Who are you talking to ArkonaFan?
Paul was not Christian.
Paul was one of the first to warp and redirect Christ’s teachings.
Here we go…haha
One of my favorite Bibles is the Jefferson Bible.
Thomas Jefferson, as a study tool, made a Bible that ONLY contained the words of Christ....none of the other stuff.
He was looking to distill the signal from the noise.
Now, that's not to say that he threw everything else away and never looked at it, but as an exercise, going through the Jefferson Bible is solid.
Paul was an Apostle commissioned directly by the risen Christ (Galatians 1:1, Acts 9).
Peter, who walked with Jesus for three years, called Paul’s writings Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16).
If Paul warped Christ’s teachings, then Christ failed to preserve His own message, the Apostles failed to recognize heresy in their midst, and the Holy Spirit failed to guide the Church into truth.
Your chart is historically illiterate eisegesis. You’re not defending Jesus. You’re inventing one that fits your preferences and calling it orthodoxy.
This isn’t theology.
You. The Bible giving encouragement to some to not marry. I’m not using any catchy graphics or questioning anyone’s validity as an author of books of the Bible. While you are using Genesis: have you considered that when that command was given there were eight people on that boat and now we have 8 billion?
Jefferson literally cut out the resurrection and all miracles because he was a Deist who didn’t believe in the supernatural. That’s not “distilling signal from noise.” That’s editing Scripture to match Enlightenment rationalism.
If you only accept the red letters and reject the Apostles Christ commissioned, you don’t have Christianity. You have a moral philosophy with a Jesus aesthetic.
It also shows up in Genesis 1 but to be fair, almost nobody understands Genesis 1 and to your point, Genesis 1 is covering the same scenario as Genesis 9: pole flip cataclysm that caused a global flood event. The 7 day story is meant to tell us what the aftermath of the pole flip looked like to the few survivors who made it through these evolutionary bottlenecks that explain punctuated equilibrium and stratigraphic homogeneity.
Bro stop
Paul’s counsel on singleness in 1 Corinthians 7 was given during “the present distress” and persecution, not as a universal ideal. He explicitly said marriage is good and singleness is a gift for some, not a mandate for all.
And yes, there are 8 billion people now. Half of them are in nations with su replacement fertility. Japan, South Korea, Italy, Spain, and most of the West are collapsing demographically.
The command wasn’t “fill the earth then stop.” It was “be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.” That’s a creational mandate tied to dominion, not a population quota.
Wow. You can't explain why there are halos. You can't explain how halos in paleo-Christian depictions are related to the Eucharistic sacrament. You don't know what Christ was talking about with the serpent or the dove in Matthew 10:16.
These are major things but you just gloss over them and arrogantly continue to believe that you know shit about fuck about this.
You
Genesis 1 and 9 aren’t covering the same event. Genesis 1 is the creation of the cosmos from nothing. Genesis 9 is covenant renewal after judgment on a corrupted world.
You’re overlaying catastrophism and evolutionary theory onto a text that’s making theological claims about God’s sovereign ordering of creation and His covenant faithfulness.
Symbolism in iconography and metaphors in Matthew 10 don’t change the canon of Scripture or validate Jefferson’s scissors.
You’re pivoting to esoteric tangents because the core argument collapsed. Whether I can explain halos in paleo Christian art is irrelevant to whether Paul’s epistles are authoritative Scripture.
Christ commissioned Paul. Peter affirmed Paul’s writings as Scripture. The Church received them as such for 2,000 years.
Your gnostic rabbit holes don’t overturn that. They just prove you’d rather chase mystery than submit to revelation.
If you’ve got a substantive theological argument about Paul’s authority, make it. Otherwise you’re just throwing smoke grenades.
You don't even understand that the male and female stuff Christ was talking about is referring to the Holy Trinity...the actual Holy Trinity...the one that is in every tradition.
God the Father is a distorted combination of two concepts: the One Infinite Creator and a set of Divine attributes that are penetrative in nature called "the Divine Masculine". Wisdom, Power, and Victory are all Divine traits that are penetrative. Wisdom penetrates foolishness.
Power penetrates resistance.
Victory penetrates thresholds.
The "Holy Spirit" is the Christian version of "the Divine Feminine" which is a set of Divine traits that are receptive like Understanding, Mercy, and Glory.
Christ was a Kabbalah master. The Lord's Prayer is essentially a "covering of the bases" of the Sephiroth of the Tree of Life of Kabbalah.
When a person embodies the Divine Masculine traits and the Divine Feminine traits, that person experiences what you might understand as "the fiery baptism of the Holy Spirit" which is represented in many other traditions in similar, fiery ways. Such a person is a "Divine Child" or a "Child of God". In the case of Jesus Christ, because he was incarnated in a male body, they called him a "Son of God". Christians distorted that though and made it "the" Son of God instead of "a Child of God".
I didn't say "event". I said "scenario".
No, I'm just pointing out that your entire concept of Christianity is myopic and railroaded.
