the male-female union essential to Christian theology. It's an attack against Logos, against the family, against Life itself.

I think all your questions in this last quote are easily answered when you take into account the ideals of Zionism (what's bad for Israel is good for the rest of the world) and Judaism (the Jew is he who rejected Christ, who rebels against Logos) and if you accurately distinguish between the demiurge El and the rebellious son YHWH (Israel = he who rebelled against god). None of your conundrums are even remotely confusing to me, so all I can say to you is to give this perspective a try and see for yourself. If not, no harm done.
Im speaking about biblically. Biblically speaking, the Entity they worshiped is against all the agendas the elite are placing on society. Homosexuality? Nope. Men in womens clothes? Nuh uh.Solidified roles for men and women? No.. Using the Hebrew calendar instead of the Roman one? Nah. How about celebrating Passover, the feast of tabernacles etc instead of celebrating the pagan holidays of Easter, Christmas, Valentines(the holidays existed before the story of your christ came in the NT)? Cant say that I see that either. The reason they dont match is because they worship pagan gods.... None of these things match and thats how I KNOW they dont worship the same Being as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Noah, Lot, David etc...

Like I asked, where is the nation under their control that is instituting the laws given to Moses? It doesnt exist. Even in the nation they created under the help of the US/UK, they STILL do not institute the laws of Moses yet institute gay parades, racism, usury and more.... I reiterate that they dont match because they're not the same...
 





Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
884
Likes
881
Do YOU become "God" when you're baptized, acquire gnosis, and with Christ? Because to me, that sounds luciferian....
No, there's only one.

Who was it, in your view, that spoke to Moses?
Whoever it was, it wasn't the Father revealed in Christ.

If the Father in that tale is also the Father to the Warden, then it would be him that would be responsible for the evil in this tale... In other words your analogy doesnt fit. The father in your analogy, didnt create the warden, the jail was created underneath his nose with him having the ability to nix its creation. You're just trying to shift blame instead of understanding that EVERYTHING exists because of the Creator.
There's a difference between "everything exists because of the Creator" and "everything is created by the Creator", the latter implying creation with purpose and intent while the first could mean something set in motion with the properties of free will, leading to a series of (possibly unintended) creations and events. If you allow free will, you allow the existence of evil, ergo the non-existence of evil requires (at least) the absence of free will. And then you can even argue if the absence of free will isn't evil to begin with.

Regarding my analogy: no, the Father didn't create the Warden. The Father created his child. His child (the Son / Primordial Man) lived in harmony with the Father (God's fullness) before he went into the World (of the Sheriff and his Law) and sinned. Because of sin, the child was imprisoned (because there is no forgiveness). In prison the Warden asserts his rule (over the Father's children) through sin because if all would stop sinning, the Warden's purpose seizes to exist.

Your objection would be: "but the Father created the World, therefore the Father is responsible for the Warden keeping his child away", which would be true, if this was your vision. According to Christian gnostics, it was the Sheriff who created the World, but not that which is outside the World. In your vision, the Father is actually the Sheriff, who created the World, all the children are his property, including the Warden who's under his command to separate the children who are freed only if they obey his law.

Both the gnostics as the orthodox have their explanation for evil. The orthodox is just more sadistic.

Theres a contradiction when you say Jesus came to free them from the bondage they were placed under with Moses and who he worshiped yet then turn around and say Jesus, at times, quoted from this same source. Its either all or nothing.
What do you mean with "who he worshiped"?

If by source you mean the Pentateuch, then your position that we should take either all or nothing is what Ptolemy described as one who has "accurate knowledge neither of him who ordained the law nor of its commandments". I think you'll find many answers in his Letter to Flora.

