It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Paul & the Light Of Lucifer

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2002 @ 11:03 PM
link   
What was that light Paul saw?
www.fortunecity.com...

Paul isn't worth listening to because:
(Matt 5:19)" Whoever breaks one of the least of the commandment and teaches men, so shall be called the least in the Kingdom."

The Dead Sea Scrolls show us the strict rules in which to judge whether one is worthy & Paul broke about all those rules, like Political/War imprisonment & living in gentile territory (helanized society) & other issues that relates to disqualifying teachers (4Q266-7 fr 5).

Paul's Letters were the first, written at least 20 years after Jesus's execution. St. Paul's theology, and the interpretation it cast on events recalled about Jesus's career, played a significant role in shaping the doctrines of the Paulian-Christian Church. Yet, this man was not Jesus, nor was he G0D. For that reason, those denominations of Christianity which believe in the inspiration and authority of Paul are called "Pauline", or "Paulian". Often more than half of what they hold as doctrinal truth comes from Paul rather than Jesus. Though most favors of Christianity are Paulian, The Christo-Paulian church has squelched most of The Gospel of Thomas because too many elements in them didn't fit in with doctrines and precepts which the early Church had crafted up to that time. In other words -- Politics.

In the 9th chapter of Acts, Luke tells the story of the conversion of Saul, saying that "the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." In the 22nd chapter of the same book, Luke quotes Paul's own words regarding the same experience: "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake unto me."
This is very contradicting but what is forgotten is, since the only Light appears=Lucifer, then Paul saw and was stimulated by this Lucifer deception.
What is this light and why did it speak in Paul's Mind?
This light can be a number of things if not just a tall tale. It can be a Phenomenon where crystal rocks rub together under the earth's surface and sparks and light can appear above ground through this natural occurrence or it can be increased magnetic fields which interacts with particles streaming from the Sun to create phenomenon we already observe as the infamous Northern and Southern Lights. The magnetic impulses from this occurrence can also bring hallucination by stimulating these dream like fantasies in the mind. Similar is the many accounts of illuminated ghosts or some UFO encounters.
Where Lucifer again appears in mans mind is in near death experiences where the tunnel of Light is seen. This light is occuring, as well as the portraits of relatives, from the lack of oxygen to the brain. This has been similated in a lab where everyone stimulated on the side portion of the brain had the same experience as if they were dying. This shows that afterlife is a false fantasy which actually started as a cultish myth about death. See people do not know their history of words used in Biblical times, therefore they have no idea what the term Light in the bible really meant. In the day of the prophets, spiritual light meant Knowledge and truth, not Illumination. Any use of Illuminated light is to deceive and sound supernatural and superstitious. Illuminated Light cult talk was no different back then as it is with New agers now. In other words Christian theology was the new agers of their time, adding to the bible, distorting it and making up supernatural powers and fantasy through words they had no understanding to. All talk and no substance or proof backing it's outrageous claims. This is the warning of Lucifer=the one who brings illuminated Light. Morning Star=Lucifer and Rev 22:16 Jesus claims to be that morning star. However, there is more to the warning then meets the eye as the illuminated light hint might also reveal where the story of Paul comes from.




posted on Dec, 7 2002 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Paul is worth listening to. Consider:

You said, " (Matt 5:19)" Whoever breaks one of the least of the commandment and teaches men, so shall be called the least in the Kingdom." "

But the real verse is written thusly:

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and teach other men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." MATT 5:19

Therefore, Ycon, you have corrupted this verse of our Lord (you have lied) and you have taught your lie to others (the readers of this board). Therefore, you are not worthy of the kingdom. The fiery maw of hell awaits you because of your transgression; Satan's demons are warming up the torture chamber just for you... unless you repent your blasphamous remarks >;')

What is truly meant by this verse is that, any God-fearing man who knows the commandments, yet breaks the least of these - say the 'least' is adultery - and encourages adultery in others, is least in the kingdom.

However, I can see how you misinterpret the verse to mean something like "Any man who breaks a 'least' commandment 'and teaches men', is least in the kingdom of God. And how, if this marred version of the verse were true, the converted Paul, formerly known as Saul, who used to be a murderous wretch of an assassin, ought not to teach the Word of God. But you got it wrong there so Paul's safe...for now.

As to your ramblings about the Dead Sea Scrolls, who's to say they're real? Have you discovered one, carbon-dated one? Remember, the Rockefeller Foundation is the organization that has been funding most of the work done on the scrolls - and Rockefeller never funds anything that doesn't support his agenda. He's also got his hand in the Ark of Hope garbage the U.N. is cooking up... a blasphemous representation of the Ark of the Covenant. I can't say myself whether they're real, who wrote them, etc.. But I do know that Rockefeller's no friend of mine, and the Christ of the bible is - so I'll stick to the bible.

Now, some quotes from the world's best-selling book so that you can be 100% sure that "with God, all things are possible"...even Paul's salvation.


"But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath he come near to a menstrous woman, And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; He that hath not given forth upon usery, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgement between man and man, Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgements, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD." EZEKIEL 18:5-9

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all of my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his rightousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die." EZEKIEL 18:20-24

"When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die." EZEKIEL 18:26-28

"Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby you have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye." EZEKIEL 18:30-32


Ycon (fitting name), if these words don't persuade you to the truth that even Saul, an assassin and a wretch of a man, can be saved, perhaps you might re-read the parables Christ of to this end. Recall, in particular, the parables of the lost lamb that the shepard rescued and the prodigal son returned to his father. Remember how the shepard and the father rejoiced when the lamb and the son were saved.

May God Guide You to Truth,

Savonarola



posted on Dec, 7 2002 @ 05:30 AM
link   
By the way, Lucifer was the greatest under God, the first angel, the most bright. But whan he fell, he lost the light and, in doing so, became the prince of darkness. Christ, the king, Godhead in man, fulfilled what Lucifer couldn't.

No doubt Lucifer might appear to be luminescent if he were to appear to a mortal - but then again, we are describing light in physical terms, terms that don't apply to spiritual realities - try not to grasp for rational explanations of spiritual realities; they are not to be had. When a spiritualist, medium, psychic, or even a priest begins talking about spiritual matters in terms of numbers, appearances, or events in 'heavenly' time or space in an effort to explain the miraculous, it becomes obvious that they have no clue what they're talking about. Numbers, events, individual, group, space, and time are all qualities of this universe, not the spiritual one. You are grasping for a rational explanation when you say, concerning Lucifer's speaking to Saul (which he didn't):

"This light can be a number of things if not just a tall tale. It can be a Phenomenon where crystal rocks rub together under the earth's surface and sparks and light can appear above ground through this natural occurrence or it can be increased magnetic fields which interacts with particles streaming from the Sun to create phenomenon we already observe as the infamous Northern and Southern Lights. The magnetic impulses from this occurrence can also bring hallucination by stimulating these dream like fantasies in the mind. Similar is the many accounts of illuminated ghosts or some UFO encounters."

This would be like saying that Jesus healed the sick by "bombarding them with regenerative tachyon-field pulses generated by His most holy, Righteously-enhanced lymphnodes."

Neither you nor I know what created the miracle, only that God was at work. How I know that you don't know Lucifer didn't talk with Saul that fateful day is that I know that you don't know the answer yourself.



posted on Dec, 7 2002 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Savonarola, I didn't write the article. The link to it is posted above so it is seen.

I posted this because I want people to see the different posibilities as to what happened. The deception is great and many people don't even see the other options. I don't ask you or anyone else to believe, just keep a open mind.

Here is another interesting posibility:
www.fortunecity.com...


