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.

 

Religious Conspiracy by an Apostle?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Did one of Christ's Apostles (or other major religious figure of early Church) conspire to pervert Christ's original teachings? Is what we have now, that's considered Christianity, merely a conspiracy devised by a person who purposely used the religion as a cover to further their own decidedly non-Christlike aims? I ask this because I had a communication from Christ (I think) that told me so; I believe the word he used to describe the Apostle in question was "evil." Perhaps St. Paul? Or is that too obvious? If it is indeed the case that Christ's message was distorted way
in the beginning to sell a less-than-legit religion, it is one of the biggest conspiracies perpetrated on Humankind of all time.




posted on May, 13 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I think you'll find your own answer to this if you read and study scripture. The fact is, if we attempted to live our lives in full accordance with scripture, no one would recognize the world. I elieve it was Gandhi who said that if Christians lived their faith, he would have no one left to lead (or something very close to that). I think if your getting visions of Christ telling you that scripture is wrong, you should seek out help on discerning these visions. Satan's best weapon is confusion.



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   
There is a website dedicated to the Pauline Conspiracy. I saw it a few months back - quite well written and with some convincing arguments.

Saul of Tarsus, better known as Saint Paul, has sometimes been a controversial figure in Christianity. The Gospels by themselves would feature as important wisdom literature, but Paul's Epistles demonstrate the building of the real theology of Christianity ... without the theology of Saul of Tarsus there is no Christian Doctrine.

In this in-depth scholarly thesis by victor, he systematically analyses the letters of Saul - to set up his ultimate prosecution, and the accusation that Saul of Tarsus did not simply usurp the embryonic Jersusalem Church under Jesus's brother James, but that he also corrupted the entire original message of Christianity as it was then into somethnig utterly alien.


The Pauline Conspiracy



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   
You know what? I heard of the same thing. But I heard it was one of the writers in the New Testament. I think it was St.Matthew. They said something about the one of them being a lie written.



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Interestingly, the Last Supper as depicted by Da Vinci a well known scholar of alternate views, shows Peter at odds with the figure to Jesus right, Peter left hand makes a cutting gesture across the figure's neck as in kaput. More interestingly is Peter right hand it is, according to some, holding a knife to the belly of another. Some say the knife is not in Peter's hand at all but is an extra hand belonging to nobody, but rather a hidden message from the painter. I think Da Vinci aware of the potential heresy places the knife in Pauls hand but disguises the fact. So who is the figure to Jesus right that appears to be getting the hand across the neck. The Bible tells us this place was taken by John The Baptist, Da Vinci however clearly replaces John with Mary Magdalene. A huge subject in its own right. But the painting does appear to show that Da Vinci was aware of the Peter story some 500 years ago.








[Edited on 16-5-2004 by Smudge]



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   
without the theology of Saul of Tarsus there is no Christian Doctrine

I think without Jesus of Nazareth there would be no Christian Doctrine. Paul was a messenger (one of many), not the messiah. I think that article is trying to establish gnosticism as the true christian religion is it not?



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 07:12 AM
link   
well since that painting was painted about a thousand .5 years later can it really count as scripture.

All it proves is that the painter is corrupt.



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Corrupt is a strong word. What it shows is that the story of Peter's potential to be an atagonist was known by a well known artist of the time. The assumption then follows that if the Catholic teachings were the only version available how would he know. Answer, they weren't the only teachings available, this only shows the existence of alternative views at the time of Da Vinci, and a network that predated him so as to pass on this knowledge. I am not casting judgement on which version is correct merely that there is an alternative view.
For the record I lean to the alternate view but I'm looking for more knowledge of all the connecting ideology.

[Edited on 16-5-2004 by Smudge]



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Uh, is anyone noticing how people are talking as if Paul was a disciple? He was not. He was not at the Last Supper, he was not a follower of Christ while He was alive, he was a devout Jew who tried to wipe out all the Christians - until he was knocked off his horse.

People make it a point to attack God's word, but if God exists, surely He can protect His word.



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 03:37 PM
link   
You are of course quite right, I seem to have my P's muddled. It was Peter and not paul, maybe the stories are not linked at all, however the Painting is still an intersting subject. I apologise and have edited my posts.

[Edited on 16-5-2004 by Smudge]



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I suggest you read "The Da Vinci Code", by Dan Brown.

