Wake up little goyim, you've been in Apostle Saul's dream too long.
>>18408875its all very simple actually, allow me to explain...
>>18408875Christianity is about representing God with love and righteousness as a member of the body of Christ, the one true living God.I hope that one day you see the light, and learn to love your God, recognizing the light of God in Christ as the one true living God which can save the earth from the hell.
Jews feel the same way towards Jesus that Christians feel towards Muhammad
>>18408901As a Jew I think Christianity is Judaism twisted into something it was never meant to be by 1st century Romans, I think Islam is a tribal warlord's cult.
>>18408901As a Christian I don't think of Muhammad at all. Sufism seems fairly based and I've been reading more poetry from them lately (no homo).
>how can you kill a god?if that's his will, there will be no probo!
>>18408875What a grand and intoxicating innocence
>>18408875>WHAT GRAND AND INTOXICATING INNOCENCE
>>18408940His will was to redeem humanity from himself by showing up dying resurrecting telling people he would be back momentarily, then disappearing never to return again?
>>18408875>how do christians think one can kill a godHow do Jews think they can fool a God?
>>18408953>Dagoth Ur is jewish
>>18408875Ok, but he does have a point when he said “how can you kill a God?” Gods by definition cannot die or at least, not be killed by human hands.
>>18408957dunmers are literally based on jewish mythology
>>18408962god used himself as a sacrifice through his son to redeem all of humanitythis is why christians dont have to perform any animal sacrifices for divine favor since god already performed the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of your soul, he has you coveredall christians have to do is accept jesus christ as their savior and thats it
>>18408967>god sacrificed himself to save himselfWhen you're all-powerful this seems more like a hollow gesture to be honest
>>18408970>god sacrificed himself to save himselfno, to save you
>>18408875Jewish Chad spitting truth nukes, dropping truth bombs
>>18408970God did that in that way because it was the way to preserve our free will.
>>18408976jews seem to be pretty good at dropping bombs
>>18408980Yes, we are :)
>>18408984for literally no reason, too
>>18408989Wrong.
>>18408970not when He, in his merciful condescension, chose to be incarnate as a man, entering this world as one of us, being vulnerable as a baby born in a cave dependent on His mother, and voluntarily undertaking suffering fully experienced in His human nature as fully man and fully God
>>18408989Natives shall have their revenge on the Nakb- I mean on the Trail of Tears.
>>18408882The G-d you worship is YaldabaothChrist didn't die for his followers to worship a satanic flawed demiurge that orders his goons to kill women and children
>>18409263>you worshipWorship is contrary the authentic christianity because it is sacralidgeous for the body of Christ to worship anything.
>>18409263>Gnostic schizoCope:>Matthew 5:17 states, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
God created that man to love him dearly, because he is no longer in the sky next to him.And then you assholes killed him in gross and heinous ways because you guys are attached to a non-existing mommy Ishtar.
>>18408875>Jesus was killed by RomansJews plotted against their own countrymen, Roman soldiers carried out the act since it was expedient for the general jewry.>how can you kill a God? what a grand and intoxicating innocence.Jesus' FLESH died!His divine nature did not die.In fact, His divine nature brought His human nature back to life thus confirming His divinity to many.Man can TRY to kill God by destroying the man but ultimately God wins in the end.God was not man. Now man is with God bodily, eternally. Man is now an essential aspect of the Trinity which always was and always will be.
>>18408875>how can you kill a God?how can you fool a God dumbass kikedeath to all abrahamists, the scourge of the earth
>>18408978>muh free willThis argument is so stupid. The fact that he sends people to hell for disobeying him and the fact that he has any commandments of dos and don’ts shows that he clearly doesn’t give a shit about “free will.”
>>18409373>we don’t worshipThis is heresy and you would have been burned at the stake for this in the Middle Ages.
>>18409413>Jesus' FLESH died!Still died though.
>>18409380Cope. Gnostics were the original Christians. The form of Christianity you’re familiar with is a later revisionist branch who rewrote history to make it seem like they were the original. The gospels we have are not the original versions, they were heavily edited to strip them of their true meaning.Read the Nag Hammadi codex if you want to understand what Christ actually taught.
>>18409498Yes. His human nature died.
