Succession Of Lies

[mortify]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1335502284' post='2423850']
Now I said there is no 'second coming' in the same way of that 'first coming' which was believed and preached by your early fathers because that 'first coming' is a lie. There is no historical realization of coming of the Messiah of the Jews more or less 2000 years ago and therefore, there will be no 'second coming' of that Jesus because that Jesus do not exist.
[/quote]

So you believe Christ never walked this earth? And therefore He was never crucified and never resurrected?

[reyb]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1335595788' post='2424311']
So you believe Christ never walked this earth? And therefore He was never crucified and never resurrected?
[/quote]


Since historical realization of the coming of Christ is a lie it only follows, historical Jesus never existed in our world of realities including everything about him like his virgin-birth and passion or his death and resurrection.

Nevertheless, while historical Jesus never existed in our present realities but still, he is existing in the mind of believers thus Apostle Paul said in 2 Cor 11:3 ‘….your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ’ .

Apostle Paul is not talking to non-Christians when he said these things. He is actually talking to someone like you who have sincere and pure devotion to Christ but your minds are led astray in believing ‘the day of the lord has already come’ which is a lie. He knows too you accepted these false gospel and false Jesus because he said ‘you put up with it easily enough’. As I have said before, your early father’s gospel can easily be grasped and understood, and by just accepting what they believe you are already a Christian like them. But Apostle Paul is holding on you not to be just like them (your early fathers). You must surpassed them by seeing Christ himself thus he said ‘ And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. (2 Cor 11:12). Meaning, if you truly wanted to be one with them together with Apostle Paul that ‘sin’ must be uprooted and only in Christ –not your historical Jesus but the one who will appear - that sin will be taken out. Thus, he is preparing you to become an empty vessel for Christ when he said ‘so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him’. In short, he wants those who profess to be Christians becomes a true Christian being a witness of Christ himself. Otherwise, you are a Christian obeying the tradition of man rather than God.

Now, regarding death and resurrection of Christ – are you referring to 1 Cor 15:33ff?

Edited May 1, 2012 by reyb

[Papist]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1335875538' post='2425604']
Since historical realization of the coming of Christ is a lie it only follows, historical Jesus never existed in our world
[/quote]

If true, that is one big, huge dupe on the world. A lie that thousands of people chose to be torn to pieces and eaten by lions for. Thanks for sharing your discovery.

[reyb]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1335876204' post='2425605']
If true, that is one big, huge dupe on the world. A lie that thousands of people chose to be torn to pieces and eaten by lions for. Thanks for sharing your discovery.
[/quote]


I want to learn from you since you are teaching us and telling me that I am wrong. Can you please tell us where in his letter, Apostle Paul said ‘believe what I believe’ and then you are now one with them?

Now regarding your pride - your early fathers eaten by lions or whatever. Did Apostle Paul eaten by lions?

[Groo the Wanderer]

oh yer back.

joy.


thousands of Christians were martyred by the roman government. that is a historical fact. so is the fact that St. Paul was beheaded. Do you actually read what you claim to have gnostic knowledge of?

[reyb]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1335877844' post='2425609']
oh yer back.

joy.


thousands of Christians were martyred by the roman government. that is a historical fact. so is the fact that St. Paul was beheaded. Do you actually read what you claim to have gnostic knowledge of?
[/quote]

And why? (Apostle Paul is beheaded - if ever it is true).
------------------

[b]Gnosticism[/b] (from [i]gnostikos[/i], "learned", from [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language"]Greek[/url]: γνῶσις [i]gnōsis[/i], knowledge) is a modern scholarly term for a set of religious beliefs and spiritual practices found among some of the early Christian groups called "gnostic" ("learned") by [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus"]Irenaeus[/url] and other early Christian [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresiology"]heresiologists[/url]. The term also has reference to parallels and possible pre-Christian influences of the Christian gnostics.
Gnosticism was primarily defined in Christian context, or as "the acute Hellenization of Christianity" per [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_von_Harnack"]Adolf von Harnack[/url] (1885), until [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moritz_Friedl%C3%A4nder&action=edit&redlink=1"]Moritz Friedländer[/url] (1898) advocated Hellenistic Jewish origins, and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Bousset"]Wilhelm Bousset[/url] (1907) advocated Persian origins.[1] Consequent discussions of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Christianity"]Gnostic Christianity[/url] included pre-Christian religious beliefs and spiritual practices argued to be common to [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity"]early Christianity[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Judaism"]Hellenistic Judaism[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Roman_mysteries"]Greco-Roman mystery religions[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism"]Zoroastrianism[/url] (especially [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zurvanism"]Zurvanism[/url]), and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism"]Neoplatonism[/url]. The base of discussion of gnosticism changed radically with the discovery of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library"]Nag Hammadi library[/url], and led to revision of older assumptions, and a reorientation of modern scholarship following the 1966 conference on gnosticism in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messina"]Messina[/url].

