Paul was a murderer

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


What makes you think they haven't succeeded in subverting the message? Because the bible says so?
That's the subverted message! They started subverting it the moment they nailed him to the cross.



Because the bible says so? Sort of yea. The gosples mesh up so well with the OT that it is certain the writers were proving Christ against the OT which was so very important at the time considering He had to be proved there and that was the authority, OT, of the comming of Christ.




posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


And what makes you think they didn't add in all these fulfilled prophecies after-the-fact? Like being pierced in the side and the soldiers dividing his clothes between each other, that could have EASILY been added in later. Same thing with him riding on a donkey, easily added in, especially since y'all keep insisting manuscripts didn't exist until AFTER Jesus died.

If he didn't fulfill all these prophecies, then they would have never been able to convince everyone he was god in the flesh, which is why (in my opinion) they added these "fulfilled" prophecies in later. There was almost 30 years between Jesus' crucifixion and the fist gospel being written (Mark), MORE than enough time for those who crucified him to change the story a bit.
edit on 19-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 



Well there were many many witnesses to things he did. To many in fact to pass off lies about raising the dead for example.

The roman guards who were at the tomb at the time when the stone was rolled away were paied off to stay quiet about the events there. It was said to be a commonly known fact that the romans were paied off as the romans themselves verified the fact.

edit on 19-2-2013 by Logarock because: n



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


And where are these other witnesses' account of this happening other than those that are in the bible? Where is the historical evidence of these miracles happening outside of the bible? Where is the evidence that he was pierced in the side outside of the bible? What about the soldiers casting lots for his clothes outside of the bible?

I also find it funny how those who wrote the gospels felt the need to point out when a prophecy had been fulfilled by writing in parentheses after they are mentioned. Almost like they were making sure you saw it, making it impossible to ignore.

The lack of information on these miracles outside of the bible is all I need to start asking questions, too bad you can't say the same thing.
edit on 19-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


You are guided by something . Thats what I have been saying , but it's not anything holy .



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 


What makes you think I am evil? Because I don't agree with you?
How narrow-minded of you. I guess Ghandi was evil too, huh? Even though he helped others out of kindness, he's still evil because he didn't accept Christianity's dogma. Is that about right?

If I can claim to be guided by the holy spirit while being evil at the same time, then so could Paul. But I'm sure you'll completely deny that possibility.
edit on 19-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by SimonPeter
 


Paul was guided by the holy spirit because he said so? What if I said the same thing?
I do believe I am being guided by it, so since you believe I am Satan and since I said that, that means Paul could have been Satan saying it as well. I guess you're just going to have to take my word that I have nothing to do with Satan. Though you'll probably assume I do, which is fine, but it's also disrespectful.

The reason I like to discuss Christianity is because that's what I grew up with. It interests me, the fact that I believe it is a conspiracy makes it that much more fascinating. 

Like I said earlier, since the Buddha was called the "enlightened one", that must mean he was part of the Illuminati too, right? That's a ridiculous thing to think.


Why ridiculous and not truth? We just have to look at scripture to see that 
1) the clay bricks in the tower of Babel were fired, and the many clay bricks today are on fire through the 'enlightenment of kundalini'. 
2) the whole world  spoke "one language" and Our Creator declared "And nothing that they propose/imagine/devise to do will now be impossible for them." The nations descended from Christian forefathers,  today, are seduced by eastern spiritual religious practices, and are proselytising their "oneness" and their "global vision of unity" and their newfound belief in "imagination" and in the gains from 'godliness'
3) The western nations today, largely descendants of Christians, now receive meditation exercises through their corporations, their health care and now the school systems - all of which threw out Jesus Christ a long time ago and therefore cannot discern nor understand that Buddhism cannot be practiced without mindfulness and meditation and therefore their western "medical and stress relieving meditation" is mere worship of the Buddhist and Hindu gods .
3) What you think is "enlightenment" is nothing more than found in Ezekiel "Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendour (brightness). So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings." 

The "enlightenment" of man is but the age old promise of the serpent. As such, Buddhism has been largely kept from our shores as long as faith in Christ remained true. Today, it is swarming our nations disguised as anything and everything except what it is - the worship and religious works of Buddhism and Hinduism, mantras chanted calling on those "gods" of destruction and death. 

Buddha was not "enlightened". Buddha held the same iniquity in his heart as shown in Isaiah 14 "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High"



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by WhoKnows100
 


Buddhism worships gods of death and destruction? Where have their god(s) ever destroyed anything?

