Christian Origins?

[Thinker]

So when Christ institutes the sacrament saying the bread is His body and the wine is His blood, the symbolism should be clear. He is the last, great Sacrifice, and like all the other sacrifices before, it constitutes eating & drinking it as a meal with your God.

If it makes one feel queasy, well...

Christ didn’t teach that. Catholic councils added Satanic elements - twisting Christ’s teachings. Satanism is about drinking blood etc. Christ is not about that. He taught a higher law - a law higher - not lower - than the basic 10 commandments like “don’t kill”. Forget warped evil traditions mixed with scripture. Think of what you know to be good and what is evil. Drinking blood as part of a ritual - or pretending to - is not of God.

From Thomas Jefferson:

• “The priests have so disfigured the simple religion of Jesus that no one who reads the sophistications they have engrafted on it, from the jargon of Plato, of Aristotle and other mystics, would conceive these could have been fathered on the sublime preacher of the Sermon on the Mount.” — To Dr. Waterhouse, 1815
  
  “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.” —To Peter Carr, 1787”

”Are parts of organized religion Satanic?

1)
Have you ever wondered
why the crucifix is the symbol of Christianity?

In true Satanic fashion, the horrible death of Jesus has been twisted and inverted into something worthy of celebration.
 
Now, am I missing something here, or are not the main points of Jesus' life and teachings (at least insomuch as we can trust the Bible - but that's another story) unconditional love, forgiveness and transcendence of the material realm?
 
If so, then,
• Why are they not represented?
• Why are they not symbolized?
• Why not depict a man with a massive heart or chest, with rays coming out?
• Why not depict a man hugging his friends?
• Why not depict a man bending over to wash another's feet?
They are countless more positive symbols which could be used if the real point of Christianity was to uplift people and help us focus on love (and some Christian art does do this, but it is a vast minority).
 
Yet, Christians are given an image of bloody sacrifice to hang around their necks and put on their desks

2)
A second organized religion Satanic element is the Eucharist, one of the 7 sacraments of Christianity.
 
It involves the symbolic eating of flesh and drinking of blood. Christian apologists will of course deny any connection to cannibalism, and insist rather that this sacrament (sacrifice) has its origins in the Gospel of Jesus' words and is instead only meant to represent that we are taking in or imbibing the words and message of Jesus.
 
But hang on a second.
Why on earth would you want to confuse taking in someone's message with physically eating their flesh and drinking their blood?
I'm sorry, I don't buy that this is a great way to represent the ideal of modeling yourself after another's behavior. Generally, I don't go around eating my friends or drinking my family as a sign of respect.
 
But maybe that's just me. I would suggest instead that this is further evidence of an organized religion Satanic connection, and that this cannibalistic idea was inserted into the Jesus story after his death to dilute and subvert the power of his teachings.”
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/mist ... rth109.htm

[abijah`]

Christ didn’t teach that. Catholic councils added Satanic elements - twisting Christ’s teachings. Satanism is about drinking blood etc.

You misunderstand, Thinker.

I am not promoting blood-drinking or transubstantiation. I am saying that as we partake of these emblems in remembrance of His sacrifice, its important to realise that there are many ways to keep something in remembrance. Art, music, dramatic re-enactments, all manner of rituals etc - out of all the ways one could ritually remember something - the thing we do is eat the manna-bread which symbolises His body, and drink the wine which symbolises His blood. I think that is significant.

In the ancient world - sacrifices = meals. Thats what it refers to. You bring a food/drink item, you consecrate it to God, and you partake of your portion of whatever it is and the rest goes to the Lord. Sharing a meal with your God. So the imagery of consumption of the sacrifice is consistent with the imagery of the sacrament.

You'll also notice is was perversion of these same elements that characterised Baal worship, which was a perversion of the order of the sacrament -

Psalm 106
Then they yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor, and ate sacrifices offered to the dead

^We see from the above that "sacrifices" involved the participants eating something which had been ritually consecrated. Satan was ^counterfeitting the sacramental meal.

But the truth is patterned after and exemplified by Jesus Christ:

John 6
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

With is Christians, symbolically speaking our consecrated, sacrificial meal = Jesus Christ.

And if that turns your stomach Thinker, well, I can't be bothered. You filter lots of truths out because they don't conform to your materialist modern western worldview, so it only makes sense why you would take issue with the emblems of an atonement you don't even believe in. I would advise not to let your seeds be sown in thorny places or stony grounds etc where because something feels icky to you or if it offends your idols of modern western psychology, fallible contemporary western values and materialist supernatural-denying worldview that you throw out the truth based on it offending you.

And since it does offend you - just know you aren't the first

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Christ is not about that. He taught a higher law - a law higher - not lower - than the basic 10 commandments like “don’t kill”. Forget warped evil traditions mixed with scripture. Think of what you know to be good and what is evil. Drinking blood as part of a ritual - or pretending to - is not of God.

Acknowledging the symbolism of Christ being the manna-bread of life, and His blood being the blood of life isn't "drinking blood as part of a ritual" as you put it in such profane terms. Jesus Himself is acknowledging the symbolic imagery and if you dont like it you can deal with it.

Because my suspicion is that when you speak of "God" or "Christ", you are just talking about these things as crafted in your image. Which is why you feel fine going around saying stuff like "such-and-such is not of God" or "God could never be this-or-that". Ultimately your measuring stick for truth is what seems good to you, and no authority exists higher than whatever conclusion you have stumbled upon to on any given topic. But I could be wrong.

[Thinker]

You misunderstand, Thinker.