(from wiki)

So what is wrong to be called ‘gnostic’?

Edited May 1, 2012 by reyb

[cmotherofpirl]

Its not christian:)

[Groo the Wanderer]

its also heresy

[reyb]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1335883567' post='2425636']
Its not christian:)
[/quote]
[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1335887212' post='2425653']
its also heresy
[/quote]

Of course, they are different from your early fathers. So, how can you say your early fathers are not false teachers while it seems they are Christians 'earlier' than them?

[cmotherofpirl]

Gnostics are not christians.

[Basilisa Marie]

Reyb - no historical Jesus at all? Oh, umm....

From Pliny the Younger, to the Emperor Trajan:
[quote][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3]Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.[/size][/font][/color][/quote]

From Tacitus, in his Annals of History:
[quote][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3]Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of [/size][/font][/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius"]Tiberius[/url][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3] at the hands of one of our procurators, [/size][/font][/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilatus"]Pontius Pilatus[/url][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3], and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in [/size][/font][/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iudaea_Province"]Judaea[/url][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3], the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[/size][/font][/color][/quote]

And from Lucian:
[quote][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3]The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account… You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are [/size][/font][/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_life_(Christianity)"]immortal for all time[/url][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3], which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified [/size][/font][/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wise_old_man"]sage[/url][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3], and live after [/size][/font][/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_of_Christ"]his laws[/url][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3].[/size][/font][/color][/quote]

At the very least, Christ was a person who instigated a sect of Judaism that caused lots of problems for the Roman and Greek rulers. He and his followers actually existed, you can't deny that.

[reyb]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1335892418' post='2425670'] Gnostics are not christians. [/quote] [quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1335895319' post='2425696'] Reyb - no historical Jesus at all? Oh, umm.... From Pliny the Younger, to the Emperor Trajan: From Tacitus, in his Annals of History: And from Lucian: At the very least, Christ was a person who instigated a sect of Judaism that caused lots of problems for the Roman and Greek rulers. He and his followers actually existed, you can't deny that. [/quote]

If that is the case, Christians of yesterday are like hard core Muslim terrorist of today who is always ready to give their life for a cause. So, what is their difference? Is Apostle Paul one of them in doing it? Do you think he will do the same to go against governments and their leaders considering he fights for spiritual battle rather than governmental issues?

How can you say a man is ‘The light of God’ or ‘The word of God’ or ‘The power of God’ or ‘The mediator between God and Man’ or ‘The mystery of God’ and many other calling for ‘The Christ of God’ – how can you say Jesus is man or at least a man having such title and then, (who will) fight for or against a particular form of government just for you? It is already an insult for God to become a Man. How much more if you will tell him to lead you against your useless issues? Do you really think the Christ of God can do it?

Yes, Gnostic are not Christians like you. But how about Apostle Paul? Is he an orthodox Christians like you and your early fathers? (Let us discuss this is in another topic).

Edited May 2, 2012 by reyb

[Groo the Wanderer]

St. Paul was a Catholic bishop. He ordained St. Timothy for one.



Oh that's right. You want to see the video of the ordination Mass as proof.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Groo the Wanderer

[mortify]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1335875538' post='2425604']
Since historical realization of the coming of Christ is a lie it only follows, historical Jesus never existed in our world of realities including everything about him like his virgin-birth and passion or his death and resurrection.
[/quote]

In other words, the Son of God never incarnated. He never walked the earth, never tought apostles, and never suffered on the cross. You must also believe that the Bible we have in our hand is corrupted.

Please let me know if I am wrong here

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1335917806' post='2425853']
If that is the case, Christians of yesterday are like hard core Muslim terrorist of today who is always ready to give their life for a cause. So, what is their difference? Is Apostle Paul one of them in doing it? Do you think he will do the same to go against governments and their leaders considering he fights for spiritual battle rather than governmental issues?

How can you say a man is ‘The light of God’ or ‘The word of God’ or ‘The power of God’ or ‘The mediator between God and Man’ or ‘The mystery of God’ and many other calling for ‘The Christ of God’ – how can you say Jesus is man or at least a man having such title and then, (who will) fight for or against a particular form of government just for you? It is already an insult for God to become a Man. How much more if you will tell him to lead you against your useless issues? Do you really think the Christ of God can do it?

Yes, Gnostic are not Christians like you. But how about Apostle Paul? Is he an orthodox Christians like you and your early fathers? (Let us discuss this is in another topic).
[/quote]

There's a big difference between Muslims giving their lives and Christians giving their lives. Early Christians were told, "Convert or die, or better yet we'll torture your kids in front of you." Muslims committed acts of war on people in the name of the faith. See the difference?

No, it's not insulting. It's actually quite in line with ancient Jewish tradition.

If you read the texts that aren't included in the Old Testament, because ancient Jews didn't have the same idea of canon that we do, you see plenty of examples of God generously sharing aspects of his divinity with people like Enoch and Jacob and Elijah and Moses. It's all in stuff like the Dead Sea Scrolls and other literature from different areas. Like, in one story God shares so much with Enoch (because He loves Enoch) that the rabbis get confused about which one is actually God, so God has a bunch of angels beat the croutons out of Enoch to show them the difference. So the whole idea of a human becoming God-like (or even vice-versa) is not insulting and actually has strong roots in the tradition, and isn't just something the Early Christians pulled out of a hat. The idea of God "sharing" aspects of his divinity with people is actually a testament to how great God's generosity and love are. And actually, all the ideas about Christ have some kind of beginning in ancient Jewish traditions about different prophets or chosen people of God. It's like all the ideas are melded together in Christ. There's loads of ideological precedent, if you bother to go looking for it in history.

Plus, why would it be an insult? God has a pretty high opinion of humanity...because God loves us. Act of great humility, yes, obviously. But there's an important difference between humility and insult.

Furthermore, some of the ancient Jews were looking for a political Messiah...because everyone kept conquering and exiling the Jews, so when they studied their holy books, it was pretty reasonable that some people thought they were talking about a political uprising.
And Useless Issues? Really?

Look, the problems you seem to be having were the same problems many people were having in the fourth century. There were people who thought Christ had to be fully divine and not human, or fully human and not divine. Go check out the Council of Nicaea.

[reyb]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1335923829' post='2425882']
St. Paul was a Catholic bishop. He ordained St. Timothy for one.



Oh that's right. You want to see the video of the ordination Mass as proof.
[/quote]


Of course, according to Irenaeus Apostle Paul is one with you (orthodox Christians) while to Valentinus Apostle Paul is also a Gnostic . It is really very funny they never asked Apostle Paul himself thru his letters.

(Please see [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism_and_the_New_Testament"]http://en.wikipedia....e_New_Testament[/url]).

[b]Paul and the early church[/b]

The continual growth of Gnostic followings throughout the 2nd century troubled proto-orthodox Christians. To refute it [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus"]Irenaeus[/url] wrote a vast five-volume book (On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis commonly referred to as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Detection_and_Overthrow_of_the_So-Called_Gnosis"]Against Heresies[/url]). The significance of Paul's influence was sufficient for Irenaeus to consider it important to proclaim that Paul was never gnostic and never supported gnostic teachings, using the evidence of the Pastoral epistles and the Gospel of John to support it.

Despite Irenaeus' claims for Paul's non gnosticism, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinius"]Valentinus[/url], the leader of a large faction of gnostics, claimed that Paul had initiated his own teacher [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theudas_(teacher_of_Valentinius)"]Theudas[/url] into the Deeper Mysteries of Christianity, which revealed a secret gnostic doctrine of God
------------------------
To me, Apostle Paul is neither of the two.

Let us discuss this in other topic.

Edited May 2, 2012 by reyb

[reyb]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1335925982' post='2425902']
In other words, the Son of God never incarnated. He never walked the earth, never tought apostles, and never suffered on the cross. You must also believe that the Bible we have in our hand is corrupted.

Please let me know if I am wrong here
[/quote]


I never arrived to a conclusion that the message of the books on the bible is corrupted although there are variations in its translation, which seems purposely fitted to whatever the translator wishes to show. Your Church’s intention is obvious on how this bible was organized and compiled because Catholics arranged this book in order to justify the truthfulness of their claim that ‘the day of the lord has already come’.