>>18409380That verse or at least that translation of that verse causes considerable friction even within the orthodox canon, when Paul supposedly says things like>Ephesians 2:14-16, For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us, abolishing the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it.And even Mark has Jesus supposedly declares all foods clean, contrary to the law, in Mark 7:19.Maybe significantly though, the Greek words translated "abolish" in Ephesians and Matthew are different, and the KJV probably renders it better in this case, translating Matthew's word as "destroy" while still keeping Paul's as "abolish."Then a secondary translation issue is that, in English, fulfilling the law and the prophets might seem to only mean fulfilling the prophecies contained in them while leaving the law itself untouched, but in fact the word fulfill could also be translated as "complete," or even "finish." And, in context, where Jesus after saying that immediately extends the commandment against murder to include anger, the commandment against adultery to include lust, and he replaces the rule "an eye for an eye" with "do not resist an evil person," among other alterations, I think "complete" or "finish" is almost surely the better translation, though it might not include the full range of meaning that "fulfill," properly understood, allows.
>>18409523(cont.) So given that Jesus does extend several rules and seems to outright cancel "an eye for an eye," a viable translation might be: "Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to destroy them but to complete them.” with an implication that "destroy" means "destroy entirely," still leaving room for him to cancel some rules like an "an eye for an eye."That said, from a neognostic perspective, I would sooner toss Matthew out of the canon as a later gospel, written at least after Mark and Paul's letters even though the orthodox canon puts it first (very suspicious), because to me some of its sayings are a little too pointedly at odds with Paul to be likely historical.But, even despite that, the most orthodox-friendly Gnostics, the Valentinians, did still make use of Matthew, and they had a pretty elegant way of dividing the Jewish law to make sense of all the things Jesus said: http://www.gnosis.org/library/flora.htm
>>18409534>with an implication that "destroy" means "destroy entirely," still leaving room for him to cancel some rules like an "an eye for an eye."Or, making use of the "finish" connotation of "fulfill" you could instead translate it as: "Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to destroy them but to bring them to completion." So the idea of removing some of them would be implied within the fulfillment part, although I think in English this has too strong of an implication that the law will be gotten rid of entirely to reflect what is meant in the context where, again, Jesus immediately sets about extending some commandments.
>>18409500God is the god of history and the Gnostics died out because God didn't approve of them
>>18409496Most people calling themselves christians these days do worship, and that is not authentic christianity because it contradicts the fundamental facts of the theology. For example, the body of Christ is formed by the people who identify that way in order to use the name of God for themselves, justifying whatever is required to give them eternal life. If they are the body of Christ, the body of the one true living God, then it can be nothing except sacrilege for them to worship anything. If however, they reject salvation in Christ, and instead worship any demon, then they will have no protection from death.
>>18408906As a non-Jews modern Christianity is just Judaism but the goyim are allowed to participate to without sacrificing anything (like their foreskins and bacon)
>>18409552>I have not come to destroy them but to bring them to completionThe promise made to the exiles was that if they kept the commandments handed down on the mountain then they would be found righteous and so that way be saved from death until their place upon the throne of heaven was restored. That was accomplished through the Son, and fulfilled when one takes a place in the body of Christ, finding there upon the throne of heaven: dominion over the Father's creation, and salvation from death.
>>18409601>demondevil* not demon
>>18409587The demiurge is the god of history. Mundane time is an illusion like the rest of material reality.https://philipdick.com/mirror/essays/How_to_Build_a_Universe.pdf"During the Middle Ages, a curious theory arose, which I will now present to you for what it is worth. It is the theory that the Evil One Satan is the "Ape of God." That he creates spurious imitations of creation, of God's authentic creation, and then interpolates them for that authentic creation. Does this odd theory help explain my experience? Are we to believe that we are occluded, that we are deceived, that it is not 1978 but A.D. 50... and Satan has spun a counterfeit reality to wither our faith in the return of Christ?"[. . .]"What I am saying is this: There is internal evidence in at least one of my novels that another reality, an unchanging one, exactly as Parmenides and Plato suspected, underlies the visible phenomenal world of change, and somehow, in some way, perhaps to our surprise, we can cut through to it. Or rather, a mysterious Spirit can put us in touch with it, if it wishes us to see this permanent other landscape. Time passes, thousands of years pass, but at the same instant that we see this contemporary world, the ancient world, the world of the Bible, is concealed beneath it, still there and still real. Eternally so."
