Who sits on the left hand of God?

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: Joecroft
Metatron is a fake made up name/ideaform in order to Dupe you. Enoch never transformed from to into anything other than a Melchezidek (which one you should be asking as were four).

This is correct that Metatron is an Archangel that Judaism made up to fill in the blank holes of their doctrines. Throughout the history of Earth, mankind have conjured up quite a large number of gods, goddesses, angels, and so forth. Sure, there is some truth in a small number of beings in mythology, but it turns out that people were just naming "aliens" (beings from spheres with higher consciousness) they worshipped and idolized. For example, over 200,000 years ago, a being came to Earth to help "enlighten" the planet also brought about a hundred helpers. These helpers were higher beings and mankind, at the time, viewed these beings as gods. After co-mingling sexually with these "gods" up to and after the time of Adam and Eve, the world had some super beings. The result became Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Hebrew, Chinese, and so many gods and goddesses of mythology. Where did these beings go? That is a story for another time and place, for it is not on topic with this thread.

However, because of people's fascination with these beings, they also made up 80% more gods and goddesses to satisfy their storytelling motives. I hope this clears the confusion with Metatron.

a reply to: ctophil
There are many that make their living "channeling" (becoming in flesh speaking for) the being Metatron; his wisdom etc. There are those innocents that actually pay for this false representation. The popularity of false Demi-gods posing in the past and those NOW: still existing in these present times is remarkable. Thank you Phil (I have never disagreed with you).

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
Metatron is a fake made up name/ideaform in order to Dupe you. Enoch never transformed from to into anything other than a Melchezidek (which one you should be asking as were four).

Originally posted by Joecroft
Where are you drawing this idea of Melchezidek from…do you have a quotes from any particular texts…?

Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
I have to think about how to answer this. Bare with me.

Ok I’m baring with you…(checks watch and Date lol)

It’s been soooo long that I think I’ll bear lol with you instead…



May as well give the bear something to dance too before I’m gone gone gone (Done Moved On)




- JC

a reply to: Joecroft
I have to think about how to answer you; of course I have reference points (outside your references and why tricky). Your patience is not required as a condition of simple complex information sharing. Your attention will wander.....then--gone/poof!

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
I have to think about how to answer you; of course I have reference points (outside your references and why tricky). Your patience is not required as a condition of simple complex information sharing. Your attention will wander.....then--gone/poof!

It’s not so much about patience, but more to do with curiosity…

Anyway just so we're clear; according to you, Enoch turned into a Melchezidek…right…?

Not sure where to start seeking this information out, especially if it’s encoded in some secret form of metaphor etc…

Edit to Add - It's the gone/poof factor that I'm afraid of...lol


- JC

a reply to: Malocchio

Originally posted by Malocchio
One could say Jesus preached the left hand path (narrow road few will find).

Why would you say that…?

Originally posted by Malocchio
Certainly people on the narrow path have no affiliation with the organizations claiming to follow Jesus.

Christianity is the wide road.

Jesus is the narrow. Confusing, but true.

Christianity is essentially about believing in metaphoric teachings in a literal way, which is why it is the wider path like you stated…

I would say understanding Jesus teachings is the narrow path that leads to walking in the way, the truth and the light etc…


- JC

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: Malocchio

Originally posted by Malocchio
One could say Jesus preached the left hand path (narrow road few will find).

Why would you say that…?

Originally posted by Malocchio
Certainly people on the narrow path have no affiliation with the organizations claiming to follow Jesus.

Christianity is the wide road.

Jesus is the narrow. Confusing, but true.

Christianity is essentially about believing in metaphoric teachings in a literal way, which is why it is the wider path like you stated…

I would say understanding Jesus teachings is the narrow path that leads to walking in the way, the truth and the light etc…


- JC

You just answered your own question.

The narrow path is the road less taken or the left (left handedness being rare) hand path.

