Gospel Forgeries – Torah Prophecies

-Invazia regelui Sennacherib al Asiriei (circa 710 i.e.n.) si uciderea sa de catre proprii sai fii, neatacarea Ierusalimului; Isaia 37.36,38 si 36.1,2 -Prezicerea, cu o suta de ani inainte, a invaziei Babilonului impotriva Israelului (Iudea) si distrugerea regatului israelian; Isaia 39.5,7 -Prezicerea, cu o suta cincizeci de ani inainte, a cuceririi Babilonului de catre Medo-Persi; Isaia 13.17,22-Prezicerea, cu aproape doua sute de ani inainte, a refacerii Templului din Ierusalim de catre regele Cirus al Persiei; Isaia 44.28 si 45.4 -Prezicerea, cu aproape trei sute de ani inainte, a invingerii Medo-Persilor de catre Grecia; prezicerea domniei lui Alexandru Macedon si a impartirii imperiului sau intre cei patru generali; Daniel 8.19,23 -Prezicerea, cu sapte sute de ani inainte, a locului nasterii lui Iisus Christos; Mica 5.2 -Prezicerea, cu sute de ani inainte, a detaliilor vietii lui Iisus Christos: Isaia 35.4,6, 52.13,14, 52.15, 53.1,6, 53.9; prezicerea vanzarii si a tradarii facuta de Iuda pentru 30 de monezi de argint a Mantuitorului Iisus, Zaharia 11.12,13; prezicerea, cu o mie de ani inainte, a suferintei crucificarii, Psalmi 22.16,18; prezicerea anului nasterii si mortii/invierii lui Iisus, Daniel 8,9,10.

Torah/Old Testament prophecies fulfilled:

Chapters 2 and 3 from Late Great Planet Earth:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=cWt3rSMgmm8C&dq=late+great+planet+earth+pdf&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=ro&ei=5yfOScbxMMXD-Aa2htXUBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA19,M1

http://books.google.ro/books?id=cWt3rSMgmm8C&dq=late+great+planet+earth+pdf&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=ro&ei=5yfOScbxMMXD-Aa2htXUBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA27,M1

Documentatia completa a falsificarii celor patru evanghelii de catre conspiratorii esenieni, si a epistolelor din Noul Testament, de asemenea adaugarea primelor trei capitole (plus citatul cu blasfemia din cap. 22) din Apocalipsa (al carei autor a fost Ioan Botezatorul).

Multe alte informatii si despre Vechiul Testament.

Cateva greseli neintentionate legate de traducerea Bibliei:

-Prima este traducerea termenului ABUR (VAPOR DE AER) in STILP DE SARE (nevasta lui Lot a fost ucisa de ploaia de meteoriti care sa intamplat la Sodomah, sumerieni numind radiatia acesteia, vintul cel rau--nu a fost vorba deloc de vreo explozie 'nucleara'); -In Geneza 6, termenul gigantii (NEPHILIM) se traduce si in 'cei care au venit din ceruri pe Pamint'; -Cuvintele CAMILA si FUNIE GROASA sunt asemanatoare, cel care a tradus 'e mai usor sa intre camila prin gaura acului...' nu si-a dat seama; -In Geneza termenul NUME a fost tradus dezastruos de catre cei care nu cunosteau

limba sumeriana in care se vorbeste despre SEM (SHAMAH) adica 'vehicol zburator ceresc' sau farfurie zburatoare; -Cind Adam a vazut-o pe Eva pentru prima data a rostit o exclamatie de admiratie si incantare si nicidecum 'os din osul meu, carnea din carnea mea', asa cum a fost tradus din ebraica...-Cea mai interesanta dintre toate greselile neintentionate s-a comis in Apocalipsa 13. Am cercetat versiunea originala greceasca pentru fraza 'ranit de sabie' si 'care avea rana de sabie si traia' si intradevar au fost traduse gresit: in original spune asa 'whose deadly wound was healed' 13:14 si mai ales 'FATALLY WOULD COME BACK TO LIFE' 13:12, care se potriveste mult mai bine cu personajul din Apocalipsa 13.

http://www.neogen.ro/group/33645/view-posts/61198http://www.neogen.ro/group/33645/view-posts/61200

Conspiratorii Essenieni au introdus si alte citate complet false in Noul Testament, de la falsificarea completa a Evangheliilor dupa Ioan si Luca, la falsificarea epistolelor semnate Ioan, Iacov si Iuda (am aratat mai sus the forgeries of the Peter epistles), dar nu s-au oprit aici...

Tot ei au copiat profetiile originale ale lui Ioan Botezatorul, si anume cap. 4-22 din Apocalipsa, la care au adaugat cap. 1-3, complet false, si blasfemia de neimaginat, adica Luceafarul de Dimineata, din doua locuri din Apocalipsa...

Iata site-ul care discuta acest aspect:

http://www.thegodabovegod.com/index_files/Jim%20West%20Articles/Lucifer%20the%20Lightbringer.htm

Cina cea de Taina falsificatahttp://www.forumcrestin.com/index.php?topic=3829.msg484611#msg484611

http://www.forumcrestin.com/index.php?topic=3829.msg484641#msg484641

But look for a moment at this vignette from the gospel attributed to John, Chapter 13 :43N 13 4 43N 13 4 He rose from the supper and laid aside his garments. And, taking a towel, he girded himself43N 13 5 43N 13 5 Next he threw water into the wash basin and began to wash the feet of the learners - and to wipe them off with the towel with which he was girded43N 13 6 43N 13 6 Then he came to Simon Peter - (who) said to him "Lord, do you wash my feet?"

43N 13 7 43N 13 7 Jesus answered - and he said to him "What I am doing you have not now understood. But with these things you shall learn to know "

A gnostic scenario - and a gnostic statement to go with it. 'You have not yet understood.

Raymond Brown, in his book 'The Gospel According to John' [Ref.1], notes that "... it was customary hospitality to provide water for a guest to wash his own feet. But as the Midrash Mekilta on Exodus xxi 2 tells us, the washing of a master's feet could not be required [even] of a Jewish slave". Again he writes that "... there was nothing in the ritual of the Passover meal that can be compared to the footwashing. Footwashing was done when one entered the house, not during the course of the meal".

The story seems thus incongruous. Taken as a record of a social gathering, it is not a realistic scenario.

V-ati uitat cu atentie vreodata la Evanghelia dupa Ioan? Nu?

13,1.      Iar înainte de sărbătoarea Paştilor, ştiind Iisus că a sosit ceasul Lui, ca să treacă din lumea aceasta la Tatăl, iubind pe ai Săi cei din lume, până la sfârşit i-a iubit. 

In acelasi capitol, si discutia despre Iuda si tradarea sa...

Din Matei:

26,17.      În cea dintâi zi a Azimelor, au venit ucenicii la Iisus şi L-au întrebat: Unde voieşti să-Ţi pregătim să mănânci Paştile? 

Discutia despre Iuda, in acelasi capitol...

Din Marcu:

14,12.      Iar în ziua cea dintâi a Azimilor, când jertfeau Paştile, ucenicii Lui L-au întrebat: Unde voieşti să gătim, ca să mănânci Paştile? 

EPISODUL CU SPALAREA PICIOARELOR NU A AVUT NICIODATA LOC; NU AR FI AVUT CUM SA AIBA, DATA FIIND INTERDICTIA COMPLETA DIN VECHIUL TESTAMENT:

Numeri 28,18

Numeri 28:18 În ziua dintâi, să fie o adunare sfântă: să nu faceţi nici o lucrare de slugă în ea.

Cei care au scris Evanghelia dupa Ioan, au mutat episodul Cina cea de Taina, din prima zi de sarbatoare in ziua precedenta, DAR AU UITAT SA MODIFICE DISCUTIA DESPRE IUDA, PREZENTATA IN

CELELALTE EVANGHELII CA FIIND PURTATA IN ZIUA INTAI DE PASSOVER, CAND IISUS NU AR FI AVUT CUM SA SPELE PICIOARELE CELOR 12 APOSTOLI, DATA FIIND INTERDICTIA CLARA DIN NUMERI DE A PRESTA VREO LUCRARE DE SLUGA: Numeri 28:18 În ziua dintâi, să fie o adunare sfântă: să nu faceţi nici o lucrare de slugă în ea.

Sarbatoarea Azimilor (Passover/Pesach) includea doar paine NEDOSPITA, in greceste AZYMOS, si niciodata si nicidecum paine dospita, in greceste ARTOS. In episodul numit Cina dea de Taina, este folosit cuvantul ARTOS, lucru absolut imposibil

While there are several uses of the word Azumos (unleavened Bread) in the NT none of them refer to the bread used in the Lord’s Supper, but rather they are either references to the feast of unleavened bread (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:1, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:1, Luke 22:7, Acts 12:3, Acts 20:6) or an analogy for a congregation purging out sin from their midst and walking in holiness (1 Corinthians 5:8).In all other places that the word “bread” occurs in the NT, it is the Greek word Artos meaning a loaf of common leavened bread.

Nothing leavened may you eat; wherever you dwell you may eat only unleavened bread."Exodus 12:20

3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction; for in haste didst thou come forth out of the land of Egypt; that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life.

Painea insotita de vin era un ritual pagan, introdus cu viclenie in cele patru evanghelii, pentru a induce in eroare pe cei care credeau in marturia lui Iisus. Vinul/mustul erau absolut interzise pentru liderii spirituali/religiosi din Israel:

Vezi Levitic 10.9, Ezechiel 44.21, Exod 30.9Levitic 10.10Proverbe 31.45, Osea 4.11, Eclez. 10.16

De asemenea, la acea Cina, lipsesc celelalte ingrediente specifice Pastelui Evreiesc...

http://www.nabion.org/html/gospel_of_john.html )supersite=

http://paracleteforum.org/archive/email/bible/johnauthentic/dialogue.html

http://www.christianorigins.com/4gproblem.html

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2007/01/27/loisy-on-the-gospel-of-john/

http://www.geocities.com/atheistdivine/john.html

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/john.html

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/LifeJ/TeacherJesusJn.htm

Instead the speeches of Jesus in John's Gospel are often a whole chapter long and sound like profound "theological" teaching. What John tells about Jesus' last days and hours of his life is also different from what the Synoptic Gospels had found in the tradition of the community of believers. There is no mentioning of a "Last Supper" during which Jesus gave bread and wine as symbols of his life for mankind. In John's Gospel Jesus gives his friends during the (Paschal-)meal the example of his serving-love by washing their feet, then he talks to them and prays for them to the Father and for all those who will come to believe in him through their testimony. John does neither speak about Jesus' suffering in the garden of Gethsemane nor does he mention Jesus' "ascension" to the Father.

Ati citit cu atentie primul capitol din Ioan?

Cititi aceasta analiza senzationala:

http://www.nabion.org/html/gospel_of_john.html

Today, many believe that the Gospel of John has in fact undergone massive changes from its original writings; that originally it was a false Gnostic gospel written by Cerinthus.

In Greek it was called the Logos— the very concept that opens the Gospel of John, and one that is now lamely attributed to meaning Word as a metaphor of Christ. Logos in Greek never meant word in this context. It is the word from which even English derives the word for “logic”— the reason; the meaning. (I heard one preacher say that Rema means written word in Greek and logos is oral word. Both statements are incredibly false). Logos is essentially “The Force.”

It is clear from the beginning of the Gospel of John that Cerinthus’ particular Gnosticism is detectable, whether redacted or not by John the Elder. Actually, before quoting, it is plain to see that being ignorant of Gnosticism has buffered the true Christian from seeing that the author of the introduction does divide between God, Logos, Jesus Christ and the Father, because the basic Christian has read them as all the same. But when one realizes Cerinthus’ philosophy, as set forward by Irenaeus, one can see plainly that Cerinthian philosophy is dominant, though slightly Christianized. Read it again:

“In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. [4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men. [5] And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. [6] There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. [7] The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. [8] He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. [9] That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. [10] He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. [11] He came unto his own, and his own received him not. [12] But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: [13] Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. [14] And the Logos was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. [15] John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. [16] And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace. [17] For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. [18] No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” 

An interesting arrangement. The Logos is the creative reason and power behind God, intimately a part of him, and it was in the world before it takes on bodily form as Jesus, begotten not of God but of the Father. Again, an interesting derivation: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” The Father and God appear separate entities.

DECI, LOGOS INSEMNA DE FAPT UN CONCEPT PAGAN DERIVAT DIN MISTERELE EGIPTENE...

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/plott/start/johnE.html )very good

http://www.bibletoday.com/harmony/trinity_text.htm )goodhttp://www.nabion.org/html/trinity.html

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01594b.htmhttp://latter-rain.com/church/cerin.htm

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/dionysius_syrus_revelation_01.htm

http://www.nabion.org/html/irrelevant_revelation.html

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976733655

http://www.nabion.org/html/apocryphal_apocolypticism.html

Dr. Schleiermacher, one of Germany's greatest theologians, after a critical analysis of Luke, concludes that it is merely a compilation,  made up of thirty-three preexisting manuscripts. Bishop Thirlwall's Schleiermacher says: "He [Luke] is from beginning to end no more than the compiler and arranger of documents which he found in existence" (p. 313).

The basis of this Gospel is generally believed to be the Gospel of Marcion, a Pauline compilation, made about the middle of the second century. Concerning this Gospel, the Rev. S. Baring-Gould in his Lost and Hostile Gospels, says: "The arrangement is so similar that we are forced to the conclusion that it was either used by St. Luke or that it was his original composition. If he used it then his right to the title of author of the Third Gospel falls to the ground, as what he added was of small amount."

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg03.htm supersite

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

http://www.nabion.org/html/gnosticism.html

http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/ending-mark.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mark_16.htm

Massyngberde-Ford, J. Revelation: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975.

Massynberde-Ford believes that the Apocalypse is a patchwork of editing based on a pre-Christian apocalypse originating from John the Baptizer and his disciples. Her theories have been rejected by virtually all Revelation scholars. The value of the book lies in its fresh, idiomatic paraphrase of the Greek text.

The Evangelist then added text of his own, notably the letters to the seven churches. The difference in writing style is apparent in the letters to the churches also.      These scholars argue convincingly that Chapters 4 through 11 had their origin in the Baptist's preaching and that chapters 4 through 11 are the earliest portions of the Apocalypse. J. M. Ford explains all of this in detail (The Anchor Bible: Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), p. 3).

http://www.geocities.com/mauricewms2003/Lindex.html

http://www.deusdiapente.net/science/nt.php

http://www.deusdiapente.net/science/gospels.php )interesting=

GJohn contains some of the longest, most otherwordly and most implausible speeches for Jesus. The length of the discourses in itself mitigates against their historicity simply by virtue of the implausibilty of those speeches surviving verbatim for 70 or more years in the memory of this fisherman (and nowhere else. These discourses are found nowhere else in early Christian literature). They do not have the short and sweet anecdotal quality of the Q pericopes which are easy to remember and transmit through oral tradition.

GJohn also shows layered authorship. It is not the contiguous work of a single author but the result of multiple redactions by multiple hands.

Supersitehttp://www.gospel-mysteries.net/gospel-john.html

Then later, according to the theory, an unknown person tried to introduce some new ideas into the gospel. To do so, this second author invented long speeches for Jesus, and also added several new theological concepts. This author may have also eliminated some material, such as stories about demonic possessions.

If this theory is correct, the long speeches in John are fabrications that give a false picture of how Jesus talked and what he said. And some of the ideas in the gospel come from a later stage in the development of Christianity than what is found in the other gospels.

http://www.islam-guide.com/bqs/12cotradictions.htm

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1592/

john baptist revelationFinally, the letters to the seven churches were added (Ford, p. 3).http://www.geocities.com/mauricewms2003/http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/584677

(2) A newer camp: The central chapters of the book (4-19) were written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem -- perhaps as a result of vision(s) by St. John the Baptist, with the first four and closing chapters written later by the evangelist. The harlot of Babylon refers to corrupt Jesusalem. The prophetic vision of the destruction of Babylon (Jerusalem) was what motivated the early Christians to flee the city, saving them from elimination with the Jews during the destruction of 70 AD.

However, as part of her thesis, she also promotes that idea of the central portions of the Revelation occurred prior to 70 AD, and provided the impedus for the Christian evacuation of the city. This idea appears in work by other authors.

Although many Biblical scholars claim that John the Evangelist wrote all of Revelation at Patmos in A.D. 96, some Biblical scholars claim that the Evangelist did not compose chapters 4 through 11. John the Baptist was the source of those chapters. J. M. Ford in the Anchor Bible’s commentary, in the volume entitled Revelation, supports this claim (Ford, pp. 3, 28). She concurs with Boismard, Hopkins, and others that Revelation chapters 4–11 and 12–22 were the oral preaching of John the Baptist and reflect his own and, later, his disciples’ understanding of “He that cometh” before Christ began his public ministry (Ford, p. 3). Doyle, in his 2005 interpretation of Revelation, agrees with Ford (Doyle), p. xii) and states that Revelation was written over a thirty-year period, with many additions, insertions, and elaborations (Doyle, p. 97).

Ford suggests that chapters 12–22 were composed at a later date (in the mid 60’s) but still had their initial origin from the Baptist’s disciples who predicted the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Ford suggests that chapters 1–3 (the letters to the seven churches) were added last by a Jewish Christian disciple who knew Jesus Christ (Ford, p. 3). There is no doubt that disciple was John the Evangelist. Ford cites a nine-page “General Selected Bibliography” containing books and articles discussing Revelation (Ford, pp. 58–66).

http://www.manicreaders.com/index.cfm?disp=bookDetail&bookid=3375

Just the past week I was looking at some very informal and preliminary work I did on the New Testament book of Revelation, inspired by my former colleague at the University of Notre Dame, Josephine Masssyngberde Ford in her  volume on Revelation in the Anchor Bible Commentary series (now Anchor Yale Bible Commentary, edited by J. J. Collins). Although colleagues have been fairly critical of Ford’s work in this volume, and particularly her claim that the book of Revelation can be traced back to pre-Christian John the Baptizer circles, with links to Qumran and the DSS, I have found her basic insights quite compelling.

In opinia mea, doar capitolele 4-19 au fost scrise de Ioan Botezatorul; iar din capitolul 20, doar o parte din aceasta sectiune, si anume versetele 11-15, pentru ca versetele 1-10 contrazic atat continutul Cartii lui Enoh cat si Geneza.

THE “THREE HEAVENLY WITNESSES” FORGERY

Bishop Clement of Alexandria, writing around 200 A.D., thus quotes a comparatively trivial and innocuous passage from the forged First Epistle of St. John (v, 7),—which, through fraudulent tampering later became one of the “chief stones of the corner” of the Holy Church that the Fathers built: “John says: ‘For there are three that bear witness, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.’” (Clem. Alex., Fragment from Cassiodorus, ch. iii; ANF. iii, 576.) This is self-evidently the original text of this now famous, or infamous, passage. Turning now to the Word of God as found in the “Authorized” Protestant and in the Chaloner-Douay Version of the Catholic Vulgate, we read with wonder: {193}

 “7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

 “8. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (I John, v, 7, 8.)

Let us now turn to the same text, or what is left of it, in the Revised Version. Here we read, with more wonder (if we do not know the story of pious fraud behind it), what seems to be a garbled text: “8. For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.”Erasmus first detected the fraud and omitted the forged verse in his edition of the Greek Testament in 1516. (New Comm. Pt. III, p. 718-19.) This verse 7, bluntly speaking, is a forgery: “It had been wilfully and wickedly interpolated, to sustain the Trinitarian doctrine; it has been entirely omitted by the Revisers of the New Testament.” (Roberts, Companion to the Revised Versions p. 72.) “This memorable text,” says Gibbon, “is condemned by the silence of the Fathers, ancient versions, and authentic manuscripts, of all the manuscripts now extant, above four score in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old.” (Ch. xxvii, p. 598.) Speaking of this and another, Reinach says: “One of these forgeries (I John v, 7) was subjected to interpolation of a later date. ... If these two verses were Authentic, they would be an affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity, at a time when the gospels, and Acts and St. Paul ignore it. It was first pointed out in 1516 that these verses were an interpolation, for they do not appear in the best manuscripts down to the fifteenth century. The Roman Church refused to bow to the evidence. ... The Congregation of the Index, on January 13, 1897, with the approbation of Leo XIII, forbade any question of the authenticity of the text relating to the ‘Three Heavenly Witnesses.’ It showed in this instance a wilful ignorance to which St. Gregory’s rebuke is specially applicable: “God does not need our lies.”’ (Orpheus, p. 239.) But His Church does; for without them it would not be; and without the forged “Three Heavenly Witnesses,” and the forged “Baptism Formula” of Matthew (xxviii, 19), there would be not a word in the entire New Testament hinting the existence of the Three-in-One God of Christianity. The Holy Trinity is an unholy Forgery!

Lest it be thought by some pious but uninformed persons that the foregoing imputation may be either false or malicious, we shall let CE. make the confession of shame, with the usual clerical evasions to “save the face” of Holy Church confronted with this proven forgery and fraud. From a lengthy and detailed review, under separate headings, of all the ancient MSS., Greek, Syriac, Ethiopia, Armenian, Old Latin, and of the Fathers, the following is condensed, but in the exact words of the text:

“The famous passage of the Three Witnesses [quoting I John, v, 7]. Throughout the past three hundred years, effort has been made to expunge from our Clementine Vulgate edition of the canonical Scriptures the words that are bracketed. Let us examine the facts of the case. [Here follows the thorough {194} review of the MSS, closed in each instance by such words as: “The disputed part is found in none”; “no trace”; “no knowledge until the twelfth century,” etc. etc.] The silence of the great and voluminous St. Augustine, [etc.] are admitted facts that militate against the canonicity of the Three Witnesses. St. Jerome does not seem to know the text,—[Jerome made the Vulgate Official Version].

“Trent’s is the first certain ecumenical decree, whereby the Church established the Canon of Scripture. We cannot say that the Decree of Trent necessarily included the Three Witnesses”—[for reasons elaborately stated, and upon two conditions discussed, saying): “Neither condition has yet been verified with certainty; quite the contrary, textual criticism seems to indicate that the Comma Johanninum was not at all times and everywhere wont to be read in the Catholic Church, and it is not contained in the Old Latin Vulgate. However, the Catholic theologian must take into account more than textual criticism”! (CE. viii, 436.)

More shaming proofs and confessions of forgery of pretended words of the Christ . . . than of this falsified command to preach a forged Gospel to the credulous dupes of Paganism. Gentile Christianity collapses upon its forged foundations.However, Christianity for Gentiles is given in Acts 15 (and 21:25). It dispenses with what Jesus said for Jews (everything he said, actually), and keeps just four requirements. No to blood food (including Brat, Wurst, black pudding, etc.) is one of them - as bad as adultery, or the other way round.      Wheless thinks that baptism formulas are most likely forged too. He brings up how likely it is that the baptism part of these gospel sections are forged. "The elaborated forgery of Matthew, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," are sufficiently branded with falsity in the preceding paragraphs, and may be dismissed without further notice. And the Holy "Trinity" spoken of in it, was not actually invented until the Council of Constantinople, in 381 AD. McCabe says "It was fraudulently added to the gospel when the priesthood was created." It is almost certain that baptism at first was into the name of Jesus Christ, and not formally into the name of the a Trinity. [Joseph Wheless. Forgery in Christianity

The biblical origin of Lucifer begins in Isaiah 14:12, “How you are fallen from heaven O Lucifer, son of the morning!” This quote is from the King James, but the Hebrew text says “How you have fallen from heaven O morning star, son of the dawn!” Note that the Hebrew text does not contain the proper name of any god. I have been unable to determine if the ancient Israelites actually identified the morning star with any angel or god.  Among Semitic cultures in general the morning star was identified with the god Azizos (Azazel?). It is in the Greek Old Testament that the morning star was first identified with the name of a god. Apparently the words “son of the dawn” reminded the Hellenistic Jewish translators of Eosphoros in Greek tradition. Eosphoros is the Greek equivalent of Lucifer, and this was the source from which “Lucifer” entered into both Latin and English translations of the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments (see below).

http://www.thegodabovegod.com/index_files/Jim%20West%20Articles/Lucifer%20the%20Lightbringer.htm )supersite=

http://www.exminister.org/Jeremiah_forgery.html

However, C.K.Barrett sees the ‘Wedding at Cana’, exclusive to John, as full of both Hellenistic and synoptic themes. Wine rituals were central in Dionysian rites, which were popular in Hellenism.

John had a clear knowledge and understanding of both Hellenistic and Jewish ideas. There is a clear hostility to the Jews and a very definite separation between the two groups.

This contrast between the Dionysian Christ and the Essene John continues in Luke 7:33 "For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, 'He hath a devil'. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, 'Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!' But wisdom is justified of all her children."

The Eucharist of Maria: The living sacrament of Maria is named teonanactl - "the flesh of the gods" of the Aztecs, Toltecs and the Mayas, called by Wasson "the divine mushroom of immortality".