I am not promoting blood-drinking or transubstantiation. I am saying that as we partake of these emblems in remembrance of His sacrifice, its important to realise that there are many ways to keep something in remembrance. Art, music, dramatic re-enactments, all manner of rituals etc - out of all the ways one could ritually remember something - the thing we do is eat the manna-bread which symbolises His body, and drink the wine which symbolises His blood. I think that is significant...

No, I think I understand quite clearly.

Yes, our sacrament prayers say bread & water are in remembrance of his body & blood - they are symbolic (bread for body, wine/water for blood). The idea of “transubstantiation” ("the [symbolic] change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of the Blood of Christ) is Catholic - from where we get the sacrament ritual. Obviously there is no alchemy - no physically changing sacrament into the body & blood of Jesus - it’s symbolic - like “in remembrance” of his body & blood. This applies to both Catholic eucharist & LDS sacrament. Symbolic representation is really quite the same as transubstantiation - in practice. Both are imagining the body & blood of Jesus as they eat/drink the bread & water/wine.

This is not a fun discussion - not because of you so much - but because I feel bad bursting bubbles & the topic is disgusting in an evil way. Yet I see how religion is being used against us & I worry about all the evil that has infiltrated our religion.

Test everything! We are under psychological warfare. Test everything morally and to see if it is truly 100% of God or not. Imagine taking the ritual of the sacrament outside the realm of religion & taken to the extreme. If you went over to a friend’s for dinner & they said they wanted to drink blood to remember someone special - what would you think? Let’s say the blood was real & from a human sacrifice - like Jesus. Would you see that as morally ok? I wouldn’t! And I don’t think God would.

The authority I base my conclusion on is God - God’s Spirit that manifests truth, not Catholic councils who voted on doctrines - killing dissenters.

Study, ponder & decide what is good & evil & pray to see if God confirms your finding. Moderation in all things - except you can never get too much of the Spirit/Life/God. All else taken to extreme can be bad - and some - like pretending to eat a body & drink blood - can get evil real quick. God wants us to choose only good - & to ask & test things rather than blindly go along. The parable of the virgins & oil for lamps is about preparing to see through deception and mental & spiritual manipulation.

[nightlight]

You misunderstand, Thinker.

I am not promoting blood-drinking or transubstantiation. I am saying that as we partake of these emblems in remembrance of His sacrifice, its important to realise that there are many ways to keep something in remembrance. Art, music, dramatic re-enactments, all manner of rituals etc - out of all the ways one could ritually remember something - the thing we do is eat the manna-bread which symbolises His body, and drink the wine which symbolises His blood. I think that is significant...

No, I think I understand quite clearly.

Yes, our sacrament prayers say bread & water are in remembrance of his body & blood - they are symbolic (bread for body, wine/water for blood). The idea of “transubstantiation” ("the [symbolic] change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of the Blood of Christ) is Catholic - from where we get the sacrament ritual. Obviously there is no alchemy - no physically changing sacrament into the body & blood of Jesus - it’s symbolic - like “in remembrance” of his body & blood. This applies to both Catholic eucharist & LDS sacrament. Symbolic representation is really quite the same as transubstantiation - in practice. Both are imagining the body & blood of Jesus as they eat/drink the bread & water/wine.

This is not a fun discussion - not because of you so much - but because I feel bad bursting bubbles & the topic is disgusting in an evil way. Yet I see how religion is being used against us & I worry about all the evil that has infiltrated our religion.

Test everything! We are under psychological warfare. Test everything morally and to see if it is truly 100% of God or not. Imagine taking the ritual of the sacrament outside the realm of religion & taken to the extreme. If you went over to a friend’s for dinner & they said they wanted to drink blood to remember someone special - what would you think? Let’s say the blood was real & from a human sacrifice - like Jesus. Would you see that as morally ok? I wouldn’t! And I don’t think God would.

The authority I base my conclusion on is God - God’s Spirit that manifests truth, not Catholic councils who voted on doctrines - killing dissenters.

Study, ponder & decide what is good & evil & pray to see if God confirms your finding. Moderation in all things - except you can never get too much of the Spirit/Life/God. All else taken to extreme can be bad - and some - like pretending to eat a body & drink blood - can get evil real quick. God wants us to choose only good - & to ask & test things rather than blindly go along. The parable of the virgins & oil for lamps is about preparing to see through deception and mental & spiritual manipulation.

Look at your children....who consumed your blood in the womb...that they might be born

Look at the person who was Born of the Spirit...who spiritually consumed the blood of the Christ...that they might be born again

As above..so below...As within...so without



48I am that bread of life. 49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum

60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go?
_______________

You are thinking like nicodemus:

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

[Thinker]

Look at your children....who consumed your blood in the womb...that they might be born

Look at the person who was Born of the Spirit...who spiritually consumed the blood of the Christ...that they might be born again

As above..so below...As within...so without...

You are thinking like nicodemus...

My children didn’t consume my blood. Sorry to tell you, it doesn’t work that way. Some of my kids have different blood types.

”The blood of an unborn infant and that of the mother do not typically mix in utero. The baby's heart pushes his or her blood through his or her body, through the umbilical cord and to the placenta, but not beyond that. There is a membrane that separates the baby's blood from the mother's blood.”

I just shared this with SgNative.
The one responsible for much of Christianity’s historical origins - the “Father of Church History” was Eusebius - is he BS (Bi Us). This father of BS-ers said:

“It is an act of virtue to deceive & lie, when by such means the interest of the church might be promoted.”
&
“It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.”

Our religion is not what it seems because it’s built upon a partially rotten foundation. Don’t take my word for it. Study it yourself.

You are welcome to continue in this belief of human sacrifice, scapegoating & symbolically eating Jesus’s body & drinking his blood. My spouse still believes it. I challenged him to rethink the morality of it & then pray about it. You’re welcome to also.

