Saul Paulus, Caesar's own zealous Pharicee

Towards the end of Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, he says something that caught my eye:

All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar’s household. [ESV] Philippians 4:22

The part I have underlined above is in Greek Καίσαρος οἰκίας lit. 'House of Caesar' as in 'belonging to the Caesar family'. The text is rather ambiguous for is he referring to Caesarian saints or is he addressing the Caesars? I can see but few reasons why a Christian would salute the House of Caesar, one being that Paul is sarcastic here while he admits that Joseph Jesus' father was Caesarion, son of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra, heir to "all the kingdoms in the world"-- the other being, and this is somewhat related to the wider conspiracy-- that Paulus worked for the Romans infiltrating the early Christian communities reporting to both the Romans and the Sanhedrin.

In Philippians Paulus claims he is in chains in a certain stronghold or fortress (Gr.: πραιτώριον "praitórion"), together with his fellow soldiers (Gr.: συστρατιώτης "sustratiótés") and he repeats words for fighting and war jargon throughout the text. One could easily get the idea that he was promoting the legions here, not the churches. And there's a bit of racism here too, or is it a poorly hidden threat on behalf of "the dogs" (Jesus calls Syrians dogs, Paul, or "Saul of Tarsus" was a Syrian):

Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh— [ESV] Philippians 3:2-3

His agenda here may be to make sure the Philippians don't mingle with the local Jewish communities, whom Paulus here claims are dogs who mutilate the flesh. Hm. Biting his own tail this one, or is he just identifying with the lost tribes of Israel, being a Syrian Benjaminite with Roman privileges and immunities through his father of the family famous senator Paulus, for he can't sing out like that without making sure the Jews AND Rome understand he is joking, by adding for his own defence:

though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. [ESV] Philippians 3:4-6

OK? No need for worry then. Well. Here we see him revealing his true self as "a zealous and righteous Pharicee and persecutor of the Church, blameless under the Law". We better hear what else he has in store for this confession:

But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— [ESV] Philippians 3:7-9

Is it just me, or does Paul seem very insincere here? Looks to me that he calls everything he gained in in Life rubbish because of Jesus. He does seem rather sarcastic here. To his defence, he does seem to call "Christ Jesus" his Lord here, but one could just as well translate the text to read «My knowledge of Christ Jesus the Lord» not «knowing Christ Jesus my Lord». That is Gr.: «γνώσεως […] μου» "Gnoseos […] mou" 'my knowledge' + «Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου» "of Christ Jesus the Lord". Ambiguous and somewhat revealing, this looks like a good candidate for Paul confessing straight out he's a Judeo-Roman agent. No wonder he desires or believes…:

that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. [ESV] Philippians 3:10-11

Ah, naturally. So Paul just needed subjects to attain some kind of resurrection philosophet's stone? No wonder he and his fellow Roman sustratiótés had to enslave and kill so many Christians, they were practising necromancy! Think about how the Legions and the Empire would benefit from invincible soldiers and elites?!?! No wonder then, that after having given his report here on his progress in the matter, he closes where I stared this thread:

All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar’s household. [ESV] Philippians 4:22

As far as counting his power as a loss for Christ - Paul was not being sarcastic.

Paul was a very powerful man, high in the political structure of the Roman government. He is saying he let it all go for the sake of Christ - of his own free will.

Paul was not practicing necromancy.... While you have posted a lot of scripture from the Holy Bible, you have quoted it out of context and given it meaning where none exists.

The power of the resurrection, etc., is referring to the resurrection before the final judgment on humanity for those who are followers of Christ. Paul is saying that if he follows Christ, acts like a Christian (which means to be Christ like), then he will receive the promise of the resurrection from the dead.

While Paul might have retained close ties to his Roman heritage, there is absolutely no evidence he was practicing necromancy. You had my interest that there could have been a finger pointing to his Roman ties, but then you lost me with the bombastic claim of necromancy.

Reading the context between lines, when there is no context to be read, is paramount to creating your own reality - and a self imposed reality is simply a delusion.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Yes, Paul was the ultimate evangelist of XES- Zeus and is the false Prophet promised by YHWH also claiming to be a kinsman of Herod. The messiYAH says if they tell you I'm in the desert don't go. If the tell to they saw me in the secret chamber (Holy of Holies) don't go. Who saw the MessiYAH there? Why of course Paul did. But my favorite is:

I come in my Father's name you recieve me not. Another will com in his own name Him you will receive.

Paul's doctrine of demons Abstaining from animal flesh and Marrying Canaanites. He certainly did not teach what YAHshuWAH taught. He was an Agent of Evil.

originally posted by: MentorsRiddle
The power of the resurrection, etc., is referring to the resurrection before the final judgment on humanity for those who are followers of Christ.

Ah, so he's just referring to the Pharicee theological view on the Resurrection of the Dead on Judgement Day then. Much better.

While Paul might have retained close ties to his Roman heritage, there is absolutely no evidence he was practicing necromancy.

Well, he does seem to report a lot of sacrificing gentiles in search of the secrets behind resurrection. It's as if he's saying: "I am almost there, I just need some more time and some more subjects, so unfortunately I have to send you Epaphroditus (of epi+Aphrodite, lit. 'Over Venus' -- Lucifer?) my fellow army brother, he will provide me what I need..."

You have to admit that it does look quite a bit like Paul was some kind of Mengele here.

originally posted by: TheoFieldsGardener
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Yes, Paul was the ultimate evangelist of XES- Zeus and is the false Prophet promised by YHWH also claiming to be a kinsman of Herod. The messiYAH says if they tell you I'm in the desert don't go. If the tell to they saw me in the secret chamber (Holy of Holies) don't go. Who saw the MessiYAH there? Why of course Paul did. But my favorite is:

I come in my Father's name you recieve me not. Another will com in his own name Him you will receive.

Paul's doctrine of demons Abstaining from animal flesh and Marrying Canaanites. He certainly did not teach what YAHshuWAH taught. He was an Agent of Evil.

I come in my Father's name you receive me not. Another will come in his own name Him you will receive."

This is referring to the anti-Christ, who will pretend to be a savior and a messiah. Paul never claimed to be a savior or messiah. Paul always pointed towards Christ as an example and leader of the church.

Twisting scripture.... Twisting scripture.... Twisting scripture....

Ah, so he's just referring to the Pharicee theological view on the Resurrection of the Dead on Judgement Day then. Much better.

He is not referring to the Pharisees theological view - he is referring to the widely accepted view of the Jewish people, from whom Christ came. It is critical to remember that the God of the OT is the father of Jesus Christ. Just because Christ came to the earth doesn't mean that all of God's promises and prophesies are made null.

Christ upheld the law of God so that he would be the innocent and perfect sacrifice for the world. He did not come to destroy what God had already proclaimed. The resurrection isn't a plan of the Pharisees, it is a plan of God - spoken through Jesus.

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; ... Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; ... And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Further more:

Jesus said to them, "Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. Indeed they cannot die anymore, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection

originally posted by: MentorsRiddle

Twisting scripture.... Twisting scripture.... Twisting scripture....

Yes, you are, and it's time to open up your eyes and see what the Church wants you to believe and exactly who their favourite Paul was.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: MentorsRiddle

Twisting scripture.... Twisting scripture.... Twisting scripture....

Yes, you are, and it's time to open up your eyes and see what the Church wants you to believe and exactly who their favourite Paul was.

This makes no sense....

Yes, this is what the Church wants me to believe - because it's what their Holy book tells them to believe. It's what the entire Christian doctrine is based off of.

My eyes are fully open, and I gladly accept what the Church says - I think I have been pretty clear on that.

What I am saying in this post is that twisting scripture to fit into some necromantic scheme is not good reasoning, or a sound practice.

I'm presenting valid scripture interpretations, and all you have done is say that I need to open my eyes.....

Open my eyes to what - your personal view point?

I have spoken my mind and I'll leave your thread alone.

I don't care if people don't believe - that is on them. But twisting and distorting writings to fit into an imaginary idea is not what this site is all about.

originally posted by: MentorsRiddle

Ah, so he's just referring to the Pharicee theological view on the Resurrection of the Dead on Judgement Day then. Much better.

