What are KF's thoughts on Gnostics?

[StolenWindows]

My thoughts on Gnostics: they’re interested in the path to divinity offered by Christianity, but not the one offered by Christ.

Nigga. Why are you subordinating spiritual/metaphysical reality to material laws? Putting aside the question of whether you hold God above math or the reverse - who’s to say the two are mathematically exclusive before God? You can be 100% a son and 100% a father.

The Council of Chalcedon affirms the hypostatic union. And furthermore, Christ’s death as an act of infinite love and mercy - through sacrifice, redeeming every sin past, present, and future - doesn’t make sense if He wasn’t fully human. He had to be fully man in order to fully die. He didn’t, like, only kind of die, bro.

Which brings me to Hebrews 2:17:
“For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.”

Are you going to tell me that’s a parable?

Why would God be separate from his creation? He created maths, right?

 

[StolenWindows]

It should also go without saying that "Elohim" could be singular or plural (see Psalm 82). So "God of heaven" and "God of Earth" are distinct. Also, "soul sleep" is pharisee doctrine that Jesus didn't teach. The kingdom of heaven is already within you.

 

[Sewer Level 9]

Why would God be separate from his creation? He created maths, right?

He is both transcendent and immanent. Glad I could clear that up.

 

[StolenWindows]

He is both transcendent and immanent. Glad I could clear that up.

Okay, but "transcedent" and "immanent" would not imply "exclusionary" though. I believe in a panentheistic model of God, you believe in Theism in that "God" and "the universe" are completely separate entities (and so is creation). That wouldn't imply "transcedent and immanent" but rather two opposing realities. Remember the surge protector analogy? If they're muturally exclusionary one's not gonna work. He's still energy, he's just the SOURCE of energy. Rather, theism could be thought of as flipping off the power and trying to plug in a surge protector to a wall outlet turned off - if they're two different things and not one-in-the-same, it's not gonna turn on.

 

[23iwakura23]

Moreover, that this Marcus compounds philters and love-potions, in order to insult the persons of some of these women, if not of all, those of them who have returned to the Church of God-a thing which frequently occurs-have acknowledged, confessing, too, that they have been defiled by him, and that they were filled with a burning passion towards him. A sad example of this occurred in the case of a certain Asiatic, one of our deacons, who had received him (Marcus) into his house. His wife, a woman of remarkable beauty, fell a victim both in mind and body to this magician, and, for a long time, travelled about with him. At last, when, with no small difficulty, the brethren had converted her, she spent her whole time in the exercise of public confession,weeping over and lamenting the defilement which she had received from this magician.

Irenaeus, Adversus Haeresis 1.13.5

Drugging girls and abducting them as fucktoys doesn't sound like the most reputable of practices.

 

[StolenWindows]

Irenaeus, Adversus Haeresis 1.13.5

Drugging girls and abducting them as fucktoys doesn't sound like the most reputable of practices.

>from a hostile source
@VisaMallgoth is one of the few people in this thread who "gets it".

 

[Sewer Level 9]

Okay, but "transcedent" and "immanent" would not imply "exclusionary" though. I believe in a panentheistic model of God, you believe in Theism in that "God" and "the universe" are completely separate entities (and so is creation). That wouldn't imply "transcedent and immanent" but rather two opposing realities. Remember the surge protector analogy? If they're muturally exclusionary one's not gonna work. He's still energy, he's just the SOURCE of energy. Rather, theism could be thought of as flipping off the power and trying to plug in a surge protector to a wall outlet turned off - if they're two different things and not one-in-the-same, it's not gonna turn on.

Transcendent implies He is superior to and above creation, meaning he is not beholden to its constraints. Immanence means He is present within and throughout it.

I don't really think the surge protector thing is coherent (just like the wheel thing, and the clock thing, and the computer simulation thing ...) Why is the power arbitrarily flipped off in your Theism analogy? The power source is immanent because it's present within the device and sustains it. The power source is transcendent because it does not depend on and is not limited by the device it's powering. Both are true at once, not really sure what you mean by "exclusionary". Why is the power off in "Theism" and on in whatever you believe? It sounds like dawah.

I'd also really like you to address Hebrews 2:17, else I'll assume you agree it's sufficient to uphold the "fully man" part of the hypostatic union.

 

[StolenWindows]

Transcendent implies He is superior to and above creation, meaning he is not beholden to its constraints. Immanence means He is present within and throughout it.

I don't really think the surge protector thing is coherent (just like the wheel thing, and the clock thing, and the computer simulation thing ...) Why is the power arbitrarily flipped off in your Theism analogy? The power source is immanent because it's present within the device and sustains it. The power source is transcendent because it does not depend on and is not limited by the device it's powering. Both are true at once, not really sure what you mean by "exclusionary". Why is the power off in "Theism" and on in whatever you believe? It sounds like dawah.

I'd also really like you to address Hebrews 2:17, else I'll assume you agree it's sufficient to uphold the "fully man" part of the hypostatic union.