I don't mean the Crowley version or evil in any way, just a path that few find, understand.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Malocchio
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Malo:Who cares that humans created them? They wouldn't exist otherwise.

Most things would not exist if HUMANS had not CREATED THEM.

Malo: Pokemon analogy? Please.

You created all that is in 7 days only?

Malo: Whoever said that I am a dupe for saying that Metatron is Enoch then goes on to say Enoch was A Melchizedek, that there were four is incorrect.You are the dupe. Adonizedek is the only other Melchizedek. Zadok was a High Priest of Solomon. Other than that Melchizedek is Shem.And Metatron IS Enoch.

Metatron may have been anyone you have NO PROOF. The four Melchizedeks according to NO PROOF are:
Malavatia Melchizedek
Machiventa Melchizedek
Manitutia Melchizedek
Manovandet Melchizedek

I am guessing your source for this is the Urantia book or something equally stupid.

Why claim something ridiculous and not citr the source, I mean, come on. You talk a big game but have nothing to offer.

These are mandators or controllers of the Local Universe your life depends upon. Dont tell me there are only two when I know better. You want to call one Shem or Enoch? How so? Zadok; high priest of Solomon!?!! What geographic area? Machiventa Melchizedek was the high priest of Salem as in Jerusalem (cannot be two ruling at ONCE). How many years did Zadok live and does he appear in the Judeo-Christian Bible?

I think it's safe to call bs on you.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
Metatron is a fake made up name/ideaform in order to Dupe you. Enoch never transformed from to into anything other than a Melchezidek (which one you should be asking as were four).

Hi there… *waves*

There’s only one possible way to interpret what you’re stating above and that’s in the following way…

Enoch is similar to Melchezidek in many respects (too many too list), and of course he (Enoch) preceded Melchezidek. Which means if the original Enoch parable/story was just used to impart truth, then that same truth could be imparted later, but just under a different myth/name, to that of Melchezidek.

That’s the only way in which Enoch could have transformed into Melchezidek…


- JC

a reply to: vethumanbeing


(...double Post...)

originally posted by: Malocchio

Malo:Who cares that humans created them? They wouldn't exist otherwise.

vhb: Most things would not exist if HUMANS had not CREATED THEM.

Malo: Pokemon analogy? Please.

vhb: You created all that is in 7 days only?

Malo: Whoever said that I am a dupe for saying that .Metatron is Enoch then goes on to say Enoch was A Melchizedek, that there were four is incorrect.You are the dupe. Adonizedek is the only other Melchizedek. Zadok was a High Priest of Solomon. Other than that Melchizedek is Shem.And Metatron IS Enoch.

I said so and your history differs from mine (SO WHAT). Everyone exists with differing educations and if you think yours is one more privilaged or examines a truth greater than mine you believe in a falsehood. NONE ARE TRUE.

Malocchio:I think it's safe to call bs on you.

What would happen if it were not safe?

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: vethumanbeing

vhb: Metatron is a fake made up name/ideaform in order to Dupe you. Enoch never transformed from to into anything other than a Melchezidek (which one you should be asking as were four).

Joecroft: Hi there… *waves* There’s only one possible way to interpret what you’re stating above and that’s in the following way… Enoch is similar to Melchezidek in many respects (too many too list), and of course he (Enoch) preceded Melchezidek. Which means if the original Enoch parable/story was just used to impart truth, then that same truth could be imparted later, but just under a different myth/name, to that of Melchezidek.

Enoch is similar if not the same being. So could be named Isaiah; another one. These could all be metaphorical (personally do not think so).

Joecroft: That’s the only way in which Enoch could have transformed into Melchezidek…

You could be a modern Melchezidek.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
Enoch is similar if not the same being. So could be named Isaiah; another one. These could all be metaphorical (personally do not think so).

I was expecting some kind of congratulations you’ve passed the test lol

You do realize your quote above speaks two opposite perspectives at the same time…(You don’t give much away)

Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
You could be a modern Melchezidek.

