Opposing Christianity.

MORE IMPORTANT THAN THIS STUPID TOPIC....... GET OVER IT.

http://newsaxon.org/forum/help-questions-report-bu...

http://www.kingidentity.com/

Wow that was kool,cant believe iv never seen that before.Thanxs Dragon88

Right on

Summary Account Settings Forum Profile My Messages
Read your messages Send a message Calendar Members


Dragon88
Full Member







the two seed lines revisited
« on: July 14, 2012, 04:39:25 AM »QuoteModifyRemoveBelieving two-seedline, for some, is incomprehensib le. For others, it is equally implausible to believe that the fruit of a common tree could impart to Adamkind the knowledge of good and evil. With either opinion, we can all agree that the creation story in Genesis is full of symbolism. It is through such symbolism that we are left to reconstruct the true meaning of what happened – what symbolism is involved – in the fall of Adamkind.

Whether or not we support the belief of two-seedline, we all agree that ultimately, it was disobedience to Yahweh that was the cause. With that, we find common ground. We also agree that jews are imposters. We only differ as to the origin of their curse. Was it from Esau? Do we look to Canaan? Or boldly look back to Cain? If Cain, why? Because of the murder of Abel, or because we believe him to be of the “seed” of the “serpent?”
I have been challenged to answer a couple questions by a Brother in the faith, so I will do my best to address these questions herein. The first question is:

“Eve did not eat of the serpent, but of the tree. In Gen. 1, God gives us His Law of seed for seed and kind for kind. If the trees represented races of people, why would God tell Adam and Eve that they could have sex with (if that is your meaning of the word “eat”), or eat freely of all the trees? That would be in direct violation of the Law.”

This is the same question that Ted Wieland asks in his book Eve, did She or didn’t She? The first problem is that the question assumes that all two-seedliners believe exactly the same thing. This is a misconception.

Most two-seedliners are taught by the American Institute of Theology Bible Study Course, the bulk of which was written by Bertrand Comparet. Since the days of Mr. Comparet and Dr. Wesley Swift, great strides have been made in two-seedline research and theology, especially by men such as Eli James and Clifton Emahiser.

Neither Comparet nor Swift was infallible, but they did their best to pass on to students their scholarly work and, in doing so, expected others would seek out the truth for themselves.

In this first question, it is assumed that the “trees” in the Garden – which in Biblical symbolism are people (see Judges 9; Ez. 31; Is. 61:3; Dan 4; Amos 2:9; Mark 8:24, et al.) – were of every race. This premise is false. The trees in the garden were Adamic.

It is ironic that a common mantra amongst Identitists is “the Bible is a book which records the Creation, history and fall of the descendants of Adam. It only concerns itself with other peoples as they come into contact with Adamkind,” yet, when it comes to the Garden and two-seedline, we take the sacred Garden and fill it with non-Adamites. Let’s review.

Scripture records the creation of all “living souls” in Genesis 1:20-25 (as “beasts of the field” or “living creatures:” Naphesh Chayee in Hebrew).

The creation of Adamkind is found in Genesis 1:26-27, and placed under the microscope in chapters 2 and 3.

Here is an important distinction: non-Adamites were created and placed on the earth. Adamkind were created and placed separately in the Garden of Eden, a place located on the earth.

Note that in Genesis 2:8, the Scripture states that the LORD GOD planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the Adamite whom He had formed. This garden does not equate to the totality of creation, but rather a separate place within creation where (vs. 15) “The LORD GOD took the Adamite and put him in the Garden of Eden to tend and keep it.”

As an aside, it should be noted that it is falsely assumed that this particular “tending and keeping” is synonymous with the “dominion” of Adamkind over Creation. Certainly Adamkind has a dominion mandate, but in this case, the tending and keeping is no less than a command for racial preservation of the Adamite Garden. It was an order to tend and keep the Garden of Adamkind intact and racially pure!!!

When, therefore, Yahweh ordered that Adamkind could eat freely of the trees in the Garden – using the same idiomatic language and symbolism found in two-seedline theology – we can rightly assume that this was a reiteration of the natural order of kind after kind, i.e. of Adamkind you may freely choose a mate, or mates.