Because "transcedent but yet immanent" is panentheistic theology. Not theistic. You're implying God is not the same as his creation and they're not "immanent" also. Yes, God is greater than his creation, but all of his creation is still energy, and so is God. It exists within him. There is no such thing as something that is "not energy". Everything is energy and that comes from God. Even Satan is God. You are God. I am God. Just like how water could either be solid (ice), liquid (water) or gas (water vapor/steam) but all are still water. Same applies to the trinity/pentad (father, son, holy spirit, or father/bythos, mother/sophia/sige, son/yeshua, holy spirit/christos/logos, barbelo).

 

[Sewer Level 9]

Because "transcedent but yet immanent" is panentheistic theology. Not theistic. You're implying God is not the same as his creation and they're not "immanent" also. Yes, God is greater than his creation, but all of his creation is still energy, and so is God. It exists within him. There is no such thing as something that is "not energy". Everything is energy and that comes from God. Even Satan is God. You are God. I am God. Just like how water could either be solid (ice), liquid (water) or gas (water vapor/steam) but all are still water. Same applies to the trinity/pentad (father, son, holy spirit, or father/bythos, mother/sophia/sige, son/yeshua, holy spirit/christos/logos, barbelo).

Oh, okay. You're fine to believe that, I guess. Definitely not Biblically supported though, not in any way that I can see.

 

[StolenWindows]

Oh, okay. You're fine to believe that, I guess. Definitely not Biblically supported though, not in any way that I can see.

Howso? Many early interpretations of the Torah mirrored this. Likewise, Deism is like saying you can plug a surge protector into a wall outlet and unplug it and it'll still work because it was once plugged in. It's garbage like the others. The Bible very clearly supports cyclical life (shemitot).

>[God] alone has immortality.. (1 Timothy 6:16)

Conclusion? Souls do not inherently live forever (either in heaven or hell).

Immortality is a gift, not default.

>All the host of heaven shall rot away, and the skies roll up like a scroll. (Isaiah 34:4)
>Lift up your eyes to the heavens… the heavens will vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment. (Isaiah 51:6)
>Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will remain… like a garment You will change them, and they will pass away. (Psalm 102:25-26)
>The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire… the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with fervent heat (2 Peter 3:10-12)
>Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away. (Matthew 24:35)

And you wanna know what happens after that? The cycle of life continues. This is confirmed in Kabbalistic, Gnostic, and even early Christian apocalyptic traditions.

Kabbalistic: Cosmic Cycles (Shemitot)

> According to the Ari (Isaac Luria), there are 7,000-year cosmic cycles called Shemitot:

Each cycle includes creation, fall, judgment, and renewal. After each cycle, the world collapses, and a new one begins—sometimes with new divine configurations. Only souls fully integrated into the light survive between cycles.

Before this world, the Holy One created and destroyed many worlds…”
—Zohar I, 134a

This is known as olamot shenivre'u venistalku ("worlds created and withdrawn").

> “The All will return to the uncontainable, and the One will emanate anew…”
—Trimorphic Protennoia

This points to cosmic recursion: not identical repetition, but higher cycles of return, fall, and restoration—an eternal spiral.

> “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done—there is nothing new under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

> “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away…” (Revelation 21:1)

 

[Squanto Airi]

Gnostics are gay and retarded.

 

[StolenWindows]

Gnostics are gay and retarded.
Ver archivo adjunto 7955611

I already knew somebody was gonna post that fucking meme lol.

 

[VM_]

Oh yeah, the Gnostic Mandaeans are still around and kicking. They revere John the Baptist as the last prophet and view Jesus as an infiltrator and subverter. John is revered as the true master and Jesus as a mere pupil and student. Similar to the Ophites, they allegedly worship Baphomet as a stand-in for John the Baptist, who is also associated with Dionysus, "the wild goat man satyr from the forest" archetype. They claim to be the descendants of Seth, who is associated with the jackal/donkey. Jews from Egypt were associated with the worship of Seth since he represented the outsider god, something they clearly were. One of the earliest depictions of anti-Christian art has a jackal crucified on a cross. Jesus rides on top of a donkey in triumph in Jerusalem. There's a book I came across where they claim Apuleius's Golden Ass is a smear piece against the Jews and Christians and their donkey worship. There's a belief that one of the "people of the book" called the Sabeans in the Koran are really the Mandaeans, who call themselves Sabians.

The Templars became associated with the worship of the severed head of John the Baptist and called it Baphomet; they allegedly got it from the Mandaeans when they came into contact with them in the Levant. Keep in mind the West was mostly cut off from the East thanks mostly to the Romans closing any addition to the canon and enforcing their dogma and Islam cutting them off from any organic contact and extended trade with the Far East, so I could imagine how the Templars felt when they first came across these Christian cults in the East, drastically different from what they knew. The spitting of the cross during initiations makes more sense in this context. John the Baptist is the patron saint of Freemasonry (Templar larpers), and they celebrate his feast in June. They also adopted Evangelist John as a patron saint as well, whose feast is in December; both represent the two Boaz and Jachin pillars of opposites (summer/winter) and the initiate representing the circle that stands in between them. The gospel of John is considered the most "Gnostic" influenced gospel.

