The Rise of Christian Heresy and the Fall of Christian Truth

one of the main factors to be taken into account in reviewing the subsequent rapid progress of the new religion was the social revolution. In the minds of the most ignorant of the earliest followers of the public teaching, the greatest hope aroused may well have been the near approach of the day when the "poor" should be elevated above the "rich."
-Fragments of a Faith Forgotten, by G.R.S. Mead, 1900

Heresy was an infiltrating presence in the centuries after the creation of the catholic church. Note that I did not say 'Roman Catholic' but am referring to 'Greek Catholic.' Catholic comes from a Greek word meaning 'Whole,' as in the Whole church.

The Ebionites considered themselves the 'whole church.' Ebionite is also a Greek word Ebionaioi, taken from the Hebrew word 'Ebyon' meaning 'Poor.' The Nazoreans were called the Poor Ones, in context to Matthew 5:3 - "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." The lost 'Gospel of the Nazarenes' establishes that the Nazoreans were Ebionites. The Ebionites left Jerusalem to the east at the Jewish revolt in 66 AD, around the time when the Zealots held down the fortress at Masada. This history can help determine that the Essene teachings of Jesus were not the same as the 4th philosophy taught by Judas the Galilean and the Zealots, though some support that the coincidences in the Josephus history and other scriptures are an indication of that.

The first bishop of the catholic church was Jacob the Just, brother of Jesus. We all know Jesus was Jewish, but how many of us know that the apostles of Jesus, under the leadership of the brother of Jesus, opposed the virgin birth? Not only did everyone who knew Jesus oppose the virgin birth (and Paul makes no word of it) but they personally knew Jacob the brother of Jesus, and personally knew the other brothers of Jesus. How many modern Christians know this?

It brings us to the title of Heresy, which can be seen as blatant lies more than it can be as paganism, and how to recognize that which it is. Why was it so popular decades after the Ebionites began to establish the catholic church? All across the land, it was translated in many languages, and many documents appeared describing a pagan Jesus, and maybe a little gnosticism code here and there. Scholars tell us, 'this is because the dominated world attended to Pauline Christianity which was introduced to the west.' They were given only 1 generation of time, and they were slain in the same fashion that the earlier Essenes were.

The Roman church father from late antiquity, Hippolytus, in his work The Refutation of All Heresies, said that the Esseni (from greek Essaíoi 'holy ones') had many sects, and he goes on to say the Pharisees are another sect of the Esseni, and that Zealots are not separate from Essenes. It is agreed among scholars that the Dead Sea Scrolls are not just a set of documents belonging to Qumran but probably from Jerusalem and all over Judah, so even if there is the Nazoreans sect within the sect of the Essenes, we can establish the Dead Seas Scrolls to the practices and teachings of the Nazoreans to those of the New Testament.

Epiphanius would have it that the Christians were first called Iessæi, and says they are mentioned under this name in the writings of Philo. The followers of the earliest converts of Jesus are also said to have been called Nazoræi

Let's quickly see what the Jewish philosopher Philo said of the Iessæi:

Of these men of peace, not storing up treasures of silver and of gold, nor acquiring vast sections of the earth out of a desire for ample revenues, but providing all things which are requisite for the natural purposes of life; for they alone of almost all men having been originally poor and destitute, and that too rather from their own habits and ways of life than from any real deficiency of good fortune, are nevertheless accounted very rich, as in truth they are.
- Philo, Every Good Man is Free

Epiphanius of Salamis was born about the year 310, and helped create a great works for establishing the awareness of heresies called Against Heresies. Let's look at what Epiphanius has recorded under Book I Chapter 26 of Against Heresies for the Ebionites, yes by this time the Ebionites had been eradicated as Pauline Christianity took hold in the world two centuries after it had begun, and determined a heresy:

[Those who are called Ebionites] They use the Gospel according to Matthew only.
-Epiphanius

It appears likely that this Aramaic Matthew was somewhat different from the Matthew now in the canon. In particular, the Matthew used by Ebionite Christians would have lacked the first two chapters, which narrate Jesus' birth to a virgin - a notion that the Ebionite Christians rejected. There were doubtless other differences from our own version of Matthew's Gospel as well.
-Lost Christianities

[Those who are called Ebionites] repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law.
-Epiphanius

And how did He appear to you, when you entertain opinions contrary to His teaching? But If you were seen and taught by Him, and became His apostle for a single hour, interpret His sayings, love His apostles, contend not with me who companied with Him. For in direct opposition to me, who am rock, the foundation of the church, you now stand.
-testimony from the apostle Peter on the accusations toward Paul, Homily XVII, 19

persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.
-Epiphanius

This goes back to Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn't come to destroy them, but to fulfill them." There is no reason why the first Christian should not observe every Jewish law, have a Judaic lifestyle, and pray towards Jerusalem.

