It's not about believing or even knowing. It's about doing. The only law is LOVE. Even faith is only "saving" because it is credited as righteousness. It's not that no one is justified by works, it's just that there is no justification for evil because the law can only condemn us. That doesn't mean we're not judged according to our works.
There is no sense in which the Holy Spirit is not universally aware. It's not so hard to imagine when you realize that on a basic level we are all interconnected, and on a higher level we are all the same consciousness. Particularism (categorization, dialectical logic) is not inherent in nature. It is learned. It may be useful, but it is also a privation of consciousness. Hence the fundamental tenets of religion are true but the dogmas are normally false.
Subjectivity is perspective, not (necessarily) emotions. If you were right in your assessment of knowledge (being perspective/subjectivity) then there would be no objectivity, nor "absolute knowledge." Without objectivity we wouldn't know subjectivity.
Objectivity = universal consciousness. I can't say that "we" are after it because I don't know you. For my part, my thirst for truth is sincere.
You are basically asking about knowledge vs. certainty. So to answer your question re: deception, if you know, then you are right, and if you are deceived, then you are not right. Pretty simple, isn't it? Beliefs are for people who don't know, because belief implies something that is contrary to reason or lacking sufficient evidence. In other words knowledge is not subjective. What you want is certainty, which is subjective.
Not all humans are afraid of death. Quite the contrary. Many welcome it. While I agree that people only fear what they don't know, for anyone with universal awareness there is nothing to fear because there is nothing that is unknown.
All three of you tell me not to read because you want everyone else in the world to be ignorant tools of the synagogue of Satan. Well you know what your book says? It says that fools despise knowledge and understanding. Not that you would know, since you've clearly never read the thing.
I'm not the one confused. You think the flesh became the Word and that the Word is a human being. lol
I'm not going to sit here and argue with you and all your troll friends that you've brought into the discussion since you've completely ignored every valid point I've made (not to mention all 49 other videos) and showed your incredulity for the Bible while attacking a single proposition out of literally hundreds, and one which is so easily provable at that. You are a liar.
Seriously, you just said it all right there. You don't want to read. So basically you want to be stupid, which ultimately means that you can't possibly even have the right interpretation because you've been duped and refuse to acknowledge that my counterargument is valid. That's on you.
Blaspheme the Son of Man if you want, but don't think that your blasphemy against the spirit of TRUTH will be forgiven either in this age or the next.
I have already explained to you why you are wrong, I shouldn't have to do it again. The word that you mistakenly translate as "on" (his face) does not say "on." It says "by," "about," "around," etc. Your argument is a contravention not only of plain reason, but of scripture itself, which is what you ostensibly base it on.
Burial linens are not clothes. Burial linens are burial wrap, which in Yahshuah's case (NOT "Jesus'" case, Mithras-worshiper) went around the shroud. Pretty simple.
No, it means that the Bible IS based on logic and that your absurd beliefs are based on nothing but conjecture and superstition. Your saying that my arguments are "out of this world" and giving my video 1 star does not invalidate them, it just proves that you are a malicious troll who has no regard for TRUTH.
Who is antichrist but he who denies that the son has come in the flesh? If my argument is not sufficient for you because you are openly hostile to the truth of the TANGIBLE PROOF OF THE RESURRECTION OF YAHSHUAH, then I suggest you read Ian Wilson's "The Blood and the Shroud."
I have already explained that a) not all truths are contained in the Bible (is it untrue that I am typing at the moment? THAT is not written in the Bible), b) it is contrary to reason to state as much, and therefore dishonest, c) the proof is invalid because of dakilangaral's misreading of the Greek text, e) he was naked and e) your so-called "Lord" is Lucifer and Jesus is Nimrod/Mithras.
EDUCATE YOURSELF. I've already done all the work for you. All you have to do is listen and open your mind.
No, we must base our "belief" on FACT, on LOGIC. All the answers are NOT there, whether you choose to believe it or not. The Isaiah passage does not say "not one thing will be missing from THE BIBLE." If the Bible comprised the whole of the word pronounced by God's mouth, then how do you account for the Word being with God in the beginning, by which all things were created that have been created? The Bible has only existed for a small fraction of our existence. God is eternal. Do the math.
I'm not saying it's not the truth. I'm saying your assertion that the Shroud is a hoax is not true. Your proof is invalid because the word in Greek says "about" or "around," not "on" (his head.
As I've said before, a true cannot be contrary to reason. It is unreasonable for you to suggest that the Shroud is a hoax without addressing my statement that the image could not be imprinted by any natural or pre-modern technological means. So your argument is not only invalid, but demonstrably false.
Yahshuah was buried with a single garment touching his flesh according to the ancient custom, because the Hebrews buried their dead with the clothes they were wearing when they died, especially in the cases of violent death such as in battle (in order to keep the blood with the body), and Yahshuah was naked. The linens were always wrapped around the burial shroud to fasten it in place. Nice try though. The burden of proof is on you to tell how the image got there if it is in fact a hoax.
It's not about believing or even knowing. It's about doing. The only law is LOVE. Even faith is only "saving" because it is credited as righteousness. It's not that no one is justified by works, it's just that there is no justification for evil because the law can only condemn us. That doesn't mean we're not judged according to our works.