With that in mind, we should also briefly touch on the issue of rivers flowing from the Garden. It has been assumed that since the trees were of different racial types, it logically follows that the rivers must also be racial types flowing from the Garden (rivers being people or racial streams). Again, the Garden that Yahweh planted in Eden was Adamic, and therefore, the rivers flowing from its midst – if we are to interpret them as racial – were racially Adamic. Historical archeology is replete with evidence of widespread Adamic migrations throughout the globe, some of which are located in the Tarim Basin in Southern Sinkiang where many Bible scholars believe the flood of Genesis 6 took place.

The second question is multi-part. Our Brother asks:

“Cain, as Abel, was also born of the woman (Eve). So Cain and Abel would have been of the seed of the woman. To whom did the serpent give his seed? As I said, Eve did not ‘touch’ the serpent, she ‘ate’ of the tree. So, Cain would have been the seed of the tree? Anyone born of the woman was the seed of the woman, such as Cain, Abel and Seth.”

In order for me to properly answer this, it is necessary for me to explain what two-seedliners instinctively know – that the serpent (Nachash in Hebrew) is one “of” the race of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Trees are symbolic people. The serpent was not a snake, but a person. The word “serpent” is translated from the word “Nachash” which means to whisper, enchant or seduce.

Though much confusion is created by spurious interpretation s of Scripture, the fact that the interpreters chose a serpent as the representative of this particular enchanter is in itself telling. For serpents are just one of many fertility symbols. “Entwined serpents are the symbol of the god of fertility, and as such they represent the life and health in the Caduceus, the emblem of medicine.” (Gary Yarbrough, “The Tale of the Serpent.”)

This seducer was a representative of the racial tree that was in the midst of the Garden and which Adamkind was ordered to abstain from. Understanding that, the difference between touching the serpent and eating the fruit of the tree is non-existent.

Let’s put it this way: the tree represents a race. The enchanter (serpent) was one individual of that race. This is no different than calling the trees in the garden Adamic and seeing Adamites as individuals of that race of trees.

Eve, partaking of the fruit of that forbidden tree, produced the offspring of Cain, a hybrid, polluted with the seed of the serpent (nachash) a representative of the race of the forbidden tree of the knowledge of good and evil – a tree which most two-seedliners believe to be the race of fallen angels (of whom Satan/Lucifer was chief) who left off their first estate, and took on flesh.

To whom did the serpent give his seed? To Cain, of course, the half brother to Abel (a King Priest son of Adam). Sharing the same womb is not the same as sharing the same blood. Each child in the womb has its own distinct circulatory system. Cain and Abel did not share blood, nor did Eve share the blood of Cain. She contributed some genetic material, but did not share in that of the serpent. Once a child begins development in the womb, the only contribution from the mother is through the umbilical cord, and that is nourishment only.

(Clifton Emahiser documents the subject extremely well and for those who want to further this topic, his address is: 1012 North Vine Street, Fostoria, OH 44830.)

After the evil Cain slew his half brother, the Scripture records that Adam and Eve had another son, Seth (which means to replace). You’ll notice that in the lineage of Adam, in Genesis 5, Cain is excluded. Seth is recorded as the first son “in his own likeness, after his image.” The reason for this is obvious: Cain was not the son of Adam, nor “in his likeness or image.” Cain’s lineage is altogether separate (Gen. 4:16-24) and a perceptive student will note the unnerving way in which Cain’s descendants mimic the names of Adamites. A propensity which is not diminished to this day.

For the sake of noting it, two-seedliners do not dare believe what they do out of the impurity of their imaginations, but because Biblical symbolism is rife with clues which demand an honest interpretation of the facts.

In Gary Yarbrough’s “Tale of the Serpent” he points out that,

“The Yahwist account in Genesis 3 contains a host of fertility motifs; the serpent, a nude couple, the Garden, the Tree of Life, seed, Cherubim, and a flaming sword interpreted as lightening are all well documented fertility motifs…[even] the punishment pronounced upon the woman and the man in Genesis 3 are fertility oriented.”

