Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Paul, the Founder of Christianity...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Paul, the Founder of Christianity...

    Before looking into the deceiving “gospel” preached by Paul, we should know something about him. He declares to be the founder of the Christian religion. He makes that statement in one of the first books written of the NT about 30 years after the death of Jesus Christ. That is many years before the first “gospel” was ever written. Paul was a mystic man. He discovered his amazing metaphysical powers while on a murderous mission to Damascus. There are 2 different versions of Paul’s conversion experience. It is a known fact that anyone lying cannot possibly be consistent all the time. It is hard to have contradictions and claim infallibility at the same time, too. Anyway, Luke is not a credible biographer. The Christian religion is spoon fed by the clergy who knows how to explain away all the contradicting statements in the NT. The laity have to trust what the clergy tells them about the Bible. It is only in recent history that some Christians are allowed to read the Bible. The clergy discovered to their amazement that it is safe to do so. Christians feed on mysticism, anyway. The bigger the lie the easier to swallow.

    Paul never told anyone details of his first mystic experience that made him a Christian. He kept a secret the details of his past murderous life. It is Luke who fills the gap the best he can.

    Acts 9:7 (ASV) And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

    Acts 22:9 (ASV) And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.


    There is no credible witness of Paul’s “conversion.” Luke just couldn’t remember if Paul’s companions heard any voice or not.

    It appears that Jesus Christ wasted 3.5 years teaching his 12 apostles because he came back in the “spirit” to draft Paul. Jesus Christ has a proven record of hatred towards the Jews. Paul was putting righteous Jews to death, too. So in the mind of the NT writers Paul’s selection as the number #13 apostle is a very good idea. Paul never needed any clarification from any teacher about anything while the 12 apostles were in constant need of clarification like if they were a bunch of mentally retarded Jews. On the other hand, Paul’s disciples are always shown to be bright and intelligent. If Jesus Christ were alive he must have envied Paul. Anyway, Paul came up with his own crafty “gospel” using Jesus Christ as a backdrop.

    Paul’s “gospel” makes references to the Tanakh for support and validation. He never quotes Jesus Christ. Paul designed his “gospel” to persuade the Torah ignorant Heathen. Actually, it is Paul’s mysticism that drew large crowds of non-Jews to himself. Paul is not appealing to anyone’s knowledge of the Scriptures. Nothing gives a preacher more credibility than statements like, “-o- put in my heard,” or “THE –O-- told me,” or “-o- revealed to me,” and so on.

    Galatians 1:11 (NIV) I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up.
    12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ (i.e. a spook).
    13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.
    14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
    15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb (i.e. I am not different from Moshe, or any of the prophets), and called me by his grace,
    16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood (i.e. I sought the spooks):
    17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me (i.e. I didn’t check with any eyewitness because I already had my “gospel” made up); but I went into Arabia (i.e. was Paul looking for the burning bush? Isn’t it intriguing? Paul sure knows how to keep anyone in suspense!), and returned again unto Damascus (i.e. on the same road? Was he expecting to run into Jesus Christ again?)
    18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days (i.e. secret meetings nothing relevant to tell).
    19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother (i.e. The one who allegedly mocked Jesus Christ? John 7:3-5 and Mark 3:21 (NIV) When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind.")
    20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.


    I naturally distrust anyone who says, “I lie not” or “I tell you the truth” every time I am told to believe anything. Paul says that he “tried to destroy the church.” Among the Christians Paul never admits having put to death countless of righteous Jews and having left many Jewish widows behind. Many of them were still alive and remember Paul very well. The fact that they were all Jews who were put to death under his direction is irrelevant. None of the Heathen Christians knows of any church that was wasted by Paul. That is why Paul is getting away with murder in a majestic way. Paul never ceases to attack the Jews as persecutors of “the church.” So who cares about the Jewish widows that he left behind. Give it a little more time and they will be completely forgotten. In the meantime he acts as if those widows don’t exist.

    2 Corinthians 11:24 (NIV) Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one (i.e. how kinky! Compare that with the millions of Jews that the Christians exterminated in a never-ending “final solution”…).

    1 Thessalonians 2:14 (NIV) For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews,
    15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men


    What is even more amazing is that Luke has the boldness to report that Paul was welcome to many synagogues with his “gospel” – Was he going to the same synagogues from were he dragged righteous Jews to be put to death just a few years ago? Or was Paul trying to avoid visiting synagogues in which any of the widows that he left behind were still there? We can tell that even before Paul’s conversion he was a Sadducee to the Sadducees and a Pharisee to the Pharisees and above all a Roman to the Romans. He brags to be a first class Pharisee (i.e. right winger), but he worked for the Sadducees (i.e. left wingers) who were under Roman control. Not only that, but Luke reports that Paul called his old boss “White-washed-wall” and all he got was a well served punch in the nose, not 39 lashes. Luke’s work as a PR man for Paul is incredible.

    Acts 9:1 (NIV) Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest (i.e. Adolf Hitler didn’t come to Paul, if that were the case)
    2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.

    Acts 5:17 (NIV) Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees…

    Acts 23:6-7, 10 (NIV) Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead."
    7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.
    10 The dispute became so violent that the commander was afraid Paul (i.e. a Roman citizen) would be torn to pieces by them. He ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force and bring him into the barracks. (i.e. not even Jesus Christ was that lucky to be a Roman citizen!)


    To persuade his followers about his extraordinary mystic power Paul declares that he is getting it wholesale in visions, trances, and spooky contacts with spirits including “a messenger of Satan.” In a show of modesty Paul talks about his handicap, otherwise he would be more forthcoming about the “revelations” that he was getting. Paul is great at bragging about himself and keeping secrets. If he were a Mason he must have been one at the highest degree. As a spiritualist he is 2nd to none.

    2 Corinthians 12:1 (NIV) I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord (i.e. spooky stuff).
    2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows.
    3 And I know that this man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows--
    4 was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.
    5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses (i.e. yes, we hear you loud and clear).
    6 Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say.
    7 To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations (i.e. wow!!!), there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan (i.e. another spook!), to torment me.
    "...and the truth will set you free."--Jesus Christ

  • #2
    More into Paul's credentials...

    This is a second look into Paul’s credentials and the chronology of some events. Paul invented “Jesus Christ” as a central figure for his religion. He is obviously very different from the historical person whose name nobody really knows. If salvation were to depend on his name, we are lost! He didn’t write any book neither gave instructions that any book about him should be written. The NT was written many years after he passed away. Paul met a spook by the name of Jesus Christ on his way to Damascus, Syria. The first contradiction is about how it happened. Luke first writes that when Paul was converted his companions “heard the voice, but didn’t see anyone” (Acts 9:7) but later he writes that, “they saw a light, but didn’t hear any voice” (Acts 22:9). Since then many more contradictions are written in the NT that are worth considering. Christianity has many ways of explaining away any contradiction.

    Paul claims to have met Jesus Christ only in visions, dreams, trances and revelations. The salvation that Paul is promoting is based on half of the truth and a lot of personal assertions about what the truth ought to be. Paul’s way of salvation is much different from the Tanak’s.