Did you watch the videos, or just this one?
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
YHWH = I AM (I have been becoming)
There is no sense in which the Holy Spirit is not universally aware. It's not so hard to imagine when you realize that on a basic level we are all interconnected, and on a higher level we are all the same consciousness. Particularism (categorization, dialectical logic) is not inherent in nature. It is learned. It may be useful, but it is also a privation of consciousness. Hence the fundamental tenets of religion are true but the dogmas are normally false.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
Subjectivity is perspective, not (necessarily) emotions. If you were right in your assessment of knowledge (being perspective/subjectivity) then there would be no objectivity, nor "absolute knowledge." Without objectivity we wouldn't know subjectivity.
Objectivity = universal consciousness. I can't say that "we" are after it because I don't know you. For my part, my thirst for truth is sincere.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
Wisdom is justified in all her children.
You are basically asking about knowledge vs. certainty. So to answer your question re: deception, if you know, then you are right, and if you are deceived, then you are not right. Pretty simple, isn't it? Beliefs are for people who don't know, because belief implies something that is contrary to reason or lacking sufficient evidence. In other words knowledge is not subjective. What you want is certainty, which is subjective.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
Not all humans are afraid of death. Quite the contrary. Many welcome it. While I agree that people only fear what they don't know, for anyone with universal awareness there is nothing to fear because there is nothing that is unknown.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
hey fucker, are you the second coming of david koresh? looooool
DaddyHistory 3 years ago
What if I was?
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
All three of you tell me not to read because you want everyone else in the world to be ignorant tools of the synagogue of Satan. Well you know what your book says? It says that fools despise knowledge and understanding. Not that you would know, since you've clearly never read the thing.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
I'm not the one confused. You think the flesh became the Word and that the Word is a human being. lol
I'm not going to sit here and argue with you and all your troll friends that you've brought into the discussion since you've completely ignored every valid point I've made (not to mention all 49 other videos) and showed your incredulity for the Bible while attacking a single proposition out of literally hundreds, and one which is so easily provable at that. You are a liar.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
Seriously, you just said it all right there. You don't want to read. So basically you want to be stupid, which ultimately means that you can't possibly even have the right interpretation because you've been duped and refuse to acknowledge that my counterargument is valid. That's on you.
Blaspheme the Son of Man if you want, but don't think that your blasphemy against the spirit of TRUTH will be forgiven either in this age or the next.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
I have already explained to you why you are wrong, I shouldn't have to do it again. The word that you mistakenly translate as "on" (his face) does not say "on." It says "by," "about," "around," etc. Your argument is a contravention not only of plain reason, but of scripture itself, which is what you ostensibly base it on.
Burial linens are not clothes. Burial linens are burial wrap, which in Yahshuah's case (NOT "Jesus'" case, Mithras-worshiper) went around the shroud. Pretty simple.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
No, it means that the Bible IS based on logic and that your absurd beliefs are based on nothing but conjecture and superstition. Your saying that my arguments are "out of this world" and giving my video 1 star does not invalidate them, it just proves that you are a malicious troll who has no regard for TRUTH.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
Who is antichrist but he who denies that the son has come in the flesh? If my argument is not sufficient for you because you are openly hostile to the truth of the TANGIBLE PROOF OF THE RESURRECTION OF YAHSHUAH, then I suggest you read Ian Wilson's "The Blood and the Shroud."
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
I have already explained that a) not all truths are contained in the Bible (is it untrue that I am typing at the moment? THAT is not written in the Bible), b) it is contrary to reason to state as much, and therefore dishonest, c) the proof is invalid because of dakilangaral's misreading of the Greek text, e) he was naked and e) your so-called "Lord" is Lucifer and Jesus is Nimrod/Mithras.
EDUCATE YOURSELF. I've already done all the work for you. All you have to do is listen and open your mind.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
No, we must base our "belief" on FACT, on LOGIC. All the answers are NOT there, whether you choose to believe it or not. The Isaiah passage does not say "not one thing will be missing from THE BIBLE." If the Bible comprised the whole of the word pronounced by God's mouth, then how do you account for the Word being with God in the beginning, by which all things were created that have been created? The Bible has only existed for a small fraction of our existence. God is eternal. Do the math.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
I'm not saying it's not the truth. I'm saying your assertion that the Shroud is a hoax is not true. Your proof is invalid because the word in Greek says "about" or "around," not "on" (his head.
As I've said before, a true cannot be contrary to reason. It is unreasonable for you to suggest that the Shroud is a hoax without addressing my statement that the image could not be imprinted by any natural or pre-modern technological means. So your argument is not only invalid, but demonstrably false.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
Yahshuah was buried with a single garment touching his flesh according to the ancient custom, because the Hebrews buried their dead with the clothes they were wearing when they died, especially in the cases of violent death such as in battle (in order to keep the blood with the body), and Yahshuah was naked. The linens were always wrapped around the burial shroud to fasten it in place. Nice try though. The burden of proof is on you to tell how the image got there if it is in fact a hoax.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago