The Greatest Reset: Beast Rising BIBLICAL (I searched GAW and did not find this so I'm posting)
(free2shine.net)
GREAT COVID RED PILL đź’Š
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (91)
sorted by:
These 66 Books were inspired by the Holy Spirit. All other books though they make be correct in doctrine are written by man and if they do not agree with God’s Word, you would be better off without them.
All the books not included in the 66 book cannon actually have doctrine that contradicts Christ's and the Apostle's teachings. The early Christian community recognized this, which is why those books were never included in the cannon to begin with.
FTFY.
Conflating the works of Paul (or his underlings) as the teachings of Jesus has been a huge misdirection. If you look at the gospel of Thomas for example (quite possibly written by the brother of Jesus), there is nothing in there that contradicts any quote by Jesus in the Bible (red letters).
There are the actual sayings of Jesus, and there is the narrative overlay. There is substantial evidence of additions to that overlay as time went on. (That is just a place to start, it's not "the evidence").
FTFY
Remember what happened as a result of this effort. We had the creation of The Church, at the behest of Emperor Constantine, which made into Law, on penalty of death, certain beliefs (like the Trinity, which was not doctrine before 383 AD). The resulting outcome of these efforts of creating official doctrine set up a God-Emperor as the highest official mouthpiece of The Truth of Jesus Christ's Teachings. This same institution became the Holy Roman Empire which created the Dark Ages, where all of humanity was ruled by The Church. A thousand years of darkness...
Or two thousand years. I mean, we are still in it. It has just changed from one dark room to another, run by the same group of people.
The assertion that conflating Pauline writings with the teachings of Jesus is a misdirection and that the Gospel of Thomas aligns seamlessly with Jesus' recorded sayings requires careful consideration of both Paul's letters and the content of the Gospel of Thomas.
Distinctive Messages:
Theological Emphasis:
Jesus' Teachings in Canonical Gospels:
Authorship and Historical Context:
Here are a few examples that highlight the distinctive nature of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas compared to the teachings found in canonical Gospels and Pauline writings:
Example of Hidden Knowledge:
Example of Gnostic Themes:
Example of Spiritual Insight:
It's important to note that the Gnostic flavor in the Gospel of Thomas lies in its emphasis on esoteric knowledge, spiritual transformation, and unique perspectives on gender and salvation. These aspects distinguish it from the more straightforward ethical teachings and narratives found in canonical Gospels and the theological focus of Paul's letters.
The authorship and dating of all writings are subjects of scholarly discussion. Suggesting that it is "more so" with Thomas is ludicrous. No one agrees on anything.
Did they come from a different "Theological" milleu? Maybe. But the key word there is "theological" (belief system about the fundamental underpinnings of reality). That doesn't mean they didn't have a common original source (the teachings of Jesus). Maybe it was just that some people (disciples of Saul) felt that some things fit better with Saul's teachings than others did, so they labeled them as heretical and forbid people from looking at them. I mean, the winners literally burnt the books. How can you not appreciate that?
That Saul had a larger impact on the Christian Doctrine we got than Jesus did is not really debatable (though I wouldn't be surprised if you try). Why do you not appreciate how large of an impact he had? He was a self proclaimed Levite Agent. The person personally responsible for the Martyrdom of Stephen, not to mention very likely numerous other deaths of "heretics." Almost every single piece of Doctrine that exists today (a notable exception being the Trinity) comes from Saul's interpretation, or as you call it, "Theological explanation" of what "God" is to him, not from Jesus himself.
As I said, all of the red letters of Jesus are decidedly in congruence with the gospel of Thomas. If you find "discrepancies," I suggest it is through the theology of Saul and the later doctrine from the Constantine Church that you make it not fit.
It suggests that by looking inward (meditation) we can find an appreciation of Reality. It is by looking inward that we will find our Connection to Source. This is completely consistent with other teachings found in Canon (from Jesus, not from Saul's interpretation).