[indent=1](please see [url="http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html"]http://www.godandsci...ibleorigin.html[/url])[/indent]

[indent=1]The Early church had three criteria for determining what books were to be included or excluded from the [i]Canon of the New Testament[/i].[/indent]

[indent=1]First, the books must have [i]apostolic authority[/i]-- that is, they must have been written either by the [i]apostles themselves[/i], who were eyewitnesses to what they wrote about, or by [i]associates of the apostles[/i].[/indent]

[indent=1]Second, there was the criterion of [i]conformity to what was called the "rule of faith."[/i] In other words, was the document congruent with the basic Christian tradition that the church recognized as normative.[/indent]

[indent=1]Third, there was the criterion of whether a document had enjoyed [i]continuous acceptance and usage[/i] by the church at large.[/indent]

[indent=1](From History of the Bible: How The Bible Came To Us
by [url="http://www.godandscience.org/formmail12.html"]Wesley Ringer[/url])[/indent]

So, from the above manner in choosing among many letters, books or whatever (which are all considered sacred during that time), Catholic’s intention is clear. They are already showing and sharing that the day of the lord has already come notwithstanding the fact that this ‘realization of the coming of the Messiah named Jesus’ is just a belief and not truths in our world of physical realities. It has been recorded that your early fathers did it in opposition to the canon of Marcion.

[indent=1]After Marcion, Christians began to divide texts into those that aligned well with the "canon" (measuring stick) of accepted theological thought and those that promoted heresy. This played a major role in finalizing the structure of the collection of works called the Bible. It has been proposed that the initial impetus for the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-orthodox_Christianity"]proto-orthodox Christian[/url] project of canonization flowed from opposition to the canonization of Marcion.[17][/indent]

[indent=1](from [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon"]http://en.wikipedia..../Biblical_canon[/url]).[/indent]

Now, although the intention of the organizer and translator of this bible is tainted in favoring their own pre-conceived belief nevertheless, the message of each book in this bible is the same. It is about The Christ of God. And since only God can reveal Him, it is therefore immaterial whether they organized, arranged or compiled these books in accordance with their own belief. It is just the same, God will reveal to you his Christ thru these sacred books.

What I mean is this: Even if you are holding just one book for example, the book of Genesis, you can still see Christ because if you really know who said ‘Let us make man in our own image and our own likeness’. You should know him who speaks of this 'covenant' thru Christ.

Edited May 3, 2012 by reyb

[Nola Seminarian]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1334726927' post='2420058']
My intention in posting this letter is to inform all Christians especially deeply devoted Catholics like priest and bishops that you are in the wrong side of the fence and looking at the opposite direction to see Christ. Whether you believe me or not, or whatever you might think of me, is not my concern anymore. Since I am very tired of committing sins against my God for not doing things I know I must do. I am now discharging my responsibilities to you and I do not want to be blamed by anyone not even by me for being apathetic and unmoved towards you. I am not lying. God is my witness. When you closed your eyes. You will be restless forever if you do not learn to seek him now since his judgment has already been given when He said, ‘So I declared on oath [b]in[/b] [b]my[/b] [b]anger[/b], ‘They shall never enter [b]my[/b] rest.’. Your offerings are to demons because you let yourself be deceived rather than to seek and find Him. After you hear me, your doings are no longer unintentional and having any excuses in front of the Judgment seat of God.

Not too long ago, the writer of Second Thessalonians warn his listeners - including you - from a teaching supposedly comes from them in a form of prophecies, letters or word of mouth saying that the Christ has already come. This teaching, which you now wholeheartedly accepted, is the one you called ‘orally transmitted tradition’ of the early Catholics using the Book of Luke as one of their sources. They warned you not to accept it because it will lead you to lies and deception.

Early Catholics (and even today) erroneously understood Luke. They thought he is informing the world that the prophesied Christ has already come. Luke is not and was not declaring the fulfillment of Jewish prophesies about the coming of Christ because the Jewish prophesies about this coming is an erroneous interpretation to the book of Moses. Luke’s testimony is not a historical reality or true to life story and therefore all key figures in that story like Jesus, Mary and Peter do not exist in our world or physical realities. The Book of Luke is just a story. He makes a story about the mystery of the Coming of Christ in a form of reality. He gives it to us so that we will seek and find Christ in heavens although the seeker is still here on earth. That is the Christ he saw and all witnesses have seen from the beginning of time.


1. This orally transmitted tradition is a lie from the very beginning.
[/quote]

ok so is your basic presupposition that St. Luke's Account of the Gospel is straw for the burning because he did not meet Jesus?

Edited May 3, 2012 by Nola Seminarian

[reyb]

[quote name='Nola Seminarian' timestamp='1336020483' post='2426430']
ok so is your basic presupposition that St. Luke's Account of the Gospel is straw for the burning because he did not meet Jesus?
[/quote]

To Catholics, Luke is not a witness of Christ but to me, he is a true witness. Please read my previous post.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1336051077' post='2426493']
To Catholics, Luke is not a witness of Christ but to me, he is a true witness. Please read my previous post.
[/quote]

wrong. You don't need to see Jesus to be his witness. Luke saw Paul who saw Christ. Luke saw Mary who bore Christ.