The Jew as Mistress and Harlot of the World

1.3K

•

I don't want to explore the psychology too deeply here, only to point out how the broader cultural instigation by Jews of whites is related to this phenomenon.

When a woman instigates a man, perhaps for days on end, she is expecting his self-control and restraint to cause him to bottle up tension internally. In fact, she knows that his conscience punishes him when he loses control of himself, because this is masculine nature.

The intent is to eventually cause him to lose a bit of control and unleash this on her.

Why? Precisely because she knows that he will be morally harmed by this. The result is that she will be able to behave like a victim and hold it over his head for days, or weeks, or years. If you want to go there, there is a clear evolutionary explanation for why females would develop these kinds of behavior within a moralistic society. Enduring some small sacrifice nets greater power in the long run.

Jews are doing the same thing with whites. None of them believe in this Marxist nonsense they are peddling. The point is to instigate you, to make white society's internal water boil until eventually we lose our moralistic restraint and lash out with the big one.

When that happens they will have gas to run on for another century or two. They will be able to cite for all of those intervening years that time that 'daddy hit mommy'. Imagine for a second a parasite that could facultatively sacrifice some of its cells for the flourishing of the rest. It provokes the host immune system to attack it, but not annihilate it.

"Well," you ask, "why would the host ever stop short?"

In the case of white European society, it is because of our morality of course. It is expressed at the level of the whole, and in individual men. For individual men, some women will facultatively exploit this to benefit (over the long run) from the cycle of abuse.

At the level of societies, there are even some parasites that are fully aware of themselves. They know this process better than you do.

The point of all of this is to push the 'quiet kid' until he breaks. Then, despite the years of instigation, he becomes 'the psycho'.

And after years of instigation, the white man becomes 'the nazi'. And the world's non-white victims benefit in the long run because the Jew manipulates this cycle of abuse with indemnity.

EDIT: I should be fairer to women and say that many of them don't know this is what they're doing when they are doing it. It's functionalism. The behaviors promote a function that is conducive to the ongoing maintenance of the pair bond itself. She isn't aware of it most times.

She is incentivized by the emotional high of the reconnection after the bad moments. We always ask ourselves why women remain in cycles of abuse, and it is less often that we acknowledge that in many cases the abuse goes both ways in these cycles. We just treat the way the male characteristically returns his as the only kind of abuse there is.

You can't really understand the true nature of these things until you situate them in the functional cycle.

The same principle applies to relations between Jews and the gentiles.

Jews are the women who never understand why they are always in an abusive cycle. They cry out to God through the whole Old Testament about their victimhood.

They carefully control the frame of the argument so that people don't acknowledge the bidirectional abuse happening cyclically. They make sure the history books only contain the woman's case, much like a police report in a domestic abuse case. So our history books only go on about the violent reprisal of muh Holocaust.

Ever notice how some women will exaggerate things, as if their emotions actually dictated the cognitive mapping of the events that took place in a fight? Suddenly your stern tone becomes guttural screaming in her account? And you're standing there thinking: "I am not screaming, like at all."

This is also the difference between your view of the Holocaust and the Jews' view. To be sure, there are Jewish regarding the Holocaust, but for most of them, it isn't lying in the sense you think it is. It's like the way a woman lies about you screaming in a fight. The reality just is the way it felt to her.

Same idea. Many Jews don't care about the same theory of truth you do...you're screaming at them even when you aren't - because that's how it feels to them. So 6 million didn't literally die in the Holocaust. That's what being in the camps felt like. So like that one time Harry slapped Sally in the kitchen, he is going to hear about how he beat her to a bloody pulp for the next 20 years. And so you hear about work camps and shared bathrooms as if they were ovens and mass graves.

THINK FOR A MOMENT: CAN THERE BE ANY COINCIDENCE THAT THE POWER OF WOMEN IS ASCENDING IN PARALLEL WITH JEWISH CONTROL?

Put it all together.

How effective has it ever been for you to tell a woman: "It didn't happen that way." Even if you are correct, not only will she simply not accept your historical account, it will actually worsen the problem because your logical, factually true account becomes an assault on how she feels about it. After all, you're the big strong male.

