The two «Theria» of Revelation 13

Much of Revelation seems to contain quite a lot of wordplay between Hebrew and Greek. Earlier I have explained how 666 when written in Hebrew gematria sounds just like Gr. Ταρσῷ «Tarso» dative of «Tarsos» (like Saulus who they call st. Paul). Here's another. Still the beast in question, and still quite advanced, but here goes:

Strong's H2961 תרי or as it reads in Isaiah, Heb. תריה «Teria» is an adjective that sounds very much like the plural of Strong's G2342 Gr. θηρία «Theria». The Hebrew word Teria is used twice in the Hebrew OT (two horns), in Judges 15:15 and Isaiah 1:6, and it means «raw» or «fresh» and his dragon tongue probably refers to how these two words are in fact completely unrelated other than they sound similar, like slang using foreign words with completely unrelated definitions, or just like how 666 reads as Heb. תרסו and sounds identical to Greek Ταρσῷ (found once in NT, in Acts 22:3, where Saulus says he was born «en Tarso» which means «in Tarsos»).

Now, in Isaiah 1:6 Strong's H2961 in the form Heb. תריה is used to describe «fresh» (Heb. Teriah) wounds (as in the wound of the Beast) that needs healing (like the wound of the Beast, which is healed).

In Judges 15:15 it describes the «fresh» jawbone («Lehi») Samson apparently used to slay 1000 Philistines with. This story is probably a sort of allegory as to a strategic advantage Samson took of the terrain where he tossed his jawbone apparently giving name to Ramath-Lehi apparently Beth-Shemesh today, located to the south of the Sea of Galilee.

So the Greek word for (plural) Beasts used in NT sounds exactly like a Hebrew word that is used to describe wounds («The Seven Ceasars», Caesar means «Wound») and a massacre (like the Sacking of Jerusalem or the Seige of Masada or for that matter the thousands of Christians who were tossed to the lions in Circus Maximus). Rome. However, who holds the power of the world today? Who has tried to revive the Roman Empire and challenge world domination? Nazi-Germany. Who continues to mimic the Roman Empire to dominate world supremacy? USA.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

That is especially interesting in light of the beast with the wound that was healed.

the more I study Revelation, the more it becomes clear to me that its main corpus was designed in order to defame Saulus (or Pseudopaulus AKA st. Paul) as the 666/616 Antichrist/False Prophet who served the «Seven Caesars» and who reaped and interrogated Christians on behalf of the Caesars and Rome publicly. The fact (or my theory) that Jesus was the only true Caesar alive, made Saulus reveal his Roman fetish, in Phillipans 4:21 where he threatens Jesus' family making sure every Christian knows what sort of destiny he has ahead of him. Who are these people from the House of Caesar that the Philippans knew that Saulus so much wanted to greet? Family of Jesus? What if I told you that the whole NT except the Gospel of John and Revelation was designed and doctored by Rome to fit agenda? What if I told you that Pseudopaulus killed more Christians than any other Judeo-Roman interrogator in his time? What if I told you that Saulus was a bounty hunter preying on early Christians? What if everything you believe and have been taught to believe is utter bollocks and evil? What if I told you that St. Paul was the equivalent of a Nazi SS Hauptsturmführer? Or a petty SA private trying to save his own Jewish skin? What if I told you that The Seven Caesars were the Antichrist (the false Caesars) and that St. Paul served as their False Prophet?

What if I told you that St. Paul was the equivalent of a Nazi SS Hauptsturmführer?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Why write a book of cryptic secrets against a man who was already hated by both Jews and Romans alike? If John had a problem with Paul, I think he would have been blunt about it.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Saulus was never hated by both Rome and the Jews, he was their main inquisitor. Saulus is interrogating Peter and the other Christians in the forums. Everything he makes Peter et al bear witness about are crimes against Rome and Judaism. You have misunderstood the whole thing. Saulus drags them with him and put them in front of everybody, the Elders, the Roman authorities, he is let out from prison when he reminds the authorities that after he blinded Jesus' son (acts 13) he is to be counted as a Paulus. The Paulus family was a Roman noble family and you can read about them in the annals of Rome. He thrived with his Roman nobility immunity and he could force Peter and the others to follow him wherever he went. Saulus and Barnabas were bounty hunters and they sold Christians to Rome on behalf of the Pharisees and the Elders. It's obvious if you read the texts without all the Sunday School bollocks. Saulus is the False Prophet working on behalf of the Beast.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Do you have any historical data to support this theory. I mean other than your interpretation of the Bible?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Why write a book of cryptic secrets against a man who was already hated by both Jews and Romans alike? If John had a problem with Paul, I think he would have been blunt about it.

Paul was not hated by the Romans, since he was Roman by birth. That's how he saved his own arse when in it was in the sling....and they came and ushered him out to save him.
He was hated by the Jews because he taught the "law" was no longer in effect. So...what did he do? He went to the gentiles (after stealing that from Peter), and taught them Mithraism (with a twist). Paul made up his own "gospel" to preach to the gentiles who didn't know any better. They had no clue about the Jewish "laws".
Not saying I agree with the Jewish Laws OR YHWH.....I just find it comical that Paul was able to not only save his own butt when in the hot seat, but he was also very good at lying and stealing away from the true "Son" the gospel of the "Kingdom".
Christians think that Jesus is YHWH...or something to that effect. He wasn't. Jesus was born right into the middle of the imposter's rule...to come and break it. He may have been Jewish by birth, but He was something else entirely....and that's why He's still making an impact on people's lives, even today.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Paul was not hated by the Romans, since he was Roman by birth. That's how he saved his own arse when in it was in the sling....and they came and ushered him out to save him. He was hated by the Jews because he taught the "law" was no longer in effect. So...what did he do? He went to the gentiles (after stealing that from Peter), and taught them Mithraism (with a twist). Paul made up his own "gospel" to preach to the gentiles who didn't know any better. They had no clue about the Jewish "laws".

Quite a spiel you have been indoctrinated into. You lack one very important theological fact (if that is possible) and that is you would have to rewrite the entire NT to show your intense hatred for Saul/Paul.

Look at what you just wrote in the above post. " He was hated by the Jews because he taught the "law" was no longer in effect." Where in the world did you learn that? Saul/Paul changed nothing of the law. Did you ever realize that when Jesus was alive and the Jews brought the adulterous woman before Him that He also changed the law? The law declared that both who offended the law would be killed. Well? What happened? She was not killed was she? Is that a change?
What changed? Jesus taught grace, compassion, love, and it all was simply forgiveness. A second chance to make it right. That was what Paul taught.

As Jesus died He ordained “James the Just” (his brother) to teach in His stead. James chose the biblical Upper Room as the very first synagogue of the new Nazarene movement. Paul was still working for the Jerusalem Sanhedrin at this time and was busy catching the crooks of Judaism.

What was the very first thing Jesus taught James? He taught James the liturgy of the new church to be. This entailed forbidding the sacrifice of living creatures and the necessity of the blood sacrifice of circumcision. But most of all He taught James to love and forgive. Five years later was when Saul became Paul. Paul had nothing to do with organizing or changing the Law. That was done with the liturgy of Jesus and James. The changes were well into effect for over five years before Saul was converted to the Nazarene movement. The Apostle John was the second in command to James and Peter was the third in command to James while the synagogue was thriving and all three of these men were the main pillars of the Nazarene movement.

After Saul became converted was when he sought out James, John and Peter (five years later) and spent several weeks with them as they taught him the liturgy of the new movement. But Paul never joined the congregation nor voiced his opinion as to its doctrine. What Paul did do was preach what he was taught by Jesus and the first congregation of the Nazarene's. The changes from national Judaism to the Nazarene movement was given to James many years before Paul came upon the scene.

So much of what you have read in the NT is a combination of three things to note. One is that rabbinic doctrine was prevalent in the NT and that the NT is a transition from rabbinic Judaism to the doctrine of Jesus. Second is that change to the new doctrine of Jesus is taught all through the NT. In fact the Revelation letter was not known to any of the Apostles except John. All of the other Apostles died without this knowledge. The third is that of the liturgy of Jesus and James was not in the NT letters and must be learned from sources outside the NT.