Because picking and choosing when God is speaking, and when the devil is speaking is based on your personal interpretation. You have no source subject that you can point me to that will lead me to the exact same conclusions you do. Not history. Not one book or group of books that are together and coherent. Its like I have to go to YOU to understand any of this. And Im speaking in general (and in terms of my opinion)
What do you expect? This aspect of Christianity was cut out of the theological corpus in both writings as well as teachers. Unlike the more orthodox schools of Christianity backed with centuries of writings, philosophy, councils, tractates, we are pretty much left to ourselves to reconstruct an interpretation that was widely held among early Christians before proselytism and Rome decided its fate. But the source material is there thanks to the miraculous resurfacing in Egypt. Most apocrypha have been completely translated. If you want a book or a person to tell you what you should take out of those scriptures however, then you're basically handing over your own judgment to someone else, which is not something I would advise anyone, even if that someone was me.

None of what you're saying makes sense to me. Because you'll say the demiurge has no authority to remit the debt, but my question is, doesnt the Creator? Why would any false debt to some lower god mean anything to the Creator? Thats not what Im understanding in your view. If Im trillionaire righteous rich man and I see my son deal evilly with some other people with MY MONE, then it would be totally within my power to ignore the debts of those he dealt evilly with then deal with him. Not pay his false debts, especially since you say it was thru sacrifice of a human...
Who said the debt is false? The debt (debt = sin) is very real. Sin, just like debt, binds you to the creditor and the creditor is also very real. This creditor wants you bound to his world in order to prevent unity with the Father. This is his modus operandi to assert his dominion over man. Claiming that god (demiurge) or the Father of all could simply intercede and renounce all debts is claiming to know the workings of a mysterious struggle that transcends us all.

That what I say doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense, for if it wouldn't make any sense I wouldn't be saying it. I think the root of your inability to make sense of this lies with the vision you've already got hardwired in your brain. The gnostic resurrection elicits a complete upheaval of the mental formatting we have endured since birth. That mental conformity to what we've learned and how we're supposed to think is part of the shackles that bind us.

In my view(view as in understanding), none of that matters. I dont have to worry about a demiurge. I dont have to worry about a Jesus. I dont have to worry about a "virgin" (*cough * cough* sign for King Ahaz of JUDAH, not "messiah") Mary. All I have to focus on is the Most High and His commandments. So when I see christianity/new testament ,judaism/talmud, islam/quran, and gnosticism piggybacking off the Hebrew scriptures or characters FIRST introduced in the scriptures then I see that the foundation is whats important. Thats what matters and thats where the value lies. And if the foundation says not to add unto the foundation, then I dont have to believe anything that comes after that, that doesnt go along with that. So when the foundation says "no human sacrifice" then, according to the foundation, I am not to believe you who is now saying that the Creator sent His son to be a human sacrifice to a lower god to a remit a false debt of a lower god. That doesnt make any sense to me.
That's all bogus for several reasons. For one, if you're going to go with something based on what came first, then you should be looking into older Mesopotamian myths, because the Torah literally adopted myths that preceded the scriptures (cf. enuma elish, debates between winter and summer, baal cycle, etc) as well as elements from Zoroastrianism.

Secondly, the Torah is the foundation of what exactly? The foundation of everything, Life, Love, Truth, is the Father revealed in Christ. No one has seen the Father but the Son who was sent by Him. That means that this foundation, ie. the Father of Christ, was absent in the Torah because He was revealed in the Gospel. If you deem otherwise then you have rejected Christ, which, judging by your comments you already seem to have.

Thirdly, this is exactly the result of the Judaizing tendencies ever since Marcion made the first Christian canon. You end up rejecting Christ, binding your heart to the law and selling your soul to pretender gods.

The Gospel of Judas says that Judas was the chosen disciple and the rest of the disciples (including Jesus own brother) got it wrong and worshiped lower gods and not the Creator. It also said that no one of the age would see the "holy generation". Totally different than what he said publically. And each gnostic gospel has that take with one disciple being chosen to receive the "truth" while the rest are left in the dark... Its a theme repeated thru most of the gospels...

