Gnostic suppression

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck

Originally posted by roger_pearse

"You need to produce a quotation and a reference for this statement."

OK. "History of the Church"-Eusebius, Dorset books, in the chapter 4 Trajan to Marcus Aurelius: Bishops, 18.7 or so.

"proving against Trypho that the JEWS had actually cut them ut of scriptures"-page 180.

Eusebius, HE IV, 18:8:

"8. He (Justin) writes also that even down to his time prophetic gifts shone in the Church. And he mentions the Apocalypse of John, saying distinctly that it was the apostle's. He also refers to certain prophetic declarations, and accuses Trypho on the ground that the Jews had cut them out of the Scripture.128 A great many other works of his are still in the hands of many of the brethren."

Note 128 refers to Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 71. From this we learn that the discussion is about the Septuagint, and the rejection of it by the Jews.

So none of this has anything to do with Eusebius, or 325 AD; but refers to the controversies over the translation of the OT in the second century.

It's always interesting what you get when you follow these things up.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck
That in NO way means what he said about Jesuits in a nonfiction book was fiction

Again, you started talking about him, and it seemed to me that he was a writer of mainly fiction. You insisted that he wasn't, and I showed some of the books that he wrote that are clearly fictional.

Bush unvieled NWO at the same time as Gobachev &JPII were around, so Martin was NOT wrong about that.

He was completely wrong about it, and bush unveiled nothing, he merely said that there was a new order to the world, especially with the fall of the berlin wall and the weakening of the soviets. This malachi guy said that jp2 and gorb would bring about the NWO, jp2 is dead, gorb was overthrown, and the soviet union is gone, and the NWO hasn't revealed itself or come into being, thus malachi is utterly wrong.

Neither does that make him wrong about Jesuits

I agree. The fact that he seems to be nothing more than a purveyor of wild fantasy suggests that he's probably wrong about them tho. What evidence suggests that he's right and that they do use this oath?

I presented Martin as backup to the exposing of Jesuit murderousness

What evidence does he present for these murders tho!

as the oath does

Jesuits or KofCers?

Also, trying to stay on more on topic, the pdf file that i linked to indicates that the people being suppressed in languedoc and the like weren't all that gnostic, and that ever the term "Cathar' and Albigensian has been misapplied to a lot of people. What evidence suggests that they were all gnostics?

Originally posted by roger_pearse

"So none of this has anything to do with Eusebius, or 325 AD; but refers to the controversies over the translation of the OT in the second century."

If not for Eusebius, there'd be no record of jews subtracting from scriptures. I NEVER claimed that Eusebius was involved, as you implied wrongfully.

Also here is an interesting paper on the state of carthar and christian dualist research (as of 1998 anyway)
www.savefile.com...

(document is deleted after 14 days of inactivity tho)



Roughly, the author notes that most cathar/dissent research agrees that the Cathars and Bogomils are connected, reject that the paulicians were an originating source, notes that the origins of christian dualism are still unknown, and that the exact nature of the relationship between the cathars and the bogomils are unknown. Also that there are entire new testament texts of the cathars, but that they've not been given very critical translations and editing, however he doesn't list the specific gospels-works in those new testatment compilations. Which was intersting.

Originally posted by Nygdan

"I showed some of the books that he wrote that are clearly fictional."

That makes his non-fiction book fiction somehow?

"This malachi guy said that jp2 and gorb would bring about the NWO, jp2 is dead, gorb was overthrown, and the soviet union is gone, and the NWO hasn't revealed itself or come into being, thus malachi is utterly wrong."

First, a projection for the future has nothing to do with the credibility of his statements about Jesuits! Is not the mafia police state Russia not part of the NWO? Was it not part of the NWO plan to change Russia? Did not the Vatican pay 1 billion dollars for the breakup of the former Yugoslavia? Gorbachev & JPII were both very much involved in forwarding the NWO plan. And Bush Sr revealed the NWO plan.

"The fact that he seems to be nothing more than a purveyor of wild fantasy"

NOTHING MORE? You've no grounds to say Keys of His Blood is fiction! He was in position to know, with the Vatican.

"What evidence does he present for these murders tho!

as the oath does

Jesuits or KofCers?

Imagine Martin saying; I hope you ritual killers don't mind me filming your atrocities for the public! Both K of C & Jesuits are tentacles of the same octopuss, & it's quite possible that both use the same oath.

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck
First, a projection for the future has nothing to do with the credibility of his statements about Jesuits!

It shows that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Is not the mafia police state Russia not part of the NWO?

No, its not, and the mafia don't run russia. Crime has become organized into a powerful syndicate in russia, but this has nothing to do with the sicilian mafia.

Was it not part of the NWO plan to change Russia?

Depends on who you ask. To most people, the NWO was merely soviet global dominion.

And Bush Sr revealed the NWO plan.

Where? All he ever did was mention a new world order, a new order to the world, now that the global power structure had changed, with the rapid decline and eventual destruction of hte soviets.

NOTHING MORE? You've no grounds to say Keys of His Blood is fiction! He was in position to know, with the Vatican.

He wrote keys of blood apparently as non-fiction. Therefore its non-fiction. It is, however, completely wrong, as jp2 died and the SU fell and the NWO is not revealed.

"What evidence does he present for these murders tho!

as the oath does

Jesuits or KofCers?

Imagine Martin saying; I hope you ritual killers don't mind me filming your atrocities for the public!

Ok so you admit he has no evidence and we can only go by his word.

Both K of C & Jesuits are tentacles of the same octopuss, & it's quite possible that both use the same oath.

Not at all possible that its a fake oath in the first place? Or that the one that says its a kofc oath was merely the false addition of a guy who wanted to slander his political opponent???

[edit on 28-9-2005 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by Nygdan

"To most people, the NWO was merely soviet global dominion."

Oh really? Why have I never met them or heard of them? Who is prominent among them?

"He wrote keys of blood apparently as non-fiction. Therefore its non-fiction. It is, however, completely wrong, as jp2 died and the SU fell and the NWO is not revealed."

COMPLETELY WRONG? His statements about Jesuits are unrelated to NWO topic PROJECTIONS & doesn't discredit them. I see you've a policy of supporting the party line of the establishment of corruption in many threads, trained debunker!

The changeover in Russia involved Gorbachev, & it IS still part of NWO, with ex-KGB guy Putin as leader. I suggest you see the beginning of the antiNWO Patriot movement people, like William Cooper & Ralph Epperson citing Bush about the New World Order in their exposures, in the 90s. It WAS revealed, as to its' existence as an agenda then.

"Not at all possible that its a fake oath in the first place? Or that the one that says its a kofc oath was merely the false addition of a guy who wanted to slander his political opponent???"

Two sources of the oath & 1 person claims it's false without proof, so it's false? Of course the oath would be denied. The 900,000 Protestant reformationists KILLED by JESUIT agenda weren't falsely claiming Jesuits kill.
www.reformation.org

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck
Oh really? Why have I never met them or heard of them? Who is prominent among them?

I really can't help it if you aren't familiar with the NWO conspiracy.

Two sources of the oath

What two sources???? There's only one old source, and that apparently traced back to Robert Ware, a known forger of documents who'd make up stories to make catholics look bad, this is because the catholics and the protestants in england and ireland really didn't get along and he was perpetuating that state with propaganda.

& 1 person claims it's false without proof,

How can you possibly claim that they have no proof when you haven't even looked for the proof? I haven't seen her proof that its from Ware, so I'm not saying that its gopsel.

Of course the oath would be denied. The 900,000 Protestant reformationists KILLED by JESUIT agenda weren't falsely claiming Jesuits kill.

Again, the reality of the oath is what is in dispute. I don't know why you are having trouble understanding this. All that you have presented to support the oath is that Rivera, a liar and fraud, said 'its true'. Meanwhile, the oath is used in anti-catholic politricks and propaganda., as in the 'KofC' version that was used by a guy who lost an election to a catholic and tried to have him booted outta office for being a catholic. If there's any conspiracy here, its an anti-catholic conspiracy.
We know the the vatican opposed heresey, and often did so with violence, we know that the inquisition brutally tortured and killed people, no one is denying that. You, however, are making additional claims that the jesuits have sworn a ridiculous oath to infiltrate all religions and work especially agianst the kings of england and norway (or whatever). Do you really think that they give a damn about the king of norway?
Also, lets try and apply a little common sense here. The only versions of that oath are apparently in english. Yet this is a sacred rite of initiation of a latin (or at most italian) speaking catholic order? Its only in english? What, did the jesuits invite a british transcriber to record the ritual? How many english jesuits at the time that the oath first starts circulating woudl've left the church, and why? The anglicans hated them, and were conducting a counter-inquisition against them, they wouldn't just, lolly dolly, spill the beans on a anti-anglican conspiracy, while in the middle of england! I mean, even on the face of it, this document is a joke, and when you look into it, you find that there are multiple copies of it that apparently were knocked up to serve a narrowpolitical purpose, and that they're endorsed by loons like jack chick, who didn't even bother to verify if rivera was actually a preist beyond praying, or 'confirmed' by people who have absolutely no capacity to confirm them, not being a preist, let along a high ranking jesuit. And, again, the KofC angle, there are thousands of KofCers in the United States, all of them are craven murderous bastards according to you, because you can't reconcile there possibly being a fraudulent version of this oath (let alone that the entire oath is fraudulent)??? And you actually accept all this entirely on faith, without evidence, based merely upon your personal feelings of whats 'really going on'?????Thats preposterous enough, but then ya go and take it to another level and actually expect other people, 'so long as they're not cointelpro-masonic-vaticanos', to actually beleive it without evidence?


You know, you do have a point though, you can't really say that its not fake. You seem to have an uncanny ability with these things. Perhaps you can analyze my family crest and let me know if it plays into any of this??





It kinda looks suspect, but I dunno.

Originally posted by Nygdan

"I really can't help it if you aren't familiar with the NWO conspiracy."

You avoided the question. WHO is the leader of the alleged popular belief that NWO is about russian domination?

"We know the the vatican opposed heresey, and often did so"

...in violation of the 10 Commandments and teachings of Christ, therefore, heretics themselves!

"You, however, are making additional claims that the jesuits have sworn a ridiculous oath to infiltrate all religions and work especially agianst the kings of england and norway (or whatever). Do you really think that they give a damn about the king of norway?"

That's disinfo, & a LIE about what I said! The freemasons' rule is to infiltrate all religions, not Jesuits, to my knowledge. What or who mentioned the king of Norway? Not me nor the oath, that I've noticed. You're painting it crazy without posting the actual supposed words that say no such thing.

"And you actually accept all this entirely on faith, without evidence, based merely upon your personal feelings of whats 'really going on'?????"

Where there's smoke there's fire. The Jesuits do have a bloody history & other accusations, as by Martin. I do not give the guilty an automatic benefit of the doubt here. I never took the Jesuit oath, so one word is good as another. But supporting evidence weighs in also about Jesuits.

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck

Originally posted by roger_pearse

"So none of this has anything to do with Eusebius, or 325 AD; but refers to the controversies over the translation of the OT in the second century."

If not for Eusebius, there'd be no record of jews subtracting from scriptures.

That is true of much of what Eusebius writes, of course. However in this case his source -- Justin's Dialogue with Trypho -- has itself survived, unlike much that Eusebius quotes, although only in a single manuscript if I recall correctly.

I NEVER claimed that Eusebius was involved, as you implied wrongfully.

You wrote:

"Eusebius documented jews subtracting scriptures in 325AD."

I thought this would probably mislead people, you see.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[edit on 29/9/2005 by roger_pearse]

[edit on 29/9/2005 by roger_pearse]

Originally posted by roger_pearse

"So none of this has anything to do with Eusebius, or 325 AD; but refers to the controversies over the translation of the OT in the second century."

JJD wrote:

"Eusebius documented jews subtracting scriptures in 325AD."


It WAS 325AD when Eusebius documented that, which doesn't mean that that year it happened. The Sefer Zerubabel is an example of scripture subtracted by jews also, as it belongs with the Psuedopigrapha.

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck
That's disinfo, & a LIE about what I said! The freemasons' rule is to infiltrate all religions, not Jesuits, to my knowledge.

Dear god did you even read the oath????

What or who mentioned the king of Norway? Not me nor the oath

...he hath power to depose heretical Kings, Princes, States, Commonwealths, and Governments, and they may be safely destroyed Therefore to the utmost of my power I will defend this doctrine and His Holiness's right and custom against all usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority whatever, especially the Lutheran Church of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, and the now pretended authority and Churches of England and Scotland, and the branches of same now established in Ireland and on the continent of America and elsewhere and all adherents in regard that they may be usurped and heretical, opposing the sacred Mother Church of Rome. I do now denounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or State, named Protestant or Liberal, or obedience to any of their laws, magistrates or officers.

I never took the Jesuit oath, so one word is good as another. But supporting evidence weighs in also about Jesuits.

Ok, so just to be clear, you accept anything said by anyone, so long as it 'gels' with your general wordview, as true enough.

Originally posted by Nygdan

"Ok, so just to be clear, you accept anything said by anyone, so long as it 'gels' with your general wordview, as true enough."



I did not bring up the oath as evidence in the first place. It isn't needed to support anything I'm saying. The Jesuit history & Vatican whistleblower Martin who was reportedly pushed to his death is my evdence. I read the part about tortures to be inflicted on so-called heretics, that you avoided quoting.
Correct or not, I never relied on the oath for anything I'm saying. My world view doesn't revolve around the oath.

Reportedly pushed to his death? Don't you mean 'supposedly' pushed to his death?

And, er, you did bring up the oath in the first place, nice to see that you back out of information and sources once its obvious that they are fraudulent, rather than researching them for yourself and determining if and why they are true.

When calling me a liar, Prove it! What point did I need the oath to prove? NONE!

It wasn't me who kept bringing it up, tho I kept answering about it. YOU needed the oath involved as something you could attack.

As you pointed out, I'm not that familiar with the oath. Jesuit history speaks loud enough, along with Vatican whistleblower Martin.

The oath is a minor supporting piece of evidence about the nature of the masonic order of Jesuits. I didn't drag it in, in the first place.

Gnostic suppression? The Bogomils & Cathars were exterminated is evidence enough of that. Their still nonextant books is evidence enough of that.

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck
When calling me a liar, Prove it!

You did bring up the oath, at least try to pay attention to your own posts.

Here's the post where you, and you alone, bring up the oath as supporting evidence for suppression


I never suggested that the catholic church didn't ruthelessly suppress that which it considered heresy, at least in the past. I have questioned whether or not the church has secret copies of cathar, bogomil, or other groups gospels, and clearly the church is not doing anything like it used to in terms of battling heresey.

Well I guess James won't be responding any time soon...

Now I'm wondering if there is any proof that along with the Cathars, the persecution of the Valentinians still followed...

[edit on 2/10/2005 by AkashicWanderer]

James J Dierbeck

BANNED MEMBER

Well who couldn't see that coming. A shame really, i enjoyed reading his posts/theories. You guys better not ban Plumbo next. I'm guessing he did more than simply post wild thories to get banned....but i do hate to see it, he was fun.

I was enjoying it too myself. Alas, some people simply can handle or work with an online discussion forum.