Now if you accuse Paul of changing the law of Moses then you must also accuse Jesus, James, John. and Peter of the same charge. So in that light you will have to rewrite every letter in the NT and the tons of outside literature. Don't be foolish and parrot your hate.

a reply to: Seede

You lack one very important theological fact (if that is possible) and that is you would have to rewrite the entire NT to show your intense hatred for Saul/Paul.

No, my intense hatred (as you call it) is because Saul (aka Paul) was a two faced, lying, politician style, wolf in sheep's clothing....just as Jesus warned us to beware of. I have no desire nor need to rewrite the whole NT. Just because Saul takes up most of it, does not make him legit. MEN put his epistles in there and called them "Canon". Doesn't mean he was "ordained by the true Most High God" to be an apostle. Actually, the only one who promoted him to that station was...Saul. I don't believe the "blinding light" on the road to Damascus was Jesus. I do have that prerogative.
Not to mention the fact that there were only TWELVE apostles, whom Jesus chose (one betrayed Him) and the other was picked by the MEN whom Jesus CHOSE...after they prayed to the HS as to whom they should give the role of the 12th to.
You can hem-haw around that all you want...but, the very men whom Jesus picked, were the one's who trusted in the HS to show them who was next in line.....while Saul chose HIMSELF and said he was chosen (with no two witnesses to collaborate it, either).

Quite a spiel you have been indoctrinated into.

Uh, no....I WAS indoctrinated. I'm not anymore.

Look at what you just wrote in the above post. " He was hated by the Jews because he taught the "law" was no longer in effect." Where in the world did you learn that? Saul/Paul changed nothing of the law.

List of 25 Contradictions Expounded Below



• Jesus Says Not To Eat Meat Sacrificed to Idols, But Paul Says It Is Ok


• Jesus Says The Law Continues, But Paul Says No


• Paul Says The Pharisees Followed The Law Rigorously, But Jesus Says They Were Lax About The Law


• Jesus Says Salvation Initiates And Continues By Repentance From Sin and Obedience Besides Faith; Paul Says This is Heresy


• Jesus Tells Apostles To Teach His Commands Given Prior to His Ascension While In The Flesh, But Paul Says Not To Do So



• Paul Says Elders Are Entitled To Pay for 'Preaching & Teaching,' But Jesus Says No


• Jesus Teaches There Are Only 12 Apostles Into Eternity, But Paul Adds Himself To The List As a Thirteenth


• Paul Exhorts Celibacy, But Jesus Clearly Says It is A Choice Not Within Everyone's Power


• Jesus Says There Is One Pastor and Teacher (Himself), But Paul Says There Are Many Pastors and Teachers


• Paul Says God Is The God of the Dead, But Jesus Says God Is Not The God of the Dead


• Paul Says God Does Not Live in Temples Made of Human Hands, But Jesus Says He Does


• Jesus says Nations Of The World Are Under Satan, But Paul Says Their Rulers Are Agents of God


• Jesus Teaches Rapture is Of Evil Ones First, But Paul Teaches The Opposite


• Jesus Says A Call Is Revocable, But Paul Says It Is Irrevocable


• Jesus Says Some Are Righteous, But Paul Says It Is Impossible


• Paul Excludes Eating With Sinners But Christ's Example We Are To Follow, and the Lost Sheep Parable, Is Contrary


• Paul Teaches We Are Eternally Secure, But Jesus Teaches Insecurity to a Sinning Believer


• Paul Teaches In Original Sin But Jesus Contradicts


• Jesus' Command About Calling Anyone Fool Is Violated by Paul


• Paul Denies Obedience Grants Any Righteousness Unto Life, But Jesus Says It Does


• Jesus Sends The Apostles to Baptize, But Paul Says Jesus Did Not Send Him to Baptize


• Jesus Says the Merciful Receive Mercy, But Paul Says Only Those God Chooses Arbitrarily Will Receive Mercy


• Paul Says Salvation Does Not Depend Upon Exertion, But Jesus Says It Does

• Paul Says He Could Be Justified of The Sin that Never Could be Justified under the Law given Moses (Blasphemy), but Jesus says to the contrary that it is The Unpardonable Sin.

• Paul Says Flesh will not inherit the Kingdom of God, but Jesus in Flesh ascended to heaven, and promises to resurrect our bodies to heaven / New Jerusalem, giving us the same physical resurrection that Jesus had.

That's just a few.

Here's one more.....

It is Shameful for a Woman to Speak in Church. “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home.

Could you please explain to me exactly WHAT LAW Paul was referring to from the OT?? Cause there weren't any laws saying women should be silenced in the "congregation" or CHURCH (which wasn't even a true name of the congregation).

Look at what you just wrote in the above post. " He was hated by the Jews because he taught the "law" was no longer in effect." Where in the world did you learn that?

Acts 21:28


“Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.” Acts 21:28

Did you ever realize that when Jesus was alive and the Jews brought the adulterous woman before Him that He also changed the law? The law declared that both who offended the law would be killed. Well? What happened? She was not killed was she? Is that a change?

It's a HUGE change....do you want to know why? Because Jesus did not represent YHWH (JEHOVAH) or whatever you want to call him. Jesus represented the true Father....and it wasn't the god of the Jews. That's why Jesus reached out to ALL those whom YHWH would have deemed deserving of death (including picking up sticks on the Sabbath). Show me how Jesus kept YHWH'S law? Can you? If He was supposedly the only One who kept the law in order to be a perfect sacrifice, then how could He violate the laws of His supposed "Father"....and still be the perfect lamb?

A second chance to make it right. That was what Paul taught.

No, he didn't. Paul spoke out of both sides of his mouth constantly. He contradicted Jesus, he contradicted James, and he contradicted HIMSELF. All one has to do is read his epistles.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

What if I told you that St. Paul was the equivalent of a Nazi SS Hauptsturmführer? Or a petty SA private trying to save his own Jewish skin? What if I told you that The Seven Caesars were the Antichrist (the false Caesars) and that St. Paul served as their False Prophet?

What if you told me....I would not be surprised...Paul preached a different Jesus than James.
Thanks

dp

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Aye, Saulus was the Grim Reaper. Just add irony to everything the Satan says, except for his renditions of Torah law which resounds in kosher Pharisee rhetorics and Hillel's Babylonian Talmud that was still in the making, both which Jesus demonstrated repeatedly as heresy. Saulus spoke with two tongues as Sitting Bull would have said. The man was a vicious killer and a merciless interrogator

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

No, my intense hatred (as you call it) is because Saul (aka Paul) was a two faced, lying, politician style, wolf in sheep's clothing....just as Jesus warned us to beware of. I have no desire nor need to rewrite the whole NT. Just because Saul takes up most of it, does not make him legit. MEN put his epistles in there and called them "Canon". Doesn't mean he was "ordained by the true Most High God" to be an apostle. Actually, the only one who promoted him to that station was...Saul. I don't believe the "blinding light" on the road to Damascus was Jesus. I do have that prerogative. Not to mention the fact that there were only TWELVE apostles, whom Jesus chose (one betrayed Him) and the other was picked by the MEN whom Jesus CHOSE...after they prayed to the HS as to whom they should give the role of the 12th to. You can hem-haw around that all you want...but, the very men whom Jesus picked, were the one's who trusted in the HS to show them who was next in line.....while Saul chose HIMSELF and said he was chosen (with no two witnesses to collaborate it, either).

It has been shown by this post alone that your hatred overrides the facts of historical literature. You call Paul vile names without a cause to do so. Show your cause and then perhaps we can discuss this on a fair debate but to simply curse a man without a just cause is not fair debate.

The letters of Paul number seven as is written in the NT. There are twenty seven authorized NT letters in most all English bibles. That means that it is far removed from "Saul takes up most of it," which is what you have learned. The fact is that the seven letters of Paul are 25.9 percent of the entire NT.

If you will let me explain, then i will give you the true facts. My post is not concerned with the Roman or Greek churches nor any denomination which has been spawned from them. My entire intent is derived from the first synagogue and its liturgy of the Lord Jesus Christ. I do not apologize for the sins of Saul/Paul and most certainly Saul/Paul has confessed his sins to the entire world. That is more than most all of men do including me and you.

The NT letters were not a part of the Nazarene movement nor any part of the intent of Paul in formation of any church. If you remove all of the letters of the NT and put them into their respective order of simply various MSS along with the great number of other MSS, you would look at this from a different perspective. They would simply then become nothing but ancient MSS telling you a story in the manner of which the author intended. Not a combined comparative verse by verse book.

Then within those MSS you would see a vicious Jew who hated another sect of Jews and became one of those of which he hated. This all happened long before any church gathered those MSS, put them into a book form and made them a religion. In fact those very same MSS do not belong to any church. They belong to the synagogue of the Nazarene's. Paul evangelized under the authority of James. James was the Nasi of that movement and Paul was instructed by James for over three decades. Just as there were other Greek synagogues for the Nazarene Hellenist, James was also their Nasi. James was the high priest of the order of Jesus and not Rome or any other organization.

Now in the sense of being an apostle most people do not understand that an apostle is one who is sent out to propagate the desire of the master. The apostle John had his own apostles of whom Clement of Rome was one. Clement of Rome became the third Bishop of the Roman movement into Christianity. But as a youngster he sat at the feet as one of John's disciples. That did not make Clement one of the twelve apostles of Christ Jesus but it did make Clement a disciple of Jesus and a apostle of John.

The only reason Paul declares that he was an apostle of Jesus was in the way in which he was converted. He has verification of this by the disciple of Jesus named Ananias of Damascus who was sent by Jesus to instruct the blinded Saul. (Acts 9:10-15.) Now if you doubt that Saul did not meet Jesus as is told by Saul then you must also call both Luke and Ananias also a liar. It was not simply that Paul made up the story but that Paul had a disciple of Jesus testify to this event. Are you also saying that Paul and this disciple of Jesus are both liars? Are you saying that the author of Acts was in collusion with Paul and Ananias and lied?

The last comment I must make is that of the election of the replacement of Judas. That election was the process of men and it still does not change the appointments of Jesus. Whenever Jesus chose an Apostle He chose it in person. As is shown in the MSS. The question in many minds is that Matthias was not chosen by Jesus but by mans own mind. Saul/Paul was chosen by Jesus Himself with witness to the choice. Matthias was not witnessed as being chosen by Jesus but was elected by men with the means of gambling. There is no doubt that the apostles did pray and there is no doubt that they were sincere in the method which they took but still there is nothing to verify their method as being the choice of Jesus.

Whoever taught your understanding was not teaching you the truth.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