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,

and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." (John 6:53)

"Take, eat. This is my body (soma) and blood which is shed for you."

The flesh of the gods reverses the sacrificial cycle, in which the living flesh of man was offered to the gods. The gods are instead offering us their flesh - a neutral gift of the fungal kingdom, which can heal the rift between the planter goddess and the shepherd king, and replace the flesh and blood of human sacrifice with the reward of peace. It forms a convergent ending for two great sacrificial traditions. The lightning of Tlaloc, in which the sky father fertilizes the earth mother is itself the sacred hieros gamos of the cosmos in which the mushroom was mythically created, prophesying its sacred role between the sexes. It is the Dune spice of Gaea. It is the sacrament of the White Goddess of the moon, whose sacred tree, the Alder is the preferred substrate for Ps. cyanescens, widespread in Europe. The Eleusinian rites appear to have used a similar mushroom.

According to John, Jesus performed his first public miracle at a wedding feast in Cana, when he turned water into wine (John 2:1-11). Similarly, Pagan myth records Dionysus turning water into wine at his own wedding to Ariadne (Freke/Gandy, 38). Also in John, Jesus miraculously helped his disciples catch a large number of fish at the Sea of Galilee -- 153, to be precise (John 21 : 11). In the aretalogy written by Porphyry, the great mathematician Pythagoras also performed this supernatural feat. Further, the Pythagoreans regarded 153 as a sacred number due to its use in a mathematical ratio called "the measure of the fish," which produces the mystical symbol of the vesica pisces -- the intersection of two circles which yields a fish-like shape. This "sign of the fish" is, of course, still widely used today as a symbol of Christianity (Freke/Gandy, 39).

http://www.greatdreams.com/numbers/jerry/153.htm supersite

Why does almost everyone but a committed Catholic believe that the fourth gospel is a fake?

Consider the evidence:

Points of detail at odds with the synoptic gospels:

– the duration of Christ's public ministry is extended by John from one year to over three years, during which time John recounts three visits by Jesus to Jerusalem, not just one; within this extended time frame, John moves the so-called ‘purification of the temple’, which the synoptics put at the end of the Christ's ministry, to the beginning.

– John does not agree with the others on the day of crucifixion – surely an occasion of the utmost import? John says Christ held his last supper with his apostles on Thursday; according to the synoptics, the last supper was on Friday.OK, so the old man’s memory could have been failing (though he remembers torturous dialogue verbatim!). But then consider the content of the gospel – very different from what we would expect from the ‘memoirs of an apostle’:– While the synoptics focus on the anticipated ‘Kingdom of God’ (and Christ is ‘Son of Man’), John centres on Christ himself, as ‘Son of God’ and eternal king, and upon the evangelical goal of convincing others that Christ was the Messiah – sentiments more in keeping with an established church.

– the advanced theology of the fourth gospel is difficult to reconcile with the homely simplicity of the synoptics; this is allegedly an old fisherman’s tale, after all.

– the long discourses and colloquies of Jesus – remembered so clearly after more than sixty years?

– the dogmatic character of John's narrative sits oddly alongside the moral discourses of Jesus in the synoptic gospels.

Oddities:

– John's Gospel is the work of a trained mind who wrote good Greek with some semitizing; but Acts 4.13 says that John was illiterate.

– John makes little reference to Galilee, which is scarcely what we would expect from a native of the province, especially since Galilee (supposedly) was the centre of Christ’s ministry. Nor does he mention at all his brother James.

– John makes frequent and unnecessary references to the "the Jews", as if they were a hostile group, e.g. "as I said unto the Jews" (John 13.33) said by Jesus (a Jew) to a group of Jews. He was one of them, was he not? John's knowledge of Judaism is also tainted. Critics cite John 18.13 in this regard (as if there were an annual priest): "and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year."

– The author of this work would hardly refer to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved."

– John does NOT mention the 'Transfiguration' – when supposedly Jesus was joined by Moses and Elias on a mountain top, transformed into "glory" and was addressed by God himself – an astounding omission considering that we are informed by each of the synoptic gospels that John was one of only three eye witnesses to this stunning miracle!

"And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them. And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus." – Mark 9.2,9.

– Similarly, John omits any mention of the raising of Jairus's daughter but according to Mark's gospel it was John who was a privileged witness:

"And he suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, and James, and John the brother of James. And he cometh to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and seeth the tumult, and them that wept and wailed greatly ... And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she was of the age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great astonishment." – Mark 5.37,42.

– Nor does John mention the 'Ascension', one of the crucial events of the whole Christian story. Yet apparently John was a witness to this grand finale whereas the two reporters of the bizarre story (Mark and Luke) were not!

"And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you ... And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven." – Luke 24.33,51.

 

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/john.htm(un site interesant, dar care merge mult prea departe, autorii nu au cercetat destul profetiile Vechiului Testament)(an interesting site, but which goes much too far, its authors have not researched thoroughly the subject, the prophecies concerning the Messiah, in the Torah)

For example, the gnostic Marcion was using a Gospel of Luke around 140 CE which did not conform to our canonical text; chapters 1 and 2 are later additions. The last 12 verses of Mark's Gospel and the last chapter of John's Gospel are also later additions. The church father Origen acknowledged that manuscripts had been edited and passages added to suit the needs of the changing theological climate [2]. As already shown, all the revisions have done nothing to remove the major discrepancies in the gospels.

Once an historical Jesus had been created, the Acts of the Apostles was written (150-177 CE) to account for his disciples. It reads like a fantasy novel, misquotes the Old Testament, and contradicts Paul's letters. It is now acknowledged to be largely if not entirely a fabricated picture of Christian origins designed to serve the purposes of the Roman Church. Finally, the Letters of the Apostles were written (177-220 CE). Modern scholars have shown that the

letters ascribed to Peter, James and John are forgeries written much later to combat heretical (gnostic) ideas within the early church; they attack 'many deceivers' who 'will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh' (2 John 7).

Meier[53] notes that several points of interest about the seemingly “simple” story of the miracle at Cana turn out to be “not so simple.” First, he notes that this story is “especially puzzling” and that it “resembles in some ways the only other gift miracle…the feeding of the multitude.” Meier notes that there are three specific points that set this miracle apart from all the other “miracle stories in the Gospels.”

“Instead of a clear petition” on the part of someone for help, there is “only the laconic observation” of Jesus’ mother: “They have no wine” (John 2.3). Meier notes that in this story there are “ellipsis and silence” where further explanation is often imagined by commentators.

The miracle is seemingly performed in an indirect fashion. Jesus simply gives “two orders to the servants: fill the jars with water...[and] draw off some of the liquid and bring it to the headwaiter (John 2.7-8).”

Meier notes, lastly, “the concluding acclamation is likewise indirect and allusive.” The wine steward simply notes that the best wine was left for last (John 2.10). Meier notes that it is “Johannine irony” that has the “person extolling the quality of the wine in 2:10” not realizing that “he is acclaiming a miracle” but the servants knew (John 2.9).

Meier also notes that this miracle is “unlike every other miracle story….Within the Four Gospels, the wine miracle of Cana truly stands alone.”[54] Meier[55] comments that of the two miracles in The Gospel according to John that are performed in Cana [the second is the healing of the official’s son], the first of the miracles at Cana “shows itself to be the ‘beginning’ in more ways than one.”

Rensberger[66] notes that Nicodemus is a symbolic figure who is to be understood as a “communal symbolic figure. He cites evidence within the Gospel itself for Nicodemus as a symbolic figure. Rensberger notes that in 3.2 Nicodemus addresses Jesus: “ ‘Rabbi, we know you are a teacher come from God.” He notes that later Jesus tells him, “You people must be born again” (3.7). Rensberger further cites 3.11-12 where the plural is used yet again: “We speak of what we know, and testify to what we have seen, and you people do not accept our testimony”; Rensberger then refers to Jesus’ speaking to “you people” of earthly and heavenly things, which “you people” fail to believe. [67]

Rensberger elaborates that the use of these plural terms must signify that Nicodemus does not stand for an individual person but for “some specific group.” Rensberger states that the group for which Nicodemus stands is the Johannine Christians over against the “group represented by Nicodemus.”

This writer is willing to consider the validity of Rensberger’s argument. It could be that Nicodemus could stand for both—himself and the group of which he is a member.

Meier[68] states that Jesus is noted to “engage in civilized debate or even friendly dialogue with Pharisees, scribes, or ‘rulers,’ the priests are never presented in such positive light”; so the Sadducees are not considered. Thus, it is apparent that Nicodemus was one of those Pharisees who were willing to listen to Jesus, debate with him, and consider his teachings.

Proto-Gnostic Symbolism: T.G. Brown[69] goes on to state that Jesus’ statement about being “born anew” in 3.3 would result in the person “bearing an honor status of God…receiving an honor rating commensurate with divine birth…[being] deemed worthy of the kingdom of God.” She goes on to elaborate that “[b]y emphasizing spiritual birth…as the prerequisite to eternal life, the Evangelist is setting up a dualistic structure, contrasting the earthly sphere with the ‘God-sphere.’ ”

Painter[70] notes what this writer considers a Proto-Gnostic symbolism hidden within the narrative of this story. He calls attention to the fact that Nicodemus came to Jesus by night and the “furtive nature of the visit.” The knowledge that Nicodemus sought from Jesus would bring to “light” Nicodemus’ search for information. This again is a “dualistic” symbolism that would easily be understood by readers of the time.

This writer notes that there is further dualistic reference in this story. Jesus tells Nicodemus, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, “You must be born anew.” The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know when it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit (3.5-8). This statement of Jesus contains the dualistic baptismal symbolism of being born of water/spirit and the dualistic symbolism of spirit/flesh. Even the term “wind” is a reference to the Spirit as the words for “spirit” and “wind” are the same in Greek, pneuma.

Reprise: This writer sees a “reprise” to the story of Nicodemus. It is Nicodemus who together with Joseph of Arimathea who at the death of Jesus came with 100 pounds of myrrh and aloes, wrapped the body of Jesus in linen cloths and buried Jesus in the tomb in the garden (19.39-41).

In elaborating on these three points T.G. Brown observes that the first detail noted about the woman in John’s Gospel is that she “came to draw water at midday” (4.6-7). This bit of information informs the reader that she came alone to draw water at a very unusual time. Women usually drew water in the mornings and/or the evenings and always came in the company of other women. T.G. Brown notes that the Samaritan woman by going to the well alone at this particular time “enters into public space, or male space.” She further elaborates that the ancient Mediterranean world was basically divided into two areas: public and private. Public space was reserved for men; private space, specifically, the home, was reserved for women; at specific times and with certain accompanying reservations women could “invade” public space without opprobrium; that is, women could be in public space at certain times when domestic responsibilities were being fulfilled. These places were generally restricted to public wells and ovens. As a result of these rules, male space allowed interaction with non-kin individuals; female space allowed women contact only with males who were family.

Burge[77] comments, “John’s Gospel is the only NT writing to mention living water.” It seems clear from Burge’s following comments that the teaching in this story is directed at the Jews of the synagogue. Burge notes the following points:

John has Jesus using “living water” in “conceptually parallel ways”: The Old Testament, Jewish monuments, and Jewish institutions are contrasted with the “gift of Jesus.”

In this story the historic well of Jacob becomes “redundant” when Jesus offers his living water.

Water was a metaphor for the Spirit in both Old Testament and Rabbinic thought. The Qumran also used water and Spirit as a metaphor, but from the standpoint of a

ritual sense of purification. Jesus also referred to water and Spirit in the story of Nicodemus (3.5) noted above:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

The metaphor of the living water depicts two things:o The valueless institution which Jesus replaces in his person.o The newness Jesus brings.

Lastly, Burge notes that his story has its climax in the “Samaritan expectation of living water” which “is fulfilled if one believes in Jesus.” He notes that John then lists christological titles that “give substance to this belief: prophet (vv.19, 44), Messiah and Christ (v. 25), ‘I am’….(v 26), and Savior of the world (v. 42).”

T.G. Brown,[78] citing several scholars, notes “living water” is interpreted as a metaphor for “spirit” and refers to the story of Nicodemus 3.5 where Jesus speaks of being born of water and the spirit; she then notes that being born of the spirit “opens up possibility of receiving the eternal life available through Jesus.” She cites John 19.34 where Jesus’ side is pierced and “water and blood” came out of the wound. She concludes that drinking living water means a transition from the “earthly realm” into becoming one of God’s children. She notes [as this writer has noted previously in this paper] that here too symbols are “integrally related concepts” where “living water/spirit” will become “a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (4.14). The living water/spirit that Jesus offers opens up the “possibility of entrance into the realm of God and eternal life by allowing believers a new ascribed honor status as children of God.”T.G. Brown notes that the conversation concludes with Jesus “disclosing to her his identity as the Messiah, in the form of an absolute ‘I am’ statement (v.26). This is the first occurrence of the ‘I am’ formula in the Gospel” and the absence of a statement of “who” I am “functions to recall the utterance of the divine name in the Old Testament.” Lastly, she notes that the “narrative closes with this marginalized group of people giving voice to the most exemplary confession in the Gospel thus far”: “It is no longer because of your (the Samaritan woman’s) words that we (the people of the town in which the Samaritan woman lives) believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world” (4.42).

Painter[79] notes that the story of the Samaritan woman takes up a new theme not discussed before in The Gospel according to John. He states that in his opinion John himself developed the story of Jesus dealing with the Samaritans. He agrees with T.G. Brown stating, “Jesus was not restricted by the conventions of his time but freely initiated this relationship with a Samaritan woman” (4.9). Painter does note that “obviously Jews and Samaritans did associate at certain levels” because the disciples had purchased food (4.31). He notes that it was the “context …[that] was unusual.” He also agrees that while Nicodemus “simply disappears, the woman responded positively” to Jesus. He concludes that by the end of the story the Samaritan woman’s search for life has been “satisfied beyond her expectation.”

Meier[99] notes that the entirety of chapter nine is “such a huge and complicated work of literary and theological art” that a number of stages of tradition and redaction must have taken place between the primitive miracle story[100] and the “monumental tract of Johannine theology” that is chapter nine. He notes that the core of this story of the man born blind must have originated in Jesus’ time as this story “takes for granted” the “topography of pre-A.D. 70 Jerusalem.” Specifically, the pool of Siloam is known to have existed before C.E. 70 from two independent sources, Josephus and the Copper Scroll found at Qumram; it seems the pool at Siloam was destroyed when the Temple was destroyed.

Meier also notes that another unique element in the story of the man born blind is that Jesus used spittle to make mud to “anoint” the eyes of the blind man but that it is only when the man washes in the pool that he can see. Meier notes, “Apparently the mud is meant to symbolize the blindness that is ‘washed away’ when the blind man obeys Jesus’ command to wash in Siloam.” He further notes that the man born blind is a “convenient symbol of a humanity born into a world of spiritual darkness.”

Proto-Gnostic Symbolism and Hellenistic Elements: Painter[101] considers that 9.3-5 (“Jesus answered, ‘It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him. We must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day; night comes, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.’ ”) is the beginning of “symbolic development of the themes of sight and blindness” which are concluded in verses 13-38; these verses are those where the Pharisees interrogate the man born blind, accuse Jesus of working on the Sabbath, interrogate the man’s parents about his blindness, interrogate the man a second time, and end up expelling the man born blind from the synagogue.

Painter[117] notes that Mary is a “known person” in this story as she is noted as being the one who “wiped the feet of Jesus with her hair” (a story from the following chapter 12). Lazarus is identified as her brother. Painter goes on to note that it is “strange that, while Mary is mentioned first, Martha is given the “leading dialogue” in this story. Painter also notes that Jesus is mentioned as having loved them all (11.5), that he was “deeply moved in spirit and troubled (11.33), that Jesus wept (11.35), and that Jesus was “deeply moved again” (11.38).[118]

http://www.theandros.com/pregnostic.html

Even one of the canonical books of the New Testament- the Gospel of John- is primarily of Gnostic origin. In it we can see a heavy Egyptian influence. The book begins with the words:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made…

This is a reflection of the Gnostic concept of the Logos ("Word"). The Logos is an aspect of the Christos ("Anointed One")- the Divine Spirit of Redemption that existed long before the birth of Jesus. It was with God at the very beginning, and was in fact the very Word with which all was created. (See Genesis I: "And God said...") It is self-created, and is equated with both the Consciousness of God and the consciousness within mankind.

The concept descends quite directly from ancient Egyptian views

You should be struck by the somewhat strange comments following in the Gospel of John, verses 9-17, regarding "12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of darkness" as well as the reference to Lazarus being "dead for 4 days" especially in light of the prior understanding when studying the Winter Solstice that it is on the 4th day, December 25th, following three days where the Sun remained "asleep" or "dead" as it sunk and remained at the same spot on the southwestern horizon as the Sun set for 3 days in a row. Remember for just a second what we learned; namely, that the Sun was "reborn from the dead" on the 4th day which just happened to be December 25th.

http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/raise_lazarus_truth_sun_myth.htm /supersite=

http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/comparison_of_sungods_with_life_of_jc_concerned.htm(again, the site goes too far, not understanding the prophecies concerning the Messiah in the Torah)

http://www.gnostics.com/reviewtjm.html

comfortercontroversyhttp://www.islam-guide.com/bqs/12cotradictions.htmhttp://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch6.3.html )supersite=

Dar despre cuvintele Mangaietor din Ioan 14:14,16, v-ati gandit vreodata care ar fi sursa acestor concepte gnostice?

In the Bible we can find the following four passages wherein Jesus (pbuh) predicts a great event:

John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever"

John 15:26 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me"

John 14:26 "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."

John 16:7-14 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I

have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you."

In these four verses, the word "comforter" is translated from the word "Paraclete" ("Ho Parakletos" in Greek). Parakletos in Greek is interpreted as "an advocate", one who pleads the cause of another, one who councils or advises another from deep concern for the other's welfare (Beacon Bible commentary volume VII, p.168). In these verses we are told that once Jesus (pbuh) departs, a Paraclete will come. He will glorify Jesus (pbuh), and he will guide mankind into all truth. This "Paraclete" is identified in John 14:26 as the Holy Ghost.

It must be pointed out that the original Greek manuscripts speak of a "Holy pneuma." The word pneuma {pnyoo'-mah} is the Greek root word for "spirit." There is no separate word for "Ghost" in the Greek manuscripts, of which there are claimed to be over 24,000 today. The translators of the King James Version of the Bible translate this word as "Ghost" to convey their own personal understanding of the text. However, a more accurate translation is "Holy Spirit." More faithful and recent translations of the Bible, such as the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), do indeed now translate it as "Holy Spirit." This is significant, and will be expounded upon shortly.

John 14:26 is the only verse of the Bible which associates the Parakletos with the Holy Spirit. But if we were to go back to the "ancient manuscripts" themselves, we would find that they are not all in agreement that the "Parakletos" is the Holy Spirit. For instance, in the famous the Codex Syriacus, written around the fifth century C.E., and discovered in 1812 on Mount Sinai by Mrs.Agnes S. Lewis (and Mrs. Bensley), the text of 14:26 reads; "Paraclete, the Spirit"; and not "Paraclete, the Holy Spirit.".

Is this just knit picking? "Spirit" or "Holy Spirit," what's the big deal? Obviously they both refer to the same thing. Right? Wrong! There is a big difference. A "spirit," according to the language of the Bible simply means "a prophet".

1) Christian scholars see evidence of tampering:

In the famous "Anchor Bible" we find the following quote:

"The word parakletos is peculiar in the NT to the Johnannine literature. In John ii Jesus is a parakletos (not a title), serving as a heavenly intercessor with the Father ... Christian tradition has identified this figure (Paraclete) as the Holy Spirit, but scholars like Spitta, Delafosse, Windisch, Sasse, Bultmann, and Betz have doubted whether this identification is true to the

original picture and have suggested that the Paraclete was once an independent salvific figure, later confused with the Holy Spirit."

The Anchor Bible, Doubleday & Company, Inc, Garden City, N.Y. 1970, Volume 29A, p. 1135

3) The Holy Ghost was already with them:

In the above verses we read "if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." The comforter can not be the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost (according to the Bible) was "with" them already (and even quite active) long before the coming of Jesus (pbuh) himself and then throughout his ministry. Read for example.

Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

1 Samuel 10:10 "And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them."

"And the Spirit of God came upon Saul when he heard those tidings, and his anger was kindled greatly."

1 Samuel 11:6

"Then he remembered the days of old, moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?"

Isaiah 63:11

"For he (John the Baptist) shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb."

Did they or did they not already receive the Holy Ghost? Was Jesus (pbuh) not still with them when they received the Holy Ghost? Was the Holy Ghost not with Simeon, Mary, Elisabeth and Zacharias before the birth of Jesus (pbuh)? Was the Holy Ghost not with Moses (pbuh) when he parted the seas? There are many more similar verses to be found in the Bible. In the above verses, we are told that if Jesus (pbuh) does not depart then the "parakletos" will not come. Thus, the "Holy Ghost" cannot be the one originally intended since it was already with them. The contradiction is quite obvious.

Now go back to John 14:16 and notice the words "another Paraclete." If the comforter is the Holy Ghost then how many Holy Ghost's are there? The word "another" is significant. We have already seen how this term is

applied to Jesus (pbuh) himself. In English, "another" may mean "One more of the same kind" or "one more of a different kind." If the latter were the one intended then the current Christian interpretation might bear some merit. However, if "One more of the same kind" was what was intended then this is positive proof that the coming Paraclete would be just like Jesus (pbuh), a human being and a prophet, not a ghost. The actual Greek word used was the word "allon" which is the masculine accusative form of "allos" {al'-los}: "Another of the SAME kind." The Greek word for "another of a different kind" is "heteros" {het'-er-os}.

Prof. Abdul-Ahad Dawud (formerly Rev. David Benjamin Keldani, Bishop of Uramia)* says:

"The adjective 'another' preceding a foreign noun for the first time announced seems very strange and totally superfluous. There is no doubt that the text has been tampered with and distorted."

Muhammad in the Bible, Prof. Abdul-`Ahad Dawud, p. 211

"The Paraclete is a parallel figure to Jesus himself; and this conclusion is confirmed in the fact that the title is suitable for both. It is clear from 14:16 that the source thought there were sendings of two Paracletes, Jesus and his successor, the one following the other"

The Gospel of John a Commentary, Rudolf Bultmann, p. 567

"RAFODON:

"pr, RPH, Raph, or Reph; 'Healer, Physician, Consoler, Comforter, Paraclete.'

"Nwd), the name of the Phoenician Sun-God, Adon.

"So that, Rephadon, Raphadon, or Rafodon, is 'Adon the Healer, Consoler, or Comforter.'"

The Society of Ormus consisted of the Therapeutae of Alexandria and the Essenes of Qumran, who became the Prieuré de Sion.

"Alexandrian Gnostics...were the spiritual heirs of the Essenes after Hadrian had suppressed the Order in 132 A.D." - 406:150

"According to Baron de Westerode, the founder of the Rosicrucians was one Ormesius, who had been converted by St. Mark, at Alexandria, in A.D. 46. He purified the Egyptian Rites, and reconciled them with Christianity, carrying his disciples with him, and founded the Society of ORMUS, or of the Light, each member wearing a red cross. To this society the Essenes and Therapeutae joined themselves, and conserved the Masonic Secrets." - 636 (Part 3)

"Therapeutae. (Gr.) or Therapeutes. A school of Esotericists, which was an inner group within Alexandrian Judaism... They were 'healers' in the sense that some 'Christian' and 'Mental' Scientists, members of the [Theosophical Society], are healers, while they are at the same time good Theosophists and students of the esoteric sciences. Philo Judeaus calls them 'servants of god'...'an esoteric circle of illuminati, of 'wise men'... They were contemplative Hellenistic Jews.'" (H.P.

Blavatsky) - 316:329

“The Essenes, according to archaeologist Bargil Pixner, had a major 'camp' or 'quarter' on Mt. Sion (Pixner 1976:245-275). Moreover, Richard Mackowski held that the material evidence on Mt. Sion shows that it 'was not only the mahaneh of the Essenes during the time of Jesus, but also the birthplace of this extremely orthodox Jewish sect in Jerusalem' (Mackowski 1980:63 cf. 145).” - 1100

“One noteworthy fact that is known about the Essenians is that Gomorrah and Sodom were among the places where they had established colonies … [T]oo little attention has been paid to the fact that Qumran, according to an identification formerly suggested by F. de Saulcy, was Gomorrah. Moreover, according to the evidence of Synesius of Cyrene, Dion Chrysostome (who lived between A.D. 42 and 125) ‘has also, somewhere, praised the Essenians, who constitute quite a blessed city established near the Dead Sea in the middle region of Palestine close to Sodom’." - 230:299

It is possible, as has been maintained, that north Europe was the centre whence the Orientals derived their legends, and that Chaldean, whence Culdeean, was as appropriate to the Druids as to the Babylonian, and that as the Essenians were Babylonians, the Culdees were Essenes, as held by the venerable Bede, and thus the Essenes, or Assidiana, were Culdees.

