Both are jewish mind viruses that exist solely to rob the world of its soul and replace it with mortal devotion to the destruction of the world's great civilizations.
Discussion
I disagree.
I think they manipulated Christianity to be sympathetic to Judaism. Its a completely different religion. The screenshot of the ai analysis summarises my view .
It was a dispute between a new jewish school and an old jewish school but the aim of both is to destroy anything else it comes in contact with while providing nothing on its own merit except the promise that one day, in the far future, you will be a participant in the divine nature. No assurance for that, really, except subjective experience through ritualism.
So you have to destroy every beautiful thing now, you have to riot and vandalize everything your people built because if you don't destroy Roman civilization then you won't be a part of the new world order, which still hasn't come after 2,000 years, even though Jesus promised it within the generation of the Apostles. But you still have to do it, oh and when those civilizations tell you to stop committing crimes, that's persecution.
Pic related:
Jesus never preached destruction.
Aside from turning over the tables of the bankers on Sabbath lol
If we're going strictly by the public teachings of Jesus, most of it is inoffensive. Nothing new, the Indo-Europeans figured it out a few hundred years prior, but inoffensive.
That doesn't really matter because the entire Christian mythos still became about "saints" baiting the government into martyring them through acts of mass vandalism, just like ISIS does.
Well there are some people who follow the teachings of Jesus and others who follow the teachings of the church.
If you agree with that. Which would you call Christians?
The historical account of what Jesus taught is contextualized by the church and the Old Testament, both of which prophecy or mandate the eradication of all gentile cultures. Christians meet in churches. Most of the New Testament is administrative letters to churches. The Church is literally called "The Body of Christ" and it comes directly from the synagogue tradition.
If you're only going by the "red letters" then you may fit some reconstructionist definition of a Christian, but it will be so far removed from the historical definition that it would become a useless name. The idea of cosmic redemption, the payment of sins, and a number of other things are out the window.
I go by the teaching of Jesus.
if you look at the screenshot of the analysis of the new convenant that jesus preached, it is incompatible with the Old Testament which is guided by the Talmud anyway.
The New Testament cites the Old Testament for proof texts and the title "Christ" he claims to be comes from the Old Testament, which is pretty clear in the books you're citing.
It doesn't make sense to be a Christian outside of a jewish context. At that point you're just creating a new sect like Muhammad did.
If you're only trusting the words of Jesus that don't source any other aspect of the tradition he's in, then you're left with content so scarce that you might as well be something else. Buddhists and Sikhs have the exact same values.
Sometimes keeping things simple is a good thing.
The majority of the new Testament are not Jesus' words or even quotes.
Calling people who follow a sect that contradicts Jesus' teachings doesn't make sense....
So you accept the gospels' account of Jesus' words, but not the narration surrounding it?
You realize the people who chose which accounts got preserved were the same ones who interpreted it through the rest of the New Testament, yeah? And that New Testament affirms the Old Testament and the institutional authority of the later church?
You either accept all of it, as a branch of judaism, or you accept none of it. This in between position of a judaism-free Christianity just doesn't make historical sense.
If you need some guru as an icon, pick one whose tradition you can affirm. Become a Zen Buddhist or something.
Yes but atleast they admit their narration is narration.
Jesus' main teachings of love and inclusivity are what made the religion survive as a sect riding on the coat tails of his words.
It may not make "historical" sense as you casually put it, however those are Jesus' words.
To each their own. I dont take kindly to people telling me what to do.
Dont need an icon, dont need to become anything.
Have studied all world religions very in-depth with a degree.
Most of our perceptions are illusions based on false senses narrated by false entities. You cannot believe anything to be reality except that you exist. This is the only thing one can know with certainty.
You're not a Christian then, and you were being dishonest by advocating Orthodoxy. You're just a modernist with an aesthetic.
Where was I "advocating" anything?
You called it "original" and defended it when it was pointed out that it was responsible for the destruction of European culture, only pivoting to redefine Christianity into something meaningless after the face.
Basically the most jewish way you could possibly have addressed it.
I did not comment on it destroying european culture.
You seem to be hell bent on antagonism and twisting peoples words in a pathetic attempt to gas light them.
If anyone is being "jewish" its you! 🚸
Your lack of knowledge on all these topics shines very brightly :)
Call me what you will, the churches are more modern than me lol
anyway you seem to answer questions with other questions.
I think I will stop answering yours now :)