And while we're on the GoJ, it also says that sacrifice was for lower gods which directly contradicts your claim that the Creator sent His son to be a human sacrifice for debts owed to lower gods. I mean it doesnt make sense and it never will to me. And I feel this is how our convo will continue going. You explaining your position and me explaining it doesnt make sense to me. I mean we can do this as I try to only be going back and forth when Im really really free, but it will just be us running in circles repeating ourselves in different ways. Its your call though
Large and crucial parts of the Gospel of Judas have been lost, so I won't / can't really give my view on that. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't say Judas was the chosen disciple. Jesus referred to him as the thirteenth spirit, a reference to the demon, but the relevant implication here is that it was part of the plan, as I've said before, that Jesus' blood sacrifice was where Evil lost the battle against Good.


Your theory doesnt stand because "YHWH" said not to make mention of other gods yet the people you say that they worship Him, name everything after the pagan gods. They dont follow His laws nor do they encourage anyone else to. So all Im left with is you saying that they worship Him. But when I look, they dont worship Him in word or deed..
Rabbis and orthodox Jews aren't concerned with the pagan deities of others, only with the relationship between the Jew and HaShem (YHWH). The goy will either bow to him (as bnei noah) or become atheist and keep his head or stick with their idol worship (ie. Christianity) and lose it. The only purpose is to sever all ties between Man and God (the true God revealed in Christ).

If you think these Rabbinic and orthodox Jews don't follow His laws, perhaps you should look them up and have a second look.

Freemasonry is also about YHWH. The entire Masonic symbolism is centered around the Temple of Solomon = Temple of Shulman. Shulman = Yahweh = Nimrod, same deity with a different name.

Im speaking about biblically. Biblically speaking, the Entity they worshiped is against all the agendas the elite are placing on society. Homosexuality? Nope. Men in womens clothes? Nuh uh.Solidified roles for men and women? No.. Using the Hebrew calendar instead of the Roman one? Nah. How about celebrating Passover, the feast of tabernacles etc instead of celebrating the pagan holidays of Easter, Christmas, Valentines(the holidays existed before the story of your christ came in the NT)? Cant say that I see that either. The reason they dont match is because they worship pagan gods.... None of these things match and thats how I KNOW they dont worship the same Being as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Noah, Lot, David etc...
The Entity you have in mind here is El, the Most High, not YHWH. In Semitic myth there's always been a struggle between El and Baal, where Baal, the strong son of El, overpowered the dragon and took El's place as head of the pantheon. Baal is not against all these agendas you mentioned. Homosexuality, travesty, prostitution, usury, even child sacrifice, all part of the modus operandi of Baal (YHWH) to keep man bound to earth.

What do you mean with celebrating Passover instead of Easter? Do you mean the Christian Passover or the Jewish?
 





Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,514
Likes
1,707
No, there's only one.

Whoever it was, it wasn't the Father revealed in Christ.

There's a difference between "everything exists because of the Creator" and "everything is created by the Creator", the latter implying creation with purpose and intent while the first could mean something set in motion with the properties of free will, leading to a series of (possibly unintended) creations and events. If you allow free will, you allow the existence of evil, ergo the non-existence of evil requires (at least) the absence of free will. And then you can even argue if the absence of free will isn't evil to begin with.

Regarding my analogy: no, the Father didn't create the Warden. The Father created his child. His child (the Son / Primordial Man) lived in harmony with the Father (God's fullness) before he went into the World (of the Sheriff and his Law) and sinned. Because of sin, the child was imprisoned (because there is no forgiveness). In prison the Warden asserts his rule (over the Father's children) through sin because if all would stop sinning, the Warden's purpose seizes to exist.

Your objection would be: "but the Father created the World, therefore the Father is responsible for the Warden keeping his child away", which would be true, if this was your vision. According to Christian gnostics, it was the Sheriff who created the World, but not that which is outside the World. In your vision, the Father is actually the Sheriff, who created the World, all the children are his property, including the Warden who's under his command to separate the children who are freed only if they obey his law.

