You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Speculation is Fact!!! Why? I thought of it. The only true fact is my arrogance.
The first Council of Nicea was to determine the divinity of Christ... a refutation of Arianism. It also institutionalized the Church... before the Council the Church was decentralized, each having a Bishop who determined doctrine. The Council codified doctrine. The books of the Bible were agreed on democratically with each Bishop having a vote.
The Second Council was to determine where the Holy Ghost fit in and it was agreed that Father, Son and Holy Spirit were all aspects of God thus Trinitarianism was born.
So they say. Yet there are works that paint a different tale than the bible that didn't make the cut.
Also. I don't believe something as important as religion if it is indeed what it claims to be should be subject to Democracy.
Reality is not defined by democracy. :) To me editing still applies.
What are you doing here, working me for upvotes lol!
Also. For the record. I know you embrace Christianity. Many people I care about do. I am fine with that, completely. Your actions and who you are, are what matter to me. I see you as a great person.
So yeah when I speak of religion it may attack some things you believe. That doesn't mean I expect you to change your mind. This subject is mysterious. Embrace what makes the most sense to you.
As to the after life. We will all get a chance to find out. Hopefully not too soon.
My brand of Christianity is my own- it predates Nicea. You've read my take on institutions, when something becomes an institution the inherent flaws kick in and they are ALL eventually taken over by their worst element. I'm working on a new theory of Jesus and his virgin birth that will be mind blowing- based on Annunaki hybridation with reptilians.
I was friends with Edward R. Smith who wrote "The Births of Christ" and that was an interesting and short book. I also have some other more in depth works of his. He did some interesting things to try to make up for the contradictions and problems in the bible. It was interesting as prior to that he was a Tax Attorney (successful one) for decades. He was also a concert pianist.
He met me when he needed someone to fix his computer. :)
This is from a post I did earlier...
While the reptilian Annunaki were tampering with DNA, likely from Neanderthals, creating their slave race to replace workers brought from Nibiru (Igigi): As the Bible says, "the children of the gods (Nephilim) found the daughters of men fair and took them for wives." Many were destroyed by the Flood because the gods were displeased, but perhaps not all. My hypothesis is that this is the beginning of the Royal/Illuminati bloodline. The slave race contains reptilian DNA, but not that of the elite Nephilim. When we come to the story of the birth of Jesus, why was Mary selected? Surely any vessel would do... or was she selected because she didn't have reptilian DNA.
The thing about the Birth of Christ that caused Ed to go on his adventure and scholarly pursuits was the fact that the details in Luke's account and Matthew's don't match. They even have some contradictions.
So as an attorney he hit a crisis moment (he stumbled upon that when teaching adult bible school). So he went on a journey to reconcile it.
His reconciliation of these things was heavily based around the prolific works of Rudolf Steiner.
Now I am not saying this agrees with your ideas. I am just giving you some interesting reference points.
I don't agree with Ed or Steiner's conclusions but they are so well researched they are still very valuable.
They point out inconsistencies and seeming impossibilities in the literature and then they work at making them consistent and possible.
This has exposed inconsistencies I otherwise would not have noticed. Yet, I don't have a religious crisis and feel like I need to find a way to explain them.
...In other words, this is when the government took full control of the latest movement of the people and began to use it to enslave, instead of enlighten them.
Yes it was a 'democratic' process, the root of democratic being the Latin demo - to take away.