List of 25 Contradictions Expounded Below • Jesus Says Not To Eat Meat Sacrificed to Idols, But Paul Says It Is Ok • Jesus Says The Law Continues, But Paul Says No • Paul Says The Pharisees Followed The Law Rigorously, But Jesus Says They Were Lax About The Law • Jesus Says Salvation Initiates And Continues By Repentance From Sin and Obedience Besides Faith; Paul Says This is Heresy • Jesus Tells Apostles To Teach His Commands Given Prior to His Ascension While In The Flesh, But Paul Says Not To Do So • Paul Says Elders Are Entitled To Pay for 'Preaching & Teaching,' But Jesus Says No • Jesus Teaches There Are Only 12 Apostles Into Eternity, But Paul Adds Himself To The List As a Thirteenth • Paul Exhorts Celibacy, But Jesus Clearly Says It is A Choice Not Within Everyone's Power • Jesus Says There Is One Pastor and Teacher (Himself), But Paul Says There Are Many Pastors and Teachers • Paul Says God Is The God of the Dead, But Jesus Says God Is Not The God of the Dead • Paul Says God Does Not Live in Temples Made of Human Hands, But Jesus Says He Does • Jesus says Nations Of The World Are Under Satan, But Paul Says Their Rulers Are Agents of God • Jesus Teaches Rapture is Of Evil Ones First, But Paul Teaches The Opposite • Jesus Says A Call Is Revocable, But Paul Says It Is Irrevocable • Jesus Says Some Are Righteous, But Paul Says It Is Impossible • Paul Excludes Eating With Sinners But Christ's Example We Are To Follow, and the Lost Sheep Parable, Is Contrary • Paul Teaches We Are Eternally Secure, But Jesus Teaches Insecurity to a Sinning Believer • Paul Teaches In Original Sin But Jesus Contradicts • Jesus' Command About Calling Anyone Fool Is Violated by Paul • Paul Denies Obedience Grants Any Righteousness Unto Life, But Jesus Says It Does • Jesus Sends The Apostles to Baptize, But Paul Says Jesus Did Not Send Him to Baptize • Jesus Says the Merciful Receive Mercy, But Paul Says Only Those God Chooses Arbitrarily Will Receive Mercy • Paul Says Salvation Does Not Depend Upon Exertion, But Jesus Says It Does • Paul Says He Could Be Justified of The Sin that Never Could be Justified under the Law given Moses (Blasphemy), but Jesus says to the contrary that it is The Unpardonable Sin. • Paul Says Flesh will not inherit the Kingdom of God, but Jesus in Flesh ascended to heaven, and promises to resurrect our bodies to heaven / New Jerusalem, giving us the same physical resurrection that Jesus had. That's just a few.

With nothing to be shown as to the source. I have read that spiel many times in the past from several sources who wish to destroy the Christian faith but very little truth is involved in your list of twenty five unverified and untrue rants. If you wish to debate then choose your favorite and we then can debate them one at a time. I cannot reply to all of your accusations without your source and issues. Nice try though.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

I posted
Did you ever realize that when Jesus was alive and the Jews brought the adulterous woman before Him that He also changed the law? The law declared that both who offended the law would be killed. Well? What happened? She was not killed was she? Is that a change?

You replied
It's a HUGE change....do you want to know why? Because Jesus did not represent YHWH (JEHOVAH) or whatever you want to call him. Jesus represented the true Father....and it wasn't the god of the Jews. That's why Jesus reached out to ALL those whom YHWH would have deemed deserving of death (including picking up sticks on the Sabbath). Show me how Jesus kept YHWH'S law? Can you? If He was supposedly the only One who kept the law in order to be a perfect sacrifice, then how could He violate the laws of His supposed "Father"....and still be the perfect lamb?

Firstly, to answer your question we must clarify who Jesus was and who His father is. You state that Jesus' Father was not the same deity as Moses' Father. Clarify that for me would you please.

So the Jews brought this adulterous woman to Jesus by the authority of the Mosaic Law which was not the law of Jesus and from your inference I am led to believe that was the reason Jesus did not condemn her. If that is your understanding then what you are implying is that Jesus did not accept the temple authority.

Now you ask "Show me how Jesus kept YHWH'S law? Can you? " I do not know who you call YHWH. If you mean how did Jesus keep the Mosaic law and not charge the adulterous woman and yet have the same God then I can answer your question. But if there are two distinct deities [such as you have insisted] then I cannot answer your question. You must understand that Jesus came not to change the law of Moses but to complete [fulfill] the laws of Moses. You must also realize that death from picking up sticks was not the ordination of the Law. That was a secular law of the civil matter and not decreed by the God of Moses. There was no separation of civil and religious law at this time in that culture. It was all centered around Both Moses and Aaron and all was intermingled with ten divided laws.

This morphed into 613 commandments of which 365 were negative commands of "do not do" and 248 positive commands of "do". These were not commands heard by the multitude of Hebrews at the Sinai Convention from "Yahuah" who is "The Most High." These became the laws to govern men from barbaric to righteous behavior. At this time the Hebrews were a blood drinking bunch of savages and just as sinful as any other race of people. All of this was grouped into the Laws of Moses because Moses was a god unto the Hebrews.