The focus on gender wasn't "Christian," it was cultural (both Jewish and Roman culture, though especially Jewish, which became Christian culture as well). Saying "she will become male" likely has more to do with suggesting "all people are created equal." They are created equal, in the sense that all people, no matter their station, accomplishments, strengths, gender, whatever, are all equally connected to the Source of All Things. Sounds to me like a pretty good idea.
Just because all people are equal (in the sense given), doesn't mean there aren't differences. You are applying a smaller scope, under your understanding of "equality," as presented to us by the Cabal, to something that is actually rather profound. It is true that we are all equal. It is also true that we are not the same. They are just different "Truths in scope." They are only at odds when you try to force one scope onto the other. That is what the Cabal does. And you are falling for it.
And what in the red letters suggests otherwise?
Having said that, this goes along with the general theme of all teachings of Jesus that is the understanding that the Kingdom of God (the Jurisdiction of Source) is everything (Reality). If there are different "realms," or "dimensions," or whatever within Reality, then that is how it is. There is nothing here at odds with those ideas.
What is "Gnostic?" It is a box where you can place things to discredit them, nothing more. A teaching is what it is. Putting it into a box is only done as an association fallacy. It has no place in reasoned discussion. Not to say it's easy to not do that. We have definitions for a reason. But in this case it misleads from the discussion. "Gnostic" is just a word that means "to know." It means to know the teachings of Jesus in this case. It wasn't about hiding the knowledge (as suggested by the word "esoteric"). It was about trying to show people the knowledge that was hidden from them by the dogma of the time.
Every response starts with this supposition. This is the premise upon which all arguments rest. The primary evidence for this premise comes from the people who put together the "66" books themselves. Except at the time it was not 66, it was 76. Quite a few have been taken out since then (not all at the same time) to fit someone else's agenda. Even more were taken out before that "original" 76.
Each point of removal was, according to it's adherents, "inspired by the Holy Spirit." They most certainly weren't inspired by maintaining the Church hierarchy that was established to control the population. Nope, that's not possible. The book says so.
The authorship of 2 Timothy is difficult to discern (as are all the books). It may have been written by Paul. It may have been written by one of his disciples. It most certainly did not come from anything Jesus said (that we know about). Regardless, in this case, the "Scripture" being talked about was not the same 66 books we have today. Indeed, numerous books that were not included in the "original 76" were considered canon by the various groups of people who called themselves "Christian" (followers of the teachings of Jesus).
It was during the construction of a Church hierarchy (control structure) that 2 Timothy was created. It is likely that other works of "canon" were created after this book was written. So exactly what books were "inspired by the Holy Spirit" as this verse suggests?
Perhaps the truth is exactly as the evidence suggests: the bible, like all other books, was written by people who had their own things to say, with whatever motivated them to say it. In the case of the OT, the books (far more were "canon" pre-Jesus than the ones we got) were written by the ancestors of the very people who rule the world through manipulation of belief today.
That doesn't mean that I think the bible isn't a useful tool for understanding the world. On the contrary, I think it is incredibly useful. But it's not the only such useful tool. Limiting yourself to just those "66 complete and true books" prevents you from seeing how useful other evidence is. Expanding your investigation will, I suggest, lead to a deeper appreciation of Reality than the boxes we have been placed in by the PTB. The boxes that have all sorts of evidence that they were created specifically to control us.
The claim that numerous books were considered canon by various Christian groups contradicts the historical reality. Early Christian communities did have some variations in their canons, but there was a gradual consensus, and many books were widely accepted across different regions.
Authorship of 2 Timothy: You suggest uncertainty about the authorship of 2 Timothy (by citing a Wiki page <eyeroll>) and assert it may have been created during the construction of a Church hierarchy. While authorship debates exist for some biblical books, attributing motives solely to the establishment of Church control oversimplifies the complex historical and theological factors involved in canonization.
These statement are at direct odds.
There is a gradual consensus recorded by those very same people who won the war. And indeed, it was a war, with deaths and laws and conquerors etc. Certain beliefs were stamped out, written out by law under penalty of death.