This is your entire predicament with the Jew in a nutshell.

The Jew IS the feminine principle (not just female, but metaphysically feminine) embodied as a people.

The Bible often referred to the chosen people as the bride of God, and the messiah as the bridegroom.

The Jew is the MISTRESS OF THE WORLD. You do all the work so she can hoard and organize the money. She stays home while you go out and plow the field. No matter what, you lose the fight, even when you don't lose factually. And she never quite goes away. She holds the times you've beat her over your head forever and gets whatever she wants this way. Note that I have said the Jew is not the wife of the world, for a mistress is something you keep in secret, and this gives her more power over you.

The Jews are also the harlot of Biblical Revelation that rides the many-headed dragon: the men/nations of the world which carry her and the leash with which she binds them.

Incidentally, this entire dynamic is also portrayed in Kubrick's The Shining. I ought to do an analysis of this.

Consider how a cycle of abuse works in male-female pairs. The media stereotype features the battered wife and the controlling husband, however, anyone with any sense of the fairer sex realizes there is some female adaptive behavior involved with not only accepting some of the abuse, but in instigating it. I don't want to explore the psychology too deeply here, only to point out how the broader cultural instigation by Jews of whites is related to this phenomenon. When a woman instigates a man, perhaps for days on end, she is expecting his self-control and restraint to cause him to bottle up tension internally. In fact, she knows that his conscience punishes him when he loses control of himself, because this is masculine nature. The intent is to eventually cause him to lose a bit of control and unleash this on her. Why? Precisely because she knows that *he will be morally harmed* by this. The result is that she will be able to behave like a victim and hold it over his head for days, or weeks, or years. If you want to go there, there is a clear evolutionary explanation for why females would develop these kinds of behavior within a moralistic society. Enduring some small sacrifice nets greater power in the long run. Jews are doing the same thing with whites. None of them believe in this Marxist nonsense they are peddling. The point is to instigate you, to make white society's internal water boil until eventually we lose our moralistic restraint and lash out with the big one. When that happens they will have gas to run on for another century or two. They will be able to cite for all of those intervening years that time that 'daddy hit mommy'. Imagine for a second a parasite that could facultatively sacrifice some of its cells for the flourishing of the rest. It provokes the host immune system to attack it, but not annihilate it. "Well," you ask, "why would the host ever stop short?" In the case of white European society, it is because of our morality of course. It is expressed at the level of the whole, and in individual men. For individual men, some women will facultatively exploit this to benefit (over the long run) from the cycle of abuse. At the level of societies, there are even some parasites that are fully aware of themselves. They know this process better than you do. The point of all of this is to push the 'quiet kid' until he breaks. Then, despite the years of instigation, he becomes 'the psycho'. And after years of instigation, the white man becomes 'the nazi'. And the world's non-white victims benefit in the long run because the Jew manipulates this cycle of abuse with indemnity. **EDIT**: I should be fairer to women and say that many of them don't know this is what they're doing when they are doing it. It's functionalism. The behaviors promote a function that is conducive to the ongoing maintenance of the pair bond itself. She isn't aware of it most times. She is incentivized by the emotional high of the reconnection after the bad moments. We always ask ourselves why women remain in cycles of abuse, and it is less often that we acknowledge that in many cases the abuse goes both ways in these cycles. We just treat the way the male characteristically returns his as the only *kind* of abuse there is. You can't really understand the true nature of these things until you situate them in the functional cycle. The same principle applies to relations between Jews and the gentiles. Jews are the women who never understand why they are always in an abusive cycle. They cry out to God through the whole Old Testament about their victimhood. They carefully control the frame of the argument so that people don't acknowledge the bidirectional abuse happening cyclically. They make sure the history books only contain the woman's case, much like a police report in a domestic abuse case. So our history books only go on about the violent reprisal of muh Holocaust. Ever notice how some women will exaggerate things, as if their emotions actually dictated the cognitive mapping of the events that took place in a fight? Suddenly your stern tone becomes guttural screaming in her account? And you're standing there thinking: "I am not screaming, like at all." This is also the difference between your view of the Holocaust and the Jews' view. To be sure, there are Jewish regarding the Holocaust, but for most of them, it isn't lying in the sense *you* think it is. It's like the way a woman lies about you screaming in a fight. The reality just is the way it *felt* to her. Same idea. Many Jews don't care about the same theory of truth you do...you're screaming at them even when you aren't - because that's how it feels to them. So 6 million didn't literally die in the Holocaust. That's what being in the camps *felt like*. So like that one time Harry slapped Sally in the kitchen, he is going to hear about how he beat her to a bloody pulp for the next 20 years. And so you hear about work camps and shared bathrooms as if they were ovens and mass graves. THINK FOR A MOMENT: CAN THERE BE ANY COINCIDENCE THAT THE POWER OF WOMEN IS ASCENDING IN PARALLEL WITH JEWISH CONTROL? Put it all together. How effective has it ever been for you to tell a woman: "It didn't happen that way." Even if you are correct, not only will she simply not accept your historical account, it will actually worsen the problem because your logical, factually true account becomes an assault on how she feels about it. After all, you're the big strong male. This is your entire predicament with the Jew in a nutshell. The Jew IS the feminine principle (*not just female, but metaphysically feminine*) embodied as a people. The Bible often referred to the chosen people as the bride of God, and the messiah as the bridegroom. The Jew is the MISTRESS OF THE WORLD. You do all the work so she can hoard and organize the money. She stays home while you go out and plow the field. No matter what, you lose the fight, even when you don't lose factually. And she never quite goes away. She holds the times you've beat her over your head forever and gets whatever she wants this way. Note that I have said the Jew is not the wife of the world, for a mistress is something you keep in secret, and this gives her more power over you. The Jews are also the harlot of Biblical Revelation that rides the many-headed dragon: the men/nations of the world which carry her and the leash with which she binds them. Incidentally, this entire dynamic is also portrayed in Kubrick's *The Shining*. I ought to do an analysis of this.

