Dear Brothers and Sisters, this is going to be a bit of a read, hopefully you got charged with your peace infinity and ready to accept Truth outside the Box.
(If you had read this and understood now how this book had come about. Go on, share it with all the pastors and leaders of your organisation and see what they say. And if you are a Pastor or a Leader, Truth and History shouldn't be hidden and should be discussed. This "Holy Bible" didn't fall from the sky, if it did, then sure, it is the undisputed Word of God).
If you knew the Truth about what happened in early Jerusalem days, how would you inform the brothers and sisters in your circle, and subsequently the World about the Truth and by extension, why these angry "Natural disasters" are happening worldwide?
Thomas Jefferson: 3rd USA president in his letter to William Short: (Apostle) Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. This is just one of many.
Mahatma Gandhi: I draw a great distinction between the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus and the Letters of Paul. Paul's Letters are a graft on Christ's teachings, Paul's own gloss apart from Christ's own experience." Two of many.
Say a heartfelt prayer to the All-Parent Above and Within us, to which the Ancient Romans called God. They put together a book called the "Holy Bible" by stealing Truth and History from the Israelites and calling that the “Old Testament”, while also plagiarising Gospel of the Holy Twelve to make their “New Testament”, amalgamated by Roman Emperor Constantine in 325 AD. They rebranded themselves to "Holy Roman Empire '' and changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday in 321 AD whilst corrupting most teachings of the Messiah, and waged war in His name, the King of Peace while introducing Paul the false apostle to say the right stuff in some Epistles, and relax the Law in others.
They forced it down the throats of all they conquered, it grew even after they themselves were diminished as a nation and became the Sunday worship it is today across most Christian churches across the world throughout the last 1700 years, creating many conflicting denominations due to its intended contradictions to divide and "conquer".
When enough countries had believed in their ways, it rolled on like a Mexican wave in all aspects of Life ("Religion", law, politics, daily lives, food production/habits, most countries model their Laws after the Ten Commandments). That is why today, no miracles happen in church. For their doctrine, amalgamated in 325 AD, is corrupted. Including meat eating. But the Almighty had given us Conscience, knowing what is Good and Evil. The book contains both, some were allowed to be corrupted, some are not. Just like the way Job's suffering was negotiated in Heaven before being executed on earth, as in what is allowed and what is not.
The Fulfillment of the Law by "Jesus" in uncorrupted verse in Matthew 5:17 - 20
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear (Listen to this emphasis), not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (This is applicable until heaven and earth disappears, as mentioned in verse 18).
Based on this, why do we need a New Testament then? Romans 10:4 by Paulitician,
“Christ” is the end of the law for righteousness for those that believe.
Who is lying here? “Christ” or Paul? Others claim “Jesus” was only preaching to the Jews, who then was “Jesus” talking to in Matthew 24:14, Mark 13:10 And the Gospel must be preached to all Nations (This was before Paul's time obviously).
Jeremiah 8:8: How can we say we are wise, and we have the Law of God. When the lying pens of the scribes (Corrupted Scribes) had produced a deception.
You can search engine “Jesus” vs Paul and you will find most if not all the contradictions already uploaded in plain sight, so you don't have to go through the book itself. Obviously there will be Paul defenders/apolegetics/etc, that's just how the enemy had intended to conquer and divide the nations through religion. A Paulitician will appeal to specific groups of people while others find it repugnant, hence there are now 45000+ different denominations in the world, and there was only one Messiah, surely something is wrong.
Start and research the Gospel of the Nazarenes/Holy Twelve (Same book) on Saturday (Exodus 31:16, Matt 5:17-20), other churches had started to do the same recently in keeping the Original Laws, keep it labor free and animal meat free if your situation allows. The Catholic Church that was started by Peter and later corrupted by Rome even came out recently and admit they changed the Saturday Sabbath to Sunday, knowing no one cares now since it’s too hard to change as everyone now is stuck to habits since 1700 years ago. We know the 7th Day Sabbath Saturday never changed until Ancient Rome announced it in 321 AD, since they even begged the authorities to take down the Messiah's body before the Sabbath Day on Good Friday, the day of crucifixion. What more proof do we need?
Keep the fourth commandment as it is decreed in Exodus 31:16, otherwise Laws like killing, stealing, lying and what not which is part of the Ten are all voided. Can we kill, steal and lie our way to Heaven let alone keeping our Righteousness above the Teachers of the Law and the Pharisees?
