Thomas is "the twin" of Jesus because Thomas is Tammuz

I suppose it is well known that the ancient Hebrew women "weep for Tammuz" and that when Christ is being crucified the women are recorded as having wept.

Then you have Thomas the twin. Why he is so called is a mystery to most but when you realize that Thomas is a pun for Tammuz it becomes obvious that is the reason he is called "twin'', because Christ is Tammuz.

Whether or not Jesus existed Tammuz is the original child born on Dec 25 and the original Trinity is Nimrod/Tammuz/Semiramis.

Semiramis is also Ishtar or Easter, another Babylon/Catholicism connection.

Tammuz was Nimrod "ressurected" and a miracle child called a shepherd.

To conclude, the authors of the New Testament simply combined Babylonian idolatry with Messianic Judaism and produced Catholicism and the New Testament.

Removing the Catholic identity from the New Testament doesn't change the fact that the "twin" Thomas is a play on words for Tammuz.

For those with eyes to see.

a reply to: Muffenstuff

Cool story, bro. Still doesn't make this guy anything like Jesus, sorry. It's well known that Christmas isn't really Jesus' birthday. That was sometime in January or something if I am remembering correctly.

So I guess what I'm saying is...what's your point?

originally posted by: rukia
a reply to: Muffenstuff

Cool story, bro. Still doesn't make this guy anything like Jesus, sorry. It's well known that Christmas isn't really Jesus' birthday. That was sometime in January or something if I am remembering correctly.

So I guess what I'm saying is...what's your point?

That Jesus was copied from the story of Tammuz, that it is the reason Thomas, a play on words of Tammuz, is called twin.

Simple really, and my point is obvious and stated in the OP.

What's your point?, is a way better question.

a reply to: rukia

When the maybe real human Yeshua was born is irrelevant.

What is relevant is most Christians celebrate his birthday on Dec. 25.

The same day as Tammuz birthday. The traditions of Christmas are all related to Tammuz and Nimrod (the first "Santa")

I guess you have some learning to do, I don't know what else to tell you.

Interesting correlation between DUMUZI and LORD JESUS CHRIST...

His name, usually written as "dumu.zi" means literally "rightful son"; Thorkild Jacobsen in his master work "The Treasures of Darkness" prefers "Quickener of the Young in the Mother´s Womb". In Hebrew and Aramaic, Dumuzi is called Tammuz in Hebrew and Aramaic.

www.gatewaystobabylon.com...

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Your link speaks of a "Shepherd Tammuz" and just as interestingly a "Fisherman Tammuz.''

I can not see that being a coincidence. Peter may correlate to the fisherman as well as Jesus himself.

a reply to: Muffenstuff

but I already know all of that.

You must not have understood my problem. Which is mainly with your title.

You say he's the 'twin'.

So...since he isn't. And since the only proof you have is arbitrary and vague, I asked what your point was. So sorry if that offended you or something.

a reply to: rukia

I wasn't nor had no reason to be offended.

I am actually spot on, don't need confirmation from you and if you have a better reason why Thomas WAS called the twin I would LOVE to hear it.

If you think the mere use of the words arbitrary and vague are any sort of refutation or even true your just not making the connection, nothing arbitrary OR vague about what I said if you know your stuff.

a reply to: rukia

Thought so.

FYI Tammuz means ''twin born" and Thomas means twin in Aramaic as does his Greek epithet Didymus.

So your problem with my title stems from a lack of knowledge, not something you should have a problem with me over or my title.

Acts of Thomas calls him the twin and speaks of the fact that Thomas was given the secret teachings a la Gospel of Thomas, which also calls him twin.

You may as well debate the authenticity of a Thestral in harry Potter for all that it is worth. Listening to this pan out sounds like the most absurd thought process...Charizar is the best Pokemon and is yellow pink !...no no its yellow red !

originally posted by: rukia
a reply to: Muffenstuff

but I already know all of that.

You must not have understood my problem. Which is mainly with your title.

You say he's the 'twin'.

I said it because it Thomas and Didymus both mean twin.

So...since he isn't.

Is.

And since the only proof you have is arbitrary and vague, I asked what your point was. So sorry if that offended you or something.

I think you know better by now so I will let you go to Wikipedia and find out on your own how incorrect you are. I don't wish to embarrass you, you just happen to not have all the facts and need to learn before accusing someone who isn't, of being wrong.

a reply to: Muffenstuff

Because women wept for Jesus and 1500 years earlier, some women wept for Tammuz, they are one and the same.

Geeniyus.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Muffenstuff

Because women wept for Jesus and 1500 years earlier, some women wept for Tammuz, they are one and the same.

Geeniyus.

One and the same? No.

As I said the Gospel authors combined the legend of the Mesopotamian Tammuz with Messianic Judaism and created the myth of Christ.

I actually do think you are a little upset about how logical it actually is and are not responding with any form of logic or reason.

You totally misinterpreted what I said because you know what I ACTUALLY said and ACTUALLY meant makes perfect sense.

But thanks for the genius compliment, although I don't agree (that I am a genius) I just enjoy learning and connecting dots. I have actually done a fine job and came up with a very original topic, not easy to do.

It's just lost on you, let me take a wild guess, you are a Catholic?

originally posted by: Muffenstuff
a reply to: rukia

Thought so.

FYI Tammuz means ''twin born" and Thomas means twin in Aramaic as does his Greek epithet Didymus.

So your problem with my title stems from a lack of knowledge, not something you should have a problem with me over or my title.

Acts of Thomas calls him the twin and speaks of the fact that Thomas was given the secret teachings a la Gospel of Thomas, which also calls him twin.

I thought Judas Thomas, called Didymus (twin), was the brother of James the Just according to the Acts of Thomas.

It really depends on which Gnostic text you pay credence to, 'cause they just can't seem to agree.

PS: hi, Gnosifaith Padawan. Been nearly a week after the last ban.

a reply to: chr0naut

I don't need to use Gnostic texts. Thomas is Aramaic for twin and a play on words of Tammuz.

Didymus is Greek for twin.

A hint that is apparently lost on you.

Everything I said makes perfect sense so deal with it. Mystery Babylon.

originally posted by: Muffenstuff

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Muffenstuff

Because women wept for Jesus and 1500 years earlier, some women wept for Tammuz, they are one and the same.

Geeniyus.

One and the same? No.

As I said the Gospel authors combined the legend of the Mesopotamian Tammuz with Messianic Judaism and created the myth of Christ.

I actually do think you are a little upset about how logical it actually is and are not responding with any form of logic or reason.

You totally misinterpreted what I said because you know what I ACTUALLY said and ACTUALLY meant makes perfect sense.

But thanks for the genius compliment, although I don't agree (that I am a genius) I just enjoy learning and connecting dots. I have actually done a fine job and came up with a very original topic, not easy to do.

It's just lost on you, let me take a wild guess, you are a Catholic?

A few very tenuous similarities does not make it "logical".

A brief read of what Tammuz and Jesus were about would indicate that they were not similar.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Muffenstuff
a reply to: rukia

Thought so.

FYI Tammuz means ''twin born" and Thomas means twin in Aramaic as does his Greek epithet Didymus.

So your problem with my title stems from a lack of knowledge, not something you should have a problem with me over or my title.

Acts of Thomas calls him the twin and speaks of the fact that Thomas was given the secret teachings a la Gospel of Thomas, which also calls him twin.

I thought Judas Thomas, called Didymus (twin), was the brother of James the Just according to the Acts of Thomas.

It really depends on which Gnostic text you pay credence to, 'cause they just can't seem to agree.

Actually, Acts of Thomas and the Gospel of Thomas aren't really Gnostic. No religion called Gnosticism existed.

They are just Christian writings that weren't canonized for reasons I care little about.

PS: hi, Gnosifaith Padawan. Been nearly a week after the last ban.

Ok now I know that you have issues because I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Going off topic doesn't bother me but lies do. Don't lie about me please. I can tolerate all the disagreements in the world but don't mess me up with lies. Whoever you are talking about that got banned isn't me, I didn't know you could get banned #1 and #2 I realize you are trying to get me banned by accusing me of being previously banned. Dirty, dirty, dirty.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Muffenstuff

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Muffenstuff

Because women wept for Jesus and 1500 years earlier, some women wept for Tammuz, they are one and the same.

Geeniyus.

One and the same? No.

As I said the Gospel authors combined the legend of the Mesopotamian Tammuz with Messianic Judaism and created the myth of Christ.

I actually do think you are a little upset about how logical it actually is and are not responding with any form of logic or reason.

You totally misinterpreted what I said because you know what I ACTUALLY said and ACTUALLY meant makes perfect sense.

But thanks for the genius compliment, although I don't agree (that I am a genius) I just enjoy learning and connecting dots. I have actually done a fine job and came up with a very original topic, not easy to do.

It's just lost on you, let me take a wild guess, you are a Catholic?

A few very tenuous similarities does not make it "logical".

A brief read of what Tammuz and Jesus were about would indicate that they were not similar.

I am going to have to just flat out disagree. You made a statement but not a logical one.

My premise is entirely logical so forgive me if I don't consider your comments serious debate, you obviously have an emotional investment and I don't want to insult your religion but it is what it is. I have said nothing that is not a logical deduction from all available information.

You wish you could refute me and I am sure you will try but pardon me in advance if I take into account your probable bias as a (likely) member of the religion of Catholicism or Christianity and have a difficult time taking you seriously. But you sound like you have no regard for truth and prefer superstition.

I have no problem with that, it isn't going to change anything I say or do.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Muffenstuff

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Muffenstuff

Because women wept for Jesus and 1500 years earlier, some women wept for Tammuz, they are one and the same.

Geeniyus.

One and the same? No.

As I said the Gospel authors combined the legend of the Mesopotamian Tammuz with Messianic Judaism and created the myth of Christ.

I actually do think you are a little upset about how logical it actually is and are not responding with any form of logic or reason.

You totally misinterpreted what I said because you know what I ACTUALLY said and ACTUALLY meant makes perfect sense.

But thanks for the genius compliment, although I don't agree (that I am a genius) I just enjoy learning and connecting dots. I have actually done a fine job and came up with a very original topic, not easy to do.

It's just lost on you, let me take a wild guess, you are a Catholic?

A few very tenuous similarities does not make it "logical".

A brief read of what Tammuz and Jesus were about would indicate that they were not similar.

Actually, a brief comparison does indicate that much was borrowed from the myth of Tammuz.

An in depth investigation leaves no doubt that the myth of Christ is a "reboot" of Tammuz and that the authors left many clues to indicate that.

You should look into Catholic symbolism, papal regalia mimics the Babylonian religion rather blatantly and the first and most obvious clue is the shared birthday of Dec. 25.

So I don't see how you could miss it yet you do. In conclusion Babylonian polytheism + Messianic Judaism= Catholicism and the New Testament Gospels.

Unfortunately the New Testament - Catholicism doesn't change that FACT.