Paul: Rome's version of the Trojan Horse

page: 2
39
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Great thread.... very interesting and raises some questions.

I have no idea... no way of knowing for sure, but I do not think they are the same person.




posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


Do you believe it's possible that Luke was actually Plutarch?

Luke and Plutarch

If Luke and Plutarch are the same person, which that link suggests, then why can't Peter and Paul be as well? Luke is the one who wrote about Paul's missions and travels, Plutarch wrote a book called Parallel Lives. If anyone could split someone into many different people, Plutarch would have been the one.

My opinion is that Plutarch (Luke) wrote both the Gospel of Luke and Acts, and since he also wrote Parallel Lives, I think he could have incorporated the same techniques into his gospel and Acts.

Thanks for your input though.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   
i have a theory on the subject too.
i think the baptism and the idea of holy water, all derive initially from sumerian enki, also known as akkadian Ea. he was renowned for the holy abyss called the abzu in ancient sumer. there's more, a bunch more, and i do mean more. well, i'll give you one biggy:

the sumerian civilization was wiped out by the black sea flood. it was only recently (like in the last 100 years) discovered under 8 ft of flood silt. according to the text of the torah (first five books of the old testament), nimrod was a descendant of noah, prominent about 200 years after the flood. nimrod is not his real name, it's a title.

anyway, one day apparently, nimrod became a "mighty one". in biblical lingo, that means a nephilim, a half human-half god, a demi god, or a god king.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


My interpretation of what baptism symbolizes is child birth. Jesus said that in order to be "born again" you had to be born on water and spirit. What happens right before a woman gives birth? Her water breaks.

The water gate you mentioned symbolizes the vagina, the "gate" through which everyone enters this world. What Jesus meant by being "born again" to reach heaven is that we must reincarnate off of this planet, which is hell (within heaven), onto another planet.

I also don't believe that John actually "baptized" Jesus, but that Mary was giving birth to her son and her husband John the Baptist helped to submerge her into the water. Water births are said to make childbirth easier on both the mother and child, so it makes sense to me.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


I haven't put much thought into it. I look for reincarnations... lol

I guess I haven't thought of them the same because one was a fisherman, the other not. One was married, the other wasn't.

One was appointed by Jesus, the other not.

I see the differences I guess.... never really paid attention to the similarities.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 




Care to address anything else besides that one line of text?


I did a thread on it. Peter Thread

I do not make the same assumptions you make regarding Peter and Paul. I do find it ironic that the monkey at the end of Johnny Neutron says, "Hi. I'm Paul!" Check my thread on this: DNA MONKEY

Interestingly, you might find it fascinating that Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin. Why would this matter? Read Judges 19-21. Why would the tribe of Benjamin have a grudge against other tribes in Israel? I have often wondered if Paul might have had this fact in his mind. I am not sure. We cannot know these truths and this is why we are here under a veil and believing by faith. Faith is not fact and law is there to govern those who would otherwise break the law. You cannot jump up to the ceiling. If you jump up, you come down. Law governs your choice. The same holds true for knowledge and truth. Unless it is given, you won't have it. It's given when you can manage it well.

How do we know Paul is sincere? We know them by their fruit. Paul stands the test of rightly divided truth. There is no contradiction if you know the context behind what Paul preaches. I do no doubt that Jesus was using Paul to transmit the gospel.

If Paul WAS trying to subvert the message--he had reasons to do this--then so much better for mankind. The wicked who deceive will be the ones gathering the debt. Those of us harmed will receive reward and not punishment. We are held harmless.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


If you research it, you'll find that they share lots of similarities. They even mirrored each others works in some parts. I have little doubt that they (Luke and Plutarch) were the same person, as do many others. The similarities are way too coincidental to actually be coincidence, in my opinion.

Another identifier is that Plutarch never mentioned Jesus once, even though he lived in the time directly after his crucifixion. He wrote about important people in Roman history, yet he never mentioned Jesus? That's pretty strange in my opinion.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
It is symbolic of the Roman Catholic Priests being served by humanity rather than being the suffering servant of humanity. They are rich and they hoard their wealth, hide their treasures of knowledge and they make fortunes from selling false forgiveness. Indulgences were only the start of this over the past 2000 years. A servant dresses himself. The Pope is dressed by servants. Priests are served rather than servants. They could feed Africa now. I have a feeling you will see this happen soon. The coming pope is likely from Africa.


Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


In reference to John 21.


John 21
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18 Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”


So someone would eventually lead Peter by the hand?


Acts 22
10 “‘What shall I do, Lord?’ I asked.

“ ‘Get up,’ the Lord said, ‘and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.’ 11 My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me.


So Jesus says that when Peter is older he will stretch his hand out and be led somewhere. Paul was led by hand to Damascus. Coincidence?
edit on 11-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Paul was not a good tree. He zealously persecuted Jesus' earliest followers.


Matthew 7
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.


At the time of Paul's "conversion" he was the most rotten tree of all. So that begs the question, why would Jesus contradict himself and choose a bad tree to bear his (good) fruit? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. What you're doing is completely ignoring Paul's life before his conversion, assuming it is irrelevant. Well, it's not.

Isn't it more likely that Paul intended to change Jesus' message from the beginning? And change it he did! Take a look at this site. It lists numerous incidents where Paul completely contradicts Jesus' message. Though I'm sure you'll have an apology for every single one.

Also, from the look of your thread, you haven't answered any of the points that I have made thjs far. That thread is completely separate and has nothing to do with this one. No mention of Luke or Acts? How does it have anything to do with this thread?

edit on 11-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


So you completely deny the idea that the prophecy of the popes is self-fulfilling? I'm certain that the Catholic Church has heard of Peter the Roman and what he brings with him, so why would they STILL elect a man named Peter as Pope unless they were trying to fulfill it?

The ONLY reason they would go ahead and elect him was if they were intentionally fulfilling prophecy and trying to bring about the end of the world. Unless of course they've been living under a rock.
edit on 11-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by undo
 


My interpretation of what baptism symbolizes is child birth. Jesus said that in order to be "born again" you had to be born on water and spirit. What happens right before a woman gives birth? Her water breaks.

The water gate you mentioned symbolizes the vagina, the "gate" through which everyone enters this world. What Jesus meant by being "born again" to reach heaven is that we must reincarnate off of this planet, which is hell (within heaven), onto another planet.

I also don't believe that John actually "baptized" Jesus, but that Mary was giving birth to her son and her husband John the Baptist helped to submerge her into the water. Water births are said to make childbirth easier on both the mother and child, so it makes sense to me.



occult fraternal orgs, such as the ordo temple orientis, believe that it represents the birth canal too, and that it's involved in sex magick, but did you know that the abyss is actually a gate with a key, that in the book of revelation, is opened and out of it comes some kind of monstrosities that sound like a scene from the movie ALIEN? part locust (can fly and make loud sounds), wearing metal armor, have teeth like a lion, hair like a woman, tail like a scorpion? either an alien or some kind of reference to the constellations (leo, virgo, scorpio) used in the as above so below map (constellations mirrored on the earth).. but it makes no sense that locusts wearing armor come out of constellations, otherwise, unless it's part of the key that opens the gate.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Though I appreciate your replies, I'm not sure how anything you've said so far has anything to do with the topic. Maybe I'm being dense?



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Akragon
 


I'd rather hear about the holes in my theory from someone who isn't biased on the issue. Point them out please.

Don't take this as me saying you're wrong, because that's not what I'm saying. I'm genuinely curious about your take on it.
edit on 11-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



Don't worry about him. He's just trying to act like he's smart. Well, I'm sure he is smart, but he's just trying to act like he's smarter than you. He seems to be one of those who takes joy in popping into a thread someone's put a lot of work into, spouting some bs pretending he knows something you don't, and act like you got something wrong somewhere, add some LOLs for extra annoyingness, then make a flimsy excuse for why you cannot back up your claims right at the moment, and then completely vanish without a trace.

I guess those torches & pitchforks are still on the way? What? Huh? You put it in the mail? It's on its way? Yeah,.ok, I've heard that one before...

If he does indeed point out a "hole" it will either be something so petty that its rediculous, or he will find something someone else posted and steal it as his own idea.

How do I know this?

It's called trolling. I do it all the time


Nice thread, you got a flag from me pal.

Now I'd like to see a side by side comparison of the true teachings and Faul & the Fab Four's (or is it Five or even Six false identities?) lies. Show us exactly where so many go wrong in their practice. Did Jesus really say that we must recite the following (and mean it) or we're going to Hell: I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour? Did Jesus ever use the term "Christian" or "Christianity"? Did he have any name for what he wanted his church to be called?

Ok, I guess that's mostly questions I would like answered, but you probably have a good idea of what more directly relates to Pauls changing of Jesus' teachings.

One set of youtube videos I think under the account of a guy who goes by "fristiken" or something like that, shows some evidence that both books Mark and Luke have some deceptive information, while Matthew and John are truer. I just thought you might like to look into that for yourself if you haven't already. One of the YouTube videos had a sensational title in caps like "YOU WON'T BELIEVE THIS AMAZING DISCOVERY" or something like that...



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by undo
 


Though I appreciate your replies, I'm not sure how anything you've said so far has anything to do with the topic. Maybe I'm being dense?


well i discuss the original identity of jesus, one of his official titles, associated history and all their titles, and how the whole thing has been brought down to modern times. i figured this would help you to flesh out your theory even more, since it took me several years (and some of my info is from other researchers too, such as the egyptologist, david rohl) to research and compile it all



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by 3n19m470
 


I don't think Akragon is a troll, he just disagrees with my theory, which is fine. I don't expect everyone to accept it or agree with it. It's not exactly fact, only speculation, so others doubts are welcome. The more people who question my theory and point out holes within it, the more I can try to fill those holes and correct my mistakes.

It's all a learning process, and I'm not against criticism. In fact, I embrace it.

Thanks for your contribution. I have other theories as well, if you're interested take a look at another of my threads here. Since making that thread, my views on its content has changed a bit though. Instead of John being Mary alone, I now think he was a mix between Jesus and Mary, which is why Leonardo depicted him as androgynous.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Paul was not a good tree. He zealously persecuted Jesus' earliest followers.


Matthew 7
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.


At the time of Paul's "conversion" he was the most rotten tree of all. So that begs the question, why would Jesus contradict himself and choose a bad tree to bear his (good) fruit? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. What you're doing is completely ignoring Paul's life before his conversion, assuming it is irrelevant. Well, it's not.

Isn't it more likely that Paul intended to change Jesus' message from the beginning? And change it he did! Take a look at this site. It lists numerous incidents where Paul completely contradicts Jesus' message. Though I'm sure you'll have an apology for every single one.

edit on 11-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



So,using your same human reasoning, since none of us are good (because of the truth that only God is good), then none of us can be a good tree. You reasoning is clearly false, isn't it?

Bad trees produce rotten fruit. Good trees produce good fruit. But can a bad tree be made good?According to you no, but according to Jesus, all things are possible with Our God. Your human reasoning contradicts Jesus.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Thank you for your contribution.

I'm not really very knowledgeable in the field of Egyptology, though your mention of Isis and Osiris got me thinking of another of Plutarch's books called "Isis and Osiris". Portions of that book mirror that of Luke's works. Both tell stories of a eunuch and queen.

A rundown of the similarities between the two stories can be found here.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by WhoKnows100
 


And your faulty logic of everyone being a bad tree contradicts reason. If god can be good, then so can we. Why would Jesus tell us to be perfect if we could never achieve it?

Paul never changed before Jesus supposedly gave him his vision, he only changed after the vision. Like I said, why would Jesus choose a tree that was rotten to the core to carry his message? Paul wasn't a changed man until AFTER his vision, which means Jesus deliberately contradicted himself when he chose Paul.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


It's more likely God was choosing the lowest man to show his power. Paul was transformed. I do agree that he had every motive, but if God can use Paul, he can use me or you as well. You are correct. Paul had every reason to undermine the gospel. The defining factor is the rightly divided truth he proclaims. The nature of the mystery of God reveals itself in reflection. When you see the mirror clearly, simply choose the side that reflects the positive. In most cases, you don't need to think one is right and the other is wrong. Paradox can always be resolved by what is not seen. Both sides of the argument are likely correct to an extent. A higher axiom will show you why.

For instance: Suppose a train engineer and a friend argue about the train whistle changing pitch. The engineer says it does not change. This is because he is closest to the whistle and travels with the sound. The friend is on his porch and hears the moving train pass by. For him, the pitch changes. The excluded middle shows the truth to both of the ones that are arguing about the whistle. The Doppler Effect shows why both are true.

Answer a few questions: Does God love us more than we can love each other? Is God's will done? Can mankind undermine God's will apart from God allowing it? The facts surrounding Paul do not matter if we first understand that God's will is done. He already knows the end from the beginning. We are simply riding that wave of the story in time. God has already seen it all. He has already said, "It is good."

The words of Paul are central to the story of the larger picture we see. The Bible ends in 22 letters, mostly written by Paul. There is great significance in the fact that 22 letters end the word. The same truth applies for Psalm 111-112 being an acrostic of the 22 letters of the Hebrew language. Psalm 113 -118 (2012.9 - 2018.9) are then framed by 119, which is again an acrostic of the 22 letters. This is known as the Hallel Psalms. The structure of the Bible includes a symmetry that involves Paul.

To say that God lost control of his message at the very time it was most critical is the reflecting point where you choose the side that says God is in control. His will is done and someone like Saul could not have derailed this. Are you implying that God lost control of events? This is the excluded middle that you need to know the truth.

When Issac was offered up as a sacrifice, he was likely 33 years old. If you want a true picture of the events that Issac foreshadows, return to Genesis 22. There is no mistake this is the 22nd chapter of the Bible. If you are going to find the answer, simply read the Genesis prophecy. The entire book sums up the entire story of mankind, beginning to end. Joseph and the 7 years famine is our coming tribulation. Locate Christ and Paul in Genesis and you might just find the facts there. I would be interested to know if you do.

Who knows. Maybe you are right. You won't find it in the New Testament until you consult the old. It will be right there where God told us it was going to happen. My best guess is Genesis 22 forward.

By the way, you won't find the answer unless you consult Paul in Hebrews 9-10. He explains it to you. This is your evidence that Genesis and Paul agree. He also agrees with Christ.

edit on 11-2-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


So you completely deny the idea that the prophecy of the popes is self-fulfilling? I'm certain that the Catholic Church has heard of Peter the Roman and what he brings with him, so why would they STILL elect a man named Peter as Pope unless they were trying to fulfill it?

The ONLY reason they would go ahead and elect him was if they were intentionally fulfilling prophecy and trying to bring about the end of the world. Unless of course they've been living under a rock.
edit on 11-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


They tried to vote for the current pope thinking he was not the olive. The original thought was that they could avoid the prophecy by avoiding the Benedictine order. What happened? He named himself the Olive anyway. We again have a mirror to truth. This is the problem with faith. God never allows fact. There will always be a mirror to the truth that keeps you from seeing fact. In this case, we must always make a judgment of positive or negative. Which one you choose says more about your perspective than the thing you observe. Yes. You could very well be right. Then again, faith requires that truth be rightly divided.

If you discount prophecy found in Revelation, then we can easily discount this one as well. To rightly divide this, we need to see if it connects to the foreshadowing of the first century. As we can easily verify, it also agrees with the foreshadowing in Genesis with Joseph and the seven years of famine. This is not a house of cards we are speaking of. The evident nature of what is happening all around us can be an axiom we verify from the copy of the evidence we find in past scripture. We don't need the Malachy prophecy to show what will happen. It is merely a related fragment of the same story.

One thing is for sure. We'll soon know. It will be interesting to watch.

My gut feeling is that an East wind takes away the harvest. Mankind starves and Peter repents. The end then comes for the commerce system as the money fails as well. Babylon falls. Iran is the East Wind.

1000 years of peace follows as mankind recovers. The phoenix rises from the ashes.

edit on 11-2-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
39
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join