So now the adulterous woman came before Jesus and was not punished with death. Did Jesus come to change that law?: No He did not. That law is still on the books with almost all civilized people and never punished with death in a civilized culture. Jesus fulfilled that law with forgiveness. Forgiveness was not in the laws of Moses. The laws of Moses knew no command to forgive. Those laws were very strict in that if you did not obey then comes punishment. That punishment was the prerogative of the law makers and the culture involved in that time of history. Prior to the ten commands given to the Hebrews there were seven commands to govern human behavior given to Noah. In other words actually only three commands were added to Noah's law.

So in light of what I have said, there are the ten commands of Yahuah to the Hebrews and seven commands of Yahuah to the gentiles in the days of Moses. So what is meant by the law? The Law is that of which Yahuah gave to Moses and Aaron and not the commands of prophetic or rabbinic people. Picking up sticks on the Sabbath is not the command of Yahuah. The law of Moses was given only to the Hebrews. That was a covenant to them alone.

The laws never change but the punishments of the laws do change as people become more and more civilized. Yahuah gave governments the authority to govern themselves with the unchanging basic commands that will never change. The seven laws of Noah are still in effect today as well as the ten laws of Moses are still in effect today. Once you add forgiveness then the laws can be complete. Jesus fulfilled both the laws of Noah and the laws of Moses.

My understanding as a Nazarene is that Yahuah is the "Most High EL" and Jesus is Yahusha Hamashiach or the begotten Son of Yahuah. The Holy Spirit is the force or presence of Yahuah. This creation of this universe was made [formed] by Yahuah and given life by Yahusha. Simply put is that Yahuah is the Christian God and Yahusha is the Messiah or Son of God.

You stated that Jesus' Father was not the same deity as Moses' Father. Clarify that for me would you please.

a reply to: Seede

You stated that Jesus' Father was not the same deity as Moses' Father. Clarify that for me would you please.

Why? So, that you can drone on and on in your usual "theological" manner? Nope. I don't need to clarify. I've met Jesus...and I've studied the Bible ad nauseum.
It doesn't take semantics, nor doctrine, nor apologetic hoops, and not even studying all the great theologians to understand (with the HS), that Jesus was different...and the God He represented was different.
Heck, don't believe me....
but there are numerous people in this world (who even still call themselves believers in Jesus) who see through Paul. (many are on this forum)
Now, if YOU need to hold fast to Paul (basically because he's in a book that you pretty much worship on the same level as you do "god")...then go right ahead. I'm not going to convince you, nor will you change my mind and "lead me back into the fold" of Christianity. So here we sit. So what?
One thing I do know is this...those who are actually questioning much they thought was true...and seems to not be, will not be convinced by your debate with me. Those who hold fast to "Pauline" Christian doctrine, will not be convinced that Paul was the lying creep that he was. So, continuing with debating you is futile.
Right now...I'm enjoying some David Icke. (oh, heathen that I am)

a reply to: Seede

With nothing to be shown as to the source. I have read that spiel many times in the past from several sources who wish to destroy the Christian faith but very little truth is involved in your list of twenty five unverified and untrue rants. If you wish to debate then choose your favorite and we then can debate them one at a time. I cannot reply to all of your accusations without your source and issues. Nice try though.

If you really want to "dig", then check out the website "Jesus Words Only". It's definitely an eye opener. Hey! Maybe you can argue and debate the guy who started that!
He's way smarter than me, anyway (though I don't agree with him on everything...I do agree with him on Saul's lecherousness.)

a reply to: Utnapisjtim


Realy enjoyed Reading your OP. And the comments Matrixsurvivor brought to this post.


I dont have a comment as of yet, i just want to fallow for now.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Saulus and Barnabas were bounty hunters and they sold Christians to Rome on behalf of the Pharisees and the Elders

I believe Saul and Barnabas were probably the ones the Ephesians were commended for testing. Revelation 2:2 I know your works, your labor, and your endurance, and that you cannot tolerate evil. You have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and you have found them to be liars.

Good post. I'm in agreement about Paul.