Well, I understand the Bread and the Wine if that’s what you mean…and I really love the Seal…


- JC

a reply to: vethumanbeing

You have yet to my knowledge provided any evidence for your theory of four Melchizedeks.

I know that Hebrew tradition is that Shem was Melchizedek.

Other than the one mention in Genesis and the other in Psalms Melchizedek is mentioned in Hebrews.

Hebrews is a ridiculous book to be honest. It is jumbled and nonsensical and makes Christians think Melchizedek was Christ.

The only account of Melchizedek's birth is in rare versions of 2 Enoch were he is born without fornication but from a non virgin mother.

Fully dressed in the garb of a High Priest and removed to paradise until the flood is over.

So is he Shem? In Rabbinical Judaism, but not a universal tradition and 2 Enoch is more Christian than Jewish. Jewish Christian I would call it.

Either way, prove your theory or let it go.

I am still guessing the Urantia book as your source. If so, lol.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Malocchio

Malo:Who cares that humans created them? They wouldn't exist otherwise.

vhb: Most things would not exist if HUMANS had not CREATED THEM.

Malo: Pokemon analogy? Please.

vhb: You created all that is in 7 days only?

Malo: Whoever said that I am a dupe for saying that .Metatron is Enoch then goes on to say Enoch was A Melchizedek, that there were four is incorrect.You are the dupe. Adonizedek is the only other Melchizedek. Zadok was a High Priest of Solomon. Other than that Melchizedek is Shem.And Metatron IS Enoch.

I said so and your history differs from mine (SO WHAT). Everyone exists with differing educations and if you think yours is one more privilaged or examines a truth greater than mine you believe in a falsehood. NONE ARE TRUE.

Malocchio:I think it's safe to call bs on you.

What would happen if it were not safe?

No matter, because it is safe.

Not into '"what if"s.

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: vethumanbeing

vhb:
Enoch is similar if not the same being. So could be named Isaiah; another one. These could all be metaphorical (personally do not think so).

Joecroft:I was expecting some kind of congratulations you’ve passed the test lol
You do realize your quote above speaks two opposite perspectives at the same time…(You don’t give much away)

I cannot make my truth yours and have every desire to throw anything of the enlightened aspect your way (if only I could identify such information as fail safe/fool proof).

vhb: You could be a modern Melchezidek.

Joecroft:Well, I understand the Bread and the Wine if that’s what you mean…and I really love the Seal…

Yes; that resonates, plus plus!! Masonic affiliations.

originally posted by: Malocchio

Malocchio: Not into '"what if"s.

You are instead not interested in chance however are *into* Absolutes (Universal Law)? How fun; we could actually have a substansive conversation.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
I cannot make my truth yours and have every desire to throw anything of the enlightened aspect your way (if I could identify such information).

That’s kind of you…all under the fraternity rules I guess…

Wait…Did you just say “desire”…

I’ll spare you the long speech lol

Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
Yes; that resonates, plus plus!! Masonic affiliations.

One has to get the foundations correct and in there proper place if one is going to seek and understand the “Knowledge of Holy…”

Proverbs 8: 10-11
10 Choose my instruction instead of silver,
knowledge rather than choice gold,
11 for wisdom is more precious than rubies,
and nothing you desire can compare with her.

- JC

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Malocchio

Malocchio: Not into '"what if"s.

You are instead not interested in chance however are *into* Absolutes (Universal Law)? How fun; we could actually have a substansive conversation.

Something about you also makes me disinterested, I don't think a conversation with you would be worth my time.

Nothing personal, I am not a fan of most people and I don't even remember our previous conversation, lol!

a reply to: Malocchio

Enlightenment Comes To The Rescue!! (regarding ALL that have bothered to converse with THIS PERSON); one is scarcely remembered or even an afterthought in Malocchio's universe. So; exactly who is it he is replying to that he cares so little for?