Ouroboros Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 Plagiarism by Anticipation I’ve heard that from Christians today too, and I just realized that the Bible claims that no one knows God’s will, plans and thoughts, so how the FUCK can the Devil know how Jesus will come, live and die even before anyone else! So God is basically telling his most secret plans to his nemesis, before he told his prophets. Well, God! If we get confused because of this, don’t blame the Devil, and don’t blame us! God! You Fucked It Up! Sorry for my outcry of frustration there… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 The more I think of it, the more I think the opposite is the truth. Everyone have the doubt if God exists, so Nature proves to them that God never existed, so everyone should be Atheist! And they don't see this because of their evil ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 I’ve heard that from Christians today too, and I just realized that the Bible claims that no one knows God’s will, plans and thoughts, so how the FUCK can the Devil know how Jesus will come, live and die even before anyone else! So God is basically telling his most secret plans to his nemesis, before he told his prophets. Well, God! If we get confused because of this, don’t blame the Devil, and don’t blame us! God! You Fucked It Up! Sorry for my outcry of frustration there… <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's actually kinda funny, Hans. I guess if the devil and god were playing poker, god wouldn't stand a chance.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 ALMOST ALL CHRISTIANS ARE AWARE THAT CHRISTMAS AND EASTER HAVE THEIR ORIGINS IN PAGANISM From the website Astronomy and Earth Science: ccil.org CHRISTMAS December 25 has been celebrated for thousands of years. December 25 was the date of the winter solstice in the calendar Julius Caesar devised for Rome in 46BC. Today the winter solstice usually occurs on December 21st. Although Caesar used a 365 1/4 day year, a year is actually a little shorter, and this made the solstice occur a little earlier over the years. December 25 then became the birthday of Mithra or Mithras (my great-great uncle) and was celebrated for that. Then it became, of course, Jesus' birthday. Christmas. EASTER Easter comes from "Ishtar", who was an ancient Babylonian goddess of love and fertility. Her greatest lover was another god, named Tammuz. Easter commemorated the resurrection of Tammuz from the dead. (an annual event) SOME CHRISTIANS ARE AWARE THAT CATHOLIC RITUALS ARE OF PAGAN ORIGIN Catholic rituals, such as making the sign of the cross, incense, candles, and lots of other Catholic rituals are all pagan in origin. SO WHY DON'T CHRISTIANS EVER STOP AND THINK, HUH? I WONDER WHAT ELSE ISN'T ORIGINAL TO CHRISTIANITY? Stuff like, Oh, I don't know.. 1. Visitation of a god and the Virgin Birth of a savior, who intervenes for man 2. Blood atonement 3. Eucharist (this is my blood, this is my body) 4. Twelve disciples 5. Resurrection from the dead 6. Ascension to be with the father And the list goes on, and on and on. As Aaryn says, choose you this day who you will serve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 Hi Thankful. I just thought a little more about the Paul vs. Jesus thing, and about the OT vs. NT discrepancies. I don't want to portray myself as knowing more than I do. (there's enough people here already doing that) - I'm thinking of troy and invictus in particular. But, I have been doing a little studying. And here are some of the things I've found that help to explain some things. (If I get some detail wrong, I apologize) And, some of this you may already know. Paul's writings preceded the writing of the gospels. It isn't really clear what Paul's concepts of christ were, but we do know that he makes no mention of any of Jesus' teachings, miracles, or virgin birth. Completely inconceivable, if Paul had known of these things. The few references to a historical Jesus in Paul's writings (such as a reference involving Pontius Pilate) are believed by many scholars to be fraudulent later insertions. Lots of things in the synoptic gospels are a counter-attack to Paul's teachings by the Judaizer wing of christianity. They seem to counter the "salvation by grace" concept by demanding adherence to the OT law. This explains why so much of the New Testament seems to argue against itself Marcion of Pontus was one of the early church fathers, who was later branded as a heretic by the Roman Church. He believed that the OT god and NT god were not the same god. Marcion wrote a gospel too, that is similar to Luke, except much of the historical "facts' are missing. I've read that Luke copied Marcion and added to it. I've also read that Marcion copied Luke and subtracted details from it. I tend to believe that Marcion's came first. Here is a pretty interesting read about Marcion. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Paul was not an apostle, he was a Pharissee. He converted after the death of Jesus, and after he watched as he put many of Jesus's followers to death(Stephen) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 Gee, YoYo. I had no idea. And your point is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 Gee, YoYo. I had no idea. And your point is? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not a big point or anything. If Paul didnt follow Jesus before His death and didnt know Him other than what few told Him and Jesus's direction to Him, then he wouldnt have really known a whole lot about the actual historic attributes of Jesus.