About The Writer of REV Swallowing the Scroll:
The reality is that the writer was most likely an Essene or Hasmonian, and when the verse tells of swallowing the scroll (Rev 10:10), saying it would be sweet to the mouth but sour to the stomach. When we take things figuratively instead of literal, we then see swallowing meant, to hide the scroll (fulfilling Daniel's verse about these things being hidden till the end times to be opened). What's in the scrolls will be satisfying to those who are faithful to God, but sour to those who are not following in law. In other words they will not be able to handle what's revealed cause of their transgression, they will not accept it cause they transgressed by their wrong doing. We now know, the Scroll, that the writer of REV Swallowed, was probably the hidden scrolls of the Qumran known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. What they reveal is sweet to the faithful but bitter to the Sons of Darkness, aka children of Lies. The reason why God asked to hide this till the end, was because anyone would use it to place themselves upon them or that anyone mentioned in those scrolls would be targeted by the beast, so they would not expose the beast and fulfill their role. Now you know why the hidden Messiah text is hidden, because it must be proof for the Messiah to be revealed in order to prevent false ones from staking claim.
To see what the scrolls reveal, pick up a copy of the translation that I use for my resource, it's By Geza Vermes called "The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls In English" or find some sites on the net that are not controlled by the keepers of the Lies, who burned these books in the first place.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Awesome stuff worth remembering.

Paul introduces contradiction into the bible.

Beware the writings of Paul, christians.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   
So it could be renamed Paulianity. I read some interpretations of the DSScrolls that were pretty damning regarding Paul. But I don't see the light as bad. The light of the world is one reason.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 06:13 AM
link   


Let not the vain speeches of any trouble you who pervert the truth,
that they may draw you aside from the truth that I teach.

Paul to the Laodiceans





The initial observation to be made is this: the popular forms of christianity we now have do not require indeed do not even permit Jesus to indorse them. Creedialism is a religion that supersedes Jesus, replaces him,or perhaps displaces him with a mythology that depends on nothing he said or did with the possible exception of his death.

  • Robt. W. Funk. 1996. Honest to Jesus. Polebridge Press, Harper. San Francisco. 352pp.




  • Fear prophets and those prepared to die for the truth, for as a rule they make many others die with them, often before them, at times instead of them.
  • Umberto Eco. 1983. The Name of the Rose. Harcourt. 512pp



  • "It has served us well, this myth of Christ"
    Pope Leo X




    [ because of his] power and his ignorance [and his arrogance]
    he said..., " It is I who am God; there is none [other apart from
    me]." When he said this he sinned against [the Entirety]. And
    a voice came forth from above the realm of absolute power,
    saying, " You are mistaken, Samael," which means " god of the blind"

    Hypostasis of the Arcons




    ... he boasted continually, saying to (the angels)... I am God, no other
    one exists except me." But When he said these things, he sinned
    against all of the immortal ones... when Faithsaw the impiety of the chief ruler,
    she was angry.... she said, "You err, Samael (blind god)." An enlightened,
    immortal humanity exists before you.
    On the Origin of the World




    in his madness ... he said, "I am God and there is no other God beside me,"
    for he is ignorant of ... the place from which he had come.... And when he saw
    the creation which surrounds him and the multitudes of angels around him
    which had come forth from him, he said to them, " I am a jealous God, and there
    is no other God beside me." But by announcing this he indicated to the angels that another God does exist; for if there were no other one, of whom would he be jealous?

  • Elaine Pagels. 1979. The Gnostic Gospels. Vintage Books. 224pp. quoting the "Secret Book of John"


  • [edited external quotations to include links and quotes to either a source with the exact original quote or the text that is being quoted in general -nygdan]



    [edit on 5-1-2006 by Nygdan]



    posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 09:29 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Ycon
    since the only Light appears=Lucifer, then Paul saw and was stimulated by this Lucifer deception.

    Why are you taking light to mean lucifer? Because the word luci-feros means light-carrier in latin? Why is latin revealing divine theology here?

    as the illuminated light hint might also reveal where the story of Paul comes from.

    If Light is supposed to be read as 'knowledge' in the bible, then why are you reading it as literal light here? You even note that there is a contradiction if we are talking about phyiscal light, because in one story they saw nothing, but heard the voice, but in another they 'saw the light'. So why doesn't it read as knowledge there? They heard the knowledge, but didn't accept it in the end.