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

>Claiming that "all being is good" is a central tenet of the gnostic hermeticism of Babylon.

This is the heart of the issue, because what it exposes is bad history and bad metaphysics. I mean no offense by this. I was a Protestant, and then an atheist.

Gnosticism came into being after Christ. This is crucial. Ancient Babylonian religion was not gnostic. It shared in what was truly a mixed bag of ancient mythological types bearing a family resemblance to Sumerians, Akkadians, and peoples of the land of Canaan. Every single monotheistic tradition today is like the crest of a wave which began in this crucible. The scriptures of the Old Testament date to absolutely no earlier than first millennium B.C. Relatively advanced civilizations with religious systems such as those already mentioned had existed for millennia prior to this.

In order to make any coherent sense of the religion you have inherited that is conciliable with history and reason, these are facts that must be confronted, and which are not amenable to a simplified bifurcation between 'good' religion and 'evil' religion, say, as Jerusalem v. Babylon. In fact, that very idea is part of a religious tradition!

Even within Christianity, proto-Christianity and its Jewish precursors, one can make light of this by observing Biblical history from a bird's eye view. In the beginning, let's say the Deuteronomical age, we don't begin with the messiah arriving with the good news. The entire story of the Old Testament is the preparation and chastening of a people in advance of the coming messiah. But first, we have the ages of the prophets. Well, what is prophecy? It is an incremental process of revelation. The fullness of revelation was not had by Abraham, nor by Moses, or Elijah...the complete revelation was consummated by the passion and resurrection of Christ, and communicated in fullness by the moment of transfiguration.

This causes the concept of revelation to be very complex. On the one hand, Christ IS the revelation in its final deposit. But in itself this suggests another form of deposit which had been occurring in history. Thus, we must consider mankind's revelation of the One, True God as a progressive revelation. Every level and degree of understanding that mankind gained of the Logos of Creation from the beginning of consciousness becomes an encounter with the trinity, though pre-Christic in terms of the incarnation. All of those ancient pagan traditions should very much be considered to have contained some elements of Truth - again, revelation was in progress. There are many venerable Christian thinkers who speak to this. It wasn't until Christ that this operation was complete. Many comparative religious scholars use the similarity of certain symbols and types between world systems to build up an attack on Christianity, but within the scope of a progressive revelation, it follows logically and simply that these world systems ought to have contained figments of the truth, if God truly gives man the soul and its intellect, then that intellect at all times in history has had a capacity to see God's truth in aspect - if not completely. The sin of the non-Christian world systems was not that they failed to target the identity of the One, True God before the consummated revelation of Christ, it lies in their failure to recognize it afterward.

