Paul & the Synagogue of Satan

Originally posted by bogomil
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?

My friend, haven't you noticed yet that I am trying to open the minds to those types with the very same words they profess to believe, in hopes for us all that there won't need to be a kaboom??

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

And, I love your weird side. You have given me a chuckle or two, that you were never aware of. In a way, you are my Archnemisis. You sir, give me balance!

Originally posted by bogomilAnd 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.

I am not a prophet, so I hope you weren't referring to me. Nor am I here to save souls. It is my hopes that people will become their own prophet, and learn to save their own souls. The Human Soul, it is what you make it!

Judge not, Love All, be at peace.

With Love,

Your Brother

Re: IAM

out of respect for this thread, this'll be my last side-tracking for a while.

If you can accept my twisted humour, I guess, I can live with your candy floss.... whatever you want to call it....

Just remember, that I'm unsaveable, and everything will be fine.

Originally posted by Kailassareply to post by bogomil

Doctrines are a way to divide people.

The only Doctrine that I am aware of that does not divide people is the understanding that the "resurrection" is a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'.

Why?

Because a man can be 'raised from the dead' as a woman in a subsequent life, and vice versa.

Because a Jew, or a Christian or a Hindu or a Muslim can be 'raised from the dead' in any religion in a subsequent life.

Because a person can be 'raised from the dead' as a member of any race, any social class, any economic class or a citizen of any nation.

This results in a universalization of 'do unto others' because, in previous lives or in subsequent lives, you may very well have been or will be the "others"; resulting in an absolute adherence to the Moral Law out of enlightened self-interest.

To me it is a no-brainer.

In addition to this, however, there is a teaching about the 3 dimensions of consciousness which deals with the origin of duality, conflict and violence not in the 'thinker' and in the thoughts of the 'thinker', but in the "self" originating in the 'movement' of self-reflection.

But that is an entirely independent line of investigation.

Michael Cecil

Originally posted by bogomil
Hi again Kailassa,

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

I sure am, if there's no age-limit on dudettism.

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.

I was a rejected child who spent much time escaping into the forest, with ancient trees and a crippled old hermit-lady for friends. So my hungry soul learnt from nature rather than man. To my mind, every stone on our paths is holy.

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)

There is no need for a tradition. Have a baby, a pet or a friend, see the infinite within that person or animal, love them even more than you love yourself, (some of us need to learn to love ourselves first,) and then spread that perception and love to all. Then your mind will be opened.

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.

Preparing food and having babies can be wonderful too.
Some of Paul's writing has been sadly misunderstood.
Ever done an exam in which you had to first write out the proposition you were arguing about and then put forward your argument?
Some of the misunderstandings come from Paul doing that in an age in which there was no punctuation, and everything was run together.
Some of the passages used to keep women in their place were actually statements that he was arguing against.

It was Paul who wrote: Galatians 3:28 (New International Version)

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

If you read Romans 16, you will see Paul introducing women along with the men, and showing equal respect for them.

In Corithians 11, Paul states:

Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head.
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

However this is not his argument, it is the proposition he is arguing against.

He goes on to counter this proposition with:

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering.

Paul was arguing against women having to cover their heads in church, saying their long hair was already their God-given covering.

If you read the writings of Paul with this in mind, you will find other examples which have since been misinterpreted.

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.

That's forums for you.
I discovered yesterday on ATS that I'm a water brain, a sponge brain, and responsible for all that ails the world.

Not sure that there is any genuine awareness of the seriousness of this problem.

The secular-humanist atheists and the Pharisee-Zionist and Pharisee-anti-Zionist Jews, Christians and Muslims have a death grip on the mainstream media, the alternative media and the Internet media.

Not one word of the Truth about the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth' can be published in the Jerusalem Post, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, or the Los Angeles Times, or over any radio or TV station on this planet to my knowledge, or even on 'alternative' news sites on the Internet such as The Drudge Report, rense.com, antiwar.com, infowars.com, etc. etc. etc.

And Wikipedia will not allow a discussion of the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth', even as a minority position on its page on "resurrection", despite the fact that this is the Doctrine which was taught by Isaiah, Daniel, Jesus and Mohammed...

All for the purpose, of course, of preserving the economic interests of Judaeo-Christianity-Islamism, Inc.

And, it is in this context--the context of a universal, determined and relentless hatred and repudiation of the Revelations received by the prophets of the monotheistic religions--that the politicians are actually attempting to achieve genuine Peace between Palestinians and Zionists.

All of this is based on the assumption that human thought is higher than Revelation, that the 'fallen' consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker' is fully equivalent to the consciousness Created 'by and in the image of God'; and, in fact, that man himself is higher than the Moral Law. Thus, he can 'justify' all manner of violence and horrors against those of other religions on the basis of the doctrines concocted by the 'fallen' consciousness in opposition to the Revelation of Truth.

This civilization will, no doubt, be surprised when these efforts not merely do not succeed; but, instead, result in a catastrophe.