Ever heard it said, “The punishment fits the crime?” We could also note that the serpent (enchanter/seducer) in Genesis 3:1 is described as “cunning” – a word which is phonetically synonymous with the word “naked” in Genesis 2:25 in the Hebrew.

Such word plays are common in the Hebrew scriptures and there are dozens of other examples with which our readers are most likely already familiar so no need for reiteration here of every detail. Suffice it to say it is a corollary of such an abundance of evidence that we believe as we do.

Finally, both the Tarqums of Jonathan and Pseudo-Jonathan tell us that:
“…Adam was aware that Eve his wife had conceived from Sammael the angel, and she became pregnant and bare Cain, and he was like those on high, not those below; and she said ‘I acquired a man, the angel of the lord.’”

and

“Adam knew about his wife Eve that she had conceived by Sammael the angel of the Lord, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.”

There are similar accounts elsewhere, such as the Jerusalem Tarqum, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Book of Enoch also teaches that it was not uncommon for angels to mate with Adamic women.

The Tarqums are a target of “anti” seedliners and labeled as “jewish” in origin. This is false. The Tarqums were a sort of ancient Bible commentary (much like the ones we use today to research scripture) and helped the ancients to better understand difficult passages of scripture, such as the one found in Genesis 4:1, which is interpreted for us above. The original is known to be “incomprehensible” and “a gloss” in the Hebrew account as we know it. A better interpretation is from the Jerusalem Tarqum and states:

“And Adam knew his wife Eve, who had desired the angel; and she conceived, and bare Cain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord. And she added to bare from her husband Adam his twin, even Abel.”

Now, the AIT gives us that when the Judeans (not Jews) were in captivity, they were forced to “accept the Babylonian language for their common use. So the Chaldee, or Aramaic as it has come to be known, supplanted the Hebrew.

In Nehemiah’s day, public readings of the Scripture were reinstated as mandatory, and at such readings it was necessary that a translator be present to help the people understand what was being read. This became known as the “Oral Tarqum.” Eventually it was written down and used as a valuable tool for later interpreters of Scripture. This can be evidenced by an observation of interpreters’ notes in common study Bibles. My Nelson’s Study Bible has ample mention of the Tarqums used to help interpret.

The days of Nehemiah are often looked upon as days of vast amalgamation of peoples in the area of Judea, but are overlooked as a period of renaissance for Mosaism. It was during this period that the Tarqums began, and therefore, they cannot be dismissed as “of Jewish contrivance.”

It is these same Tarqums which help lend clarity to that difficult passage in Genesis 4:1, and, in doing so, we are told very clearly that Cain was indeed “of his father, the devil.”

The seed of the woman can only be rightly understood to be Wholly Adamic and Pure. As such, it can only be whole and pure if it follows the laws of nature and nature’s God. That Law relegated kind unto kind. Specie unto specie. Any other racial admixture coupled with the seed of the woman corrupts and negates its purity. It, therefore, cannot be strictly construed as the seed of the woman.

Cain was an abomination, a violation of the Creator’s divine purpose for Adamkind and cannot be considered as anything other than the seed of the Nachash/Adversary: the devil.

The seed of the woman, as we anticipate it in the curse of Genesis 3:15, can only be that seed which is brought forth through the natural progression of Kind after Kind, and that excludes Cain.





«


snitches are a dying breed !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary Account Settings Forum Profile My Messages
Read your messages Send a message Calendar Members


Dragon88
Full Member







the two seed lines revisited
« on: July 14, 2012, 04:39:25 AM »QuoteModifyRemoveBelieving two-seedline, for some, is incomprehensib le. For others, it is equally implausible to believe that the fruit of a common tree could impart to Adamkind the knowledge of good and evil. With either opinion, we can all agree that the creation story in Genesis is full of symbolism. It is through such symbolism that we are left to reconstruct the true meaning of what happened – what symbolism is involved – in the fall of Adamkind.