He is not referring to the Pharisees theological view - he is referring to the widely accepted view of the Jewish people, from whom Christ came.

There you go, twisting scripture again. The Pharicees (like Paul) believed in the resurrection, while the Sadducees and most of the Jewish elite did not.

en.wikipedia.org...

Sadducees recognizing only the Written Torah and rejecting doctrines such as the Oral Torah and the resurrection of the dead.

And from the same page

After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Pharisaic beliefs became the liturgical and ritualistic basis for Rabbinic Judaism (commonly known as simply Judaism).

And
en.wikipedia.org...

The Sadducees (/ˈsædʒəˌsiːz, ˈsædjə-/; Hebrew: צְדוּקִים Ṣĕdûqîm) were a sect or group of Jews that were active in Judea during the Second Temple period, starting from the second century BCE through the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. The sect was identified by Josephus with the upper social and economic echelon of Judean society.

Get it? Well, back to your complaints:

Christ upheld the law of God so that he would be the innocent and perfect sacrifice for the world.

And I heard the angel in charge of the waters say,
«Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was,
for you brought these judgments.
For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets,
and you have given them blood to drink.
It is what they deserve!» [ESV] Revelation 16:5-6

They should change the flesh of the Eucharist into rocks. Perhaps then they'd get it?!?

a reply to: MentorsRiddle

How do you explain Paul speaking in present tense, when he is saying:

I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. [ESV] Philippians 3:4-6

Did he send this letter to the Philippians BEFORE his alleged conversion?

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: MentorsRiddle

How do you explain Paul speaking in present tense, when he is saying:

I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. [ESV] Philippians 3:4-6

Did he send this letter to the Philippians BEFORE his alleged conversion?

During his imprisonment, Paul wrote a letter to the Church of the Philippians.

I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else (The Philippians) thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: Circumcised on the eight day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.

Prior to v.4, which is where your scripture quote begins, Paul is speaking of the act of circumcision. So in v.4 he is saying he has reason for confidence in the flesh (or that is to say trust in the pact the Lord had made regarding circumcision). Furthermore he is telling the Philippians of his heritage - Paul was a Jew, tracing his lineage down to the tribe of Benjamin - telling the gentiles (or Philippians) that he has more understanding and knowledge of circumcision than they do.

Why is this important? Because Paul is comparing the circumcision (or covenant between God and man) with the Church (who are now under the new covenant through Christ).

This is being spoken of because the Philippians always followed Paul's understanding until the Judizers started speaking to them of the works of the law - circumcision being one of them. Paul wrote the letter to the Philippians to correct them; and explain to them why he has a better understanding of the law than the Judizers do, and why they are wrong - as the new covenant with Christ surpasses the law of the Jews.

Paul is speaking in present tense, because he is referring to his past during present time.

Furthermore in v. 8 Paul says "I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ".


Paul is saying all things that he has done, the power he had, and his lineage under law is but a pile of excrement compared to the victory of being within the power and eternal grace of Jesus Christ.

Now I truly leave this thread to its own devices. The knowledge of the Lord is freely accessible to those who wish to study it, and know him. Freely the information is given - it is your choice to accept it, twist it, or deny it.

I have not told you this to anger you, or cause you grief in your heart. I simply wanted to give you understanding of the scripture, as you clearly have an interest in it to a degree.

I hope your study of scripture can lead you to fulfillment and understanding of God's true plan.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

To the OP you should have linked this documentary so people will know what your saying



To my fellow ATSers: This documentary tells some things about the TPTB like the British Royal Family. However, at some point the video talks about how Jesus is the son of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra. Not saying it's true though.

a reply to: starwarsisreal

Could you please give a brief summary? I mean, five hours is pretty heavy without something more to go on?

I don't believe Jesus was the son of Julius Caesar, but that Joseph, Jesus' father was in reality Caesarion Ptolemy Caesar, son of Julius and Cleopatra. Jesus was a huge threat to the Emperor himself, Jesus was the legal heir to the Imperial Throne.

originally posted by: MentorsRiddle
While you have posted a lot of scripture from the Holy Bible, you have quoted it out of context and given it meaning where none exists.

