Orthodox vs Roman Catholic

a reply to: SulfurMercurySalt

It sounds like you've done a really good job of studying everything but the Bible itself, including making the same mistakes as some of the early Christians by trying to combine Christianity with early paganism and mysticism. That must be why you don't like Paul.

a reply to: SulfurMercurySalt

the Contaticus is free to read online !

Do you have a link for that?

a reply to: SulfurMercurySalt

My question is this : Why do millions of Christians accept that Mary was not divine or immaculate , yet they accept the bible as being the perfect word of God put together by 1400 goofs who by default of that logic were controlled by God so the Bible contained Gods will and not mans infallible ways !

Mary's body was just a human vessel to give physical birth to a seed planted by the Holy Spirit. She was not perfect and neither is any other human being outside of Jesus, who once again, was a planted seed by the Holy Spirit. What does that have to do with the Bible?

While humans have free will and are not perfect, the Holy Spirit has the ability to work THROUGH them to serve his purpose, just like every other character in the Bible. None of the men in the Bible who performed great works, were appointed kings, or had visions of prophecy, etc. were without their flaws. It's when Jesus decides to work through them/us that great works are done. The Bible is no different, as stated below...

John 14:26

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

a reply to: SulfurMercurySalt

Jesus wanted to kick the money grubbers and blood crazed debt god Yahweh to the curb !

That doesn't make much sense considering that Jesus is Yahweh, the Angel of the Lord, and every other name given to him throughout the Bible.

The Ancient of Days is unknown and known both by being and not being ! Like a mirror ! Its you , but not you !

Once again, you haven't read the Bible very carefully, but you're obviously reading the works of some other fallible human that you choose to agree with.

The church fathers were mystics and owed all their knowledge to the Potlolemaic and eastern mystery schools !

Once again, as flawed humans, some of the early Christians did try to combine their old pagan and mystical teachings with Christianity and they were warned against trying to do so. This is why most eastern mystics still don't understand scripture or Jesus' parables, which is/are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

When I asked the greatest partistic doctorate minds to have ever grace the halls of Oxford they all agreed that Egypt was the birth of the Christ story !

They believe this why and how?

They just cant say how many Christs there were or how the Jesus one ended up winning in the end !

That's easy. The Jesus one ended up winning through the power of the Holy Spirit. That's how He works.

originally posted by: cognizant420
a reply to: SulfurMercurySalt

Doesnt the bible say we are all born into sin? Other than jesus that is. I'm pretty sure she was just like the rest of us a sinner. She may have been favored by god sure but all people are sinners.

Romans 3:23
Isa. 64:3

Marys own righteousness was and is as filthy rags (ministration cloths)
All are born into sin even Mary she was a child of Adams fall.
Mary is not a co redeemer nor is she the mother of God, she was a vessel used by God with her consent.

a reply to: SulfurMercurySalt

Christianity was Helanized from its start and Romes leanings are apparent by the apostate Paul whom hyjacked the NT from Peter ! Paul imo was a Roman sapper !

Don't quite understand your calling Saul/Paul a Roman sapper? It's your privilege to pipe your peers but it would help others to know what your source is in your piping. I don't know whether you have been taught that the very first synagogue established by the disciples of Jesus did indeed vote to install [Jacob] James the Just as the [Nasi] high priest of the newly formed Nazarene movement. Rome had no part in this first Christian movement and it was not Peter who was the Nasi nor was Peter the second in authority of this first movement.

AS James was the Nasi it then was then the Apostle John who was the deputy high priest or [Sagan] to the high priest sand then it was Peter who was the Chief Officer of the Religious Court called the Ab Beth-Din or general supervisor and pastoral director. There were 70 Elders who had 15 cabinets of which there were 12 councils and 3 leaders. Basically this was the platform which was patterned from the Jerusalem Sanhedrin.

The entire teachings to the congregation was in Hebrew with no other influence from Rome or the Greeks or the Hellenized Jews or for that matter any out side influence. The entire liturgy was Hebrew/Aramaic. Later on there were Hellenized synagogues but were under the direction and authority of James.

Britain was first to establish Christianity and establish the very first Christian Church. Paul was still under the tutorship of Gamaliel who at this time was the Nasi of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin as James organized the first Nazarene synagogue of the Christ Jesus. It would be well over five years before Paul even met James and his congregation.

So it is not true to say that from the onset

"Christianity was Helanized from its start and Romes leanings are apparent by the apostate Paul whom hyjacked the NT from Peter ! Paul imo was a Roman sapper !"

Paul was not even a member of the James congregation nor did Paul have any influence with the Nazarene church. Paul was on a mission to the Gentiles as a missionary and presented the teachings of Jesus in a far different manner than those first disciples taught.

Sources - Schonfield, Hugh Joseph, The Pentecost Revolution - The story of Jesus' party in Israel, AD 36-66, Macdonald and Jane's, St. Giles, 49/50 Poland Street, London,W.I., 1974, p 146 -- Also "St. Joseph of Arimathea at Glostonbury" by Lionel Smithett Lewis.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: SulfurMercurySalt

It sounds like you've done a really good job of studying everything but the Bible itself, including making the same mistakes as some of the early Christians by trying to combine Christianity with early paganism and mysticism. That must be why you don't like Paul.

I have a masters in patristics !

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: SulfurMercurySalt

Christianity was Helanized from its start and Romes leanings are apparent by the apostate Paul whom hyjacked the NT from Peter ! Paul imo was a Roman sapper !

Don't quite understand your calling Saul/Paul a Roman sapper? It's your privilege to pipe your peers but it would help others to know what your source is in your piping. I don't know whether you have been taught that the very first synagogue established by the disciples of Jesus did indeed vote to install [Jacob] James the Just as the [Nasi] high priest of the newly formed Nazarene movement. Rome had no part in this first Christian movement and it was not Peter who was the Nasi nor was Peter the second in authority of this first movement.

AS James was the Nasi it then was then the Apostle John who was the deputy high priest or [Sagan] to the high priest sand then it was Peter who was the Chief Officer of the Religious Court called the Ab Beth-Din or general supervisor and pastoral director. There were 70 Elders who had 15 cabinets of which there were 12 councils and 3 leaders. Basically this was the platform which was patterned from the Jerusalem Sanhedrin.

The entire teachings to the congregation was in Hebrew with no other influence from Rome or the Greeks or the Hellenized Jews or for that matter any out side influence. The entire liturgy was Hebrew/Aramaic. Later on there were Hellenized synagogues but were under the direction and authority of James.

Britain was first to establish Christianity and establish the very first Christian Church. Paul was still under the tutorship of Gamaliel who at this time was the Nasi of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin as James organized the first Nazarene synagogue of the Christ Jesus. It would be well over five years before Paul even met James and his congregation.

So it is not true to say that from the onset

"Christianity was Helanized from its start and Romes leanings are apparent by the apostate Paul whom hyjacked the NT from Peter ! Paul imo was a Roman sapper !"

Paul was not even a member of the James congregation nor did Paul have any influence with the Nazarene church. Paul was on a mission to the Gentiles as a missionary and presented the teachings of Jesus in a far different manner than those first disciples taught.

Sources - Schonfield, Hugh Joseph, The Pentecost Revolution - The story of Jesus' party in Israel, AD 36-66, Macdonald and Jane's, St. Giles, 49/50 Poland Street, London,W.I., 1974, p 146 -- Also "St. Joseph of Arimathea at Glostonbury" by Lionel Smithett Lewis.

Do you have an answer to my question ? Supporting claims from rank and file authors is zero proof ! Did Peter call on Paul to change his mission ? Mic drop ! Learn your history outside of the ones playing in the mud !

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: SulfurMercurySalt

the Contaticus is free to read online !

Do you have a link for that?

codexsinaiticus.org your eyes will bleed ! Your going to leave the porch light and tread in the truth ! Fight like a brave ! No virgin birth or resurrection! All add ons !

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: SulfurMercurySalt

the Contaticus is free to read online !

Do you have a link for that?

codexsinaiticus.org your eyes will bleed ! Your going to leave the porch light and tread in the truth ! Fight like a brave ! No virgin birth or resurrection! All add ons !

a reply to: SulfurMercurySalt

codexsinaiticus.org your eyes will bleed ! Your going to leave the porch light and tread in the truth ! Fight like a brave ! No virgin birth or resurrection! All add ons

You might want to read that source again by scrolling down to Luke 1:27. Better yet, read the whole chapter. You must have missed it while your eyes were bleeding...

www.codexsinaiticus.org...

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: SulfurMercurySalt

Christianity was Helanized from its start and Romes leanings are apparent by the apostate Paul whom hyjacked the NT from Peter ! Paul imo was a Roman sapper !

Don't quite understand your calling Saul/Paul a Roman sapper? It's your privilege to pipe your peers but it would help others to know what your source is in your piping. I don't know whether you have been taught that the very first synagogue established by the disciples of Jesus did indeed vote to install [Jacob] James the Just as the [Nasi] high priest of the newly formed Nazarene movement. Rome had no part in this first Christian movement and it was not Peter who was the Nasi nor was Peter the second in authority of this first movement.

AS James was the Nasi it then was then the Apostle John who was the deputy high priest or [Sagan] to the high priest sand then it was Peter who was the Chief Officer of the Religious Court called the Ab Beth-Din or general supervisor and pastoral director. There were 70 Elders who had 15 cabinets of which there were 12 councils and 3 leaders. Basically this was the platform which was patterned from the Jerusalem Sanhedrin.

The entire teachings to the congregation was in Hebrew with no other influence from Rome or the Greeks or the Hellenized Jews or for that matter any out side influence. The entire liturgy was Hebrew/Aramaic. Later on there were Hellenized synagogues but were under the direction and authority of James.

Britain was first to establish Christianity and establish the very first Christian Church. Paul was still under the tutorship of Gamaliel who at this time was the Nasi of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin as James organized the first Nazarene synagogue of the Christ Jesus. It would be well over five years before Paul even met James and his congregation.

So it is not true to say that from the onset

"Christianity was Helanized from its start and Romes leanings are apparent by the apostate Paul whom hyjacked the NT from Peter ! Paul imo was a Roman sapper !"

Paul was not even a member of the James congregation nor did Paul have any influence with the Nazarene church. Paul was on a mission to the Gentiles as a missionary and presented the teachings of Jesus in a far different manner than those first disciples taught.

Sources - Schonfield, Hugh Joseph, The Pentecost Revolution - The story of Jesus' party in Israel, AD 36-66, Macdonald and Jane's, St. Giles, 49/50 Poland Street, London,W.I., 1974, p 146 -- Also "St. Joseph of Arimathea at Glostonbury" by Lionel Smithett Lewis.

James and Paul were at odds ! Do you have access to Luthers views on the huge difference between these two !

originally posted by: SulfurMercurySalt

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: SulfurMercurySalt

Christianity was Helanized from its start and Romes leanings are apparent by the apostate Paul whom hyjacked the NT from Peter ! Paul imo was a Roman sapper !

Don't quite understand your calling Saul/Paul a Roman sapper? It's your privilege to pipe your peers but it would help others to know what your source is in your piping. I don't know whether you have been taught that the very first synagogue established by the disciples of Jesus did indeed vote to install [Jacob] James the Just as the [Nasi] high priest of the newly formed Nazarene movement. Rome had no part in this first Christian movement and it was not Peter who was the Nasi nor was Peter the second in authority of this first movement.

AS James was the Nasi it then was then the Apostle John who was the deputy high priest or [Sagan] to the high priest sand then it was Peter who was the Chief Officer of the Religious Court called the Ab Beth-Din or general supervisor and pastoral director. There were 70 Elders who had 15 cabinets of which there were 12 councils and 3 leaders. Basically this was the platform which was patterned from the Jerusalem Sanhedrin.

The entire teachings to the congregation was in Hebrew with no other influence from Rome or the Greeks or the Hellenized Jews or for that matter any out side influence. The entire liturgy was Hebrew/Aramaic. Later on there were Hellenized synagogues but were under the direction and authority of James.

Britain was first to establish Christianity and establish the very first Christian Church. Paul was still under the tutorship of Gamaliel who at this time was the Nasi of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin as James organized the first Nazarene synagogue of the Christ Jesus. It would be well over five years before Paul even met James and his congregation.

So it is not true to say that from the onset

"Christianity was Helanized from its start and Romes leanings are apparent by the apostate Paul whom hyjacked the NT from Peter ! Paul imo was a Roman sapper !"

Paul was not even a member of the James congregation nor did Paul have any influence with the Nazarene church. Paul was on a mission to the Gentiles as a missionary and presented the teachings of Jesus in a far different manner than those first disciples taught.

Sources - Schonfield, Hugh Joseph, The Pentecost Revolution - The story of Jesus' party in Israel, AD 36-66, Macdonald and Jane's, St. Giles, 49/50 Poland Street, London,W.I., 1974, p 146 -- Also "St. Joseph of Arimathea at Glostonbury" by Lionel Smithett Lewis.

James and Paul were at odds ! Do you have access to Luthers views on the huge difference between these two !

Pauls theology places our salvation on Christs faith and James said it is mans faith that saves us ! Very different theories! James the brother of Christ has way more authority on his brothers heart and teachings than anything Paul drummed up ! Rome needed men bound in guilt to the sacrifice and blood of Jesus in works ! James as Christ said your free men bound only by inner faith ! Free saved men are hard to govern ! That is why Paul was a Roman sapper ! He is a true apostate to Christian freedom taught in caves that did not require blood debt ! Paul was a smart Jew who played all sides and was used by Rome to control the new free Christians of faith ! Submit to you kings and tax takers blah blah blah !

originally posted by: SulfurMercurySalt

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: SulfurMercurySalt

Christianity was Helanized from its start and Romes leanings are apparent by the apostate Paul whom hyjacked the NT from Peter ! Paul imo was a Roman sapper !

Don't quite understand your calling Saul/Paul a Roman sapper? It's your privilege to pipe your peers but it would help others to know what your source is in your piping. I don't know whether you have been taught that the very first synagogue established by the disciples of Jesus did indeed vote to install [Jacob] James the Just as the [Nasi] high priest of the newly formed Nazarene movement. Rome had no part in this first Christian movement and it was not Peter who was the Nasi nor was Peter the second in authority of this first movement.

AS James was the Nasi it then was then the Apostle John who was the deputy high priest or [Sagan] to the high priest sand then it was Peter who was the Chief Officer of the Religious Court called the Ab Beth-Din or general supervisor and pastoral director. There were 70 Elders who had 15 cabinets of which there were 12 councils and 3 leaders. Basically this was the platform which was patterned from the Jerusalem Sanhedrin.

The entire teachings to the congregation was in Hebrew with no other influence from Rome or the Greeks or the Hellenized Jews or for that matter any out side influence. The entire liturgy was Hebrew/Aramaic. Later on there were Hellenized synagogues but were under the direction and authority of James.

Britain was first to establish Christianity and establish the very first Christian Church. Paul was still under the tutorship of Gamaliel who at this time was the Nasi of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin as James organized the first Nazarene synagogue of the Christ Jesus. It would be well over five years before Paul even met James and his congregation.

So it is not true to say that from the onset

"Christianity was Helanized from its start and Romes leanings are apparent by the apostate Paul whom hyjacked the NT from Peter ! Paul imo was a Roman sapper !"

Paul was not even a member of the James congregation nor did Paul have any influence with the Nazarene church. Paul was on a mission to the Gentiles as a missionary and presented the teachings of Jesus in a far different manner than those first disciples taught.

Sources - Schonfield, Hugh Joseph, The Pentecost Revolution - The story of Jesus' party in Israel, AD 36-66, Macdonald and Jane's, St. Giles, 49/50 Poland Street, London,W.I., 1974, p 146 -- Also "St. Joseph of Arimathea at Glostonbury" by Lionel Smithett Lewis.

James and Paul were at odds ! Do you have access to Luthers views on the huge difference between these two !

The church is allowed to function as long as all its members are sold a theology that if they dont submit to kings and state law they are bad Christians and if Cesar tortures you ! Oh well that pails to the bloody cross and the debt Christ paid !or the hell your going to , because you did not work hard enough ! Jesus died not at the hands of the Jews as you were taught in sunday school . Rome killed Christ for claiming he had right to the Jewish Kingship and he was going to throw out the interest chargers ( Rome was expensive to run and the jewish debt god allows intrest) and brood of vipers in the temples that Christ himself whipped . Jesus was and still is considered a teacher ! Jews cant kill a teacher ! Rome sure could ! Everything you think you know from your Christian education does not hold up to any other commentary of those times ! The bible and its stories are just that ! Most of the NT is Pauls idea of Christ and not what the early Christians taught or believed ! Paul was a Roman sympathiser ! Prove me wrong outside of Christian Dogma and the bible ! Its like saying that the whole world is pink when only people who see pink say so ! I read all sides and made my own mind up . If your bound by fear of punishment after death based on Pauls teachings there is zero pragmatic dialectics that can save this debate ! My question was about the infallibility of 1400 men who canonised our bible in 30 days under Romes watchful eye and final say ! Were those men immaculate as Mary was or could they have their own agenda outside of gods will ! How does the Roman church tell the orthodox church that Mary could not make mistakes , because of divine intervention and the eastern church said no fricken way ! Huge schism 1600 yrs ago . Yet both the eastband the western church buy that the formation of our first 50 bibles were divine and the idea that Constantine and the winning group were being controlled by God beyond their wills to create a perfect Bible ! Lol ! So anyone who did not accept the final version were hunted down like rabid dogs ? Sounds like a peaceful group or a Roman government that wanted a religion to control the people ! Give unto Cesar that which belongs to Cesar ? Lol what a perfect rule for the marching money chewing armies of Rome ! Were was god when the Germanics burned Rome to the ground in 410 ad ?

originally posted by: SulfurMercurySalt
The east and the west had a huge dust up over the free will of Mary . The west holds that Mary was unable to sin , because of divine intervention . The east contends that Mary was selected to hold Christ , because she was perfect by choice outside of gods tampering . So under these two egregores were the 1400 men including Constatine and his court jester Eusibius allowed free will or were they all controlled by God perfectly to create our bible ? Remember they were given 30 days to come up with one Book to rule them all . I believe that man is free in his/her choices and thus all products of man are fallible. The bible is a mess and I find it hard to believe that it is Gods word . The Sinai Contaticus is one of the first 50 bibles that Eusibius had made in agreement of the Roman State and the Nicaea creed and it is very different from our bibles of today ! I smell rats !

The Council of Nicaea was several months:

en.wikipedia.org...

As to the words if you read the actual historicity of that god it's read exactly like any other mythical god:
en.wikipedia.org...

The stories started out as a different god (El) then promoted a warrior god to the one true god who had a consort Ashera and so on.


"In the oldest biblical literature, Yahweh is a warrior deity[4] characterized by uprightness who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies. He later became the main god of the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and of Judah, and over time the royal court and Temple in Jerusalem promoted Yahweh as the god of the entire cosmos, possessing all the positive qualities previously attributed to the other gods and goddesses."

"Asherah, formerly the wife of El, was worshipped as Yahweh's consort or mother; potsherds discovered at Khirbet el-Kôm and Kuntillet Ajrûd make reference to "Yahweh and his Asherah",

"The Israelites initially worshipped Yahweh alongside a variety of Canaanite gods and goddesses, including El, Asherah and Baal. In the period of the Judges and the first half of the monarchy, El and Yahweh became conflated in a process of religious syncretism. As a result, ’el (Hebrew: אל) became a generic term meaning "god", as opposed to the name of a worshipped deity, and epithets such as El Shaddai came to be applied to Yahweh alone, diminishing the worship of El and strengthening the position of Yahweh. Features of Baal, El, and Asherah were absorbed into the Yahwistic religion, Asherah possibly becoming embodied in the feminine aspects of the Shekinah or divine presence, and Baal's nature as a storm and weather god becoming assimilated into Yahweh's own identification with the storm.[40] In the next stage the Yahwistic religion separated itself from its Canaanite heritage, first by rejecting Baal-worship in the 9th century, then through the 8th to 6th centuries with prophetic condemnation of Baal, the asherim, sun-worship, worship on the "high places", practices pertaining to the dead, and other matters.

In the earliest literature such as the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15:1–18, celebrating Yahweh's victory over Egypt at the exodus), Yahweh is a warrior for his people, a storm-god typical of ancient Near Eastern myths, marching out from a region to the south or south-east of Israel with the heavenly host of stars and planets that make up his army. Israel's battles are Yahweh's battles, Israel's victories are his victories, and while other peoples have other gods, Israel's god is Yahweh, who will procure a fertile resting-place for them: "

Most of the good stuff was added after the Persian invasion who were Zoroastrian and then over the next few centuries those myths started showing up in the OT.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Major features of Zoroastrianism, such as messianism, judgment after death, heaven and hell, and free will may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including Second Temple Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy, Christianity, Islam, the Bahá'í Faith, and Buddhism."

Those were later add on’s . All experts agree both east and west ! Rome agrees , but wont show there one copy ! Wonder why ? Oh yeah Jesus was not god nor did he ever claim to be !

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: SulfurMercurySalt
The east and the west had a huge dust up over the free will of Mary . The west holds that Mary was unable to sin , because of divine intervention . The east contends that Mary was selected to hold Christ , because she was perfect by choice outside of gods tampering . So under these two egregores were the 1400 men including Constatine and his court jester Eusibius allowed free will or were they all controlled by God perfectly to create our bible ? Remember they were given 30 days to come up with one Book to rule them all . I believe that man is free in his/her choices and thus all products of man are fallible. The bible is a mess and I find it hard to believe that it is Gods word . The Sinai Contaticus is one of the first 50 bibles that Eusibius had made in agreement of the Roman State and the Nicaea creed and it is very different from our bibles of today ! I smell rats !

The Council of Nicaea was several months:

en.wikipedia.org...

As to the words if you read the actual historicity of that god it's read exactly like any other mythical god:
en.wikipedia.org...

The stories started out as a different god (El) then promoted a warrior god to the one true god who had a consort Ashera and so on.


"In the oldest biblical literature, Yahweh is a warrior deity[4] characterized by uprightness who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies. He later became the main god of the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and of Judah, and over time the royal court and Temple in Jerusalem promoted Yahweh as the god of the entire cosmos, possessing all the positive qualities previously attributed to the other gods and goddesses."