Whether or not we support the belief of two-seedline, we all agree that ultimately, it was disobedience to Yahweh that was the cause. With that, we find common ground. We also agree that jews are imposters. We only differ as to the origin of their curse. Was it from Esau? Do we look to Canaan? Or boldly look back to Cain? If Cain, why? Because of the murder of Abel, or because we believe him to be of the “seed” of the “serpent?”
I have been challenged to answer a couple questions by a Brother in the faith, so I will do my best to address these questions herein. The first question is:

“Eve did not eat of the serpent, but of the tree. In Gen. 1, God gives us His Law of seed for seed and kind for kind. If the trees represented races of people, why would God tell Adam and Eve that they could have sex with (if that is your meaning of the word “eat”), or eat freely of all the trees? That would be in direct violation of the Law.”

This is the same question that Ted Wieland asks in his book Eve, did She or didn’t She? The first problem is that the question assumes that all two-seedliners believe exactly the same thing. This is a misconception.

Most two-seedliners are taught by the American Institute of Theology Bible Study Course, the bulk of which was written by Bertrand Comparet. Since the days of Mr. Comparet and Dr. Wesley Swift, great strides have been made in two-seedline research and theology, especially by men such as Eli James and Clifton Emahiser.

Neither Comparet nor Swift was infallible, but they did their best to pass on to students their scholarly work and, in doing so, expected others would seek out the truth for themselves.

In this first question, it is assumed that the “trees” in the Garden – which in Biblical symbolism are people (see Judges 9; Ez. 31; Is. 61:3; Dan 4; Amos 2:9; Mark 8:24, et al.) – were of every race. This premise is false. The trees in the garden were Adamic.

It is ironic that a common mantra amongst Identitists is “the Bible is a book which records the Creation, history and fall of the descendants of Adam. It only concerns itself with other peoples as they come into contact with Adamkind,” yet, when it comes to the Garden and two-seedline, we take the sacred Garden and fill it with non-Adamites. Let’s review.

Scripture records the creation of all “living souls” in Genesis 1:20-25 (as “beasts of the field” or “living creatures:” Naphesh Chayee in Hebrew).

The creation of Adamkind is found in Genesis 1:26-27, and placed under the microscope in chapters 2 and 3.

Here is an important distinction: non-Adamites were created and placed on the earth. Adamkind were created and placed separately in the Garden of Eden, a place located on the earth.

Note that in Genesis 2:8, the Scripture states that the LORD GOD planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the Adamite whom He had formed. This garden does not equate to the totality of creation, but rather a separate place within creation where (vs. 15) “The LORD GOD took the Adamite and put him in the Garden of Eden to tend and keep it.”

As an aside, it should be noted that it is falsely assumed that this particular “tending and keeping” is synonymous with the “dominion” of Adamkind over Creation. Certainly Adamkind has a dominion mandate, but in this case, the tending and keeping is no less than a command for racial preservation of the Adamite Garden. It was an order to tend and keep the Garden of Adamkind intact and racially pure!!!

When, therefore, Yahweh ordered that Adamkind could eat freely of the trees in the Garden – using the same idiomatic language and symbolism found in two-seedline theology – we can rightly assume that this was a reiteration of the natural order of kind after kind, i.e. of Adamkind you may freely choose a mate, or mates.

With that in mind, we should also briefly touch on the issue of rivers flowing from the Garden. It has been assumed that since the trees were of different racial types, it logically follows that the rivers must also be racial types flowing from the Garden (rivers being people or racial streams). Again, the Garden that Yahweh planted in Eden was Adamic, and therefore, the rivers flowing from its midst – if we are to interpret them as racial – were racially Adamic. Historical archeology is replete with evidence of widespread Adamic migrations throughout the globe, some of which are located in the Tarim Basin in Southern Sinkiang where many Bible scholars believe the flood of Genesis 6 took place.

The second question is multi-part. Our Brother asks:

“Cain, as Abel, was also born of the woman (Eve). So Cain and Abel would have been of the seed of the woman. To whom did the serpent give his seed? As I said, Eve did not ‘touch’ the serpent, she ‘ate’ of the tree. So, Cain would have been the seed of the tree? Anyone born of the woman was the seed of the woman, such as Cain, Abel and Seth.”

In order for me to properly answer this, it is necessary for me to explain what two-seedliners instinctively know – that the serpent (Nachash in Hebrew) is one “of” the race of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Trees are symbolic people. The serpent was not a snake, but a person. The word “serpent” is translated from the word “Nachash” which means to whisper, enchant or seduce.