Both the gnostics as the orthodox have their explanation for evil. The orthodox is just more sadistic.

What do you mean with "who he worshiped"?

If by source you mean the Pentateuch, then your position that we should take either all or nothing is what Ptolemy described as one who has "accurate knowledge neither of him who ordained the law nor of its commandments". I think you'll find many answers in his Letter to Flora.

What do you expect? This aspect of Christianity was cut out of the theological corpus in both writings as well as teachers. Unlike the more orthodox schools of Christianity backed with centuries of writings, philosophy, councils, tractates, we are pretty much left to ourselves to reconstruct an interpretation that was widely held among early Christians before proselytism and Rome decided its fate. But the source material is there thanks to the miraculous resurfacing in Egypt. Most apocrypha have been completely translated. If you want a book or a person to tell you what you should take out of those scriptures however, then you're basically handing over your own judgment to someone else, which is not something I would advise anyone, even if that someone was me.

Who said the debt is false? The debt (debt = sin) is very real. Sin, just like debt, binds you to the creditor and the creditor is also very real. This creditor wants you bound to his world in order to prevent unity with the Father. This is his modus operandi to assert his dominion over man. Claiming that god (demiurge) or the Father of all could simply intercede and renounce all debts is claiming to know the workings of a mysterious struggle that transcends us all.

That what I say doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense, for if it wouldn't make any sense I wouldn't be saying it. I think the root of your inability to make sense of this lies with the vision you've already got hardwired in your brain. The gnostic resurrection elicits a complete upheaval of the mental formatting we have endured since birth. That mental conformity to what we've learned and how we're supposed to think is part of the shackles that bind us.

That's all bogus for several reasons. For one, if you're going to go with something based on what came first, then you should be looking into older Mesopotamian myths, because the Torah literally adopted myths that preceded the scriptures (cf. enuma elish, debates between winter and summer, baal cycle, etc) as well as elements from Zoroastrianism.

Secondly, the Torah is the foundation of what exactly? The foundation of everything, Life, Love, Truth, is the Father revealed in Christ. No one has seen the Father but the Son who was sent by Him. That means that this foundation, ie. the Father of Christ, was absent in the Torah because He was revealed in the Gospel. If you deem otherwise then you have rejected Christ, which, judging by your comments you already seem to have.

Thirdly, this is exactly the result of the Judaizing tendencies ever since Marcion made the first Christian canon. You end up rejecting Christ, binding your heart to the law and selling your soul to pretender gods.

Large and crucial parts of the Gospel of Judas have been lost, so I won't / can't really give my view on that. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't say Judas was the chosen disciple. Jesus referred to him as the thirteenth spirit, a reference to the demon, but the relevant implication here is that it was part of the plan, as I've said before, that Jesus' blood sacrifice was where Evil lost the battle against Good.


Rabbis and orthodox Jews aren't concerned with the pagan deities of others, only with the relationship between the Jew and HaShem (YHWH). The goy will either bow to him (as bnei noah) or become atheist and keep his head or stick with their idol worship (ie. Christianity) and lose it. The only purpose is to sever all ties between Man and God (the true God revealed in Christ).

If you think these Rabbinic and orthodox Jews don't follow His laws, perhaps you should look them up and have a second look.

Freemasonry is also about YHWH. The entire Masonic symbolism is centered around the Temple of Solomon = Temple of Shulman. Shulman = Yahweh = Nimrod, same deity with a different name.

The Entity you have in mind here is El, the Most High, not YHWH. In Semitic myth there's always been a struggle between El and Baal, where Baal, the strong son of El, overpowered the dragon and took El's place as head of the pantheon. Baal is not against all these agendas you mentioned. Homosexuality, travesty, prostitution, usury, even child sacrifice, all part of the modus operandi of Baal (YHWH) to keep man bound to earth.

