SYNTHESIS about MISA® - ch. 14: THE NEW RELIGION (3)

THE "ESOTERIC CHRISTIANITY"

Here is THE "esoteric Christianity" made accessible - not to everyone - but only to the "chosen" ones:

Amazing revelations about the sublime subtle energy of pure Divine Eros, which exists in the esoteric teachings of Jesus and which then persisted into early Christianity - conference by Gregorian Bivolaru

"It becomes possible to understand in a wise manner, the practice - which was indeed very widespread in early Christianity - what it meant for some male Christians to live intimately, lovingly, ecstatically with their "virgins" (agapetae). The Greek term "agapetae" could be translated by "adored virgins" or even by "virgins who have reached a full state of holiness".

At present very little is known about the spiritual erotic practices, but which these Christian men (agapets) performed it in secret together with "their adored virgins who were holy" (agapetae). It is necessary to clarify the term "virgin".”

Of course, clarification is necessary, just don't imagine that the words have the same meaning for Bivolaru as for others! Words always have to mean something else, they have a new, much deeper, clearly superior meaning, which escapes the profane...

quote:

"In biblical times, a 'virgin' was simply a young woman harmonious in body, healthy, affectionate, balanced within, unmarried, who was neither a widow nor a prostitute. Bodily virginity or, in other words, the existence of an intact hymen was not the central aspect, but such virginity – which implied an intact hymen – could exist."

You got it: "an intact hymen was not the central aspect"! We don't have to get complicated with insignificant details like an intact hymen, because devil is hidden right in the details! You can be holy even if you don't have an intact hymen, because the Virgin Mary was a virgin, even though she gave birth to Jesus' brother...

And more precisely, you can be holy without an intact hymen, just like you can practice on porn videochats without being a prostitute...

Gregorian the New Translator continues:

"Such erotic practices, which included an eminently spiritual direction, were even very widespread for several centuries, until they were outlawed following the Synod of Elvira in 305, but also following the Council of Nicaea in 325.

Agapeti/agapetae were the monks and nuns of the early Middle Ages who, although they embraced and followed a life of celibacy, still lived together, sharing what was called "pure erotic love that was divine". This practice was eliminated following the Second Council from Lateran in 1139."

It is worth remembering that Saint John Chrysostom says:

"Our ancestors knew only two forms of love engagement which were the mystical erotic wedding and adultery or fornication. Now, however, a third form has appeared, which is amazing: it is men who bring some young beautiful girls into their home which they keeps there permanently, respecting their virginity."

In another of his writings, Saint John Chrysostom states:

"The virgin is free from the various duties of a married woman. She even retains her erotic amorous vigor and youth even at the age of 40 being able, in this way, to resemble a beautiful young teenager."

And yet something is missing, a (demonic) confusion still lingers: how can a woman be a virgin (without an intact hymen!). but still retain her amorous erotic vigor and youth as if she were a teenager at 40?

You guessed it, it's the state of shakti, achieved through amorous erotic continence® acquired through assiduous practice, but only after a proper "initiation" to Paris!

But just when the cosmic orgasm is about to start, disaster strikes:

Saint Jerome, an ascetic from the desert, wrote:

"I blush when I talk about all this. It's so shocking but yet, although it's sad, it's true. How did this plague called agapetae get into the Church? Whence came these beautiful unmarried wives, these strange unusual concubines, these prostitutes — for that is what I choose to call them — even if they associate with a single lover who adores and spoils them, even being naked, but never penetrates them? The two live intimately in the same house and meet in the same room. They often share the same bed and even cuddle.”

Has the Supreme Tantric Initiate heard or is he pretending to be deaf? "They never penetrates them!" What about "virginity without an intact hymen"?

Why "they associate with one lover", when the Messenger of God Himself - Bivolaru - urges polyamory?

But the Great Tantric Guru comes with clarifications, so that there is no suspense with ejaculation:

"The Apostle Paul states in a clear way that this erotic practice was accepted, being considered something natural for a Christian to live in erotic amorous intimacy with a young and beautiful virgin.

If that virgin grew older and came to desire a conventional family, or if she eventually became pregnant, this was not considered to be in sin and it was okay for the two to marry. However, the two usually preferred not to marry, as they chose to live together as "an erotic amorous couple that was holy."