An intelligent person can look at the Hindu religion, for example, and find elements within it corresponding to Biblical themes and even Christic themes. Why wouldn't we expect this if what we think about God is true? There is a thoroughgoing Protestant idea that the Jews were the chosen people in the sense of God communicating ONLY with them. This misses the entire significance of the good news. It's not that all other races have been completely cut off from God, rather, it's that God gave the CHRISTIC prophecies to the Jews, and knew forever that it would be from among the people of Israel that the messiah would come, to consummate the revelation for all, gentiles included. The story of the Bible is the awesome story of God taking a world that had only been groping for Him in the dark, and making himself known, bringing himself into communion with everyone. The Jews were a vector for this, but we should not think that all of the world religions prior to Christ were simply EVIL. To be sure, they contained falsehood, but man could only have perfect truth in Christ.

I'd like to return to the idea of gnosticism for a moment. I said before that it arose after Christ. To my knowledge, this is not really disputed by scholars. Almost everyone refuses to put a date on or to even give an explicit identity to this phenomenon called gnosticism, because it wasn't really one thing. It was a loosely and widespread class of affiliated heresies, essentially representing misunderstandings of the Christic revelation.

Gnosticism is, in the main vein, Hellenized Judaism. It's what happens what Platonic philosophy meets Judaism. It was the fuel for what would become Kabbalah, and as Wolfgang Smith (a Catholic scholar that PS introduced me to) points out, there is a great deal of half-Truth in these things - but they always and necessarily miss the mark because they misinterpret Christ. In other words, they fail to accept in faith what Christ was; you find Kabbalah and its gnostic precursors were very intellectual kinds of activities. What fundamentally distinguishes these from Catholicism is not this intellectual emphasis (the Catholic intellectual tradition is intimidating to say the least), but that Catholicism emphasized the leap of faith and the incompleteness of man's intellect, whereas the gnostics did not. For the latter, and for the Kabbalists, communion with God was possible through man's 'going inside', in and of itself. Salvation becomes knowledge, and loses the element of grace. The emphasis in these errant modes is on the individual man, and not in the first analysis upon God.

So, you see, we have on the part of many Protestants a good deal of bad history and bad metaphysics. Gnosticism was never pagan. It was always an offshoot of Judaic and proto-Christian Palestine.

Further, the idea that 'all Being is Good' did not come from Babylon. It came from Plato. The reason why you are associating it with gnosticism is for the reason I just cited: gnosticism is what happened when mystical Judaism met Greek philosophy (Plato). Christianity also absorbed a Platonic metaphysics as well, but never prior to or above the Christ. Thus, the Catholic theology never takes place (intellectually speaking, as of a mental 'space') before, outside of, or atop Christ. It always takes place in the infinitely expanding funnel that comes after Christ, but which emanates from the single point, the singularity of the Christic revelation.

Hermeticism is even younger than gnosticism. There's really not much good evidence that the so-called hermetic tradition even existed before the Renaissance concepts. It's more of an Italian-European bit of historical intrigue after the rediscovery of Plato. I mean, there are definitely elements of the metaphysics of Hermeticism in the neo-Platonists of the 4th and 5th centuries, but the attachment of all of these ideas to Hermes Trigmigestus who is supposedly contemporary with Moses doesn't come until much, much later. It's not uncommon for people trying to popularize old ideas to do these kind of pseudo-epigraphic things: "Ah yes, this comes to us from long, long ago." (Still, it always has struck me how everyone, including modern Satanists, ALWAYS use the Christian historical schema to refer to in order to legitimize themselves. Isn't that strange? They could come up with their own unique history if they'd wanted. They never do.)

What must be acknowledged is that this is also possible to do in order to attack another Church, or to attack a set of ideas. One can posit all kinds of intriguing historical toxicities to spoil the contemporary image of something, which is precisely what the Protestants appeared to do to the Catholic faith. (Let's be clear that I'm not attempting to whitewash the full history of Catholicism, and certainly not some of the things happening in the Church today; we'd be naive to think that, as Christ's Church, it has not been the subject of Jewish attack for millennia, and that at some points and times, there has been infiltration.)

The lion's share of the the pagan-satanic-Babylon-gnostic mishmash (without proper categorization or historical context) comes from 17th century Europe. It was not the consensus omnium that produced the Protestant schism, rather it was the outcome of reasoning through the schism after the fact. This concept of purity had to be taken up as justification, a kind of auto-intoxication that was reasoned to have necessitated the shedding of 1500 years of Tradition. The idea that one could branch off from 1500 years of said tradition somehow in possession of the pristine womb of all Christianity, with all of its good eggs, but set apart from the very Church body that had protected this womb seems to me like a completely heretical idea. In fact, it strikes me as Anti-Christian (do not take this offensively, I speak only of the concept).

Think about that for just a moment. One is leaving the Church which has protected the revelation and carried the Keys of the Kingdom for 1500 years, whose patristic fathers laid down the intellectual heart of your entire tradition, and this person is suggesting that the Lutheran translation of the gospel LITERALLY IS the heart of Christ's church. The scripture itself. I know that I'm not being clear enough about this. It is difficult to articulate, frankly. Scripture is Holy. I'm not suggesting otherwise. But to cast off the other things I mentioned somehow strikes me as so heretical. So the entire worldly body of Christ's church for 1500 years is to be just tossed aside? Just keep the book? Did Christ come to earth and tell us to write a book? Or did He command us to become a Church?