    Paul was a proud Roman citizen of the "no ordinary city of Tarsus" located in Heathen Cilicia, Turkey. Paul is very careful to tell about his Roman citizenship to the Roman authorities, but he not known to brag about it to the Jews. Technically, Paul disqualifies himself to be counted among those who claim no Earthly City, but a Heavenly one. So Paul is shooting his own foot!

    Hebrews 11:13-16 (NIV) All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth.
    14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own.
    15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return.
    16 Instead, they were longing for a better country--a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

    Acts 21:39 (NIV) Paul answered
    (i.e. whispering to the Roman Tribune) , "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people."

    Obviously, Paul is not operating led by the power of the Almighty, but by virtue of his Roman citizenship. It allowed him to operate quite disconnected from any Heavenly power.

    "No wonder Roman authorities in Philippi quaked when they realized that Paul and Silas were not just a pair of rabble-rousing Jews! (Acts 16:12-40) These men insisted they were Roman citizens, a matter which could be confirmed by a simple check of the census rolls. Emperor Claudius executed men who falsely claimed Roman citizenship; so it was not an assertion to be made lightly." --Will Durant, "The Story of Civilization; Caesar and Christ" (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1944), page 25.

    Paul's objective was to create a common bond religion in the Roman Empire. Paul was the first one writing any book of the NT. Without this initiative Christianity wouldn’t exist. His letters must have biased the composition of the gospels. Here is a chronology of Paul’s 25 or so many years building Christianity.

    http://www.cwo.com/~pentrack/catholic/chron.html

    37-62?: Paul of Tarsus: Roman citizen?, tentmaker?, "conversion" in c37 [Gal 1:12,16, Acts 9],
    in c40 went to Jerusalem (1st trip?) to meet Peter & James [Gal 1:18-20],
    in c47-48 on Cyprus with Barnabas [Acts 13:4-12],
    in c49-50 in Corinth (center of his mission to the Gentiles) [Acts 18],
    in c57 last visit to Jerusalem [Acts 21],
    in c58 imprisoned in Caesarea [Acts 23:23-26:32];
    in c60 imprisoned in Rome? [Acts 28:16],
    in c62 martyred for treason in Rome? [Col 1:24, Eph 3:13, 2 Tim 4:6-8, 1 Clem 5:5-7];

    10 traditional Pauline letters:
    Those letters written by Paul of Tarsus:
    Galatians (48-55),
    1st Thessalonians (51),
    Romans (56-58),
    1st Corinthians (56),
    2nd Corinthians (57),
    Philippians (55-62);

    Those letters written by others:
    2nd Thessalonians [warns of Christian Letter forgery!] (c60),
    Colossians (c60),
    Philemon (c60),
    Ephesians (c80),

    c70: Gospel of Mark: Peter's interpreter? [1 Pet 5:13], written in Rome?, ends unexpectedly at Mark 16:8, original ending apparently lost, endings added c400
    c70: "Signs Gospel": hypothetical Greek text used in Gospel of John to prove Jesus is Messiah
    c80: Gospel of Matthew: most popular in early church, based on Mark and Q
    c90: Gospel of Luke: based on Mark & Q, also Acts - same author, style of LXX


    The NT books were not collated as they were written. The first gospels of Mark and John were written over 20 years after Paul's letter to the Galatians and 40 to 60 years after the death of Jesus Christ. No wonder Paul never read any gospel. He never quoted any of the gospels, except to mention that he had his own gospel. He placed a curse on anyone preaching a different one. The Gospel of Saint Matthew was written 50 years after the death of Jesus Christ and the Gospel of Saint Luke 60.

    Galatians 2:2 (NIV) I went (i.e. to Jerusalem) in response to a revelation (i.e. a spook) and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.

    Paul had a private secret meeting with "those who seemed to be leaders." He must have known them because a few years earlier he was persecuting them to death. In fact, he had Steven cut down and nobody at that meeting seems to mind. Paul never quoted Jesus Christ. So I wonder what is that Paul discussed in “private” with the Apostles who had a personal knowledge of the historical Jesus Christ.

    Galatians 2:6-9 (NIV) As for those who seemed to be important--whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance--those men added nothing to my message (i.e. not even Steven’s sermon before I had him stoned).
    7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews
    (i.e. get it, Pet?) .
    8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews
    (i.e. again, just in case, Pet!) , was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.
    9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews
    (i.e. “the great commission” scrapped!!!).

    Paul may have written to the Galatians by the year 48. That is about 18 years after the death of Jesus Christ. 400 Years after the death of Jesus Christ the Great Commission to go to all the nations and christen those who believe was added at the end of the Gospel of Saint Mark. Paul probably was dead by the time the 4 different gospels were written. Paul doesn’t mention “the great commission” at all. In fact, he is contradicting it, verse 8:

    “For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.”

    So if “the great commission” were true and common knowledge among the apostles of the historical Jesus Christ I am sure that Paul would have written something else to the Galatians. He is really in contempt for “the great commission.” Although I don’t believe that he knew anything about it. Also, James, Peter and John are shown to completely disregard “the great commission” by extending the “right hand” endorsement to Paul’s self-appointed “commission.” It seems that the spook Jesus Christ changed his mind and he is assigning Paul the mission field of the world and to Peter the Jews. There is no record on how it happened. If Peter were a pope he was a pope to the Jews. There is so much contradiction in here that it is hard to believe that the historical Jesus Christ commissioned anyone for anything. Most likely, “The Great (missionary) Commission” was inserted later in the NT to give validity to Paul and his Christian religion.
    "...and the truth will set you free."--Jesus Christ

    Comment


    • #3
      continue...

      Mark 16:14 (NIV) Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
      15 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.
      16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
      17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
      18 they will pick up snakes with their hands
      (i.e. yes, they do that in KY and TN) ; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all (i.e. espiritually speaking, of course!) ; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well (i.e. the quality of the miracles still doesn’t measure up to any decent standard, but the poor devil is at fault for lack of faith.)."
      19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.
      20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.


      The above text was added 400 years later to the Gospel of Saint Mark. Jesus Christ is shown here appearing to the "Eleven" and reproaching them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe his resurrection. One mustn't forget that the Eleven were all Jews, hence their lacking and stubborn qualities! Peter got the nickname of “Satan” because of that. Paul is saying that Peter saw Jesus Christ resurrected before anybody else, but in the gospels he is accused to possess the same lacking and stubborn qualities of the rest of his Jewish peers. Were they Eleven? (i.e. according to Mark), or Twelve? (i.e. according to Paul). Obviously, there is no coherence in the NT.

      1 Corinthians 15:5-8 (NIV) and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.
      6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living
      (i.e. yes, Paul, they are still living as well as the many widows that you left behind after you put their husbands to death), though some have fallen asleep.
      7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
      8 and last of all he
      (i.e. the spook) appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born (i.e. yes, Paul, we understand).

      James is reported not to believe in Jesus Christ in real life (John 7:3-5). Where did Paul get that James was an eyewitness of any resurrection? I think that Paul assumed that James was a believer and a follower of the historical Jesus Christ. You must remember that the gospels were not written yet. It is very unclear how come James becomes the leader and great pastor of the Jerusalem assembly when Peter was supposed to be the pastor and holder of the keys of the kingdom and in charge of “feeding the sheep” and so on. How did James become the chairman of the Jewish assembly all throughout the Book of Acts? It was Abraham (Lincoln) who was inspired to say, “you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time.” I will go into the subject of Paul’s message that made Christianity so successful, in a forthcoming post.
      "...and the truth will set you free."--Jesus Christ

      Comment


      • #4
        http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tarsus.htm
        May YHWH have mercy on us all!

        Comment


        • #5
          Don the Pig Farmer,

          Mithraism copied Christianity not the other way around!

          Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or
          History?


          EDWIN M. YAMAUCHI


          That the Easter faith in the Resurrection of Christ is the core of Christianity can hardly be denied. Whether that conviction is rooted in myth, in hallucination, or in history has often been debated. Some have maintained that the Resurrection of Christ is a myth patterned after the prototypes of dying and rising fertility gods. Others argue that subjective visions of the risen Christ were sufficient to convince the disciples that their leader was not dead. Even those who do not doubt the historicity of Christ's life and death differ as to how the Resurrection may be viewed historically. Let us examine the evidences for these alternatives.


          Easter as Myth


          A. Dying and Rising Fertility Gods

          John H. Randall, emeritus professor of philosophy at Columbia University, has asserted: "Christianity, at the hands of Paul, became a mystical system of redemption, much like the cult of Isis, and the other sacramental or mystery religions of the day" (Hellenistic Ways of Deliverance and the Making of the Christian Synthesis, 1970, p. 154). Hugh Schonfield in Those Incredible Christians (1968, p. xii) has declared: "The revelations of Frazer in The Golden Bough had not got through to the masses.... Christians remained related under the skin to the devotees of Adonis and Osiris, Dionysus and Mithras."



          The theory that there was a widespread worship of a dying and rising fertility god-Tammuz in Mesopotamia, Adonis in Syria, Attis in Asia Minor, and Osiris in Egypt-was propounded by Sir James Frazer, who gathered a mass of parallels in part IV of his monumental work The Golden Bough ( 1906, reprinted in 1961). This view has been adopted by many who little realize its fragile foundations. The explanation of the Christian Resurrection by such a comparative-religions approach has even been reflected in official Soviet propaganda (cf. Paul de Surgy, editor, The Resurrection and Modern Biblical Thought, 1966, pp. 1, 131).


          In the 1930s three influential French scholars, M. Goguel, C. Guignebert, and A. Loisy, interpreted Christianity as a syncretistic religion formed under the influence of Hellenistic mystery religions. According to A. Loisy ("The Christian Mystery," Hibbert Journal, X [1911-12], 51), Christ was "a saviour-god, after the manner of an Osiris, an Attis, a Mithra.... Like Adonis, Osiris, and Attis he had died a violent death, and like them he had returned to life...."


          B. Reexamination of the Evidences
          A reexamination of the sources used to support the theory of a
          mythical origin of Christ's resurrection reveals that the evidences are far from satisfactory and that the parallels are too superficial.

          * * *

          Tammuz was identified by later writers with the Phoenician Adonis, the beautiful youth beloved of Aphrodite. According to Jerome, Hadrian desecrated the cave in Bethlehem associated with Jesus' birth by consecrating it with a shrine of Tammuz-Adonis. Although his cult spread from Byblos to the GrecoRoman world, the worship of Adonis was never important and was restricted to women. P. Lambrechts has shown that there is no trace of a resurrection in the early texts or pictorial representations of Adonis; the four texts that speak of his resurrection are quite late, dating from the second to the fourth centuries A.D. ("La 'resurrection' d'Adonis," in Melanges Isidore Levy, 1955, pp. 207-40). Lambrechts has also
          shown that Attis, the consort of Cybele, does not appear as a "resurrected" god until after A.D. 1 50. ( "Les Fetes 'phrygiennes' de Cybele et d' Attis," Bulletin de l'lnstitut Historique Belge de Rome, XXVII 11952], 141-70).


          This leaves us with the figure of Osiris as the only god for whom there is clear and early evidence of a "resurrection." Our most
          complete version of the myth of his death and dismemberment by Seth and his twofold resuscitation by Isis is to be found in Plutarch, who wrote in the second century A.D. (cf. J. Gwyn Griffiths, Plutarch's De Iside et Osiride, 1970). His account seems to accord with statements made in the early Egyptian texts. After the New Kingdom (from 1570 B.C.. on) even ordinary men aspired to identification with Osiris as one who had triumphed over death.


          But it is a cardinal misconception to equate the Egyptian view of the afterlife with the "resurrection" of Hebrew-Christian traditions. In order to achieve immortality the Egyptian had to fulfill three conditions: (1) His body had to be preserved, hence mummification. (2) Nourishment had to be provided either by the actual offering of daily bread and beer, or by the magical depiction of food on the walls of the tomb. (3) Magical spells had to be interred with the dead-Pyramid Texts in the Old Kingdom, Coffin Texts in the Middle Kingdom, and the Book of the Dead in the New Kingdom. Moreover, the Egyptian did not rise from the dead; separate entities of his personality such as his Ba and his Ka continued to hover about his body.


          Nor is Osiris, who is alwaysportrayed in a mummified form, an inspiration for the resurrected Christ. As Roland de Vaux has observed:

          What is meant of Osiris being "raised to life"? Simply that, thanks to the ministrations of Isis, he is able to lead a life beyond the tomb which is an almost perfect replica of earthly existence. But he will never again come among the living and will reign only over the dead.... This revived god is in reality a "mummy" god [The Bible and the Ancient Near East, 1971, p. 236].

          C. Inexact Parallels From Late Sources
          What should be evident is that past studies of phenomenological comparisons have inexcusably disregarded the dates and the provenience of their sources when they have attempted to provide prototypes for Christianity. Let me give two examples, Mithra and the taurobolium.


          Mithra was the Persian god whose worship became popular among Roman soldiers (his cult was restricted to men) and was to prove a rival to Christianity in the late Roman Empire. Early Zoroastrian texts, such as the Mithra Yasht, cannot serve as the basis of a mystery of Mithra inasmuch as they present a god who watches over cattle and the sanctity of contracts. Later Mithraic evidence in the west is primarily iconographic; there are no long coherent texts.


          Those who seek to adduce Mithra as a prototype of the risen Christ ignore the late date for the expansion of Mithraism to the west (cf. M. J. Vermaseren, Mithras, The Secret God, 1963, p. 76). The only dated Mithraic inscriptions from the pre-Christian period are the texts of Antiochus I of Commagene (69-34 B.C.) in eastern Asia Minor. After that there is one text possibly from the first century A.D., from Cappadocia, one from Phrygia dated to A.D. 77-78, and one from Rome dated to Trajan's reign (A.D. 98-117). All other dated Mithraic inscriptions and monuments belong to the second century (after A.D. 140), the third, and the fourth century A.D. (M. J. Vermaseren, Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae, 1956).