    Also, what exactly are the other apostles doing at the time that Paul, inspired/deceived by satan or whoever you are implicating in this conspiracy (and it would be best to make it absolutely clear), is 'changing' things? How come they don't say anything about it or renounce Paul, but rather accept him into their circle? Why is the Gospel of Thomas being accepted as authoratative here also?



    posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 09:33 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Savonarola
    Therefore, Ycon, you have corrupted this verse of our Lord (you have lied) and you have taught your lie to others (the readers of this board). Therefore, you are not worthy of the kingdom.

    I very much doubt that what happens on this board is going to affect anyone's salvation. Regardless, keep the discussion about the topic, not about other members personally.



    posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 01:02 PM
    link   
    I agree that all these posts will do is sharpen the spiritual sword of the Christian and stregnthen the steadfastness of all others of other beliefs.
    All things remain the same. I have so far not witnessed a conversion for or against to "the other side".

    Fromabove



    posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 01:40 PM
    link   
    Whew!


    I was worried for a second there that all this stuff was actually supposed to convert someone to one side or the other. I surely do not want that responsibility! I thought we were just sharing ideas and information.


    OK, I better post my liability shield just in case -

    Disclaimer: No reader of any of my posts should adopt my beliefs, in whole or in part, based on anything that I may or may not have written. Readers are encouraged to study and think and draw their own conclusions.
    Further, this writer makes no claims of representation of any group, now or in the future, and rejects any notion, claim, accusation, or other representation, explicit or implicit, of being an official or exemplary spokesperson for any organized religious or political group. Your mileage may vary. Void where prohibited by law.
    Monetary donations are not tax deductible and will be laviciously squandered in the pursuit of happiness for the benefit of me and me, alone.

    OK, I'm think I'm safe now. I'll run this past the legal department just to be sure.

    [edit on 4-1-2006 by Al Davison]



    posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 03:01 PM
    link   
    I used to not be very gung-ho about Paul, preferring to stick to the gospels. After getting pretty familiar and solid with them, I ventured forward. What I found very interesting is how well he mirrors Christ in many many things he said. There are a few things that he says, but he's pretty clear that he is the one saying it, not that he is anywhere near Jesus nor God. My encouragement then is to do the same. Read the gospels a few times, to know what Christ did and did not say, then when you get to the Epistles, bump up what Paul says next to what Christ says. I think you'll find a lot more matches than you may expect. Paul also has a kind of tongue-in-cheek sense of humor on occassion if you pay close attention, with his "boasting" and such but always comes back to the point and what he means. As Paul would say, "milk first, then the meat".



    posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 03:20 PM
    link   
    THe name Lucifer actually did'nt existed in Middle-East at the times. It was incorporated to Catholicism during the dark ages as it was the name of an important pagan god.

    The "seventh archangel" or the Creation was the angel with the name Shemyazaz in the Book of Enoch, and was later named, first through popular folklore of the Hebrews, "Satan". He was the leader of the army of angels, the Grigori, who rebelled against the authority of God and the Elohims.

    THe whole concept of the Light in the New Testament has nothing to do with Satan, as it has a profound spiritual meaning. If somebody ever had what we call "spiritual awakening", he will instantly know what this "interior" light that the Apostle was writing about. It is the light of the supreme wisdom and love. It is the light of God.

    [edit on 4/1/06 by Echtelion]

    [edit on 4/1/06 by Echtelion]



    posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 03:44 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Al Davison
    Further, this writer makes no claims of representation of any group, now or in the future,

    Hmm, I was going to use this disclaimer too, but not with that.

    For I do speak for the Nygdanites of the future, what is not now, one day shall beeeee!



    posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 04:04 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Nygdan
    I very much doubt that what happens on this board is going to affect anyone's salvation. Regardless, keep the discussion about the topic, not about other members personally.


    Nygdan.
    His post was from 2002.
    I resurrected this thread because it was good stuff.
    The recent posts starts with mine.



    posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 10:27 PM
    link   
    OK-

    First, Shemyaza (or Semjaza/ Azazel) is a completely different angel than Satan. Here's why: he is currently bound in the abyss according to both official and apocryphal scriptures while Satan will be active until he is bound in the end of times. Satan is in fact referred to several times in post-diluvian settings which would automatically disqualify Semjaza. Semjaza interestingly is mentioned in Revelations (he will be released from his punishment for a short period). His other name in scriptures is Appolyon, and there is an interesting connection to this angel and the Greek cosmology (Greek word "Titan" is related in etymology to "Satan"- definite connection between Satan and Semjaza but not the same that's for sure).