Though much confusion is created by spurious interpretation s of Scripture, the fact that the interpreters chose a serpent as the representative of this particular enchanter is in itself telling. For serpents are just one of many fertility symbols. “Entwined serpents are the symbol of the god of fertility, and as such they represent the life and health in the Caduceus, the emblem of medicine.” (Gary Yarbrough, “The Tale of the Serpent.”)

This seducer was a representative of the racial tree that was in the midst of the Garden and which Adamkind was ordered to abstain from. Understanding that, the difference between touching the serpent and eating the fruit of the tree is non-existent.

Let’s put it this way: the tree represents a race. The enchanter (serpent) was one individual of that race. This is no different than calling the trees in the garden Adamic and seeing Adamites as individuals of that race of trees.

Eve, partaking of the fruit of that forbidden tree, produced the offspring of Cain, a hybrid, polluted with the seed of the serpent (nachash) a representative of the race of the forbidden tree of the knowledge of good and evil – a tree which most two-seedliners believe to be the race of fallen angels (of whom Satan/Lucifer was chief) who left off their first estate, and took on flesh.

To whom did the serpent give his seed? To Cain, of course, the half brother to Abel (a King Priest son of Adam). Sharing the same womb is not the same as sharing the same blood. Each child in the womb has its own distinct circulatory system. Cain and Abel did not share blood, nor did Eve share the blood of Cain. She contributed some genetic material, but did not share in that of the serpent. Once a child begins development in the womb, the only contribution from the mother is through the umbilical cord, and that is nourishment only.

(Clifton Emahiser documents the subject extremely well and for those who want to further this topic, his address is: 1012 North Vine Street, Fostoria, OH 44830.)

After the evil Cain slew his half brother, the Scripture records that Adam and Eve had another son, Seth (which means to replace). You’ll notice that in the lineage of Adam, in Genesis 5, Cain is excluded. Seth is recorded as the first son “in his own likeness, after his image.” The reason for this is obvious: Cain was not the son of Adam, nor “in his likeness or image.” Cain’s lineage is altogether separate (Gen. 4:16-24) and a perceptive student will note the unnerving way in which Cain’s descendants mimic the names of Adamites. A propensity which is not diminished to this day.

For the sake of noting it, two-seedliners do not dare believe what they do out of the impurity of their imaginations, but because Biblical symbolism is rife with clues which demand an honest interpretation of the facts.

In Gary Yarbrough’s “Tale of the Serpent” he points out that,

“The Yahwist account in Genesis 3 contains a host of fertility motifs; the serpent, a nude couple, the Garden, the Tree of Life, seed, Cherubim, and a flaming sword interpreted as lightening are all well documented fertility motifs…[even] the punishment pronounced upon the woman and the man in Genesis 3 are fertility oriented.”

Ever heard it said, “The punishment fits the crime?” We could also note that the serpent (enchanter/seducer) in Genesis 3:1 is described as “cunning” – a word which is phonetically synonymous with the word “naked” in Genesis 2:25 in the Hebrew.

Such word plays are common in the Hebrew scriptures and there are dozens of other examples with which our readers are most likely already familiar so no need for reiteration here of every detail. Suffice it to say it is a corollary of such an abundance of evidence that we believe as we do.

Finally, both the Tarqums of Jonathan and Pseudo-Jonathan tell us that:
“…Adam was aware that Eve his wife had conceived from Sammael the angel, and she became pregnant and bare Cain, and he was like those on high, not those below; and she said ‘I acquired a man, the angel of the lord.’”

and

“Adam knew about his wife Eve that she had conceived by Sammael the angel of the Lord, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.”

There are similar accounts elsewhere, such as the Jerusalem Tarqum, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Book of Enoch also teaches that it was not uncommon for angels to mate with Adamic women.