          The taurobolium was a bloody rite associated with the worship of Mithra and of Attis in which a bull was slaughtered on 'a grating over an initiate in a pit below, drenching him with blood. This has been suggested (e.g., by R. Reitzenstein) as the basis of the Christian's redemption by blood and Paul's imagery in Romans 6 of the believer's death and resurrection. Gunter Wagner in his exhaustive study Pauline Baptism and thc Pagan Mysteries (1963) points out how anachronistic such comparisons are:

          The taurobolium in the Attis cult is first attested in the time of Antoninus Pius for A.D. 160. As far as we can see at present it only became a personal consecration at the beginning of the third century A.D. The idea of a rebirth through the instrumentality of the taurobolium only emerges in isolated instances towards the end of the fourth century A.D.; it is not originally associated with this blood-bath [p. 266].

          Indeed, there is inscriptional evidence from the fourth century A.D. that, far from influencing Christianity, those who used the taurobolium were influenced by Christianity. Bruce Metzger in his important essay "Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Religions and Early Christianity" (Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish and Christian (1968), notes:
          Thus, for example, one must doubtless interpret the change in the efficacy attributed to the rite of the taurobolium. In competing with Christianity, which promised eternal life to its adherents, the cult of Cybele officially or unofficially raised the efficacy of the blood bath from twenty years to eternity [p. 11].
          * * *
          Edwin M. Yamauchi is a professor of history at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio.


          http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/...cles/yama.html

          http://www.messianicart.com/paganism/pagan.htm

          http://www.messianicart.com/paganism/copycat.htm

          http://www.messianicart.com/paganism/copycat2.htm

          http://www.messianicart.com/paganism/crj0169a.html

          http://www.messianicart.com/paganism/crj0163a.html

          Last edited by OldShepherd; 09-02-2001, 07:10 PM.
          Nullus Frigidus Auxilium Gratia
          Zaqunra'ahyahuw

          Comment


          • #6
            I am sticking to the NT for evidence...

            Old Shep, the documentation that I use to back my arguments is taken directly from the pages of the NT. I believe that the NT needs to be re-written to eliminate all the contradictions. I think that they did a lot of that in the early days of Christianity, but they did poorly. There are still too many glitches in the NT.
            "...and the truth will set you free."--Jesus Christ

            Comment


            • #7
              quote:


              Don the Pig Farmer,


              Mithraism copied Christianity not the other way around!

              ==============================================

              Oh really Jesuit!


              Mithrasim is well over 4,000 years old---Christos ainity is less than 2,ooo years old.


              GO FIGURE!

              Constantine the Pagan Emperor of the Roman Empire worshiped Mithras and Sol Deus,I guess it would be safe to say THE SUN.

              Now strangely enough he is also the Father of Catholicism, another way of saying He re-invented the Babylonian Mystery Religion of Mithras to the worship of Christos.


              http://www.innvista.com/scriptures/compare/mithra.htm


              Historical Appreciation

              Constantine can rightfully claim the title of Great, for he turned the history of the world into a new course and made Christianity, which until then had suffered bloody persecution, the religion of the State. It is true that the deeper reasons for this change are to be found in the religious movement of the time, but these reasons were hardly imperative, as the Christians formed only a small portion of the population, being a fifth part in the West and the half of the population in a large section of the East. Constantine's decision depended less on general conditions than on a personal act; his personality, therefore, deserves careful consideration.

              Over all, like to a god, was enthroned the emperor, and the imperial dignity was surrounded by a halo, a sacredness, a ceremonial, which was borrowed from the Oriental theocracies. The East from the earliest times had been a favourable soil for theocratic government; each ruler was believed by his people to be in direct communication with the godhead, and the law of the State was regarded as revealed law. In the same manner the emperors allowed themselves to be venerated as holy oracles and deities, and everything connected with them was called sacred. Instead of imperial, the word sacred had now always to be used. A large court-retinue, elaborate court-ceremonials, and an ostentatious court-costume made access to the emperor more difficult. Whoever wished to approach the head of the State must first pass through many ante-rooms and prostrate himself before the emperor as before a divinity. As the old Roman population had no liking for such ceremonial, the emperors showed a constantly increasing preference for the East, where monotheism held almost undisputed sway, and where, besides, economic conditions were better. Rome was no longer able to control the whole of the great empire with its peculiar civilizations.


              In all directions new and vigorous national forces began to show themselves. Only two policies were possible: either to give way to the various national movements, or to take a firm stand on the foundation of antiquity, to revive old Roman principles, the ancient military severity, and the patriotism of Old Rome. Several emperors had tried to follow this latter course, but in vain. It was just as impossible to bring men back to the old simplicity as to make them return to the old pagan beliefs and to the national form of worship. Consequently, the empire had to identify itself with the progressive movement, employ as far as possible the existing resources of national life, exercise tolerance, make concessions to the new religious tendencies, and receive the Germanic tribes into the empire.


              But it was especially in the western part of the empire that the veneration of Mithras predominated. Would it not be possible to gather all the different nationalities around his altars? Could not Sol Deus Invictus, to whom even Constantine dedicated his coins for a long time, or Sol Mithras Deus Invictus, venerated by Diocletian and Galerius, become the supreme god of the empire? Constantine may have pondered over this. Nor had he absolutely rejected the thought even after a miraculous event had strongly influenced him in favour of the God of the Christians.


              Constantine showed equal favour to both religious. As pontifex maximus he watched over the heathen worship and protected its rights. The one thing he did was to suppress divination and magic; this the heathen emperors had also at times sought to do.


              In the dedication of Constantinople in 330 a ceremonial half pagan, half Christian was used. The chariot of the sun-god was set in the market-place, and over its head was placed the Cross of Christ, while the Kyrie Eleison was sung. Shortly before his death Constantine confirmed the privileges of the priests of the ancient gods. Many other actions of his have also the appearance of half-measures, as if he himself had wavered and had always held in reality to some form of syncretistic religion.


              http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm


              THAT WAS THE NAME OF THE GAME ,JESUIT!

              Syncretistic religion,and it s known as Catholicism.

              May YHWH have mercy on us all!

              Comment


              • #8
                The only PIG farmers around here are CHRISTAINS!

                Say isn't this what the POPE now claims for himself????

                Pontifex Maximus !!!!!
                May YHWH have mercy on us all!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Don, The Pig Farmer,

                  "Mithrasim is well over 4,000 years old---Christos ainity is less than 2,ooo years old."

                  Where is your proof that Mithraism is that old? If you can read, read my post and note the only archaeological and historical evidence for Mithraism.

                  "The only dated Mithraic inscriptions from the pre-Christian period are the texts of Antiochus I of Commagene (69-34 B.C.) in eastern Asia Minor."

                  But according to the semiliterate Texas Pig Farmer its 4000 years old just because he says it is.

                  "But it was especially in the western part of the empire that the veneration of Mithras predominated. Would it not be possible to gather all the different nationalities around his altars? Could not Sol Deus Invictus, to whom even Constantine dedicated his coins for a long time, or Sol Mithras Deus Invictus, venerated by Diocletian and Galerius, become the supreme god of the empire? Constantine may have pondered over this. Nor had he absolutely rejected the thought even after a miraculous event had strongly influenced him in favour of the God of the Christians."