>>Claiming that "all being is good" is a central tenet of the gnostic hermeticism of Babylon. This is the heart of the issue, because what it exposes is bad history and bad metaphysics. I mean no offense by this. I was a Protestant, and then an atheist. Gnosticism came into being *after Christ*. This is crucial. Ancient Babylonian religion was not gnostic. It shared in what was truly a mixed bag of ancient mythological *types* bearing a family resemblance to Sumerians, Akkadians, and peoples of the land of Canaan. Every single monotheistic tradition today is like the crest of a wave which began in this crucible. The scriptures of the Old Testament date to absolutely no earlier than first millennium B.C. Relatively advanced civilizations with religious systems such as those already mentioned had existed for millennia prior to this. In order to make any coherent sense of the religion you have inherited that is conciliable with history and reason, these are facts that must be confronted, and which are not amenable to a simplified bifurcation between 'good' religion and 'evil' religion, say, as Jerusalem v. Babylon. In fact, that very idea is part of a religious tradition! Even within Christianity, proto-Christianity and its Jewish precursors, one can make light of this by observing Biblical history from a bird's eye view. In the beginning, let's say the Deuteronomical age, we don't begin with the messiah arriving with the good news. The entire story of the Old Testament is the preparation and chastening of a people in advance of the coming messiah. But first, we have the ages of the prophets. Well, what is prophecy? It is an incremental process of *revelation*. The fullness of revelation was not had by Abraham, nor by Moses, or Elijah...the *complete* revelation was consummated by the passion and resurrection of Christ, and communicated in fullness by the moment of transfiguration. This causes the concept of revelation to be very complex. On the one hand, Christ *IS* the revelation in its final deposit. But in itself this suggests another form of deposit which had been occurring *in history*. Thus, we must consider mankind's revelation of the One, True God as a **progressive revelation**. Every level and degree of understanding that mankind gained of the Logos of Creation from the beginning of consciousness becomes an encounter with the trinity, though pre-Christic in terms of the incarnation. All of those ancient pagan traditions should very much be considered to have contained *some elements of Truth* - again, revelation was in progress. There are many venerable Christian thinkers who speak to this. It wasn't until Christ that this operation was complete. Many comparative religious scholars use the similarity of certain symbols and types between world systems to build up an attack on Christianity, but within the scope of a progressive revelation, it follows logically and simply that these world systems *ought to* have contained figments of the truth, if God truly gives man the soul and its intellect, then that intellect *at all times in history* has had a capacity to see God's truth in aspect - if not completely. The sin of the non-Christian world systems was not that they failed to target the identity of the One, True God *before* the consummated revelation of Christ, it lies in their failure to recognize it afterward. An intelligent person can look at the Hindu religion, for example, and find elements within it corresponding to Biblical themes and even Christic themes. *Why wouldn't we expect this if what we think about God is true?* There is a thoroughgoing Protestant idea that the Jews were the chosen people in the sense of God communicating ONLY with them. This misses the entire significance of the good news. It's not that all other races have been completely cut off from God, rather, it's that God gave the CHRISTIC prophecies to the Jews, and knew forever that it would be from among the people of Israel that the messiah would come, to *consummate the revelation for all*, gentiles included. The story of the Bible is the awesome story of God taking a world that had only been groping for Him in the dark, and making himself known, bringing himself into communion with everyone. The Jews were a *vector* for this, but we should not think that all of the world religions prior to Christ were simply EVIL. To be sure, they contained falsehood, but man could only have perfect truth in Christ. I'd like to return to the idea of gnosticism for a moment. I said before that it arose after Christ. To my knowledge, this is not really disputed by scholars. Almost everyone refuses to put a date on or to even give an explicit identity to this phenomenon called gnosticism, because it wasn't really one thing. It was a loosely and widespread class of affiliated heresies, essentially representing misunderstandings of the Christic revelation. Gnosticism is, in the main vein, Hellenized Judaism. It's what happens what Platonic philosophy meets Judaism. It was the fuel for what would become Kabbalah, and as Wolfgang Smith (a Catholic scholar that PS introduced me to) points out, there is a great deal of half-Truth in these things - but they always and necessarily miss the mark because they misinterpret Christ. In other words, they fail to accept in faith what Christ *was*; you find Kabbalah and its gnostic precursors were very *intellectual* kinds of activities. What fundamentally distinguishes these from Catholicism is not this intellectual emphasis (the Catholic intellectual tradition is intimidating to say the least), but that Catholicism emphasized the leap of faith and the incompleteness of man's intellect, whereas the gnostics did not. For the latter, and for the Kabbalists, communion with God was possible through man's 'going inside', in and of itself. Salvation becomes knowledge, and loses the element of grace. The emphasis in these errant modes is on the individual man, and not in the first analysis upon God. So, you see, we have on the part of many Protestants a good deal of bad history and bad metaphysics. Gnosticism was never pagan. It was always an offshoot of Judaic and proto-Christian Palestine. Further, the idea that 'all Being is Good' did not come from Babylon. It came from Plato. The reason why you are associating it with gnosticism is for the reason I just cited: gnosticism is what happened when mystical Judaism met Greek philosophy (Plato). Christianity also absorbed a Platonic metaphysics as well, but never prior to or above the Christ. Thus, the Catholic theology never takes place (intellectually speaking, as of a mental 'space') before, outside of, or atop Christ. It always takes place in the infinitely expanding funnel that comes after Christ, but which emanates from the single point, the *singularity* of the Christic revelation. Hermeticism is even younger than gnosticism. There's really not much good evidence that the so-called hermetic tradition even existed before the Renaissance concepts. It's more of an Italian-European bit of historical intrigue after the rediscovery of Plato. I mean, there are definitely elements of the metaphysics of Hermeticism in the neo-Platonists of the 4th and 5th centuries, but the attachment of all of these ideas to Hermes Trigmigestus who is supposedly contemporary with Moses doesn't come until much, much later. It's not uncommon for people trying to popularize old ideas to do these kind of pseudo-epigraphic things: "*Ah yes, this comes to us from long, long ago.*" (Still, it always has struck me how *everyone*, including modern Satanists, ALWAYS use the Christian historical schema to refer to in order to legitimize themselves. Isn't that strange? They could come up with their own unique history if they'd wanted. They never do.) What must be acknowledged is that this is also possible to do in order to attack another Church, or to attack a set of ideas. One can posit all kinds of intriguing historical toxicities to spoil the contemporary image of something, which is precisely what the Protestants appeared to do to the Catholic faith. (Let's be clear that I'm not attempting to whitewash the full history of Catholicism, and certainly not some of the things happening in the Church today; we'd be naive to think that, as Christ's Church, it has not been the subject of Jewish attack for millennia, and that at some points and times, there has been infiltration.) The lion's share of the the pagan-satanic-Babylon-gnostic mishmash (without proper categorization or historical context) comes from 17th century Europe. It was not the *consensus omnium* that produced the Protestant schism, rather it was the outcome of reasoning through the schism after the fact. This concept of purity had to be taken up as justification, a kind of auto-intoxication that was reasoned to have necessitated the shedding of 1500 years of Tradition. The idea that one could branch off from 1500 years of said tradition somehow in possession of the pristine womb of all Christianity, with all of its good eggs, but set apart from the very Church body that had protected this womb seems to me like a completely heretical idea. In fact, it strikes me as Anti-Christian (do not take this offensively, I speak only of the concept). Think about that for just a moment. One is leaving the Church which has protected the revelation and carried the Keys of the Kingdom for 1500 years, whose patristic fathers laid down the intellectual heart of your entire tradition, and this person is suggesting that the Lutheran translation of the gospel LITERALLY IS the heart of Christ's church. The scripture itself. I know that I'm not being clear enough about this. It is difficult to articulate, frankly. Scripture is Holy. I'm not suggesting otherwise. But to cast off the other things I mentioned somehow strikes me as so heretical. So the entire worldly body of Christ's church for 1500 years is to be just tossed aside? *Just keep the book? Did Christ come to earth and tell us to write a book? Or did He command us to become a Church?*