Pauline Christians eradicated the Ebionites, burning all of their books (none survived) and harassing and arresting the people until none were left. They edited Luke 2:33 and Luke 2:48 where Joseph was twice called the 'father' of Jesus so that it did not say so, and they also edited Luke 3:22 where it plainly stated, in accordance with Ebionite beliefs. The victors get to write history, and it is Pauline Christianity that became the legacy of the Roman Empire. After the fourth century, the Ebionites were vanquished.

In discussing the works of Hippolytus and Epiphanius in relation to Josephus, and matching that information with the Dead Sea Scrolls, I believe that it brings us closer to the belief that the historical Jesus was a Nazarene who were a very humble sect of the Essenes, if not the most humble of all, and that sect of Nazarene called themselves Ebionites, who were not a heretical group but the first and justifiably correct, Christians.

Here is a video with some lost Nazarene information from author and researcher Ted Notthingham



www.newadvent.org...
www.newadvent.org...
www.vexen.co.uk...
www.sacred-texts.com...
www.biblical.ie...
www.earlyjewishwritings.com...

Dude. Good title, but man what a text you got there. On and on and on and I'm waiting to read about the heresy. Like I finally get to the place where you say heresy for the first time and I focus and still I cannot grasp what this heresy is you are talking about here. Is it like a dilution of the original teachings, the dogma or what.

How does Jesus having brothers negate the virgin birth?
a reply to: greyer

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
Dude. Good title, but man what a text you got there. On and on and on and I'm waiting to read about the heresy. Like I finally get to the place where you say heresy for the first time and I focus and still I cannot grasp what this heresy is you are talking about here. Is it like a dilution of the original teachings, the dogma or what.

Sorry man, next time I write a thread it will be 10 times shorter.

The specific heresy I cited for the title was Epiphanius writing in his work Against Heresies, originally the thread was just about that. The point was that the Ebionites were not heresy. Epiphanius is claiming heresy, but in quoting his arguments I show that they are not a heretical group but really the first Judaic-Christians, and his claims were either disinformation to the later world or a misconception. That was my mistake, because it brought the OP to be like a timeline.

Overall, I would say heresy is a dilution of original teachings. Heresy is either a gnostic attack against Christianity such as the gospel of Judas (where they take truths and change them around to be opposite, or encode them and make them hidden within the text) or it is an already existent pagan practice that incorporated Christian teachings into it's own doctrine, such as the archon literature.

originally posted by: guitarplayer
How does Jesus having brothers negate the virgin birth?
a reply to: greyer

Sorry that my writing of James seemed like I meant that. What negates the virgin birth is this:

We already knew the Greeks and Romans had the Mithras god and religion at the time of Jesus, which had comparisons to the even more ancient god Horus in Egypt. It was in both these mystery school religions that the virgin birth was preached. How do we know it compared with Christianity? Because December 25th is the winter solstice, and the 'birth' of the sun. Same thing with Easter, it has been established in the last century that Easter comes from paganism and the summer solstice.

As Christians, we all know that December 25th was not the birth of Christ - yet we still worship on that holiday. So why did they add that in the New Testament? Well in my OP, I have brought to our attention that the first Judaic-Christians opposed the virgin birth. So not only do we have multiple evidences opposing the virgin birth, but we have the first followers of Christ directly opposing the virgin birth.

Jesus did not have blood siblings. He may have had half-brothers, and he certainly had cousins, but not brothers. His mother Mary, spouse of The Holy Spirit, was a virgin and remained a virgin her entire life. She was the Ark of the New Covenant. Sinless. Full of Grace.

The first bishop of Rome, St. Peter, was also the first pope. The first leader of The Church, founded by Jesus himself.

There is no Aramaic word for cousin, or half-brother. The word they used instead was "brother". When the bible speaks of a brother of Jesus, and a parent other than Jospeh or Mary is mentioned elsewhere in the bible, logic would dictate that person was not a blood sibling of Jesus.

Given these facts, your hypothesis falls apart at the seams.





a reply to: greyer

originally posted by: Ignatian
Jesus did not have blood siblings. He may have had half-brothers, and he certainly had cousins, but not brothers.

There is no Aramaic word for cousin, or half-brother. The word they used instead was "brother". When the bible speaks of a brother of Jesus, and a parent other than Jospeh or Mary is mentioned elsewhere in the bible, logic would dictate that person was not a blood sibling of Jesus.