You rejected the Apostle Paul, cited the Jefferson Bible, and pivoted to iconography halos when the argument fell apart.
That’s not exposing my myopia. That’s you admitting you don’t have a coherent theological framework, just a grab bag of alternative theories that let you dismiss anything inconvenient.
Reformed Christianity has 2,000 years of tested theology, confessional standards, and a coherent hermeneutic. You’ve got Jefferson’s scissors and conspiracy theories about pole flips.
Call me railroaded all you want. At least I’m on tracks that go somewhere
I never said there was a quota and I’d love to discuss with more people what “be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it” means. “Have kids, have kids, have kids, and destroy dandelions in your grass “ is not it. I honestly have no idea how many people is intended by that mandate but I don’t think the tens of thousands of people per square mile in the cities is deficient. Gardeners greening the desert I think are doing more to fill the earth than welfare moms popping out another kid. I think away from the contentious contributions we could have a reasonable discussion about the variety of ways individuals can contribute to that command. Don’t get so caught up with fighting that you mistake allies of a different group for an enemy.
I mean, that's true. I reject Paul. Jefferson had a good idea. It's not the ultimate idea ever but it's a good one. You made no argument whatsoever other than fiat bullshit for why the authority of the apostles is valid. Your myopia causes you to be unable to see that.
It's not a conspiracy theory. Maybe you should spend time reading declassified documents. Einstein seemed to think Hapgood's theory was possessed of great scientific merit. It's called doing due diligence. It's called recognizing the law of diminishing marginal returns. You can study King James Bible or whatever version you like till you're blue in the face but until you study every religion looking for common ground under every rock, you'll never know what else is out there.
That's the lesson of the camel and the eye of the needle but, again, modern Christians typically don't get that lesson. They say "How the hell could a camel fit through an eye of a needle?" and then move on, harboring confusion.
You reject Paul because accepting him requires submission to authority you don’t like. That’s not scholarship. That’s rebellion.
Christ commissioned Paul. Peter called his writings Scripture. The Church received them for 2,000 years. You dismissed it because you have no counter.
Hapgood and comparative religion aren’t theology. They’re distractions letting you build bespoke spirituality while staying autonomous.
The camel and needle isn’t hidden wisdom. Christ said wealth makes salvation humanly impossible, but with God all things are possible. The disciples got it. You’re inventing mystery where clarity exists.
I reject authority. I accept truth but not authority. Also, I guess you missed it, but Christ was a rebel, so, thank you for the comp.
Paul's words contradict Christ's words so I'm going with Christ, not Paul. I don't care what Peter called his writings. Those are the weakest arguments ever, and yes, I have counters but you won't consume my research because you don't understand the eye of the needle parable. It's not about wealth. It's about attachments and the willingness to relinquish them in order to explore and learn. It wasn't about material wealth. That was a metaphor.
I don't know what your concept of "comparative religion" means in your head but it's probably only somewhat close to what I'm doing. Hapgood is just one piece of the puzzle.
Christ wasn’t a rebel against authority. He is the Authority. He submitted perfectly to the Father and fulfilled the Law. You’re confusing righteousness with rebellion.
‘
“I reject authority but accept truth” is incoherent. Truth has a source. If Christ is truth, He’s also Lord. You can’t have one without the other. You want Jesus as life coach, not King.
Paul’s words don’t contradict Christ’s. You just reject the interpretive framework Christ gave through His commissioned Apostles. That’s not fidelity to Jesus. That’s you deciding you know better than the Church He built.
The needle parable is about wealth because Christ said “How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom” (Mark 10:23). The disciples asked ‘Who then can be saved?’ because they understood He meant material wealth. You’re the one adding layers.
You don’t have research. You have a worldview that requires you to dismiss anything that demands submission. That’s not seeking truth. That’s seeking autonomy.
Christ is Lord or He’s nothing. Repent and submit, or stop pretending you follow Him
Tell that to the Pharisees and Romans
Also, you just betrayed your lack of due diligence on my perspective.
Surrender/submission to the will of God is how the 3rd eye is activated.
If you've ever checked out my podcast guest appearances you'd know that.
Before this conversation I might have. After this, I’ll pass. Thanks for the offer though
Ephesians 4:18
I'm going to need to brush up on both my Aramaic and my Koine Greek to contribute to this thread...stay humble my friends.
And stack sats.
You can’t quote Paul to defend rejecting Paul. That’s not an argument. That’s irony.
Broken clock
Even a broken clock assumes time exists objectively.
You reject objective authority but keep appealing to Scripture when it’s convenient.
Pick one
It warms my heart to watch young people debate Christian theology this deeply. The world is healing. 🙏 God bless both of you. We are all brothers in Christ.
I already told you.
I reject authority.
I accept truth.
You conflate the two because it is convenient to outsource your due diligence to some "daddy".
Truth without authority is just your opinion with a halo.