How exactly was consensus created? Was it "gradual"? Sure, there is evidence of steps of the people who are commonly quoted, but importantly, there is evidence of different views that were labeled "heretical" during those "gradual" steps as well. Were they truly "heretical," or were they stated as such by the victors? I doubt the numerous people, of which there is substantial historical record that still exists today considered themselves to be heretical. Again, the victors of that war called them heretics, and those same victors wrote the bible its modern day adherents consider "the total and complete truth."
Wikipedia is useful. You can, from there, dig deeper because they cite their sources. I could have instead gone to the sources, dug that out and quoted it. Would that have made it better for you or would you have instead rolled your eyes at that?
There is no doubt, as far as I have seen, that that was the case. A Church Hierarchy was being created. It was part of the Christian Beliefs war. No one doubts that statement. Why do you?
All of history is an "oversimplification." But one can put things simply, while appreciating that there is a lot that complicates it. However, the statements I have made have to do with important pieces of evidence that are left out of the narrative of the True Believers. That all by itself should tell you something.
WRONG. There are WAY more scrolls, books, texts etc than just 66 books in the Bible. Many amazing books were removed to preserve the power and control of the church and its leaders. They also removed central tenets of Christianity to give the church and its leaders the false attribute of being needed by the individual, when clearly, you do not need others to have a connection to the Creator and the Holy Spirit.
While it's true that there are numerous ancient texts beyond the 66 books of the Bible, the process of canonization involved careful consideration and theological scrutiny. The decision to include certain books and exclude others was not solely driven by a desire for power and control. Early Christian communities sought to preserve teachings consistent with apostolic tradition and the message of Jesus.
The process of canonization aimed at preserving the core tenets of Christianity based on theological criteria. While individual connection to the Creator and the Holy Spirit is emphasized in Christian spirituality, the organized church plays a role in providing communal worship, fellowship, and guidance. The removal of certain texts was often due to concerns about their theological consistency with established doctrines. However, the belief in a personal connection to the divine doesn't negate the importance of communal aspects within Christianity. The exclusion of specific texts does not inherently invalidate the profound individual connection to God that many believers experience.
I did not post anything wanting to argue over it. You do what you believe. I don't need any other books!
By the leaders of specific groups.
It's important to appreciate exactly who was doing the consideration and exactly which "theological scrutiny" was involved. There were a lot of theologies in competition at the time.
The first thing to appreciate, that almost no one does, is that everyone involved of note was from the upper crust of society (call it "top one percent"(ish)). All of the Christian leaders who are quoted were all born into wealth and community power. This is a recurring theme in history, and one that is almost never considered. Information, schooling, etc., were not available to most people. They never have been. You had to born to the right class to have a voice at all. This is how it was in the Jewish community, and how it was in the Roman Empire. The plebeians were just that; ignorant and voiceless. They were controlled by the ruling class who had access to writings, had the training in how to read, and had the time to do so, all of which means wealth, station, and some level of power. The same is true of the leaders of the Christian community.
Prove it. It is easy to show that everyone involved was born to the people who already had at least some level of power and control in the community. For those that have power, one of the common motivating factors for action taken is to keep power (or more likely, increase it). There is plenty of evidence that the motivations were to keep power in what actually happened after the fact (see the Constantine Church). Why assume that what resulted wasn't also a part of the motivation?
FTFY.
There were a metric fuckton of people (according to evidence) that were not in the Pauline camp. They were all killed, or silenced, or their books burned; called "heretics" or "gnostics" or whatever. This is the reality of how the "teachings were made consistent with tradition". The tradition was forced, by bloodshed, ad hominem, and propaganda from those who had power in the community.
FTFY
Perhaps this is because you cannot be disconnected from Source. It is impossible. You can only be convinced to ignore the connection (or misconstrue what it means). Just because I think there was fuckery in the "Christianity" we got doesn't mean there is no truth in there. The best lies are built on the Truth. It is made a lie not by stating non-truths, but by leaving important things out,. and giving a narrative overlay that matches with your design.
That is how the news is run today (on both sides). There is plenty of evidence that suggests that is how the world has always been run. Why assume it was any different then when the results were exactly the same in the case of the development of Christianity (consolidation of power through control of beliefs).
We actually have a significant number of ancient manuscripts dating back to various time periods.
These manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex Vaticanus, provide us with a wealth of textual evidence for the New Testament.
The sheer quantity and diversity of these manuscripts make it impossible for any group to confiscate and change all of them without leaving any trace.
Moreover, the early church fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, wrote extensive commentaries and references to the biblical texts.
These writings, along with the translations of the Bible into various languages, further validate the accuracy and consistency of the biblical text throughout history.
Additionally, the process of textual criticism, which involves comparing and analyzing different manuscript copies to establish the original text, ensures that any discrepancies or errors can be identified and corrected.
Scholars have dedicated their lives to studying these manuscripts and have developed rigorous methods to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the biblical text we have today.
Considering the vast number of manuscripts and the widespread dissemination of the Bible, it is highly unlikely that any group could successfully manipulate or confiscate all copies and commentaries without detection.
The evidence we have at our disposal affirms the integrity and preservation of the biblical text throughout history, enabling us to have confidence in the accuracy of the Bible we possess today.
Therefore, when considering the logical and historical evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim of a group confiscating and altering all biblical manuscripts and early church commentaries is simply not possible.
The availability of ancient manuscripts and the extensive writings of the early church fathers provide strong support for the authenticity and reliability of the Bible as we know it.
While it’s true that Christianity, at times, intersected with influential figures, we mustn’t overlook its foundational years.
In the face of intense persecution, Christians flourished, often at great personal cost. The growth of Christianity wasn’t solely a product of those in power; rather, it often thrived against opposition, showcasing its resilience and appeal beyond political structures.
Early believers faced challenges, not only from external forces but also internal debates that shaped the diverse landscape of early Christian thought.
The early church fathers extensively quoted the biblical text in their writings, providing valuable insights into the state of the New Testament during their time.
While the exact number of quotations varies (some scholars report over 30,000 quotations), it is true that a substantial portion of the New Testament can be reconstructed from their quotes (minus roughly 11 verses).
These extensive quotations from the early church fathers provide a robust foundation for reconstructing the New Testament's content, doctrines, and teachings. It's a testament to the widespread dissemination and acceptance of these writings in the early Christian community. Even if I grant you the assertion (which I won’t) that the original manuscripts were lost, changed or edited, these quotations would serve as a substantial basis for understanding the core tenets of the Christian faith as transmitted by the apostles and disciples.
The consistency across these quotes reinforces the reliability of the biblical text.
Several early Christian influencers and teachers emerged from non-privileged backgrounds, embodying the diverse nature of the movement:
Peter: A fisherman by trade, Peter became a prominent disciple of Jesus and a key figure in the early Christian community.
Paul: Though educated, Paul's background as a tentmaker and his initial opposition to Christianity before his conversion offer a different perspective.
Lydia of Thyatira: A businesswoman, Lydia was a seller of purple goods and one of the first European converts to Christianity.
Priscilla and Aquila: A married couple, Priscilla and Aquila were tentmakers like Paul and played a significant role in early Christian missionary efforts.
Phoebe: Described as a deacon in the early Christian community, Phoebe was likely involved in various forms of ministry.
These examples illustrate the diverse social and economic backgrounds of early Christian influencers, demonstrating that the movement was not exclusively led by those from privileged classes.
Slyver, you’re smart enough to know that the Church was around long before Constantine arrived on the scene.
As far as “proving it” goes, you’re the one making the positive claim that the Bible has been changed beyond recognition and trustworthiness. Therefore, the burden proof rests squarely upon your shoulders to provide evidence of such a claim. Give us some reputable, primary source references that we can all go to check your claims.
Yet you provide or quote NONE. Just fanciful assertions under the guise of “knowledge;” Gnostic knowledge at that. Let the reader beware, this type of reasoning is what will be used to persecute those who do not conform to the New Age/Golden Age (Beast) system.
I can tell by your comment that you haven't read any of them, nor do you know anything about the counsels that removed them. Read an Ethiopian Bible. It long predates your (Scofield) bible.
Didn’t post this here to argue.
You read what you want and I will read the Holy Bible. Peace
Which specific council are you referring to, exactly?