HOW RELIGIONS START

I have quoted the following from my book: "Church of God? or the Temples of Satan":

All the world’s major religions probably originated from a misguided attachment to a genuine Spiritual Master. During the lifetime of such a Master, there are basically two categories of follower / disciple. Firstly, there are the “outsiders” or “believers” – those who merely listen to the Master’s words and accept and follow Him, and have great respect and adoration for Him, but who do not actually receive the Sacred Gift – Initiation into the Mysteries of God – and therefore do not understand about the continual succession of Masters who reveal those Mysteries. Then there is the “inner core” of “gnostics” – those (by comparison, few in numbers) who are deemed worthy by the Master to be initiated into the Sacred Mysteries, and who thus understand the process of revelation (personal initiation) through a continuous chain of Masters. When a Master dies, His initiated disciples (i.e. the "inner core") know that God will appoint another in his place, and thus will seek to follow Him. But many (generally those “outsiders” / ”believers” who are so emotionally attached to the previous Master that they do not accept or even look for the new living Master) merely hold on to cherished memories of their now deceased Master, and pass on stories of His life to others. As these stories are orally related from one to another, they become enhanced, expanded, and embellished (e.g. with many 'worldly' miracles and wonders, which simple, immature people like to hear). These stories rarely tell of the one real miracle and wonder: the Mystical / Spiritual Revelation given by the Master, which leads to True Eternal LIFE – this is only known and experienced by the ‘elect’ (i.e. the “chosen ones” = the inner core).

Eventually, as these original followers (the “outsiders”) die, it becomes necessary for the new developing religion to collect and preserve these oral stories in written form.^[1] The next step in the process is when the so-called educated (intellectual) theologians take over, and formulate the ideology, dogma, and structure of yet another smug worldly orthodoxy.^[2]

At this point, as the congregation grows, and monetary donations come flooding in, the new “orthodox” religion becomes powerful, wealthy, and political, and begins condemning all others – even, and especially, the genuine “chosen ones” (i.e. Gnostics) who follow the true living Master.^[3] It is, in fact, these so-called orthodoxies which should be called heresy!

As time passes, various theologians come up with new ideas and beliefs about this or that meaning of the written scripture. Thus, over time, a variety of creeds, sects, cults, and divisions emerge. This process can be clearly observed within the history of every religion. The truth of the living contemporary Messiah is rejected by all, and the churches of satan continue to rule the world.
___________________________

FOOTNOTES:

[1] A very important question should here be considered: If it was so important for an accurate record of Jesus’ life and teachings to be preserved, then why did He not write it Himself? This would have avoided any ambiguity and confusion as to the truth of the variant stories (at least as far as Christians are concerned) and alleviated the necessity of Biblical criticism. The answer is that, as a living Master is always present on Earth, there is no necessity for historical stories about any previous Master.

[2] This is precisely where Saul (St. Paul) came into the story!

[3] The true followers of God are ALWAYS rejected, despised, ridiculed, or persecuted by the ‘orthodox’ administrators of this world. See e.g. Isaiah 51:7; Matt 5:10-12; 10:16-23; Mark 13:9; Luke 6:22; & John 15:20-21.

................................

PLU

Admin

(I don't know much about Paul. What about Peter? I think my teacher spoke well of him...)

How religions start?
My view: By outward imitation.

BB

BelzeBob wrote:Admin

(I don't know much about Paul. What about Peter? I think my teacher spoke well of him...)

How religions start?
My view: By outward imitation.

BB

Well, we actually know very little about Peter compared with what we are told about Paul (over half the NT is about Paul and his teachings), so it would be impossible to say much at all.
Have you read this thread about Paul? ~ http://gnosis.forumotion.com/christianity-f9/paul-false-apostle-first-christian-1-of-8-t28.htm

Yes, I agree ~ exoteric imitation.

PLU

Admin

Maybe I'll read about Paul later. I don't find it so interesting. (It was a long time ago.)

About Peter I just heard my teacher speak but once:

"The Holy Bridgit (Birgitta, a nun from Sweden some hundreds of years ago. Famous for her many visions.) worked only with women, Peter worked only with men, and Jesus worked with both"

BB

Not having known him personally, and even if he existed as a historical figure in the first place, the scripture is full of references to him as a 'hot-head' and from the Gospel of Mary I would say he was misogynistic as well as intolerant and racist. He is also the one Yeshua refered to as 'Satan', and consequently the one also that would be the cornerstone of the church. I see a connection here...
And I am sure they are not coincidences....

DarkChylde wrote:Not having known him personally, and even if he existed as a historical figure in the first place, the scripture is full of references to him as a 'hot-head' and from the Gospel of Mary I would say he was misogynistic as well as intolerant and racist. He is also the one Yeshua refered to as 'Satan', and consequently the one also that would be the cornerstone of the church. I see a connection here...
And I am sure they are not coincidences....

Paul certainly degraded the position of women, and one does not even need to read the Gospel of Mary to see this, e.g. 1Corinthians 11:3-9 & 1Corinthians 14:34-35

This alone, in my opinion, shows him to be a false teacher.

PLU

Hi Bob,

As you know...Paul is my inspiration...so let me take you further here. Yes, I believe that there are many out there that misuse and selectively use the passage in I Corinthians to "keep women in their place"....but that is a corrupt and rotten way in which to use that passage, but it isn't Paul that does that. The organization takes bits and peices and makes them say what they want them to say...though the years I have seen with my own eyes how we are told to read passages 3-10...but Ahhh...with all due respect, lets go further, don't stop where they would have us stop...continue on through verse 16! No, the patriarch wouldn't want you to read that...it is a wonderful message about equality and freedom.

Paul is speaking to a group of people. People that have been indoctrinated into a religion that was very patriarchial and he is relating that this is what WAS, what they were taught...but alas boys and girls we were wrong!!! He goes on to PROCLAIM the good news, "In Christ's fellowship woman is as essential to man as man to woman."

"Judge for yourselves...." what a wonderful message about freedom. In verse 16 he says, "However, if you insist on arguing, let me tell you, there is NO SUCH CUSTOM AMONG US, or in any of the congregations of God's people.

You don't find it strange that after such a proclaimation you would find written what is quoted from I Corinthians 15 verse 34? It doesn't even fit with the flow of things...but then I have seen how that has been done in other writings as well. They didn't like the message and it didn't fit their dogma so there is something added to negate the good news; they had to fix things.

I don't know...but I guess I look at it like this. Imagine one day one of the most conservative right wing leaders of the Baptist church actually WAKES UP...and he is standing before his congregations saying, well my friends lets talk about the way things have always been.(this is what Paul speaks of in verses 3-10) I can see the congregation nodding as he addresses what they all know and are comfortable with...and then he says...WRONG!!! This is how it IS and proceeds to proclaim the rest of I Corinthians(this is verses 11-16) it would go over with the upper leaders like a lead balloon...they would say whatever was necessary to squelch the uproar. It was no different back in the day

Have you read the book, "The Hermitess Photini"? it is a wonderful story about a woman that disguises herself as a man and goes out to live among the desert Fathers. Photini makes great statements about equality and the love of "God"...but the Orthodox church doesn't like it so, bam...right in the middle of her story there is a total contradiction to what she just wrote about women. So either Photini was lying or more likely the patriarchy didn't like what she had to say and "fix" it for her just as I believe they "fixed" it for Paul.

While I believe much of the book to have become corrupted; there remains within pure gold for those willing to truly mine for it...but if we do as they have done and continue to purpitrate the lie, then we become no different. That may be what they quote from behind their podiums, half truths.

Paul did say what they quote...but then they fail to have you look beyond that and after so long many become blind to the rest because while their eyes may see the words, their hearts fail to HEAR. It is a very psychological ploy that they use...but at least here, we can say the rest and finish the thought, because taken in whole I see nothing mean or demeaning in Pauls speech in that part of Corinthians.

Most Sincerely &
With Love,
Stacey

stacey wrote:Hi Bob,

As you know...Paul is my inspiration...so let me take you further here. Yes, I believe that there are many out there that misuse and selectively use the passage in I Corinthians to "keep women in their place"....but that is a corrupt and rotten way in which to use that passage, but it isn't Paul that does that. The organization takes bits and peices and makes them say what they want them to say...though the years I have seen with my own eyes how we are told to read passages 3-10...but Ahhh...with all due respect, lets go further, don't stop where they would have us stop...continue on through verse 16! No, the patriarch wouldn't want you to read that...it is a wonderful message about equality and freedom.

Paul is speaking to a group of people. People that have been indoctrinated into a religion that was very patriarchial and he is relating that this is what WAS, what they were taught...but alas boys and girls we were wrong!!! He goes on to PROCLAIM the good news, "In Christ's fellowship woman is as essential to man as man to woman."

"Judge for yourselves...." what a wonderful message about freedom. In verse 16 he says, "However, if you insist on arguing, let me tell you, there is NO SUCH CUSTOM AMONG US, or in any of the congregations of God's people.

This is not a true translation of the Greek text. It actually says:
1 Corinthians 11:16 "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God."

I will quote from two Bible commentaries on this verse 16:

(1): v.16 Finally, Paul states that he and the churches follow the principle that in worship men come with short hair and women with long, and that the man exercises the position of authority (v.16). This, he implies, should deter those who would want to be contentious about the matter. In using "we" (meaning the apostles), Paul teaches that the Corinthians must take his statements given in vv.2-16 as having apostolic authority, and not as pious advice.
ZONDERVAN NIV BIBLE COMMENTARY, Kenneth L. Barker & John Kohlenberger III (Consulting Editors), An Abridgment of the Gold-Medallion Winning Expositor's Bible Commentary.

(2): v.16. "we have no other practice": Adds finality to the argument. Any deviation from the apostle’s ruling could only be interpreted as an exhibition of brazen disregard for the accepted codes of conduct by the women of his day. The principle endures; women should show clearly their subjection. The means of expression will vary according to the race and culture in which the church is planted.
NEW INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY, General Editor (revised edition): F. F. Bruce, Originally edited by F. F. Bruce, H. L. Ellison, G. C. D. Howley, Formerly titled The International Bible Commentary.

You don't find it strange that after such a proclaimation you would find written what is quoted from I Corinthians 15 verse 34? It doesn't even fit with the flow of things...but then I have seen how that has been done in other writings as well. They didn't like the message and it didn't fit their dogma so there is something added to negate the good news; they had to fix things.

Sorry, I can see no connection to what we are talking about in 1 Corinthians 15:34

I don't know...but I guess I look at it like this. Imagine one day one of the most conservative right wing leaders of the Baptist church actually WAKES UP...and he is standing before his congregations saying, well my friends lets talk about the way things have always been.(this is what Paul speaks of in verses 3-10) I can see the congregation nodding as he addresses what they all know and are comfortable with...and then he says...WRONG!!! This is how it IS and proceeds to proclaim the rest of I Corinthians(this is verses 11-16) it would go over with the upper leaders like a lead balloon...they would say whatever was necessary to squelch the uproar. It was no different back in the day

Have you read the book, "The Hermitess Photini"? it is a wonderful story about a woman that disguises herself as a man and goes out to live among the desert Fathers. Photini makes great statements about equality and the love of "God"...but the Orthodox church doesn't like it so, bam...right in the middle of her story there is a total contradiction to what she just wrote about women. So either Photini was lying or more likely the patriarchy didn't like what she had to say and "fix" it for her just as I believe they "fixed" it for Paul.

While I believe much of the book to have become corrupted; there remains within pure gold for those willing to truly mine for it...but if we do as they have done and continue to purpitrate the lie, then we become no different. That may be what they quote from behind their podiums, half truths.

Paul did say what they quote...but then they fail to have you look beyond that and after so long many become blind to the rest because while their eyes may see the words, their hearts fail to HEAR. It is a very psychological ploy that they use...but at least here, we can say the rest and finish the thought, because taken in whole I see nothing mean or demeaning in Pauls speech in that part of Corinthians.

Most Sincerely &
With Love,
Stacey

As you said, the original text of Paul's letters may well have been corrupted to suit church dogma, but there is no way now of knowing exactly what Paul originally intended. I base my opinions of Paul on the whole of his letters. If they have all been extensively corrupted, then Paul may well have been a genuine Apostle of God. But if this is the case, then the texts we have would not contain much of the genuine Paul, and are therefore practically worthless. I agree that there is genuine truth written in some of these texts, but we must not forget that truth mixed with error can be very misleading.

Peace, Love, & Understanding

While I am not a fan of Pauline theology UNLESS it is interpreted gnostically (which it can be), the whole passage on women keeping quiet in church I think was a write-in. For one thing, Paul set up churches WITH WOMEN in charge. Also, that particular passage is going on and on about prophecy and such, then suddenly breaks in with this VERY mysoginistic 'rule' and goes back to a rant on prophecy. OBVIOUS write in, and undoubtably not the only one....

i love paul, and peter.christ knew how peterwould react he was counting on it . the local people
knew him as anasty hot headed smelly fisherman.infact he was also ignorant. so when thru his
time with jesus he becoming a new creation they were amazed and led to christ because of that.
after ,the illumination occured. he began to see christ in truth, yes ican truthfully saythat by all accounts he was the first christian heritc. but soon enough he began to hold paul as greatley esteemed and he and james defended paul and his quazie-mystical experiance of the ascended
master jesus the christ.
in regard to pauls shovinism.considering it in context of time when it was written,he was there advocate!! women were not allowed in the temple worship. he had women pastors in rome
and galatia and timotheys grandma and mother were church leadership. and as far as submission goes ,again keep it in context of the time frame.that verse states as followsjust as christ was subject to the church "so let the wives be subjectto their OWN husbands eph;5-24 and v.25
husbands love yourwife JUST as christ loved the churchand gave himself for her. farther down it statesa man who loves his wife loves himself. paul took great strides for women and elevated them to there creation standing as much as the time had ever seen.he understood that women came fromthe side of man not the rear. as far as the bible goes if people took the time to see the frame
work is truley very gnostic. many of the writings are even quotes many scripture that is not in the cannon.

sorry i need to clairify a coupel things . paul was the first christian heritic, it looks like i meant peter

sopherim7 wrote:i love paul, and peter.christ knew how peterwould react he was counting on it . the local people
knew him as anasty hot headed smelly fisherman.infact he was also ignorant. so when thru his
time with jesus he becoming a new creation they were amazed and led to christ because of that.
after ,the illumination occured. he began to see christ in truth, yes ican truthfully saythat by all accounts he was the first christian heritc. but soon enough he began to hold paul as greatley esteemed and he and james defended paul and his quazie-mystical experiance of the ascended
master jesus the christ.
in regard to pauls shovinism.considering it in context of time when it was written,he was there advocate!! women were not allowed in the temple worship. he had women pastors in rome
and galatia and timotheys grandma and mother were church leadership. and as far as submission goes ,again keep it in context of the time frame.that verse states as followsjust as christ was subject to the church "so let the wives be subjectto their OWN husbands eph;5-24 and v.25
husbands love yourwife JUST as christ loved the churchand gave himself for her. farther down it statesa man who loves his wife loves himself. paul took great strides for women and elevated them to there creation standing as much as the time had ever seen.he understood that women came fromthe side of man not the rear. as far as the bible goes if people took the time to see the frame
work is truley very gnostic. many of the writings are even quotes many scripture that is not in the cannon.

Firstly, if one is talking about Spiritual TRUTH, there is no time element involved at all ~ Truth is ETERNAL and UNCHANGEABLE. Paul's theology/teaching/belief system was thus flawed. Have you read this thread yet? ~ http://gnosis.forumotion.com/christianity-f9/paul-false-apostle-first-christian-1-of-8-t28.htm

It explains in detail many of Paul's errors.

PLU ~ Bob

yes,i agree truth is eternal, truth is un changeable !!!!! BUT !!!!!! people are not flesh is flesh.it errors
it dies . time for that matter is not real it is asystemto keep things in order.it is here for the finite. yes i did read the thread.i found it quite interesting and appreciate the oppurtunity to read and share
such wonderfull knowledge ,differences of opinion brings wisdom and understanding.it also shows us
that people are thinking.and being passoniate. what i said about keeping in time context refers to how civilized culture of the day handeled society and how they interacted.lookat todays society
how long ago did we woman get the right to vote, how far has equal rights come? looa at every other
countries womens rights, truth is eternal.time is not, do you believe in ABSOLUT truth? if so ,why?
and what are [ BESIDES} GRAVITY FOR AN EXAMPLE do think is unaversally true

the bible i read mostley {iread many differant} is.thomas nelson the new sririt filled life. the new king
james .it was revised due to "recent archeological" finds such as the qumran,dead sea scrolls and other such sources. it was RE translated to be truer to the actually scroles found.they did not changr the order or line up of the context considerd cannon.i am fully aware of the origens of the bible,constitine the nonchristen . and also the use of gematira in the recording and copying of the scrolls.as im sure you are aware every letter has anumerical in the ancient scrits of aramaic,hebrew
its sorta like a hierogliphic talk to you again soon

gematria is used for the bible too? I know that Jewish kabbalists and/or mystics used it for the Torah, but I was never aware that the New Testament had numerical significance. By the way, have you read Prayers of the Cosmos, it's a more direct translation of The Beatitudes and The Lord's Prayer. It also shows the actual Aramaic and a (more?)direct translation of it. Very interesting, shows how mystical the Aramaic language is. I'd be really interested in actually learning it, mainly for that reason.

Can you give a few examples of how that Bible is different. I'd be interested to hear what they changed b/c of the discovered scrolls and also, why they changed it?