    Second, Satan's real name is obviously not known (Gerome came with the latin term Lucifer in his Vulgate; a terrible translation by the way), however Isaiah 14 clearly refers to the annointed Cherub. Why? Simple- if this was not a dual reference verse, the prophecy would have failed miserably. Nebuchadnezzer was cursed for 7 years, but at the end of those 7 years he not only repented and became a loyal follower of God, he even got his kingdom back. Read the book of Daniel and see. For some reason Satan is always mentioned in connection to certain tyrants (be they Nimrod, Pharoah, the prince of Tyre, etc.)

    Third, the God of light being made reference here is probably the Northman's Balder (their version of the old Babylonian Baal Hadad/Beelzebub/Bel or the Roman-Greek Zeus/Jupiter, see etymology and cognates) who is bound in their underworld to be freed one day and rebuild the realms after Ragnarok (the Goddess Hel is in fact a cognate of the fiery realm we often refer to in the Bible called Gahenna in Hebrew. Aparently bible translators wanted to use a concept familiar to these peoples, so they used the word for their underworld to refer to the Biblical afterlife) Once again there IS a connection (a logical one) to why the early church taught people to convert these pagan deities into Demons. The connection is given to us by none other than Christ himself in Matthew chapter 12 :



    And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.

    11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?

    12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.

    13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.

    14 Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.

    15 But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all;

    16 And charged them that they should not make him known:

    17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,

    18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

    19 He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.

    20 A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.

    21 And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

    22 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.

    23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?

    24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

    25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

    26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

    27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.

    28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

    29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

    30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.


    Notice verses 25 and 26- Christ doesn't care to deny that these pagan deities aren't demons (and give lengthy lectures on Canaanite cosmology and how it contrasted with Judaism, and how it was an acceptable system people should consider adopting, or how related Canaanite religion was to Judaism, and other nonsense). He is in fact saying that these deities are unclean spirits seeking worship. That was the traditional viewpoint by which many missionaries sought to convert pagan Europe. It might seem offensive to some now, but it was only logical for most ministers to hold this viewpoint (still is). The paradigm adopted in the Bible is in fact similar to that of the Canaanite approach in one regard- the Canaanites claimed Baal as a universal God who manifested in differing forms to all peoples. Christ and the Hebrews claimed he was an unclean spirit who through deceit promoted his own worship to all peoples in different guises (regardless of how you view it, Baal is probably the most worshipped being in the World right now and also in the past).

    Lastly, I'd like to put my own opinion on this (old) Paul "controversy". Paul is not some Marcionist which denies the OT, he is not a heretic, his writings are corroborated by the other NT writers as well as much of the Apocrypha, and his conclusions make perfect sense from a theological standpoint (an amazing analytical thinker). Paul ***NEVER*** denigrated the law, in fact most of his writings are dedicated to preventing gentiles from breaking it (Working in the Sabbath, eating blood, idolatry in the form of little saint statues or baby Jesus under the Christmas tree... he would quiver at these practices). Paul in fact worked for the Temple Sanhedrin and was of great "help" to them in getting Christians to the council. Paul writes from the standpoint of Jesus Christ being the Messiah, Ben Joseph dead, melchizedek risen, his atonement being sufficient for all ages even to the point of allowing those who call on Christ's name to be free of the law. There is a big difference between being atoned for and not obeying the law itself. Temporal blessings are heavily rooted on adherence to it, as are atemporal ones (an actual position within the millenial kingdom of Christ is rooted on adherence to the law for example,what you receive from atonement within Christianity is the privilege of not being barred from sharing God's holy presence- the main suffering of Hell, not flames mind you ). This was a really old controversy, and the main subject of the apostles writings (St. John for example starts Revelations with Christ revealing how he despises the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, ie: those who teach that you can abandon the law and live in sin just because you have been granted the privilege of sharing God's holy presence through Christ's atonement). This doctrine was around before Paul appeared, he in fact dealt with it in the Church of Corinth (you can read of what happened in those two epistles; in a nutshell though, the church of Corinth remained in Corinth which was very unfortunate since they could have reached the entire world if they were only in the mindset of the much poorer churches in mainland Greece).