                  This quoted from Don the Pig Farmer's, post above. Where The Pig Farmer tries to make it appear that Constantine's actions and practices before his conversion were typical of his later life. The Pig Farmer doesn't want to admit that he as everyone else in this life, including Constantine, was a pagan before they came to the faith. Unless the Pig Farmer was the only person in the history of the world ever to born sinless and perfect.

                  Now to put the Pig Farmer's dog puke into perspective and context the next paragraph, following the paragraph he misquoted, in the Catholic Encyclopedia article. So the paragraph above is before and the one below is after!
                  "In deciding for Christianity he was no doubt also influenced by reasons of conscience--reasons resulting from the impression made on every unprejudiced person both by the Christians and by the moral force of Christianity, and from the practical knowledge which the emperors had of the Christian military officers and state officials. These reasons are, however, not mentioned in history, which gives the chief prominence to a miraculous event. Before Constantine advanced against his rival Maxentius, according to ancient custom he summoned the haruspices, who prophesied disaster; so reports a pagan panegyrist. But when the gods would not aid him, continues this writer, one particular god urged him on, for Constantine had close relations with the divinity itself. Under what form this connection with the deity manifested itself is told by Lactantius (De mort. persec., ch. xliv) and Eusebius (Vita Const., I, xxvi-xxxi). . . Directly after his victory Constantine granted tolerance to the Christians and next year (313) took a further step in their favour. In 313 Licinius and he issued at Milan the famous joint edict of tolerance. This declared that the two emperors had deliberated as to what would be advantageous for the security and welfare of the empire and had, above all, taken into consideration the service which man owed to the "deity". Therefore they had decided to grant Christians and all others freedom in the exercise of religion. Everyone might follow that religion which he considered the best. . . . The edict contains more than the belief, to which Galerius at the end had given voice, that the persecutions were useless, and it granted the Christians freedom of worship, while at the same time it endeavoured not to affront the pagans. . . . The feeling of emancipation from danger is touchingly expressed in the treatise ascribed to Lactantius (De mortibus persecut., in P. L., VII, 52), concerning the ways in which death overtook the persecutors. It says: "We should now give thanks to the Lord, Who has gathered together the flock that was devastated by ravening wolves, Who has exterminated the wild beasts which drove it from the pasture. Where is now the swarming multitude of our enemies, where the hangmen of Diocletian and Maximian? God has swept them from the earth; let us therefore celebrate His triumph with joy; let us observe the victory of the Lord with songs of praise, and honour Him with prayer day and night, so that the peace which we have received again after ten years of misery may be preserved to us." The imprisoned Christians were released from the prisons and mines, and were received by their brethren in the Faith with acclamations of joy; the churches were again filled, and those who had fallen away sought forgiveness."

                  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm

                  So what Constantine did was not force any religion on people but allow religious freedom, for pagans as well as Christians. But any nut case with an agenda can make any writing say just about anything they want by quoting a little piece here and a little piece there, out of context. A pig farmer can even make the Bible say "There is no YHWH." By doing the same thing to Psalms 14 and 53. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

                  Shall we believe the dog puke Don has posted when he has posted so many proven lies in the past!

                  Dog puke LIE #(1)! The statue of St. Peter, sculpted specifically for the Vatican in 1302, which you, Don the Pig Farmer, said three (3) times was a pre-Christian statue of Jupiter, renamed and moved, to the Vatican, from a pagan temple!

                  Dog puke LIE #(2)! You, Don, the Pig Farmer, said that Catholics at the Vatican would “proudly” say that the St. Peter statue, #(1) above, was a pre-Christian statue of Jupiter, renamed and moved from a pagan temple!

                  Dog puke LIE #(3)! An Indian Temple chariot wheel, falsely identified as a pagan sun circle or wheel!

                  Dog puke LIE #4! The oval not round Vatican plaza that is called a pagan sun circle or wheel, like number (3), above, three (3) times. Using one lie to try to prove another lie!

                  Dog puke LIE #5! The so-called “Jesuit Oath” that is supposed to be confirmed in, then subsequently ripped out of, the Congressional Record (C.R.) !

                  Actually, #(5) is several lies in one! (1) The so-called oath is still in the Congressional Record! (2) In the C.R., the so-called oath is identified as a “Knights of Columbus” oath, the name “Jesuit” is never associated with it! (3) The C.R. does not prove that the so-called oath was ever legitimate or authentic! The Congressional Record proves only that anonymous persons paid to have the so-called oath published in a newspaper, to try to discredit a Catholic candidate in a Congressional election. The so-called oath was evidence in a Congressional, election fraud investigation.

                  Links to Don’s dog puke posts and my documented responses.

                  http://www.tzaddikim.org/forum/showt...5&pagenumber=5

                  http://www.tzaddikim.org/forum/showt...5&pagenumber=4

                  http://www.tzaddikim.org/forum/showt...5&pagenumber=3

                  Pig Farmer Don, another question that scares you to death! You claim that the circle-cross is pagan and always, always represents some pagan sun god. In the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet, in which the Tanakh was first written, the letter Teth was written as a + or X, inside a circle, as shown in the links below. Were Moshe, Joshua, Daniel, Isaiah, and all the other ancient Hebrew prophets, writing a pagan sun symbol, whenever they wrote the letter Teth, in the Tanakh?

                  http://www.geocities.com/ancient_hebrew/4_chart.html

                  http://www.crowndiamond.org/bhm/abook16.html

                  http://www.crowndiamond.org/bhm/abook18.html

                  Prov 26:11 As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly.

                  2 Pet 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

                  1 Co 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

                  2Pe 3:16 they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


                  kh’khleb shob al-qao kh’shil soneh b’aoletho

                  sumbebeiken de autois to teis aleithous paroimias kuo’n episterethas epi to idion exerama kai us lousamen eis kulisma borborou

                  ei de tis agnoei agnoeito’

                  oi amatheis kai asteiriktoi streblousin o’s kai loipas graphas pros tein idian auto’n apo’leian


                  Last edited by OldShepherd; 09-04-2001, 02:38 AM.
                  Nullus Frigidus Auxilium Gratia
                  Zaqunra'ahyahuw

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: I am sticking to the NT for evidence...

                    Originally posted by Stranger
                    Old Shep, the documentation that I use to back my arguments is taken directly from the pages of the NT. I believe that the NT needs to be re-written to eliminate all the contradictions. I think that they did a lot of that in the early days of Christianity, but they did poorly. There are still too many glitches in the NT.
                    Well, Lou then you must be an absolute flaming genius. Since you alone out of all the scholars in the history of the N.T., are the only one able to find all those "glitches" If the N.T. is as full of errors, contradictions, mistakes, and glitches, as you claim, there should be dozens and dozens of books written documenting them. Where are those books? Hundreds and hundreds of Jewish and Muslim scholars have been attacking Christianity and the N.T. for almost 2000 years and, if the N.T. is full of mistakes, where are all the books written documenting those errors?

                    So Lou since you are such a brilliant flaming genius and so much more knowledgeable than any Christian scholar who ever lived, you should write a book and document all your so-called research and not just post little pieces of it here. Certainly since you are so intelligent you could put all those PhDs, in all the colleges, and seminaries to shame.