The chief British gods were Hu and Ceridwen, or the Ouranos and Ghe of the Cabiri.

The emblem of the Druid was a vitrified egg, chased in gold, and hung from the neck, and which held up to the light shewed a sacred token; the "Serpents," or Druids, prepared it.

Gnostics refer to the pre-Flood era as the Golden Age because the world worshipped the Sun.

The Druids are the present day Freemasons. The Druids were apostate Jews.

"The Arabs afterward gave the name of 'Solomon's seal' to the six-pointed star-like figure (see Magen, Dawid) engraved on the bottom of their drinking-cups... In Western legends, however, it is the pentacle, or "druid's foot," that represents the seal." (Jewish Encyclopedia) - 259 ("Solomon, Seal of")

The Essene priests were Jewish heretics who claimed to be the sons of Zadok.

"Finally the imagination of Ezekiel establishes the rules for the priesthood that would become the landmarks of the Essenes of Qumran. The legitimate priests of the sanctuary are to be the sons of Zadok, the erstwhile chief priest. Known to the people of Qumran as Zadokites, these sons of Zadok would wear white linen garments when they entered the inner court." - 162:181

Qumran, where the Essene community was established, is located on the site of Gomorrah, the city which God judged with for its sexual perversion. (Genesis 19; see also Jer. 17:5,6)

The Essenes were actually the priests of Ashtoreth/Diana.

"[Diana's] constant symbol is the bee... The chief priest himself was called Essēn, or the king-bee." - 156:195

"[Diana/Artemis] was undoubtedly a representative of the same power over conception and birth that was adored in Palestine under the name Ashtoreth." - 299:484

The Essenes influenced the Alexandrian Gnostics.

"Alexandrian Gnostics...were the spiritual heirs of the Essenes after Hadrian had suppressed the Order in 132 A.D." - 406:150

The Essenes became the Knights Templar/Priory of Zion.

"According to Baron de Westerode, the founder of the Rosicrucians was one Ormesius, who had been converted by St. Mark, at Alexandria, in A.D. 46. He purified the Egyptian Rites, and reconciled them

with Christianity, carrying his disciples with him, and founded the Society of ORMUS, or of the Light, each member wearing a red cross. To this society the Essenes and Therapeutae joined themselves, and conserved the Masonic Secrets." - 636 (Part 3)

The Essene priests plan to reinstitute the Temple worship of Baal/Ashtoreth in the Jerusalem Temple with a counterfeit Melchizedek/ Archangel Michael as the high priest.

"Whoever the Teacher of Righteousness was, he must have been a pious, holy man and apparently was a priestly descendant of Zadok, who revealed to his Community that they were living in a time that would be 'the end of days' as predicted by the old prophets. Soon, he told them, God would crush His enemies in a final cosmic battle and usher in the new age of righteousness, and as the Community was the last remnant of true Israel--the people of Yahweh's covenant--it would be they who would fight the battle and would return to Jerusalem to purify the Temple and re-institute proper worship.

"...God, however, will save His people by the hands of two messianic figures who will arise at the end of time; one from 'the Branch of David' and the other 'the Interpreter of the Law'." - 162:201-2

"Merovee, king of the Franks, from 447 to 458 A.D., was an adherent of the religious cult of Diana." - 127:12

supersupersitehttp://www.watch.pair.com/new-age.htmlhttp://www.watch.pair.com/new-jerusalem.html

The aim of the Brotherhood was to preserve the great knowledge attained by the wisest of Egypt. It could in some ways be seen as a school of philosophy. Students from around the globe travelled to Egypt in order to study under their directorship. It was therefore necessary to have different branches in various locations. Two of these were the Essenes and Rosicrucians.

The name Essene is thought to derive from the Egyptian kashai, meaning secret. There is also a Jewish word chshai, meaning secret, or silent, which would naturally translate as Essene. The Jewish historian, Josephus found that the Egyptian symbols for light and truth were represented in the word chosen, which in Greek also translates to Essen, leading to speculation that the Essenes may in fact be the chosen ones mentioned in The Bible. Chosen is derived from the Aramaic asaya, meaning physician, or healer, a role for which the Essenes were well known and highly respected. The Greek word for physician is of course, therapeautae, and for this reason, The Brothers were known as Therapeutae within the Greek speaking world.

The Essenes referred to themselves as essania, meaning 'Sons of the Sun'. This may help to explain why one of the most important movers in the early formation of the Brotherhood, the so called heretic Pharaoh, Akhenaten (Tuthmose III Great, Great Grandson) abandoned the old Gods in favour of the Aten, as represented by the solar disc.

http://www.juneaustin.co.uk/esseneandnotheard.html

The "cunning" priests of The White Brotherhood in the Temples of the Sun were the Egyptian Therapeutae; the healers associated with the Caduceus symbol (the double serpents around the staff with the wings on top). It is interesting that this symbol with the obvious associations with the Tree of Life and the chakras centers of the spinal cord is used by doctors today and they also wear white coats.

The Essenes were of the Egyptian Therapeutae. In fact, in Robert Feather's book THE MYSTERY OF THE COPPER SCROLL OF QUMRAN, he shows that the Copper Scroll found with the Dead Sea Scrolls was of the same composition and technology of the 18th dynasty, the time of Pharaoh Akhenaten. The strong connection between the Essenes and the 18th dynasty is more clearly understood in view of the fact that these were Hyksos Pharaohs who had immigrated to Egypt about 1550 BC to rule for about 200 years.

John19 34

The final version of John’s gospel is generally taken to be later than the three synoptics. There are additions in it that can be taken as ecumenical with the European religions. The main detail that we will look at today has correspondences with Germanic and Celtic religions, although not with other Mediterranean religions.

John 19:33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:19:34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.19:35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

A) By adding the spear, the crucifixion of Jesus resembles those of Esus and particularly Odin. Esus had been popularized among educated Romans by Lucan’s epic poem Pharsalia in the +60s. The religion of the northern Teutons and Germans was at this time more the Vanir fertility religion rather than the Odinistic warrior religion. However the Odinists may have started on their migration from Anatolia to Russia to Scandinavia by the +first century as reported in Snorri Sturluson, popularized by Manly P. Hall and as semi-confirmed in Thor Heyerdahl’s last project before he died. Some think that the references to ‘Mercury’ in Tactitus’ Germania (circa +98) are references to Odin. However Snorri Sturluson is late (13th century), but what matters is that during the Christianization of the northern lands, the Crucifixion of Jesus and that of Odin were compared.

John does not name the soldier with the spear, but in the Acts of Pilate (4th century maybe) the soldier is said to be a centurion named Longinus. This may be based on the Greek word for spear: ‘longke’. The name of course appeals to those (see Gary Courtney and Francesco Carotta) who see the gospels as rewrites of the hagiography of Julius Caesar for Gaius Cassius Longinus was a major plotter in the Julian Passion. In Dante’s Inferno, Cassius Longinus along with Marcus Junius Brutus and Judas Iscariot are the only persons deemed sinful enough to be chewed in the three mouths of Satan.

They are, moreover, said to water the Apis also from a special well, and by all means to keep him from the Nile,—not that they think His 7 water stained with blood because of the Crocodile, 8 as some think (for nothing is so precious to Egyptians as the Nile),

Attis's worshipers ate a sacramental meal of bread and wine. The wine represented the God's blood; the bread became the body of the saviour. Attis's followers believed that "he whom they had buried a little while earlier had come to life again."— Firmicus Maternus, The Error of the Pagan Religions, Ch 3 They were baptised in this way: a bull was placed over a grating, the devotee stood under the grating. The bull was stabbed with a consecrated spear. "Its hot reeking blood poured in torrents through the apertures and was received with devout eagerness by the worshipper ... who had been born again to eternal life and had washed away his sins in the blood of the bull." [Frazer, Attis, chapter 1]

http://www.control-z.com/pgs/descending17.html

“The Templars, like all other Secret Orders and Associations, had two doctrines, one concealed and reserved for the Masters, which was Johannism; the other public, which was the Roman Catholic.  Thus they deceived the adversaries whom the sought to supplant. Hence Free-Masonry, vulgarly imagined to have begun with the Dionysian Architects or the German Stone-workers, adopted Saint John the Evangelist as one of its patrons, associating with him, in order not to arouse the suspicions of Rome, Saint John the Baptist, and thus covertly proclaiming itself the child of the Kabalah and Essenism together.”

http://watch.pair.com/death-phoenix.html

eucharistcontroversy

http://www.pocm.info/pagan_ideas_sacred_meal.html supersite

The Gnostics claimed that, like the gospels, Paul's letters encoded secret teachings. Paul taught in 'two ways at once': the Outer Mysteries [and] the Inner Mysteries [...].

Jesus said He would not again drink of the fruit of the VINE until the kingdom, indicating the wine does not become his blood, but is just plain old wine.

The ancient pagan Babylonians made wafer cakes in their worship of a false god. Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-19; etc.

An essential ritual of Gnosis was the cannibalistic eucharist, which converted the holy body and blood of the god-man into the flesh of his worshiper, who could then share in his resurrection. A Mithraic inscription reads: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."

http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/easter-02.asp supesupesitehttp://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/easter-04.asp

http://www.bible.ca/history-ignatius-forgeries-250AD.htm

Nothing leavened may you eat; wherever you dwell you may eat only unleavened bread."Exodus 12:20

3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction; for in haste didst thou come forth out of the land of Egypt; that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life.http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0516.htm

While there are several uses of the word Azumos (unleavened Bread) in the NT none of them refer to the bread used in the Lord’s Supper, but rather they are either references to the feast of unleavened bread (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:1, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:1, Luke 22:7, Acts 12:3, Acts 20:6) or an analogy for a congregation purging out sin from their midst and walking in holiness (1 Corinthians 5:8).

In all other places that the word “bread” occurs in the NT, it is the Greek word Artos meaning a loaf of common leavened breadWhile this doesn’t necessarily mean that Jesus was using leavened bread after the Last Supper (this is highly unlikely) it means that all the gospel writers didn’t regard the use of unleavened bread to be important enough to record, something that they surely would have had it been an essential compo. nent like the prayer before the distribution of the elements, especially considering their letters and gospel accounts were being read primarily by Gentiles who normally used leavened bread for all their meals.

Robert Reyburn: “First, a rationale is provided for the use of unleavened bread in the Passover Feast. That is, we know why it was used. The reason is given in Exodus 12:34, 39.

“With the dough they had brought from Egypt, they baked cakes of unleavened bread. The dough was without yeast because they had been driven out of Egypt and did not have time to prepare food for themselves.” And, in Deut. 16:3 we are explicitly reminded that the significance of bread without yeast in the Passover Feast was to remind God’s people that they “left Egypt in haste” so “that all the days of your life you may remember the time of your departure from Egypt.”

There is no teaching in the Bible to suggest that the remembrance of the flight from Egypt is brought into the Lord’s Supper. Bread and Wine in the Supper serve what seem to be very different purposes. Another redemption is being remembered in the Lord’s Supper, that of ourselves from sin and death through the body and blood of the Lord Jesus. Unleavened bread does not in any obvious way contribute to that symbolism. It is not anywhere in the NT said to be the kind of bread used in the Lord’s Supper - while the text of the institution of the Lord’s Supper makes a point of mentioning wine (”the fruit of the vine”), bread is referred to simply as “bread” not as “unleavened bread.” The lack of yeast was a detail belonging to the old ceremony, not the new, it seems. Remember, it is bread in each case. The Lord took bread, we are told. That it happened to be unleavened is neither mentioned nor hinted at. What is significant is that it is bread, not unleavened bread. What is more, when the church moved into the Gentile world, a world that had no recollection of the Passover, “bread” would mean for them the ordinary bread that was the staple of life. So, in other words, as the scholastic theologians put it, that the bread was unleavened in the first Lord’s

Supper belonged to the “accidental circumstances” of that first feast, not to the necessity of it. [Turretin, 430]

Rev. Robert Grossman: “1. In all three Gospels what Jesus gave the disciples is “artos,” meaning simply “bread.” It is striking that He is not said to have given them “azumos” or “azuma” which are the proper words for unleavened bread,” AND which are clearly available since they are used in each of the Gospels in the context to refer to the Passover. In other words, the use of “artos” by Matthew, Mark and Luke to tell us what Jesus gave the disciples makes the fact that this may have been unleavened bread of NO importance. At the same time we also must recognize that because the Scripture NOWHERE calls it “unleavened bread,” we cannot at all be sure that it was (throughout the NT “artos” is used for common or leavened bread). We simply may not base our teaching on the silence of Scripture because then we are really basing our teaching on a human conjecture. So, the fundamental argument, “Jesus used unleavened bread, therefore we should too,” is in fundamental error. This should close the case, but there is more.

1. In the rest of the New Testament the Lord’s Supper is often called “breaking bread,” the same language that is used for ordinary meals (Acts 2:42 for example is most likely speaking of fellowship in a meal rather than the Lord’s Supper because in the immediate context they “ate their bread from house to house.”) In any case, the word “artos” is used for what is broken. There is never a description of the Supper in the NT in which that which is broken or eaten is called anything but “artos.” This argues quite strongly against requiring unleavened bread in the Supper because “artos” in a general use would simply mean ordinary bread.”

http://jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=265&Itemid=228

lord’s prayer"Joseph and his mother marvelled atthose things which were spoken of him" (Lk. ii, 33). It is false,the original says: "His father and his mother marvelled." etc. Hereis another holy forgery stuck into Luke ii, as is the later verse,"and Joseph and his mother knew not of it" (v. 43). The trueoriginal reads "and his parents knew not of it," -- just as in

verse 41; "Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at thefeast of the passover"; and as in verse 48, "thy father and I havesought thee sorrowing."

All three on this important point areliars, if John be believed; for after the crucifixion and burial ofJesus, and the discovery on the third day of his empty grave by the

Magdalene, which she immediately reported to Peter and John, theyran doubting to the grave, looked in, and "saw, and believed"; andJohn positively avers: "For as yet they knew not the scripture,that he must rise again from the dead." (John xx, 9.) But thisinspired assertion contains a grave anachronism: for "as yet" therewas, of course, no "scripture" about the death and resurrection atall, nor for well over a century afterwards, as in this chapter isproven.

Applying Tertullian's test of authenticity, that contradictory

passages betray a later "interpolation," the closing verses, 16-20,of the last chapter of Matthew -- as of Mark 9-20, -- arethemselves late interpolations or forged passages.

Matthew previously quotes Jesus as declaring: "I am not sentbut unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (xv, 24; x, 6); andhis command to the Twelve: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles.... but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (x, 5,6). Also Matthew (as Mark) has reiterated the assurance of theimmediacy of the end of the world and the "second coming" in glory:"Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son ofMan be come." (Mt. x, 23; cf. x, 7; xxvi, 28, 34, passim.) So thatneither in reason nor in truthful statement could it be possiblefor Jesus to have met the Eleven a few days after his resurrection,in Galilee, and commanded them in this wonderful language: "Go yetherefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of theFather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: ... and, lo, I amwith you always, even unto the end of the world" -- which he hadjust, and repeatedly, averred should happen in the life-time of hishearers and before they could preach even to the Jews of littlePalestine. (Mt. xxviii, 18, 20; cf. Mk. xvi, 15-16.) This "command"could only have been "interpolated" into the forged ending ofMatthew and Mark long after the original form of the tradition ofJesus had been first written, and when the "second coming" in the"Kingdom of God" and the immediate "end of the world" had becomeimpossible of further credit by lapse of long years of time anddisappointed expectation.

THE "WOMAN IN ADULTERY" FORGERY

The CE. has admitted that the so-called pericope adulterae,was regarded as spurious until the Council of Trent, in 1546,declared it divine truth; but Reinach says: "The episode of Jesusand the woman taken in adultery, which was inserted in John'sgospel in the fourth century, was originally in the [apocryphal]'Gospel according to the Hebrews.'" (Orpheus, p. 235.)

(Rev. 2:23) for the sins of their mother. Yet the Old Testament says “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deu 24:16). We are responsible for our own sins (Deu 24:16, Ez. 18:20, Jere. 31:30, Ps. 40:6, Isa. 1:11, Micah 6:7-8, Matt 9:13, 12:7,

There is a mixture of Jewish and Gentile material. For example, the passage Matthew 5:17-20 was penned by a Jewish Christian, but Jesus’ praise for wine (Matt. 9:17, Mk. 2:22, Lk 5:37) and glorifying the Roman emperor (Matt. 22:21, Mk 12:17) is penned by a Pauline. The Old Testament condemns wine (Lev. 10:9, Prov 4:17, 20:1, Isa. 28:7, Hos. 4:11, Joel 1:5

Jesus turning water into wine (John 2:1-10), and saying “All foods are clean” (Mk 7:18-20) is penned by a Pauline. The deceiver Paul said all foods are clean (Rom 14:14, 20), but Jewish Christians abstained from pork and only ate kosher meat (Lev. 11:7). The Old Testament condemns wine (Lev. 10:9, Prov 4:17, 20:1, Isa. 28:7), Paul said it was okay (1 Tim 5:23), so the Gospels have Jesus praise and glorify wine (Matt. 9:17, Mk. 2:22, Lk. 5:37, Jhn 2:1-10). Yet, Jesus preached the Law and Prophets (Matt 5:17-20) that condemned wine! The pagan god Dionysus transformed water into wine hundreds of years before Jesus [1]. The command to “baptize the world” (Matt. 28:19) is from a Pauline Christian who believed Jesus ought to

share the Gospel with gentiles, yet Jewish Christians wrote: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 10:5-6) and "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." (Matt. 15:24-25).Why  should  Jesus specifically forbid,  on  the  one  hand,  preaching  the Gospel to the Gentiles  Matthew  7:6,15:24,26)  and  yet  on  the  other,   tell   the  disciples  to  teach all the nations, baptizing  them  in  the  name  of the Father, the Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost? (Matthew 28:19). In fact, the passage Matt. 28:19 is a complete forgery:

van Eysinga lists several pages of parallels between the logia in the gospels and the Old Testament. Also the Talmud is full of parallels. The Talmud writers can't possibly be borrowed from a declared Minim leader and misguider of the Hebrew people, thus the Talmudic logia can't be plagiated from the gospels, but must be from prior Jewish tradition.

One of many listed examples is the Lord's Prayer, found in a similar form, essentially lacking the final doxology, in the Talmudic Sota.

http://www.egodeath.com/EysingaChristMystery.htm

http://www.historian.net/lp-pap2.html

The Lord's Prayer was prefigured by an Egyptian hymn to Osiris-Amen beginning. 'O Amen, O Amen, who are in heaven.' Amen was also invoked at the end of every prayer."

The Eucharist, or the sharing of the god's blood and body, has been a sacred ritual within many ancient mystery religions and is part of the Mythos and Ritual. In a standard ritual that was practiced around the world, and which continues in some places, participants in the ritual actually ate and drank the "god's" body and blood, which was in reality that of a sacrificed human (king) or animal. The Christian form of the Eucharist is very similar to the ritual that was practiced as part of the Greek Eleusinian Mysteries, in detail, as is outlined by Taylor. The Eleusinian Eucharist honored both Ceres, goddess of wheat, and Bacchus/Dionysus, god of the vine. The Christians also adopted the Bacchanal symbol IHS (Greek) or IES - Iesu/Jesus. These letters stood for the sun. (See below.) "Mr. Higgins observes, 'The whole paschal supper (the Lord's supper with the Christians) was in fact a festival of joy to celebrate the passage of the sun across the equinox of spring.'" (Graves)

On pages 63 and 64 of Randel Helms’ book, he shows how the story of Jesus’ raising the widow of Nain’s son found in Luke 7:11-16 was taken directly from 1 Kings 17. The Gospel According to Luke was written in Greek, so the the author of Luke referred to the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament). This is apparent because of the borrowing of idiomatic phrases that are found in Greek and not in Hebrew (e.g. kai egeneto). In addition, the author of Luke included the wall around the city while archaeological findings reveal that there was no wall around the city of Nain - Luke plagiarized this story from the Old Testament.

http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/jan08scr.html

The so-called "Lord's Prayer" is merely a reiteration of similar prayers in the Jewish Talmud.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_199809/ai_n8815843 &supersitehttp://www.mazes.com/LordsPrayer.html supesiteThe version originally written by the author of the Gospel of Matthew apparently did not contain the ending phrase "for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, Amen." Those words seem to have been added later. I

John Dominic Crossan in The Historical Jesus, 1991, Harper San Francisco, p294, does not believe that the Lord’s Prayer originated with Jesus but was composed by later Christians as a summary of Jesus’ themes. The basis for his belief is that a prayer given by Jesus himself would have greater attestation and be more uniform in versions. This is a rare occasion where I disagree with that eminent scholar.

The invocation "Our Father" = "Abinu" or Abba (hence in Luke simply "Father") is one common in the Jewish liturgy (see Shemoneh 'Esreh, the fourth, fifth, and sixth benedictions, and comp. especially in the New-Year's ritual the prayer "Our Father, our King! Disclose the glory of Thy Kingdom unto us speedily"). More frequent in Hasidæan circles was the invocation "Our Father who art in heaven" (Ber. v. 1; Yoma viii. 9; Soṭah ix, 15; Abot v. 20; Tosef., Demai, ii. 9; and elsewhere: "Yehi raẓon mi-lifne abinu she-bashamayim," and often in the liturgy). A comparison with the Ḳaddish ("May His great name be hallowed in the world which He created, according to His will, and may He establish His Kingdom . . . speedily and at a near time"; see Baer, "'Abodat Yisrael," p. 129, note), with the Sabbath "Ḳedushshah" ("Mayest Thou be magnified and hallowed in the midst of Jerusalem . . . so that our eyes may behold Thy Kingdom"), and with the "'Al ha-Kol" (Massek. Soferim xiv. 12, and prayer-book: "Magnified and hallowed . . . be the name of the supreme King of Kings in the worlds which He created, this world and the world to come, in accordance with His will . . . and may we see Him eye to eye when He returneth to His habitation") shows that the three sentences, "Hallowed be Thy name," "Thy Kingdom come," and "Thy will be done on earth as in heaven," originally expressed one idea only-the petition that the Messianic kingdom might appear speedily, yet always subject to God's will. The hallowing of God's name in the world forms part of the ushering in of His kingdom (Ezek. xxxviii. 23), while the words "Thy will be done" refer to the time of the coming, signifying that none but God Himself knows the time of His "divine pleasure" ("raẓon"; Isa. lxi. 2; Ps. lxix. 14; Luke ii. 14). The problem for the followers of Jesus was to find an adequate form for this very petition, since they could not, like the disciples of John and the rest of the Essenes, pray "May Thy Kingdom come speedily" in view of the fact that for them the Messiah had appeared in the person of Jesus. The form reported to have been recommended by Jesus is rather vague and indefinite: "Thy Kingdom come"; and the New Testament exegetes explain it as referring to the second coming of the Messiah, the time of the perfection of the kingdom of God (comp. Luke xxii. 18). In the course of time the interpretation of the sentence "Thy will be done" was broadened in the sense of the submitting of everything to God's will, in the manner of the prayer of R. Eliezer (1st cent.): "Do Thy will in heaven above and give rest of spirit to those that fear Thee on earth, and do what is good in Thine eyes. Blessed be Thou who hearest prayer!" (Tosef., Ber. iii. 7).

Relation to Messianic Expectation.

The rest of the prayer, also, stands in close relation to the Messianic expectation. Exactly as R. Eliezer(Mek.: "Eleazar of Modin") said: "He who created the day created also its provision; wherefore he who, while having sufficient food for the day, says: 'What shall I eat to-morrow?' belongs to the men of little faith such as were the Israelites at the giving of the manna" (Mek., Beshallaḥ, Wayassa', ii.; Soṭah 48b), so Jesus said: "Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat or . . . drink. . . . . O ye of little faith. . . . Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, . . . and all these things shall be added to you" (Matt. vi. 25-34; Luke xii. 22-31; comp. also Simeon b. Yoḥai, Mek. l.c.; Ber. 35b; Ḳid. iv. 14). Faith being thus the prerequisite of those that wait for the Messianic time, it behooves them to pray, in the words of Solomon (Prov. xxx. 8, Hebr.; comp. Beẓah 16a), "Give us our apportioned bread" ("leḥem huḳḳi"), that is, the bread we need daily.

Repentance being another prerequisite of redemption (Pirḳe R. El. xliii.; Targ. Yer. and Midr. Leḳah Ṭob to Deut. xxx. 2; Philo, "De Execrationibus," §§ 8-9), a prayer for forgiveness of sin is also required in this connection. But on this point special stress was laid by the Jewish sages of old. "Forgive thy neighbor the hurt that he hath done unto thee, so shall thy sins also be forgiven when thou prayest," says Ben Sira (Ecclus. [Sirach] xxviii. 2). "To whom is sin pardoned? To him who forgiveth injury" (Derek Ereẓ Zuṭa viii. 3; R. H. 17a; see also Jew. Encyc. iv. 590, s.v. Didascalia).

