There is no rapture, Jesus is not coming back in the clouds

[Indeependent]

Anyone that believes in any religion is a fool.

Jesus started one single religion--the one that is no part of this world and does not fit in. Jesus spoke to 7 congregations in (revelation( happening now in these last days) proving there is a religion that has Jesus.

How do you know that?

He doesn't know that but he has to say it to justify his religion.

The stories I read say that Jesus ran around eating and drinking and partying with sinners and prostitutes and keeping all sorts of bad company.

He didn't seem to give a shit about religion if you ask me..

The healthy do not need a doctor--the unhealthy do.
Actually Jesus tried his butt off to save the Israelite religion that were Gods chosen, but they rejected him to the core, thus were cut off( Matt 23:37-39) Yet God left the door open to them. A new religion began. The apostles were the teachers Jesus trained. They in turn trained other teachers.

The Israelite people were not Gods' chosen, they are the ones that accepted God as a deity....

God chose Avraham because Avraham treated people like gold.
His son, Yitzchaz and grandson, Yaakov carried on a tradition that God decided would be the reason to allow the human race to continue.
And no, I'm NOT going to give a 320 Style dissertation.

 

[irosie91]

Jesus started one single religion--the one that is no part of this world and does not fit in. Jesus spoke to 7 congregations in (revelation( happening now in these last days) proving there is a religion that has Jesus.

Jesus didn't start a religion, that happened 70 years after his death.........

The Pharisees knew of his religion--they called it a sect- acts 24:5)--

I'd like to point something out a little further on after acts 24:5

9 “I too was that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10 And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the Lord’s in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them 11 Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. I was so obsessed with persecuting them that I even hunted them down in foreign cities.

So Paul now is to be put to death , because he believed a man came back to life, and also the Jews went around killing many , even in foreign cities to kill members of the Way who believed in life after death.

Good thing he asked to see Caesar and was sent to Rome, where he was given his own house to rent and preach to all who would listen. The Jews would of stoned him. I wanted to point this out.

the jews who rejected life after death were the ZADOKIS
not the Pharisees The people who associated with the Zadoki "high priests" were the romans----not the Pharisees----
you are saying that PAUL decide to team up with the roman shill zadoki high priests-----and go after those jews who adhered to the cult of jesus--------I have a sense that you do not seem to grasp the fact that by so doing-----Paul had already repudiated his Pharisee status and turned
traitor to that cause. Josephus never did that

Sure they both became traitors to the Jews and Judaism.

what "both" ? You seem to have posted that Paul did not even exist------he was of a converted family -----or so they say---originally a greek. As to Josephus he was never a traitor---
the people who wanted him to continue active resistance along
with him MIGHT have considered him a turncoat-----but ----
they could have and did not kill him. I do not know anyone who considered him a traitor. Paul seems to me---a bit of a nut------he seems to have come from a greek family that
dabbled in Judaism and he went on to try to develop a cult---
how much of that which is attributed to him is HIS AND ONLY his is not at all clear to me. Maybe if he had lived a bit longer, he would have given up the nonsense. It seems he never married.

 

[Indeependent]

Jesus didn't start a religion, that happened 70 years after his death.........

The Pharisees knew of his religion--they called it a sect- acts 24:5)--

I'd like to point something out a little further on after acts 24:5

9 “I too was that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10 And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the Lord’s in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them 11 Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. I was so obsessed with persecuting them that I even hunted them down in foreign cities.

So Paul now is to be put to death , because he believed a man came back to life, and also the Jews went around killing many , even in foreign cities to kill members of the Way who believed in life after death.

Good thing he asked to see Caesar and was sent to Rome, where he was given his own house to rent and preach to all who would listen. The Jews would of stoned him. I wanted to point this out.

the jews who rejected life after death were the ZADOKIS
not the Pharisees The people who associated with the Zadoki "high priests" were the romans----not the Pharisees----
you are saying that PAUL decide to team up with the roman shill zadoki high priests-----and go after those jews who adhered to the cult of jesus--------I have a sense that you do not seem to grasp the fact that by so doing-----Paul had already repudiated his Pharisee status and turned
traitor to that cause. Josephus never did that

Sure they both became traitors to the Jews and Judaism.

what "both" ? You seem to have posted that Paul did not even exist------he was of a converted family -----or so they say---originally a greek. As to Josephus he was never a traitor---
the people who wanted him to continue active resistance along
with him MIGHT have considered him a turncoat-----but ----
they could have and did not kill him. I do not know anyone who considered him a traitor. Paul seems to me---a bit of a nut------he seems to have come from a greek family that
dabbled in Judaism and he went on to try to develop a cult---
how much of that which is attributed to him is HIS AND ONLY his is not at all clear to me. Maybe if he had lived a bit longer, he would have given up the nonsense. It seems he never married.

Penelope is VERY selective on history vs myth.

 

[irosie91]

The Pharisees knew of his religion--they called it a sect- acts 24:5)--

I'd like to point something out a little further on after acts 24:5

9 “I too was that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10 And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the Lord’s in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them 11 Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. I was so obsessed with persecuting them that I even hunted them down in foreign cities.

So Paul now is to be put to death , because he believed a man came back to life, and also the Jews went around killing many , even in foreign cities to kill members of the Way who believed in life after death.

Good thing he asked to see Caesar and was sent to Rome, where he was given his own house to rent and preach to all who would listen. The Jews would of stoned him. I wanted to point this out.

the jews who rejected life after death were the ZADOKIS
not the Pharisees The people who associated with the Zadoki "high priests" were the romans----not the Pharisees----
you are saying that PAUL decide to team up with the roman shill zadoki high priests-----and go after those jews who adhered to the cult of jesus--------I have a sense that you do not seem to grasp the fact that by so doing-----Paul had already repudiated his Pharisee status and turned
traitor to that cause. Josephus never did that

Sure they both became traitors to the Jews and Judaism.

what "both" ? You seem to have posted that Paul did not even exist------he was of a converted family -----or so they say---originally a greek. As to Josephus he was never a traitor---
the people who wanted him to continue active resistance along
with him MIGHT have considered him a turncoat-----but ----
they could have and did not kill him. I do not know anyone who considered him a traitor. Paul seems to me---a bit of a nut------he seems to have come from a greek family that
dabbled in Judaism and he went on to try to develop a cult---
how much of that which is attributed to him is HIS AND ONLY his is not at all clear to me. Maybe if he had lived a bit longer, he would have given up the nonsense. It seems he never married.

Penelope is VERY selective on history vs myth.

I am beginning to try to make some sense of paul and----the notion that he did not really exist. He is the character who gave bacon and eggs back to the roman converts to the cult
of Jesus AND he let them keep their foreskins----based on his own dreams and on some very weird sophistry----some of it
relating to an IMMINENT end of days scenario. There HAD to be a Paul in the cult of Jesus or it would not have survived---
so a PAUL was invented.

 

[Indeependent]

I'd like to point something out a little further on after acts 24:5

So Paul now is to be put to death , because he believed a man came back to life, and also the Jews went around killing many , even in foreign cities to kill members of the Way who believed in life after death.

Good thing he asked to see Caesar and was sent to Rome, where he was given his own house to rent and preach to all who would listen. The Jews would of stoned him. I wanted to point this out.

the jews who rejected life after death were the ZADOKIS
not the Pharisees The people who associated with the Zadoki "high priests" were the romans----not the Pharisees----
you are saying that PAUL decide to team up with the roman shill zadoki high priests-----and go after those jews who adhered to the cult of jesus--------I have a sense that you do not seem to grasp the fact that by so doing-----Paul had already repudiated his Pharisee status and turned
traitor to that cause. Josephus never did that

Sure they both became traitors to the Jews and Judaism.

what "both" ? You seem to have posted that Paul did not even exist------he was of a converted family -----or so they say---originally a greek. As to Josephus he was never a traitor---
the people who wanted him to continue active resistance along
with him MIGHT have considered him a turncoat-----but ----
they could have and did not kill him. I do not know anyone who considered him a traitor. Paul seems to me---a bit of a nut------he seems to have come from a greek family that
dabbled in Judaism and he went on to try to develop a cult---
how much of that which is attributed to him is HIS AND ONLY his is not at all clear to me. Maybe if he had lived a bit longer, he would have given up the nonsense. It seems he never married.

Penelope is VERY selective on history vs myth.

I am beginning to try to make some sense of paul and----the notion that he did not really exist. He is the character who gave bacon and eggs back to the roman converts to the cult
of Jesus AND he let them keep their foreskins----based on his own dreams and on some very weird sophistry----some of it
relating to an IMMINENT end of days scenario. There HAD to be a Paul in the cult of Jesus or it would not have survived---
so a PAUL was invented.

There are certain rabbinical opinions that Paul did t'shuva before he died.
It is believed he composed the Nishmas prayer said during the morning Shabbos and Yom Tov service.
I don't think anyone disputes Saul of Tarsus existed.

 

[irosie91]

the jews who rejected life after death were the ZADOKIS
not the Pharisees The people who associated with the Zadoki "high priests" were the romans----not the Pharisees----
you are saying that PAUL decide to team up with the roman shill zadoki high priests-----and go after those jews who adhered to the cult of jesus--------I have a sense that you do not seem to grasp the fact that by so doing-----Paul had already repudiated his Pharisee status and turned
traitor to that cause. Josephus never did that

Sure they both became traitors to the Jews and Judaism.

what "both" ? You seem to have posted that Paul did not even exist------he was of a converted family -----or so they say---originally a greek. As to Josephus he was never a traitor---
the people who wanted him to continue active resistance along
with him MIGHT have considered him a turncoat-----but ----
they could have and did not kill him. I do not know anyone who considered him a traitor. Paul seems to me---a bit of a nut------he seems to have come from a greek family that
dabbled in Judaism and he went on to try to develop a cult---
how much of that which is attributed to him is HIS AND ONLY his is not at all clear to me. Maybe if he had lived a bit longer, he would have given up the nonsense. It seems he never married.

Penelope is VERY selective on history vs myth.

I am beginning to try to make some sense of paul and----the notion that he did not really exist. He is the character who gave bacon and eggs back to the roman converts to the cult
of Jesus AND he let them keep their foreskins----based on his own dreams and on some very weird sophistry----some of it
relating to an IMMINENT end of days scenario. There HAD to be a Paul in the cult of Jesus or it would not have survived---
so a PAUL was invented.

There are certain rabbinical opinions that Paul did t'shuva before he died.
It is believed he composed the Nishmas prayer said during the morning Shabbos and Yom Tov service.
I don't think anyone disputes Saul of Tarsus existed.

Penny disputes it----she claimed that Paul is really Josephus.
someone should tell the wives of Josephus-----he is really Paul. Who came up with the idea that paul did nishmat and
WHY?

 

[Indeependent]

Sure they both became traitors to the Jews and Judaism.

what "both" ? You seem to have posted that Paul did not even exist------he was of a converted family -----or so they say---originally a greek. As to Josephus he was never a traitor---
the people who wanted him to continue active resistance along
with him MIGHT have considered him a turncoat-----but ----
they could have and did not kill him. I do not know anyone who considered him a traitor. Paul seems to me---a bit of a nut------he seems to have come from a greek family that
dabbled in Judaism and he went on to try to develop a cult---
how much of that which is attributed to him is HIS AND ONLY his is not at all clear to me. Maybe if he had lived a bit longer, he would have given up the nonsense. It seems he never married.

Penelope is VERY selective on history vs myth.

I am beginning to try to make some sense of paul and----the notion that he did not really exist. He is the character who gave bacon and eggs back to the roman converts to the cult
of Jesus AND he let them keep their foreskins----based on his own dreams and on some very weird sophistry----some of it
relating to an IMMINENT end of days scenario. There HAD to be a Paul in the cult of Jesus or it would not have survived---
so a PAUL was invented.

There are certain rabbinical opinions that Paul did t'shuva before he died.
It is believed he composed the Nishmas prayer said during the morning Shabbos and Yom Tov service.
I don't think anyone disputes Saul of Tarsus existed.

Penny disputes it----she claimed that Paul is really Josephus.
someone should tell the wives of Josephus-----he is really Paul. Who came up with the idea that paul did nishmat and
WHY?

I would have thought by now you would know the depth of veracity that I hold for Penelope's every thought.

 

[irosie91]

what "both" ? You seem to have posted that Paul did not even exist------he was of a converted family -----or so they say---originally a greek. As to Josephus he was never a traitor---
the people who wanted him to continue active resistance along
with him MIGHT have considered him a turncoat-----but ----
they could have and did not kill him. I do not know anyone who considered him a traitor. Paul seems to me---a bit of a nut------he seems to have come from a greek family that
dabbled in Judaism and he went on to try to develop a cult---
how much of that which is attributed to him is HIS AND ONLY his is not at all clear to me. Maybe if he had lived a bit longer, he would have given up the nonsense. It seems he never married.

Penelope is VERY selective on history vs myth.

I am beginning to try to make some sense of paul and----the notion that he did not really exist. He is the character who gave bacon and eggs back to the roman converts to the cult
of Jesus AND he let them keep their foreskins----based on his own dreams and on some very weird sophistry----some of it
relating to an IMMINENT end of days scenario. There HAD to be a Paul in the cult of Jesus or it would not have survived---
so a PAUL was invented.

There are certain rabbinical opinions that Paul did t'shuva before he died.
It is believed he composed the Nishmas prayer said during the morning Shabbos and Yom Tov service.
I don't think anyone disputes Saul of Tarsus existed.

Penny disputes it----she claimed that Paul is really Josephus.
someone should tell the wives of Josephus-----he is really Paul. Who came up with the idea that paul did nishmat and
WHY?

I would have thought by now you would know the depth of veracity that I hold for Penelope's every thought.

yes-----sorta like anyone with any more than one neuron and a spirochete. BUT paul is really VITAL to early Christianity----no doubt the whole movement would have dropped dead if not for PAUL's dreams and revelations related to foreskins and
cuisine. Paul HAD to be a jew-----a jew who kinda gave it
up so that greeks and romans could have it HIS way by HIS
permission

 

[Indeependent]

Penelope is VERY selective on history vs myth.

I am beginning to try to make some sense of paul and----the notion that he did not really exist. He is the character who gave bacon and eggs back to the roman converts to the cult
of Jesus AND he let them keep their foreskins----based on his own dreams and on some very weird sophistry----some of it
relating to an IMMINENT end of days scenario. There HAD to be a Paul in the cult of Jesus or it would not have survived---
so a PAUL was invented.

There are certain rabbinical opinions that Paul did t'shuva before he died.
It is believed he composed the Nishmas prayer said during the morning Shabbos and Yom Tov service.
I don't think anyone disputes Saul of Tarsus existed.

Penny disputes it----she claimed that Paul is really Josephus.
someone should tell the wives of Josephus-----he is really Paul. Who came up with the idea that paul did nishmat and
WHY?

I would have thought by now you would know the depth of veracity that I hold for Penelope's every thought.

yes-----sorta like anyone with any more than one neuron and a spirochete. BUT paul is really VITAL to early Christianity----no doubt the whole movement would have dropped dead if not for PAUL's dreams and revelations related to foreskins and
cuisine. Paul HAD to be a jew-----a jew who kinda gave it
up so that greeks and romans could have it HIS way by HIS
permission

Paul was a Hellenistic Jew who knew monotheism is less barbaric than polyunsaturated.

 

[hobelim]

I am beginning to try to make some sense of paul and----the notion that he did not really exist. He is the character who gave bacon and eggs back to the roman converts to the cult
of Jesus AND he let them keep their foreskins----based on his own dreams and on some very weird sophistry----some of it
relating to an IMMINENT end of days scenario. There HAD to be a Paul in the cult of Jesus or it would not have survived---
so a PAUL was invented.

There are certain rabbinical opinions that Paul did t'shuva before he died.
It is believed he composed the Nishmas prayer said during the morning Shabbos and Yom Tov service.
I don't think anyone disputes Saul of Tarsus existed.

Penny disputes it----she claimed that Paul is really Josephus.
someone should tell the wives of Josephus-----he is really Paul. Who came up with the idea that paul did nishmat and
WHY?

I would have thought by now you would know the depth of veracity that I hold for Penelope's every thought.

yes-----sorta like anyone with any more than one neuron and a spirochete. BUT paul is really VITAL to early Christianity----no doubt the whole movement would have dropped dead if not for PAUL's dreams and revelations related to foreskins and
cuisine. Paul HAD to be a jew-----a jew who kinda gave it
up so that greeks and romans could have it HIS way by HIS
permission

Paul was a Hellenistic Jew who knew monotheism is less barbaric than polyunsaturated.

In other words he passed off his own perverted brand of Pharisaic views as if they were the teachings of Jesus Christ himself that he falsely claimed to have received by divine revelation and taught it to the gentiles who didn't know any better.

 

[HaShev]

quote;
I don't think anyone disputes Saul of Tarsus existed.

People say the same about Jesus and Peter however what do they have in common?
All of these figures change names, because converged figures can't maintain an original source name if there's more then 1.
So who was Paul, certainly not Saul, since Saul met Paul (sergius Paulus)called Paul -book of Acts, and his maggis (Elymas) friend Bar(son)Jesus and called Jesus the son of the Devil.
So was Paulus Paul? Not exactly, Pauls accts jumping out the window and going to Syria was taken from Appolonias of Tyana's accounts and he was called Pol who was from Tarsus as well. Pol had an extensive library in all cultures religions and could easilly be the converger of beliefs.
But Paul is not a singular persona, he's a character made of many using the fallacious Saul's conversion story to convert Jews(the revolters) to this one world compiled religion masking Baal worship and it's great harvest propserity and extortion protection scam.
To this day the same harvest seed scams and racketeering protection scam goes on. In religion and in the streets with the Roman influenced Mob.

 

[Campbell]

quote;
I don't think anyone disputes Saul of Tarsus existed.

People say the same about Jesus and Peter however what do they have in common?
All of these figures change names, because converged figures can't maintain an original source name if there's more then 1.
So who was Paul, certainly not Saul, since Saul met Paul (sergius Paulus)called Paul -book of Acts, and his maggis (Elymas) friend Bar(son)Jesus and called Jesus the son of the Devil.
So was Paulus Paul? Not exactly, Pauls accts jumping out the window and going to Syria was taken from Appolonias of Tyana's accounts and he was called Pol who was from Tarsus as well. Pol had an extensive library in all cultures religions and could easilly be the converger of beliefs.
But Paul is not a singular persona, he's a character made of many using the fallacious Saul's conversion story to convert Jews(the revolters) to this one world compiled religion masking Baal worship and it's great harvest propserity and extortion protection scam.
To this day the same harvest seed scams and racketeering protection scam goes on. In religion and in the streets with the Roman influenced Mob.

All ancient god worship is pure, unadulterated horse shit!

 

[HaShev]

Well the Hebrew God is that Essence to be completed, wholeness, stability, =progress to to all we could and should be=evolve.
The word in scripture means BIND in this Essence not worship and certainly not anthropromorphize an intangible-nature.
So basically when you grouped us all together you called evolution, naturalism, humanism basics of your own belief being horse poo.
Maybe you should get off that high horse poo making machine and realize every culture uses different definitions for shared words. Learn and define those words before spewing poo out your mouth, least you look foolish with poo on your face.

 

[irosie91]

There are certain rabbinical opinions that Paul did t'shuva before he died.
It is believed he composed the Nishmas prayer said during the morning Shabbos and Yom Tov service.
I don't think anyone disputes Saul of Tarsus existed.

Penny disputes it----she claimed that Paul is really Josephus.
someone should tell the wives of Josephus-----he is really Paul. Who came up with the idea that paul did nishmat and
WHY?

I would have thought by now you would know the depth of veracity that I hold for Penelope's every thought.

yes-----sorta like anyone with any more than one neuron and a spirochete. BUT paul is really VITAL to early Christianity----no doubt the whole movement would have dropped dead if not for PAUL's dreams and revelations related to foreskins and
cuisine. Paul HAD to be a jew-----a jew who kinda gave it
up so that greeks and romans could have it HIS way by HIS
permission

Paul was a Hellenistic Jew who knew monotheism is less barbaric than polyunsaturated.

In other words he passed off his own perverted brand of Pharisaic views as if they were the teachings of Jesus Christ himself that he falsely claimed to have received by divine revelation and taught it to the gentiles who didn't know any better.

No----Paul paved the way for the romans to reject the Pharisee aspect of Jesus by inventing the myth of hostile Pharisees
persecuting Nazarenes. Romans could not accept PHARISEE JESUS-----because the Pharisees were the people MOST ADAMANT in rejecting roman perversion. Paul transformed Jesus into a mode acceptable to romans----as a
VICTIM OF JEWS. Romans could not accept a who was a victim of roman perversity. It is the putative Pharisee oppression of Nazarenes that pulls the NT down with a remarkable level of contradiction. Suddenly ---we are asked to believe that the PHARISEES managed to grab hold on GREAT POWER by being the 'HIGH PRIESTS' who fantastically have the power to EXECUTE PEOPLE and decided that the people to be executed are Nazarenes. This "history" destroys the crucifixion story which includes the fact
that the Sanhedrin could not execute people under roman law---so SUDDENLY---the right to execute falls to HIGH PRIESTS who have MAGICALLY become Pharisees instead of the Roman appointed ZADOKIS. The missing link in the story ------"high priest Pharisees"??? Can you name one? Can you tell me when the HIGH PRIESTS suddenly started putting people on TRIAL? executing people? Paul states "I VOTED FOR EXECUTION OF NAZARENES" he voted?
by virtue of what position? being a putative Pharisee?

 

[Penelope]

Oh gee----the book of ACTS dates something like 80-90 AD---
is that when the "HIGH PRIESTS" suddenly had a function that
included trying and executing people? It is recorded in the NT ---that the Sanhedrin lost that right------High priests were doing it? by what law?

Right they could not perform the death penalty according to most writings from 30AD on, but we know they did according to Scripture.

Now lets pretend we have lots of Muslims here who want to perform Sharia law, our government does not allow it. Rome did not allow it. That does not mean it won't happen.

 

[Penelope]

Penny disputes it----she claimed that Paul is really Josephus.
someone should tell the wives of Josephus-----he is really Paul. Who came up with the idea that paul did nishmat and
WHY?

I would have thought by now you would know the depth of veracity that I hold for Penelope's every thought.

yes-----sorta like anyone with any more than one neuron and a spirochete. BUT paul is really VITAL to early Christianity----no doubt the whole movement would have dropped dead if not for PAUL's dreams and revelations related to foreskins and
cuisine. Paul HAD to be a jew-----a jew who kinda gave it
up so that greeks and romans could have it HIS way by HIS
permission

Paul was a Hellenistic Jew who knew monotheism is less barbaric than polyunsaturated.

In other words he passed off his own perverted brand of Pharisaic views as if they were the teachings of Jesus Christ himself that he falsely claimed to have received by divine revelation and taught it to the gentiles who didn't know any better.

No----Paul paved the way for the romans to reject the Pharisee aspect of Jesus by inventing the myth of hostile Pharisees
persecuting Nazarenes. Romans could not accept PHARISEE JESUS-----because the Pharisees were the people MOST ADAMANT in rejecting roman perversion. Paul transformed Jesus into a mode acceptable to romans----as a
VICTIM OF JEWS. Romans could not accept a who was a victim of roman perversity. It is the putative Pharisee oppression of Nazarenes that pulls the NT down with a remarkable level of contradiction. Suddenly ---we are asked to believe that the PHARISEES managed to grab hold on GREAT POWER by being the 'HIGH PRIESTS' who fantastically have the power to EXECUTE PEOPLE and decided that the people to be executed are Nazarenes. This "history" destroys the crucifixion story which includes the fact
that the Sanhedrin could not execute people under roman law---so SUDDENLY---the right to execute falls to HIGH PRIESTS who have MAGICALLY become Pharisees instead of the Roman appointed ZADOKIS. The missing link in the story ------"high priest Pharisees"??? Can you name one? Can you tell me when the HIGH PRIESTS suddenly started putting people on TRIAL? executing people? Paul states "I VOTED FOR EXECUTION OF NAZARENES" he voted?
by virtue of what position? being a putative Pharisee?

Jesus was not a Pharisees in the scriptures, he warned against the Pharisees.

 

[irosie91]

Oh gee----the book of ACTS dates something like 80-90 AD---
is that when the "HIGH PRIESTS" suddenly had a function that
included trying and executing people? It is recorded in the NT ---that the Sanhedrin lost that right------High priests were doing it? by what law?

Right they could not perform the death penalty according to most writings from 30AD on, but we know they did according to Scripture.

Now lets pretend we have lots of Muslims here who want to perform Sharia law, our government does not allow it. Rome did not allow it. That does not mean it won't happen.

what scripture ? who did it? the 'PHARISEE HIGH PRIESTS"? what Pharisee high priests? Was there some sort of "secret society of Pharisee high priests"---somewhere? Paul lived a life of being part of a secret society of hatchett men Pharisees who invented a PARALLEL
UNIVERSE that included a bizarre Sanhedrin of renegade Pharisee high priests? "HIGH PRIEST" was an important position-------their names are known----can your cite a PHARISEE HIGH PRIEST which functioned during the life
time of Paul? One with power to execute people? I can name a HIGH PRIEST------there was a Yason and a Caiaphas and an ANNAS------all roman shills and NOT PHARISEES.
From where did these putative PHARISEE HIGH PRIESTS EMERGE? Name one. Did your catechism whore tell
you that 'HIGH PRIESTS of the Jerusalem temple" constituted the Sanhedrin? The whole story that PAUL tells -----is full of holes. I do believe that there was a paul-----from a family of converts ----way out there in TARSUS----I do not believe that the story that appears about him in "ACTS"
was written by him--------it is far too IDIOTIC

 

[irosie91]

I would have thought by now you would know the depth of veracity that I hold for Penelope's every thought.

yes-----sorta like anyone with any more than one neuron and a spirochete. BUT paul is really VITAL to early Christianity----no doubt the whole movement would have dropped dead if not for PAUL's dreams and revelations related to foreskins and
cuisine. Paul HAD to be a jew-----a jew who kinda gave it
up so that greeks and romans could have it HIS way by HIS
permission

Paul was a Hellenistic Jew who knew monotheism is less barbaric than polyunsaturated.

In other words he passed off his own perverted brand of Pharisaic views as if they were the teachings of Jesus Christ himself that he falsely claimed to have received by divine revelation and taught it to the gentiles who didn't know any better.

No----Paul paved the way for the romans to reject the Pharisee aspect of Jesus by inventing the myth of hostile Pharisees
persecuting Nazarenes. Romans could not accept PHARISEE JESUS-----because the Pharisees were the people MOST ADAMANT in rejecting roman perversion. Paul transformed Jesus into a mode acceptable to romans----as a
VICTIM OF JEWS. Romans could not accept a who was a victim of roman perversity. It is the putative Pharisee oppression of Nazarenes that pulls the NT down with a remarkable level of contradiction. Suddenly ---we are asked to believe that the PHARISEES managed to grab hold on GREAT POWER by being the 'HIGH PRIESTS' who fantastically have the power to EXECUTE PEOPLE and decided that the people to be executed are Nazarenes. This "history" destroys the crucifixion story which includes the fact
that the Sanhedrin could not execute people under roman law---so SUDDENLY---the right to execute falls to HIGH PRIESTS who have MAGICALLY become Pharisees instead of the Roman appointed ZADOKIS. The missing link in the story ------"high priest Pharisees"??? Can you name one? Can you tell me when the HIGH PRIESTS suddenly started putting people on TRIAL? executing people? Paul states "I VOTED FOR EXECUTION OF NAZARENES" he voted?
by virtue of what position? being a putative Pharisee?

Jesus was not a Pharisees in the scriptures, he warned against the Pharisees.

in the scriptures edited by CONSTANTINE. Most of that which Jesus actually does say reveals very clearly that he was a Pharisee. His action in the temple courtyard----the one which your catechism whore described as OVERTURNING THE MONEY CHANGING TABLES OF THE ****PHARISEES**** -------was----a TYPICALLY PHARISEE
action------the Pharisees HATED THE MONEY CHANGERS IN THE TEMPLE. You were propagandized-----it is almost amusing. Try to keep up-----the printing presses have been
in operation for almost 1000 years--------time for you to actually read the bible and a bit of history

 

[Campbell]

yes-----sorta like anyone with any more than one neuron and a spirochete. BUT paul is really VITAL to early Christianity----no doubt the whole movement would have dropped dead if not for PAUL's dreams and revelations related to foreskins and
cuisine. Paul HAD to be a jew-----a jew who kinda gave it
up so that greeks and romans could have it HIS way by HIS
permission

Paul was a Hellenistic Jew who knew monotheism is less barbaric than polyunsaturated.

In other words he passed off his own perverted brand of Pharisaic views as if they were the teachings of Jesus Christ himself that he falsely claimed to have received by divine revelation and taught it to the gentiles who didn't know any better.

No----Paul paved the way for the romans to reject the Pharisee aspect of Jesus by inventing the myth of hostile Pharisees
persecuting Nazarenes. Romans could not accept PHARISEE JESUS-----because the Pharisees were the people MOST ADAMANT in rejecting roman perversion. Paul transformed Jesus into a mode acceptable to romans----as a
VICTIM OF JEWS. Romans could not accept a who was a victim of roman perversity. It is the putative Pharisee oppression of Nazarenes that pulls the NT down with a remarkable level of contradiction. Suddenly ---we are asked to believe that the PHARISEES managed to grab hold on GREAT POWER by being the 'HIGH PRIESTS' who fantastically have the power to EXECUTE PEOPLE and decided that the people to be executed are Nazarenes. This "history" destroys the crucifixion story which includes the fact
that the Sanhedrin could not execute people under roman law---so SUDDENLY---the right to execute falls to HIGH PRIESTS who have MAGICALLY become Pharisees instead of the Roman appointed ZADOKIS. The missing link in the story ------"high priest Pharisees"??? Can you name one? Can you tell me when the HIGH PRIESTS suddenly started putting people on TRIAL? executing people? Paul states "I VOTED FOR EXECUTION OF NAZARENES" he voted?
by virtue of what position? being a putative Pharisee?

Jesus was not a Pharisees in the scriptures, he warned against the Pharisees.

in the scriptures edited by CONSTANTINE. Most of that which Jesus actually does say reveals very clearly that he was a Pharisee. His action in the temple courtyard----the one which your catechism whore described as OVERTURNING THE MONEY CHANGING TABLES OF THE ****PHARISEES**** -------was----a TYPICALLY PHARISEE
action------the Pharisees HATED THE MONEY CHANGERS IN THE TEMPLE. You were propagandized-----it is almost amusing. Try to keep up-----the printing presses have been
in operation for almost 1000 years--------time for you to actually read the bible and a bit of history

I lived in the church ways for over 40 years. At age 61 I announced to my family that I had never believed any of it. A day will be coming within a few decades when all ancient god worship will wilt on the vine and die. I won't live to see it but mark my words.......it will happen!

 

[irosie91]

Paul was a Hellenistic Jew who knew monotheism is less barbaric than polyunsaturated.

In other words he passed off his own perverted brand of Pharisaic views as if they were the teachings of Jesus Christ himself that he falsely claimed to have received by divine revelation and taught it to the gentiles who didn't know any better.

No----Paul paved the way for the romans to reject the Pharisee aspect of Jesus by inventing the myth of hostile Pharisees
persecuting Nazarenes. Romans could not accept PHARISEE JESUS-----because the Pharisees were the people MOST ADAMANT in rejecting roman perversion. Paul transformed Jesus into a mode acceptable to romans----as a
VICTIM OF JEWS. Romans could not accept a who was a victim of roman perversity. It is the putative Pharisee oppression of Nazarenes that pulls the NT down with a remarkable level of contradiction. Suddenly ---we are asked to believe that the PHARISEES managed to grab hold on GREAT POWER by being the 'HIGH PRIESTS' who fantastically have the power to EXECUTE PEOPLE and decided that the people to be executed are Nazarenes. This "history" destroys the crucifixion story which includes the fact
that the Sanhedrin could not execute people under roman law---so SUDDENLY---the right to execute falls to HIGH PRIESTS who have MAGICALLY become Pharisees instead of the Roman appointed ZADOKIS. The missing link in the story ------"high priest Pharisees"??? Can you name one? Can you tell me when the HIGH PRIESTS suddenly started putting people on TRIAL? executing people? Paul states "I VOTED FOR EXECUTION OF NAZARENES" he voted?
by virtue of what position? being a putative Pharisee?

Jesus was not a Pharisees in the scriptures, he warned against the Pharisees.

in the scriptures edited by CONSTANTINE. Most of that which Jesus actually does say reveals very clearly that he was a Pharisee. His action in the temple courtyard----the one which your catechism whore described as OVERTURNING THE MONEY CHANGING TABLES OF THE ****PHARISEES**** -------was----a TYPICALLY PHARISEE
action------the Pharisees HATED THE MONEY CHANGERS IN THE TEMPLE. You were propagandized-----it is almost amusing. Try to keep up-----the printing presses have been
in operation for almost 1000 years--------time for you to actually read the bible and a bit of history

I lived in the church ways for over 40 years. At age 61 I announced to my family that I had never believed any of it. A day will be coming within a few decades when all ancient god worship will wilt on the vine and die. I won't live to see it but mark my words.......it will happen!

we are just working on some details right now. There are and will be religions------lots of them. There are parts of the brain
that render SPEECH inevitable and parts that render religion inevitable