You have the Pauline teachings confused, the Pauline philosophy you believe in was Greek, not Aramaic, we don't have any copies of the Aramaic bible, we have the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the bible, that is an established fact with the Old Testament, and an argued theory with much evidence with the New Testament. But that is a whole other OP.

I can give you a long list of the references that mention the word 'Brother' and not half brother or cousin well after the bible that could have referenced the word half-brother or cousin. It is well established that the first Christians did not adhere to your beliefs.

Paul was a Roman, but he was an highly educated. Let us see that the Acts and the gospel of virgin birth were written in Greek by Luke. Paul was affluent in Greek. Paul was Luke counterpart. Luke has been debunked by scholars in being unreliable geographically. We are starting to see why in the beginning, the western Christianity that the whole US is called Pauline Christianity.

I am claiming the Jewish Christians - because I had to dig through the numerous evidence to provide that the Romans blamed the Jews for killing Jesus. The Jews have been hated with a passion for that lie. Remember that Paul persecuted the Christians. But it turns out when we find record historically, that Paul was persecuting the pillars of the church, Peter, and James, the brother of Jesus.

His mother Mary, spouse of The Holy Spirit, was a virgin and remained a virgin her entire life. She was the Ark of the New Covenant. Sinless. Full of Grace.

Remember how I was saying that Paul was educated. Well in that time, education came from the Greek who got educated from ancient Egypt. This was the mystery schools. They and the trinity, the mother of God, and the blood of the savior, symbolized with drinking the blood and eating the flesh, as wine and bread. They have made you think that 3 Gods are not one God because of an alleged miracle. But listen to what you are saying - God the Son, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit, now God the Mother? That is 4 Gods. That is against the new covenant, but that is against the law of Moses also. You you not only go with Pauline Christianity, which I can prove is a hypocrisy, but you reject the Old Testament.

The first bishop of Rome, St. Peter, was also the first pope.

Peter was crucified along with his brother James the Great in 47 CE
www.nazoreans.com...

I find it amusing that you would argue against all of the church fathers themselves, and yet you are not able to tell me why you are going against what they say. Yet I am the one here saying, "this is what the people who began the church are telling you". But it is only your ego which says "I go against what they say, and I don't even know why."

a reply to: greyer

As Christians, we all know that December 25th was not the birth of Christ - yet we still worship on that holiday. So why did they add that in the New Testament?

they didn't... December 25th isn't mentioned once in the New testament...

that date was established looong after Jesus died...

Interesting post though...

I would also suggest you read the dead sea scroll texts... they're not NT

So, how would you describe this "James the Great", his actual relation to Jesus, if I told you who his parents were? If his parents were not Joseph and Mary. Would you still call him His brother, if they had different parents?

Where did I ever refer to Mary as a God? She's the mother of God, incarnate. Spouse of The Holy Spirit. This is mainstream Christianity.


a reply to: greyer

originally posted by: Akragon
they didn't... December 25th isn't mentioned once in the New testament...

that date was established looong after Jesus died...

Interesting post though...

I would also suggest you read the dead sea scroll texts... they're not NT

I have read some of your interesting posts, there is still a lot for me to learn so my mind is very open in case I may have gotten any facts wrong.

I am organizing links to all of the DSS libraries I know of. The way I see the scrolls at this point in time is that if the Jews would have not been defeated at Masada, and if the Jews would have done the impossible and been successful in their revolt against the Romans, then the Hebrew New Testament (what we do not have today) would have resembled the scrolls in some way. But the scrolls are very extensive, they have all of the OT books and they have books that seem to elaborate on the OT books seeming to connect the OT with the new covenant, which would be the purpose of a NT.

Today we have completely lost touch with the new covenant, and I believe we do not know what it is. We have to look at what the ancient historians wrote and match it with the cover up of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In other literature the apostle Peter is screaming out into a world that does not hear his voice and still today, that the new covenant is the only religion and first religion of that era which refuted animal sacrifice.

The DSS have correlations to Gnostics, Essenes, and Ebionites to name a few. For example Robert Eisman says that the DSS make 56 references to themselves as 'the poor,' which is the Ebionite term we linked to Nazarene. The exciting part are the practices and rituals in the scrolls: the teachings. They are Essene, such as baptism and cold baths, waking up before dawn and praying, and vegetarianism. There is no way they can be mistaken though some of them existed in other cults. Now we have to guess which sect of the Essenes, because we have heard of Zealots, and we have heard Essenes that marry, and Essenes that are celibate, but we are guessing the Jesus was a Nazarene Essene.

