Paul says Jesus is the Devil in Acts

da reply to: vethumanbeing


This bloodline conspiracy is too far a reach for you too?

originally posted by: backcase
da reply to: veteranhumanbeing


This bloodline conspiracy is too far a reach for you too?

OH YES, too far a reach. The OP has not built a convincing argument; its flailing around (stabbing in the dark) using moldy old 1990s idea forms of the conspiratorial nature (without referencing how it came to such beliefs). It is interesting someone else said on this thread regarding the OP: "those that seek to be enlightened (as they beg for it) are the least of which to be recognized/gifted with it.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I would say it is in the maturity of the intentions of the ones seeking to be enlightened. Before I studied enlightenment avidly seeking to open my third eye, and open my chakras out of a childish curiosity. I found that I did more harm than good.

I delved into occult literature when all I needed was to relax and excel in virtue by love and effort, to God and to all people.

I was like one who was thrown about by every wind of doctrine. But no longer, I will be patient and wait on the Lord.

originally posted by: backcase
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I would say it is in the maturity of the intentions of the ones seeking to be enlightened. Before I studied enlightenment avidly seeking to open my third eye, and open my chakras out of a childish curiosity. I found that I did more harm than good.
I delved into occult literature when all I needed was to relax and excel in virtue by love and effort, to God and to all people.
I was like one who was thrown about by every wind of doctrine. But no longer, I will be patient and wait on the Lord.

Your natural capacity for understanding allowed this; you cannot take on anymore than your psyche can handle (otherwise self destruct) as this would not be a positive growth scenario (the universe is based upon growth potential). I wonder why one has to look to specific dogmas for truth; they all retain a partial truth of the whole; but the WHOLE is not easy to attain. You are seeking this. No harm ever came of trying something new and rejecting it, as in doing so you become 'discriminating'--this is the first sephiroth; Malkuth (matter form recognizes itself as being animated) on the Qabala tree of knowledge (sometimes called the tree of life: A misnomer to confuse the human) Congratulations; you are doing just fine as you rid yourself of silly distractions right away AND ARE IN AWARENESS of it.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

That is interesting. I think many secrets can be found from studying that history, I think I am still a couple hundred years previous. It sounds to me like many more lies surrounding more few truths.

I found a site that showed 61 references from the first Christians to the Essenes referenced by ancient historians and philosophers. I will be posting that, but tonight I found a reference all by myself.

The Works of Lucian of Samosata

VOLUME IV The Death of Peregrine

The Christian communities put themselves to the expense of sending deputations, with offers of sympathy, assistance,
and legal advice. The activity of these people, in dealing with any matter that affects their community, is something extraordinary; they spare no trouble, no expense. Peregrine, all this time, was making quite an income on the strength of his bondage; money came pouring in. You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on trust, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.

The Essenes were the Only Jewish sect that observed this type of faith and Way.

I also found evidence of Paul founding the false religion when looking up Barnabas.

Barnabas went to Antioch to encourage the believers, “Having come and having seen the grace of God, he rejoiced and he urged all to cleave to the Lord with sincerity of heart”. Then he went to Tarsus, and brought the Apostle Paul to Antioch, where for about a year they taught the people. It was here that the disciples first began to be called Christians. With the onset of famine, and taking along generous alms, Paul and Barnabas returned to Jerusalem.

Taking generous alms?? Does that sound like creating a church to take money from the poor? It doesn't sound like true Christianity to me. Western Christianity yes. Pauline Christianity yes. But the truth, I sincerely doubt it.

And of course I can't help but come across more lies from Paul.

Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean
Rom 14:20-21
As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself.
Rom 14:13-14

The Christians gave meat and drink to him; under their protection he lacked nothing, and this luxurious state of things went on for some time. At last he got into trouble even with them; I suppose they caught him partaking of some of their forbidden meats. They would have nothing more to do with him.
-The Works of Lucian of Samosata

Time and time again, we see ancient reference to the Christians that CONTRADICT Paul's teachings of Gentile Christianity from the white man to the white man, removing Jewish practice and law from western history. Except I don't worship liars...

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Indeed, but only a few made it into the Bible, right?

4 that I can recall, two in the OT and two in the NT.

originally posted by: greyer
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I found a site that showed 61 references from the first Christians to the Essenes referenced by ancient historians and philosophers. I will be posting that, but tonight I found a reference all by myself.

Both Jesus and 'John the Baptist' were Essenes (gnostic). Neither one was known/identified as being anything remotely "Christian" during their lifetimes. I did not have to say this as is a 'no brainer'.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

John the Baptist was unfit to tie the sandals of Jesus. I would disagree that they were essenes. They were both loyal to the old law, the Spirit of it any way.

originally posted by: backcase
a reply to: vethumanbeing

John the Baptist was unfit to tie the sandals of Jesus. I would disagree that they were essenes. They were both loyal to the old law, the Spirit of it any way.

They were Essenes. They were not 'loyal' to the old law; only as salutary (recognizing and having a decent understanding of the Torah that needed amending is all). They were also masters of the ancient Egyptian mystery schools, (might be a dichotomy rearing its head here; and why this is not commercially known). Combine the Ankh and Cross into one; (OOPS ALREADY CREATED) just invent another holiday to sell it.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

You are in error to believe that.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Hmmm. Sure it's not me confusing you?

POSITIVE!

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Both Jesus and 'John the Baptist' were Essenes (gnostic).

Absurd. Both confirmed the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob and He cannot be reconciled with the god according to Gnosticism.

originally posted by: backcase
a reply to: vethumanbeing

You are in error to believe that.

But I have NO 'belief system' at all regarding these things; so am not committing any error (to your mind a false belief that challenges yours).

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Both Jesus and 'John the Baptist' were Essenes (gnostic).

Absurd. Both confirmed the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob and He cannot be reconciled with the god according to Gnosticism.

Yes this sounds reasonable; however, they parted ways with traditional Judaism; originally a Pagan ideology turned monotheist god Yahweh, his demi god son Abraham and his sub demi sons; plus the super powerful 12 sub sub demi tribes, as well. If this were not so, there would be no reason for what is now called Christian ideology/nothing to rebel against as the Jewish dogmatic tradition was JUST FINE as it existed (would have rolled with it). What is this business of 'confirming'; more an act of respect for the history of this belief system and those that practiced it. In saying; they as Gnostics; were NOT RECONCILED to practice this form of Hebraic faith and broke from it (guess it just didn't resonate with their understanding of who and what "god" is and their understanding of that relationship). I think the Essenes also had a small problem with the continued pagan practice of sacrificing animals to 'God' in its name.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

It doesn't really challenge me because for my mind the support you use to validate your claims are contradicted by the gospel. It is no support at all in my opinion.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Both Jesus and 'John the Baptist' were Essenes (gnostic).

Absurd. Both confirmed the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob and He cannot be reconciled with the god according to Gnosticism.

I think its quite possible they were all Essenes... And from what I have found they have no connection to what you consider to be "the Gnostic's"

Remember despite what most people these days seem to believe, the gnostic writers didn't consider themselves "gnostic's" nor were they a part of some religion called Gnosticism which has emerged recently because of the discoveries at Nag Hammadi... Gnostics were simply writers that didn't have the wide exposure that the orthodox religions did

the Essenes did not have issues with the god of the OT... IF they did the dead sea scrolls would probably not exist... it seems they just weren't so quick to dismiss texts like the orthodox church was... or destroy the ones they didn't agree with either I would assume

originally posted by: backcase
a reply to: vethumanbeing

It doesn't really challenge me because for my mind the support you use to validate your claims are contradicted by the gospel. It is no support at all in my opinion.

I make no claims to a belief system; so there is no need for the support of such and not contradictory at all (no need to validate). I recognize the gospels are meaningful to those that resonate to/with their message and applaud you. I am curious; In what way do the gospels contradict me?

originally posted by: Akragon
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing

VHB
Both Jesus and 'John the Baptist' were Essenes (gnostic).

NOTurTypical: Absurd. Both confirmed the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob and He cannot be reconciled with the god according to Gnosticism.

Akragon: I think its quite possible they were all Essenes... And from what I have found they have no connection to what you consider to be "the Gnostic's".
Remember despite what most people these days seem to believe, the gnostic writers didn't consider themselves "gnostic's" nor were they a part of some religion called Gnosticism which has emerged recently because of the discoveries at Nag Hammadi... Gnostics were simply writers that didn't have the wide exposure that the orthodox religions did
the Essenes did not have issues with the god of the OT... IF they did the dead sea scrolls would probably not exist... it seems they just weren't so quick to dismiss texts like the orthodox church was... or destroy the ones they didn't agree with either I would assume

Yes. The word gnostic 'applied' did not come about until the Nag Hammadi library was discovered. There is no religion called 'Gnosticism", as is a philosophy including: mans true relationship to a higher creator, communal living, fairness, too much to say here; but it truly was supposed to be the basis for what Christian doctrine should be (no one seems to understand this). To be within Gnosis is to "know the truth"; and this means as a human being you become enlightened; in so doing/being have a direct personal relationship with your creator that does not have to include an organization that purports/promotes a specific Dogma.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

When John the Baptist says "I am not worthy to tie his sandals", or when Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the light", or when he says "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that kill your ancestors and stone your prophets. For long I have desired to gather you under my wings like a hen fires her babies, but you will not let me."

Or when he says "you must eat MY flesh and drink MY blood, else you have no life in you".

originally posted by: backcase
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing

When John the Baptist says "I am not worthy to tie his sandals", or when Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the light", or when he says "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that kill your ancestors and stone your prophets. For long I have desired to gather you under my wings like a hen fires her babies, but you will not let me."

Or when he says "you must eat MY flesh and drink MY blood, else you have no life in you".

How can I be of/in division with these statements/testaments? I recognize the sentiments as good and true advice to impart to others; however, I am not of the school of thinking: "if you cant beat'um join them". Here is a question for you; why latch onto one faith only, there are 4 other majors out there that carry a truth within them; if groked all five without discrimination at once; one would think you could achieve the first step to enlightenment; as to what being in 'gnosis' means.