                    But before you do let me suggest that you get your story straight. For example on this thread you indicate that Paul had to go to the High Priest to get authority to persecute Christians, but on several other threads you stated that Paul was the ring leader. So was he the ring leader or did he have to get permission from the real killers, Jews? Also you keep saying that Paul left widows, there is no record that Paul ever killed a single person. The Jews, like you, were the ones who did the killing. And their authority comes from the Talmud. And there are many such contradictions I have pointed out which you have refused to acknowledge.
                    Last edited by OldShepherd; 09-04-2001, 02:00 AM.
                    Nullus Frigidus Auxilium Gratia
                    Zaqunra'ahyahuw

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      All the pig farmers around here are Christains!

                      Quoting the jesuit Priest:


                      Don, The Pig Farmer,

                      "Mithrasim is well over 4,000 years old---Christos ainity is less than 2,ooo years old."


                      Where is your proof that Mithraism is that old? If you can read, read my post and note the only archaeological and historical evidence for Mithraism.

                      "The only dated Mithraic inscriptions from the pre-Christian period are the texts of Antiochus I of Commagene (69-34 B.C.) in eastern Asia Minor."


                      But according to the semiliterate Texas Pig Farmer its 4000 years old just because he says it is.

                      ==============================================

                      No my Catholic friend not just because don says so:




                      For over three hundred years the rulers of the Roman Empire worshipped the god Mithras. Known throughout Europe and Asia by the names Mithra, Mitra, Meitros, Mihr, Mehr, and Meher, the veneration of this god began some 4000 years ago in Persia, where it was soon imbedded with Babylonian doctrines. The faith spread east through India to China, and reached west throughout the entire length of the Roman frontier; from Scotland to the Sahara Desert, and from Spain to the Black Sea. Sites of Mithraic worship have been found in Britain, Italy, Romania, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey, Persia, Armenia, Syria, Israel, and North Africa.

                      http://www.innvista.com/scriptures/compare/mithra.htm


                      The Roman army first encountered the cult of Mithras in Persia (modern Iran) during the reign of the emperor Nero although its origins in India have been traced back to 1400 BC. One of the many mystery cults that the Romans introduced from the east, Mithraism first appealed to slaves and freedmen but with Mithras's title Invictus, the cult's emphasis on truth, honour and courage, and its demand for discipline soon led to Mithras becoming a god of soldiers and traders.

                      http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/mithras/text.htm


                      The worship of Mithras is far older than than you Christos ainity

                      Sunday worship

                      Christ-mass and all the rest come from Mithrasism not the other way around Jesuit even from the POPE on down is a copy of the Mithras priesthood.

                      You know it and so do I ,Jesuit.

                      ----------------

                      Quoting the Jesuit Priest:



                      This quoted from Don the Pig Farmer's, post above. Where The Pig Farmer tries to make it appear that Constantine's actions and practices before his conversion were typical of his later life. The Pig Farmer doesn't want to admit that he as everyone else in this life, including Constantine, was a pagan before they came to the faith. Unless the Pig Farmer was the only person in the history of the world ever to born sinless and perfect.
                      ==============================================

                      And just what FAITH would that be Jesuit??????????????????

                      Oh I am sure!

                      Roman Catholicism right ,Jesuit!

                      --------

                      The jesuit speaks:



                      Now to put the Pig Farmer's dog puke into perspective and context the next paragraph, following the paragraph he misquoted, in the Catholic Encyclopedia article. So the paragraph above is before and the one below is after!

                      ==============================================

                      I didn't mis-quote anything nor did I quote out of context nor is one before the other sir.


                      .And in fact lets go on with it:


                      Constantine granted the Church one privilege after another. As early as 313 the Church obtained immunity for its ecclesiastics, including freedom from taxation and compulsory service, and from obligatory state offices--such for example as the curial dignity, which was a heavy burden.

                      The Church further obtained the right to inherit property, and Constantine moreover placed Sunday under the protection of the State. It is true that the believers in Mithras also observed Sunday as well as Christmas. Consequently Constantine speaks not of the day of the Lord, but of the everlasting day of the sun.

                      According to Eusebius, the heathen also were obliged on this day to go out into the open country and together raise their hands and repeat the prayer already mentioned, a prayer without any marked Christian character (Vita Const., IV, xx).


                      . On the other hand, the imperial power was increased by receiving a religious consecration. The Church tolerated the cult of the emperor under many forms. It was permitted to speak of the divinity of the emperor, of the sacred palace, the sacred chamber and of the altar of the emperor, without being considered on this account an idolater.

                      From this point of view Constantine's religious change was relatively trifling; it consisted of little more than the renunciation of a formality.

                      For what his predecessors had aimed to attain by the use of all their authority and at the cost of incessant bloodshed, was in truth only the recognition of their own divinity;

                      Constantine gained this end, though he renounced the offering of sacrifices to himself.


                      Some bishops, blinded by the splendour of the court, even went so far as to laud the emperor as an angel of God, as a sacred being, and to prophesy that he would, like the Son of God, reign in heaven.

                      It has consequently been asserted that Constantine favoured Christianity merely from political motives, and he has been regarded as an enlightened despot who made use of religion only to advance his policy. He certainly cannot be acquitted of grasping ambition.


                      Where the policy of the State required, he could be cruel. Even after his conversion he caused the execution of his brother-in-law Licinius, and of the latter's son, as well as of Crispus his own son by his first marriage, and of his wife Fausta.

                      He quarrelled with his colleague Licinius about their religious policy, and in 323 defeated him in a bloody battle; Licinius surrendered on the promise of personal safety; notwithstanding this, half a year later he was strangled by order of Constantine.


                      ---------------

                      And so states the Catholic Encyclopedia

                      http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm



                      As for your dog puke lies and coments,take it to Cross within a circle Thread and I'll be glad to take it up with you.

                      In others words quit walking all over Lou's post!

                      ==============================================


                      Again something relating to the subject:


                      http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tarsus.htm

                      May YHWH have mercy on us all!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Shalom Lou,

                        It's been a while huh bro! remember me? Ya know when I lived in Hawaii, I went through a time where you just plagued my mind. I woke up sometimes with you crossing my mind. I think I told you about it. Anyway... I thought I was destined to "save you". (big smile). Now looking back I realize what an ego maniac thing to think. gosh. Though I would have never admitted it... I even thought my self better then you. or at least better off then you. Goodness... Yah has brought me a ways. boy did I need a humbling. For what it's worth... I got it. (grin.)

                        So... I'm not gonna "preach" to ya bro. We are all just as lost as the next soul, completely and soley dependant on the mercy and will of the Father. So I'm just gonna share what goes through my mind as I read your post. I'm not gonna sugar coat it, cause I've chatted with ya long enough to know you don't respect that much. So gonna just give to ya straight. (from my heart and mind that is.)
                        Here goes... >

                        You refer to Paul; "He declares to be the founder of the Christian religion. He makes that statement in "one of the first books written of the NT"

                        Lou... You need to post the actual scripture you are referring to. Or I should say; "I ask you to." It's hard to read your post when you have to search around so much to see if I think it's saying what you say it is saying... ya know?
                        Where does he declare to "be the founder" of christian religion? Do you refer to 1st. Cor. 15:1- "...I declare unto you the gospel which "I preached" unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

                        3) For I delivered unto you first of all that which >> I ALSO >> received <<..."