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Like I said, I will try to have an actual response next weekend. I won't be able to debate with both of you at the same time while I'm trying to work.

And in the meantime I'd encourage you to read Hislop. The gnostic tradition is not new and it did not develop post-Christ. It is an expression of the same system presented by the Serpent to Eve. We're getting bogged down in "tradition" when my point is not against tradition itself but in the Catholic church's habit of supplanting the Scripture with traditions that hearken back to the gnostic path offered by Lucifer and are in conflict with the Scripture.

You both claim the age of the Catholic church as if it's unassailable and I dispute that. The promise of the savior was presented in Genesis and it is consistent throughout all the Scriptures. It's harder to get any older than that.

I also am not terribly inclined to continue when thoroughly documented facets of history that are very pertinent to this discussion, such as the history of the Catholic church's suppression the reading of the Bible in the common tongue and the persecution of those who dared to do so, are handwaved away.

I want to present my case, backed in Scripture that the ritual/tradition added to the Bible by the Catholic church are the same as the Banylonian mysteries condemned in the text. I will try to use only the Scripture and simple historical facts and avoid philosophizing. At this point, as @PS appears to me to be following the same gnostic tradition I'm condemning, I don't know of this is just a waste of all of our time. I doubt my arguments, even if based only in Scripture would sway him as he clearly places a great deal of merit in the thoughts of men.

I'll read more this week. If you feel it might be edifying to you, ping me next weekend and we can continue.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

>I don't know of this is just a waste of all of our time.

I think this all depends on how you categorize what we're doing. If this is hyper-competitive to you, and when you say you want to defend your position, you truly feel like a proper defense is what this is, it might not be worth it. Of course, we'd both read whatever you write, and think about it carefully. If that's all it takes to justify things, you can be assured of that.

I'd encourage you to think about this a lot less formally. It's just conversation, really. I know there is a way to situate this in religious terms of apologetics, and all of that, but I refrain from doing that, and it's kept up PS's and my ability to talk about controversial things, and to have pretty deep disagreements, for over a year now.

>The gnostic tradition is not new and it did not develop post-Christ. It is an expression of the same system presented by the Serpent to Eve.