If truth exists objectively, it has a source. That source has authority whether you acknowledge it or not.
You’re not rejecting authority. You’re just crowning yourself as the final arbiter of what’s true. That’s not freedom. That’s the oldest rebellion in the book.
“You will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
You can’t reject all authority and accept truth. To claim anything is true, you’re assuming laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and standards to judge claims.
Where do those come from in your worldview? You’re borrowing from the Christian framework to argue against it. You say “I accept truth” but won’t answer to the God who grounds truth, logic, and intelligibility itself. That’s not independence. That’s theft. You can’t account for the preconditions of the argument you’re making. I can. You’re not rejecting authority. You’re suppressing the truth in unrighteousness while using the tools it provides. Romans 1:18-20.
How exactly do you think we're supposed to ascend...by NOT becoming more God-like?
What do you think John 14:12 is about?
Following Christ doesn't mean "being a follower".
It means doing what Christ did: seeking truth wherever it could be found, whether that was with the Druids, Egyptians, Hindus, Buddhists, Nagas, Essenes, or somewhere else entirely.
Trailblazers are followers of Christ, not lemmings.
That must be why you're enlightened and I'm not.
What is photismos?
You’re not arguing theology anymore. You’re just flexing Greek vocabulary to avoid the point.
St. Justin Martyr First Apology chapter 61
You’re asserting that truth can be found “wherever”without accounting for how you distinguish truth from error. By what standard do you evaluate the Druids against the Egyptians against Christ? You’ve made yourself the ultimate authority while claiming to reject authority. That’s incoherent. Every claim you make about seeking truth presupposes logical absolutes, moral standards, and the reliability of revelation, none of which your eclectic syncretism can ground. You’re standing on Christian assumptions to deny Christianity.
John 14:12 doesn’t teach self deification. It teaches that believers would do greater works in extent through the power of the risen Christ and the Spirit He sent.
You’re citing a Church Father who affirmed the creeds, submitted to apostolic teaching, and died for the exclusive claims of Christ. He’d reject everything you’re arguing.
Stop strip mining patristic sources for quotes that seem to support you while ignoring their entire framework.
By what standard? What the hell are you talking about?
I read the research that others have done.
I carry that in my mind without judgement as I continue researching.
This is where you and I part ways because you pick everything apart before a case can be built.
If you come into the kitchen when the cook is on step 1 and declare that the recipe he's cooking is shit, you haven't offered a valid criticism because you didn't actually sample what he was cooking.
"Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen. Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring. The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"
"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"
You're afraid to empty your cup and sample what I'm brewing which ir ironic because the Bible tells you explicitly not to be afraid over 100 times.
i think you're missing the point of Pauls teaching in Corinthians.
My understanding is that he rejects the dominionist argument of salvation by works (ie, raising a righteous family, building the Christian community) and instead emphasizes the it is ONLY by our faith in Him that we are saved.
Dont sleep on Paul man.
ht
@freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg
Frankly I'm not sold on the whole Saul/Paul conversion.
Sounds like a cover story to infiltrate, hijack, and redirect off course the Christ movement.
Salvation is an alchemy term. It bears the same root word as dissolve.
This is a reference to multiple things.
It is a reference to what Christians would be most familiar with as "born again".
On the Tree of Life of Kabbalah, it is represented by the hidden Sephirah called Da'ath. Note how morphologically similar death and Da'ath are. That's important. Very important.
It corresponds with what is mischaracterized as "jinn possession" in Islam.
It corresponds with Gnosis in the Gnostic traditions.
It corresponds with the Phoenix rising from its own ashes.
It corresponds with what some call "the dark night of the soul" during which time the neophyte is stripped of that which they never truly were...of the trappings that became attached to them prior to the awakening.
It also corresponds quite literally to chemistry because the Egyptians were manufacturing various chemicals in the buildings that are still standing today. Look into the work of Geoffrey Drumm (Land of Chem). HIs work suggests with plenty of hard evidence vetted by professional chemists and archaeochemists and whatnot, that the Egyptians were making, amongst other chemicals, hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid.
Do you know what you need to make Epsom salts out of basalt? Hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid.
They were using Epsom salts in sarcophagi as sensory deprivation chambers to induce theta neural oscillations because those can trigger spiritual awakenings. This is why grounding is important. It's the rhythm entrainment of the body and aura to the earth's Schumann resonance. This is why lotus position meditation with root chakra on the ground is effective. This is why caves were part of the Eleusinian mysteries. This is why hypogeums were a thing. This is why baptism is a thing. Grounding. Rhythm entrainment.
This is hard science bro. I'm not playing with some normie arguments here.
None of that has anything to do with the point I made,
or that Paul made in Corinthians.
So you think that the importance that the Socratic method places on definition of terms is overbought?
As a mathematician I'll disagree. Definitions are important. You used a word that has a lot baked into it and I'm very sure you didn't know most or all of that stuff because you're a unitraditionalist.
👍
Tldr? Fellow torah guy?