But also the historic references that we have to the Essene sects, many can provide false information to throw us off. From my understanding it is this 'Way' that the Gentiles tried to take from the ancient Jews and make their own, at the same time they were overthrowing the actual sect, which gives us historic evidence that it is related to the Zealots and the apostles were well known world figures at the time with armies and many men behind them.

Let me go into detail to try to explain some of this. I am bringing up the Slavonic Josephus. It is ancient literature that nobody knows the date of, but it reads before the 3rd century, but you can tell it is backing the Jewish standpoint (So remember these were of the side that the Gentiles abolished). When all of the other Pauline literature doesn't back the Jewish stance, we can start to see how they discredit and how they really attempt to eliminate the Essene Way.

I looked up John the Baptizer from this material and compared it to the bible. Not only with John, but I have found ancient literature to provide evidence that Peter and James were also Essene, and the Romans tried to erase it from history. That is four individuals who can prove us all correlating evidence. Three references in the gospels, all say that John the Baptizer ate Locusts. Let's take a look at this from the Slavonic Josephus.

And when he had been brought to Archelaus and the doctors of the Law had assembled, they asked him who he is and where he has been until then. And to this he made answer and spake: "I am pure; [for] the Spirit of God hath led me on, and [I live on] cane and roots and tree-food

Not only did John admit something entirely different, look at this next reference closely:

But when they threatened to put him to torture if he would not cease from those words and deeds, he nevertheless said: "It is meet for you rather to cease from your heinous works and cleave unto the Lord your God." And there rose up in anger Simon, an Essæan by extraction, a scribe, and he spake: "We read every day the divine books. 12. But thou, only now come from the forest like a wild animal,—thou darest in sooth to teach us and to mislead the people with thy reprobate words." 13. And he rushed forward to do him bodily violence.

First of all, Essenes were not scribes for the Herodians. The story is saying that the Essene is hanging out with the king, and has anger towards John for coming out of the wilderness and condemning them. There is too much wrong with that. Essenes would have understood going out into the wilderness, for centuries their practice was to go out in the wilderness to pray away from people by themselves. They could have been the scribes, but certainly they were not standing up for Herod and they would have had the same viewpoint as John, but the story makes them out to be opposing John. So to me the literature confirms being tampered with, and also confirms that John did not eat locusts as the bible says he did. It doesn't matter if John was of a different Essene sect because none of them would eat locusts.

This is an example of the complete trickery and disinformation meant to confuse the readers of holy western literature, and meant to eliminate the Essene Way from history. I may seem crazy, but I am careful to see this because I have witnessed it many other places. Let us remember that the Jewish Christians made it known they opposed Pauline Christianity, but Pauline Christianity did not make known that it opposed the Jews (it did but not in the same way, it just put the blame of them).

originally posted by: greyer
But listen to what you are saying - God the Son, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit, now God the Mother? That is 4 Gods.

No one in Christianity ... neither Protestant nor Catholic ... call Mary 'God'.
The Holy Trinity is considered Father, Son and Holy Spirit. ONE GOD in three manifestations.
Mary is not part of that.

So the heretical, satanic mageia of the Persians allowed the three wise men to predict the birth of Jesus and then follow a star to him where they could shower him with love and sacred gifts? Do I have that right?

👣

originally posted by: Ignatian
So, how would you describe this "James the Great", his actual relation to Jesus, if I told you who his parents were? If his parents were not Joseph and Mary. Would you still call him His brother, if they had different parents?

Where did I ever refer to Mary as a God? She's the mother of God, incarnate. Spouse of The Holy Spirit. This is mainstream Christianity.

From what I have seen, I would suggest that the names of the parents would be different. In that day everybody had nicknames, and as a result most people had two names they were known by. It appears that some of the 12 apostles are characters that are nicknames and they all merge into each other.

I will let you on in some secret information. The lost Gospel of Thomas is not translated as the Gospel of Thomas, it is translated to Didymos Judas; Judas Twin Brother Judas. This is because Judas is the name of Jesus, and Twin Brother is because the author was saying that he was the twin of Jesus, saying that he knows Jesus the best. So I agree with you that is a lot of cases the term brother is not immediate family.

James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot; Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot

See, this is talking about the sons of Jesus, Jesus is Judas, as referenced in the Gospel of Thomas. The sons of Jesus was Simon and James, but the bible does a word play on Jesus's family - Judas Iscariot is another term for Zealot, it is a reference to Sicari. This quote from the gospel of Matthew is actually meaning: Jesus is a Zealot, and his sons were James and Simon. James and Simon were crucified by Agrippa on account of Josephus, they were put to the sword on account of the NT.

The most bold I think that the Christianity of Pauline, the one that is across the United States, is how they don't even mention James the brother of Jesus until after James the son of Jesus was slain, and they don't introduce him. They probably didn't mention a crucifixion because it would downplay Jesus. But it also could be possible that Jesus was slain by the sword, and his sons were crucified, that is the way Josephus has it. But there is an incredible wordplay with Peter, but when matched up to a revolutionary rival of Paul in a war together, it makes more sense why these things were recorded in history. We may not like the truth. I am just presenting that there is evidence to their trickery, you can be fooled if you do not look into it.

John 1:42, “So you are called Simon bar-Jona? You shall be called Cephas.” The trouble is, “Simon barjona” would mean “Simon the revolutionary,” even “Simon the terrorist.” Simon the Canaanean (“the Zealot”) is similarly rooted. In the Gethemane scene Simon is said to have been armed. To secure our identification of Simon Kepha as Simon bar Giora, we need only compare the accounts of each at the end of the Neronian period. Both go from Palestine to Rome, and bith are executed there. Josephus makes it very simple. “Simon, the son of Gioras, … had then been led in this triumph among the captives; a rope had also been put upon his head, and he had been drawn into a proper place in the forum, and had withal been tormented by those that drew him along; and the law of the Romans required that malefactors condemned to die should be slain there.” Simon was thrown off the Tarpeian Rock (a clear play on his title Kepha). Mark and Titus were in attendance no less than Vespasian and Domitian. Compare with this scene John 21b:18-19a, which lists the intitial steps of Simon’s execution, matching Josephus: “when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.’ This he said to indicate what sort of death by which he would glorify God.” But there is another version of the death in the Acts of Peter. A later writer has developed it into a crucifixion, assimilating his death to that of Jesus, so that Peter was supposedly hanged upside-down on a cross. The word for “upside down” in Aramaic is interesting: kepha, the very title pinned on the enemy of the Apostle once again.
therealmessiahbook.blogspot.com...

By the date of 36 CE, the largest religious party in Judea was the Nazarenes. James the Just, the leader of the Hebrew Nazarene Ecclesia in Jerusalem was quickly becoming the most prominent, the most popular, the most sought after religious leader by the Jewish peasants, the majority of the Essenes who had been converted to the Nazarene party by this time, the Zealots and the nationalists who admired James the Just as being a zealot for the law and later the Sicarii who for political purposes of their own were really in defense of James and the Nazarene Ecclesia.
www.biblesearchers.com...

Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
Matthew 13:55

Not only is that scripture referencing a family, but that is the direct family of Jesus by the evidence again - Judas, the sons of Judas James and Simon, the parents of Judas Mary and Joseph.

3 wise men? There were 3 gifts. There could have been 300, and there was most likely women also...as tradition says they asked for directions. :-)


a reply to: BlueMule

The OP title happened a long time ago, soon after the last apostle died.

In my opinion the heresy really got entrenched with the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century, where the real truth was branded as heresy. It wasn't until about the 1800's that ardent students of the bible were able to start to break free of centuries of lies heavily influenced by paganism. Lies like people living in a place called hell after they die.

I am of the believe that the Virgin was a nothing but myth and lore created by the early church to prop the biblical holy Jesus status, the image of the virgin "Mary" we see in ancient churches holding a "baby Jesus" is been linked to nothing more and nothing else than Magdalene wife of Jesus and mother of the Jesus blood line.

People are driven by faith when it comes to Christianity and any other religious believes, but is a side of Christianity that the early church and the modern church in the old world tried very hard to hide and still do so in this days and time.

originally posted by: BlueMule
So the heretical, satanic mageia of the Persians allowed the three wise men to predict the birth of Jesus and then follow a star to him where they could shower him with love and sacred gifts? Do I have that right?

People do not want me to day this, but I have caught the men of falsehood in their lies. Every miracle of the New Testament, and the whole document, is a fabrication attributed to the Gentiles. All of these details can be attributed to the Gentile mystery schools which took all of the paganism across the world and kept record of it. The rising in 3 days was well part of the ancient pagan religions before the time of Jesus. We have traced the knowledge of these pagan records to Paul, but also, the pagan influence still presented itself up to the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century. In the 4th century less than a week before the worship of god Isis who is the mother of Horus was banned, worship of the virgin Mary began earnestly. The story of Isis was literally just switched to Mary but every miracle in the New Testament is not a version of the pagan miracles but exactly the same miracle (for example Mithras turned water into wine at a wedding, the exact detail of a wedding and everything in the story is exactly the same to the gospels).

Now how do I know that the Dead Sea Scrolls were the real thing and the bible was fabricated? The fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls were covered up should tell you one thing, the ancient writings during the time of Jesus are kept a secret from the public, that explains enough.

Basically, the teachings of Peter and the teachings of the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that they are Essene by specific details. The teachings of the Essenes were very specific, as the pagan records. When we are told that the literature of Peter is not the truth, yet the literature of Peter makes specific Essene references we know for sure 100% that there is a connection. On the contrary when we read of the pagan references claiming to be the truth it explains the cover up. Peter calls Jesus a true Prophet whose teachings are the way to salvation. Modern Christians call Jesus a God whom you just have to believe in to be saved.

Let us take animal sacrifice for example, the Essene were the first ancient group to oppose animal sacrifice. Here is a quote from the Dead Sea Scrolls which links the Essenes to the scrolls. Line after line, the descriptions of the Essenes by ancient historians match them.

They shall atone for guilty rebellion and for sins of unfaithfulness that they may obtain loving kindness for the Land without the flesh of holocausts and the fat of sacrifice. And prayer rightly offered shall be as an acceptable fragrance of righteousness, and perfection of way as a delectable free-will offering.
-The Community Rule scroll

The Scrolls are saying that God no longer accepts animal sacrifice as righteous but a prayer offering of free will. Time after time, the scrolls and lost literature make references to the Essenes. It makes us understand why such an amount of heresy was created. It was mass produced by those who ruled the world, the Gentiles, and it was sold to everybody, copied into different languages and distributed to many lands. While the Jewish holy texts and books, were burned by the Gentiles. That is why the Scrolls were found in caves - they were hidden because the Gentiles wanted them burned and destroyed. Why? Because they disclosed the truth - the truth which does not control the world. They do not want us to have the truth because they want to control us. That is why some people talk about ties from the Gnostic texts to the illuminati. It is really sad, and very enraging when you figure it out. It fills me with so much hatred that the powerful rich people have turned away in order to mentally enslave and control the world. It fills me with so much frustration that I am a changed person, the only passion I have now is not the pitiful delusion of sexuality which females love to take advantage of anyway, but it is to shove in the faces of the elite rich people who hate their own species - THAT I AM FREE AND I AM NOT TRICKED BY YOUR LIES. It is this realization which will break people away from the fear they have of expressing themselves to a world that hates them - because if you express yourself without fear it means the general population will be jealous of you because they have not allowed themselves to break free - that is why people get jealous and why they try to put you down when they see you are up. Simply, they are controlled and they don't want to be, but you show them you oppose being controlled so you are not, it is really so pitiful when you look at the answer to why we experience such pitiful things in the world every day.

a reply to: greyer

Wow. Thanks for sharing, but wow. You're so wrong! What kind of polemical, ideologically-driven crap do you read? Never mind, I don't want to know.

Your entire conception of religion, myth, mysticism, and mystics such as Jesus is way, way off. Your exegesis is childish, your cross-cultural perception is myopic, you're a paranoid, ignorant extremist. No offense.

But, I love you anyway.



👣

originally posted by: FlyersFan
No one in Christianity ... neither Protestant nor Catholic ... call Mary 'God'.
The Holy Trinity is considered Father, Son and Holy Spirit. ONE GOD in three manifestations.
Mary is not part of that.

One thing about they way I write, and the way I speak, that people will argue with me forever, is that specific words should not be accounted for what they are but for what they mean. Why would anybody demand somebody to speak a certain word, when words can have more than one meaning? It is a hypocrisy to argue with someone over the word they choose and not to argue over what the meaning they convey.

On the contrary, you can always find a person arguing over what people mean, but you will never find that person giving you the information which causes their opponent to having meaning. For example everybody is arguing over their opinion of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but in their pages of arguments over their opinions they rarely state the literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls for what it actually is. As a result you have people arguing with other people over opinions which you can probably agree will be a never ending cycle of negativity.

Among Roman Catholics, the Madonna is recognized not only as the Mother of God, but also, according to modern Popes, as the Queen of the Universe, Queen of Heaven, Seat of Wisdom, and even the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. -Time Magazine 1991

When you are saying that a historical woman birthed a God and was a virgin, that means you are calling her even more than divine. Whether you say the word 'God' before her name or not. This is a goddess worship.

the dramatic spread of this false Virgin Mother doctrine throughout the known world. She was worshipped in Rome, Greece, Egypt, Babylon, China, Japan, and Tibet under different names. Pope Pius XI officially designated Mary the "Queen of Heaven" and "Queen of the World." The Bible specifically states that Jesus is the only way to get to heaven. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Mary is a co-redeemer.