A painting of Dionysus by Leonardo da Vinci, which was originally a painting of John the Baptist. He does the baphometic pose as above and below.

A canon friendly painting of John

Adonis is castrated here-Entombment of Jesus

His side is pierced in this one; there's also the Spear of Longinus on the ground.

"Ezekiel 8:14 - Then he brought me to the entrance of the north gate of the house of the LORD, and I saw women sitting there, mourning the god Tammuz (Adonis)"

Typhon-Yaldaboath-Orphic Phanes/Aion, who represents Father Time/Saturn. He is considered to be a demiurge.

Freemasonic 2 Johns

 

[StolenWindows]

It's not letting me reply to certain posts for some reason, but either way, I lean towards Valentinus/Basilides. The messiah was even prophecied in the OT. Catholics also don't believe in a trinity, but rather a tetrad (father, mother, son, holy spirit), except it's Mary Immaculate who is the female manifestation of God, even when Mary was a manifestation of Sophia (along with Eve). And in Catholic traditions, Mary Magdalene is depicted as being the bride of Christ. Some Catholics (although fringe) do believe in Sophianic doctrine, but its rare. This is also why Catholics pray to Mary - because, much like Jesus, she is also God.

 

[Some Badger]

It's not letting me reply to certain posts for some reason, but either way, I lean towards Valentinus/Basilides. The messiah was even prophecied in the OT. Catholics also don't believe in a trinity, but rather a tetrad (father, mother, son, holy spirit), except it's Mary Immaculate who is the female manifestation of God, even when Mary was a manifestation of Sophia (along with Eve). And in Catholic traditions, Mary Magdalene is depicted as being the bride of Christ. Some Catholics (although fringe) do believe in Sophianic doctrine, but its rare. This is also why Catholics pray to Mary - because, much like Jesus, she is also God.

Ver archivo adjunto 7956319
Ver archivo adjunto 7956322
Ver archivo adjunto 7956325

I’m Catholic and I can assure you we observe a trinity and not a tetrad. Devotion to Mary is an optional practice, whereas the Godhead must be worshipped; we wouldn’t be reciting the Nicene Creed at every mass if we didn’t. Just because Catholics have this weird fixation on Mary that I don’t yet fully understand coming from a secular/quasi-Protestant background doesn’t mean we uphold Mary to the same degree of divinity as God himself.

Catholicism (and to an extent Orthodoxy) teaches that Mary was conceived without sin because the reasoning is that Christ could not have incarnated from anyone who wasn’t sinless. Now the reasons for WHY Mary was born without original sin have been disputed by theologians since apostolic times and it’s gone to some pretty wild places, but even Saint Louis de Montfort, who essentially built the academic foundations to modern Mariology and has some beliefs that I may consider excessive, states that Mary is considered less than an atom compared to her Son.

The closest entity I’m aware of that outright “worships” Mary is probably the Palmarian Church, a sedevacantist offshoot that became outwardly heretical decades ago.

 

[VM_]

Parthenogenesis could explain the virgin birth. All the other miraculous birth stories in myths could be explained this way.

 

[One Winged Pear Farmer]

A slightly less retarded version of the faith that rome corrupted, but still retarded if taken literally

 

[Yamaha YM2612]

Catholicism (and to an extent Orthodoxy) teaches that Mary was conceived without sin

But that isnt true. Mary had a mother and a father. Thus carried sin.

because the reasoning is that Christ could not have incarnated from anyone who wasn’t sinles

Ah, I love when satanists Catholics try to pretend God has limitations

Christ could be sinless even though his mother wasn't. Because he was conceived by the holy spirit

In fact much of jesus genealogy is comprised of sin (david, Solomon, abraham, etc)

Parthenogenesis could explain the virgin birth. All the other miraculous birth stories in myths could be explained this way.

We already have an explanation though, conception via the holy spirit.

 

[Some Badger]

But that isnt true. Mary had a mother and a father. Thus carried sin.

The church acknowledges that Mary was born to human parents (this is dogma, in fact), and that is what makes the immaculate conception what it is: she was untainted by sin the moment of her conception. I believe it was Ambrose of Milan who posited that the God personally blessed the union of Saints Joachim and Anna by way of granting them a child in their old age.

Ah, I love when satanists Catholics try to pretend God has limitations

Christ could be sinless even though his mother wasn't. Because he was conceived by the holy spirit

In fact much of jesus genealogy is comprised of sin (david, Solomon, abraham, etc)

I never said anything about Christ’s genealogy being a factor into his lack of sin. The Catholic reasoning is that the Holy Spirit conceived the Son within the aforementioned sinless Mary.

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

Absolute cringe stupid motherfuckers that have too much free time and money to spend on ridiculous bullshit and self jerking "spirituality".
These niggers will either believe anything or make up any kind of shit to stroke their ego.