    [edit on 4-1-2006 by Nakash]

    [edit on 4-1-2006 by Nakash]



    posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 05:11 AM
    link   
    Savonarola



    Paul is worth listening to. Consider:




    You said, " (Matt 5:19)" Whoever breaks one of the least of the commandment and teaches men, so shall be called the least in the Kingdom." "




    But the real verse is written thusly:


    Oh the Real verse Savonarola, I see.

    Here was me thinking that the Bible was a 2000 year old inaccurate interpretation of alleged events written by unknown writers for the purpose of glorifying and reinforcing a Christian Mythology....glad you put me straight on that one.



    What is truly meant by this verse is that, any God-fearing man who knows the commandments, yet breaks the least of these - say the 'least' is adultery - and encourages adultery in others, is least in the kingdom.


    What is truly , meant by this verse. I see, well I didn't know you had a certificate proving that your interpretation of the bible was the correct one. Would this be the King James Version, The Greek Version, The Good News Bible. Would this be in the original Hebrew or Egyptian Sanskrit?

    Fact of the matter is Savonarola everyone interprets the bible differently because it's a faith seeking feast of metaphor, vagueness and historical inaccuracy but if you claim you have the definite interpretation then who am I to argue. Maybe you have a piece of the true cross on your mantle piece too.



    Ycon (fitting name), if these words don't persuade you to the truth that even Saul, an assassin and a wretch of a man, can be saved, perhaps you might re-read the parables Christ of to this end. Recall, in particular, the parables of the lost lamb that the shepard rescued and the prodigal son returned to his father. Remember how the shepard and the father rejoiced when the lamb and the son were saved.


    Well here's the problem see. You are quoting a story from a book of faith. The stories of Paul, The parables of Jesus are only contained within this one source...THE BIBLE...a book not written by God but by men, Fallible men with agendas, flaws and their own interpretation.

    As a piece of Quality evidence for an argument the Good Book is almost completely without merit and as has been quoted before " A Christian using the bible to Justify Christianity is like a Fascist using Mein Kampht to justify his Nazisum".

    If you're going to argue the point Savonarola. Base your argument on a more acceptable source.

    Otherwise, open your mind to more reasonable possibilities

    [edit on 5-1-2006 by StJude]

    [edit on 5-1-2006 by StJude]

    [edit on 5-1-2006 by StJude]



    posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 08:20 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by theBLESSINGofVISION
    His post was from 2002.


    Holy thread ressurection batman!

    Stalkingwolf, I came across something interested with respect to the Pope Leo X quotation. I couldn't find an original source for it, but I could find other books that reference it. However:


    "It has served us well, this myth of Christ."
    (sometimes miquoted as "How profitable this fable of Christ has been to us.")

    Widely quoted without source on the Internet. From a satire by John Bale (1495-1563), The Pageant of the Popes: "For on a time when a cardinall Bembus did move a question out of the Gospell, the Pope gave him a very contemptuouse aunswere saiying: All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie."

    wikiquote entry on Pope Leo X


    That one might be in dispute then.



    posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 04:27 PM
    link   

    May God Guide You to Truth,


    You to my friend. I certainly hope that you learn to do it less by verse and more by feel and experience. Do not follow the teachings of man. Follow your heart. GOD resides there and guides you if you want to listen.



    posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 05:08 PM
    link   
    An interesting note on Pope Leo.Pope Leo died claiming he was going to hell. The Vatican attempted to pay off his doctor but eventually it came out. I wonder why Catholics trust the popes even when this sort of thing reveals itself.




    top topics



     
    0
    <<   2 >>

    log in

    join