I actually think there is an endless amount of evidence to support my "Words."

Finally, the cult of the worship of the Virgin Mother is drawing the many Feminists of the New Age Movement into her grasp. Mother and son worship is a perfect example of how Satan has set up a counterfit religion. His plan is to make a copy of Gods plan but make it so that humans will worship him

What they really don't want me to say (but sorry, the truth loves to anger the beholder of lies) - it seems like the women needed something to feel a self-purpose about. It is not so well known that the holy of ancient Israel strongly opposed women - because women were worldly creatures and strongly opposed holy men. (How can a woman love a holy man when she knows that she cannot sexually manipulate a holy man? Since she cannot manipulate him sexually, there is no interest in him anymore. Why do you think they say women like bad boys? A man can have all the muscle and looks but if he is good and faithful He Will Be Rejected by females, the world has not changed much over 2,000 years).

During the first centuries of the church, no emphasis was placed upon Mary whatsoever. it was not until the time of Constantine- the early part of the fourth century-that anyone began to look to Mary as a goddess. But even at this period, such worship was frowned upon by the church, as it is evident by the words of the Epiphanius who denounced certain woman of Thrace, Arabia, and elsewhere, for worshipping Mary as an actual goddess and offerings cakes at her shrine.Yet, within just a few more years, Mary worship was not only considered by what is known today as the Catholic Church, but it became one of her main doctrines-as it is today.
-ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA

Well the next reference shows that leaders of Christian reform were liars, forget hypocrisy - they were just outright liars, such as the LIAR Martin Luther.

This article of faith- that Mary is the Mother of God- is present in the Church from the beginning and is not a new creation of the council but the presentation of the Gospel and the Scriptures."
-Martin Luther's Works,

Let us look at the opposition of the argument, and watch how they are complete HYPOCRITES to what they are saying in the same sentence even. I do not know why people are so forthcoming and willing to a be a hypocrite, as if they believe being a hypocrite is part of their religion and hypocrisy itself is going to save them -

every Catholic knows that Jesus was born of Mary so that He could become Man. If she were some kind of divine being, how could He have derived His humanity from her? We call her the Mother of God because Jesus is God and she is His Mother.

First they say Jesus is a Man, then they say Jesus was a God... What did Jesus say about himself? He was the Son of Man. What did Jesus say about you? You are a God. Go ahead and take my words and do what you want with them, because I know that it will be impossible to come up with an informed decision about what scripture has in it's 'Words.' Because the world has penetrated the minds of religious people so thoroughly, that they now believe the lies of wicked men many times more than what Jesus said, what John said, what James said, what Peter said... How pitiful is that how people would believe a hypocrite over believing the apostles, or the man they call a God? It is really unfathomable to think how much ignorance exists in the name of religion. See, this is why the Gentiles saw religion as an opportunity to control people - and it completely worked to the point of people denying what the apostles said and believing what some unknown hypocrite said. It just baffles me to the greatest extent how the ego of human beings can be in such opposition for the sake of denial, for the sake of selfishness - they are so selfish to believe what they attribute to being right that anything in opposition will be denied Before being considered. I believe this was God's joy to humble the prideful and to keep them in delusion because they are too prideful.

Nothing will bring me satisfaction but the judgement of God. I would like nothing more than to point my figure in the face of a liar, and call him a liar. Because of his lies, innocent people are led away from God. That is a sin that deserves punishment. Yet I understand my place that it is not up to me to punish him. I will quote from the Dead Sea Scrolls now.

They shall rebuke one another in truth, humility, and charity. Let no man address his companion with anger, or ill-temper, or obduracy, or with envy prompted by the spirit of wickedness. Let him not hate him in the wickedness of an uncircumcised heart, but let him rebuke him on the very same day lest he incur guilt because of him.

I will pay to no man the reward of evil;

I will pursue him with goodness.
For judgement of all the living is with God
and it is He who will render to man his reward.

I will not envy in a spirit of wickedness,
my soul shall not desire the riches of Violence.

I will not grapple with the men of perdition
until the Day of Revenge,
but my wrath shall not turn from the men of falsehood
and I will not rejoice until judgement is made.

originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: greyer

Wow. Thanks for sharing, but wow. You're so wrong! What kind of polemical, ideologically-driven crap do you read? Never mind, I don't want to know.

Your entire conception of religion, myth, mysticism, and mystics such as Jesus is way, way off. Your exegesis is childish, your cross-cultural perception is myopic, you're a paranoid, ignorant extremist. No offense.

But, I love you anyway.