Although a work of fiction, the facts and conspiracies it presents are real ... including a very insightful interpretation into Da Vinci's work and history, as well as little-known church history, and information about the Priory of Sion.

www.amazon.com...=1084741142/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-5558084-7492866?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[Edited on 5-16-2004 by Hawk]



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 07:40 PM
link   
If any of the NT epistle writers are corrupting God's word it's James the so-called brother of Christ. Martin Luther referred to his epistle as a "right pithy little epistle", he said that James is not considered apostolic, and he doesn't preach Christ.

James doesnt once quote Christ, doesn't mention an act of Christ; says he is a "slave of the Lord" but doesn't teach about Him...who He was, why He came, neither does he make mention of His death and resurrection. James was a legalist and taught works, he doesn't bear witness to Christ and doesn't mention the Holy Spirit.

The name "James" means: supplant; take the place of, displace; To displace someone by scheming or treachery; to replace with another.

In his epistle he gives evidence for "works" using Abraham as an example when he took Isaac to be offered as a sacrifice...yet when Abraham was going up the mountain he said to his servants to wait here, WE will be back. Abraham had promises from God respecting Isaac and he had FAITH that God would follow through with those promises and spare him or raise him from the dead...because he knew WE would return to the foot of that mountain.
He also used Rahab for an example of works, Rahab was a prostitute. The spies went there for the purpose of which her house offered, then they got ratted on and then she hid them from the soldiers. Her works=sex for money. It was her faith in their God that saved her, and because she had faith that their God was all mighty she hung the red cord out her window and she brought her whole family into her house knowing they would survive the devastation as long as they were in that house.

Many scholars believe that the epistle was not written by James the so-called brother of the Lord but by someone using his name...makes sense to me! Christian means follower of Christ, if you're a follower you can't help but mention His name, actions, teachings...and this guy doesn't.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 12:26 PM
link   
The first name of Paul, which is often, if not categorically avoided, was Saul, or more precisely: Sheowl in Eglish translitteration from Hebrew. Paulus was actually his surname. Paulus was a Roman familyname. The really interresting part about the name Sheowl, is that it is nearly exactly the same as the name for Hell, or She'ol or Hades to be more precise, the Pit of Death. Was Saul Paulus, the Roman Benjaminite and Pharicee the Beast coming up from the Bottomless Pit? Who would then be the False Prophet who served him? Most likely Luke or Lukas. He was a physican, a prescriber of serpent poison or what in Revelation is called Pharmakeia: Magic or wizardry, which is completely condemned, contrary to Spiritual healing and intercessive prayer. Luke is the writer of two books in the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. Does he tell the truth? Well certainly not completely. Just look at the circumstances around the Death of Jesjuah, and also how he traces the human origins of Jesjuah, the Son of God, through one of Jesjuah's foster dads, Joseph (there were atleast two people called Joseph who acted as the consort of Mary Jesjuah's mother, working as his foster father). Jesjuah had no Earthly father, it's part of the Messiah prophecy. We were not supposed to know where he came from. But this is also apåparent when we see the beginning of Matthew, where the other Joseph is counted as the father of Jesjuah. It is also Luke who says that Jesjuah didn't carry his cross all the way, and thereby support the idea that it wasn't Jesjuah himself who was crucified, but that another opne was killed in his place. Simon from Kyréne. He also speaks about a solar three hour ecclipse which is not mentiones in any other sources. Neither is there any mention about the veil hiding the Holy of Holies splitting in any other text. Remember that this veil was not just any veil, but a several inches thick woolen carpet. It is also Luke who presents the story about the two other people being crucified alongside Jesjuah. Also, at nine o'clock Wednesday Erev Pesach year 30 AD when Jesjuah was killed, the Sun had gone down three hours ago, it set around six o' clock. So there was nothing magical or special about the Sun going down at six o' clock at all. But then again, they didn't use a mechanical clock like us, but a solar clock. But a three hour solar ecclipse?

Paulus was also the person who appointed himself Apostle, a and called himself the Apostle of the Gentiles, and he was one of the most successful gatherer of new converts. However, he was the guy who abolished circumsission, which thereby made even more trouble for the new converts, since uncircumsised Christian Jewish converts were not allowed to study the Torah or even enter a synagogue. Conspiracy? Well, I certainly think there is something to it, I believe Saul Paulus was what the CIA would have called a Cointelpro. An double agent. Working for the Pharicees attempting to make it so that the new converts would be without a voice in the Sanhedrin and the synagogue. Period. And need I say that the Catholic Church bases nearly all their teachings uppon Paul? Anyone who know me, also know that I don't like that thing very much. It's a concealed Curia, nothing else.