I hope God guides & helps us all figure out the narrow way & that we are not just called but also chosen because we choose God above all.

[nightlight]

Look at your children....who consumed your blood in the womb...that they might be born

Look at the person who was Born of the Spirit...who spiritually consumed the blood of the Christ...that they might be born again

As above..so below...As within...so without...

You are thinking like nicodemus...

My children didn’t consume my blood. Sorry to tell you, it doesn’t work that way. Some of my kids have different blood types.

”The blood of an unborn infant and that of the mother do not typically mix in utero. The baby's heart pushes his or her blood through his or her body, through the umbilical cord and to the placenta, but not beyond that. There is a membrane that separates the baby's blood from the mother's blood.”

I just shared this with SgNative.
The one responsible for much of Christianity’s historical origins - the “Father of Church History” was Eusebius - is he BS (Bi Us). This father of BS-ers said:

“It is an act of virtue to deceive & lie, when by such means the interest of the church might be promoted.”
&
“It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.”

Our religion is not what it seems because it’s built upon a partially rotten foundation. Don’t take my word for it. Study it yourself.

You are welcome to continue in this belief of human sacrifice, scapegoating & symbolically eating Jesus’s body & drinking his blood. My spouse still believes it. I challenged him to rethink the morality of it & then pray about it. You’re welcome to also.

I hope God guides & helps us all figure out the narrow way & that we are not just called but also chosen because we choose God above all.

It does work that way...


"In the fetus, the placenta does the work of breathing instead of the lungs. As a result, only a small amount of the blood continues on to the lungs. Most of this blood is bypassed or shunted away from the lungs through the ductus arteriosus to the aorta. Most of the circulation to the lower body is supplied by blood passing through the ductus arteriosus.

This blood then enters the umbilical arteries and flows into the placenta. In the placenta, carbon dioxide and waste products are released into the mother's circulatory system, and oxygen and nutrients from the mother's blood are released into the fetus' blood."

"In weeks 4 to 5 of early pregnancy, the blastocyst grows and develops within the lining of the womb. The outer cells reach out to form links with the mother's blood supply. After some time, they will form the placenta (afterbirth). The inner group of cells will develop into the embryo. These inner cells form three layers at first."


"For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, all the materials and energy for building a baby are supplied by secretions from glands in the uterus lining."

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... z6vBt4Z89Z
Etc ...
__________

You could spend 1000 years studying BS and it would still get you nowhere. Lol you pretend like there's proof of what you believe.... Sorry to tell you...it doesn't work that way.............

[abijah`]

Yes, our sacrament prayers say bread & water are in remembrance of his body & blood - they are symbolic (bread for body, wine/water for blood). The idea of “transubstantiation” ("the [symbolic] change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of the Blood of Christ) is Catholic - from where we get the sacrament ritual. Obviously there is no alchemy - no physically changing sacrament into the body & blood of Jesus - it’s symbolic - like “in remembrance” of his body & blood. This applies to both Catholic eucharist & LDS sacrament. Symbolic representation is really quite the same as transubstantiation - in practice. Both are imagining the body & blood of Jesus as they eat/drink the bread & water/wine.

Yes I understand what transubstantiation is, I even made it a point to distinguish that from the point I was making. And yet you continue to conflate the literalist Catholic notions with the symbolic/spiritual observations I have been making. So either you are being intentionally dishonest, which I dont think, or you are - just as I hypothesised - misunderstanding me. Transubstantiation is not symbolic turning of liquid to blood - its literal. Thats what that means, you writing in "[symbolic]" is wrong. Perhaps you conflate it because you know you need to for your argument to hold any water.

I have a whole ^pericope of scripture above, John 6, of Jesus Himself explaining in explicit terms this EXACT symbolism.

But - because since I suspect "God" to you is whatever you in your wisdom think He ought to be - you seem to be perfectly happy to dismiss what Jesus Himself says, and do exactly what all the people who were offended and left him did - and for all the same reasons. Its rather astounding.

This is not a fun discussion - not because of you so much - but because I feel bad bursting bubbles & the topic is disgusting in an evil way. Yet I see how religion is being used against us & I worry about all the evil that has infiltrated our religion.

I dont mind bubble-busters! No need to feel bad - your needles arent as sharp as you think they are.

Test everything! We are under psychological warfare. Test everything morally and to see if it is truly 100% of God or not. Imagine taking the ritual of the sacrament outside the realm of religion & taken to the extreme. If you went over to a friend’s for dinner & they said they wanted to drink blood to remember someone special - what would you think?

You think you got me with this one but jokes on you lots of my friends are vampires.

The authority I base my conclusion on is God - God’s Spirit that manifests truth, not Catholic councils who voted on doctrines - killing dissenters.

Study, ponder & decide what is good & evil & pray to see if God confirms your finding. Moderation in all things - except you can never get too much of the Spirit/Life/God. All else taken to extreme can be bad - and some - like pretending to eat a body & drink blood - can get evil real quick. God wants us to choose only good - & to ask & test things rather than blindly go along. The parable of the virgins & oil for lamps is about preparing to see through deception and mental & spiritual manipulation.

The symbolism is coherent to me: sacramentally speaking you are what you eat...

If you eat "sacrifices offered to the dead", i.e the Lord of the Dead - satan - you become satan. You get subsumed into his body and identity.

But Christians become their God... by eating Him . By sharing the sacrificial meal as a covenant community, we, all together, get subsumed into the larger Body and Identity which is Christ.

Have you read Jordan Peterson's new book any chance?

Spoiler

[Thinker]

It does work that way...