Accordingly Jesus said: "Whensoever ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have aught against any one; that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses" (Mark xi. 25, R. V.). It was this precept which prompted the formula "And forgive us our sins ["ḥobot" = "debts"; the equivalent of "'awonot" = "sins"] as we also forgive those that have sinned ["ḥayyabim" = "those that are indebted"] against us."

Directly connected with this is the prayer "And lead us not into temptation." This also is found in the Jewish morning prayer (Ber. 60b; comp. Rab: "Never should a man bring himself into temptation as David did, saying, 'Examine me, O Lord, and prove me' [Ps. xxvi. 2], and stumbled" [Sanh. 107a]). And as sin is the work of Satan (James i. 15), there comes the final prayer, "But deliver us from the evil one [Satan]." This, with variations, is the theme of many Hasidæan prayers (Ber. 10b-17a, 60b), "the evil one" being softened into "yeẓer ha-ra'" = "evil desire," and "evil companionship" or "evil accident"; so likewise "the evil one" in the Lord's Prayer was later on referred to things evil (see commentaries on the passage). The doxology added in Matthew, following a number of manuscripts, is a portion of I Chron. xxix. 11, and was the liturgical chant with which the Lord's Prayer was concluded in the Church; it occurs in the Jewish ritual also, the whole verse being chanted at the opening of the Ark of the Law.

On closer analysis it becomes apparent that the closing verses, Matt. vi. 14-15, refer solely to the prayer for forgiveness. Consequently the original passage was identical with Mark xi. 25; and the Lord's Prayer in its entirety is a later insertion in Matthew. Possibly the whole was taken over from the "Didache" (viii. 2), which in its original Jewish form may have contained the prayer exactly as "the disciples of John" were wont to recite it.

http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/text/lordpray.htm supersite

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/christian-lords-prayer-related-to-772.html

I don’t know from preterism, or whether the “kingdom come” in Jesus’ prayer is more imminent than in the Kaddish. To the Jews who heard Jesus’s rendering of the Kaddish, though, what would stand out as particularly startling would be the first two words: Our Father. The Kaddish refers to God as lord and creator but not as father. Jesus starts off his prayer with a bang.

Well-versed in the New Testament, we don’t realize how few are the Old Testament passages that proclaim God’s fatherhood. Often he is called “the God of our fathers;” rarely is he “our Father.” God is a father metaphorically in Psalm 68:5 and 103:13, Proverbs 3:12 and Jeremiah 3:19. There are a few passages with explicitly messianic connotations: Psalm 2:7 (Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee), Psalm 89:26-27 (I also shall make him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth), Isaiah 9:6 (For a child will be born to us… and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace).

http://www.mt.net/~watcher/nasamason.html

Matei (Matthew) obvious false gospel insertions6.2410.34,3611.145.29,3018.8,915.10,2015.21,2810.16 ½10.2116.17,1917.12,1318.18,2019.2821.43 25.41 (vezi 7.23)26.26,2926.30,4626.69,7528.18,19

Matei 3.6 vezi (see) Ezechiel 36.25,27; 11,19, Numeri (Numbers) 19Matei 3.11 vezi Isaia 11.1,2; 4.4; 61.1

Marcu (Mark)3.21 (vezi 3.31,35)7.14,237.24,309.139.43,489.499.50 ½

14.22,2514.26,31 – 14.32.42 – 14.51,52 – 14.66,7216.15,20

Luca (Luke) 1,2,3 (in special/especially 1.78)3.13.23,3812.49,53 (compara cu 9.51,56)13.1,516.19,3122.28,3022.15,2024.13,3524.37,4024.47,49

Luca 7.32,35 (vin, must)Vezi Levitic 10.9, Ezechiel 44.21, Exod 30.9Levitic 10.10Proverbe 31.45, Osea 4.11, Eclez. 10.16

Numeri 9.11 (azime, ierburi)Exod 12.20 (azime)Numeri 29.1Deut. 16.3

Ioan (John) 13.1 falsificat, 13.18,20 vanzarea

Vezi

Matei 26.17 + 26.21,25Marcu 14.12 + 14.18,21Luca 22.7 + 22.21,23

"Again he asked, 'What shall I compare the kingdom of God to? It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount [Greek 'three ' '(probably about 1/2 bushel or 22 liters)] of flour until it worked all through the dough.'"     - Luke 13:20-21 // Matthew 13:33

"...Leaven in the ancient world was a symbol of moral corruption [since it was] made by taking a piece of bread and storing it in a damp, dark place until mold forms. The bread rots and decays...modern yeast...is domesticated....In Israel there is an equation that leaven is the unholy everyday, and unleaven the holy, the sacred, the feast."      - Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus (1989)

"The kingdom of God is ENTOS hUMWN (among you / within your purview). It is the seed that has been sown in the ground that is growing; it is the leaven that is hidden in the dough. It

is Satan bound but not yet fully conquered. It is here, but not yet fully consummated."      - Dr. Mark Goodacre (CrossTalk - 15 Jun 1998)

"Jesus has seen a vision of what is going on in the cosmic realm, the effects of which are beginning to be realised in the coming of the kingdom on earth, witnessed in the successes of the Seventy."      - Antonio Jerez (CrossTalk - 15 Jun 1998)

"It's easier for a camel to squeeze through a needle's eye than for a wealthy person to get into God's domain."     - Mark 10:25; (Mattthew 19:24; Luke 18:25)

"The Aramaic word gamla is the same word for 'camel' and 'a large rope.' Matt. 19:24 should read, 'It is easier for a rope to go through a needle's eye, etc."     - The Gospels from the Aramaic, translated by George M Lamsa

The Lord's Prayer

(1) A Private Petition

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."     - Matthew 6:5-6

"Notice in that the admonition is not to pray in public. Yet the Lord's Prayer is a 'we-our' prayer -- public. This contradiction indicates that significant redaction was done upon the source. The original prayer within the source document could well have been a private prayer directed to one's own spirit, which the writer of Matthew would have found unacceptable and in need of heavy redaction, so as to turn it into a prayer to God for a group within a church. If so, the hallower of one's spirit was meant to be one's own conscious self."     - Jim Deardorff (Synoptic L)

"This is strongly reminiscent of a Jewish prayer, the Kaddish, which was almost certainly in use in synagogues at the time of Jesus."     - Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), paperback, p. 194

"May he establish his kingdom in your lifetime and in your days and in the lifetime of all the house of Israel, even speedily and at a near time'."     - Kaddish

(2) As in Heaven So on Earth

"'Thy will be done' was a prayer used by magicians (- Papyri graecae magicae XII.189), and 'on earth as it is in heaven' expresses the most general objective of magical action: to change

the natural order by influence of the supernatural (in this case, as often, the god's will.)"      - Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? (1978) p. 174

"Tat, Tat, Tat...come...and reveal thyself to this boy here today...for I will glorify thee in heaven before Phre, I will glorify thee before the Moon, I will glorify thee on Earth." "I am he whom you met under the holy mountain to whom you gave the knowledge of your greatest Name, which I shall keep holy, communicating it to none save to your fellow initiates in your holy rites."      - Papyri graecae magicae XII.92ff

"The Lord's Prayer also contains the great Hermetic Maxim 'as above so below', Matt. 6:10:

'Tavo Malkhutkha, yeasse retzonkha, KMO BASHAMAYIM KEN BAARETZ'

translated as 'thy kingdom come, thy will be done as in Heaven so on Earth'."     - Liora Bernstein, letter to Beacon, June 1997

(Hebrew letters named from right to left)as (kaf/chaf, mem, vav)in (bet)heaven (shim, mem, yod, final mem)so (kaf, final nun)in/on (bet)earth (aleph, rish, final tzadik)

"It is true that in the English translation it is written 'on earth as it is in Heaven', and in the French translation it is written 'ta volonte soit faite sur la terre comme au ciel', but the Hebrew translation (from Greek) quoted above says 'as in Heaven so on earth' (Greek 'heaven' = ''; Gr. 'earth' = ''),) and so does the Vulgate in Latin...'sicut in caelo, et in terra'.

"The Aramaic N.T., 4th century C.E. (the Khaboris Mss) also uses the same order of words, i.e. as in Heaven so on earth."     - Liora Bernstein, (private correspondence)

taithay malkoothakh,nehwey sevyanakh,AIKENNA DEVESHMAYA UP BERAH.taitheya let come malkoothakh your kingdomnehwey let besevyanakh your willaikenna even asdeveshmaya in heavenup soberah on earth

     - Thanks due to Mr. Don Hargis for assistance with the Aramaic and the Greek (private correspondence)

This phrase was evidently a later addition and did not appear in the original prayer.

"It is possible that vernacular translators were aware of the Hermetic streak and consequently reversed the order of words."The question arises how the Hermetic maxim found its way into the Lord's Prayer. The Kitab Sirr al-Khaliqu wa San at al-Tabi'a, c.650, is the earliest known work to contain the Emerald Tablet with the Hermetic maxim."One may also argue that that this phrasing is accidental, and that it is not identical. However, The Gospel of Thomas, which was written not later than the mid second century C.E. and possibly 'even perhaps somewhat before the gospels in the bible' (i.e.beginning of the second half of the first century C.E). contains the phrase 'upper/lower' directly."     - Liora Bernstein, (private correspondence) [See The Gospel of Thomas FAQ.]

"..when you make ... the upper like the lower ... then you will enter the kingdom."     - Thomas 22

(4) Connections with Later Traditions

"The Lord's Prayer mentions...one Sfira [one of the spheres in the spiritual world - Sefirot - described in the Kabbalah] implicitly. The implicit Sfira is Chessed which...means doing charitable things with your body, not with money and hopefully anonymously....The

expression 'by the grace of God' is translated into Hebrew as i.e., by the 'Chessed' of God. The word Grace in the Christian meaning has no equivalent in Hebrew and is translated into the word 'Chessed'."     - Liora Bernstein, letter to Beacon, June 1997

"The Lord's Prayer, the Pater Noster, has an attachment to it, called 'doxology' . Nobody knows when it was attached. It is the phrase 'for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory'. This phrase is not in the Catholic version (the Vulgate). At any rate, in Hebrew, it says:

lecha      thine

ha      the

mamlacha      kingdom (Malchut)

ha      the

Gevurah      power

ve      and

ha      the

Tipheret      glory

[The words in gold are Sefirot.]

     - Liora Bernstein (private correspondence)

A prayer attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John echoes Hellenistic magical tradition.

"Glorify me as I have glorified the Name of your son Horus!"      - Papyri graecae magicae VII.504; cp. XXXVI.165f.

"Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you."     - John 17:1

"The Sermon on the Mount, in which the law of the new covenant is proclaimed, is structured after Exodus 19. This dependence is quite evident in the prelude to the sermon (Mt 5:1-20), whose background must be found in Exodus 19:1-8."      - Otto Betz, "Jesus and the Temple Scroll" in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (James H. Charlesworth, Ed. - 1992), p. 98

"In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt--on the very day--they came to the Desert of Sinai. After they set out from Rephidim, they entered the Desert of Sinai, and Israel camped there in the desert in front of the mountain. Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, 'This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: "You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.' So Moses went back and summoned the elders of the people and set before them all the words the LORD had commanded him to speak. The people all responded together, 'We will do everything the LORD has said.' So Moses brought their answer back to the LORD."      - Exodus 19:1-8

Prayer of Manasseh

"You, O Lord, according to your gentle grace, promised forgiveness to those who repent from their sins,and in your manifold merciesappointed repentance for sinners as the (way to) salvation."     - Prayer of Manasseh 7b

"Both the Woes and the Beatitudes in the Gospels probably derive from Jesus, and indicate he inherited from contemporary Judaism both God's judgment (1 Baruch, 4 Ezra) and his forgiveness (Prayer of Manasseh). Yet he replaced the stress on a distant, vengeful God about to annihilate the Wicked - Jews and Gentiles - with an emphasis on a present, forgiving father who wished repentance from all Jews. The eschatological prophets urged the righteous to remain faithful to Torah and its moral laws; Jesus urged all Israel (and perhaps the Gentiles also) to repent and believe the good news of God's final act."     - James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism

Note that the designation for the early Christian community that originated in Jerusalem was Ebionites.

"But the meek shall possess the land, and delight themselves in abundant prosperity."     - Psalms 37:11

"The elect shall possess light, joy, and peace; and they shall inherit the earth."     - Enoch 5:7a

Sectarians in the Dead Sea Scrolls also referred to themselves as the "Poor" and "Meek". (Click here for more information.) According to some scholars, who do not interpret "the meek" as a name for the early Christian movement, the beatitudes cannot be attributed to Jesus himself.

"The 'peacemakers' here does not mean pacifists of any kind, it refers to those who were working for 'shalom', the state of peace, prosperity and general well-being that would arrive when the pillars of 'tsedeq' and 'mishpat' were finally put in place....The reference applies solely to the Qumran Community."     - Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas, The Hiram Key: Pharaohs, Freemasons and the Discovery of the Secret Scrolls of Jesus

A Creation of Matthew's?Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong argues that the author of the Gospel of Matthew created all eight beatitudes as part of Christian celebration during the Jewish liturgical year.

"The Jews marked <Pentecost with a twenty-four-hour vigil divided into eight segments. It was designed to remember Moses at Sinai and to extol the wonders and virtues of the law.""The Sermon on the Mount also reveals the form of a twenty-four-hour watch vigil, for it divides neatly into eight subgoupings, which would provide a proper Christian reading for each of the three-hour segments of the liturgical watch that marked the Pentecost celebrations.""...It is very clear that the Sermon on the Mount was a Matthean creation and was patterned by Matthew on Psalm 119, the psalm of Pentecost."     - John Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels, pp. 113, 115

"Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord. Blessed are those who keep his testimonies, who seek him with their whole heart, who also do no wrong, but walk in his ways."     - Psalms 119:1-3

"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled."     - Matthew 5:6

"...Luke is particularly interested in poverty and riches. In Matthew, however, God's blessing is promised to a rather different group: to those who 'hunger and thirst after righteousness' (5:6), i.e. to those who are 'hungry' to do God's will.quot;     - Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), paperback, p. 70-71

Supersupersitehttp://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/ministry.html

This is a very small section taken from the `Mystical Quabalah` A JEWISH TRADITION, and `THE BOOK` of freemasonry: "The closing clause of the Lords` Prayer is pure Quabalism,

`MALKUTH`  The Kingdom, `HOD` The Power, and  `Netzach` The Glory, form the basal `tri-angle` of the TREE OF LIFE, with Yesod the Foundation, or Receptacle of Influences, as the central point. Whoever formulated this `prayer` knew their Quabalah"!

The Kabbalistic Cross

The Kabbalistic Cross is self-contained and can be performed as its own ritual. It also interlocks within the larger framework of the LRP. As used by the Golden Dawn, it is based on an interpretation of a passage from Eliphas Levi, who wrote:

"The Sign of the Cross adopted by Christians does not belong to them exclusively. This also is kabalistic and represents the oppositions and tetradic equilibrium of the elements. We see by the occult versicle of the Lord's Prayer, which we have cited in our 'Doctrine', that it was originally made after two manners, or at least that it was characterized by two entirely different formulae, one reserved for priests and initiates, the other imparted to neophytes and the profane. For example, the initiate said raising his hand to his forehead, 'For thine,' then added 'is,' and continuing as he brought down his hand to his breast, 'the kingdom,' then to the left shoulder, 'and the mercy' — then clasping his hands, he added, 'in the generating ages.' Tibi sunt Malkuth et Geburah et Chesed per aeonas — a Sign of the Cross which is absolutely and magnificently kabalistic, which the profanations of Gnosticism have lost completely to the official and militant Church. This Sign, made after this manner, should precede and terminate the Conjuration of the Four [elements]."[5]

Certain words are said when making the Kabbalistic Cross. The phrase is, "Atah Malkuth, ve Geburah, ve Gedulah, le ohlahm Amen." This means, "Unto thee is the kingdom, the power and the glory unto the ages Amen." This is the final line of the Lord's Prayer as given in the King James Bible, translated into Hebrew to emphasize the Kabbalistic manner with which the passage is interpreted in the Golden Dawn rituals.

http://thelemistas.org/site/en/MSS/SpiritualExercises/07-pentagram

The inerrancy of the Bible - contradictions on Torah reformin the Gospel of Matthew.

      There are notable inconsistencies in the presentation of Jews and Gentiles in Matthew's gospel, something that also becomes apparent when you consider the falsified, polemical genealogy that opens the book. (see below) This is not the only example of doctrinal contradictions in the manuscript. You can also consider Matthew's statement on the 'infallible inerrancy' of the scriptures found in the Sermon on the Mount.It is self evident that the bible is

not 'infallibly inerrant' no matter who was alleged to have taught this false doctrine.

      Matthew's sermon on Torah regulations opens with a declaration of infallibility, inclusive of both prophets and the Torah, parts of which the prophets condemned, and which was also condemned by the early church, and the gospels, making this statement incongruous to the least. This is then followed by a number of rejections of Torah ideology expressed in the formula 'you have heard it said (ie. in the Torah) ... but what I say to you is this.' For example you have heard it said (in the Torah) 'an eye for an eye' but 'what I say you is this ... resist not evil ... turn the other cheek.' There are a number of such statements found in Matthew chapter five, and one has to wonder just how the Torah can be both 'infallible' and how not one rule can be relaxed, and then what follows is nullifications and rejections which go beyond mere relaxing. These comments on the Torah are made according to the following formula. You have heard it said in the Torah that you should do this, but what I say to you is that you should not do that, but rather you should do this other thing instead. So a good case could be made that the verse extolling Biblical infallibility was a later interpolation recognizable, as such interpolations always are, by the contradictions in doctrine they introduce.

The best explanation for these inconsistencies is that the original Jewish community that produced the gospel were for Torah reform and did not produce the 'to the Jews only' passages in the gospel, but that the reactionary defence of the 'inerrancy' of the Torah and the doctrine that Gentiles were dogs were added later by a reactionary segment of the community, into whose hands the gospel was eventually passed. It is more than likely the case that this segment of the Jewish congregation were also responsible for the 'Gentile dog' parable found in Matthew's gospel, and thus being against Torah reform and for the 'infallible inerrancy' of scripture and against Gentiles, they could also not have been responsible for the genealogy which opens the book.

It is this ideological outlook that informs the gospel of Matthew's anti-Gentile polemics, including the ‘Gentile dog' parable. Nevertheless they appear to have absorbed something of the radical tradition, encapsulated in Ruth, in that they keep the attitude that Gentiles are dogs, but if they acknowledge their dog-like state, and lower themselves into the dust, then perhaps they can be thrown some scraps from the table. This strange ‘harmonization' constitutes keeping both the Torah and the prophets, at least in the gospel of Matthew.

"And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon." But he (Christ) did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me." And he answered, "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."" (Matthew Chapter 15 verse 22)

      It was quite clear then that the Jewish people were the masters of the house, and Canaanites, not to mention Ammonites and Moabites and so on, were the household dogs. In contradiction to Mark's account, this reactionary element found in Matthew will insist that Christ was ‘sent only to the Jews' which is a reflection of their own ideological outlook, and not a rendition of historical fact.

The insertion of the 'gentile dog' parable into Mark's gospel (Mark Chapter 7 verse 25) is one of the most obvious examples of scribal harmonization of the gospel parables. In Mark's gospel this parable becomes the story of Christ calling a ‘Syro-Phoenician' Gentile woman ‘a dog' who he could not bother to help. (Christ was sent only to Jews, not to the dog Gentiles.) This is a version of parable that appears in the gospel of Matthew, with the difference that in Matthew's version the woman who Joshua calls a dog is a ‘Canaanite'. The theme of Christ preaching in Judea, and only to Jews in any case, even when he toured the northern Gentile territories, is a feature of Matthew's gospel, not Mark's. Joshua does not even go near Judea in Mark's gospel until the very end of his life. Furthermore, in Mark's gospel Joshua preaches to entire cities in Gentile territory, and thus it seems strangely out of place for Mark to suddenly sound like Matthew and start calling Gentiles ‘dogs'. Whenever such inconsistencies are found in Biblical manuscripts it is an indication that inconsistent passages have been introduced into a manuscript by scribes.

In Matthew's gospel, Samaritans are, of course, included on the list of banned ‘dog-type' peoples.

"These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew Chapter 10 verse 5)

      This would be a good time to point out once again the inconsistencies in Matthew's account. In the opening chapters of Matthew's gospel he follows Mark in opening the ministry in Gentile territory, and then goes so far as to suggest that the sending of the Messiah to the Gentiles was in fact the great fulfillment of a prophecy of Isaiah.

"And leaving Nazareth he went and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: "The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, toward the sea, across the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles— the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, and for those who sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned." (Matthew 4:13)

      We are told in Matthew's gospel that Gentiles were 'dogs' that he could not bother even talking, too, much less heal. Then again we are told that,

"And he went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every infirmity among the people. So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, demoniacs,

epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them. And great crowds followed him from Galilee and the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond the Jordan." (Matthew chapter 4 verse 23)

     You might note that Syria, Galilee ('of the Gentiles'), the Decapolis, and the lands 'beyond the Jordan' are Gentile territories.

      We are told in Matthew's gospel that the Torah is infallible, and that the Torah requires reform. We are told in the Matthew gospel that the gospel is for the Jews only, and that Gentiles and Samaritans are 'dogs' who must be avoided. Then again we are told that Gentiles are to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven and that it is the Jewish people who will be cast out (presumably into hell, where they will 'weep and grind their teeth'). In Matthew Chapter 8:5-13 we are told the story of a Roman (Gentile) centurion who received a miracle, and furthermore is presented as holier than the Jewish people.

"As he entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible distress." And he said to him, "I will come and heal him." But the centurion answered him, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does it." When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, "Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west (ie. Gentiles) and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom (ie. the Jewish people) will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth."" (Matthew Chapter 8 verse 5)

      If we assume that the original Matthew was 'pro-Jewish' then the parable of the Centurion, which is pro-Gentile, would be a later interpolation by the church fathers. Another possibility is that the parable was original to Matthew, and the 'Gentile dog' and other reactionary material were later interpolations by certain reactionary elements in the Jewish congregation that inherited the manuscript. This seems to me to be the most likely scenario since it would then be the original ideological outlook that the Matthew gospel was being critical of Jewish reaction and rejection of Joshua as Messiah, was for Torah reform, against the Pharisees, and was employing this 'pro-Gentile' parable as a means to shame and pressure the rest of the Jewish people. It would also explain the presence of 'master-slave' parables in the gospel (the Jewish people were being invited to consider themselves slaves who being taking beatings for the rejection of Christ).

The falsified genealogy that opens the book of Matthew is an interesting enigma. (For more information on the problems such genealogy introduce see the page on chronological problems in the Bible comared in chart form to Matthew's genealogy or the page on conflicting genealogy of the Bible. In Matthew's version of the lineage of the messiah we are told that Christ was descended from both Rahab the harlot (a Gentile in Jericho) and Ruth the Moabite (another Gentile). In other parts of the book we are told

that Gentiles are dogs and also that the Torah, which also condemns Gentiles, is infallible, perfect, and without error, right down to the last dot over the last letter 'i'. The genealogy is obviously false in many ways (the story of Rahab the harlot is separated by a lot more than just a generation from that of the time of Ruth). It is interesting to note that the author of this genealogy mentions men, which is characteristic of all other Bible genealogies, and then makes a point of mentioning a harlot and a (supposedly eternally cursed) Moabite woman.

Supesupersitehttp://www.awitness.org/essays/virgin.html

If one or more of the communities possessed writings from the old country, with sayings of the Teacher such as we find in the Gospel of Thomas or the reconstructed ‘Q’ gospel, words actually spoken by the Teacher during his earthly life, it is odd that they were not used. The early writings, and the Markan gospel too, have only a very few echoes of them. The destruction of Qumran, and Jerusalem, in 70AD must have precipitated a fresh wave of refugee Nazoreans — the last to leave the sinking ship. The possibility must be considered that with them came precious scrolls, collections of the sayings of the Teacher. These were mostly not present in the first gospel, which is usually dated to 70-80AD. The later evangelists use the first gospel as a foundation for their own augmented accounts, weaving the sayings, including the Sermon on the Mount, into essentially the same narrative.

The “Sermon on the Mount” 

The mountain setting may be chosen to suggest authority (Luke puts the discourse “on the plain”).

Not really a sermon, but a group of sayings.

The “beatitudes” from Q: four sayings: the poor, the hungry, those who mourn, those who are reviled.

Luke’s version: 6:20-22. Matthew’s discourse expands this to nine.

Adding sayings on meek, merciful, pure in heart, peacemakers, those “persecuted for righteousness.” 

And changes the focus somewhat of those directed toward “poor,” “hunger,” “mourning.”

The effect of the additions in Matthew?     

“Sermon” continued: other themes: 

 

Refinement of teachings from Law: Murder > anger;  Adultery > looking with lust;  Divorce > no divorce (“except for

unchastity”);  Swearing falsely > no swearing at all; “Eye for an eye” > no resistance at all. Love your neighbor > love your enemy! Interiority of righteousness: Hide your almsgiving.

Pray in secret. Fast secretly. Avoidance of anxiety: set kingdom first

     

“Lord’s prayer” 

The Aramaic Kaddish and the Lord's Prayer:

Kaddish, now the Jewish prayer at death, was a simple benediction of God. 

Kaddish: “Magnified and sanctified be his great name in the world which He hath created according to his will.”

Lord’s prayer: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed [sanctified] be your name.”

Kaddish: “May He establish his kingdom during your life and during your days, and during the life of all the house of Israel, ever speedily and at a near time, and say ye, Amen.”

Your kingdom come.  Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

     

“Do unto others”: 

“In everything do unto others as you would have them do unto you; for this is the Law and the prophets.”

Rabbi Hillel: “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do to you.”

Both this teaching and the Lord’s Prayer indicate the rabbinic nature of these teachings.

Including the use of “Abba” to refer to God – “an invocation in which reverence and intimacy are mingled” (Geza Vermes).

Dead sea scrolls (Qumran) also address God as Father.

A close relationship between these teachings of Jesus and the Judaism of his time. 

For those, however, who consider one or other of the modern source hypotheses of the Gospels more credible (cf. Synoptic Problem), the source of the Sermon on the Mount is uncertain. It contains only a handful of parallels with Mark, but does have a number of loose parallels with Luke's Sermon on the Plain. The parallels indicate to those who hold the Two source hypothesis that much of this text likely came from the hypothetical ancient (and no

longer extant) document referred to as Q. Furthermore, some of the sayings can be found in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas. However, McArthur argues that the parallels in Luke tend to be very loose, and that there are a considerable number of verses having no parallel, thus theorising that there was an extra step between the sources used by Matthew and Luke.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/1999_Corruption_of_Scripture_in_the_Second_Century.html

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished."     - Matthew 5:18 // Luke 16:17

"The complex Matthew 5:17-19 reflects a controversy in the early Christian community over whether the Law was still binding on Christians. Matthew's position is that the most trivial regulation, metaphorically represented by an iota (the smallest letter of the Greek alphabet) and by the serif (the tiny strokes added to the ends of letters) must be observed. Matthew thereby nullifies Jesus' relaxed attitude towards the Law, the centrality of the love commandment in Jesus' teaching, and Jesus' repeated distinction between the qualitative fulfillment of God's will and the formal observance of the Law, especially the ritual Law."     - Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels

In 'You who weep now', "the reference is to the Qumran Community [more properly the Yahad who did not necessarily live at Qumran] and other pious Jews who grieved for the Temple of Yahweh in the hands of the unworthy. This saying also appears in a Qumranian psalm."     - Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas, The Hiram Key: Pharaohs, Freemasons and the Discovery of the Secret Scrolls of Jesus

* The Sermon on the mount has no original material and this may shock somepeople. It was made up of fragments from Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, TheSecrets of Enoch and the Sherome Esreh. This Sermon was unknown to theoldest Gospel, the apocryphal Gospel of Mark.

Additional Beatitudes in Matthew "Into the list he inherited [from Mark] Matthew introduces four congratulations not found in either Luke (Q) or Thomas. To commend the meek, the merciful, those with undefiled hearts, and those who work for peace is quite different from congratulating the poor, the hungry, and the weeping. These additional beatitudes offer reward for virtue rather than relief from distress. People normally expect virtue to be rewarded; and the virtues in question are well known and widely accepted among Judeans of the period. There is no surprise, no reversal, no paradox. In sum, these sayings are not characteristic of Jesus."     - Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels , p. 139

Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong argues that the author of the Gospel of Matthew created all eight beatitudes as part of Christian celebration during the Jewish liturgical year.

"The Jews marked <Pentecost with a twenty-four-hour vigil divided into eight segments. It was designed to remember Moses at Sinai and to extol the wonders and virtues of the law.""The Sermon on the Mount also reveals the form of a twenty-four-hour watch vigil, for it divides neatly into eight subgoupings, which would provide a proper Christian reading for each of the three-hour segments of the liturgical watch that marked the Pentecost celebrations.""...It is very clear that the Sermon on the Mount was a Matthean creation and was patterned by Matthew on Psalm 119, the psalm of Pentecost."     - John Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels, pp. 113, 115

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/newgospel.html

"We have found one instance in which Jesus, in effect, demanded transgression of the law: the demand to the man whose father had died."     - E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism

"Another disciple said to him, 'Lord, first let me go and bury my father.' But Jesus told him, 'Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.'"     - Matthew 8:21-22 // Luke 9:59, 60; Thomas 86:1-2

"In both the gentile and Judean worlds, one had a basic filial duty to bury one's father. It would have been an acute form of dishonor to leave one's father unburied or to permit someone else to bury him: it would have brought shame, not only on the father's memory, but also on the son."     - Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels

http://users.bigpond.net.au/bstone/akhenaton.htm

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves."     - Matthew 23:15

"...Both the detailed knowledge of Pharisaic argument and the level of invective in many of the sayings recorded in Matthew 23:1-36 reflect the later historical context, not the public life of Jesus."     - Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels

"Jesus said, 'Damn the Pharisees! They are like a dog sleeping in the cattle manger: the dog neither eats nor [lets] the cattle eat.'"     - Thomas 102; Matthew 23:13, Luke 11:52

"The saying was attributed to Aesop and other sages and was widely known in the ancient Near East. It belongs to the category of common wisdom that was frequently attributed to

Jesus by his followers."     - Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels

According to Episcopal Bishop, John Shelby Spong, the parable about the Good Samaritan did not originate with Jesus. Luke created the story in order to make his Christian lection for the day parallel the Torah as it was read during Jewish liturgical year.

"Jesus was beaten prior to His crucifixion, as was the common practice. He was tied to a post and beaten nearly to death using a short whip called a flagrum. The flagrum was made using leather thongs into which were woven sharp pieces of bone and lead. The pieces of bone and lead would cut into the back and shoulders of the prisoner with each stroke, eventually opening the back to expose the interior organs. The Jews were limited by their law to 40 lashes. The Romans, however, had no limits."

Supersupersitehttp://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/easter-04.asp

http://www.all-creatures.org/discuss/didjesuseatfish-jv.htmlhttp://www.progressiveu.org/003039-skeptical-bible-study-who-wrote-gospels

ghetsemane

The evidence of Luke (ix. 35), in the account of the Voice at the Transfiguration, points to an original " Chosen". John also, who says that the Baptist called himself a Voice, adds that the Baptist described Jesus, if we Jtccept the Syro-Sinaitic reading, not as '* Son of God," but as (i. 34) " the chosen of God." These and other facts indicate that the Synoptic Voice was based on Isaiah xlii. i ("my Chosen"). Owing to the simi- larity of the Hebrew for " my Chosen " and the Hebrew for " in my beloved^'' Matthew (xii. 18) has mistranslated " Chosen " as if it were " Be/oved.^' The context of Isaiah (xlii. i ^^ my ^Servant... my Chosen") calls the Messiah " Servant."^ This is rendered by the LXX '■'• boy^' — meaning *^^ Servant " but liable to be taken to mean " Son^\ The Synoptists have mostly taken !*■ thus, converting Isaiah's ^^ Chosen... Servant''' into ^^ Beloved Son." This confusion was facilitated by the fact that the Hebrew "zwy beloved" literally means "»y only one^^ but is specially applied to a '■'■ son "...

But all this is lost or obscured in the extant Synop^tic narratives — partly because they have taken '•''He a]fh Reared [as] Moses and Elijah unto them''^ as meaning " There-appeared Moses and Elijah unto them^^ which has led them into distracting details. But a greater obscuration consists in the stress laid on manifestations of physical splendour, such as "sun," "white," "light," "fuller," while there is scarcely an indication or sugges- tion (except in Luke) of the true glory — that of self- sacrifice. Hence the Synoptic Transfiguration, regarded as a manifestation of divine glory, is greatly inferior to

the Mosaic Theophany in which, answering the Law- giver's petition, " Shew me thy glory" Qod replied " I will make all my GOODNESS pass before thee." For these reasons John rejected the whole of the narrative of 'the Transfiguration, as being not only historically false but also spiritually inadequate.

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Temptations.htmthree temptations

If you're interested in seeing how Luke stitched together the passage from Mark and the one from Q, take a look at 4:2. There he borrows directly from Mark (the devil tempted Jesus for forty days); but in the following verses he draws from Q (the devil gave Jesus three temptations). The two sections don't quite match: The story from Q seems to take place on a single occasion; Mark reports a different kind of temptation over a longer period. Luke simply cut and pasted the two sources without trying to reconcile them.

Israel faced three temptations and failed them all. They received manna from heaven to show they should depend on God (Deuteronomy 8:3), but they rebelled (Dt 9:7-9). They were told to worship God alone (Dt 6:13), but they turned to false idols (Judges 3:5-7). They were asked not to tempt God (Dt 6:16), but they forced Moses to have God provide water from the Rock (Exodus 17:1-7; Numbers 20:1-13; Psalm 95:8-11), a request which they later believed cost Moses his entry to the promised land (Dt 32:48-52).

Matthew seems to soften Mark's rather chaotic temptation episode. In Mark, the Spirit drove Jesus into the wilderness, but Matthew puts a positive spin on it by having the Spirit lead Jesus into the wilderness.  Matthew has no "wild beasts" with Jesus, and Jesus seems more in control of the situation.  He fasts for "forty days and forty nights"--a direct reminder of the children of Israel in the wilderness--and only afterward is he hungry.

Matthew identifies the devil as "the tempter," one of only two uses of this word in the New Testament--the other is 1 Thess. 3:5.  Matthew certainly gives a well-rounded portrait of this "tempter." 

Matthew does this different.  In regard to bread, Matthew goes with the plural--"stones" rather than "stone," "loaves of bread" rather than "bread."  The second temptation in Matthew is Luke's third--"the pinnacle of the temple."  The third temptation in Matthew takes place on a mountain.  Matthew is especially fond of mountains.  Jesus' stirring inaugural sermon was on a mountain.  Likewise, at the close of his gospel, the disciples meet the risen Jesus on a mountain.  These serve as reminders of Moses and Mount Sinai, and also tap into peoples' somewhat mystical association of mountains with being "higher up" and "closer" to God.

In Matthew, however, we see him showing Christ not only all the kingdoms of the world, but also all their glory, perhaps taking more than a moment of time to do it so as to make it more enticing.In addition to these discrepancies, we find that Jesus prophesies that Peter shall deny him thrice "before the cock crow," while in Mark the cock crows immediately after the first denial: in Luke, Jesus and Peter remain throughout the scene of the denial in the same hall, so that the Lord may turn and look upon Peter; while Matthew and Mark place him "beneath" or "without," and make the third denial take place in the porch outside--a place where Jesus, by the context, certainly could not see him.

http://loyno.edu/~richard/synoptics/mark.html

luke plutarchus piso

http://books.google.com/books?id=KnIYRi3upbEC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=apollonius+paul+conspiracy&source=bl&ots=b8Fpl_iHZb&sig=XW8qnO0HBCjLzCZN9vl2kSkq_Ls&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/890/paul.html

http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/autoc.html

http://sangha.net/messengers/appolonius.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20060623122853/http://sangha.net/messengers/appolonius.htm

Luke was actually Plutarchushttp://www.thenazareneway.com/plutarchs_parable.htmhttp://www.thenazareneway.com/plutarchs_parable2htm.htm

http://www.gottnotes.com/ArticlesLukeandPlutarch2.htmlhttp://www.gottnotes.com/Josephus.htmlhttp://littlebirdsings.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/who-really-wrote-lukes-gospel/

Elohim Tsebaoth -The LORD of hosts (PS 84:8;Jer 15:6)Elohim Gibbor- The LORD is mighty (Is 42:13)

http://www.israelofgod.org/elohim1.htm

It seems that Paul can't count very well. Paul's right hand man was Luke. Luke was a physician under Paul's ministry and wrote the book of Luke from second hand information of the life of Christ since Luke appears decades after the death of Jesus. Luke states that the Apostles chose Matthias as an Apostle. Since Luke was intensely faithful to Paul, he would not ever dare to say the Apostles chose James the brother of Jesus as a new Apostle. Why is because James apposed Paul's strange doctrine. While Luke attempts to hide the fact that James was chosen, Paul It seems that Paul can't count very well. Paul's right hand man was Luke. Luke was a mistakenly admits it.

The Apostles knew Paul as a preying insect that had no remorse.

Those who believe the bible is absolutely true might note that Peter throughout quotes from the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. If he did then the story about Mark being his interpreter is false. Why should he need an interpreter if he already understood Greek? It is hard to believe that a simple Galilaean fisherman spoke and read Greek so well that quotations from the Greek bible habitually fell from his lips. Since the Galilaeans were followers of the doctrine of Judas the Galilaean, they would have avoided speaking Greek.

Even mistakes in the Septuagint are propagated so that Peter speaks of “pains” of death when “bonds” is the word used in the Hebrew version of Psalms. The error had already appeared in the Septuagint and Peter repeats it, but people are held by the “bonds” of death not by its “pains”. The man who spoke Greek and quoted from the Septuagint was Luke, proving that

the speeches he wrote were composed. If this mistake had occurred in some Essene recension of the Psalms from which the Septuagint had been translated, then the error might have been genuinely Peter’s but it would also prove him to have been a follower of the Essenes.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

This is plainly doctored. This part of Acts 2:38 is written at least 50 years after the event and perhaps much later than that—much of the mythology was in place. Peter’s instructions that the crowd be baptized in the name of Jesus are unlikely to have been original.

Parabola gnostica adaugata de vicleanul Plutarch (Luke):

Luke's parable of Lazarus and Dives echoes an earlier Egyptian tale involving torment for the rich and comfort for the poor.

'In one of the few cases where a concept that figures in the New Testament has been taken to be ultimately of Egyptian origin, Jesus's parable of Dives and Lazarus, it has quite correctly been assumed that this transmission took place by way of Jewish material.'- Seigfreid Morenz, Egyptian Religion

'In the so-called Setna Story [II Setna, II, 9ff - Memphis], written in demotic, the hero of the tale looks into the realm of the dead and there see (or learns) how, in accordance with a divine judgment, the pompous furnishings of a rich but unjust man's tomb are assigned to a poor but just man, who is buried in simple fashion; the latter achieves happiness next to Osiris, while the rich man suffers the torments of hell.'

Ne putem baza DOAR pe PROFETIILE DIN VECHIUL TESTAMENT, PESTE 300, DESPRE MESIA...care descriu caracterul adevarat al lui Emmanuel Mesia.

Supersite

The Jew-baiting of 3:13 proves that the speech is false. Like all of these people, Peter was a Jew and could not have spoken as if he were of a different and superior race of people. Luke could, and, of course, puts his words on the tongue of Peter! The taunting continues in Acts 3:14, where the expression habitually used by the Essenes of their Righteous Teacher is used of Jesus—the holy and righteous one—a title which appears in the Enoch literature, highly regarded by the Qumran sectaries.

Meanwhile, Peter exonerates Pilate, the Roman governor, to placate the target audience of Luke’s books, the Romans. The Christian revision of the incident of Barabbas is known to Luke.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/3678/JOEGOS2.htm

http://stargods.org/ChurchMythsChurchofPaul.htmhttp://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm

http://www.geocities.com/christprise/pagan-origins.html

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2005-July/024147.htmlhttp://www.yahwehism.com/html/yahweh-samaria.htmlhttp://yahwehism.com/html/eleleu-ih.htmlhttp://members.tripod.com/CarlosEnrique/GODNAME01.htmlhttp://members.tripod.com/CarlosEnrique/GODNAME02.htmlhttp://www.yahwehism.com/html/sacred-name.html

http://www.yahweh.com/PWMags/PW08-07/False-1.htmhttp://www.revelations.org.za/NotesS-Name.htmhttp://www.seekgod.ca/htname.htm

http://theassemblyofyahowahtheeternal.com/yahowah+familyname/NameofHoshu.htmlhttp://www.yahwehism.com/html/yahowah.htmlhttp://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=35753453http://www.revelations.org.za/NotesS-Name.htmhttp://www.seekgod.ca/htwhatsinaname.htm

The Esessenes cooked up the four Gospels:

h] The writer of Mark, the earliest of the canonical gospels, apparently had no knowledge of a virgin birth for the following reasons: 1) no birth narrative, 2) Mark's Jesus only became aware of his divine status when he was baptism, 3) when in Mark 10:17-18 a follower addressed him as "Good Teacher" Jesus replied, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God". thereby not only denying the virgin birth and the incarnation, but also the doctrine of the holy trinity,

Having said that, I point out that the purpose of the genealogies, to establish a direct family linkage from Jesus to King David, is an important one since Jewish prophetic writings makes it clear that the Messiah must be a direct descendant of King David (2 Samuel 7:16, Psalms 89:3-4 and 132:11-12,) although this requirement is brought into serious question by Jesus himself (Mark 12:35-37.)

According to Mark (1:11) when Jesus was baptized a heavenly voice declares to him, "Thou art my beloved son.” Note that the voice addresses Jesus directly as if it were announcing something to him that he and his family were heretofore unaware of.

The Adulteress - John 8:1-11, the story of the adulterous woman, is intriguing. Some Christians are quick to declare it to be a testimonial to Jesus’ compassion toward women. But is that true? First, it appears only in the Gospel of John. However, the oldest manuscripts do not contain it

Divorce - Biblical pronouncements on divorce are so convoluted, contradictory, impractical and gender biased as to be downright nonsensical. Let us examine them beginning with Mark 10:11-12, where Jesus says, "Whosoever shall put away (divorces) his wife, and marry

another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away (divorce) her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery". This passage clearly states that both the husband and the wife have the right of divorcement. Once divorced, however, neither can remarry without committing adultery, a capital crime. No exception is made even in the event of the death of a divorced spouse. So, according to Mark both parties in the divorce must remain unmarried for the rest of their lives.

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus again speaks to the subject of divorce (Matthew 5:31-32), but here he says something entirely different, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery". First, notice that in contrast to Mark, the right of a woman to divorce her husband is not acknowledged. But, the man who is unwary enough to marry a divorced woman, joins her in committing adultery. The original husband, oddly enough, is held responsible for the whole thing. The clause, saving for the cause of fornication, is indeed puzzling because in this case fornication is synonymous with adultery. Because adultery is a capital crime, the woman would automatically be put to death thereby rendering divorce unnecessary. Apparently the husband is free to fornicate to his heart's content.

This raises a question regarding Mark 10:12 in which women have the right of divorcement. Why would the writer of Mark have said such a thing? One possible explanation is that who ever wrote the Gospel of Mark was unfamiliar with Jewish law and customs. The passage reflects the Hellenistic culture where women have always had the right to divorce their husbands.

Mark, the oldest of the four canonical gospels, tells us in 11:8 that this event was accompanied by the spreading of “leafy branches that they cut from the fields” (NSRV). This poses a serious problem, “Where did the people get those leafy branches?” It’s much too early in the year for them.

The writer of Matthew, who drew liberally from Mark, makes a small but important change. Recognizing Mark’s goof, Matthew’s writer simply omits any reference to leaves. Some people spread their cloaks while others cut and waved bare branches (21:8). A branch without leaves might better be called a stick, and sticks are not normally thought of as instruments that can be spread or waved. It is the leaves that provide the cover on the ground on which the procession can move. It is the leaves that flutter when the branches are waved. So, we become more skeptical.

The source of this story is Zechariah 9:9: Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh upon thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and on a colt, the foal of an ass. (KJV) According to this prophecy, the king will come riding on a young donkey, i.e. a foal. The gospel writers claim that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy by way of his alleged triumphal entry into Jerusalem where, according to Mark, Luke and John, he does indeed come riding in on a young donkey. But, the writer of Matthew, apparently in his overzealous determination to prove prophecy fulfillment, apparently misread Zechariah 9:9 and in so doing creates what can only be seen as a huge embarrassment.

From Young’s Literal Translation of the New Testament. Mt. 21:2 ". . . you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me". 3 ". . . ‘The Lord had need of them and immediately he will send them". If there was only one animal, why didn’t Jesus say "it" instead of the plural, "them"? And all of this came to pass so that it might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet saying, (here Matthew repeats Zechariah 9:9.) Verse 7: and brought the donkey and the colt and laid upon them their garments and sat him thereon.

So according to the writer of Matthew, Jesus road triumphantly into Jerusalem astride two mounts, an ass and her colt.

The Accursed Fig Tree - Mark (11:12-14) tells us that on his way home after cleansing of the Temple, Jesus spied a fig tree in the distance and went to it seeking figs. This is strange indeed since fig trees do not bear fruit in late March when this is supposed to have taken place. Upon finding no figs Jesus and proceeded to curse the fig tree. Now to curse a fig tree for not bearing fruit in March is not unlike kicking a dog because it can not speak English thereby punishing it for the inability to do the impossible. Mark concludes this story by telling us that due to Jesus' curse the fig tree withered and died. By destroying a fruit tree Jesus broke God’s law (Deut. 20:19). The writer of Matthew (21-18-20) repeats this story but says that the unfortunate tree withered and died instantly. Although he mentions fig trees in a couple of places (13:6, 21:29) the writer of Luke wisely skips this story as does the writer(s) of John. The concluding point emphasized in Mark and Matthew is that with enough faith one can literally move mountains. But, it’s indeed hard to get the connection.

Peter’s Denial - Of all of the New Testament stories that of Peter’s denial (Mark 14:66-72 and parallels) is one of the most well known. In summary it says that following Jesus’ arrest by agents of the chief priest Peter is identified by three people as being one of Jesus’ followers. Peter vehemently denies this accusation rejecting Jesus in the process. After the third denial a cock crows, and Peter suddenly remembers Jesus predicting that he would deny him err the cock crows. Peter wept. This story has provided the text for many sermons and Sunday school lessons, but did it really happen?

One of the main problems with the denial story lies with Jesus' prophecy. It's indeed hard to take this account seriously when different versions of it appear in all four gospels as follows:

Mark 14:30, "Truly I say to you, that you yourself this very night, before a cock crows twice, shall three times deny me".

Matt. 26:34, "Truly I say to you that this very night, before a cock crows, you shall deny me three times".

Luke 22:34, "I say to you, Peter, the cock will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know me".

John 13:38, "Truly, truly, I say to you, a cock shall not crow, until yo deny me three times".

As one can see, Jesus allegedly says four different things, yet these are given as direct quotes. Why, for example, did the author of Mark, the oldest gospel, omit Peter's name while the

writer of Luke, who obviously plagiarized Mark, includes it? Also, the writer of Luke assures Theophilus (1:4) that what he is about to tell him is the unvarnished truth yet when compared to the other versions he leaves out some very important details. The whole thing is obviously bogus.

Paul’s position as leader of the Christian community at Antioch was challenged by Peter. Paul discusses this dispute at length in the second chapter of Galatians considered by most Bible scholars to be one of the few Pauline epistle judged to be authentic. In Galatians 2:11-13 Paul openly accuses Peter of hypocrisy but fails to mention the denial. This is highly significant because it would have been a powerful weapon Paul could have used against Peter. Peter’s denial coupled with Jesus’ stern warning in Matthew 10:3312, would have easily won the day for Paul. So, we can only conclude that the denial story is a late Christian invention.

The Ordination of Peter - In Matthew 16:17-19 Jesus blesses Peter pronouncing him the "rock" upon which he will build his church while giving him the "keys to the kingdom". Peter, therefore, stands as Jesus' undisputed successor. In fact, Peter's recognition by the Roman Catholic Church as the first pope is based primarily on this passage. However, the evidence of forgery is undeniable. First, although it constitutes an essential element of the Christian religion, the ordination of Peter is mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament, not even in First and Second Peter, the epistles allegedly written by the great apostle. Second, excluding this passage, Jesus never attempted to establish a "church". Such a project would have been absurd in view of the fact that he assured his followers that the world would end and he would return in glory during their lifetime to establish the kingdom of God. In fact, the use of the word "church" suggests a level of organization not acquired until long after the event allegedly occurred. In that regard, it is interesting to note that throughout the four gospels the word "church" appears only twice thereafter, and both are in the same verse, Matthew 18:17. Third, and perhaps the most revealing, although Mark and Luke do not contain the ordination, they do contain duplicates of Matthew 16:16 and 16:20, the verses immediately preceding and following the ordination13. The so called ordination of Peter is without a doubt a later insertion, i.e. a forgery.

The Resurrection of the Saints - Matthew 27:52-53~ And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of their graves after His resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

This astounding account appears in Matthew's narrative immediately following Jesus’ death. That means the saints were resurrected sometime late Friday afternoon thereby contradicting Acts 26:23 which says that Jesus will be "the first to rise from the dead". Having risen, the saints did not go into Jerusalem until after Jesus was resurrected. The exact date and time of Jesus alleged resurrection is never given. It can only be assumed that it took place sometime prior to the following Sunday morning when the women discovered the empty tomb Therefore, we are to believe that these resurrected saints were content to just sit in their open graves from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning. Be that as it may, however, this event, if true, ranks as the most electrifying miracle ever recorded. By rights it should consume whole chapters of contemporary history. Had it really happened, it would be reviewed at length in official government documents as well as in religious scriptures. It would have been the chosen theme of all New Testament writers because it would have proven their doctrine, their cause and their apostleship. Yet we find that it is mentioned only in an offhanded manner by a single gospel writer and totally ignored by everyone else. What is most revealing, however, is

that both Mark and Luke contain in sequence the passages immediately preceding and following Matthew 27:52-53 almost verbatim.

The writer of Matthew did not bother to tell us who those resurrected saints were. Nor did he deem it important to tell us what happened to them afterwards. Did they return to their graves? If they did not, where are they now? According to the passage they appeared to many. But where are the eyewitness accounts? Did they go to claim their wives and property which they had owned at the time of their death? If so, how were they received? It is strange indeed that not another word was ever written about what undoubtedly ranks as the most amazing event in all of history. But why was such an outlandish statement included?

In Zechariah 14:4-6 it prophecies that when Israel is under attack God will come to the rescue and all the saints will come with him. Because the writer of Matthew was obsessed with the need to have Jesus fulfill Old Testament prophesy, he was compelled to somehow include saints. Because there were apparently no recognized saints living at that time, his only alternative was to resurrect some. So, out of sheer desperation he simply inserted verses 52 and 53 at the appropriate place in chapter 27. His clumsy attempt to deceive is obvious. This so-called miracle never happened.

In Matthew 18:21-22 when Peter came to him, and asked, “Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times?” Jesus replied, "I say not unto thee, until seven times: but, until seventy times seven". Wasn’t Jesus obligated by his own words to forgive Judas? But instead of forgiving him, Jesus openly cursed Judas when during Passover Seder (Matthew 26:24; Mark 14:21) he said, "But woe to that one by whom the son of man is betrayed for it would have been better for him had he never been born". Contrary to Peter, Judas never denied Jesus. While his action may not have been all together ethical, Judas, unlike Peter, committed neither apostasy nor blasphemy, the two unforgivable sins.

35. The Olivet Discourse (13:1-37)

The whole apocalyptic discourse of Mark is a cento of scripture paraphrases and quotations, and it will be sufficient simply to match each major verse to its source. Mark 13:7 comes from Daniel 2:28; Mark 13:8 from Isaiah 19:2 and/or 2 Chronicles 15:6; Mark 13:12 from Micah 7:6; Mark 13:14 from Daniel 9:27 and 12:11 and Genesis 19:17; Mark 13:19 from Daniel 12:1; Mark 13:22 from Deuteronomy 13:2; Mark 13:24 from Isaiah 13:1; Mark 13:25 from Isaiah 34:4; Mark 13:26 from Daniel 7:13, and Mark 13:27 from Zechariah 2:10 and Deuteronomy 30:4 (Bowman, pp. 241-242, Miller, pp. 300-301).

36. The Anointing at Bethany (14:3-9)

Helms (pp. 98-100) is surely correct that the Johannine version of the Bethany anointing (John 12:1-8) most clearly reveals its origin in the resurrection mythology of the Egyptian Osiris (Mary and Martha = Isis and Nephthys; Lazarus=Eleazer=El-Osiris; Bethany=Beth-Annu, house of the Sun=Heliopolis). It is apparent that the story even as Mark knew it was already derived from Osiris. Just as Isis restored the slain Osiris to life by anointing him in some versions, the reference here to the unnamed

woman anointing Jesus for the day of his death and burial must originally have been set on that day, the day when she raised him from the dead. (The story of Joseph probably came ultimately from the same source, as numerous parallels make clear.)

"And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the Sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the Sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungered, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And Jesus said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: Therefore the son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath".

Here the disciples were clearly breaking the law of the Sabbath as the Pharisee correctly pointed out. But Jesus defended them by saying that they were hungry and needed food. So their situation made an act that would otherwise have been wrong proper for them to do. This story has Jesus advocating situation ethics, an anathema to most Bible believers. Situation ethics denies the doctrine of absolutism so fundamental to the devout Christian. But there are other problems with this passage more serious than that of the application of situation ethics. Jesus here condones the breaking of the law - - 4th Commandment. It reads - Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work. How does this square with Jesus' famous statement in Matthew 5:17-19? While delivering the hallowed sermon on the mount he declares with passion, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven".

The writer of Mark obviously did not do his homework before composing this passage. He has Jesus make two statements that are inconsistent with the Old Testament story to which it refers. This story is found in I Samuel 21:1-6. In it the high priest is Abimelech not Abiather as Jesus says. Also according to I Samuel, David was not in the company of other men. He was alone. He only pretended to have others with him.

http://www.inu.net/skeptic/ntforge.html

But what of Jesus’ prayer? That Mark is creating, not reporting, is evident from the fact that he has eliminated from the scene anyone who might have listened in on it. Mark derived the contents of the prayer from one of the traditional Passover hymns, which he has had Jesus sing at the close of the supper, Psalm 116:10-15, “My distress was bitter. In panic I cried, ’How faithless all men are!’... I will take in my hand the cup of salvation and invoke the LORD by name... A precious thing in the LORD’s eyes is the death of those who die faithful to him” (Helms, p. 111).

"It is highly probable that not one of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) was in existence in the form which we have it, prior to the death of Paul. And were the documents to

be taken in strict order of chronology, the Pauline Epistles would come before the synoptic Gospels."

History of Christianity in the Light of Modern Knowledge, Rev. Charles Anderson Scott, p.338

This statement is further confirmed by Prof. Brandon:

"The earliest Christian writings that have been preserved for us are the letters of the apostle Paul"

"Religions in Ancient History," S.G.F. Brandon, p. 228.

In the latter part of the second century, Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth says:

"As the brethren desired me to write epistles(letters), I did so, and these the apostles of the devil have filled with tares (changes), exchanging some things and adding others, for whom there is a woe reserved. It is not therefore, a matter of wonder if some have also attempted to adulterate the sacred writings of the Lord, since they have attempted the same in other works that are not to be compared with these."

Victor Tununensis, a sixth century African Bishop related in his Chronicle (566 AD) that when Messala was consul at Costantinople (506 AD), he "censored and corrected" the Gentile Gospels written by persons considered illiterate by the Emperor Anastasius. The implication was that they were altered to conform to sixth century Christianity which differed from the Christianity of previous centuries (The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gospel of Barnabas, and the New Testament, by M. A. Yusseff, p. 81)

These "corrections" were by no means confined to the first centuries after Christ. Sir Higgins says:

"It is impossible to deny that the Bendictine Monks of St. Maur, as far as Latin and Greek language went, were very learned and talented, as well as numerous body of men. In Cleland's 'Life of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury', is the following passage: 'Lanfranc, a Benedictine Monk, Archbishop of Canterbury, having found the Scriptures much corrupted by copyists, applied himself to correct them, as also the writings of the fathers, agreeably to the orthodox faith, secundum fidem orthodoxam."

History of Christianity in the light of Modern knowledge, Higgins p.318

In other words, the Christian scriptures were re-written in order to conform to the doctrines of the eleventh and twelfth centuries and even the writings of the early church fathers were "corrected" so that the changes would not be discovered. Sir Higgins goes on to say:

"The same Protestant divine has this remarkable passage: 'Impartiality exacts from me the confession, that the orthodox have in some places altered the Gospels'."

The author then goes on to demonstrate how a massive effort was undertaken in Costantinople, Rome, Canterbury, and the Christian world in general in order to "correct" the Gospels and destroy all manuscripts before this period.

Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf was one of the most eminent conservative biblical scholars of the nineteenth century. One of his greatest lifelong achievements was the discovery of the oldest known Biblical manuscript know to mankind, the "Codex Sinaiticus," from Saint Catherine's Monastery in Mount Sinai. This was one of the manuscripts which influenced the Christian recognition of the need to produce the RSV Bible. One of the most devastating discoveries made from the study of this fourth century manuscript was that the gospel of Mark originally ended at verses 16:8 and not at verse 16:20 as it does today. In other words, the last 12 verses (Mark 16:9 through Mark 16:20) were "injected" by the Church into the Bible sometime after the 4th century. This conclusion was supported by the fact that the early Church fathers of the second century C.E. such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen never quoted these verses. Later on, it was also discovered that the said 12 verses, wherein lies the account of "the resurrection of Jesus," do not appear in codices Syriacus, Vaticanus and Bobiensis. Originally, the "Gospel of Mark" contained no mention of the "resurrection of Jesus" (Mark 16:9-20). At least four hundred years (if not more) after the departure of Jesus, the Church, by way of father Ariston, received divine "inspiration" to add the story of the resurrection to the end of this Gospel and then allow Christianity to attribute these inserted verses to "Mark."

In Mark chapter 9, the words "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." are again missing.

In Mark 6:11, our modern Bibles contain the words "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." However, these words are not to be found in either of these two most ancient of Christian Biblical manuscripts, having been introduced into the text centuries later.

The words of Matthew 6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever." Are not to be found in these two most ancient manuscripts as well as many others. The parallel passages in Luke are also defective.

"The concept of plagiarism was unknown in the ancient world. Authors freely copied from predecessors without acknowledgment. Sages became the repository of free-floating proverbs and witticisms. For the first Christians, Jesus was a legendary sage: it was proper to attribute the world's wisdom to him. The proverb in Mark 2:17, for example, is attested in secular sources (Plutarch and Diogenes for example)...in the parallel to the Markan passage, Matthew adds a sentence taken from the prophet Hosea (Matt 9:13)."

Also:

"Hard sayings are frequently softened in the process of transmission to adapt them to the conditions of daily living...Variations in difficult saying often betray the struggle of the early Christian community to interpret or adapt sayings to its own situations... Matthew's version of the aphorism "The last will be first and the first last"(Matt 20:16) is softened in Mark 10:31 to "MANY of the first will be last, and of the last MANY will be first"."

38 Mark 11 (Jesus, spoke with the elders of the Jews on the third day after his arrival in Jerusalem) Matthew 21 (Jesus, spoke with the elders of the Jews on the second day after his arrival)

39 Matthew 8 (Jesus healed a leper, then the servant of the centurion, then healed the mother of Simon's wife) Mark 4,5,7 (healed the mother of Simon's wife, then a the leper, then the servant of the centurion)

40 Matthew 20:30-34 (Jesus healed two blind men after leaving Jericho) Mark 10:46-52 (Jesus healed one blind man called Bartimaeus after leaving Jericho)

42 Matthew 8:28 (When Jesus came into the country of the Gergesenes, he met two men possessed with devils coming out of the tombs) Mark 5:2 and Luke 8:27 (When Jesus came into the country of the Gadarenes., he met one man possessed with devils coming out of the tombs)

57 2 Samuel 8:4 (7 hundred horsemen) 1 Chronicles 18:4 (7 thousand horsemen)

58 1 Chronicles 21:12 (Three years famine) 2 Samuel 24:13 (Seven years famine)

59 Deuteronomy 2:19 & Deuteronomy 2:37 (Moses deprived land of Ammon) Joshua 13:24-25 (Moses gives land of Ammon as inheritance)

60 2 Samuel 24:9 (800,000+500,000) 1 Chronicles 21:5 (1,100,000+470,000)

61 2 Chronicles 36:9 (Eight years, three months +10 days) 2 Kings 24:8 (Eighteen years, three months)

62 2 Samuel 10:18 (700, 40,000 horsemen) 1 Chronicles 19:18 (7000, 40,000 footmen)

63 1 Kings 7:26 (two thousand baths) 2 Chronicles 4:5 (Three thousand baths)

64 2 Samuel 6:23 (Michal had no children) 2 Samuel 21:8 (Michal had five sons)

65 Genesis6:3 (mankind shall not live past 120 years) Genesis 11:10-32 (500,438,433,464,...etc.)

66 2 Chronicles 9:25 (4,000 stalls) 1 Kings 4:26 (40,000 stalls)

67 Isaiah 40:28 (God does not faint nor weary) Exodus 31:17 (God rested, and was refreshed.)

68 Genesis 1: (God creates Plants, then animals, then man and woman.) Genesis 2: (God creates man, then plants, then animals, then woman)

69 Ezekiel 45 and 46 (Doctrines of offerings and sacrifices) Numbers 28 and 29 (Contradictory doctrines of offerings and sacrifices)

70 1 Chronicles 8:29-38 (One list of names) 1 Chronicles 9:35-44 (A contradictory list of names)

71 2 Samuel 5 and 2 Samuel 6 (David brought the ark after fighting the Philistines) 1 Samuel 13 and 1 Samuel 14 (David brought the ark Before fighting the Philistines)

72 Genesis 6:19-20 (Noah was to bring onto the ark "of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive ....male and female....of fowls....of cattle....of every creeping thing of the earth..."). Genesis 7:2-3 (Noah was to bring onto the ark "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female...").

73 2 Samuel 8:1 ("David took Methegammah out of the hand of the Philistines"). 1 Chronicles 18:1 ("David...took Gath and her towns out of the hand of the Philistines").

74 2 Samuel 8:8 ("And from Betah, and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer, king David took exceeding much brass"). 1 Chronicles 18:8 ("Likewise from Tibhath, and from Chun, cities of Hadarezer, brought David very much brass").

75 2 Samuel 8:10 ("Then Toi sent Joram his son unto king David") 1 Chronicles 18:10 ("He sent Hadoram his son to king David")

76 2 Samuel 8:12 ("Of Syria, and of Moab, and of the children of Ammon, and of the Philistines, and of Amalek"). 1 Chronicles 18:11 ("from Edom, and from Moab, and from the children of Ammon, and from the Philistines, and from Amalek.

77 2 Samuel 8:13 ("And David gat him a name when he returned from smiting of the Syrians in the valley of salt, being eighteen thousand men"). 1 Chronicles 18:13 ("And he put garrisons in Edom; and all the Edomites became David's servants").

78 2 Samuel 8:17 ("and Seraiah was the scribe") 1 Chronicles 18:16 ("and Shavsha was scribe")

79 1 Kings 15:33-16:6 ("In the third year of Asa king of Judah began Baasha the son Ahijah to reign over all Israel in Tirzah, twenty four years..... So Baasha slept with his fathers, and was buried in Tirzah"). 3+24=27. 2 Chronicles 16:1 ("In the thirty sixth year of the reign of Asa, Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah"). But he died in the twenty seventh year! Was he resurrected? So how did he invade Judah 10 years after his death?

80 Genesis 7:1 Noah was righteous

Job 1:1, Job 1:8, Job 2:3, Job was righteous.

Supersupersite

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sake.htm

The fact that Eve enters into the conversation with the serpent, in spite of the fact that she had heard slander at God from him, shows that her love for God had not yet had time to develop, that she is not yet spiritually mature. And in her answer, she obviously succumbs to the deceit

of the serpent: she somewhat distorts the words of God as well, exaggerating their strictness. God did not say: "Do not touch them." Maybe, if Eve had repeated God’s words with absolute precision and truthfulness, the d would have run away from her, for he hates only the absolute truth of God’s words. But he tolerates the distorted half-truth and continues his tempting tactics.

Taking into consideration that, at the time, mankind consisted of two branches: the descendents of Cain, the first murderer, and the progeny of the righteous Seth, who were the ones who began to appeal to the Lord, we, without any ticklish fantasies, shall understand what this excerpt is talking about: men from the progeny of the righteous Seth began to be fascinated by the women of Cain’s descendants and became corrupt because of it.

http://www.piney.com/HsLikeADove.html

Some narratives that omit "dove" add that the Spirit "rested" (or " abode ") : some that insert " dove " omit " rested." The Hebrew for " rested" closely resembles that for " dove."''More probably, however, " dove " was not a part of the Original, but was intro- duced, by error, as a Hebrew corruption for "rested."

http://www.archive.org/stream/pts_contrastoraprophet_1687_6/pts_contrastoraprophet_1687_6_djvu.txt

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/markend.html

Very good sitehttp://www.nccg.org/227Art-TrinityDogma.html

If Daniel is a fiction of the second century B.C., of whom does the prophet Ezekiel speak? No mythic, shadowy figure fits as well as the most obvious choice, our man in Babylon—Daniel:

  “…even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would save only their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign LORD.” Ezekiel 14:14.

  “…even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, they could not save their own sons and daughters; they would save only their own lives by their righteousness.” Ezekiel 14:20.

  “You are wiser than Daniel; no secret is hidden from you.” Ezekiel 28:3.

  The final score should count the brave Maccabeans who looked back upon the Book of Daniel as an heroic example of moral fortitude despite whelming odds. The Book of Maccabees captures this instance:

  “Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael believed and were saved from the flame. Daniel, because of his innocence, was delivered from the mouth of the lions. And so observe, from generation to generation, that none of those who put their trust in him will lack strength.” I Maccabees 2:59–61. (© NRSV).

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3x.htmlhttp://home.earthlink.net/~ironmen/authen.htmhttp://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/daniel.htm

Gesenius thinks pieces of  uncoined silver is meant. In the New Testament  "pieces"  is the rendering of the Greek  argurion (Matt 26:15; 27:3,5-6,9)  in the account of the betrayal of our Lord for "thirty pieces of silver." These are often taken to be denarii, but on insufficient ground. The parallel passage in Zechariah (Zech 11:12-13) is rendered "thirty shekels of silver."

This was the sum payable as compensation for a slave that had been killed (Ex 21:32),  and also the price of a bondslave (Hos 3:2). By paying thirty shekels (about ninety denarii)  they therefore gave him to understand that they did not estimate his services higher than the labor of a purchased slave. 

disciples are portrayed as mourning together after the crucifixion

Justin Martyr (link is to table of gospel narrative comparisons) of around 150 c.e. is interesting for appearing to know only the same gospel narratives:

Herod and the Jews crucify Jesus “under Pilate (see Dialogue with Trypho 32, 85, 104 and the First Apology 13)

He always speaks of the 12 as a constant unified band without any hint of a Judas (See Dialogue with Trypho 42, 53, 106 and First Apology 39 and 50)

The interesting connection of these early accounts with the Testimonium Flavianum in the Slavonic Josephus (scroll to section IV) is that here is provided a narrative explanation for these unusual depaertures from the canonical versions:

Pilate, on finding Jesus innocent, releases him — an action that so offends the Jewish leaders that they bribe Pilate with 30 talents to allow them (the Jews) to execute Jesus

This bribing of Pilate with 30 talents removes any room for a Judas betrayal (for 30 pieces of silver) since it is Pilate who (in weakness and against his better judgment) betrays Jesus for 30 talents to the Jewish leaders, not Judas.

http://drchojnowski.blogspot.com/2005/11/pilates-silver-josephus-account-of.htmlhttp://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htmhttp://www.religioustolerance.org/unter01.htm

Desi D. Brown pretinde ca a cercetat continutul operei sale literar/stiintifice in mod detaliat, CldV nu include cateva teme extrem de interesante...

~Imediat dupa sosirea lor in Tara Sfanta, cavalerii Templieri au intreprins mai multe calatorii

misterioase in Eritreea de unde au recuperat Chivotul Legamantului (Ark of the Covenant); acesta fiind depozitat intai in Franta iar apoi, in Scotia; puterea lor financiara/politica crescand imediat la un nivel superior statului/bisericii; cavalerii Templieri erau un element constitutiv important al conspiratiei initiate de kaballah pentru a crea un imperiu financiar/bancar--acest scop a fost indeplinit 500 de ani mai tarziu prin dinastia Rothschild~Dinastia regala iudaica a parasit Ierusalimul in anul 66-67 e.n. cu destinatia Franta, odata ce devenise clar faptul ca rascoala pregatita indelungat (incendiul Romei in 64 e.n. a fost pornit de conspiratori cabalisti, deghizati in crestini) nu va destabiliza imperiul Roman astfel incat poporul lui Israel sa devina liber din nou; aceasta fiind de fapt povestea adevarata despre SanGraal/dinastia Merovingiana; omul care a pus capat rebeliunii a fost Vespasian~O organizatie mult mai puternica decat Priory of Sion, 'parintele' acesteia a fost Rozacruce (Rosenkreuzer) din care faceau parte Giordano Bruno, Nicolas Copernic, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton~Francmasoneria /conspiratia cabalista/ doreste sa instaureze un haos general /razboi-colaps economic-si altele- din care sa rezulte un fel de dictatura mondiala, conducatorul, patriarh al bisericii universale si lider politic, fiind un descendent direct al regelui David; CldV face parte din pregatirea /sau conditionarea/ psihologica-sociala necesara pentru indeplinirea acestui deziderat

Secretul din spatele cartii lui D. Brown, Codul Da Vinci este tocmai faptul ca nu mentioneaza deloc cine a fost de fapt Jose Maria de Escriva, fondatorul Opus Dei (1928 ), originea sa etnica si organizatia conspirativa din care facea parte...

Despre 'manuscrisele' /documentele/ de la Nag Hammadi

http://www.gotquestions.org/Nag-Hammadi.htmlhttp://www.iamnext.com/spirituality/prioryofsion.htmlhttp://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/Tendential_ ... _code.htmlhttp://www.skepticfiles.org/xhate/morm007a.htm

However; the Nag Hammadi writings are of 'Gnostic' origin which were written during the first to fourth century A.D.The Gnostic heretics did cherish both the Old and New testament Scripture, but re-interpreted them in terms of a mythological Gnostic Redeemer. Gnosticism gave rise to the writings of a number of totally spurious apocalyptic books, false gospels and epistles that incorporated their own mysticism.Gnosticism was a movement that vigorously contended with Orthodox Christianity for supremacy. Writings by the early Church Fathers show how widespread and influential Gnosticism was; and it was combatted as a lethal threat to the proclamation of the Gospel. The bishops pointed out the great gulf between Biblical Christianity and Gnosticism, even though the Gnostics made use of Biblical text. It is obvious that Paul, the Apostle, knew of the false ideas of Gnosticism, and spoke out against such doctrines several times in the Scriptures.

So, what are we to make of the Nag Hammadi library? Should some or all of the scrolls be in the Bible? To put it simply and bluntly - absolutely not! First, the Nag Hammadi scrolls are forgeries. They were not written by whom they claim. The Apostle Philip did not write the gospel of Philip. The Apostle Peter did not write the acts of Peter. The gospel of Thomas was not written by the Apostle Thomas. These scrolls were fraudulently written in their names in order to give them a legitimacy in the early church. Thankfully, the early church fathers were

nearly unanimous in recognize these Gnostic scrolls as fraudulent forgeries that espouse false doctrines about Jesus Christ, salvation, God, and every other crucial Christian truth. There are countless contradictions between the Nag Hammadi library and the Bible.

While the Nag Hammadi library was an exciting find, the only 'value' in the Nag Hammadi library is that the scrolls give us insight into what early 'heretics' taught and practiced. Recognizing the false doctrine that plagued the early church will help us better to understand it and refute it today.

Often called the secret or hidden gospels, they are in fact neither. Only four have the name “gospel” attached to them and they in no way resemble the richness and historicity of their four counterparts in the New Testament. Many Church Fathers, of which Saint Irenaeus (A.D. 125–203) is the best example, wrote volumes refuting the writings of the Gnostics of the mid-second century who they quite correctly saw as subverting the beliefs established by Christ and the Apostles. The texts found at Nag Hammadi are either based on the earlier heresies or are Coptic translations of them. Since the oldest text did not appear until around AD 150, we are not talking about two systems that developed side by side as the Gnostics would have it. The organized, monolithic, hierarchical Church had predated these writings by several decades, perhaps even a hundred years. Therefore the so-called hidden gospels represent the effort of a group of dissidents and malcontents bent on subverting the traditional beliefs established by Divine Revelation.

Cel mai formidabil site pe tema codul da vinci:

http://watch.pair.com/mystery-babylon.html (4 pagini)

Identitatea adevarata a lui Jose Maria de Escriva (fondatorul Opus Dei):

http://www.opusdeialert.com/opus-deis-rabbis.htm

Tot nu ati inteles despre ce e vorba in acele razboaie din primele 5 carti ale Torah; in Canaan traiau DOAR descendenti din neamul lui Cain; exista liste intregi in Deuteronom, Levitic, Numeri cu crimele comise de acesti hibrizi (sange de sarpe cu sange de om), de aceea au fost eliminati.

Avraam a fost pus la incercare; pentru salvarea neamului omenesc Dumnezeu si-a pus in joc totul, El nu avea nevoie de acel sacrificiu, Avraam avea nevoie sa vada cata credinta are in el de fapt pentru misiunea sa de mai tarziu.

Sa nu uitam, ca Dumnezeu DEJA facuse promisiunea lui Avraam ca fiul sau, Isaac, va mosteni pamantul sfant:

Now the LORD had said to Abram, Depart from your country, and from your kindred, and from your father's house, to a land that I will show you:

And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing:

And I will bless them that bless you, and curse him that curses you: and in you shall all families of the earth be blessed.

- Gen. 12:1-3

To obey God's call requires a sacrifice. Genesis 22 tells us that God puts Abraham to the ultimate test of his faith, commitment and willingness to sacrifice everything to obey God's call. God tells Abraham to go to Mt. Moriah and sacrifice His son. This is where we begin to see a true commitment and sacrifice.

Was Abraham's love for God greater than any other love? Was it greater than that of the pagans for their gods? Greater even for Abraham's love for his son, Isaac? When God called Abraham, his response to God was immediate and without question, "Ready Lord.". In another translation it reads, "Here I am Lord." Either way it means that Abraham was ready, prepared, and willing to do whatever God asked of him without grumbling or questioning.

On their way up the slopes of Mt. Moriah Isaac asks his father, "The fire and wood are here but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" Abraham answered him, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering." When they arrived at the summit he bound his son Isaac and laid him on the wood which had been placed on the altar and he raised a knife to slay his son. The very moment that Abraham was to plummet the knife into the heart of Isaac, the angel of the Lord spoke and declared the Lord's promise to him, "Abraham, Abraham, do not harm the boy. I know now how devoted you are to God, since you did not withhold from me your own beloved son".

Abraham looked around and saw a ram caught in the bushes by its horns. As we know, this was a foreshadowing of Jesus the "spotless lamb" on Calvary. Abraham named the site "Yahweh Yireh" which means, "His provision shall be seen". When we are prepared to serve Jesus Christ and the Church in loving obedience, we too will see God's provision and blessing for our faithful service.

It would have been easy for Abraham's love to be totally diverted from what God required and give concern to save Isaac. Due to the fact that Abraham was very old and past having any more children, we can imagine the joy and desire to spend every possible moment with Isaac. The deep heart-felt love of a parent would certainly put the welfare of their child as a first consideration. Abraham's faith was in God's promise relating to Isaac. His faith justified him and God met his need.

As Abraham watched his beloved son -- living proof of the power of words -- could he have any doubts about the truth of the chilling prophecy that suddenly came to him through those same trusted methods?     "And He said to him: Take your son -- your only son whom you love -- Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah and offer him up there as a whole offering on one of the mountains that I will tell you." (Genesis 22:1-2).

This was the ultimate mountain, Abraham's supreme test. The familiar prophetic voice was telling him to sacrifice his son to God.

From his earliest years Abraham had been destined for priesthood. The woman who wanted him to bring a sacrifice to Terach's idols (see Abraham smashes the idols) felt instinctively that Abraham understood about divine ministry. The question was not whether to bring offerings but to whom. Abraham saw the absurdity of bringing offerings to powerless idols, but he knew a great deal about offerings and self-sacrifice to HaVaYaH.

Did the path of prayer and devotion really lead to literal human sacrifice?

This is not the place for a discussion of the profound mysteries of the Binding of Isaac, which has been discussed at length by philosophers and moralists throughout the ages. The fact is that in the end it turned out that it was not the will of God to shed human blood -- not even for the sake of a holy sacrifice, let alone in murder and warfare.

After three days of anguish following the prophecy, Abraham finally reached Mount Moriah. This was the place from whose Earth Adam's body was formed. This was where Noah offered sacrifices after the Flood. This was the place which was -- and will be -- the site of the Holy Temple of God.     They came to the place that God told him, and Abraham built the altar there and arranged the wood and bound Isaac his son and put him on the altar on top of the wood. And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son.

And the angel of God called to him from the heavens and said: "Abraham! Abraham!" And he said, "I am ready!" And He said, "Do not put your hand to the boy and do not do anything to him. For now I know that you revere God and you did not hold back your only son from Me". (ibid. 9-12)

It was not Isaac's blood that God wanted. Isaac's very life was to be the sacrifice. He was to be the exemplar of total submission to God and obedience to His law.

Yet Abraham was not satisfied. Had he climbed all the way to the top of the mountain in total surrender, only to leave without surrendering anything?     Abraham raised his eyes and saw that there was a ram caught by its horns in the thicket. Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as an offering in place of his son.

John had been deeply moved as he saw Jesus bowed as a suppliant, pleading with tears for the approval of the Father. As the glory of God encircled Him, and the voice from heaven was heard, John recognized the token which God had promised. He knew that it was the world’s Redeemer whom he had baptized. The Holy Spirit rested upon him, and with outstretched hand pointing to Jesus, he cried, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”

None among the hearers, and not even the speaker himself, discerned the import of these words, “the Lamb of God.” Upon Mount Moriah, Abraham had heard the question of his son, “My father, . . . where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” The father answered, “My son, God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering.” Gen. 22:7, 8. And in the ram divinely provided in the place of Isaac, Abraham saw a symbol of Him who was to die for the sins of men. The Holy Spirit through Isaiah, taking up the illustration, prophesied of the Saviour, “He is 113brought as a lamb to the slaughter,” “and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:7, 6); but the people of Israel had not understood the lesson. Many of them regarded the sacrificial offerings much as the heathen looked upon their sacrifices,—as gifts by which they themselves might propitiate the Deity. God desired to teach them that from His own love comes the gift which reconciles them to Himself.

Iata de exemplu, cum a fost modificat citatul crucial din Geneza 4.1 de catre conspiratorii din linia genealogica Cain - Ham:

(Gen. 4:1), I have gotten a man את־יהוה the Lord; which Jonathan ben Uzziel paraphrases thus, "I have gotten a man, the angel of the Lord;"

"This (Seedline) interpretation is confirmed in the ancient literature of Israel, especially the commentaries on the Hebrew Bible written in Aramaic and commonly known as Targums. The commentaries were written after the (remnant's, people from the Tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi) return from Babylon...One text gives this interpretation of Genesis 4:1: ‘And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by the Angel, and she conceived and bare Cain; and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like the earthly beings, and she said, I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord." (Targum of Jonathan to Genesis 4:1) Another ancient commentary gives a similar interpretation of the same passage: ‘And Adam knew his wife Eve, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Cain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord..." (Palestinian Targum to Genesis 4:1) In another rabbinic work we find a similar interpretation...And she saw that his likeness was not of earthly beings, but of the heavenly beings, and she prophesied and said: I have gotten a man from the Lord."

Eva a nascut trei copii; pe Abel, pe Cain si pe sora lui Cain, Luluwa.

Acum, de ce au fost eliminate popoarele cu sange reptilian din Canaan:

Levitic

17.10,161820

(crimele Canaanitilor, neamurilor din jur)

Numeri

25.2,28

(de ce au fost ucisi Medianitii)

Deuteronom

12.29,3118.9.14

(crimele Canaanitilor)

71011

(de ce a fost ales neamul din linia genealogica Avraam - Isaac)

Canaanitii proveneau din linia genealogica Cain - Ham - Nimrod; comiteau atrocitati de tot

felul, din cauza pornirilor animalice care izvorau din sangele reptilian...urmasii lor au pus la cale cele doua razboaie mondiale, si il planuiesc pe cel de al treilea...

Iata materialul despre Pavel, adoratorul Soarelui:

http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/paul_ ... ceiver.htmhttp://www.justgivemethetruth.com/paul_ananias.htmhttp://www.justgivemethetruth.com/false_apostle.htmhttp://www.justgivemethetruth.com/who_wrote_hebrews.htm

http://quicksitemaker.com/members/disciples/custom.html

Falsificarea epistolelor 1 si 2 Petru de catre Silvanus si Pavel:

http://quicksitemaker.com/members/disci ... stom3.html

Falsitatea notiunii de 'rapire la Cer':

http://quicksitemaker.com/members/disci ... pture.html

Saul/Pavel era contestat de primii crestini (Galateni cap. 1 si2; 2 Corinteni cap. 10-12); ' Cand a ajuns la Ierusalim, Saul a cautat sa se lipeasca de ucenici; dar toti se temeau de el, caci nu puteau sa creada ca este ucenic' (Fapte 9:26). Motivul indoielilor celorlaltirezulta din propria sa marturisire: 'N-am sa va crut deloc; caci cautati o dovada ca Christos vorbeste in mine' (2 Corinteni 13:2-3).

Marile discrepante si relatari mincinoase din falsa convertire a lui Saul la crestinism:

-Fapte 9:3,4,7Pe drum, când s-a apropiat de Damasc, deodată a strălucit o lumină din cer în jurul lui. El a căzut la pământ, [B]şi a auzit un glas, care-i zicea... Oamenii care-l însoţeau, au rămas încremeniţi; auzeau în adevăr glasul, dar nu vedeau pe nimeni.-Fapte 22:6,7,9... deodată, pe la amiază, a strălucit împrejurul meu o mare lumină din cer. Am căzut la pământ, şi am auzit un glas, care-mi zicea... Cei ce erau cu mine, au văzut bine lumina, şi s-au înfricoşat; dar n-au auzit glasul Celui ce vorbea.-Fapte 26:13,14Pe la amiază, împărate, pe drum, am văzut strălucind împrejurul meu şiîmprejurul tovarăşilor mei o lumină din cer, a cărei strălucireîntrecea pe a soarelui. Am căzut cu toţii la pământ; şi eu am auzit un glas, care-mi zicea...

Plasmuirea acestei 'intamplari' a mers pana intr-acolo incat Barnaba a sustinut ca Pavel L-a si vazut pe Iisus, nu doar L-a auzit: 'Barnaba...le-a istorisit cum, pe drum, Saul vazuse pe Domnul' (Fapte 9:27)

Versiunile despre convorbirea care ar fi avut loc:

Fapte 9:4-6„Saule, Saule, pentru ce Mă prigoneşti?” „Cine eşti Tu, Doamne?” arăspuns el. Şi Domnul a zis: „Eu sunt Isus, pe care-L prigoneşti.„Ţi-ar fi greu să arunci înapoi cu piciorul într-un

ţepuş.” „Doamne, cevrei să fac?” „Scoală-te” , i-a zis Domnul, „intră în cetate, şi ţi seva spune ce trebuie să faci.”

Fapte 22:7-8,10,Saule, Saule, pentru ce Mă prigoneşti? ,Cine eşti, Doamne? am răspunseu. Şi El mi-a zis: ,Eu sunt Isus din Nazaret, pe care-L prigoneşti.”,Ce să fac, Doamne? ,Scoală-te , mi-a răspuns Domnul, ,du-te în Damasc,şi acolo ţi se va spune ce trebuie să faci.”

Fapte 26:14-18Si acum discursul ticluit de Pavel, o sporire/augmentare nemasurata fata de cele doua versiuni precedente.

,Saule, Saule, pentru ce Mă prigoneşti? Îţi este greu să arunci, cupiciorul înapoi în vârful unui ţepuş.” ,Cine eşti, Doamne? am răspunseu. Şi Domnul a zis: ,Eu sunt Isus, pe care-L prigoneşti. Darscoală-te, şi stai în picioare; căci M-am arătat ţie, ca să te punslujitor şi martor atât al lucrurilor, pe care le-ai văzut, cât şi allucrurilor, pe care Mă vei vedea făcându-le. Te-am ales din mijloculnorodului acestuia şi din mijlocul Neamurilor, la care te trimit, ca săle deschizi ochii, să se întoarcă de la întuneric la lumină, şi de subputerea Satanei la Dumnezeu; şi să primească, prin credinţa în Mine,iertare de păcate şi moştenirea împreună cu cei sfinţiţi.”

Vedeniile false au continuat: Faptele 16:9, 18:9, 22:18, 23:11, 27:23,la fel si auzirea vocilor invizibile: 9:4-6, 18:9-10, 22:18, 23:11.

Pavel isi recunoaste insusirile psihotice: 2 Corinteni 12:11: Am ajuns nebun(si 2 Corinteni 11:21)2 Corinteni 11:23: Vorbesc ca un iesit din minti

Si din blasfemiile lui Pavel:1 Corinteni 4:10: Noi suntem nebuni pentru Christos1 Corinteni 2:14: Omul firesc nu primeste lucrurile Duhului lui Dumnezeu, caci, pentru el, sunt o nebunie

Intoleranta si impulsivitatea lui Pavel:2 Corinteni 13:2: Spun iarasi mai dinainte celor ce au pacatuit maiinainte, si tuturor celorlalti, ca, daca ma voi intoarce la voi, n-amsa va crut.2 Corinteni 1:23: N-am mai venit pana acum la Corint tocmai ca sa va crut.

Pavel face urmatoarea afirmatie complet falsa, aceasta clasificare neputand fi gasita nicaieri in Cuvantul lui Dumnezeu:1 Corinteni 12:28: Şi Dumnezeu a rânduit în Biserică, întâi, apostoli;al doilea, prooroci; al treilea, învăţători; apoi, pe cei ce au darulminunilor; apoi pe cei ce au darul tămăduirilor, ajutorărilor,cârmuirilor, şi vorbirii în felurite limbi.

Pavel desconsidera darurile Duhului Sfant (vezi 1 Corinteni 12:31, casi cand el ar avea daruri mai bune), minimalizand importanta harurilorprimite: 1 Corinteni 12:29-30, 14:22, 14:9,19.

Harul anuntat de Iisus: In Numele Meu...vor vorbi in limbi noi (Marcu 16:17)

Atacurile lui Pavel la adresa femeii (nemaintalnite in Vechiul sau NoulTestament): 1 Timotei 2:12, 1 Corinteni 14:34-36, Efeseni 5:21-22,Coloseni 3:18, Tit 2:5, 1 Corinteni 11:6-7, 1 Corinteni 11:3 si citatulteribil din 1 Timotei 2:15 'Ea va fi mantuita prin nasterea de fii' darnu de fiice!

Atacurile viclene si perfide ale lui Pavel la adresacasatoriei/sexualitatii umane: 1 Corinteni 7:1, 1 Corinteni 7:7-8, 1Corinteni 7:27, 1 Corinteni 7:38, 1 Corinteni 7:40, 1 Corinteni 7:29,incalcand astfel citatul din Geneza 1:28 si mai ales cel din Geneza2:18. Chiar si atunci cand face concesii, vezi 1 Corinteni 7:9, Pavelavertizeaza: 1 Corinteni 7:28 ' Însă, dacă te însori, nu păcătuieşti.Dacă fecioara se mărită, nu păcătuieşte. Dar fiinţele acestea vor aveanecazuri pământeşti, şi eu aş vrea să vi le cruţ. '; cat dispret infraza 'fiintele acestea'.

Pavel neaga c-ar ar fi aflat evanghelia sa de la martorii faptelor sispuselor lui Iisus: ' n-am întrebat pe nici un om, nici nu m-am suit laIerusalim la cei ce au fost apostoli înainte de mine' (Galateni1:16-17); ' Fraţilor, vă mărturisesc că Evanghelia propovăduită demine, nu este de obârşie omenească' (Galateni 1:11; alte exemple in 2Corinteni 4:3, Galateni 2:2).

In mod fals se autointituleaza 'Pavel, apostol al lui Iisus Christos'(2 Corinteni 1:1, Efeseni 1:1, Coloseni 1:1,2, 2 Timotei 1:1, Tit 1:1).

Pentru Pavel, credinta era mai presus de Lege si chiar si de fapte. Elpretindea ca omul se indreptateste prin credinta, si nu prin fapte(Romani 3:27,28; 4:13-16). Spre deosebire de acesta, Iacov ne arata caameliorarea se dobandeste prin fapte, si nu numai prin credinta, Iacov2:20-24.

Pavel pune vorbele sale mai presus de Cuvantul lui Dumnezeu: 'ziua cand, dupa Evanghelia mea, Dumnezeu va judeca prin Iisus Christos' (Romani 2:16)Si vorbeste despre Dumnezeu 'care poate sa va intareasca, dupaEvanghelia mea si propovaduirea lui Iisus Christos' (Romani 16:25)

Faptele Apostolilor nu au fost acceptate ca text canonic decat cudificultate si numai la insistentele lui Iustinus si mai ales ale luiIrenaeus din Lyon, doi gnostici.[/B]

Pavel facea parte din cultul lui Mithra (idolatriza Soarele),iar membrii Fratiei Soarelui (anturajul imparatului Constantin) aureusit sa-si impuna parerea la Conciliile de la Niceea si de laLaodicea unde epistolele false si dezastruoase ale lui Pavel au fostincluse, in mod incredibil, in Noul Testament.

Pavel, Fariseul care adora Soarele:

http://www.hiddencodes.com/sherry/churches.htm

Din minciunile lui Pavel:

http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/paul_a_liar.htm

“If Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they need look no further than Paul”

-- The English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

“We have already noted that every teaching of Jesus was already in theliterature of the day….. Paul, the founder of Christianity, the writerof half the NT, almost never quotes Jesus in his letters and writings.'(Professor Smith in his “The World Religions”, p 330)

“Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can befound in the words of Christ…..Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paulover Christ.”--Will Durant (Philosopher)

'Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference.'--Bishop John S. Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark. (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991)

'Paul insists that there is only one 'gospel of Christ' (Galatians1:7), so why did later Christians accept as 'Scripture' four writtengospels?'--Graham N. Stanton, “The Gospels and Jesus”, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), p.125

Pavel nu a murit la Roma:

'Paul (10-67) alias (Saul the Roman citizen), the self-proclaimed apostlealias a Pharisee, is set free and possibly travels to Spain. Otherssuggest he is the Paul (Saulus) who played a key role in the events leadingup to the destruction of Jerusalem. Paul the leader of the Roman Churchhas an obvious inferiority complex that is expressed in his anti-Semitismand defensiveness. It is suggested his attitude is such because he is aconvert to Judaism as he aspired to marry the High Priest Daughter but isrejected by most sects of Judaism. Paul basically disappears from history,even his disciples fail to mention his whereabouts.'

'Paul (10-67) the Pharisee-Christian alias Saul the Roman citizen, aself-proclaimed apostle, writes 2 Timothy and the Letters to the Hebrewjust before his death. Paul (10-67) alias Saul the Roman, andself-proclaimed apostle, traveled from Jerusalem to Rome where it isbelieved he died this year. His ship is wrecked on the way at Melita(Malta) south of Sicily. The Roman Saul's journeys spanned the years 46-62(67?). It is noteworthy that there is no direct evidence that he isexecuted in Rome in A.D. 67. Irenaeus and Dionysius of Corinth establishedthis tradition in A.D. 170. Some suggest he is Saulus alias Paul whoplayed a key role in the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem.

If this is true it explains why the Paulist Church writings are strangelysilent about his death or whereabouts after this time. Paul (10-67) the Roman-Paulist is alleged killed in Rome under orders ofNero (54-68 ) the Roman Emperor. Others say Paul (10-67) is beheaded onthe road to Ostia. Others suggest he escaped to Spain. At this time it isalleged Linus (about 67-76) is appointed by Paul (10-67) as the first Papaof Rome and headed the Roman Greek Paulist Christian Church not Peter as iscommonly assumed. Simon Peter (d-64-67) is never once recorded as Papa ofRome and likely only spent 3-4 years in Rome. Most evidence suggests thatJames the Just is Papa of the Christian Churches. The writings attributedto Saul (10-67) comprise nearly 1/3 of the New Testament and are not editedand compiled until nearly five hundred years after his death. Some thinkPaul is likely killed as being a member of the Roman conspiracy and revolution of 64-68. It is noteworthy that Emperor Nero (54-68 ) touredGreece executing more conspirators. It is noteworthy that FlaviousJosephus (37-100) the Jewish historian makes no reference to Paul aliasSaul but does speak of Saulus.'

NU EXISTAU VIPERE PE INSULA MALTA:

The Question of the ViperThe title of προτος which is recorded in a Maltese inscription of theAge of Tiberius (IG. xiv, 601) [53] but is otherwise seemingly unknown,is a valuable argument in favour of Malta. The incident of the viperraises, on the other hand, a serious objection. Of the four species ofsnake now extant on Malta only the Telescopus fallax (cat snake) ispoisonous but its venom is generally harmless to men. [54] On Meledapoisonous snakes were, on the other hand, numerous until the earlyyears of the twentieth century when they were reportedly eliminated bymongooses imported from India for the purpose. [55] Whether poisonous snakes existed in Malta at the time of the shipwreckthere is no way of telling. No fossil remains of any species of snakehave been found in Maltese deposits and the herpetological evidence asit now stands is too ambiguous to help in the shipwreck debate. [56]The Maltese tradition takes their existence for granted and CaptainSmith has suggested that they may have been eliminated as a result ofdrastic environmental change [57] for which there is, [p.194] in fact,some evidence from Saracenic mediaeval texts. [58 ] A recent studytries to find evidence for them in Roman Malta’s cult of Heracles andargues unconvincingly that the island must have been snake infestedbecause these reptiles were sacred to the deity. [59] It thereforeproposes that the natives saw in the viper an instrument of divineretribution sent by Heracles to punish the shipwrecked stranger. Such ahypothesis seems to stem from the suggestion by M. Cagiano de Azevedothat the snake as an evil omen had a long history in Malta being firstassociated with the mother goddess of the prehistoric temples and thenwith Juno who, according to her myth, sent serpents to suffocate theinfant Heracles. [60] If the Acts narrative is to be taken literally, the reaction of thenatives to the miracle implies a familiarity with poisonous snakes. Itdoes not seem realistic to maintain as done, among others, by Mgr. Knoxthat the snake was an accidental visitor which “may have come over in,and escaped from, one of the African grain-ships.” [61] There remainsthe possibility that the story is an allegory of the triumph of theapostle over the devil or of the new faith over the old one. Thebiblical abhorrence of the snake is well known and the classical worldheld it in superstitious fear. The idea that it is an agent ofvengeance (Acts xviii, 4) finds an echo in Virgil (Aen., ii, 44-56 andin Pliny (NH, viii, 35-36) who believed all snakes were poisonous.

Theallegorical potential of the story was not missed by Maltese Churchmenwho used it in pious literature and in panegyrics in honour of St.Paul. One prominent prelate [62] was, for example, reported to havepicturesquely likened the fire lit by the natives to the flames of helland the viper to Satan who is vanquished by the apostle. [63]

Either way, naturalists say there are NO venomous snakes on Malta – and there never were.

Exista multe alte site-uri superbe care arata ca Pavel (impreuna cuLuca - mai multe despre felul cum au fost redactate FapteleApostolilor, altadata) a inventat toate 'minunile' savarsite indiversele sale calatorii.

Citatele incredibile din textele pagane initiatice facutede Pavel in Faptele Apostolilor si in Epistolele sale; pentru acestmotiv, Festus (care cunostea foarte bine aceste texte) i-a zis luiPavel: (Fapte 26:24), 'Pavele, eşti nebun! Învăţătura ta cea multă teface să dai în nebunie.'

'PAUL'QUOTED FREELY FROM PAGAN WRITINGS

In his continuing 'MADNESS' (Deut 28:28 Acts 26:24) 'Paul'; in orderthat 'that I may BOAST myself a little' (2 Corinthians 11:16); AGAINquoted directly from the pagan 'Bacchae of Euripides' in the scenewhere followers of Bacchus (IHS) have been imprisoned. Suddenly, as ifby god's hand, 'the chains on their legs snap apart ...untouched by anyhuman hand, the doors swing wide, opening of their own accord' (lines 447-8 Bacchae of Euripides).

Similarly, in Acts, when Paul and Silas were, as falsely alleged by'Paul';imprisoned in Phillipi, 'Paul' reports that 'all the doors burstopen and all the prisoners found their fetters unfastened' (ACTS16:26).

IMPORTANT NOTE: We know that 'PAUL' was LYING and was; as Festus alsoknew; quoting from the Pagan legend of 'The Bacchae' because Luke tellsus in Acts that 'SILAS' could not have been imprisoned with 'Paul' inPhilippi because SILAS had RETURNED WITH JUDAS TO JERUSALEM 'TO THOSEWHO HAD SENT THEM' (Acts 15:33).

******ACTS 15:34 A DELIBERATE CHRISTIAN LIE******

The EVIL WORDS of ACTS 15:34; '[Notwithstanding it pleased Silas toabide there still]' (KJV) are NOT in the original Greek text but wereDELIBERATELY inserted by CHRISTIANS in order to deny the precious wordsof Luke in Acts 15:33 (which confirm that SILAS had returned toJerusalem) but also to promote THE LIE that the faithful SILAS 'wentout from among the twelve apostles' (1 John 2:19) and joined up with'PAUL'.

'Paul'; WHO NEVER ONCE USED THE BLESSED NAME OR SAYINGS OF YESHUWA' MASHIYACH IN HIS EVIL WRITINGS; quoteddirectly from the pagan writings of Arastus (c.300 BCE); Epimenides (c600BCE); Menander (c 350 BCE); Hippolytus (c 430 BCE); Terence (c 200BCE) who were extollong the idol 'Zeus' and he also quoted from theBuddhist scriptures (c 500-250 BCE).

From Arastus 'We (Christians) are his (Zeus) offspring' (Acts 17:28 )

From Epimenides 'god (Zeus) is not far from each one of us for in him we live and move and have our being' (Acts 17:27,28 ) From Epimenides 'Cretans are always liars, evil brutes lazy gluttons(Titus 1:12) From Menander 'Bad company corrupts good character' (1 Cor 15:33) From Hippolytus 'The good that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not do, that I do' (Romans 7:19) From Terence 'But if any widow has children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home' (1 Timothy 5:4) From Mahaparinibanasuta Buddhist scriptures 'Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling' (Phillipians 2:12)

'PAUL' CONTRADICTED HIMSELF ABOUT THE ALLEGED VISION

'Paul' blatantly LIED in his CONTRADICTORY accounts of his allegedvision. In Acts 9:7 he stated 'And the men who were with me...HEARD THEVOICE but SAW NOTHING'; whereas in Acts 22:9 he states 'they that werewith me...SAW THE LIGHT but DID NOT HEAR THE VOICE'.

'SAW NOTHING' (Acts 9:7) versus 'SAW THE LIGHT'(Acts 22:9).

'HEARD THE VOICE'(Acts 9:7) versus 'DID NOT HEAR THE VOICE'(Acts 22:9)

'ALL FALLEN TO THE GROUND' (Acts 26:14) versus 'THE MEN...STOOD STILL' (Acts 9:7)

'PAUL' FALSELY CLAIMED THAT HE WAS AN APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

Exista si dovezi care indica faptul ca discipolii lui Pavel au fost ceicare au incendiat Roma (focul a pornit din cartierul crestin/evreiesc)cu scopul de a destabiliza Imperiul Roman si de a oferi sansa uneirascoale in Iudeea.

De la bun inceput, Pavel a intaratat pe Evreii din Ierusalim sicelelalte orase, interzicandu-le sa mai pastreze Legea si Cele 10Porunci, astfel producand numai certuri si neintelegeri inutile.

Fapte 21:21 (Iacov catre Pavel):Dar ei au auzit despre tine că înveţi pe toţi Iudeii, care trăiescprintre Neamuri, să se lepede de Moise, că le zici să nu-şi taie copiiiîmprejur, şi să nu trăiască potrivit cu obiceiurile.

Fapte 21:28Bărbaţi Israeliţi, daţi ajutor! Iată omul, care propovăduieştepretutindeni şi în toată lumea împotriva norodului, împotriva Legii şiîmpotriva locaşului acestuia; ba, încă a vârât şi pe nişte Greci înTemplu, şi a spurcat acest locaş sfânt.

Nimeni din Galateea sau Efes nu l-a bagat in seama pe Pavel (desiEpistolele sale sunt adresate acestor congregatii) pentru ca stiaufoarte bine ca este un impostor care s-a autodeclarat 'apostol al luiYeshuwa' fara nici un fel de temei si nu credeau in relatarea falsafacuta de Pavel cu privire la convertirea lui.

O examinare riguroasa a celor doua Epistole 'semnate' de Petru, dar scrise/falsificate de Silvan si Pavel, ne indica ca acesti doi impostori au copiat de cele mai multe ori cuvintele/frazele exacte din Epistolele ticluite de vicleanul Pavel:

1 Pet 1.3 devine exact Tit 3.51 Pet 1.4 = Col 1.51 Pet 1.6 = 2 Cor 4.171 Pet 1.6 În ea voi vă bucuraţi mult, măcar că acum, dacă trebuie, sunteţi întristaţi pentru puţină vreme, prin felurite încercări2 Cor 4.17 Căci întristările noastre uşoare de o clipă lucrează pentru noi tot mai mult o greutate veşnică de slavă1 Pet 1.7 = Rom 2.7,101 Pet 1.9 = Rom 6.221 Pet 1.13 = Efes 6.14; 1 Tes 5.6,81 Pet 1.14 = 1 Tes 4.51 Pet 1.17 = 2 Cor 5.6; Evr 11.131 Pet 1.20 = Rom 3.25; Rom 16.25,26; 2 Tim 1.9,10; Tit 1,2,3; Efes 3.9,11; Gal 4.4; Col 1.26; Efes 1.10; Evr 1.2; Evr 9.26

1 Pet 2.1 devine exact Efes 4.22,25,31; Col 3.81 Pet 2.2 = 1 Cor 3.2; Evr 5.12,131 Pet 2.2 şi, ca nişte prunci născuţi de curand, să doriţi laptele duhovnicesc şi curat, pentru ca prin el să creşteţi spre mântuire1 Cor 3.2 V-am hrănit cu lapte, nu cu bucate tari, căci nu le puteaţi suferi; şi nici acum chiar nu le puteţi suferiEvr 5.12,13 În adevăr, voi care de mult trebuia să fiţi învăţători, aveţi iarăşi trebuinţă de cineva să vă înveţe cele dintâi adevăruri ale cuvintelor lui Dumnezeu, şi aţi ajuns să aveţi nevoie de lapte, nu de hrană tare. Şi oricine nu se hrăneşte decât cu lapte, nu este obişnuit cu cuvântul despre neprihănire, căci este un prunc.1 Pet 2.5 = Efes 2.21,22; Efes 13.15,16; Filip 4.181 Pet 2.6 = Rom 9.321 Pet 2.8 = Rom 9.331 Pet 2.13 = Rom 13.1; Tit 3.1

1 Pet 3.1 devine exact 1 Cor 14.34; Efes 5.22; Col 3.18; Tit 2.51 Pet 3.3 = 1 Tim 2.9; Tit 2.31 Pet 3.4 = Rom 2.29; Rom 7.22; 2 Cor 4.161 Pet 3.7 = Efes 5.25; Col 3.191 Pet 3.8 = Efes 4.32; Col 3.121 Pet 3.22 = Rom 8.34; Efes 1.20; Col 3.1; Evr 1.3; Rom 8.38; 1 Cor 15.24; Efes 1.21

1 Pet 4.5 devine exact Rom 14.101 Pet 4.8 = Rom 12.13; Evr 13.2

1 Pet 5.1 devine exact Filim 91 Pet 5.4 = 1 Cor 9.25; 2 Tim 4.81 Pet 5.4 Şi când Se va arăta Păstorul cel mare, veţi căpăta cununa, care nu se poate vesteji, a slavei.1 Cor 9.25 Toţi cei ce se luptă la jocurile de obşte, se supun la tot felul de înfrânări. Şi ei fac

lucrul acesta ca să capete o cunună, care se poate vesteji: noi să facem lucrul acesta pentru o cunună, care nu se poate vesteji.2 Tim 4.8 De acum mă aşteaptă cununa neprihănirii, pe care mi-o va da, în „ziua aceea” , Domnul, Judecătorul cel drept. Şi nu numai mie, ci şi tuturor celor ce vor fi iubit venirea Lui.1 Pet 5.10 = 1 Cor 1.9; 2 Cor 4.17; Evr 13.21; 2 Tes 2.17; 2 Tes 3.31 Pet 5.11 = 2 Pet 3.18; 2 Tim 4.18; Evr 13.21; Rom 11:36; Gal 1.51 Pet 5.12 = 2 Cor 1.19; 1 Tes 1.1; 2 Tes 1.1

SILVAN ERA PROTEJATUL SI DISCIPOLUL LUI PAVEL; EL A ALCATUIT IMPREUNA CU PAVEL CELE DOUA EPISTOLE FALSE CARE NU AU FOST NICIODATA SCRISE DE PETRU

1 Pet 5.12 V-am scris aceste puţine rânduri prin Silvan2 Cor 1.19 ...prin mine, prin Silvan, şi prin Timotei...1 Tes 1.1 Pavel, Silvan şi Timotei, către Biserica Tesalonicenilor2 Tes 1.1 Pavel, Silvan şi Timotei, către Biserica Tesalonicenilor

2 Petru 1.4 devine exact 2 Cor 7.12 Petru 1.7 = Gal 6.10; 1 Tes 3.12; 1 Tes 5.152 Petru 1.12 = Rom 15.14,152 Petru 1.13 si 1.14 = 2 Cor 5.1,42 Petru 1.13,14 Dar socotesc că este drept, cât voi mai fi în cortul acesta, să vă ţin treji aducându-vă aminte; căci ştiu că dezbrăcarea de cortul meu va veni deodată, după cum mi-a arătat Domnul nostru Isus Hristos.2 Cor 5.1,4 Ştim, în adevăr, că, dacă se desface casa pământească a cortului nostru trupesc, avem o clădire în cer de la Dumnezeu, o casă, care nu este făcută de mână ci este veşnică. Şi gemem în cortul acesta, plini de dorinţa să ne îmbrăcăm peste el cu locaşul nostru ceresc, negreşit dacă atunci când vom fi îmbrăcaţi nu vom fi găsiţi dezbrăcaţi de el. Chiar în cortul acesta deci, gemem apăsaţi; nu că dorim să fim dezbrăcaţi de trupul acesta, ci să fim îmbrăcaţi cu trupul celălalt peste acesta, pentru ca ce este muritor în noi, să fie înghiţit de viaţă.

2 Petru 2.9 devine exact 1 Cor 10.132 Petru 2.20 = Evr 6.4; Evr 10.26,27

2 Petru 3.3 devine exact 1 Tim 4.1; 2 Tim 3.12 Petru 3.10 = 1 Tes 5.22 Petru 3.12 = 1 Cor 1.7; Tit 2.132 Petru 3.14 = 1 Cor 1.8; 1 Cor 15.58; Filip 1.10; 1 Tes 3.13; 1 Tes 5.232 Petru 3.15 = Rom 2.4; 1 Pet 3.202 Petru 3.18 = Efes 4.15; 2 Tim 4.18; 1 Pet 5.11; Evr 13.21; Rom 11.36; Gal 1.5

2 TIMOTEI 1.15: 'Ştii că cei ce sunt în Asia toţi m-au părăsit'; doctrina falsa a fariseului Pavel nu era acceptata si inteleasa de nimeni.

Cat priveste Faptele Apostolilor este clar ca exista doi autori separati; unul, cel mai probabil Luca (tot prietenul lui Pavel) a scris cap. 1-8, o parte din 9, si cap. 10-11. Celelalte capitole 9, 12-28 au fost scrise de un discipol (sau mai multi) al lui Pavel.

Sectiunea din capitolul 5 (5.1,11) a fost adaugata mai tarziu, fiind clara intentia de a pata caracterul lui Petru cu o intamplare care nu putea avea loc; mai mult, stim ca Petru a procedat

cu totul altfel (vezi Fapte 8.18,24), iertandu-l pe Simon pentru o fapta similara.

The conspiracy of Ahab and Jezebel to cheat the pious Naboth out of his vineyard (1 Kings 21:1-21:21) has provided Luke the raw material for two of the most exciting episodes of Acts, those of Ananias and Sapphira and of Stephen (Brodie, pp. 271-275). Ahab finds himself obsessed with Naboth’s vineyard, which seems more desirable to him, since he cannot possess it, than all his royal possessions. Jezebel advises him to take what he wants by devious means. Luke has punningly made Naboth into the righteous Barnabas, and now it is the latter’s donation (rather than possession) of a field that excites a wicked couple’s jealousy. Ananias plays Ahab, Sapphira Jezebel. Only they do not conspire to murder anyone. That element Luke reserves for the martyrdom of Stephen. The crime of Ananias and Sapphira is borrowed instead from that of Achan (Judges 7), who appropriated for himself treasure ear-marked for God. Ananias and Sapphira have sold a field (wanting to be admired like Barnabas), but they have kept back some of the money while claiming to have donated the full price. They have no business keeping the rest: it is rightfully God’s since they have dedicated it as “devoted to the Lord.” Peter confronts Ananias and Sapphira, just as Joshua did Achan (Joshua 7:25) and as Elijah confronted Ahab (1 Kings 20:17-18 ). Luke takes the earlier note about Ahab’s disturbance in spirit (20:4) and makes it into the charge that Ananias and Sapphira had lied to the Spirit of God (Acts 5:3b-4, 9b). Elijah and Peter pronounce death sentences on the guilty, and those of Ananias and Sapphira (like Achan’s) transpire at once (Acts 5:5a, 10a), while those of Ahab and Jezebel delay for some time. Fear fell on all who heard of Ananias’ and Sapphira’s fate, recalling the fear of God sparked in poor indecisive Ahab by Elijah’s doom oracle (1 Kings 20:27-29). Not long after the Naboth incident we learn that the young men of Israel defeated the greedy Syrians (21:1-21), a tale which likely made Luke think of having the young men (never in evidence elsewhere in Acts) carry out and bury the bodies of the greedy couple (Acts 5:6, 10b).

The New Testament refers to washing the body of the deceased in the Book of Acts. Acts 9:36-43 relates the story of a good woman named Tabitha of Joppa. Acts 9:37 mentions the washing of her body after she died: “In those days she fell sick and died; and when they had washed her, they laid her in an upper room.” Earlier on in Acts, however, there is no mention of washing the bodies of Ananias and Sapphira, a husband and wife who died shameful deaths. Acts 5:6 tells of Ananias’s death and burial:But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.Acts does not mention any washing of Ananias’s body, whereas such a custom was explicitly mentioned for Tabitha. Sapphira’s death and burial is recorded in Acts 5:7-11; she was accused of the same deed her husband was accused of, and she fell dead at Peter’s words as well. She was buried beside her husband, and her burial does not mention any washing of her body either.

Cum au fost adaugate citatele din Matei 16:18,19 (Şi Eu îţi spun: tu eşti Petru (Greceşte: Petros.), şi pe această piatră (Greceşte: petra.) voi zidi Biserica Mea, şi porţile Locuinţei morţilor nu o vor birui. Îţi voi da cheile Împărăţiei cerurilor, şi orice vei lega pe pământ, va fi legat în ceruri, şi orice vei dezlega pe pământ, va fi dezlegat în ceruri.) de catre conspiratori in textul Evangheliei dupa Matei:

The Ordination of Peter - In Matthew 16:17-19 Jesus blesses Peter pronouncing him the 'rock' upon which he will build his church while giving him the 'keys to the kingdom.' Peter, therefore, stands as Jesus' undisputed successor. In fact, Peter's recognition by the Roman Catholic Church as the first pope is based primarily on this passage. However, the evidence of forgery is undeniable. First, although it constitutes an essential element of the Christian religion, the ordination of Peter is mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament, not even in First and Second Peter, the epistles allegedly written by the great apostle. Second, excluding this passage, Jesus never attempted to establish a 'church.' Such a project would have been absurd in view of the fact that he assured his followers that the world would end and he would return in glory during their lifetime to establish the kingdom of God. In fact, the use of the word 'church' suggests a level of organization not acquired until long after the event allegedly occurred. In that regard, it is interesting to note that throughout the four gospels the word 'church' appears only twice thereafter, and both are in the same verse, Matthew 18:17. Third, and perhaps the most revealing, although Mark and Luke do not contain the ordination, they do contain duplicates of Matthew 16:16 and 16:20, the verses immediately preceding and following the ordination13. The so-called ordination of Peter is without a doubt a later insertion, i.e. a forgery.

As the years since “Mark” rolled by, the zeal of the Fathers to exalt Peter increased; we have seen many admitted forgeries of documents having that purpose in view. So it was, obviously, a new forging Father who took a manuscript of “Matthew,” and turning to the above verses copied from “Mark,” added in, or made a new manuscript copy containing, the notable forgery of verses 17-19. There, onto the commonplace and unnoticed reply of Peter, “Thou art the Christ,” the pious interpolator tacked on:

“the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. xvi, 16b-19.

That Jesus Christ never spoke the words of those forged verses, that they are a late Church forgery, is beyond any intelligent or honest denial. The first mention of them in “patristic literature,” and that only a reference to the “keys,” is this scant line of Father Tertullian, in a little tract called Scorpiace or “The Scorpion’s Sting,” written about 211 A.D., in which he says: “For, though you think heaven is still shut, remember that the Lord left to Peter and through him to the Church, the keys of it.” (Scorpiace, x; ANF. iii, 643.) That Jesus did not use the words of those verses, interpolated into a paragraph of [omitted - RW] from “Mark,” and repeated in their original form by “Luke,”’ is thus conclusive from “internal” evidences; the later and embroidered form is a visible interpolation and forgery. That this is true, is demonstrated, moreover, by the inherent impossibility of the thing itself.

The “On this Rock” forgery of Matt. xvi, says Reinach, “is obviously an interpolation, made at a period when a church, separated from the synagogue, already existed. In the parallel passages in Mark (vii, 27, 32) and in Luke (ix, 18-22), there is not a word of the primacy of Peter, a detail which Mark, the disciple of Peter, could hardly have omitted if he had known of it. The interpolation is posterior to the compilation of Luke’s gospel.” (Orpheus, pp. 224-225.)

As aptly said by Dr. McCabe; “It [the word ecclesia] had no meaning whatever as a religious institution until decades after the death of Jesus Christ. In the year 30 A.D. no one on earth would have known what Jesus meant if he had said that he was going to {181} ‘found’ an ecclesia or church, and that the powers of darkness would not prevail against it, and so on. It would sound like the talk of the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland.” (The Story of Religious Controversy, p. 294.) Indeed, it may be remarked, it is the “powers of darkness” of mind which have so far prevailed to perpetuate this fraud; the powers of the light of reason are hastening to its final overthrow.

Cel mai probabil doar o parte din versetele capitolului 21 din evanghelia lui Ioan sunt adevarate si au fost scrise de Ioan...

Despre citatul din Ioan (21)...

The whole of chapter 21 of St John's Gospel is probably an 'addition.' Quietly read the last two verses of chapter 20, verses 30-31. Doesn't it look like a conclusion, an ending on a farewell note? So is it any surprise when scholars tell us that chapter 21, i.e., the rest of the 'gospel,' wasn't written by St John?The New Bible Commentary, F.DAVIDSON, A.M.STIBBS, and E.F.KEVAN (eds), 1959 (2nd edition), Inter-Varsity Fellowship, London, pp 895 b and 896 b, though trying to defend this interloper chapter, says: 'EPILOGUE. xxi. 1-25. Many commentators believe that this chapter was not written by the evangelist. [...] Conclusion (xxi. 24,25) The last two verses of the Gospel are added by unknown persons ...'John L. McKENZIE, Dictionary of the Bible, 1968, Geoffrey Chapman, London, page 447, writes: 'There are two conclusions, 20:30 f; ... which suggests that 21 is not part of the original Gospel.'New Jerusalem Bible, R.C. version (footnotes © 1990), is more subtle. Above chapter 21 is inserted a heading, 'Epilogue,' which is footnoted (page 1272) as follows: 'Added by the evangelist or one of his disciples.' Hmm! (To WWW 24 Feb 04, improved 02 Mar 04)

Grotius, a famos scholar admitted:

'There used to be twenty chapters in this Gospel. The twnety first chapter was added after the death of John, by the Church of Ephesus.

Mai multe detalii despre 'epistolele' lui Petru...

The critical considerations which lead to the rejection of both Epistles as “not Petrine” and “not of the apostolic age,” may be very briefly summarized: That I Peter is addressed to the “Sojourners of the Dispersion” in Asia Minor, which was Paul’s reserved territory. “There is no trace of the questions mooted in the apostolic age. ... The historical conditions and circumstances implied in the Epistle indicate, moreover, a time far beyond the probable duration of Peter’s life. ... The history of the spread of Christianity imperatively demands for I Peter a later date than 64 A.D.,” the alleged date of Peter’s death. The second Epistle, II {192} Peter, is vaguely addressed to Christians in general (i, 1), yet in iii, 1, the writer inconsistently assumes that the First Epistle was addressed to the same readers; and he tells them (i, 6 and iii, 15) that they had already received instructions from him (ostensibly Peter), and also letters from Paul. “The relation of II Peter to I Peter renders a common authorship extremely doubtful. The name and title of the author are different. ... The style of the two

epistles is different. ... It is late and un-apostolic.” (EB. Peter, Epistles of, iii, 3678-3685; cf. New Comm. Pt. III, pp. 639, 653, 654.) “The genuineness of I Peter cannot be maintained. Most probably it was not written before 112 A.D.” (EB. 2940.) The two letters of Peter are Graeco-Egyptian forgeries.” (Reinach, Orpheus, p. 240.) The Church pretense that I Peter was written at Rome (“Babylon”) will be judged in its more appropriate place. In the early list of supposedly apostolic Books drawn up by Tertullian as accepted and read in the several Churches, while he “cites the Book of Enoch as inspired, ... also recognizes IV Esdras, and the Sibyl, ... he does not know James and II Peter. ... He attributes Hebrews to St. Barnabas.” (CE. xiv, 525.) Bishop Dionysius complains that his own writings “had been falsified by the apostles of the devil; no wonder, he adds, ‘that the Scriptures were falsified by such persons.’” (CE. v, 10.) The “Peter” Books are other instances.

http://www.neogen.ro/group/33645/view-posts/61197(Saul/Pavel din Tars - Apostolul Fals si Fariseul Minciunii)

http://www.neogen.ro/group/33645/view-posts/61195(Semnul Crucii - semn pagan si ocult)

http://www.forumcrestin.com/index.php?topic=3829.msg484645#msg484645

The Emperor Hadrian, in a letter to the Consul Servianus, wrote: 'Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis, call themselves Bishops of Christ.' Hadrian to Servianus, 134A.D. (Giles, Hebrew and Christian Records, vol. ii. p. 86. London: 1877).

THE ROMAN CAESAR CONSTANTINE; who worshipped at the TEMPLE FOR 'APOLLO, built by his predecessors, on the Palatine in ROME; went out to battle with the BLASPHEMOUS words 'IHS ie-sus hominem salvator' [IHS je-sus the saviour of mankind)'] printed on his war banner called 'The Labarum'. IHS means in Latin 'In Hoc Signo' --'In This Sign'.

IHS; the 'je-sus' symbol; is imprinted onto the blasphemous Roman catholic piece of bread called 'the host'; which is devoured by christians who say that they 'are eating the body and blood of 'CHRIST JESUS (666)' (Acts 19:4); when they renew their Bacchus feast which they call 'the mass' and which is daily offered; by Christian 'SORCERERS' (Revelation 18:23); to 'THE DRAGON, THAT OLD SERPENT, WHICH IS THE DEVIL AND SATAN' (Rev 12:9).

http://www.quicksitemaker.com/members/disciples/markofthebeast.html

The term Krist (or Karast) was a title commonly bestowed by the Essenes to denote one of their excellent or special initiates who had passed through extraordinary trials and who held high status and rank. It was not a personal name. The Essenes are known to have referred to themselves as 'the Elect' or as 'Sons of Light.' Masters of high caliber were known as the 'Star.' This is clearly an astrological title. Paintings have been discovered of priests with star-shaped diadems upon their foreheads. The very word minister contains the syllables for moon (min) and star (ster). We can perhaps understand now why the Vatican did not want the Dead

Sea Scrolls, and other presumably Essenic scriptures, to be found, translated, published, and commonly read. The Vatican did not want any record or mention of lineages of 'Christed' men. They wished the world to believe their Jesus to be unique in every way. The literature and traditions that contradicted this policy were to be sequestered or destroyed. Cults or sects that preached the contrary were to be condemned and persecuted as heretics. Interestingly, this word simply meant 'those who choose.'

Essenieni erau urmasi de-ai lui Cain...

...the Egyptian Karast (Krst) is the original Christ, and that the Egyptian mysteries were continued by the Gnostics and Christianized in Rome - Gerald Massey (Ancient Egypt: Light of the World, 1907)

…the Egyptian karast was the pre-Christian Christ, and the pictures in the Roman Catacombs preserve the proof. The passing of the karast into the Christ is depicted in the Gnostic iconography. It is in the form of a child bound up in the swathing of a diminutive Egyptian mummy, with the halo and cross of the four quarters round its head, which show its solar origin – ibid

De aceea a fost introdus numele Christ de acesti conspiratori...vicleni...

The form 'YESHUA' is from the acronym 'YESHU', a mutilation of Yahushua's Name used by unbelieving Yahudim during the late 1st and 2nd century CE. The letters in 'YESHU' stood for the sentence, 'may his name be blotted out' (from the scroll of life). This 'Yeshu' acronym is the real root of the form 'JESUS', after going through Greek, then Latin...

Books taken out of the Old Testament:

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html (contains many descriptions of the Messiah)http://www.piney.com/ApocAdEve1.htmlhttp://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/loj/index.htm

Many verses have been added to the true Adam and Eve book; it is a matter of great skill and prophetic intuition to separate and to discern the original verses from the later additions.

Cartea lui Adam si Eva contine si multe versete care nu faceau parte din cartea originala, trebuie san e folosim intuitia profetica pentru a discerne adevarul de fals.

Cartea lui Enoh in limba romana:http://www.scribd.com/doc/1401269/Evanghelii-Apocrife-Cartea-lui-Enoh-Versiunea-etiopian (contine descrierea lui Mesia)

Cartea lui Iov adaugata fraudulent in Torah (Book of Job completely false):http://www.awitness.org/lostmess/wisdom/job.htmlhttp://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/job.htm

Teoria Pamantului Plat complet demonstrata:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewforum.php?f=7&sid=ea737548d3e76ad1dc0607a858d3a147

http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/