Saul means "Prayed For" while Paulus means "Little". Guess he needs more prayes. Enemy or not. As a Christian we should nevertheless pray for the guy, he would still be a brother, and we should all 'agape' him, love him, with brotherly love.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jparish
If any of the NT epistle writers are corrupting God's word it's James the so-called brother of Christ. Martin Luther referred to his epistle as a "right pithy little epistle", he said that James is not considered apostolic, and he doesn't preach Christ.


Or perhaps it's the other way around? You see. James, or Jacob, the (half-) brother of Jesjuah was the one Jesjuah himself trusted as the only one in addition to John I think it was, to tell the story of Jesjuah in writing. The fact that James' epistle doesn't match Saulus' teachings is more telling about Saul's teachings than any other thing. James is one of the most rightious people writing in the NT, if not THE most rightious. He keeps Jesjuah's words, not to abolish the Law, while Paul's words judge himself and his followers get into trouble.

James takes good from both the old and the new wisdom, and he puts it all in context, he points to our every sin, reminds us that we can still repent, and he also reminds us that the troubles of this world true believers feel and suffer under, will one day become the source of blessings. Jesjuah used more than 30 years to teach the Law. Why would he have done that if his only mission was to abolish it? Jesjuah didn't use the cunning figures of speech we see with Paul and the priests of today, that to fulfill and to abolish is somewhat the same thing. Or that Jesjuah somehow came with a new covenant. He didn't, he fulfilled the covenant. The Law written in our hearts isn't something new. It is the Torah read in the Spirit. The Law is still the same. "One new comman I give you" said Jesjuah: "You shall love eachother!". Is this something new? Isn't this what the whole Law and all of the Prophets and every word of wisdom has said for aeons between the lines? Yes, it is. But the exact words were saved for Jesjuah to say, so the Law could be fulfilled or completed. He sealed our hearts with love. Can we love Jesjuah without paying heed to the Law and the Prophets? No. For Jesjuah IS the Law and the Prophets.

To say James is a hypocrite only shows the hypocricy flowing in our own hearts, sown by false prophets like the Pharicees and the Romans. And I know, according to James, I judge myself now, since I point at Paul saying he was a hypocrite, and I myself is also a hypocrite, but atleast I try to become wiser and my greatest hope is to one day become a rightious man, wise enough to see the difference between Light and Darkness, and therethrough become a son of the Light to shine in the Darkness in this world. But with wormwood in the cup served by people like Paul and further distributed by unsound constellations of men like the Church, this is not an easy task for the believers today. I can only hope that God will understand. All we have when it all comes down to the basics, is We can only hope that God will understand. Know it in your hearts and God Will understand.

God bless you all!



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Okay, that was confusing. It's hard to take what you are saying seriously because it's so exaggerated and ditzy (not you, just the message). If I didn't know better, I would think you were joking.

[Edited on 17-5-2004 by Undomiel]



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
In reply to the original poster, wasn't it Paul who said "IF I or anyother, even an angel from heaven teach you another gospel than what we ahve preached let him be accursed"

(Not an exact qote, maybe I will post reference later)

Just a question to all out there but just what do you think that Christ's original salvation method was?

I mean just what did the apostles have to do to be saved?



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 07:14 PM
link   
The more I read about Paul, the more I believe that he has been manipulated by the Church and is a victim of dogmatic orthodoxy himself.

Paul came from Tarsus - a hotbed of gnostisism. If you read his words you will find that much of what he says could actually be construed as Christian gnostism. It's really only his created image as an upholder of orthodoxy that causes trouble with those who oppose the Vatican's take on the Bible.

It also pays to remember that Paul has been heavily edited by the Church. In fact, not only edited, but the majority of theologians actually believe that some of his letters are later forgeries that were added to give meat to the impression that he was orthodox.

Poor Paul.



posted on May, 21 2004 @ 09:50 AM
link   
James didn't even believe that Jesus was the Christ until AFTER the resurrection. He was not close to Jesus at all. He thought Jesus was crazy and wanted to lay hands on him. He also suggested that Jesus go to the feast and do miracles if he wanted to be POPULAR. Jesus went to the feast later...he wouldn't go with James.
Why do all the other religions want to teach christianity to christians? They only know bits and pieces of scripture and take them totally out of context...doesn't make sense to me!



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join