is it possible to cast spells or enter ones psyche by manipulating digital sound and image?

anything is possible

...all sorts of things started to enter my...dream world.

You have answered your own question.

Cast spells digitally? No

Analogue, maybe.

With Digital, the means is subliminal and/or subharmonic along with anchored themes.

thing is, you could do all that with analogue

Might I suggest it is also possible that you're highly suggestible?

None of those symbols mean anything unless you give them power over you by believing in them

why dont these forces do that on a mass scale (TV) if they wanted to control the masses?

One hundred repetitions three nights a week for four years, thought Bernard Marx, who was a specialist on hypnopædia. Sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth.

Might I suggest it is also possible that you're highly suggestible?

None of those symbols mean anything unless you give them power over you by believing in them

is it possible to cast spells or enter ones psyche by manipulating digital sound and image?

:grizzy: Yes, the devil was originally The Minster of Music in Heaven. If you would like to know more.

ANGELS?... [link to www.chick.com]

Please do not got to this heretical, hateful, false, and violently anti-catholic website, Rant.............

:hummbird: And if you would like to know more about the Roman Catholic "church."

PAPA?... [link to www.chick.com]

You Can't Get Past this Rock

By Tim Staples

Few texts have occasioned the spilling of more ink than Matthew 16:18–19:

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Although all twelve apostles were present, Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the kingdom. The keys symbolize Christ’s authority over the kingdom of heaven on earth—the Church. Yet many Protestants believe the two "rocks" in the Greek text have different meanings: "Thou art Petros, and on this petra I will build my church." They believe Petros, the first "rock," refers to a small rock (Peter) and petra, the second "rock," means a massive boulder—either Jesus or Peter’s confession of faith. Thus the argument concludes that Jesus did not build his Church upon Peter but upon either himself or Peter’s faith.

This is not how Catholics understand this passage. There are ten reasons for why we believe that Peter is undeniably the rock of the Church.

We’re Not in Little Rock

1. There is good evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic. Both Papias and Irenaeus told us that in the second century. More importantly, and more certainly, Jesus would have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Aramaic, not Greek. Although Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, most of the Jewish people Jesus spoke to were not fluent in it. They spoke Aramaic.

There is also biblical evidence, in John 1:42, that Jesus used Aramaic in the naming of Peter:

[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).

The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic name Kepha, which simply means "rock." There was no "small rock" to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter. Even well-respected Protestant scholars agree on this point. Baptist scholar D. A. Carson writes:

The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; at most probably kepha was used in both clauses ("you are kepha" and "on this kepha"), since the word was used both for a name and for a "rock." The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, Zondervan, 368)

Rocky Road

2. In Koine Greek (the dialect used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are the masculine and feminine form of a word with the same root and the same definition—"rock." Therefore, there is no "small rock" in the Greek text either. So why did Matthew use two different words for "rock" in the same verse?

Petra was a common word for "rock" in Greek. It is used fifteen times to mean "rock," "rocks," or "rocky" in the New Testament. Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all. In fact, it was never otherwise used in the New Testament except when Jesus changed Peter’s name from Simon to Peter.

It follows that when the Gospel of Matthew was translated into Greek, petra would have been used for "rock," but petra is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter " petra," and so petros, the masculine form, was used for his name.