The Tarqums are a target of “anti” seedliners and labeled as “jewish” in origin. This is false. The Tarqums were a sort of ancient Bible commentary (much like the ones we use today to research scripture) and helped the ancients to better understand difficult passages of scripture, such as the one found in Genesis 4:1, which is interpreted for us above. The original is known to be “incomprehensible” and “a gloss” in the Hebrew account as we know it. A better interpretation is from the Jerusalem Tarqum and states:

“And Adam knew his wife Eve, who had desired the angel; and she conceived, and bare Cain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord. And she added to bare from her husband Adam his twin, even Abel.”

Now, the AIT gives us that when the Judeans (not Jews) were in captivity, they were forced to “accept the Babylonian language for their common use. So the Chaldee, or Aramaic as it has come to be known, supplanted the Hebrew.

In Nehemiah’s day, public readings of the Scripture were reinstated as mandatory, and at such readings it was necessary that a translator be present to help the people understand what was being read. This became known as the “Oral Tarqum.” Eventually it was written down and used as a valuable tool for later interpreters of Scripture. This can be evidenced by an observation of interpreters’ notes in common study Bibles. My Nelson’s Study Bible has ample mention of the Tarqums used to help interpret.

The days of Nehemiah are often looked upon as days of vast amalgamation of peoples in the area of Judea, but are overlooked as a period of renaissance for Mosaism. It was during this period that the Tarqums began, and therefore, they cannot be dismissed as “of Jewish contrivance.”

It is these same Tarqums which help lend clarity to that difficult passage in Genesis 4:1, and, in doing so, we are told very clearly that Cain was indeed “of his father, the devil.”

The seed of the woman can only be rightly understood to be Wholly Adamic and Pure. As such, it can only be whole and pure if it follows the laws of nature and nature’s God. That Law relegated kind unto kind. Specie unto specie. Any other racial admixture coupled with the seed of the woman corrupts and negates its purity. It, therefore, cannot be strictly construed as the seed of the woman.

Cain was an abomination, a violation of the Creator’s divine purpose for Adamkind and cannot be considered as anything other than the seed of the Nachash/Adversary: the devil.

The seed of the woman, as we anticipate it in the curse of Genesis 3:15, can only be that seed which is brought forth through the natural progression of Kind after Kind, and that excludes Cain.





«


snitches are a dying breed !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

MORE IMPORTANT THAN THIS STUPID TOPIC....... GET OVER IT PPL.




http://newsaxon.org/forum/help-questions-report-bu...

:Bad Kitty: lol whats up?

i dont! oppose christianity! im not sure what your talking about!

Americunt? is this directed to me??

Read "Positive Christianity in the Third Reich" by Fabricus. I'm not C.I. but whether people like it or not, the White Society isn't going to be just one religion. The Third Reich wasn't a one religion State.

I love how the ignorance blazes across New Saxon as many attempt to justify their whole belief structure and yet undermine their fellow Brethren in spite of any kind if unity. Enclave made an excellent point, regardless of anyone else's religious preference, he still made a connection of our fellow racial Comrades when all the while Bolverkr still insists on continuing this pointless squabble. I'm posting on the behalf of "Opposing Ignorance" and point out that there is more than one solid belief system in "Christianity" and if you think it's all the same then you have a very small attention span, not to mention, a lack of depth of how many religions or beliefs are out there that may tickle one's fancy that fits them upon a peronal level. Here's a little food for thought and for me to display some of my research into another, not widely viewed,form of Christianity that I find interesting: "True" Gnostic Christianity is an objective body of knowledge that Jesus taught. It is not a mystery religion or heretical cult. Gnostic Christianity teaches a non-judgemental "process" of reasoning. This new process, is justified by a natural principle that Jesus revealed and contemporary physics demonstrates is a scientific fact. Combining non-judgemental reasoning with the current judgemental process, expands our consciousness of reality. In this enlightened consciousness we are personally empowered to resolve all problems and as Paul said "live the good life as from the beginning He [God] had meant us to live it." (Eph 2:10)

Evidence that Jesus taught a process of reasoning that could expand consciousness surfaces in Jn 8:31-32 jbv, where he says, "If you make my word your home… you will learn the truth and the truth will set you free [word or will of God is the English translation of the Greek term logos, which refers to the logic or reasoning of God]." And in Rm 12:2 (rsv) Paul said "do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind..."