"In the fetus, the placenta does the work of breathing instead of the lungs...

You could spend 1000 years studying BS and it would still get you nowhere. Lol you pretend like there's proof of what you believe.... Sorry to tell you...it doesn't work that way.............

Sorry again to tell you that no, it doesn’t. (Feeling a bit like the 3 stooges slapping each other relentlessly. )

As your article pointed out, it is the placenta that helps facilitate without mixing blood types.

Take 2:
”Usually a mother and baby's blood do not mix while the baby is in the womb. The mother's blood runs alongside the placenta, and the nutrients needed by the baby are absorbed and transferred to him/her. A membrane separates baby's blood and mother's blood - all the baby's blood is contained within the baby and placenta.”

The exception is trauma - in which case blood can mix between baby & mother. Although this is the exception, not the rule, mothers who’s blood type is incompatible with her baby’s & if the mother is Rh- (protein not present) then the mother will need to get RhoGAM shots at 28 weeks gestation & after birth so that her body doesn’t reject the next baby’s red blood cells the next time she gets pregnant.

But again, that is the exception. Normally, mother’s and baby’s blood don’t mix during pregnancy. It’s all so miraculous - no matter how often it happens!

And regarding studying - it is good to do.

• ”Whatever principle of a intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.” - Joseph Smith

Knowledge is power even in this life - it allows us to know options to exercise our free agency better.

[nightlight]

It does work that way...


"In the fetus, the placenta does the work of breathing instead of the lungs...

You could spend 1000 years studying BS and it would still get you nowhere. Lol you pretend like there's proof of what you believe.... Sorry to tell you...it doesn't work that way.............

Sorry again to tell you that no, it doesn’t. (Feeling a bit like the 3 stooges slapping each other relentlessly. )

As your article pointed out, it is the placenta that helps facilitate without mixing blood types.

Take 2:
”Usually a mother and baby's blood do not mix while the baby is in the womb. The mother's blood runs alongside the placenta, and the nutrients needed by the baby are absorbed and transferred to him/her. A membrane separates baby's blood and mother's blood - all the baby's blood is contained within the baby and placenta.”

The exception is trauma - in which case blood can mix between baby & mother. Although this is the exception, not the rule, mothers who’s blood type is incompatible with her baby’s & if the mother is Rh- (protein not present) then the mother will need to get RhoGAM shots at 28 weeks gestation & after birth so that her body doesn’t reject the next baby’s red blood cells the next time she gets pregnant.

But again, that is the exception. Normally, mother’s and baby’s blood don’t mix during pregnancy. It’s all so miraculous - no matter how often it happens!

And regarding studying - it is good to do.

• ”Whatever principle of a intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.” - Joseph Smith

Knowledge is power even in this life - it allows us to know options to exercise our free agency better.

If you see my original post.....it clear that a unborn child feeds off the blood supply....where did I say their blood mixes? I didn't...........

[Thinker]

It’s all good, Nightlight.

[Thinker]

Just watched this 4m clip, “The ultimate mentor is Christ.” Spiritual “meat” to consider the truth, freedom & responsibility in Luke 17:21.
https://youtu.be/vdMQB8vghfg

A saying goes that a journey around the entire world is nothing compared to the journey within the soul. Some NDE’s explain the sense of the Spirit being so expansive & when coming back to the body, it feels confining in relation. It’s also suggested that there are spiritual equivalents to various body systems. I mentioned this on another thread...

• ”Just as the living body with its special characteristics is a system of functions for adapting to environmental conditions, so the psyche must exhibit organs or functional systems that correspond to regular physical events. By this I do not mean sense-functions dependent on organs, but rather a sort of psychic parallel to regular physical occurrences.” - Carl Jung

Psych-ology = “study of the soul” - which seems to have happen by the looks of old paintings of people with halos over or around their heads. What would the spirit/psyche be like, if “as above so below” - if our bodies are a reflection of our spirits?

This is just brainstorming, though I felt the spirit about #1 & 9...
Body systems and possible spiritual equivalent:

1) Cardiovascular... God, continual heart-beat
2) Digestive... processing, Wrestling out good from waste, repent, forgive, absorbing & letting go
3) Endocrine... Emotions
4) Immune/Lymphatic... Discernment & Spiritual Warrior
5) Integumentary... Empathy

6) Muscular... Motivation
7) Nervous... Thoughts
8) Reproductive... Will/ Implementation
9) Respiratory... Renewing the Spirit
10) Skeletal... Memories/Framework

Besides those major considerations, I wonder about the universal truths of the Spirit realm - types of spirits...
*Spirit of friendship
*Spirit of contention
*Spirit of Christmas
*Spirit of Giving... etc

Someone was just telling me how after she had gone with a friend to a museum that felt evil, even though he didn’t go with her, her child with Downs Syndrome said, “Dark! Mom!” Like he could sense it. I have had experiences with animals that seemed to suggest they too sensed unseen spirits.

In a time when a spiritual battle between principles is waging, I wonder how best to arm ourselves. What is the meaning (examples, good habits to cultivate) of spiritual armor?

[Thinker]

Times are tough. We need to be tougher. The deep, true message of Christ will help, guide & encourage us through. That is to follow Christ - carry our crosses & thereby improve the world rather than add to the suffering by our refusing to bear it.

https://youtu.be/-IejKIjC6hw

[harakim]

The catholic church of the crusades and the inquisition is not the same church as the one that settled on the NT canon. The church fathers were very careful to ensure the provenance of the writings that made it into the bible.
We can trust the New Testament.

Let’s go way back, to the Gnostics, Docetists and other Christian sects that emerged in the 1st 100 years AD. I always believed the 4 gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) were written first, but come to find out Hebrews and some of Paul’s epistles were written before them. Through many centuries, the Catholic Church has picked and chosen biblical canon. I don’t trust the Catholic church based on the evil they did, using Christianity as their excuse.

What is CHRIST (or God’s gospel) really about, without corrupt ideas of crusading/murderous theocracy (religiously-influenced government)?

I will list some notes, and would appreciate any help you might give.

I'm not going to take the time to read all the posts in this thread, but I hope by now you realize that you have everything you need within you. Why would G-d put you into this world and make you rely on specific other people to know the truth. If they spoke the truth and no one contradicted them, that would make some sense, but when you pick to believe someone you are almost always picking to disbelieve someone else. This is more true with history. You know the truth inside. You can seek out the best books and get more exposure, but at the end of the day, G-d gave YOU everything you need to figure out the truth. It doesn't have to be stressful. I do not believe Jesus is G-d, the only G-d and that we are not. I do not believe he is different or above us. Everyone tells me this is heretical, but you know what? I know it's what I should believe right now. Maybe I will be granted further light and knowledge and find out that what I feel/think about it is true, but that there is more to it. But I won't get there if I believe lies like G-d sent his son so he could torture him for our benefit and we have to pay the church money to have access to the blessings.

You probably have equally heretical beliefs. Don't feel guilty for questioning established beliefs or for not believing something that is mainstream in one of your circles. Otherwise, you'll never know the truth.

[ransomme]

Book of Ether shows Christ was a spirit before his birth also, I see no issues with that.

That’s different. Earlier Christians believed Christ was always a spirit - never born as a person.

Wow on that one.

The resurrection was a cornerstone of early Christian belief. Why ? Because of the people in their midst who had both witnessed the crucifixion and the later resurrected Christ. This fact is what galvanized His despondent followers to go out and preach, let the consequences follow . . . which they did when many of them were martyred.

Actually the Horus and Jesus connection has been greatly debunked. He was not the son of a virgin, Isis used her Goddess abilities to resurrect her husband (after he had been dismembered) and then fashioned him a golden phallus and then was impregnated (or at least thats the general outline, but either way not a virgin). There is no character named Anup the Baptizer in ancient Egyptian mythology. This is the concoction of a 19th-century English poet and amateur Egyptologist by the name of Gerald Massey.

Also, no twelve disciples either. This claim finds its origin in the work of Gerald Massey (Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World, book 12), which points to a mural depicting “the twelve who reap the harvest.” But Horus does not appear in the mural. In the various Horus myths, there are indications of the "Sons of Hours" and at times there were various numbers of human followers, but they never add up to twelve.

It's also well known that Christ was not born on December 25th, but that that date was adopted later.

There are many parallels in Egyptian Mythology, Theology, and Ritual which are powerful and filled with truth. However, this parallel is not one of them. Though Horus has very small "connections" to the story of Jesus, it's not a simple and total rehash. The same can be said for the other Gods listed here which have very little literal connection to the story of Christ.

This is a great presentation about the Gospel in Egypt

[Thinker]

I'm not going to take the time to read all the posts in this thread, but I hope by now you realize that you have everything you need within you. Why would G-d put you into this world and make you rely on specific other people to know the truth. If they spoke the truth and no one contradicted them, that would make some sense, but when you pick to believe someone you are almost always picking to disbelieve someone else. This is more true with history. You know the truth inside. You can seek out the best books and get more exposure, but at the end of the day, G-d gave YOU everything you need to figure out the truth. It doesn't have to be stressful. I do not believe Jesus is G-d, the only G-d and that we are not. I do not believe he is different or above us. Everyone tells me this is heretical, but you know what? I know it's what I should believe right now. Maybe I will be granted further light and knowledge and find out that what I feel/think about it is true, but that there is more to it. But I won't get there if I believe lies like G-d sent his son so he could torture him for our benefit and we have to pay the church money to have access to the blessings.

You probably have equally heretical beliefs. Don't feel guilty for questioning established beliefs or for not believing something that is mainstream in one of your circles. Otherwise, you'll never know the truth.

Thanks, Harakim. It’s good to know I’m not the only one reconsidering really old traditions.

Some good teachings of Christ can be seen through the garbage that has been added or twisted to it, and even the general package CAN do good. Eg., when people are feeling so heavy with burdens, the idea that Christ would lift it, is so encouraging - even godly! Yet, when the same belief is used to justify one’s evil without doing anything to make “at-one” (correct it) because they just trust Jesus took their consequences - THAT makes for a more - not less - evil world.

The idea of bearing and carrying our crosses - is actually following Christ. It is “putting on the mind of Christ.” There is soooo much more beyond the superficial dogma! So much more we desperately need right now - as we are bombarded with psychological warfare! If we don’t get our stuff together soon, we may not make it. Often I have prayed to find people who get it - with whom I can discuss how to navigate beyond, because frankly, I could use help - of course from God but often we are God’s hands. It feels like pioneer territory - new trails - less beaten paths.

[harakim]

I'm not going to take the time to read all the posts in this thread, but I hope by now you realize that you have everything you need within you. Why would G-d put you into this world and make you rely on specific other people to know the truth. If they spoke the truth and no one contradicted them, that would make some sense, but when you pick to believe someone you are almost always picking to disbelieve someone else. This is more true with history. You know the truth inside. You can seek out the best books and get more exposure, but at the end of the day, G-d gave YOU everything you need to figure out the truth. It doesn't have to be stressful. I do not believe Jesus is G-d, the only G-d and that we are not. I do not believe he is different or above us. Everyone tells me this is heretical, but you know what? I know it's what I should believe right now. Maybe I will be granted further light and knowledge and find out that what I feel/think about it is true, but that there is more to it. But I won't get there if I believe lies like G-d sent his son so he could torture him for our benefit and we have to pay the church money to have access to the blessings.

