Paul & the Synagogue of Satan

"I know the trials you have had, and how poor you are--though you are rich--and the slanderous accusations that have been made by the people who profess to be Jews but are really members of the synagogue of Satan." Chapter 2:9 of the Revelation of John

Universally unbeknownst to the people on this planet, as a direct result of the censorship of the Truth by the "dragon" media, the term "synagogue of Satan" has a specifically Doctrinal significance:

It refers to the, at that time, Jewish religious 'authorities' (and writers of the Talmud) and Christian followers of Paul who taught the Doctrine of "resurrection" in accordance with the Egyptian-Pharisaical doctrine of the physical raising of a dead body from the grave; whereas the Gnostics taught the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'.

The "slanderous accusations" of Paul and the other members of the synagogue of Satan, of course, were that it was, instead, the Gnostics who had perverted the Teaching of Jesus.

Of course, the "synagogue of Satan" 'won' the historical argument; the result of which was the slaughter of tens of thousands of Albigensians about 800 years ago for teaching the "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'...

Which was merely a prelude to the slaughter of millions of Jews during the Holocaust.

And, of course, the nitwit Muslim religious 'authorities' have also followed in their footsteps by denying that Mohammed taught the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'.

Michael Cecil

I'll just say a few things. Paul is suspect in my mind. I can't quite put my finger on it all, and can't express it very well, but Paul just seemed, "not right". Call it "woman's intuition" from a male body, whatever. But it always seemed to me that he hijacked "Christianity".

Just saying............don't ask me for quotes from the New Testament. It all seems convoluted to me anyway.

Who was Paul again? I believe there were two Pauls and two Johns. Another John wrote the book of revelation. I know traditional Catholics believe Peter was the first Pope.
Here's a list of articles about Paul taking over the newly found Christian religion.
www.usbible.com...

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


I'm just going to take a guess here. This Paul, formerly Saul, guy, was the actual creator of the Catholic base of Christianity. I really don't know. I suspect he commandeered the Peter, who was said to have been given the "Keys to Heaven" from Jesus, (Man, I'd love to have one of those keys), and created this church. For sure he needed to promote the one guy who seemed to be a favorite of Jesus. Sigh. Who was that favorite one, really? Some folks say it was his brother.Who was that most loved disciple of Jesus who stood by, watching Jesus die on the cross? Hmm........other texts say all of the males were afraid to show up, for fear of being crucified, too. So just some women showed up. They would not be crucified for crying and mourning. They were, after all, just women. heh. Who was the most loved disciple? And why did Paul turn his brand of Christianity over to just men. The ole, women should be silent in church crap. lol

It's all discombobulated. lol And the John of the Book of Revelation, I have no idea who he was! But, man, he sure had a fantastic imagination! And I doubt he was the John of Jesus's time.

reply to post by kyred


Well that will probably would never be answered. I propose building a time machine. I would whether get the answers from them and see what they say. I can tell you we're all wrong now who knows what happened in the past?

@MC

You are rambling.

Please provide more info or links please.

reply to post by NEMOats

Doesn't anyone read people's signatures around here?

Michael Cecil

I've spent the last 2-3 months doing homework on a little more detailed history of the early Jesus movement (I'm not a biblical scholar as such), and from sources including 'christian' scripture, apocrypha, Nag Hammadi and non-religious historians a fascinating, but scary, story has unrolled. Paulinism, the ideological basis of most western christianity, is the biggest (exoteric) conspiracy/scam in known history.

If the alleged Jesus really existed as a physical person isn't my main point, what's important is the person representing certain religious doctrines in a revised NT, and I'll use this person as a base.

Jesus was a religious maverick, and as is usual in situations of discontent against the powers-that-be, a motley crowd gathered around him. Jews wishing for some reforms in judaism, gnostics with a radical attitude against OT-based religion and what today would be called a feminist faction with wiccan leanings. It's even very probable, that the Jesus movement was infiltrated by agents from an esoteric and very hierarchial branch of judaism, wanting to keep an eye on him. Sad to say, but not surprisingly, the Jesus followers didn't get along too well all the time.

Paulus was quite late at the scene, actually never having met Jesus, but achieving his 'insight' on Jesus through 'visions' of his own. Paulus is an interesting psychological type, these days he would be considered a sociopath, and from the beginning of his involvement with the Jesus movement, he demonstrated the typical paranoia/megalomania syndrom of sociopaths. Violence, short temper and the typical lack of ethical backbone.

He hijacked the Jesus movement eventually, for reasons of his own, but it's clear, that he didn't play a straight game. There are signs of his allegiance to different parties.

Paulinists have since day one gone to extremes of presenting their hijacked 'christianity' as the one and only 'Jesus option'. According to them there has never been any serious dissention in 'christian' ranks, it's all been wine and roses and a common front.

Apart from committing genocide on opponents, a heavy censor-ship has taken place the last 1700 years, editing 'christian' scripture and destroying all material opposed to Paulinism. Think of the Nazi holocaust, Stalinist purges or McCarthy'anism, and you'll have a good comparison.

Modern Paulinists will go to any lengths, or depths, to keep up this PR image, and it's likely that this will be demonstrated on this thread later, when the fireworks and pie-throwing start.

(PS I'm not a 'christian' hater. I'm a hater of all kinds of fanatism, which tries to push into my life 'for my own good').

My carma just ran over your dogma.

More dogmatic confusion from you MC.

Is a signature MEANT to be part of the post?

Or are you a devout believer hoping to sway the ignorant masses?

reply to post by bogomil

Yes. In a nutshell.

But there is a next step here:

Precisely the same Doctrinal perversion is at the foundation of the conflict over Yerushalayim, al-Quds, Jerusalem between the Palestinians and the Zionists.

This is the Satanic doctrine that is pushing this civilization into the horrors of the "time of trouble" Prophesied by Daniel.

The mainstream media, the alternative media, the Internet mainstream media, and the Internet 'alternative' media have all been involved "up to the horses' bridles" in the relentless and determined censorship of the Truth about the Revelation and Doctrine of "resurrection"; thus calling down the Vengeance of Yahweh, Allah, God upon the people of this planet.

I've fought this battle to a standstill over more than 34 years.

Soon, Insh'allah, people will see with their own eyes the fulfillment of the Prophecies that they would not believe.

More than ten thousand religious 'authorities' and media officials in the United States and the Israel were informed....

And I received ONE positive response--a request for more cassette tapes of my explanation of the Revelation and Doctrine of "resurrection"--from a teacher at the Neve Yerushalayim School of Torah for Women in October or November, 1981 (and of course I remember her name)....

Some months before the outbreak of the First Lebanon War.


Michael Cecil

Hi Michael,

thanks for your answer. And with due respect....I'm as a-doctrinal as it's humanly possible to be; neither ANTI-theist, nor PRO-theist or even agnostic. (This does not exclude private preferences based on non-doctrinal data).

And by rejecting one set of doctrines, I'm not supporting another set to take it's place in an appearing 'spiritual' vacuum.

I mainly relate to doctrines in a social context. No matter how bizarre, or even theoretically violent, doctrines should be accepted as a personal, private option. If extra-parlamentaric methods are used in a public context of invasion, it's criminal.

Then doctrines can be discussed verbally. And by joining a public forum, discussion is accepted, including pie-throwing, when common ground is impossible.

Greetings my friend,

I have visited your link and agree with much of what you say. I'll be following your threads to gain a better insight. I don't have much to add at this point, seeing how we seem to have identical discoveries, all I could include is my agreement with your findings, until I see something with which I have more information, or insight.

Keep up the good work my friend,

With love,

Your Brother

This is completely out of context. If you read the books of Paul all the way through, you would see he was refering to the Jews who turned away from or never believed in Jesus Christ.

Paul wanted to create a religion around Jesus, giving himself power.

Jesus taught the way of transcending religion and living without Earthly power.

The truth of Jesus message is summed up in "love thy neighbour as thyself",
and the Judgement is summed up in Matther 25, where people are judged, not on the basis of belief, religion or morality, but on whether they have helped those in need.

And I know from experience, however poor you may be, if you really want to help others in need you will be blessed with opportunities to do so.


Logically, God, like any good parent, wants his/her children to care for the happiness and welfare of each other.

Re: Prophecywatcher

You wrote:

"This is completely out of context. If you read the books of Paul all the way through, you would see he was refering to the Jews who turned away from or never believed in Jesus Christ."

Sure. It's out of YOUR context, where only pro-pauline propaganda is authoritative. You're walking in circles inside the holy bubble.

For you history is probably only true, when it confirms your pre-arranged absolute answers. So it would be meaningless to give you any historical sources.

Re: Kailassa

Personally I sympathize with your opinions, but what you're posting is just a repetiton of one of the perspectives in an argument 2000 years old. Doctrines have been thrown back and forth all this time, usually with no substantial evidence on any side.

This is the boring part of pie-throwing.

Wait until the really heavy pro-paulines arrive here, and you'll see a religious 'debate' including mega-pies, dirt-throwing, suspicion casting, diversionary tactics and not forgetting how good spelling people have.

It's gonne be fun.

Originally posted by bogomil
Wait until the really heavy pro-paulines arrive here, and you'll see a religious 'debate' including mega-pies, dirt-throwing, suspicion casting, diversionary tactics and not forgetting how good spelling people have.

Surely this can't be so my friend. If one professes to be a Christian, and sees this perspective as an enemy to his own, would he/she not simply turn the other cheek?

If one professes to be a Christian, and sees this perspective as sinful, would they not focus on the beam in their own eye instead of worrying about this?

If one professes to be a Christian, and sees this as a perspective not under their own Christian umbrella, would they not see it a neighbor and love them accordingly?

If one professes to be a Christian, and sees this as a heretical view, would they not hold their tongue of judgement, lest their own perspective be judged in kind?

I would hope one who has learned from Christ, practices the power of Peace, if they walk in his name.

Maybe I am wrong. Time will tell.

Judge not, Love all, be at peace.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by bogomil

Doctrines are a way to divide people.
What made me renounce Christianity as a religion was the implication in the creed that only Christians go to heaven. And the resurrection of the body... Reciting the creed choked me more each week until I realised such divisiveness in religion must be against the will of any just God.

I'm not living on Earth for eternity in a vehicle of meat that can't even fly. One day this laughing pantheist will be dancing cartwheels amongst the joyful stars.



You seem to have also noticed an inverse relationship between the extremism of religious opinion and the spelling used in expressing it.

Re: IAM

For Dog's sake, haven't you still noticed, that I'm talking about those types, who would rather end with some kind of kaboom, if their own sickly obsession with a world-dominating monopoly doesn't come off?

The nice greengrocers of the world can mumble prayers or whatever ....all they like. I too have my own weird sides.

And the prophets who come here to save souls, for 'your own good' must simply accept heckling correponding to their own degree of invasive rhetorics. I do not suggest physical retribution to people who ONLY oppose me verbally.

Hi again Kailassa,

absolutely no offense, but my completely untrustworthy intuition says, that you're a dudette. Apologies if I as usual am wrong.

The reason I mention this is, that wiccan/Gaian worship is the only (very, very slight) religionist indulgence I have. Not that I pray, worship or such, but one of the most pleasant higher energies I've encountered, was feminine.

So even if the controverse between the jews, the gnostics and the paulines in the Jesus crowd was much more open and pronounced, I've always had a weak spot for the women around him, and I secretly hope, that some women have some esoteric tradion surviving, being the true heirs of Jesus (if he existed, and knew anything)

Paulus' attitude to women could indicate, that he considered them as much competitors as the gnostics, so better get them chained to the kitchen-stove, where they could have babies.

Actually I'm not using bad spelling as an argument in a religious discussion (I have personal limits of appearing idiotic in public). But it has been used against me as a religious argument to demonstrate my general incompetence and low intelligence.