Ah, but we see here where you are betraying Sola Scriptura! The gnosticism I am speaking about is the historical gnosticism. You are talking about projecting a thought process (or worldview, which is satanic in origin) onto the Genesis story itself. Think about this for just a moment. Did Genesis call what the serpent said, gnosticism? Did the Bible outlay this system of thought and give it a name and describe it in terms of a dialectical practice?

No, it didn't. Gnostic is not an adjective that appears anywhere in the Bible to describe a thought process or a group of people. So where did it come from, and moreover, if this isn't the word of God, how can you possibly use it in argument or make any claims about it?

>The promise of the savior was presented in Genesis and it is consistent throughout all the Scriptures. It's harder to get any older than that.

Where is the promise of the savior Jesus Christ present in Genesis straightforwardly? It would have to appear in completely literal, straightforward terms, otherwise, to get there would mean some kind of deeper interpretation of the Bible, over and above what is given by the words, in and of themselves.

Perhaps you say that you can get the complete and proper interpretation of Genesis from other parts of the Bible.

Does Genesis instruct you, literally in the words themselves, on where to go elsewhere in the Bible? Like the indexes at the bottom of a newspaper - "continued on A2". Sometimes, we do see this, once we get to the New Testament, where Jesus for example will use words directly from OT scripture.

But consider this historically. The NT is later than the OT, but we consider the OT to be divine revelation. On this account, if Genesis does not contain - again, straightforwardly in the words - the direct reference to the coming Christ, then it could only be that this interpretation was revealed later with the new testament, which made it possible. But that NECESSARILY means that interpretation is required, and that not every human being can just approach a Bible and gather the fullness of its meaning and implication from the text by itself.

I just wanted to make these points before I leave you alone. I understand you are not able to reply until the week is over.

>>I don't know of this is just a waste of all of our time. I think this all depends on how you categorize what we're doing. If this is hyper-competitive to you, and when you say you want to *defend* your position, you truly feel like a proper defense is what this is, it might not be worth it. Of course, we'd both read whatever you write, and think about it carefully. If that's all it takes to justify things, you can be assured of that. I'd encourage you to think about this a lot less formally. It's just conversation, really. I know there is a way to situate this in religious terms of apologetics, and all of that, but I refrain from doing that, and it's kept up PS's and my ability to talk about controversial things, and to have pretty deep disagreements, for over a year now. >>The gnostic tradition is not new and it did not develop post-Christ. It is an expression of the same system presented by the Serpent to Eve. Ah, but we see here where you are betraying Sola Scriptura! The gnosticism I am speaking about is the historical gnosticism. You are talking about projecting a thought process (or worldview, which is satanic in origin) onto the Genesis story itself. Think about this for just a moment. Did Genesis call what the serpent said, gnosticism? Did the Bible outlay this system of thought and give it a name and describe it in terms of a dialectical practice? No, it didn't. Gnostic is not an adjective that appears anywhere in the Bible to describe a thought process or a group of people. So where did it come from, and moreover, if this isn't the *word of God*, how can you possibly use it in argument or make any claims about it? >>The promise of the savior was presented in Genesis and it is consistent throughout all the Scriptures. It's harder to get any older than that. Where is the promise of the savior Jesus Christ present in Genesis straightforwardly? It would have to appear in completely literal, straightforward terms, otherwise, to get there would mean some kind of deeper interpretation of the Bible, over and above what is given by the words, in and of themselves. Perhaps you say that you can get the complete and proper interpretation of Genesis from *other parts* of the Bible. Does Genesis instruct you, literally in the words themselves, on where to go elsewhere in the Bible? Like the indexes at the bottom of a newspaper - "*continued on A2*". Sometimes, we do see this, *once* we get to the New Testament, where Jesus for example will use words directly from OT scripture. But consider this historically. The NT is later than the OT, but we consider the OT to be divine revelation. On this account, if Genesis does not contain - again, straightforwardly in the words - the direct reference to the coming Christ, then it could only be that this interpretation was revealed later with the new testament, which made it possible. But that NECESSARILY means that interpretation is required, and that not every human being can just approach a Bible and gather the fullness of its meaning and implication from the text *by itself*. I just wanted to make these points before I leave you alone. I understand you are not able to reply until the week is over.

parent
link

(post is archived)