>>18409615The Demiurge is just SatanCreation and the material world is pronounced to be good by God in Genesis
>>18409624Most scholars agree that there are two different creation stories in Genesis. The first one, in which the creation is pronounced good, is an allegory for the generation of the pleroma. Only the second one, in which adam is perhaps allegorically molded by the demiurge from clay, concerns the creation of this world. (Hebrews 9:11b, "not made with hands, that is, not of this creation")
>>18409636(cont.) I do believe this way of interpreting Genesis was present in early Christianity, btw. It's definitely found in the Simonian text Apophasis Megale, which has been at least partially reconstructed from the heresiologist Hippolytus seeming to quote extensively from it.>And when Moses says, “In six days God made the heaven and the earth, and on the seventh rested from all his labors,” (He tells of a great mystery. And this one may see from the absurdities that confound those who take his words as a literal account. For upon the fourth day, Moses says, God made the sun and the moon to exist. Yet he had called the light into being already on the first day!) When, therefore, (Moses says) that there are three days before the generation of the sun and the moon, (he means) esoterically Mind and Thought, or heaven and earth, and the seventh Power, the Boundless.>So when he speaks of the Garden, Moses referred allegorically to the womb. (Or so he must,) if we are to believe the word (and not dismiss it as nonsense).I believe this way of thinking can also be discerned from Paul's letters, though it fits more naturally if you're willing to throw out certain passages as interpolations. At least, I've argued that before, but desu I don't remember my own argument for that in detail at the moment.
>>18408875God gives His life.He has the power but chooses not to use it;because His own knew Him not, even thought they were given divine revelation.The most satanic are the most holy, at least from what we can infer by our reasoning, but God knows the heart, and the Christian thru sanctification gains power of spiritual discernment. If you don't use the gifts God gives you, no one will, and the world will become more feminized / cruel / dirty talmudic jewish pharisaical sola grammar
>>18409636The second one doesn't start until Gen 2:4 and Gen 1:27 already has humanity made without any mention of the clay
>>18408875Wake me up when actually they stand by that by spilling goat blood every year or whatever instead of 2000 years of Jesus' sacrifice but Judaism was just Bible Christianity all along huh? ooo they love them Greek based langauges
>Using Rabbi Mizrachi as the standard Jew
>>18410160As I understand it, the Gnostic interpretation would be that the man created in Genesis 1, bearing the image of the true God, isn't us. We don't start with the image of the true God, but we can develop it.1 Corinthians 15:47-49"The first man was from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven. As one of dust, so are those who are of the dust, and as one of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the one of dust, we will also bear the image of the one of heaven."2 Corinthians 3:18"And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another, for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit."Something like this idea seems to be what's going on in the Apocryphon of John when the self-aware thought of the Father comes into being at the beginning of the generation of the pleroma, and she's referred to, among other things, as "First Human."Only later, after the fall of Sophia resulting in Yaldabaoth and his world, does Yaldabaoth perceive the heavenly image of the first human and make Adam, partly based on the heavenly image but also partly based on his own image.
>>18410235As far as I know there's only one place in Paul's letters where he refers to ordinary human men as being the image of God instead of Christ being the image of God, and it's the weird passage in 1 Corinthians 11 where he talks about how it's shameful for men to have long hair and for women to pray with their heads uncovered based on reasoning that is very difficult to discern but which IIRC may be partly based on mistaken ancient ideas of how biology works.Personally I wouldn't be surprised if this passage is an orthodox interpolation, partly because, as said, it's the only time ordinary human men are said to be the image of god rather than Christ, partly because most instances of sexism in Paul are orthodox interpolations, and partly because the opening line, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you." looks a little suspect to me.I also learned a while ago that the Liber Pontificalis, an old book purportedly containing biographies of all the popes from Peter to the 15th century, says about the second Pope, Pope Linus, that "He, by direction of blessed Peter, decreed that a woman must veil her head to come into the church." According to his wikipedia page,>J.P. Kirsch commented in the Catholic Encyclopedia that "without doubt this decree is apocryphal, and copied by the author of the Liber Pontificalis from Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (11:5) and arbitrarily attributed to the first successor of the Apostle in Rome.And to me this suggests a plausible origin story for the passage, which is that, exactly opposite what Kirsch says, it could have began as something authentically from Pope Linus, which was instead attributed to Paul in the orthodox-revised edition of his letters to give it greater authority.