Isn't this what all Christians do?

a reply to: MentorsRiddle

Since his Name was YAH same as YAHqob's namesake YAHsef, YAHudah etc. This is the meaning of I COME IN MY FATHER'S NAME. The native American's knew God's name that's why they would have rather gone to reservations then to assimilate into the forked tounged white man's religion. They knew GOD"s name was not Jehovah or Jesus. The Anti Christ is XES that name is clearly Zeus. the Greek X is pronounced like a Z. Look at the Greek transcript. Chi Zi Sigma is the number of his name but the Name clearly there in the Greek is XES- Zeus (Jesus).

Paul is the false prophet for Zeus- the anti Christ, not YAHshuWAH.

10. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father-Mother Who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy Name? and in thy Name have cast out devils? and in thy Name done many wonderful works? And then will I say unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: DEPART FROM ME, YE THAT WORK INQUITY. 11. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, GOTHT 27

Those who have ears..............................................................

Evils Agent..... Evil's Agent....... Evil's agent.... Evangelists of XES- Zeus (666)

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: MentorsRiddle
While you have posted a lot of scripture from the Holy Bible, you have quoted it out of context and given it meaning where none exists.

Isn't this what all Christians do?

Just to add, I am not a Christian, neither was Jesus. Neither do I quote out of context, I nearly quote the whole letter and I add quite a bit of exegesis and contextual info, like how Paul was a Syriac Israelite, you know, the bunch Jesus called "the dogs"-- whom Paul makes sure the Philippians should fear and respect as the true people of the circumcision who consider flesh but something you can dispose of. As if he is biting back at the Church, saying «Watch it!»

a reply to: TheoFieldsGardener

Just to add: Zeus is Satan, his throne (that's the "Altar" in the plan below) used to be in Pergamon, but the Germans moved it to Berlin in the 1880's



Jesus says to the angel of Pergamon in Rev. 2:13: "I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is" [ESV] and in Rev. 13:2 "And the beast […] to it the dragon gave his power and his throne and great authority." [ESV] So Satan is Zeus, Hitler was the Beast, or the Little Horn in Daniel if you like.

en.wikipedia.org...

Because this first Pergamon Museum proved to be both inadequate and structurally unsound, it was demolished in 1909 and replaced with a much larger museum, which opened in 1930

1930 hmmm, who could satan have given his throne and power to in Berlin in 1930, hmmm let me think....

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I understand. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of someone (probably a Christian) calling someone else out for taking passages of the Bible out of context, considering that is modus operandi for Christians.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I tend to agree. There's not much hope. If you remove all subdued doctrine from the general Christian there is but skin and bone left. If you hand them a rock and tell them to turn it in to bread they won't give up until they have no teeth left and the stone is all rugged, if Jesus wanted to be remembered as the one who turned his followers (groupies) into cannibals, I'd like to be remembered as one who turned flesh into stone: -- Eat this! They don't understand they are being duped. And by the same they hold as their priesthood.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

He's talking about their O- blood type. They dwell in Purga-Tory in a place of Darkness because they are fallen Angels when not here. Their seat is the planet X for XES = Jupiter- Zeus. Because those are YHWH's apostates the Grigori who can not entreat YHWH for themselves nor for their O+ children. However these particular ones are Elijah's (EliYAH) - John the Baptist's Essenes. They were vegan's and they awaited the prophecy of him but most of all didn't DENY HIS NAME even whe Herod Antipas Martyred John.

Many O- Moabites tried to seduce YAHshurun (not named Israel) with their lovely fair daughters with Idol worship (animal Flesh- yeast), unlawful sex and stong wine. Nicolaitans are Nike laitans = Evangelists of Zeus which thing HE HATES. His NAME IS YAHshuWAH. If you want to entreat Zeus that is your business but he doesn't have the power to even get himself back into Heaven. All he can offer is redeemtion into the PIT. He will not crash the gates of Heaven.

Please do not refer to me as a Christian because I am not. Nor do I twist any thing.