You probably have equally heretical beliefs. Don't feel guilty for questioning established beliefs or for not believing something that is mainstream in one of your circles. Otherwise, you'll never know the truth.

Thanks, Harakim. It’s good to know I’m not the only one reconsidering really old traditions.

Some good teachings of Christ can be seen through the garbage that has been added or twisted to it, and even the general package CAN do good. Eg., when people are feeling so heavy with burdens, the idea that Christ would lift it, is so encouraging - even godly! Yet, when the same belief is used to justify one’s evil without doing anything to make “at-one” (correct it) because they just trust Jesus took their consequences - THAT makes for a more - not less - evil world.

The idea of bearing and carrying our crosses - is actually following Christ. It is “putting on the mind of Christ.” There is soooo much more beyond the superficial dogma! So much more we desperately need right now - as we are bombarded with psychological warfare! If we don’t get our stuff together soon, we may not make it. Often I have prayed to find people who get it - with whom I can discuss how to navigate beyond, because frankly, I could use help - of course from God but often we are God’s hands. It feels like pioneer territory - new trails - less beaten paths.

I think your pointing to "at-one" is Christ's mission: to end division among people. To end othering. I do not agree with the accept-everyone-like-they-are movement, because it's always a two-way street. You can accept where they are at and not look at THEM negatively as much as their behavior (which is somewhat driven by circumstance.) You can strive to not have division, but it's not sustainable for one side to do this where the other side makes no effort at all. No one has the energy or willpower to do that indefinitely (except perhaps Christ.) Jesus was the Christ, but we can be one with him and then it seems we would also be the Christ.

[Thinker]

I think your pointing to "at-one" is Christ's mission: to end division among people. To end othering. I do not agree with the accept-everyone-like-they-are movement, because it's always a two-way street. You can accept where they are at and not look at THEM negatively as much as their behavior (which is somewhat driven by circumstance.) You can strive to not have division, but it's not sustainable for one side to do this where the other side makes no effort at all. No one has the energy or willpower to do that indefinitely (except perhaps Christ.) Jesus was the Christ, but we can be one with him and then it seems we would also be the Christ.

Atonement, & making things “at-one,” may be like positive disintegration - asking God to help make weaknesses strengths, & what Carl Jung taught…



What you mentioned about not agreeing with accepting everyone where they are - movement… reminds me of maybe why so many men are leaving our & other churches. This pastor asked Jordan Peterson what he thought was the reason. JP said he wasn’t sure but gave some possibilities. When he suggested many men crave hearing the need to get themselves together - the cheers from the predominantly male audience confirmed that to be true.

If you’re miserable & someone says, “you’re fine as you are” - a part of you is thinking, “Please - no! This cannot be it! I must be able to do more! I need to believe - or find someone else who believes - I can do better!”

https://youtu.be/pFLPIaJydYs

[Thinker]

For various reasons, I am vigilant about spotting threats/evil. Dogma for all - even atheists, whose beliefs about God are based on strawman logical fallacy. But dogma going along with murder/human sacrifice & scapegoating may be as bad or worse.

What is so difficult about NOT HAVING OTHER GODS BEFORE GOD? Why is God not enough for so many?

I admit, I struggle with patience & trusting others to not submit to dangerous herd mentalities. God, please help me.

"...This article uses a Matrix to show that Jesus was a human sacrifice. While some Christians may find nothing wrong with this, I know that some do..." https://www.debunking-christianity.com/ ... 5.html?m=1

[Neophyte]

I'm not sure the Gnostics were such admirable people, spiritually speaking. What the Romish church did to them was inexcusable, but their doctrine seems in my opinion to be the opposite of what the Prophet Joseph revealed to us. Their assertion that matter is evil, made by an evil godlet, and that procreation is a wicked act certainly don't square up with the revealed, true Christianity revealed to us now. The Romish church of course was the state religion of the Roman Empire that survived the decline of the secular branch of the state. So the conflict between Gnosticism and Romish superstition I would think are two heresies against each other. Though one was much more powerful and cruel, and wicked than the other. My personal opinion is that Christianity is a fulfillment and levelling up of the religion of the Old Testament, it's continuous. Gnostics, Judaizers, the Roman church, the Byzantine church (that's now the Anatolian, Russian, Romanian, etc. 'Orthodox' churches), are either Platonic, over-intellectualized cults that deny the anthropomorphism and reality of our Heavenly Father and turn Him into a nebulous abstraction, or they're the cold zombie bureaucracy of a dead empire. I'm sure there were true Christians in places for a while, but once Roman church dogma was enforced, we wouldn't hear much of it, except maybe in traditions of the common folk. This is why the Restoration by the Prophet Joseph was so desperately necessary. I'd venture to say Mormons/Latter Day Saints are the only real Christians, in the face of the argument as to "whether" we can be counted as Christians or not.

Gnosticism, in my personal opinion, arose out of the same sad state as Buddhism. Early Vedic priests taught that there was one life, one death, and one resurrection in the next life, in either a paradise or a hell. Then it was over intellectualized later by various swamis and brahmins, etc. rationalizing eternal punishment or reward "isn't fair," and so reincarnation must make more sense. By the time Buddha came along, and was preaching to poor sudras enserfed to the muggy rice fields, reincarnation again and again as an Indian peasant sounded miserable. The Buddhist concept of Nirvana, non-existence, was very appealing to someone who thought their only other option was constant rebirth as a slave. In the modern day, spiritual-seekers, and scholars try to intellectualize it further, and make it more profound than it really was, but in the end, it was just people seeking non-existence from their harsh reality. I believe Gnosticism shares a similar root, from the poor of the decadent Roman Empire. A bit of Nietzschean ressentiment, maybe. "The material world is evil, because I'm suffering in it. And thus it can only be the product of an evil god. The real God would hate the material world."