What do you mean with celebrating Passover instead of Easter? Do you mean the Christian Passover or the Jewish?
Minimizing the convo a little by summarizing. See, if you say whoever talked to Moses is not the "father" revealed by christ, then we have to go back to the question of WHY Whoever came to Moses was against homosexuality and transgenderism while the elite (who you say serves the same One Moses did) are for it? Human sacrifice? The One that came to Moses was against. Elite? For it. Holydays (feast of tabernacles, passover, day of atonement etc...) being celebrated personally and publicly? The One that came to Moses was for it. The Elite? Rather celebrate pagan valentines, easter, christmas holidays... See before we even get into the "baal god" vs "El" in the Torah, we'd have to start here. I dont see anything clearly that fits. These I mentioned are things I can identify to my face. Not things I have to run to other people to interpret for me (El vs Baal vs YHWH). The Hebrew law says to make no mention of pagan gods. The elite put pagan gods on all their corporations and agree to naming the days/months after them. They also push out movies with pagan gods (or pagan god storylines). The Hebrew has its own calendar, the elite go by the Roman. All these differences and you say its the same? I cant buy it.

You know it and I know it. Almost every gospel in the name of a "disciple" has the same premise. ONE disciple or person being taken out of the group to be given a message that everyone else would either not be made privy to or not understand. Its the same with Judas. And this gospel is the one that said blood sacrifice was of the lower gods yet you say the Creator sent HIS SON to be a human blood sacrifice to one of these lower gods.. Then if we switch to the gospels, we see Jesus quote verbatim from this "lower god" as if he's talking about his god. He quotes the prophets and say they're speaking of him. This is what I mean by the foundation is the Torah. Thats what Jesus came, according to the gospels, claiming speaks of him. Thats what he came quoting verbatim. Thats what the Talmud is about which was really a think tank for so called Jews who didnt understand the Torah to the extent that they had to come together to TRY and understand it. Thats what the NT is based on. Thats what the Quran was based on. All based on people and beliefs FIRST introduced in the law and the prophets(OT). You cant tell me two other myths that say to worship the IMAGELESS Creator. All the other religions (according to the Hebrews pov) are tap water. They had the water straight from the source. No going thru plants and led/copper pipes with possible bacteria/mold/chemicals mixed in with it. They had that straight water. So those things that were before them, had some of that straight water, with all that other stuff mixed in. Thats why cultures all over the world tell of a flood story. Only the Hebrews got the real version (again according to their pov which would be the OT and the OT only)...

But at the end of the day I agree. Whoever "Jesus" was, wasnt serving the Creator described by the Hebrews thats for sure. Of course we'd have to cancel most of the writings of the NT, but some of us do that anyways...
 





Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
884
Likes
881
The entire NT scripture was authored within 60 years of Christ's death and resurrection. That's water straight from the source, historically speaking. The Pentateuch was written at least 6 centuries after the events contained within. Based on this fact, what makes you give Torah scripture more authority than the Gospel?
 





Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,514
Likes
1,707
The entire NT scripture was authored within 60 years of Christ's death and resurrection. That's water straight from the source, historically speaking. The Pentateuch was written at least 6 centuries after the events contained within. Based on this fact, what makes you give Torah scripture more authority than the Gospel?
Jesus of the gospels tried to confirm himself as being whoever it is he said he was by using the Torah scriptures(verbatim), quoting from the Creator outlined in the Torah (verbatim) who you say he came to free you from, and quoting the prophets of the Torah/writings (verbatim). He placed the authority on it...
 





Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
884
Likes
881
The only authority Jesus pronounced was from the Father revealed in Christ. None had seen the Father but the Son who was sent by Him. Therefore, the Torah does not have authority, except for the Jew.

If you read Jesus' words, you read the apotheosis of Hellenic philosophy, not Jewish law.