Michael Cecil

I am not sure where you get Paul talking about a bodily resurrection.
The only thing he says about it is in the letters of dubious origin to the Thessalonians.
From what I can make of it, there is this hollow place in the earth where the
departed spirits dwell,
and at some point, Jesus appears in the center of this space in a cloud,
lit by his own brightness,
where the ones who love him can join in adoration of him, while the ones who did not
seek the truth of Jesus
are stuck in the dark periphery of this space, where they suffer eternal misery.
So there is no real bodies like what the living posses, just a better spot in the afterlife,
in the place where all souls end up eventually and apparently stay, forever.

Why doesn't Peter reject any of Paul's teachings or letters?

"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

2 Peter 3:15-16

The 'beloved brother' thing is by some biblescholars considered a hoax.

Not so surprising. There's a lot of hoax'ing in the pauline bible.

Did you know Paul's book was written earlier then any of the other books of the New Testement?
www.hennessy.id.au...

reply to post by Michael Cecil

Because a man can be 'raised from the dead' as a woman in a subsequent life, and vice versa.

Because a Jew, or a Christian or a Hindu or a Muslim can be 'raised from the dead' in any religion in a subsequent life.

Because a person can be 'raised from the dead' as a member of any race, any social class, any economic class or a citizen of any nation.

This is not resurrection, this is reincarnation. There is a huge difference. Even the raising of Lazarus and the others mentioned as returning from the dead does not amount to a resurrection to eternal life as Christ experienced. Why? Because they went on to live out their natural lives and die. Christ is "The first born from the dead" (Col. 1:18b) because he was raised to eternal life, not reborn as someone else.

Reincarnation is an oxymoron. If you are born again as someone else, then you are clearly not yourself anymore.

As for the Synagogue of Satan, I am under the impression that refers to the Judiazers who accepted the Gospel but sought to add that becoming Jewish was necessary for salvation. There can be no adding to the work of Christ on the Cross. (John 19:30)

Originally posted by bogomil
The 'beloved brother' thing is by some biblescholars considered a hoax.

Not so surprising. There's a lot of hoax'ing in the pauline bible.

Interesting...

Then why does Clement of Rome quote extensively from 1 and 2 Peter if they are "fabrications"?

One would think if Peter didn't write that his OWN DISCIPLE would know!!!!

reply to post by NOTurTypical


www.hennessy.id.au...
Check out this cool link!

Originally posted by bogomil
The 'beloved brother' thing is by some biblescholars considered a hoax.

Of course they (Jesus Seminar) consider it a hoax.

It completely and utterly dismantles the pillars of heresy they stand upon.

You never hear Peter writing that Paul's teachings are false, and you never hear Clement of Rome writing that Peter thought/taught that Paul's letters were false.

In fact Peter discusses all Paul's teachings "in all his epistles", and Clement quotes extensively from 1 & 2 Peter and Paul's epistles.

You'd better find a new reason to reject the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Re: Icarus Rising

You wrote:

"As for the Synagogue of Satan, I am under the impression that refers to the Judiazers who accepted the Gospel but sought to add that becoming Jewish was necessary for salvation. There can be no adding to the work of Christ on the Cross. (John 19:30)"

The first part is correct in a very, very broad context. The pauline - Peter/James conflict had several elements leading to secterian interpretations and disagreements in different constellations.

These differences have eventually been 'settled' by the usual principle of the victor writing history.

So the postulate: ".....no adding to the work of Christ......" simply means, that pauline interpretation, censorship and falsification of competing parts of the Jesus movement 'did not happen'.

There's considerable evidence pointing at a strong competition between various early Jesus-movement doctrines.

Paulines like to tone this down or even denying it, because it puts the brutality of the Pauline church in focus.

Re: NOTyourTypical

Before we start the pie-throwing, I have a few comments.

From my perspective, you demonstrate the unsavoury tactics of declaring opposition as 'heretic' in advance.
A debate is expected to be completely on your terms, and by your special kind of twisted logic, you already have all the right answers. 'Authorities' have to be approved by you.

Ofcourse I completely deny you this right; maybe this even surprises you.

I can use whatever sources I choose, outside your bubble of circle-argumentation. I can even ignore the, by fanatics, beloved methods of diversionary maneuvers and least-point-of-resistance, where opponents are send on wild chases on punctuation or 'proved' wrong, because a specific point taken out of context 'decides' the whole issue.

From the perspective of jewish-'christians' and gnostic-'christians' YOU are the heretic, and there's absolutely nothing you can do to change that. Except denying, that these groups existed.

As to my own involvement I can only say, that I don't give a hoot about inter-'christian' quibbles; my point is, that any extremist movement which is so confused and violent as fundamentalist 'christianity' is in no position to vie for a 'truth' monopoly.

And by the way, what do you expect to 'gain' from this. Some saved souls? A feeling of being in the right? Or?

reply to post by bogomil


An additional thought on the Synagogue of Satan points to the Sadducees, who denied an afterlife existed and opposed the Doctrine of Resurrection.

You can lay the brutality of the church at the feet of Pauline's if you want to. To me that is just feeding the fire. The enforced beliefs of those in power, and the use of violence to resolve disagreements over doctrine have much more to do with it, imo. Odds are, whomever was in power at the time would have used force to consolidate rule. Sadly, it is human nature to do so.

Re: Icarus Rising

I'm in 100% agreement with you on the use/misuse of power. Practically all ideologies will have been associated with violence at one point (I've been a moral vegetarian for 45 years, and by Dog, I'm not proud to have militant vegans in the family).

So had the jewish-'christians' won the competition (as they were close to as Constantine supported their case at first), it would have been just as bad. Maybe even worse.

The gnostic-'christians' being nominally pacifists maybe would have made a nicer option, but then I have met modern gnostic-'christians' who are quite invasive also.

Synagogue of Satan: Who owns Wall Street? Who controls Israel? Who owns all of our media? Who owns Hollywood? Who owns the globe? Who owns the oil? Who controls all the religious organizations on the planet? Who creates all the wars? Who controls economics? Who controls all the bankers? Who really controls the USA?

If you know the answer to these questions, then you know who the scriptures are referring to. Don't TPTB (the global elite) claim to be 'men of faith'?

Revelation 2:9 (King James Version)

9I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 3:9 (King James Version)

9Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Originally posted by bogomil
Re: NOTyourTypical



From my perspective, you demonstrate the unsavoury tactics of declaring opposition as 'heretic' in advance.

Not at all, what makes someone a teacher of heretical ideas is what they have previously stated and yet to recount and repent of. What makes someone a "heretic" is someone who doesn't declare one of the fundamental doctrines of scripture.

A debate is expected to be completely on your terms, and by your special kind of twisted logic, you already have all the right answers. 'Authorities' have to be approved by you.

First of all, the final authority is the Word of God. Secondly, it's not 'twisted logic' but rather elementary. You claim Paul taught heresy, yet Peter writes that Paul's letters contain truth in their entirety. You then claim that 2 Peter is a fabrication, and I point out that Peter's own apostle, Clement of Rome both quotes extensively from 2 Peter AND Paul's epistles. Are you really wanting us to believe that Peter forgot to mention to Clement that he never wrote 2 peter or that Paul was teaching false doctrine??????

YOUR logic is tragically twisted, not mine. Clement's writings are a matter of public record, and he was Peter's direct disciple.

Ofcourse I completely deny you this right; maybe this even surprises you.

You have no authority to deny me anything, you're a wolf in sheep's clothing. You're a heretic.

I can use whatever sources I choose, outside your bubble of circle-argumentation. I can even ignore the, by fanatics, beloved methods of diversionary maneuvers and least-point-of-resistance, where opponents are send on wild chases on punctuation or 'proved' wrong, because a specific point taken out of context 'decides' the whole issue.

I refer you to 2 Peter 3:16:

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Gnostics hate 2 Peter for two reasons. 1. it's specifically addressed to the Christians condemning the Gnostic heresies, and 2, it shreds their lies that Paul taught differently than the other apostles. It destroys the pillars that the Gnostic's heresies stand upon, 2 Peter.

From the perspective of jewish-'christians' and gnostic-'christians' YOU are the heretic, and there's absolutely nothing you can do to change that. Except denying, that these groups existed.

One group is Judaizers, and Galatians takes care of them, the second group the Gnostics need books dated by historians to the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD to support their lies. I'm quite comfortable relying on the Bible as the final authority and the writings of the apostle's disciples Clement of Rome and Polycarp (John's disciple), to refute the idea that the Gnostic scriptures had any validity.

Can you tell me why the early church fathers never mentioned these epistles until the 2nd century when they began condemning them as heresies??? Take your time.

And by the way, what do you expect to 'gain' from this. Some saved souls? A feeling of being in the right? Or?

At best? Your recanting and repentance. At worst, to be able to show the other sheep reading this argument that the Gnostic heresies are to be steered clear of.

You need to answer this question:

Why does Clement of Rome quote 2 Peter and Paul's epistles frequently if A, Peter never wrote 2 Peter, and B., Peter taught different doctrine than Paul.

Originally posted by nlouise
Synagogue of Satan: Who owns Wall Street? Who controls Israel? Who owns all of our media? Who owns Hollywood? Who owns the globe? Who owns the oil? Who controls all the religious organizations on the planet? Who creates all the wars? Who controls economics? Who controls all the bankers? Who really controls the USA?

If you know the answer to these questions, then you know who the scriptures are referring to. Don't TPTB (the global elite) claim to be 'men of faith'?

Revelation 2:9 (King James Version)

9I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 3:9 (King James Version)

9Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

The "synagogue of satan" is Judaism. John tells us that the "spirit of antichrist" is anyone who denies the relationship between the Father and the Son."

Judaism denies Jesus was God's only begotten Son, and denies His deity. The entire religion is based upon the spirit of antichrist.