Then mountains of theology and mysticism poured forth out of these movements that really have very simple explanations. And I personally don't believe any of them were Christian. There might be a lot of unwritten stuff, that we don't know about today, from 2,000 years ago, of people living Christ's true Gospel. But like I said, that's why the Restoration was so desperately needed, because I don't think there was any true Christianity between the establishment of the Romish and Byzantine churches, and the Restoration. The rest has been a mess of confusion and platonic mysticism which has nothing to do with the doctrine we now know to be true.

I'm sorry if that seemed like a tangent or rude, I didn't mean to offend anyone and haven't read the whole thread, I thought I would just chime in what I understand.

[Thinker]

Thanks, Neophyte. Interesting to consider Buddhism & Gnosticism as possibly responses to belief needs & relief. Implied is the suggestion that religion is man-made to a significant extent, & that we project our images/imaginations onto God.

I had read about Gnostics hating materialism & I similarly find that ungodly. Still, I believe the "light of Christ" is within all - as Christ taught in Luke 17:20-21. I say Christ taught, but maybe the English words in my scriptures that say Latino Jesus (not Hebrew Yeshua) said... could have different origins than dogma claims. In some cases, it may be Catholic/Constantine councils corruption speaking.... & Other times it may be various testimonies adding a word here or there... & Maybe who Christ is today is a culmination of ideals.

Mormonism is special, & was boldly heretical to dare to say we could become as gods, that commoners could have priesthood, etc. Yet, it's also not 100% correct nor full, in my opinion.

Hopefully I don't upset you or anyone without some good coming of it. Honesty is valued though & so I hope all can feel free to explore truths, even if not exactly Sunday-school-approved.

[Neophyte]

Thanks, Neophyte. Interesting to consider Buddhism & Gnosticism as possibly responses to belief needs & relief. Implied is the suggestion that religion is man-made to a significant extent, & that we project our images/imaginations onto God.

I had read about Gnostics hating materialism & I similarly find that ungodly. Still, I believe the "light of Christ" is within all - as Christ taught in Luke 17:20-21. I say Christ taught, but maybe the English words in my scriptures that say Latino Jesus (not Hebrew Yeshua) said... could have different origins than dogma claims. In some cases, it may be Catholic/Constantine councils corruption speaking.... & Other times it may be various testimonies adding a word here or there... & Maybe who Christ is today is a culmination of ideals.

Mormonism is special, & was boldly heretical to dare to say we could become as gods, that commoners could have priesthood, etc. Yet, it's also not 100% correct nor full, in my opinion.

Hopefully I don't upset you or anyone without some good coming of it. Honesty is valued though & so I hope all can feel free to explore truths, even if not exactly Sunday-school-approved.

I think you raise a lot of interesting thoughts as well, thinker! And you're right, that Mormonism was/is so heretical by the standards of the Romish church and its 100s of offshoots is part of what made me so receptive to it. To me it's the only form of Christianity that makes any sense at all. Aside from the fact I firmly believe it's true, the rest are far too nebulous for me to take seriously.

[Bronco73idi]

The catholic church of the crusades and the inquisition is not the same church as the one that settled on the NT canon. The church fathers were very careful to ensure the provenance of the writings that made it into the bible.
We can trust the New Testament.

I want to believe that, but it seems unlikely.
Can you show me credible proof/sources?

Origen of Alexandria Christianity, would have fit well with the teachings of the LDS church. He wrote Contra Celsum in about 248 to rebuttal Logos Alēthēs which was written by Celsus.

I like this quote of britannica “Celsus’ brusque dismissal of Christianity as a crude and bucolic onslaught on the religious traditions and intellectual values of classical culture provoked Origen to a sustained rejoinder in which he claimed that a philosophic mind has a right to think within a Christian framework and that the Christian faith is neither a prejudice of the unreasoning masses nor a crutch for social outcasts or nonconformists.” Origen was right but we also lost so much due to the ignorance of what people would call Christianity. I believe Origen was a true disciple of the lord and apostasy came about in the 5th century.


https://www.britannica.com/biography/Origen

[Thinker]

The catholic church of the crusades and the inquisition is not the same church as the one that settled on the NT canon. The church fathers were very careful to ensure the provenance of the writings that made it into the bible.
We can trust the New Testament.

I want to believe that, but it seems unlikely.
Can you show me credible proof/sources?

Origen of Alexandria Christianity, would have fit well with the teachings of the LDS church. He wrote Contra Celsum in about 248 to rebuttal Logos Alēthēs which was written by Celsus.

I like this quote of britannica “Celsus’ brusque dismissal of Christianity as a crude and bucolic onslaught on the religious traditions and intellectual values of classical culture provoked Origen to a sustained rejoinder in which he claimed that a philosophic mind has a right to think within a Christian framework and that the Christian faith is neither a prejudice of the unreasoning masses nor a crutch for social outcasts or nonconformists.” Origen was right but we also lost so much due to the ignorance of what people would call Christianity. I believe Origen was a true disciple of the lord and apostasy came about in the 5th century.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Origen

Interesting, thanks for sharing that.
Seems his main ideas were similar to lds:
* Preexistence
* Reconciliation of all beings &
* Historical/moral/spiritual truths in scripture

Personally, I see scripture as always meant to be "likened" to us each. Eg., Donkeys don't talk historically, though there may be moral & spiritual truth from Balaam abusing women (who donkeys represent - both carry humans).

What do you think was lost "due to the ignorance of what people would call Christianity"? I believe a lot was lost too, & I have some ideas but am first wanting to know what you think.

You mentioned Eusebius, who came after Origen. Eusebius, "father of church history" admitted to lying for the sake of the church. I wouldn't be surprised if Christianity today was more the opposite than the same as it was originally.

[Bronco73idi]

The catholic church of the crusades and the inquisition is not the same church as the one that settled on the NT canon. The church fathers were very careful to ensure the provenance of the writings that made it into the bible.
We can trust the New Testament.

I want to believe that, but it seems unlikely.
Can you show me credible proof/sources?

Origen of Alexandria Christianity, would have fit well with the teachings of the LDS church. He wrote Contra Celsum in about 248 to rebuttal Logos Alēthēs which was written by Celsus.

I like this quote of britannica “Celsus’ brusque dismissal of Christianity as a crude and bucolic onslaught on the religious traditions and intellectual values of classical culture provoked Origen to a sustained rejoinder in which he claimed that a philosophic mind has a right to think within a Christian framework and that the Christian faith is neither a prejudice of the unreasoning masses nor a crutch for social outcasts or nonconformists.” Origen was right but we also lost so much due to the ignorance of what people would call Christianity. I believe Origen was a true disciple of the lord and apostasy came about in the 5th century.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Origen

Interesting, thanks for sharing that.
Seems his main ideas were similar to lds:
* Preexistence
* Reconciliation of all beings &
* Historical/moral/spiritual truths in scripture

Personally, I see scripture as always meant to be "likened" to us each. Eg., Donkeys don't talk historically, though there may be moral & spiritual truth from Balaam abusing women (who donkeys represent - both carry humans).

What do you think was lost "due to the ignorance of what people would call Christianity"? I believe a lot was lost too, & I have some ideas but am first wanting to know what you think.

You mentioned Eusebius, who came after Origen. Eusebius, "father of church history" admitted to lying for the sake of the church. I wouldn't be surprised if Christianity today was more the opposite than the same as it was originally.

I didn’t mention Eusebius,he might have been mentioned in one of my recent quotes? A quick review makes me believe he was a little more then a clerk. Like our “prophets” today.

The reason I’m studying Origen is because of Celsus. In the journal of discourses 1:346 it talks about old Celsus, a Greek philosopher and Physician and his take on Christianity. He says, "The grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was, because he had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of others that followed him." So needless to say I was trying to find this quote which I believe is true. I think this is the 1st thing that was lost during the Catholic ignorance. I also think this one is more deliberate, a lie so they can keep sex with boys, a Roman delicacy. It was a fragile practice that had to be done in secret. If they let their bishops marry they would have little control and if they let them practice polygamy then they would have almost no control over them. Even with one wife, that wife would have his ear as much as the church. There is wisdom in Satan’s church to keep men celibate from a woman and family, control.

The little bit I have Studied of Origen and Celsus helps cement my idea that 2000 years ago was more civilized then say 1000 years ago. I know others know this, but those others are few and far between. Looking back farther and one could find more rise and fall of civilization, almost like clock work. Modern historians want us to believe it’s only because of war and strong leadership. Ie the fall of civilization, everyone was stupid and weak.

This brings me to the 2nd thing lost from Christian ignorance, many cataclysms in the form of conflagrations and deluges

Book 1, chapter 19

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm

“After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated. For, maintaining that there have been, from all eternity, many conflagrations and many deluges, and that the flood which lately took place in the time of Deucalion is comparatively modern, he clearly demonstrates to those who are able to understand him, that, in his opinion, the world was uncreated.”

It goes on and you can read it in the link. We know now that the world has gone through many magnetic excursions, some greater destruction then others but all of them have a massive extinction level to hunter gathers and animals. We theorize the sun has a 1500 year cycle, with 6000 being bigger and 12000 being the biggest.

I find most religious people are lazy about science or invention, once “their religion” makes something a belief, the subjects get comfortable in their slothful attitude. Jospeh wrote, through prophecy, great works IMO, like Abraham 3:5&9 which is an example of, theory of relativity. D&C 4 is an excellent example of charity. JS told us to search out the good books. Brigham Young through actions did similar things. Very little happened after those two prophets.

Sir Isaac Newton is also an interesting study. He didn’t believe in the trinity and sent a letter to John Locke on 14 November 1690. In it, he reviews evidence that the earliest Christians did not believe in the Trinity.

Newton study of end day prophecy, he came to believe 2034-2060 for the 2nd coming. Before I read that I have had my own conclusions, 2030-34 for earthquake and 21 years later for 2nd coming.

Just a few of my ramblings.

[Thinker]

Thanks for your reply, Bronco.
Yes, I think Eusebius was mentioned in a link you shared. He - the father of church history - said that lying for the church was good.

Interesting about Celsus being mentioned in the journal of discourses. Do you know the context?

Personally, I don't think polygamy is good or godly, & I believe Jesus (Yeshua) was a man but many ideas of him have been added, like legends. But this "legend" is like the archetype of all legends - a culmination of the highest ideals we humans can imagine, & may attempt to follow.

Some believe as you, that humanity was once much more advanced. Heck, even I can remember "when people were smart and phones were stupid... Good times "

I also don't believe in a physical 2nd coming. Christ explained this in Luke 17:20-21. Yes, there may be fulfilled prophecies, but in waiting for him, we miss the mark as some of his disciples did when they changed from following him, to then joining the mob in yelling, "crucify him" when they realized he wouldn't save them as they had hoped to be saved.