                        He states right there that this is not of "himself" but it is something he "received" and now he "gives" that which he received. He makes it very clear that this is not of his "own" understanding... he did not just "figure this out".. no. He "received" it.

                        You point out >> "There are 2 different versions of Paul’s conversion experience. It is a known fact that anyone lying cannot possibly be consistent all the time. It is hard to have contradictions and claim infallibility at the same time, too. <

                        Well Lou... there may be a reason for it.
                        After all, there are "two versions" of the creation. There are "two versions" of the crucifixion. There are "two versions" of the law. There are contradictions in the law as well, such as "cursed be he that lieth with his sister" (deut. 27:22)
                        And yet Abraham and Sarah WERE brother and sister through their father... yet the result of their union is the seed to bless all nations!
                        Or their fathers sister (aunt) (lev. 18:12) And yet this is Moses, Aarons, and Merriams Parents! (nephew and aunt)

                        The point is... There are "contradictions" in ALL written scripture, even in the law of Moses... but you don't see me calling Moses a liar do you? But I do take note and ask questions in my heart and mind to Yah on the "validity" of some scriptures. If it was "truly" from him, or corupted by men through the ages. I do not think that Moses corupted anything... if anything be corupt I believe it would be man corupting his writings. Or some one elses.
                        I think it is silly to think this is not possible. But the truth is there none the less. Truth and lies often "grow up" togeather. But in the end, truth will win out. Just as light does over darkness. Darkness cannot "consume" light. But Light does "consume" darkness.

                        >>Galatians 1:11 (NIV) I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up.
                        12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ (i.e. a spook). <<"

                        Do you not yet see that all "truth" comes by "revelation"?

                        Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of Yah should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of Yah cometh not with observation:
                        21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of YAH is within you.

                        Do you not see that Yahshua (Yahs salvation) comes by "revelation"? or from "within"?

                        Jeremiah 33:6 Behold, I will bring it health and cure, and I will cure them, and will >> reveal << unto them the abundance of peace and truth.

                        Daniel 2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a "revealer of secrets", seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

                        Luke 10:22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will >> reveal

                        1 Samuel 3:7 Now Samuel did not yet know YHWH, neither was the word of the YHWH yet "revealed" unto him.

                        (though Samuel grew up in the temple. Think about it!)

                        Isaiah 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the YHWH revealed?

                        Lou... Before you count Paul out altogether...
                        Please consider:

                        There are 12 tribes/sons of Israel. Then Joseph is taken away... and there are 11. Then Manassah and Ephraim replace Joseph making 13 tribes.
                        Then Ephraim and Manassah are made one, and there are 12 again. Then Ephraim and Dan are taken out (or not mentioned) in the 144,000 being sealed (rev). And we have Jospeph put back in along with his son Manassah making it 12 again.

                        The same is true with the diciples. There are 12. Then Judas is taken out and there are 11. Then they draw straws and choose Stephen (I think is his name) and there are 12 again. Then Paul is added and we have 13. (but in a way Paul and stephen are "one" or replaced the same "one". Then stephen is taken out (dies/goes to sleep/taken up) and we have 12 again.

                        Think about it Lou... As much as you study... you surely can "Look" at the whole picture...

                        This is what I do. I look to see if it "fits" the pattern. Because that is how Yah reveals himself or teaches us knowledge and understanding. over and over. Witness upon Witness.

                        Not unlike we teach any child in the flesh... "abc, abc, 123, 123" over and over.
                        Now Pauls gospel... or the gospel he preached is the "death, burial, resurrection... etc.". THIS... IS... the gospel.

                        Even if one took away all scriptures... One cannot just ignore that all of creation testifies to a "death, burial, resurrection".
                        or a "transformation". weather it be a worm to a butterfly, or a tad pole to frog. or sperm to human being, or even dust to human, after receiving the spirit of Yah a TRANSFORMATION took place. But notice they all go to "sleep" first. Which is synomonous to "death".

                        "awake o' Israel, awake".

                        Also notice that this transformation does not take place due to the creatures own efforts. But took place because they were simply "designed" to do just what they did!

                        Fear not Lou... Yah is in control. We need not fear or fret with the world and the many doctrines.
                        The message, or the true word of Yah will be preached and received. Weather it be through a christian doctrine, or the scriptures, or nature, or just from within... the Transformation will take place. For Yah has willed it so, and testifies to it daily right within His very creation.

                        "Because that which "may" be KNOWN of YAH is manifest >IN< them. For YAH has > SHOWN < it UNTO THEM.
                        For the invisible things of HIM are CLEARLY "seen" and UNDERSTOOD >> BY THE THINGS THAT ARE MADE << even HIS ETERNAL POWER and supernal nature; so that they are without excuse." (Rom. 1:19-20)

                        Its all about Him. Its not about us, or even Paul. Its all about Yah and all things come back around to HIM.
                        The flesh is dust and ashes. and so will return. Just as the spirit will return from whence it came.

                        We shall be "Transformed" Lou. And if there be any that are not... it will be because they did not believe what is manifested all around them.

                        When it comes to my own "answering" and healing, I often feel as that father >

                        And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Master, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
                        (Mark 9:24)

                        Love ya bro,
                        D'


                        "At that day
                        shall a man look to his Maker,
                        and his eyes shall have respect
                        to the Holy One of Israel."
                        Isaiah 17:7

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          So Lou since you are such a brilliant flaming genius and so much more knowledgeable than any Christian scholar who ever lived, you should write a book and document all your so-called research and not just post little pieces of it here. Certainly since you are so intelligent you could put all those PhDs, in all the colleges, and seminaries to shame.
                          Yes, Old Shep, it takes a PhD to doctor Christianity. That is why the Scriptures were banned to common people for centuries. Only le clergy had access to the Scriptures and to the NT in particular. Old Shep, if you were honest with yourself you would admit that the points that I am bringing up are stubburn facts impossible to doctor...

                          By the time I retire I will have enough documentation to write a book. You are right about some inconsistencies in my former posts. I meant "Ring Leader" subject to some civil authority as opposed to "Global Leader" who is in charge of everything...
                          "...and the truth will set you free."--Jesus Christ

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            and I love you too, sis...

                            Shalom DeAnna!

                            I am so happy to chat with you again. I am sorry I didn't say hi to you when you came to this forum... but you can rest assured that my heart was ready for a prompt... I really didn't want to scare you off if I were to jump on you with a welcome greeting.

                            Anyway, I suggest you take the time to read again the first post on this thread. In it I answer your question on how Paul founded Christianity. He was in constant contact with a spook by the name of Jesus Christ. It seems that 3.5 years of teaching the original 12 didn't work. Then comes Paul and he seems to be a ready made apostle knowing all things and never having the need to learn anything. I would be repeating myself. Please read again my post...
                            "...and the truth will set you free."--Jesus Christ

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Pig Farmer,

                              You want to talk about my bad mouth? After you have posted garbage such as "sh*t" "crap? "b*tch" "punk".? Get real!

                              "For over three hundred years the rulers of the Roman Empire worshipped the god Mithras. Known throughout Europe and Asia by the names Mithra, Mitra, Meitros, Mihr, Mehr, and Meher, the veneration of this god began some 4000 years ago in Persia, where it was soon imbedded with Babylonian doctrines. The faith spread . . .from Scotland to the Sahara Desert, and from Spain to the Black Sea. Sites of Mithraic worship have been found in Britain, Italy, Romania, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey, Persia, Armenia, Syria, Israel, and North Africa."

                              http://www.innvista.com/scriptures/compare/mithra.htm

                              This statement is nonsensical. Persia was Babylon! Anything which originated in Persia/Babylon would be certainly reflect their doctrines. From my previous post, "The only dated Mithraic inscriptions from the pre-Christian period are the texts of Antiochus I of Commagene (69-34 B.C.) in eastern Asia Minor."

                              Your so-called source only makes unverified assertions, where the source I quoted names and dates the actual historical evidence cited, i.e. "the texts of Antiochus I of Commagene (69-34 B.C.). Compare your so-called sources, above and below. Did Mithraism originate in India or Persia? "Hey it don't matter just say anything, just as long as it attacks Christianity!

                              "The Roman army first encountered the cult of Mithras in Persia (modern Iran) during the reign of the emperor Nero although its origins in India have been traced back to 1400 BC. One of the many mystery cults that the Romans introduced from the east, Mithraism first appealed to slaves and freedmen but with Mithras's title Invictus, the cult's emphasis on truth, honour and courage, and its demand for discipline soon led to Mithras becoming a god of soldiers and traders."

                              http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/mithras/text.htm

                              "The worship of Mithras is far older than you Christos ainity"

                              So what? See the real history! Nero was emperor from 54 to 68 AD! Mithraism did not reach Rome until the earliest 68 AD, thirty five (35) years after Christianity, or later!

                              "Christ-mass and all the rest come from Mithrasism not the other way around Jesuit even from the POPE on down is a copy of the Mithras priesthood. You know it and so do I ,Jesuit."

                              What I know is you cannot prove any of your dog puke. The only so-called evidence you can vomit up was written in the 20th century, such as Lew White's dog puke book, which does not reference any real evidence. And I know, in my previous post, I quoted a source which cited real, historical, evidence that proves Roman Mithraism came after and copied Christianity.

                              See my later post with real, historical, scientific, archaeological evidence from sources such as Universities of Richmond, Stanford, and Indiana, and Encyclopedia Brittanica and Encyclopedia of Religion.

                              Your so-called sources contradict each other. They can't decide if Mithraism began 1400 or 2000 years BC, or if it began in Persia or India. Six hundred years is a big difference.

                              "and Constantine moreover placed Sunday under the protection of the State. It is true that the believers in Mithras also observed Sunday as well as Christmas. Consequently Constantine speaks not of the day of the Lord, but of the everlasting day of the sun."

                              Constantine did place Sunday under the protection of the state but the church had been worshipping on Sunday for over 250 years, since the time of the apostles. All these early church leaders wrote of Sunday worship. (You already know where to access the early church writings.) Where does Constantine speak of the "everlasting day of the sun?and what exactly is the context? Someone can sing "that lucky ol' sun got nothin' to do but roll around heaven all day." Which does not prove anything about what they believe.
                              74 AD (250 years before Constantine) The Letter of Barnabas (Letter of Barnabas 15:6-8).

                              90 AD (230 years before Constantine) DIDACHE: (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 7, pg. 423, 449, 471)

                              107 AD (210 years before Constantine) IGNATIUS (John's disciple): Epistle to the Magnesians, chp 9. Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 62-63.)

                              110 AD (210 years before Constantine) Pliny: (The covenantial Sabbath, Francis Nigel Lee, Pg 242)

                              130 AD (200 years before Constantine) BARNABAS: (15:8f, The Epistle of Barnabas, 100 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 147)

                              150 AD (170 years before Constantine) EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLES.- (18)1

                              150 AD (170 years before Constantine) JUSTIN: ...(Dialogue With Trypho the Jew, 150-165 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, page 206, 207) (First apology of Justin, Ch 68)

                              200 AD (120 Years before Constantine) TERTULLIAN: (An Answer to the Jews 2:10; 4:1, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 3, page 153) (To the Nations 1: 133) (On Idolatry, 14:6)4

                              220 AD (100 years before Constantine) ORIGEN " (Homil. 23 in Numeros 4, PG 12:749) (Commentary on John 2:28).

                              225 AD (100 years before Constantine) The Didascalia "" (Didascalia 2).

                              300 AD (Twenty years before Constantine's edict and 25 years before the Nicean council) EUSEBIUS: (The historian) "They did not, therefore, regard circumcision, nor observe the Sabbath neither do we; ،¦ because such things as these do not belong to Christians" (Ecc. Hist., Book 1, Ch. 4)

                              "They [the early saints of the Old Testament] did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we [Christians]. They did not care about observing sabbaths, nor do we." (Church History 1:4:8)."
                              "It has consequently been asserted that Constantine favoured Christianity merely from political motives. . . He certainly cannot be acquitted of grasping ambition."

                              "Asserted? Asserted, implies stating confidently without need for proof or regard for evidence, i.e. Allegedly (M-W dictionary), but not proven. Since when is "ambition" wrong or pagan?

                              "According to Eusebius, the heathen also were obliged on this day to go out into the open country and together raise their hands and repeat the prayer already mentioned, a prayer without any marked Christian character (Vita Const., IV, xx).

                              Even after his conversion he caused the execution of his brother-in-law Licinius, and of the latter's son, as well as of Crispus his own son by his first marriage, and of his wife Fausta.

                              He quarrelled with his colleague Licinius about their religious policy, and in 323 defeated him in a bloody battle; Licinius surrendered on the promise of personal safety; notwithstanding this, half a year later he was strangled by order of Constantine.
                              "

                              What is all this supposed to prove? What was the name of that King who committed adultery with the wife of one of his soldiers and when she got pregnant, had the husband killed to cover up the adultery?

                              And what was the name of that King who set up and worshipped at idols and altars for pagan deities, Ashtoreth, Chemosh, Molech, and Milcom?

                              Since one of those kings was a murderer and an adulterer and the other was a pagan “sun worshipper?we have to throw out all the scriptures after their reigns, because it is all antinomian and pagan, just like with Constantine, and you know this.

                              2 Sam 11: 3 . . .And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?
                              4 And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; . . .
                              5 And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child.
                              15 And he (David) wrote in the letter, saying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die.
                              17 . . . and Uriah the Hittite died also.

                              1Ki 11:4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
                              5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
                              6 And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.
                              7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
                              9 And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice,
                              Last edited by OldShepherd; 09-11-2001, 02:31 AM.
                              Nullus Frigidus Auxilium Gratia
                              Zaqunra'ahyahuw

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X