I think your god, Yahweh, holds the title of a god of death and destruction. Read Sodom and Gomorrah to see that what I say is true. Read the great flood too, he's the biggest murderer and destroyer in all of history. How about the Crusades? Ever heard of them? Yeah, they were supposedly done in the name of Yahweh.

Tell me, how many wars has Buddhism ever fought in the name of their god? And how many times has their god wiped out the Earth's population with a flood?

Oh yeah, none, because Buddhism doesn't endorse a creator.


Gautama Buddha did not endorse belief in a creator deity,[1][2] refused to express any views on creation[3] and stated that questions on the origin of the world are worthless.[4][5] The non-adherence[6] to the notion of an omnipotent creator deity or a prime mover is seen by many as a key distinction between Buddhism and other religions.


Source

Why do you try to discredit Buddhism when you obviously know NOTHING about it?
edit on 19-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


looks like he missed one .



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I guess Ghandi was evil too, huh? Even though he helped others out of kindness, he's still evil because he didn't accept Christianity's dogma. Is that about right?.

This is a very telling statement and probably indicates the source of why you believe what you believe.

Ghandi is the perfect example of the fact that everything we are told by men is lies.

OP, enlightenment can only come from TRUTH.

You are being fed LIES from every direction and you are falling for them hook line and sinker.

History HAS been erased and tampered with like I said in this post.

Until you come to grips with this reality and learn to tell the difference between truth and lies, you are just wasting your time.

If you are STILL having a hard time with this fact here is more evidence of this:


During his period as a law student in London, he joined the Theosophical Society and may have been recruited by MI-6. Ghandi was assassinated because he was an Illuminati agent who had betrayed the Hindu cause. As a Freemason employed by MI6, Gandhi's main role was to partition India in order to set it up for future conflict.

His London Diary recorded this period in his life, but all but 20 pages have mysteriously disappeared. The surviving pages actually describe Gandhi's initiation to the Third Degree of Freemasonry in coded language, something only a Freemason scholar would notice.

Was Mahatma Gandhi an Illuminati Pawn?


He is well known everywhere and he is depicted as an angel who has thrown away the British from the Indian sub continent. One of the most common and most dangerous myths about Gandhi is that he was a saint. The name—or rather, the title—Mahatma itself means "Great Soul." That's somewhere between a saint and a Messiah.

Well, I must tell you that in all my readings of and about Gandhi, I've never come across anything to say that Gandhi was a master of meditation, or that he meditated at all—aside from observing a minute of silence at the beginning of his prayer meetings, a practice he said he borrowed from the Quakers.

Gandhi hated Black people. Only a few scholars are aware of this background. In 1906 Gandhi had participated in a war against Blacks. The Gandhian literature either keeps quiet on the subject or tries to paint him as a great humanitarian who actually helped Blacks by rendering to them urgent medical care. Had he not done so, we are told, many Blacks would have died. While researching the historical documents, however, I found that Gandhi's participation had nothing to do with "humanitarian concerns" for Black people.

HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THE SPY GANDHI


Kallenback was told by Rothschild to befriend Gandhi, who was then working in South Africa. In 1910 , on Rothchild’s orders Kallenbach, donated to Gandhi his 1100 acre (4 km²) farm near Johannesburg.

The farm was used to run Gandhi's famous "Tolstoy Farm" that housed the families of his satyagrahis. Kallenbach himself named this farm after Leo Tolstoy. Kallenback's task was to brainwash Gandhi into non-violence to fight the enemy.

Rothschild made Tolstoy brainwash young and gullible Mohandas Gandhi with the idea of nonviolent resistance... So Gandhi and Kallenbach lived together for two years as soul mates, starting from 1907.. during this period Gandhi was prepared for the "great Indian show".

RE-WRITING INDIAN HISTORY

Related links:

Indian Government Spends $1.3 Million To Stop Auction Of Gandhi Letters That May Show He Was Gay

Theosophist Mahatma Gandhi

Gandhi was a British Agent and brought from SA by British to sabotage India’sFreedom struggle



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Logarock
 


And where are these other witnesses' account of this happening other than those that are in the bible?



Thats what i am trying to tell you. These letters were writen close to the event, close enough that they could have been challanged. Besides these written accounts the same eye witness accounts had been given as testimony all amoung the church by any number of many witnesses before they were put down in writing. In fact there was a body of believers at Jerusalem for some time after the events and considering how these were delt with by the establishment you can be sure they would have been outed as a bunch of liers and fabricators. And they tried even when Christ was on hand.
edit on 19-2-2013 by Logarock because: n



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
And what makes you think they didn't add in all these fulfilled prophecies after-the-fact? Like being pierced in the side and the soldiers dividing his clothes between each other, that could have EASILY been added in later.