"Asherah, formerly the wife of El, was worshipped as Yahweh's consort or mother; potsherds discovered at Khirbet el-Kôm and Kuntillet Ajrûd make reference to "Yahweh and his Asherah",

"The Israelites initially worshipped Yahweh alongside a variety of Canaanite gods and goddesses, including El, Asherah and Baal. In the period of the Judges and the first half of the monarchy, El and Yahweh became conflated in a process of religious syncretism. As a result, ’el (Hebrew: אל) became a generic term meaning "god", as opposed to the name of a worshipped deity, and epithets such as El Shaddai came to be applied to Yahweh alone, diminishing the worship of El and strengthening the position of Yahweh. Features of Baal, El, and Asherah were absorbed into the Yahwistic religion, Asherah possibly becoming embodied in the feminine aspects of the Shekinah or divine presence, and Baal's nature as a storm and weather god becoming assimilated into Yahweh's own identification with the storm.[40] In the next stage the Yahwistic religion separated itself from its Canaanite heritage, first by rejecting Baal-worship in the 9th century, then through the 8th to 6th centuries with prophetic condemnation of Baal, the asherim, sun-worship, worship on the "high places", practices pertaining to the dead, and other matters.

In the earliest literature such as the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15:1–18, celebrating Yahweh's victory over Egypt at the exodus), Yahweh is a warrior for his people, a storm-god typical of ancient Near Eastern myths, marching out from a region to the south or south-east of Israel with the heavenly host of stars and planets that make up his army. Israel's battles are Yahweh's battles, Israel's victories are his victories, and while other peoples have other gods, Israel's god is Yahweh, who will procure a fertile resting-place for them: "

Most of the good stuff was added after the Persian invasion who were Zoroastrian and then over the next few centuries those myths started showing up in the OT.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Major features of Zoroastrianism, such as messianism, judgment after death, heaven and hell, and free will may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including Second Temple Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy, Christianity, Islam, the Bahá'í Faith, and Buddhism."

It was 30 days ! Historians agree

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: SulfurMercurySalt
The east and the west had a huge dust up over the free will of Mary . The west holds that Mary was unable to sin , because of divine intervention . The east contends that Mary was selected to hold Christ , because she was perfect by choice outside of gods tampering . So under these two egregores were the 1400 men including Constatine and his court jester Eusibius allowed free will or were they all controlled by God perfectly to create our bible ? Remember they were given 30 days to come up with one Book to rule them all . I believe that man is free in his/her choices and thus all products of man are fallible. The bible is a mess and I find it hard to believe that it is Gods word . The Sinai Contaticus is one of the first 50 bibles that Eusibius had made in agreement of the Roman State and the Nicaea creed and it is very different from our bibles of today ! I smell rats !

The Council of Nicaea was several months:

en.wikipedia.org...

As to the words if you read the actual historicity of that god it's read exactly like any other mythical god:
en.wikipedia.org...

The stories started out as a different god (El) then promoted a warrior god to the one true god who had a consort Ashera and so on.


"In the oldest biblical literature, Yahweh is a warrior deity[4] characterized by uprightness who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies. He later became the main god of the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and of Judah, and over time the royal court and Temple in Jerusalem promoted Yahweh as the god of the entire cosmos, possessing all the positive qualities previously attributed to the other gods and goddesses."

"Asherah, formerly the wife of El, was worshipped as Yahweh's consort or mother; potsherds discovered at Khirbet el-Kôm and Kuntillet Ajrûd make reference to "Yahweh and his Asherah",

"The Israelites initially worshipped Yahweh alongside a variety of Canaanite gods and goddesses, including El, Asherah and Baal. In the period of the Judges and the first half of the monarchy, El and Yahweh became conflated in a process of religious syncretism. As a result, ’el (Hebrew: אל) became a generic term meaning "god", as opposed to the name of a worshipped deity, and epithets such as El Shaddai came to be applied to Yahweh alone, diminishing the worship of El and strengthening the position of Yahweh. Features of Baal, El, and Asherah were absorbed into the Yahwistic religion, Asherah possibly becoming embodied in the feminine aspects of the Shekinah or divine presence, and Baal's nature as a storm and weather god becoming assimilated into Yahweh's own identification with the storm.[40] In the next stage the Yahwistic religion separated itself from its Canaanite heritage, first by rejecting Baal-worship in the 9th century, then through the 8th to 6th centuries with prophetic condemnation of Baal, the asherim, sun-worship, worship on the "high places", practices pertaining to the dead, and other matters.

In the earliest literature such as the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15:1–18, celebrating Yahweh's victory over Egypt at the exodus), Yahweh is a warrior for his people, a storm-god typical of ancient Near Eastern myths, marching out from a region to the south or south-east of Israel with the heavenly host of stars and planets that make up his army. Israel's battles are Yahweh's battles, Israel's victories are his victories, and while other peoples have other gods, Israel's god is Yahweh, who will procure a fertile resting-place for them: "

Most of the good stuff was added after the Persian invasion who were Zoroastrian and then over the next few centuries those myths started showing up in the OT.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Major features of Zoroastrianism, such as messianism, judgment after death, heaven and hell, and free will may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including Second Temple Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy, Christianity, Islam, the Bahá'í Faith, and Buddhism."

If Yehweh is Jesus as taught ! Then we are lost people ! Yehweh is bad news ! When I was at St Tikhons there was a prof. there with a Doctorate in patristics from Oxford ! He has since left the church after they refused the history of our church and its formation. Dr Pharell has written a book about Yehweh ! I knew all those things years before meeting him . We still correspond to this day ! He is still considered to be the top 1% authority on patristics world wide ! Write him Dr Joseph Pharell he is a leading expert ! Why do our brightest minds that go seminary or bible college all hit a road of bull snip that the church tells you to shut up about and they bounce out and discover just how much crap the church just flat out lies about ? St. Tikhons warns new students that their studies will upset most of what they think was true about the Jesus story and not to worry , because the church fathers fleshed it out ! Lol ! An old orthodox saying is “ If you stay in the church as a layman your ignorance is bliss , but the priest will be asked to surrender all logic and swallow huge gaps of inconsistencies to serve Bread and Wine “

originally posted by: SulfurMercurySalt

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: SulfurMercurySalt
The east and the west had a huge dust up over the free will of Mary . The west holds that Mary was unable to sin , because of divine intervention . The east contends that Mary was selected to hold Christ , because she was perfect by choice outside of gods tampering . So under these two egregores were the 1400 men including Constatine and his court jester Eusibius allowed free will or were they all controlled by God perfectly to create our bible ? Remember they were given 30 days to come up with one Book to rule them all . I believe that man is free in his/her choices and thus all products of man are fallible. The bible is a mess and I find it hard to believe that it is Gods word . The Sinai Contaticus is one of the first 50 bibles that Eusibius had made in agreement of the Roman State and the Nicaea creed and it is very different from our bibles of today ! I smell rats !

The Council of Nicaea was several months:

en.wikipedia.org...

As to the words if you read the actual historicity of that god it's read exactly like any other mythical god:
en.wikipedia.org...

The stories started out as a different god (El) then promoted a warrior god to the one true god who had a consort Ashera and so on.


"In the oldest biblical literature, Yahweh is a warrior deity[4] characterized by uprightness who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies. He later became the main god of the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and of Judah, and over time the royal court and Temple in Jerusalem promoted Yahweh as the god of the entire cosmos, possessing all the positive qualities previously attributed to the other gods and goddesses."

"Asherah, formerly the wife of El, was worshipped as Yahweh's consort or mother; potsherds discovered at Khirbet el-Kôm and Kuntillet Ajrûd make reference to "Yahweh and his Asherah",

"The Israelites initially worshipped Yahweh alongside a variety of Canaanite gods and goddesses, including El, Asherah and Baal. In the period of the Judges and the first half of the monarchy, El and Yahweh became conflated in a process of religious syncretism. As a result, ’el (Hebrew: אל) became a generic term meaning "god", as opposed to the name of a worshipped deity, and epithets such as El Shaddai came to be applied to Yahweh alone, diminishing the worship of El and strengthening the position of Yahweh. Features of Baal, El, and Asherah were absorbed into the Yahwistic religion, Asherah possibly becoming embodied in the feminine aspects of the Shekinah or divine presence, and Baal's nature as a storm and weather god becoming assimilated into Yahweh's own identification with the storm.[40] In the next stage the Yahwistic religion separated itself from its Canaanite heritage, first by rejecting Baal-worship in the 9th century, then through the 8th to 6th centuries with prophetic condemnation of Baal, the asherim, sun-worship, worship on the "high places", practices pertaining to the dead, and other matters.

In the earliest literature such as the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15:1–18, celebrating Yahweh's victory over Egypt at the exodus), Yahweh is a warrior for his people, a storm-god typical of ancient Near Eastern myths, marching out from a region to the south or south-east of Israel with the heavenly host of stars and planets that make up his army. Israel's battles are Yahweh's battles, Israel's victories are his victories, and while other peoples have other gods, Israel's god is Yahweh, who will procure a fertile resting-place for them: "

Most of the good stuff was added after the Persian invasion who were Zoroastrian and then over the next few centuries those myths started showing up in the OT.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Major features of Zoroastrianism, such as messianism, judgment after death, heaven and hell, and free will may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including Second Temple Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy, Christianity, Islam, the Bahá'í Faith, and Buddhism."

If Yehweh is Jesus as taught ! Then we are lost people ! Yehweh is bad news ! When I was at St Tikhons there was a prof. there with a Doctorate in patristics from Oxford ! He has since left the church after they refused the history of our church and its formation. Dr Pharell has written a book about Yehweh ! I knew all those things years before meeting him . We still correspond to this day ! He is still considered to be the top 1% authority on patristics world wide ! Write him Dr Joseph Pharell he is a leading expert ! Why do our brightest minds that go seminary or bible college all hit a road of bull snip that the church tells you to shut up about and they bounce out and discover just how much crap the church just flat out lies about ? St. Tikhons warns new students that their studies will upset most of what they think was true about the Jesus story and not to worry , because the church fathers fleshed it out ! Lol ! An old orthodox saying is “ If you stay in the church as a layman your ignorance is bliss , but the priest will be asked to surrender all logic and swallow huge gaps of inconsistencies to serve Bread and Wine “

More people lose their faith in bible college or seminary than any mystery school could dream of !

originally posted by: SulfurMercurySalt

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: SulfurMercurySalt
The east and the west had a huge dust up over the free will of Mary . The west holds that Mary was unable to sin , because of divine intervention . The east contends that Mary was selected to hold Christ , because she was perfect by choice outside of gods tampering . So under these two egregores were the 1400 men including Constatine and his court jester Eusibius allowed free will or were they all controlled by God perfectly to create our bible ? Remember they were given 30 days to come up with one Book to rule them all . I believe that man is free in his/her choices and thus all products of man are fallible. The bible is a mess and I find it hard to believe that it is Gods word . The Sinai Contaticus is one of the first 50 bibles that Eusibius had made in agreement of the Roman State and the Nicaea creed and it is very different from our bibles of today ! I smell rats !

The Council of Nicaea was several months:

en.wikipedia.org...

As to the words if you read the actual historicity of that god it's read exactly like any other mythical god:
en.wikipedia.org...

The stories started out as a different god (El) then promoted a warrior god to the one true god who had a consort Ashera and so on.


"In the oldest biblical literature, Yahweh is a warrior deity[4] characterized by uprightness who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies. He later became the main god of the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and of Judah, and over time the royal court and Temple in Jerusalem promoted Yahweh as the god of the entire cosmos, possessing all the positive qualities previously attributed to the other gods and goddesses."

"Asherah, formerly the wife of El, was worshipped as Yahweh's consort or mother; potsherds discovered at Khirbet el-Kôm and Kuntillet Ajrûd make reference to "Yahweh and his Asherah",

"The Israelites initially worshipped Yahweh alongside a variety of Canaanite gods and goddesses, including El, Asherah and Baal. In the period of the Judges and the first half of the monarchy, El and Yahweh became conflated in a process of religious syncretism. As a result, ’el (Hebrew: אל) became a generic term meaning "god", as opposed to the name of a worshipped deity, and epithets such as El Shaddai came to be applied to Yahweh alone, diminishing the worship of El and strengthening the position of Yahweh. Features of Baal, El, and Asherah were absorbed into the Yahwistic religion, Asherah possibly becoming embodied in the feminine aspects of the Shekinah or divine presence, and Baal's nature as a storm and weather god becoming assimilated into Yahweh's own identification with the storm.[40] In the next stage the Yahwistic religion separated itself from its Canaanite heritage, first by rejecting Baal-worship in the 9th century, then through the 8th to 6th centuries with prophetic condemnation of Baal, the asherim, sun-worship, worship on the "high places", practices pertaining to the dead, and other matters.

In the earliest literature such as the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15:1–18, celebrating Yahweh's victory over Egypt at the exodus), Yahweh is a warrior for his people, a storm-god typical of ancient Near Eastern myths, marching out from a region to the south or south-east of Israel with the heavenly host of stars and planets that make up his army. Israel's battles are Yahweh's battles, Israel's victories are his victories, and while other peoples have other gods, Israel's god is Yahweh, who will procure a fertile resting-place for them: "

Most of the good stuff was added after the Persian invasion who were Zoroastrian and then over the next few centuries those myths started showing up in the OT.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Major features of Zoroastrianism, such as messianism, judgment after death, heaven and hell, and free will may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including Second Temple Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy, Christianity, Islam, the Bahá'í Faith, and Buddhism."

It was 30 days ! Historians agree

Bart Ehrman teaches at Chapel Hill ? Why would those bible belt Christian nuts let a man tear apart the Jesus story for young christian turks at one of the greatest schools in america ? Here is why : His books present known worldly history and christian history that does not fit much of modern Paul christianity ! Go to Moody in Chicago ! They will accept my thread as fact based ! Your faith is your crutch ! Your not a child anymore ! Grow up man ! There is no one way or Crown that any of us can claim