(Specifically). Thats just assuming, since I perceived that, as he wasnt around the apostles much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 Did I call Paul an apostle? Paul? who's Paul? Oh, I KNOW. Paul. Formerly Saul of Tarsus. A pharisee of pharisees who studied under Gamaliel, who was converted miraculously while on the road to Damascus, where his companions saw a light, but heard nothing. Or, did they hear a sound but saw nothing? Or, maybe the third version, as Paul pled his case before Agrippa. Maybe that's the way it happened. You mean the Paul that is widely held to be God's choice for the twelfth disciple to replace Judas, after the other disciples jumped the gun and elected Matthias? Oh, that Paul. Ok, now I think we're on the same page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 That's actually kinda funny, Hans. I guess if the devil and god were playing poker, god wouldn't stand a chance.... That's what I was thinking of Dubya before the war. He didn't get that Sadam was faking, and even I suspected it, but GWB didn't get it, and told everyone he was going to war. So if I'd chose someone to play poker with, it would be GWB, because he can't bluff and can't read others. Easy mark. Besides, mr Devil, has training in bluffing and deceiving, but God is to god-honest, so yeah, in a poker match, God would lose all chips. Hmm. That's why the world is so screwed up. God lost the poker match! God bet his shirt, heaven, universe and every frigging soul, so I guess we all are going to hell. God lost it all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 Not a big point or anything. If Paul didnt follow Jesus before His death and didnt know Him other than what few told Him and Jesus's direction to Him, then he wouldnt have really known a whole lot about the actual historic attributes of Jesus.(Specifically). Thats just assuming, since I perceived that, as he wasnt around the apostles much. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> wow. that's really so far beyond weak, I really don't know what to say. Is this conceivable to you? That Paul, who devoted his life to christ, who day and night suffered all these incredible beatings and stonings and other tortures for his Lord, might not want to, say, walk for a day or two and go and pay the disciples a visit to get a little more information about Jesus the man? How far would you drive for a one-on-one conversation with Peter? And, by the way, they did know each other. In Galatians, Paul opposes Peter to his face because he thinks that Peter is being a hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 That's what I was thinking of Dubya before the war. He didn't get that Sadam was faking, and even I suspected it, but GWB didn't get it, and told everyone he was going to war. So if I'd chose someone to play poker with, it would be GWB, because he can't bluff and can't read others. Easy mark. Besides, mr Devil, has training in bluffing and deceiving, but God is to god-honest, so yeah, in a poker match, God would lose all chips. Hmm. That's why the world is so screwed up. God lost the poker match! God bet his shirt, heaven, universe and every frigging soul, so I guess we all are going to hell. God lost it all! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No shit. Wonder what tipped ol' satan off as to what god was holding. Talk about a high-stakes game. (for us, that is) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 Paul was not an apostle, he was a Pharissee. He converted after the death of Jesus, and after he watched as he put many of Jesus's followers to death(Stephen) I think he was counted as an apostle, but he was not a disciple. The apostles were the first ones to bring the "good tidings" to the world and start the church. So I think Paul was considered apostle by the church historians. That's what I learned at least, but I can't back it up. Saint Paul Smaull, he was not tall But he had a very important call Through an intensive light He was given an invite "Spread your delusions to the church and all" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 Not a big point or anything. If Paul didnt follow Jesus before His death and didnt know Him other than what few told Him and Jesus's direction to Him, then he wouldnt have really known a whole lot about the actual historic attributes of Jesus.(Specifically). Thats just assuming, since I perceived that, as he wasnt around the apostles much. I agree to that. I don't think Paul (or Saul) knew much about Jesus, but he got the call from Jesus, and left to Persia (I think it was) for a couple of years, and studied by himself, had a few more visions of Jesus, came back, told Peter that Peter was wrong, spread the Gospel (that he had made up), and felt like a million bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totallyatpeace Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 An Apostle is anyone who has been with Christ. He fits the bill. Did you know there were 13 years between Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus and when he first led people to Christ? Why did it take 13 years? Sorry. Forgot where I was and was about to give a lesson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 What did he study? He already knew the ole testacle by heart. And, he already knew all about Jesus. At least he knew as much as anyone did at that time. The rest of the story hadn't been made up yet. But, on the other hand, I'm still working on the Myth of Paul hypothesis..... Oh, and the 12 apostles? Not real either. They are the 12 signs of the zodiac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 An Apostle is anyone who has been with Christ. He fits the bill. Did you know there were 13 years between the conversion on the road to Damascus and when he first led people to Christ? Why did it take 13 years? Sorry. Forgot where I was and was about to give a lesson. I wouldn't say he fit the bill to have been with Christ, because he was busy persecuting the disciples. It was said that he saw Jesus in a vision, but that's all, he didn't meet Jesus personally. Was it 13 years? That was longer than I thought. But that is the reason why I'm suspicious about Pauls teaching. He didn't spend time with Peter and studied the gospel and teachings of Jesus, he took of and sat at a bar somewhere, drank some marguritas, wrote some ideas on the napkins, did this for some years, and have the great idea to go back to Peter and argue with Peter what Jesus had said. Isn't that weird? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 What did he study? He already knew the ole testacle by heart. And, he already knew all about Jesus. At least he knew as much as anyone did at that time. The rest of the story hadn't been made up yet. But, on the other hand, I'm still working on the Myth of Paul hypothesis..... Oh, and the 12 apostles? Not real either. They are the 12 signs of the zodiac. Yes, the 12 disciple were the signs of the zodiac, but the meaning for each name were lost. That's too bad, I wanted to know which disciple-sign I was born in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totallyatpeace Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 I wouldn't say he fit the bill to have been with Christ, because he was busy persecuting the disciples. It was said that he saw Jesus in a vision, but that's all, he didn't meet Jesus personally. Was it 13 years? That was longer than I thought. But that is the reason why I'm suspicious about Pauls teaching. He didn't spend time with Peter and studied the gospel and teachings of Jesus, he took of and sat at a bar somewhere, drank some marguritas, wrote some ideas on the napkins, did this for some years, and have the great idea to go back to Peter and argue with Peter what Jesus had said. Isn't that weird? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It was considered an actual contact...not a vision.... That's what makes him the Apostle. 13 years was most likely because nobody could trust him. If you just spent a good deal of time persecuting and killing people for preaching.......and then you start preaching the same.....would not the people think they're being tricked? I say that 13 years was all about fear and not trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 It was considered an actual contact...not a vision.... That's what makes him the Apostle. 13 years was most likely because nobody could trust him. If you just spent a good deal of time persecuting and killing people for preaching.......and then you start preaching the same.....would not the people thing they're being tricked? I say that 13 years was all about fear and not trust. The Acts and Pauls own words doesn't say it was a physical contact, it talks about a light and a voice, not even a Jesus-action-figure in the smoke there. It's true he was hiding a lot from the church, but I will try to find Paul's own words on his hermit period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 11. I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I thought it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. Paul didn’t get education from the disciples, but got it through revelations from Jesus directly. 16. to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17. nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.18. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles – only James, the Lord’s brother. It’s clear that Paul didn’t talk to anyone about the teachings. He didn’t go to Jerusalem to learn the teachings. The first apostle he saw was Peter after 3 years or more. No one knows (or maybe it’s recorded somewhere else) how long he was in Arabia (Armenia) So the whole picture I get is that he made up his teachings by himself through “questionable” revelations from God. How can we trust he had the right insight and the right heart according to Jesus? We only have Paul’s word that Paul was called and being correct, and what we know about the other apostles, we know through Paul. This is a very fishy way of spreading a gospel, and since we know Paul’s letters were written before the Gospels, who knows what really Jesus said. Paul could have made it all up! *** Gal 1:1 - Paul claims he's an Apostle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 So the whole picture I get is that he made up his teachings by himself through “questionable” revelations from God. How can we trust he had the right insight and the right heart according to Jesus? We only have Paul’s word that Paul was called and being correct, and what we know about the other apostles, we know through Paul. This is a very fishy way of spreading a gospel, and since we know Paul’s letters were written before the Gospels, who knows what really Jesus said. Paul could have made it all up! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And christians ridicule the Mo's for followin Joe Smith. Smith's revelations are more legit than Paul's as far as I can see. At least I'm pretty sure Joseph Smith ain't a MYTH!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 And christians ridicule the Mo's for followin Joe Smith. Smith's revelations are more legit than Paul's as far as I can see. At least I'm pretty sure Joseph Smith ain't a MYTH!! You're smileys are talking ... and they're telling me you think J. Smith was a fucked-up-sheep or he was fucking sheep... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 Actually, I'm not sure what they mean. I just hadn't seen em used before, and it's Saturday night, so I'm gettin a little wild. woo fuckin hoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 Hans - you live in so cal or sweden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 Hans - you live in so cal or sweden? The warm and earthquaky South California. I'm from Sweden, but moved here 9 yrs ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts