Shaul, a GNOSTIC??

continued:


Thus we can see that the very learned and pious Christian, Huet, was forced to admit the common identity of Apollonius and Jesus--the first described by Philostratus according to the memoirs of Damis, made in the first century; and the latter described by no one knows whom or when, but certainly not earlier than the beginning of the third century of the so-called Christian era, as now contained in what is called the New Testament. As Christian writers have been forced to admit the identity of the respective narratives, concerning Apollonius and Jesus, the only question that remains to be settled is, which was the original author of the so-called Christian teachings? If this has not already been fully done, there remains very little yet to be done to complete the demonstration that Apollonius of Tyana was that author, and not Jesus of Nazareth, nor Paul of Tarsus, as is wrongly claimed by Christian writers.
After stating many reasons for his conclusions, Dr. Lardner, than whom there is no higher Christian authority, says:



<BLOCKQUOTE>"It is manifest, therefore, that Philostratus compared Apollonius and Pythagoras; but I do not see that he endeavored to make him a rival with Jesus Christ. Philostratus has never once mentioned our Saviour, or the Christians his followers, neither in this long work, nor in the 'Lives of the Sophists,' if it be his, as some learned men of the best judgment suppose; nor is there any hint that Apollonius anywhere in his wide travels met with any followers of Jesus. There is not so much as an obscure or general description of any men met with by him, whom any can suspect to be Christians of any denomination, either Catholics or heretics. Whereas I think, if Philostratus had written with a mind adverse to Jesus, he would have laid hold of some occasion to describe and disparage his followers as enemies to the gods, and contemners of the mysteries and solemnities, and different from all other men."</BLOCKQUOTE>



Let it be remembered that Philostratus lived and wrote his life of Apollonius in the reign of Septimus Severus, about the beginning of the third century A. D. At that time there could not possibly have been in existence any of the scripture narratives of the life of Jesus Christ, so nearly analogous to the incidents and events which he related concerning Apollonius. Had there been such persons living, as Jesus Christ and his apostles, and their Christian followers, during the time that Apollonius lived and labored throughout the then civilized world, Damis, who accompanied him during much of that time, and who recorded everything worthy of especial note, would have made some mention of such people, either favorably or unfavorably. That he did not do so is of itself sufficient proof that neither Jesus Christ, his apostles nor the Christian religion, had an existence either before or during that period, which was the only time in which they could have had a real existence. At all events, nothing can be more certain than the conclusion of Dr. Lardner, that Philostratus did not write the life of Apollonius to disparage the Christian religion.

But Dr. Lardner is not content to make that fatal acknowledgement of the Christian plagiarism of the life and labors of Apollonius; but makes an equally fatal acknowledgement in another direction. In disagreeing with Cudworth, Huet and others, as to the life of Apollonius, by Philostratus, having been written to oppose Christianity, Dr. Lardner says:



<BLOCKQUOTE>"With due submission I do not think that Apollonius was a man of so great importance, as is here supposed; for it does not appear that any adversaries of the Christians, either Celsus or Porphyry, or any other before Hierocles, at the beginning of the fourth century, under Diocletian's persecution, ever took any notice of him in any of their arguments. Nor do I know that he has been once mentioned by any Christian writers of the first two centuries. When I first met with the observation of Cudworth [herein before given] I was very much surprised, considering the silence of all early antiquity. If this obversation were right, I should have expected to find frequent mention of Apollonius in the history of St. John, and the other apostles of Christ; but there is none. We had in that space of time divers learned men, some of them as eminent for extensive literature as any men that ever lived; as Justin, Tatian, Bardesanes the Syrian, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, Tertullian, Minucius Felix; not to insist on Clement of Rome, Ignatius, or Polycarp, or the histories of them. Of all these we have some remains; they lived in the first two centuries or the beginning of the third; but of Apollonius they have not taken the least notice."</BLOCKQUOTE>



Very true, Dr. Lardner, and why did they not do so? That total silence on the part of those authors of the first and second centuries regarding so eminent a philosopher and teacher as was Apollonius of Tyana, can be accounted for upon but one theory, and that will show that it was a necessity to utterly ignore Apollonius and his philosophical and religious teachings, in order that the Christian religion could gain a foothold to usurp the field he had so grandly occupied. Of all the authors named by Dr. Lardner, the complete works of none of them have come down to us. Besides, the fragmentary remains of the works of the first three centuries that have reached us, have had to pass through the hands of Eusebius, Pope Sylvester I., and their coadjutors and successors, who, from the beginning of the fourth century downward to the time when the art of printing ended, were so assiduously engaged in interpolating, mutilating and destroying every trace of evidence within their reach that showed the real origin and nature of the Christian religion. It should have struck the attention of Dr. Lardner, with vastly greater force, that no where in the books of the New Testament is there a single mention made of Apollonius, if we except in a few verses of 1st Corinthians, where it says, "For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who, then, is Paul, and who Apollos, but ministers, by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase." In a very ancient manuscript of this Epistle found in a monastery of France by a Huguenot soldier, called the Codex Beza, the name is not Apollos, but Apollonius. But even this positive clue to the identity of Apollonius with the St. Paul of the Christians was attempted to be obliterated by substituting Apollos for Apollonius, as it originally stood. This studied avoidance of all mention of Apollonius in the Christian Scriptures, is positive proof that his recognition, in any way whatever, by the authors of Christianity would be fatal to their scheme of deception and fraud. We wonder they had not had the cunning to obliterate that one reference to the preaching and teaching of Apollonius, and the admission that his teaching was in perfect accord with the teachings attributed to St. Paul. It is an old saying that liars should have good memories. This was never more apparent than in the oversight of not eliminating that tell-tale confession from the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians. There it stands, and there it will stand, thanks to the art of printing, to confound these Christian enemies of truth, and make clear the fraud they are upholding. Dr. Lardner further says:




<BLOCKQUOTE>"The first Christian writer who has mentioned him" (Apollonius), so far as I can recollect, is Origen, in his books against Celsus, written not long before the middle of the third century. When he says: 'He who would know whether magic has any power over philosophers, may read the memoirs of Moeragenes, concerning Apollonius of Tyana, both a magician and a philosopher. In which Moeragenes, who was not a Christian, but a philosopher, says, that some, and no inconsiderable philosophers were taken by the magical art of Apollonius and came to him as a magician. Among them I suppose he means Euphrates, and a certain Epicurean. But we can affirm upon the ground of our own experience, that they who worship the God over all through Jesus Christ, and live according to the Gospel, and pray as they ought to do day and night, have no reason to fear anything from magic.' So Origen is led to speak in answer to some things in Celsus; but it does not appear that Celsus had at all mentioned either Apollonius, or his historian. Apollonius is mentioned by Lucian, but what he says of him is far from being to his advantage. He is also mentioned by Apuleius who was contemporary with Lucian; nor is there any other older author now extant where he is mentioned; which must be reckoned an argument of his great obscurity; till he was set up by Philostratus. After that time Apollonius is taken notice of by many; as Arnobius and Lactantius, and Eusebius, who were led to observe upon Hierocles, whose whole book against the Christians was founded on the memoirs of Philostratus. He is afterwards mentioned several times by Augustin and other Christian writers; and he is mentioned several times by the writers of the Augustin History, who flourished in the time of Diocletian, or soon afterwards, and by Dion Cassius, and by Eunapius, who commends the history of Philostratus, but says that instead of entitling it the 'Life of Apollonius,' he might have called it the 'Peregrination of a God among Men.'"</BLOCKQUOTE>




Now it must not be forgotten that the writings of Celsus were lost or destroyed long since; nothing being known of what they were, except as Origen has reported them. Whether Celsus did, or did not, mention Apollonius, is a matter of no consequence. Celsus did not write until nearly a century after the death of Apollonius, and may never have met with the memoirs of Damis or Moeragenes concerning Apollonius. That Lucian and Apuleius, who wrote while Apollonius still lived or soon after his death, should have mentioned him is sufficient to establish his historical existence. Philostratus had not then come into possession of the memoirs of Damis, Moeragenes and Maximus of Aegis, and the history of the life and labors of Apollonius, had been suppressed, no doubt by the influence of the priesthoods of Greece and Rome. The desire of the cultured Julia Domna, to learn the history of Apollonius, shows that he was not unknown to fame as a distinguished philosopher, as late as the beginning of the third century, when Philostratus wrote his Life of Apollonius. As admitted by Dr. Lardner, all through the third century, there was frequent mention of his name and teachings. But it was not until Hierocles in the beginning of the fourth century boldly charged upon the Christian priesthood their plagiarism of the teachings and works of Apollonius, that the latter found it necessary to set every means at work that could in any way help to conceal the great truth that Hierocles proclaimed with such portentous force. It is true that no one now knows exactly what it was that Hierocles wrote, for Eusebius, who took upon himself the task of destroying the testimony of Hierocles, took precious good care to destroy the work of his formidable opponent, and to give his own version of the matter instead. The reply of Eusebius to Hierocles has come down to us. Why has not Hierocles' arraignment of the Christian priesthood also come down to us? Let that priesthood answer.
....
We have shown that Apollonius for several years taught and preached at Antioch, and converted many, who were strangers to his knowledge, to a belief in his doctrines. It was owing to his great renown as a spiritual medium and teacher, acquired at Antioch, that certain Jews who had become acquainted with his gifts as a medium, and the remarkable manifestations of spirit power occurring through him, prevailed upon him to go to Jerusalem. This visit, he tells us, he made to Jerusalem when he was just thirty-three years of age, the very age at which it is alleged that Jesus began his heaven appointed mission. He tells us he was then hailed upon his entrance into that city, by the people, as it has been alleged the entrance of Jesus of Nazareth was hailed, with hosannas and songs of praise to one who came in the name of the Lord. He refers no doubt to the following portion of the (xxi Matthew 9), "And the multitude that went before, and that followed, cried Hosanna to the son of David; blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest. And when he came into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this? and the multitude said, This is Jesus, the Prophet of Nazareth of Galilee." It is true that Apollonius says nothing of his experience at the hands of the Jewish priesthood, and we are left to infer that their treatment of him was less agreeable to him than his reception by the multitude. It is true that there is no historical mention extant, of this visit of Apollonius to Jerusalem, and therefore we may justly conclude that the writer of "The Gospel According to Matthew," after making use of such a historical manuscript to serve his purpose of robbing Apollonius of his duly acquired fame, by substituting the mythical Jesus in his stead, took special care to destroy the historical original. That Apollonius never returned to Jerusalem, until he did so thirty-two years afterward as the oracle in Vespasian's camp at the overthrow of Jerusalem, would indicate that the usage he had received at the hands of the Jewish priesthood, on his first visit, was such as to deter him from again placing himself in their power. As strong evidence of the correctness of this conjecture, it is well to note, that Judea was the only civilized country that Apollonius did not visit, and throughout which he did not preach, and in which he did not receive the fraternal reception of every order of priesthood. That Damis made no record of this visit of Apollonius to Jerusalem, may be reasonably accounted for by the facts that it was made before Damis began his memoirs, and in all probability Apollonius was too much disgusted with the narrow bigotry of the Jewish hierarchy to inform Damis about it. Apollonius has not told us what followed his joyous reception by the people of Jerusalem. The writers who have made use of that event to exalt their mythical man-god, say, regarding the latter: "And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple and he healed them. And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased, and said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, 'Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?' and he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there." How much of that is taken from the historical memoirs of Apollonius, we may not certainly know; but nothing is more thoroughly authenticated than the fact that Apollonius was a wonderful healing medium--that he restored sight to the blind, strength to the lame, health to the sick, life to those apparently dead, and prophesied with an accuracy that astonished the then civilized world. That he did all these things at Jerusalem, is most probable, if not certain. And thus, through the return of the spirit of Apollonius, we have a chapter of history revived that the writers of the Christian scriptures supposed they had entirely obliterated from its records.




This of course is my opinion/stance on the issue. Perhaps it makes sense to some and perhaps its trash to others.


Htp

So what you are saying is that the Ebionites who were the first followers of Yeshua in Jerusalem under his brother James the Just who was the leader of Church of Jerusalem, were so dumb as to not know Yeshua did not exist, when they were his family and friends and also so dumb to even call Paul an apostate of the Law, when by your reasoning, Paul is Jesus and it was Paul who created this figure? They just must've been a bunch of idiots.

I know this is a theory of yours, but it doesn't make much sense, unless many of those early followers were complete morons.

The_Passerby wrote:So what you are saying is that the Ebionites who were the first followers of Yeshua in Jerusalem under his brother James the Just who was the leader of Church of Jerusalem, were so dumb as to not know Yeshua did not exist, when they were his family and friends and also so dumb to even call Paul an apostate of the Law, when by your reasoning, Paul is Jesus and it was Paul who created this figure? They just must've been a bunch of idiots.

I know this is a theory of yours, but it doesn't make much sense, unless many of those early followers were complete morons.

Reply:


What I said is what I posted. I made no reference to the Ebionites or any other Jewish sect birthed from a Hasidim split. Who is James the Just? What is the church of Jerusalem? Who are the 12 disciples? Is one to view these matters from a historical perspective or from a spiritual? Is one to view what is/has been historical as purely that without any mythical content?


Htp

Chukuma wrote:

The_Passerby wrote:So what you are saying is that the Ebionites who were the first followers of Yeshua in Jerusalem under his brother James the Just who was the leader of Church of Jerusalem, were so dumb as to not know Yeshua did not exist, when they were his family and friends and also so dumb to even call Paul an apostate of the Law, when by your reasoning, Paul is Jesus and it was Paul who created this figure? They just must've been a bunch of idiots.

I know this is a theory of yours, but it doesn't make much sense, unless many of those early followers were complete morons.

Reply:


What I said is what I posted. I made no reference to the Ebionites or any other Jewish sect birthed from a Hasidim split. Who is James the Just? What is the church of Jerusalem? Who are the 12 disciples?


Htp

You didn't say that of course, lol, but however if one were to believe that that would have to be the only conclusion of the Ebionites -- who never accepted Paul ever and called him a Apostate of the Law. The Ebionites held the authentic Matthew Version, which was writing in Hebrew Characters. This was also called the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

I said nothing about 12 disciples, which refers to an immense allusion of the mind. James/Jacob the Just was the head of the church in Jerusalem. They were the first followers of Yeshua, they are an ancient sect which immersed out of the Essene -- the only sect where an historical Yeshua could have come from. What I am saying, how stupid could they be to forsake Paul, when he is in fact Jesus. They should've known this!

The_Passerby wrote:

Chukuma wrote:

The_Passerby wrote:So what you are saying is that the Ebionites who were the first followers of Yeshua in Jerusalem under his brother James the Just who was the leader of Church of Jerusalem, were so dumb as to not know Yeshua did not exist, when they were his family and friends and also so dumb to even call Paul an apostate of the Law, when by your reasoning, Paul is Jesus and it was Paul who created this figure? They just must've been a bunch of idiots.

I know this is a theory of yours, but it doesn't make much sense, unless many of those early followers were complete morons.

Reply:


What I said is what I posted. I made no reference to the Ebionites or any other Jewish sect birthed from a Hasidim split. Who is James the Just? What is the church of Jerusalem? Who are the 12 disciples?


Htp

You didn't say that of course, lol, but however if one were to believe that that would have to be the only conclusion of the Ebionites -- who never accepted Paul ever and called him a Apostate of the Law. The Ebionites held the authentic Matthew Version, which was writing in Hebrew Characters. This was also called the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

I said nothing about 12 disciples, which refers to an immense allusion of the mind. James/Jacob the Just was the head of the church in Jerusalem. They were the first followers of Yeshua, they are an ancient sect which immersed out of the Essene -- the only sect where an historical Yeshua could have come from. What I am saying, how stupid could they be to forsake Paul, when he is in fact Jesus. They should've known this!

Reply:

Hello, PB. My point in stating what I have thus far, is that imo, it is dangerous to view any "spiritual" text as a purely historical or historically accurate text. With that said, I have no issue with the Ebionite testimony against the "Romanized" Paul, who is not to be confused with the historical Paul, who was a Nazarene and the most influental man of the 1st century. Again, both facts attributed to one man, but yet we have two personages (Jesus and Apollonius) that share these attributes and yet one must suffer at the hands of the other for the sake of "history." IMO, pol's character is standing on stronger legs.


Htp

Chukuma wrote:

The_Passerby wrote:

Chukuma wrote:

The_Passerby wrote:So what you are saying is that the Ebionites who were the first followers of Yeshua in Jerusalem under his brother James the Just who was the leader of Church of Jerusalem, were so dumb as to not know Yeshua did not exist, when they were his family and friends and also so dumb to even call Paul an apostate of the Law, when by your reasoning, Paul is Jesus and it was Paul who created this figure? They just must've been a bunch of idiots.

I know this is a theory of yours, but it doesn't make much sense, unless many of those early followers were complete morons.

Reply:


What I said is what I posted. I made no reference to the Ebionites or any other Jewish sect birthed from a Hasidim split. Who is James the Just? What is the church of Jerusalem? Who are the 12 disciples?


Htp

You didn't say that of course, lol, but however if one were to believe that that would have to be the only conclusion of the Ebionites -- who never accepted Paul ever and called him a Apostate of the Law. The Ebionites held the authentic Matthew Version, which was writing in Hebrew Characters. This was also called the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

I said nothing about 12 disciples, which refers to an immense allusion of the mind. James/Jacob the Just was the head of the church in Jerusalem. They were the first followers of Yeshua, they are an ancient sect which immersed out of the Essene -- the only sect where an historical Yeshua could have come from. What I am saying, how stupid could they be to forsake Paul, when he is in fact Jesus. They should've known this!

Reply:

Hello, PB. My point in stating what I have thus far, is that imo, it is dangerous to view any "spiritual" text as a purely historical or historically accurate text. With that said, I have no issue with the Ebionite testimony against the "Romanized" Paul, who is not to be confused with the historical Paul, who was a Nazarene and the most influental man of the 1st century. Again, both facts attributed to one man, but yet we have two personages (Jesus and Apollonius) that share these attributes and yet one must suffer at the hands of the other for the sake of "history." IMO, pol's character is standing on stronger legs.


Htp

Well you are entitled to your opinion. Reading scriptures literally prevents one from applying them within themselves, that is to bring about the changes within themselves, as the scriptures relate realities of the mind and being of an individual, and what is necessary to be fulfilled within oneself to enter the inner kingdom. However, this does not at all mean that there was no such thing of a Historical Yeshua, who is our elder brother and who shows The Way. I may not read the scriptures literally, but this does not mean that I would say Yeshua didn't exist. I may say there were no 12 apostles, but there were some disciples then, I would be moved to say.

Nonetheless, again, if that helps you in your path -- so be it.

The_Passerby wrote:

Chukuma wrote:

The_Passerby wrote:

Chukuma wrote:

The_Passerby wrote:So what you are saying is that the Ebionites who were the first followers of Yeshua in Jerusalem under his brother James the Just who was the leader of Church of Jerusalem, were so dumb as to not know Yeshua did not exist, when they were his family and friends and also so dumb to even call Paul an apostate of the Law, when by your reasoning, Paul is Jesus and it was Paul who created this figure? They just must've been a bunch of idiots.

I know this is a theory of yours, but it doesn't make much sense, unless many of those early followers were complete morons.

Reply:


What I said is what I posted. I made no reference to the Ebionites or any other Jewish sect birthed from a Hasidim split. Who is James the Just? What is the church of Jerusalem? Who are the 12 disciples?


Htp

You didn't say that of course, lol, but however if one were to believe that that would have to be the only conclusion of the Ebionites -- who never accepted Paul ever and called him a Apostate of the Law. The Ebionites held the authentic Matthew Version, which was writing in Hebrew Characters. This was also called the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

I said nothing about 12 disciples, which refers to an immense allusion of the mind. James/Jacob the Just was the head of the church in Jerusalem. They were the first followers of Yeshua, they are an ancient sect which immersed out of the Essene -- the only sect where an historical Yeshua could have come from. What I am saying, how stupid could they be to forsake Paul, when he is in fact Jesus. They should've known this!

Reply:

Hello, PB. My point in stating what I have thus far, is that imo, it is dangerous to view any "spiritual" text as a purely historical or historically accurate text. With that said, I have no issue with the Ebionite testimony against the "Romanized" Paul, who is not to be confused with the historical Paul, who was a Nazarene and the most influental man of the 1st century. Again, both facts attributed to one man, but yet we have two personages (Jesus and Apollonius) that share these attributes and yet one must suffer at the hands of the other for the sake of "history." IMO, pol's character is standing on stronger legs.


Htp

Well you are entitled to your opinion. Reading scriptures literally prevents one from applying them within themselves, that is to bring about the changes within themselves, as the scriptures relate realities of the mind and being of an individual, and what is necessary to be fulfilled within oneself to enter the inner kingdom. However, this does not at all mean that there was no such thing of a Historical Yeshua, who is our elder brother and who shows The Way. I may not read the scriptures literally, but this does not mean that I would say Yeshua didn't exist. I may say there were no 12 apostles, but there were some disciples then, I would be moved to say.

Nonetheless, again, if that helps you in your path -- so be it.

Reply:

Aren't we all? I agree in regard to how the scriptures should be read and applied. As far as Yeshua is concerned, we may differ in our opinion of him, but I don't see these "differences" as being anything but differences. There is no love loss. My stance is just simply that the gospels are not documented proof of such a historical personage of the first century. As you stated, just because one doesn't read the scriptures literrally, it doesn't meant that a "Yeshua" didn't exist. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if there were 12 apostles (i.e "As above, so below").

There is much one can debate. James the Just is an interesting character alone. Robert Eisenman's work brings forth some interesting theories as it draws a comparison between James the Just ( first century A.D.) and the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness ( first century B.C.) vs. "Paul" ( first century A.D.) and the wicked priest (first century B.C.) - Perhaps one will view this as coincidental, but I find this comparison intriguing, considering that the schism between the Sons of Zadok was due to Helenist rule and manipluation of HP office. And here we have Ebionites (offspring of the Qumran sect) and James the Just who was disposed of by the Sadducean High Priest (John, son of Ananus) whom the "Romanized" Paul of the first century was in service of. Acts depicts Paul as a Pharisee while Ebionite testimony depicts him as a Sadducee while his traveling companion, Damus, refers to him as a Nazarene. The book of Acts is suspect because Pharisees and Nazarenes were not at odds; however, both parties were with the Sadducees. What a mess?


Another interesting note: In Matthew 17:1 Peter, James and John were with Jesus and only John was referred to as his brother.



Htp

Very, very interesting, but yes, indeed, what a mess!

The 'myth'/'history'/'legend'/'belief' about all these characters (or caricatures) from 2,000 years ago is now impossible to unravel fully or to prove.

We may occupy our whole lives with this fruitless task - as a great many have done throughout history - and simply waste our precious time on Earth.

For me it matters not in the slightest if Yehoshua/Yeshua/Jesus or Paul/Saul or Buddha or Moses or any other historical being ever truly existed or not - what really matters is NOW! - the PRESENT! - the TRUTH! - the GNOSIS!

PLU ~ Bob

The_Passerby wrote:
Clement of Alexandra Stromata book VI, Ch V. last paragraph. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_II/CLEMENT_OF_ALEXANDRIA/The_Stromata,_or_Miscellanies/Book_VI/Chapter_V.

Thanx, Passerby. I must always be able to site my sources, ya know.

Prism1111 wrote:What we are forgetting here is that a big Fact was that Saul(Paul) was Hired to Kill followers of Jesus teachings, He had this so called self proclaimed vision on a road to a city that was not under Romes protection, and He was a Roman. Maybe does He need a plan to get in there under cover to carry out his Job? One would think so ya? He himself said he felt no need to talk to no man after the vision. Or did He mean talk to no Apostle cause they would have found Him out, just Like the one meeting they did that Cause his incarceration in Rome later on. Saul mentions He knew all Mysteries , but never states one.
Passerby mentions that his Letters were writen with High litterary skills, yes there is a Possibility the the Sanhedrian council, the same that Hired Him as a Mercenary wrote all his letters, devised a plan to infiltrate the Gnostics, and had much money to destribute the Vast letters throughout the country in Promotion of this plan. Not unlike the agendas of today within a political structure of Power and money.

I smell Snow job all over... Paul a great instantly learned soul of Jesus in the middle of the road, where it took 11 years to teach the apostles the same, Puts down women, so he couldn`t have been Gnostic as truth states of our Being as both unto the father, and proclains the teachings of Jesus by his writtings like this one; 1Tm:1:20: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
I think He got his signals crossed somewhere indeed friends. Thats Direct Blaspheme itself.
which is seeding the fear of God being Satan, not the Love of God being unto the Father.
Do figs grow on thistles? No. Whom else but thier master would one deliver anything to?

Continueing with Saul being Jailed in Rome, and the Sanhedrian council organising his followers to prepare to rescue Him with Force thus which was the real burning of Rome that extended into the Millions today, and gives just cause for Romans to hate this group that trashed thier City which was the first time They where referred to as Christians, by the Council, the same one the Sent Jesus to death, and James the Just.

All of the Epistles (assumtion of the truth) were written more than 100 years after the Gnostic scriptures. You can find Many things within Pistis sophia explained it full, but then greatly watered down in a New testement Gosple or Epistle. Also Paul Plagerises the Old testiment text quoting it for his own, and then tells everyone They do not need the Jewish text. Jeee thats apropriot huh?

In openly reading Pauls epistles He executes so much vanity within himself, allways giving reason to be forward in his words, and outspoken. Christ words mentions everything oposite to this. He continually tells of why he is an apostle, sometimes for 10 tracts before even saying one good thing of anything else. All the other books are not this way at all, only Pauls 15, which is a Majority with in the NT.

I do have to say, if one wishes to know of the lower realm of God in all this and His creation of the dark, for all the reasons Christ states in there order of Things , Paul seems to know much, with his manipulate docrines.

Be strong in Christ in thyself to see the wheat from the tares Friends.


This is why we find a Gnostic flar with his writings, He stoll them from the Gnostics. woops I`m sorry .. Borrowed.. lol
This kettle is more than black to see...
In finishing, The Christian got there radical lable against the Romans in Truth some where also Hired mercinaries, Paul fulfilled his Puppet role and They beheaded Him cause now they had to make him imortal for the next 2000 years till now. Ge..wiz I guess it worked huh? the Paulinist doctrine is imbedded throughout the world, and who dare stand against it.

The Love of God will only manifest through men seeking Him....

Brother Thomas.....

Actuall, Bro. Thomas, I beleive that most scholars have deduced that Shaul was a Pharisee, before his 'conversion' (gnosis?) on the way to Damascus. And I beleive that many of the parts where it seems he tried to 'supress' women and the like were not of his own works, but inserts from the battle over docterine in the early years. I honestly once felt as you did about him, but a friend of mine has recently shown me that Shaul's work is one of the few gnostic ideas that was able to 'slip' by in the regular Bible used now (I usually refer to the Bible as the 'Official Cannon of the Holy Church of the Blind', btw) THe Romans didn't care about Yeshua in the days He walked, it was only in the later years that so-called early Christianity became as much a subversive political movement against the Roman dictatorship (probably due to the nihilistic base of all of Yeshua's teachings, and the misuse of the ideas that He tried to promote. Yeshua was NO threat to the Romans (at the time) but FAR more a threat to the Jewish hiarchy of priest that ruled the people. Only later did the movement become a threat to the Romans. While I understand what you mean, I have learned that there is quite a gnostic element in Shauls' work, if you can dig thru and discover what the base was and what has been altered and added (and corrupted.)

But I certainly do not mean to argue, as your presentation was much like mine, and I am still in the process of rereading the works of Shual and finding that 'grain of truth' there, but I am interested in the other's ideas of Shaul. I am thankful for your sharing with me, and you have quite a grasp (as well as a hilarious way of putting it) on gnosis, my friend. But gnosis IS instantaneous, it isn't a matter of learning or accumulating data that brings it, but a moment where you touch 'God'.....

The_Passerby wrote:So what you are saying is that the Ebionites who were the first followers of Yeshua in Jerusalem under his brother James the Just who was the leader of Church of Jerusalem, were so dumb as to not know Yeshua did not exist, when they were his family and friends and also so dumb to even call Paul an apostate of the Law, when by your reasoning, Paul is Jesus and it was Paul who created this figure? They just must've been a bunch of idiots.

I know this is a theory of yours, but it doesn't make much sense, unless many of those early followers were complete morons.

Of course, this is all stipulated by the fact that either Yeshua OR Shaul DID, in fact, exist, which is something that could be debated as well, I must admit I understand Chukuma and tend to agree... Then it isn't a matter of being 'morons' (tho that DEFINATELY existed in the early days and all other days of the 'church' ) but rather debates wether Yeshua was a Jewish form of a much older myth and Shaul also just a charcter of myth as well, rather than a historical figure, a fact we needent take for granted that they were...

Admin wrote:Very, very interesting, but yes, indeed, what a mess!

The 'myth'/'history'/'legend'/'belief' about all these characters (or caricatures) from 2,000 years ago is now impossible to unravel fully or to prove.

We may occupy our whole lives with this fruitless task - as a great many have done throughout history - and simply waste our precious time on Earth.

For me it matters not in the slightest if Yehoshua/Yeshua/Jesus or Paul/Saul or Buddha or Moses or any other historical being ever truly existed or not - what really matters is NOW! - the PRESENT! - the TRUTH! - the GNOSIS!

PLU ~ Bob

Fruitless, perhaps, but fun!! I am learning alot from this thread, actually. (and about myself as well, which it really the point, eh?) But I agree, seems such a mess. Shame that wisdom had to come with such corruption.....