Paul: Rome's version of the Trojan Horse

reply to post by Snsoc


Exactly. No one else mentions Paul, not even John, the guy who traveled with him.

ETA: Notice how Peter says that Paul's teachings are "hard to understand" and people would "distort" them.That killed two birds with one stone right there. It turns people off to them being the same person and it covers "Paul's" heretical teachings because Peter said he was cool. It's obvious to me that they are the same person personally.

This is the ONLY mention of Paul outside of his epistles and Acts.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1



Unless you count all of the church fathers, who began writing in the early second century and would have been alive when Paul was alive, or at least known people who would be in a position to say if he was real or not. Either you have to believe that they were all in on this conspiracy or that they just accepted the existence of this guy and the truth of his teachings (and in some cases, were martyred for it) without checking to see if he was a real person.

So what is it about "Paul's" teachings that you find so offensive?

reply to post by Snsoc


Of course they were in on it, this couldn't have been pulled off without a lot of people behind it. Back then everything was based on hearsay, a great time to create fictional stories when they didn't have the flow of information like we do today.

Everyone had to do what the emperor said, and I'm sure the emperor had people behind the curtains influencing and making sure they knew how to keep and increase their power. One of those devices that ensured that was Christianity. They had people behind the curtains back then just as they do today. Money talks, and these people are VERY rich and have been for a long time.

About Paul, too many to name, but for one thing he forbade women from speaking while in church and told them to be submissive. Another is the whole faith and salvation thing, something Jesus never intended. Also, someone could have easily changed Peter to Paul later on.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Paul told women to be silent because in those days they put women on one side of the church and men on the other (to avoid obvious distractions) and the women, largely uneducated, would shout across the aisle and ask the men what the priest was talking about. This created disruptions.

As to the submission thing, this is largely misunderstood as well. The women of that time and place were every feminsts' nightmare-weak, emotional, etc. They often needed a man to bring physical and emotional stability to the equation. These roles sprang from tens of thousands of years with men as hunters and women as gatherers and child-rearers. It's not some evil plot that men just dreamed up to control women.

Yes, Jesus spoke of faith. "if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." He also spoke of salvation, calling it being "born again."

Paul's ministry was just the next stage of God's plan-of course it seemed different from the teachings of Jesus, just like the teachings of Jesus seemed radically different from the Torah.

reply to post by Snsoc


Jesus also said this:

Matthew 6
5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Jesus was clearly against any kind of church services, so Paul dictating what should happen in church is a complete contradiction of Jesus' teachings on being humble and secret with ones praying.

Being born again is a direct reference to reincarnation. That is what Jesus taught, not being rewarded for believing in him. He taught eternal life for ALL, not just those who believed in him.

As for Jesus saying to believe that he was He, I can easily interpret that as him saying for them to believe that they were One. Almost like Jesus is saying, "You and I are the same, we are One". If we do not believe that we are all One, we will die in our sins, or turn Earth into the hell it is today.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Snsoc

 

Jesus also said this:

Matthew 6
5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Jesus was clearly against any kind of church services, so Paul dictating what should happen in church is a complete contradiction of Jesus' teachings on being humble and secret with ones praying.

Being born again is a direct reference to reincarnation. That is what Jesus taught, not being rewarded for believing in him. He taught eternal life for ALL, not just those who believed in him.

As for Jesus saying to believe that he was He, I can easily interpret that as him saying for them to believe that they were One. Almost like Jesus is saying, "You and I are the same, we are One". If we do not believe that we are all One, we will die in our sins, or turn Earth into the hell it is today.

That's not "clearly" against church services...if it were, He would have said, "don't go to church." This passage is talking about the proper attitude towards prayers. It's not the publicness of it, but the intent, which is communication between the Father and His children, not to look "spiritual" in front of others.

You're certainly entitled to your belief that Jesus was speaking of reincarnation, but the Bible says that we only die once (Hebrews (9:27.) Of course, that was written by the "evil" Paul

I'm not sure how you can accept the validity of the Bible when it suits your purpose (there was a guy named Jesus, he had some truth, he said these things), but then reject the rest of it when it doesn't fit whatever New Age thing you're peddling.

reply to post by Snsoc


What's the purpose of church? To pray and praise god, right? What other reason is there? Why would Jesus say not to go to the synagogues (churches) when you went to pray? That's the whole point of church! Besides being spoon fed someone else's interpretation (in my opinion).

So why would Jesus say that church-goers were hypocrites? If you shouldn't go to church to pray, then what other reason is there to go?

I only reject what Paul taught. I pay attention to Jesus' words, not some guy who was known for killing his followers. You're implying that there cannot be a middle-ground, why?

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.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


I was going to wait to read the whole thread this weekend ...but I just couldn't help myself when I see such blaring incongruous statements...
Doesnt it say in the NT that "from the vine you will know the truth"
so much better for mankind.." a house divided cannot stand"
There alone we see 2 examples the biicameral or more bluntly bi-polar philosophy that we must accept all the "inconstistencies" for the greater good. Sorry dont buy it.

All I have to look at is the crucifix/with or without Jesus thereon, the icons, pictures of devotion, to know that the "church" today is a man made religion based on the old Roman model. Need I go on about the council of Nicae...and the fact of the "voting" as to what would be canonical. Or why ignore the "Patriarch Fathers" in the post apostolic/pre Nicaean period. If Jesus wanted a new church on this Earth as opposed to the existing Jewsih system and the "LAW" Why did it take 300 years and countless heresies?
Why so much time....
Where is the power of Jesus, why the silence, why leave it so long, where are the post apostolic miracles...were they not acting in the spirit and name of Jesus

Tell me something and there have been great men of faith throughout history...I'll keep it simple why hasn't any Xristian or for that matter revered "St" throughtout the ages been able to replicate the feeding of the multitudes with the loaves and bread. I mean we see how much "faith" the church leaders have as their demands for tithing/donations border on the ridiculous....where does this money go? Oh...printing material...where is the largest areas for growth/conversions...Africa...get em young you have them for life...

What about women in church...If Jesus had the audacity to throw over the money changers paraphenalia in the temple surely it would been a simple matter to introduce women into the Jewish Temples slowly...

You see where a lot of it breaks down is that he came riding on a donkey ...To fulfil the prophesy...he wanted to be executed by casting the onus on Judas. He turned and forced Judas to take the responsibilty of betrayel

The Judas Goat
www.amazon.com...

Refer also to the Last supper by Da Vinci above

Another inconsticency we are told that there were 7 generations form David to Jesus

from: wiki.answers.com...

"Luke had great men occur in multiples of 7 generations starting from Adam, with: Enoch at 7; Abraham at 21; David at 35; Jesus at 77. He also had: Joseph at 42 and 70; Jesus (Jose) at 49. To do this, he had to insert his own fictitious people into the Old Testament list: Kainan at 13; Admin at 28. Once again, we have no possible way of verifying Luke's list of Jesus' ancestors after King David. So, Matthew says that there were 28 (2 X 14) generations from David to Jesus, while Luke says that there were 42 (6 X 7) generations from David to Jesus. Needless to say, neither account is likely to be historically accurate"

reply to post by WhoKnows100

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.

Just take a step back and look at the whole thread...Great work by the way 3NL1GHT3N3D1..
and look up the thread Jayweh=Satan and do some further research...you'll be amazed. .
Oh and by the way in 2000 years we havn't seen the feeding of the masses repeated...doesnt it say in the NT greater miracles you will do in my name??

reply to post by WhoKnows100

With this reasoning, not one has been able to be saved since Jesus' physical death. Can you not sense what your mind is doing? It's grasping at human arguments to justify your own beliefs, and in the process, you cannot see that you are elevating your truths and not the Truth.

Matthew 5:17 Jesus SPEAKING
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Paul...there is no need for circumcision...blah blah blah

Now as to the capital "Truth" divine revelation is what? ....God allowing the aha! moment after reading reasoning discussion observation....all gifts that God gave us...to use...for hundreds of years the Earth was flat and only 6000 years old...Was it Truth or truth or gifts of reason science that God gave us... as we enter interesting times maybe God has allowed these Truths to come out...ever consider that???

reply to post by WhoKnows100


Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored. 1 Corinthians 14:36-37

Isn't it more likely that Peter's warning regarding those who twist and pervert scripture, including Paul's writings, is truth? That they do what humans do when they can't understand something? Reject it? Does not scripture declare throughout that it is man who rejects God, not the other way round?

er...you mean Pauls warning to Paul? Corinthians was written by Paul...again self fulfilling admonishmont to stop others from declaring Sauls/Pauls mesage was anathema

WARNING TO ALL CHRISTIANS: THIS IS A TRAP. THIS IS THE TEACHING OF A LUCIFERIAN IN AN ATTEMPT TO MISLED YOU AND DESTROY YOUR FAITH. STOP HERE AND READ NO FURTHER. Lucifer is the father of lies and so are you.

reply to post by Fraudfinder


Warning to all seekers...read the ATS Yayweh=Satan thread you may come away seeking more answers...at least you wont fear "hell" any more

Ion

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by swordwords

 

(The revolt within a revolt that took place inside of the besieged Jerusalem in 70CE undoubtedly represented a fight between the Gnostics and the Pauline Christians.)

you have any references on this theory?

Quite interesting!

edit on 12-2-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

This theory is my own and it is based on my partial deciphering of the allegory employed by Josephus and others. (This allegorization of knowledge is what Plato's Allegory of the Cave was really about.) The significance of the name "John", which was given to one of the rebel leaders inside Jerusalem, is discussed in great detail in Plato's Ion (which should be transliterated as "Jon"). Plato's Ion was a rhapsode (from Ephesus) who claimed to an interpreter of Homer, but Socrates felt he was not really telling his audience anything about Homer's true meaning. This type of interpretation is exactly what Philo was doing with the Books of Moses, which would make Philo a "John". The name "Philo" comes from the Greek word meaning "friend" and in Hebrew this idea of "friend" can be expressed with the word "marea'" which also makes Philo a "Mary". Philo was a "Hermaphrodite" or a hermetic with the female trait of deception. (This explains why Da Vinci gave the Apostle John a feminine appearance in the Last Supper. The idea that females represent deception also explains the Greek’s acceptance of “homosexuality” and the Church’s rejection of it. This also means that a “virgin birth” can be understood as indicating that a fictional character. )

Also, events that Josephus describes as occurring during the siege, such as a "Mary" eating half of her roasted infant son, and leaving the other half for the rebels, or a prophet named “Jesus” killed by a stone thrown from a siege weapon, are clearly allegorical from my perspective. Josephus’ role in this cover-up was allegorized in the Gospel accounts under the guise of Joseph of Arimathea and his “tomb” only appeared empty.

I suspect you are likely to take me for another nut, and I don’t blame you. I have frequently questioned my own sanity when I listen to myself trying to explain this theory to others. But the problem is that it seems to make a large number of puzzle pieces fit together so I cannot convince myself that I am mistaken. As I employ this approach, I find no shortage of connections. I am often stumped in regards to metaphoric meanings, but there are no true dead ends. Alchemy, Mysticism, Religion, Philosophy, Magic, Astrology, Mythology, etc. all make more sense when they are understood as allegory. If I watch a movie such as The Matrix, my ideas seem confirmed. If I am wrong, then I am crazy, but if I am right, then this is the greatest secret in the world and it hides a multitude of other secrets, but so far, I have found nobody at all interested in testing my theory for themselves. I sometimes think that conspiracy theorists really don’t want to solve the mysteries they discuss because then they would have nothing to talk about. (I am also sure that there are still “Johns” out there discouraging this type of investigation.)

reply to post by swordwords

I suspect you are likely to take me for another nut, and I don’t blame you. I have frequently questioned my own sanity when I listen to myself trying to explain this theory to others. But the problem is that it seems to make a large number of puzzle pieces fit together so I cannot convince myself that I am mistaken.

You know what they say about assumptions eh...

Not at all my friend, thanks for the explaination...

You and the OP should collaborate

Just because you don't accept the official explainations of certain things, it doesn't mean you're crazy...

People will hold to their own truth until a greater truth is presented...

Also I would like to see more about this theory of a war between Christian Rome, and the gnostics.... Perhaps you might start a thread on this idea...

You already have a S&F if you bring it to my attention

reply to post by swordwords


I touched on this subject on page 4. Thank you for bringing this to light. It's very interesting how accounts of different events align with each other so exactly.

Josephus was the only historian that mentions John the Baptist outside of the bible, so I definitely think he played a major role in the cover-up. His stories of saving someone from crucifixion and hiding in a cave for three days only strengthens my doubt of the story.

reply to post by Fraudfinder

I will not trade bible versus with you that you have clearly mistranslated and do not understand.

3NL1GHT3N3D1 is doing exegisis I haven't seen any translating going on, in your religious fervour you fail to know the difference.

You DO NOT have the Holy Spirit inside you because

How dare you say who who has and who hasn't got the holy spirit inside them. Militant theology raises its ugly head yet again. You have failed miserably to add anything of susbstance to this thread

reply to post by whisperindave

When we note that all of these types were among Jesus' entourage, we realize that we are talking about radical, even terrorist elements like Barabbas (Of the Father) who were secretive and clever hanging out together and trying to figure out how to beat the Romans. Thus you have a real mosh-pit of explosive political groups who, after Jesus or the th

Why else would they send a cohort to arrest Jesus ay Gethsemene, Peter who was armed (hardly a peaceful sect, these Jesus followers) cut the ear of a Roman

Paul, whomever he was, was an extremely literate theologian who I think was escaping from the knowledge that Rome was about to come down hard on all of Judaism. As a true Roman Citizen he could not be treated like any old rebel from Judea.

Lets not forget by Sauls own admission it took him 3 triips to Rome to get them to see reason. Why all these trips, maybe to shore support from the Romans , refinancing his sect from Roman coffers to ensure his uprising in the holy land became the dominant sect. Sauls Xtianity was nothing but the old Roman Empire rebeartjhing under the guise of a new religion; a WOLF in sheeps clothing. a pacified non-beligerent xtianity.
Lets not forget about Constantines miraculous conversion "after the fact" or that he would bear the shield of the Sol Invictus cult,.
To ignore the influence of mithraic and zoroastian influences and flavour sneaking into the new xtianity cult one does so at ones peril

the Bible is a cool book in my opinion with many layers of perception.

reply to post by MamaJ


May I dare say perception be replaced with DECEPTION. A carefully contrived religion with 1700 years since Nicae to refine through many translations to weed out the inconsistencies. However the major inconsistencies cannot be further adjusted without changing the tenets of xtianity, hence the dire ramblings, threats to hell that is often characteristic of zealots who curse us "questioners"

It was also the way nations communicated with each other after the Babel confusion. There were sets of universal symbols that were

reply to post by EnochWasRight


You do realize that Babel happened in Old T times, not in the NT era.

The Bible is a written version of the symbols and the mathematics involved with creation. You see a history book and stories that make no sense. Others see beyond the words into the underlying story told by the symbols.

gobblydook!!! bringing mathematics into it, pseudoscience at its finest, a bit like that other thread runniing at the moment about quantum physics and christianity

reply to post by TheConstruKctionofLight


You have as many reasons not to believe as you do to believe. Faith must never be fact. For every fact you might see, there will be a counter fact to mirror what you think you see. When I mention that Paul had a reason, I was referring to the facts of Judges 19-21 and that Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin. As far as being held harmless, we are being deluded by an influence that is contrary to our own natures and that of God's law. Since God operates by law, justice and mercy, there is little doubt in my mind that the entire reason Satan was cast to Earth with man was for the purpose of our witness against him. Additionally, our accuser cannot accuse if he is also the one denying us justice and truth. Since God is just, jubilee laws will hold us harmless to a degree. This also implies that our own intent can deny this.

You are free to see it your own way and I respect this. My version is clearly stated as well.

As for the inconsistencies in our own history, scripture and so on, this can be seen as well by the fact that the Bible is not the Word of God. It's merely the shadow of that word.. From the dimly lit shadow, we can see the one that is the origin of the light producing it. Additionally, we can easily see that something is between us and that light. This is the point of faith and making the choice to see one side of the reflection over the other. It forces the choice. Light cannot be seen. It reveals what it hits.

The word of truth you want to see is right there inside you, written in no man's hand. The Bible is simply another mirror we use to see ourselves clearly. Again, my view and maybe not yours.