That is amusing, because first you ask me what 'crap I read' when I am citing almost every reference, then your words are disrespecting, an example 'childish.' Really you are a perfect example of how I am claiming modern Christians to be, so I thank you for your post so that I can explain to everyone what kind of problem this is, and how it is a prevalent problem in this age.

Then we come to this act of you saying that you love me which can be tied into the very deep and complex psychological things that are happening as part of this problem. 'You loving me,' is disproved by your actions. It is a great manipulation that lovers do to each other, and in turn create deep sadness in each other (or the one that cares) - because they do not understand what it means to be righteous, and they manipulate the emotions of others by acting differently than they say, acting different than according to their words, meaning something different than their acting.

It is not love and faith which God wants most. Good deeds and good actions were requested of God in the bible much more than you can think of. That is the main difference between my recognition of the truly holy, and your recognition of Pauline Christianity. So I understand your thoughts to be wrong and I can explain every little detail as to why, and I can provide outsources of evidence to comply with my details. One cannot take into consideration about any of your thoughts since you already proved yourself by action.

But I will give you a quote from the Dead Sea Scrolls which shows that I follow teachings which are righteous, and it shows that I am careful to follow the teachings, and it shows you don't acknowledge or care about the teachings ( I am not being hard on you, and I am saying that it common to be ignorant in this). So when time for Judgement comes - I am following the teachings - and you are being disrespectful without citing a reference for why you are feeling such emotions. That is very unrighteous. Well if you don't act like you love me, how many years are you going to tell me that you love me? And in all those years of saying that you love me, are you ever going to show an action of love to me? Are you ever going to speak respectfully to me in all those years of saying that you love me? Because I have met people who once they spoke disrespectfully, they could never respect me again since they have no forgiveness, and if they said they have love, they would be like you. Or are you going to deny that you love me, because you have come to the realization that it is better to be truthful with yourself than to oppose God.

This is why the new covenant puts such emphasis on truth and that the wicked oppose the truth - because in hypocrisy you are able to hide your lies and make people believe that your lies are the truth. But if they just went by judging your actions and not by any of your words they would consider you full of hatred and disrespect. That is taking advantage of the soul, like a woman who thinks she has power because of sexuality, it is only true because the soul exists, if the soul was not good than it would not react as it does. Is it because you don't have any reference to why you think that I am wrong? You think that presenting me with an idea without backing it up is going to change anything? I am writing about Falsehood, there are not many people who even study at such length and are determined enough to call it out, but there are many who are determined to be selfish and egotistical, again in direct opposition to the teachings of the bible. So really you must be jealous that I am doing this, or you are jealous because you are not doing this. You are also upset because your soul knows you are believing in lies but your mind does not know. That is acting based on your emotions based on delusion and you cannot cite any truth which leads you to act that way. However again, I can recite truth for why I act this way, all the truths of the Law. But surely I am not here to convince you not to believe the people who have lied to you, though I am going to keep referencing ancient scripture that well verifies everything I say is correct. Actually I cited this on the last post, but it is meant for you.

They shall rebuke one another in truth, humility, and charity. Let no man address his companion with anger, or ill-temper, or obduracy, or with envy prompted by the spirit of wickedness.

The teachings go much further into what respect is, and what respect is not. They are something that I follow. It is you of the world who say that respect must be earned. In righteousness, it is only trust that needs to be earned. In righteousness, love is shown by action to be unconditional. But righteousness is action, so according to you, it may not be warranted. These people are taught that actions are greater than words, and are taught that body language is more communicative than words, but they do acknowledge the teachings. Why do they not acknowledge what was taught to them? Why do they accuse me without teaching me? It is just to show disrespect? Is it just to show that they do not love me? Is it to show they do not love themselves? Would go against what they say? It doesn't mean they are hypocrites, in every sense of the word, if I can thoroughly explain exactly why they are hypocrites. I can explain exactly why they have negative emotions. I can explain why, they really don't have love.

Now everybody out there, don't believe that somebody loves you based on what they tell you. Believe somebody loves you based on how they act towards you. If you take only one teaching from me, take that. Abusive relationships are a reality and do not believe in those lies. I was recently tried taken advantage of - I met a new friend and they tried texting me all day, and basically controlling me. it took less them two days for them to understand that I cannot be controlled because I have a free will. Then they looked at me with this unmistakable face, they were playfully upset, and it was because they did not win. But I am not playing a darn game. I just appreciate being able to make my own choices, without any effect on another person. Currently I have people in my life, which it seems going back that I always have had different people the same, who make choices based on the effect of me, and it angers me, it is negative, it is unholy, and I don't have any control of what people do.