I don't have a bridge for sale but if I DID...


This thread is now taking gullibility to a WHOLE new level.


Skeptic Interjection: Is it possible the Christians interpolated the Messianic prophecies into the Hebrew Bible?

Answer: The odds of this occurring are practically impossible. The Jews were well acquainted with their Scriptures. If Christians tried to alter the texts, the Jews would have immediately pointed this out. If someone today altered the Christian Bible, the Declaration of Independence, or any other well known literary work, they would immediately be discredited once confronted with the original documents. There are simply too many extant manuscripts preceding Christianity that show the Messianic prophecies were well known and in circulation.

Skeptic Interjection: Is it possible these prophecies were written after the life Jesus?

Answer: There is simply too much evidence showing the Old Testament writings to be in circulation for this to be possible. One example is the Septuagint which predates the Masoretic texts by more than 1,000 years. The Dead Sea Scrolls are another example, with many scrolls dating back to 250 BC. Other (less reliable) sources include the Talmud and various authors which record the knowledge of certain messianic
prophecies around the time of Christ. Even if you reject the Old Testament date of completion as 430 B.C. there is enough evidence to show a time gap of at least 250 years between the last messianic prophecy and the time of Jesus. If we accept the Mosaic authorship of the Torah in approximately 1400 B.C., some messianic prophecies were written up to 1,400 years before the life of Jesus.

thedevineevidence.com...



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


So me saying that biblical history is false is me saying it is right? Read that closely. How am I saying history is 100% true when I am challenging it?! That doesn't make any sense.

If anything, YOU are saying history is correct by believing the bible is 100% true. I don't get it? You are suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance. How does you accepting biblical history equal to you not believing history?

IF YOU BELIEVE HISTORY HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH THEN WHY DO YOU THINK THE BIBLE IS TRUE ON EVERY SINGLE LEVEL? WHAT MAKES YOU THINK BIBLICAL HISTORY HASN'T BEEN TAMPERED WITH AS WELL?
edit on 19-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


HA! They WERE challenged! Look at the Gnostic texts for proof! How are you going to imply it wasn't challenged when it clearly was?!

So 30 years isn't enough? Didn't the Romans crucify and persecute Jesus' followers after he died?
edit on 19-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


I guess that means the Gnostics could have never happened too, but yet they did.


Cognitive dissonance

ETA: Your quote is all kinds of backwards. Who ever said the Torah was messed with? I certainly didn't. What I am saying is that the church took the Torah and then implemented the prophecies into Jesus' life. Them inserting Torah prophecy after-the-fact has NOTHING to do with changing the Torah.... it's pretty simple.
edit on 19-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 



Skeptic Interjection: Is it possible these prophecies were written after the life Jesus?

Answer: There is simply too much evidence showing the Old Testament writings to be in circulation for this to be possible.


So basically your link is saying that since the Torah was available long before Jesus was born, that means the prophecies couldn't have been added into the NT? How does that make sense? Since they WERE available, wouldn't that mean they could have copied them?

You might want to read your sources before posting them next time, because the ones you had posted have been very weak so far.
edit on 19-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I'm sure that anyone who may be even slightly "enlightened", cares less about what is wrong and more about what is right.

A wise man once said, "he who only sees falsehood and betrayal, is capable of such." and once more "he who sees filth everywhere projects it from himself."
edit on 19-2-2013 by backcase because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by backcase
 


But what if what's wrong completely overshadows what is right? Am I not allowed to bring what's wrong to the light?

I don't only see what's false, I see what is true as well. The filth is projected from the bible, not me. Is it wrong that I see the filth if it really is there?

Here's another quote for you:

"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."

-Albert Einstein

You'll have to discern what the significance of this quote is within the context.
edit on 19-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 01:03 AM
link   
The problem with the OP is that Paul only once ever quoted the words of Jesus. He did more to gloss over that part and insert his own words. The better question is, if we already know he killed Christians, then what makes us think that he wouldn't infiltrate the group, forward his own gospel, and lead people astray and tear the group up from the inside?



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Witness123
 


Does it seem that Paul in any way tried to destroy the Gospel of Jesus . The Jews wanted him dead big time . If he was trying to destroy the Gospel of Jesus the Jews would have loved him . I think the problem we have here is the Globalist Jews trying to destroy Christianity with dirty tactics . You know like the Protocols describe using .
One only has to read the Talmud to see the origin of the Protocols of Zion .
edit on 20-2-2013 by SimonPeter because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join