Make up your mind, Master! They penetrated them or not? How can a woman - be she a worshiped saint - possibly get pregnant without penetration?

How is it possible that a saint who lived for decades in a "holy erotic couple" suddenly, at around 40 years old, wants a conventional family through marriage, within which they are very likely to have children, because that means ”a conventional family”?

In fact, clarification is not even desired because the doubt is in favor of the accused. Sanctity with penetration, equal tantric amor at MISA. Those who don't believe, take that:

"For us, it is obvious that there was a very well-founded reason why the phenomenon of agapetae or, in other words, the phenomenon of adored virgins, to have erupted so suddenly, and then spread over such a wide area in the first century of our era.

It seems to be very certain that this reason was the teaching of Jesus concerning the sacrament of the wedding chamber and His relationship amorous intimacy with Mary Magdalene. According to the content of the Gnostic Gospels, the beautiful Mary Magdalene was in reality the consort of Jesus and, in the beginning, she was the first of the agapetae, or, in other words, the adored virgins.

In the Gospel of the Apostle Philip it is said: "One such woman who was very beautiful was Mary Magdalene, a companion of the Son. The Lord loved her much more than all the other disciples, and He often kissed her on the mouth."

In chapter 9 from the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Levi says to the apostle Peter, I quote: "But if the Savior made her thus worthy, who are you to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her best." Also in the same Gospel of Mary Magdalene it is mentioned: "That's why He - here Jesus is referred to - loved her much more than He loved us."

And that's why ”holy love” is made at MISA, and whoever doesn't believe this is a demonic rat. However, the amazing fact remains that, at MISA, "holy love" was first and only then, after three decades, the "edifying revelations" appeared. Prophetic grace, no doubt... Also doubled by a flawless reasoning:

"Some scholars believe that if Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, it is unlikely that His disciples would have been at least a little angry because of the erotic affection He was showing her. But it is - according to the opinion of many researchers - much more likely that this was a spiritual erotic relationship, which was full of love and which was "atypical" for the mentality of that time."

If even Jesus was part of a spiritual erotic couple with Magdalena, then it is something holy that Guru to form a couple with Mădălina! Of course, Guru formed many couples, and only for a few days...

Then there is the ”demonic doubt” regarding love in a group of three-four or polyamory at MISA, because nothing is said about these in what is presented. But there is still good news and consolation: The Master clarified the issue of holy love between women:

Conference Gr.Bivolaru: "What perspective did the good God reveal in the Bible, regarding homosexuality"

"For this reason, God allowed them to choose and commit certain passions that make them disgraceful, so that men changed the natural order with a habit that goes against nature.

Such men, leaving the natural order of their mating with the female part, were inflamed in their vile lust, one for another, men with men, committing shameful things and, in this way, they shall afterwards receive their reward due to their error."

It says nothing about women and, as they say, what is not forbidden is allowed. The problem is that the actual biblical text says otherwise:

King James Bible (🔗):

26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

In addition to removing the reference to female homosexuality from the original text and replacing it with male homosexuality , it is found that Bivolaru replaced the original expression "likewise also the men" (i.e. "men as well as women", which proves once more that there is also a clear reference to female homosexuality) with the expresssion "such men", i.e. a reference to MEN ONLY. The manipulation is obvious and clearly intentional.

Bivolaru modified the canonical text of the "Our Father" prayer (Lord's Prayer). Thus, the verse from the Gospel of Matthew in chapter 6:11

"Give us this day bread for our needs" (link) became at Bivolaru

"Give us this day bread for our needs and unbroken.” (link).

Everything is allowed to the New Messiah, for he can complete and even correct Jesus Christ, what others are not allowed: "Pope Francis the bizarre wants to change the "Our Father" prayer" (link).

But while the Bizarre Pope wants to change the wording and meaning of a line that exists in the prayer, the Natural Shepherd added the word "unbroken", in total contradiction with the initiatory gesture of the Breaking of the Bread from the Lord's Supper!

the Gospel of Matthew 26:26

And when they were taking food, Jesus took bread and, after blessing it, he gave the broken bread to the disciples and said: ”Take it; this is my body”.

(the continuation here)