The Gnosis, or reasoning process, that Gnostic Christianity introduces, does not contradict Jesus' spiritually-centered public teachings. It documents what scholars refer to as Jesus' oral or logos/logic tradition, which he taught in private (Mk 4:33-34). These teachings elevate our reasoning mind to that of the will/reasoning of God. In this renewed mind, our reasoning supports spiritual values. This is the truth that can set us free. For when mind and spirit seek the same ends (syzygy) doing "on earth as it is in heaven" will no longer be an idealistic goal, it will be a practical reality. (Matt 6:10)

Gnostic Christianity is any version of Christianity which rejects the Old Testament and suspects part of the New Testament to have been written conspiratorially for the purpose of linking it to the Old Testament, and therefore believes that Yahweh and the Heavenly Father are two different people. Its theology is of Yahweh forcefully imprisoning us within the world he created, and the Heavenly Father sending Jesus to show us the way to freedom. As Yahweh is worshipped by Jews, whose aim is perpetual worldly dominion, so his opposite principle the Heavenly Father is suitable for worship by Aryans, whose aim is final transcendence.

Gnostic Christianity leads to universalism because it promotes the idea of all life as fellow victims of the worldly prison who must unite to break free. It also encourages positivity because it promotes emulation of Jesus’ spiritual journey in our own lives rather than mere dependence upon him. It does not lead to conflict with other religions towards the same goal because the journey can be undertaken with or without Jesus as guide. It will remain opposed only to Judaism and religions similar to it.

Most people i know who oppose christianity blabber on about it being too jewish or something, but i dont care im a christian i believe in God i have a christian cross tattoo on my forearm, christianity has been the religion of the west for over a thousand years before that it was pagan, however what most people dont understand is that alot of things in paganism were carried on into christianity, for instance christmas day, is based on the pagan ritual winter solstice ritual of taking a tree into your home and re planting it in the spring as a sign of new life. alot of people should really read up on something before they go about attacking it :/

HEY KIDDIES- YOUR SHINING THE BELL ON THE TITANIC!!!!! GROW UP- WAKE UP AND GET OVER IT!!!!! DUUUUUUUUUUR

YOU MEAN THAT "NEWSAXON IS A SINKING SHIP", LOTS OF POTENTIAL NEW AND OLD MEMBERS IN THESE TURBULANT TIMES ARE NOT BEING TAPPED INTO.......NEWSAXON SHOULD BE SETTING NEW STANDARDS IN THESE BLEAK TIMES,WHEN IT COMES TO SOCIAL-MEDIA, NEWSAXON SHOULD BE, GROWING, EXPANDING, INSTEAD OF GROWING STALE AND ABANDONED!!! LOOK AT THESE N.S MAIL BOXES THAT ARE USELESS, HARD TO NAVIGATE, WAY TO SMALL, BULLETINS THAT ARENT UPDATED FOR WEEKS AT A TIME, ETC.

MEMBERS THAT DO NOTHING BUT WANT TO POINTLESSLY ARGUE ON THE "OPPOSING CHRISTIANTY" POST.....IF IT WASNT FOR THAT CLICHE POST I WOULD SWEAR MOST PPL ON HERE NEVER POSTED A SINGLE THING OF RELIVANCE. WORSHIP A ROCK IF YOU WANT TO FRIENDS- BUT GET OVER THE LIL SKOOL GIRL BEEA-CHING AT EACH OTHER OVER RELIGION. ITS TIME TO GROW UP AND PICK YOUR BATTLES FRIENDS....... STAND AND GROW TOGETHER OR DIE ALONE WITH A ROCK IN YOUR HAND.

LETS BAND TOETHER- RECRUIT, INVITE, WELCOME NEW AND OLD TO NEWSAXON AND MAKE THIS RESOURCE THE GREAT HUB THAT IT COULD BE. HEADS UP FRIENDS. Last update on August 4, 20:22 by DIRKSTER.
DONT HATE ME BECAUSE IM BEAUTIFUL...... ON OPPOSITE DAY

HERE BE WHERE IT BE AT YO:


http://newsaxon.org/forum/help-questions-report-bu...