Yesu (Jesus’s real Hebraic name) was actually nice to all animals, protected them from hunters, did not eat meat or spread fish but fruits and bread to the thousands, He came to put away flesh eating and blood sacrifices, circumcision, while bearing the first Commandment Adam and Eve broke. Since they were tempted by satan and did not sin directly, hence our All-Parent took it upon themselves instead of obliterating us.
https://www.hkbnews.net/post/proofs-that-jesus-was-vegan-%E6%85%88%E6%84%9B%E8%80%B6%E7%A9%8C%E9%A3%9F%E5%85%A8%E7%B4%A0-by-chapman-chen-hkbnews?fbclid=IwAR2U-SUX-0Pqoed8DiLB664HdRw3jCNZquPBf35L5n_n4l7jMZZw1M5QnfQ
https://www.britannica.com/event/First-Council-of-Nicaea-325
Clothed with the Sun - Anna Bonus Kingsford
IN a vision which was given to me last night, it was represented to me that the common view of Paul's character and position with regard to the primitive Church is a totally false one; and the persons who made the communication which I am about to relate, appeared to me to have been personally acquainted with Paul, and to be thoroughly familiar with the events occurring at the time of his apostleship. They told me, with evident indignation, that the Christian Church of to-day entirely misunderstands the relationship really existing between the apostles whom Christ had instructed and elected as his missionaries, and the converted Hebrew sacerdotalist. "It is amazing," they said, "that your Church can read in the writings extant concerning our relations with Paul the account of the mistrust, suspicion, and disfavour with which we always regarded him, and not see that he was never one with us. The very leader and chief of our circle withstood him to the face again and again, as though he had been an enemy of the Church; and on one occasion he was forced to fly from the brethren by night and by stratagem, so great and so bitter was the indignation his view of the faith aroused among us who had been the Lord's friends, and who knew the truth as Paul never saw it. For he imported into that pure and simple rule of life a mass of Levitical and Rabbinical usages and beliefs which we had shaken from us as the dust from our feet. He sunk the realities of the Gospel of Jesus under an overwhelming weight of hard sayings and sacerdotal misrepresentations. He, who had never known the Master as he was, took upon himself to distort his image into that of a strange God whom we had not known. Nor could we recognise in his garbled version of the beautiful and willing martyrdom of the man whom we had so dearly loved, a single trait of his character, or the least resemblance to the doctrine he had taught us. What we had seen and known as the pure and perfect love of a ready death, bravely borne for conscience' sake, Paul presented to us in a new and unlovely guise as the sacrifice of a victim to appease the anger of the God whom Jesus called his Father and ours. Out of that which had been for us a simple rule of life, a simple purging of the old faith, Paul erected the strange and elaborate system which is called 'the scheme of the Atonement.' For us and our Master there had been no 'scheme'; God was reconciled to man by love, and not by sacrifice. But Paul would have a 'new religion,' 1 and a creed hard to understand; and he left to the world a Christianity of his own which we knew not, but which is yours to-day. And in this he did us greater evil and detriment than if he had persecuted and slain us all physically. For by his false conversion he deceived the world and drowned the truth by a flood of strange doctrines. For this we were all against him, and never acknowledged his apostleship, being persuaded that he knew not Christ nor the faith which Christ taught.
In Christ or Paul?, by Rev. V.A. Holmes-Gore:
"Let the reader contrast the true Christian standard with that of Paul and he will see the terrible betrayal of all that the Master taught. . . . For the surest way to betray a great Teacher is to misrepresent his message. . . . That is what Paul and his followers did, and because the Church has followed Paul in his error it has failed lamentably to redeem the world. . . . The teachings given by the blessed Master Christ, which the disciples John and Peter and James, the brother of the Master, tried in vain to defend and preserve intact were as utterly opposed to the Pauline Gospel as the light is opposed to the darkness."
The great theologian Soren Kierkegaard, in The Journals:
"In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down, making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ"
The brilliant theologian Ernest Renan, in his book Saint Paul:
"True Christianity, which will last forever, comes from the gospel words of Christ not from the epistles of Paul. The writings of Paul have been a danger and a hidden rock, the causes of the principal defects of Christian theology."
Will Durant, in his Caesar and Christ:
"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ. . . . Through these interpretations Paul could neglect the actual life and sayings of Jesus, which he had not directly known. . . . Paul replaced conduct with creed as the test of virtue. It was a tragic change."
Robert Frost, winner of the Pulitzer prize for poetry in 1924,1931,1937 and 1943, in his "A Masque of Mercy":
"Paul he's in the Bible too. He is the fellow who theologized Christ almost out of Christianity. Look out for him."
James Baldwin, the most noted black American author of this century, in his book The Fire Next Time:
"The real architect of the Christian church was not the disreputable, sunbaked Hebrew (Jesus Christ) who gave it its name but rather the mercilessly fanatical and self-righteous Paul."
Martin Buber, the most respected Jewish philosopher of this century, in Two Types of Faith:
"The Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount is completely opposed to Paul."
The famous mystic, poet and author, Kahlil Gibran, in Jesus the Son of Man:
"This Paul is indeed a strange man. His soul is not the soul of a free man. He speaks not of Jesus nor does he repeat His Words. He would strike with his own hammer upon the anvil in the Name of One whom he does not know."
The famous theologian, Helmut Koester, in his The Theological Aspects of Primitive Christian Heresy: "Paul himself stands in the twilight zone of heresy. In reading Paul, one immediately encounters a major difficulty. Whatever Jesus had preached did not become the content of the missionary proclamation of Paul. . . . Sayings of Jesus do not play a role in Paul 's understanding of the event of salvation. . . . Paul did not care at all what Jesus had said. . . . Had Paul been completely successful very little of the sayings of Jesus would have survived."
Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and author of the Declaration of Independence in his "Letter to William Short":
"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
Renowned English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, in his Not Paul But Jesus:
"It rests with every professor of the religion of Jesus to settle within himself to which of the two religions, that of Jesus or that of Paul, he will adhere."
The eminent theologian Ferdinand Christian Baur, in his Church History of the First Three Centuries:
"What kind of authority can there be for an 'apostle' who, unlike the other apostles, had never been prepared for the apostolic office in Jesus' own school but had only later dared to claim the apostolic office on the basis on his own authority? The only question comes to be how the apostle Paul appears in his Epistles to be so indifferent to the historical facts of the life of Jesus. . . . He bears himself but little like a disciple who has received the doctrines and the principles which he preaches from the Master whose name he bears."
The great Mahatma Gandhi, the prophet of nonviolence who won freedom from England for India in an essay titled "Discussion on Fellowship":
"I draw a great distinction between the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus and the Letters of Paul. Paul's Letters are a graft on Christ's teachings, Paul's own gloss apart from Christ's own experience."
Carl Jung, the famous Swiss psychiatrist, in his essay "A Psychological Approach to Dogma":
"Saul's [Paul's name before his conversion] fanatical resistance to Christianity. . . . was never entirely overcome. It is frankly disappointing to see how Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in."
George Bernard Shaw, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1925; in his Androcles and the Lion:
"There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the characteristic utterances of Jesus. . . . There has really never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of Paul's soul upon the soul of Jesus. . . . It is now easy to understand how the Christianity of Jesus. . . . was suppressed by the police and the Church, while Paulinism overran the whole western civilized world, which was at that time the Roman Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith."
Albert Schweitzer, winner of the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize, called "one of the greatest Christians of his time," philosopher, physician, musician, clergyman, missionary, and theologian in his The Quest for the Historical Jesus and his Mysticism of Paul:
"Paul. . . . did not desire to know Christ. . . . Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded. . . . What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus?. . . . The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority. . . . The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it."
William Wrede, in his excellent book, Paul:
"The oblivious contradictions in the three accounts given by Paul in regard to his conversion are enough to arouse distrust. . . . The moral majesty of Jesus, his purity and piety, his ministry among his people, his manner as a prophet, the whole concrete ethical-religious content of his earthly life, signifies for Paul's Christology nothing whatever. . . . The name 'disciple of Jesus' has little applicability to Paul. . . . Jesus or Paul: this alternative characterizes, at least in part, the religious and theological warfare of the present day"
Rudolf Bultman, one of the most respected theologians of this century, in his Significance of the Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul:
"It is most obvious that Paul does not appeal to the words of the Lord in support of his. . . . views. when the essentially Pauline conceptions are considered, it is clear that Paul is not dependent on Jesus. Jesus' teaching is -- to all intents and purposes -- irrelevant for Paul."
Walter Bauer, another eminent theologian, in his Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity:
"If one may be allowed to speak rather pointedly the Apostle Paul was the only Arch-Heretic known to the apostolic age."
H.L. Mencken, called one of the most influential American writers of the first half of the 20th century, in his Notes on Democracy:
"Is it argued by any rational man that the debased Christianity cherished by the mob in all the Christian countries of today, has any colourable likeness to the body of ideas preached by Christ?
"The plain fact is that this bogus Christianity has no more relation to the system of Christ than it has to Aristotle. It is the invention of Paul and his attendant rabble-rousers--a body of men exactly comparable to the corpse of evangelical pastors of today, which is to say, a body devoid of sense and lamentably indifferent to common honesty. The mob, having heard Christ, turned against Him. His theological ideas were too logical and plausible for it, and His ethical ideas were enormously too austere. What it yearned for was the old comfortable balderdash under a new and gaudy name, and that is precisely what Paul offered it. He borrowed from all the wandering dervishes and body-snatchers of Asia Minor, and flavoured the stew with remnants of Greek demonology. The result was a code of doctrines so discordant and so nonsensical that no two men since, examining it at length, have ever agreed upon its precise meaning. Paul remains the arch theologian of the mob. His turgid and witless metaphysics make Christianity bearable to men who would otherwise be repelled by Christ's simple and magnificent reduction of the duties of man to the duties of a gentle-man."
Have you all considered that Paul was a double agent from Rome because Rome at the time couldn't really go to war against their own being converted. Plus he was also a Roman citizen.
Acts 11:25-26 25 Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
The Messiah and the Twelve never called themselves "Christians". Nor did the Messiah ever gave Himself the title "Christ". Good scribes of Acts had tried to hint under the oppressive power of Rome at the time by even quoting Paul as Saul, trying to suggest the chameleon never changed colors.
Do you remember that when the skies went dark and there was an earthquake literally when The Messiah was crucified that all the Roman Centurions and Legionnaires were present there.
The amount of word of mouth that would have proceeded from there alone would have converted entire barracks.
Allow me to present a case again. The Catholic Church that Peter started but corrupted by Rome later recently even announced that they changed the Sabbath, because they know no one cares since everyone had been done over and it be too hard to change this Sunday worship that's been going on since 1700 years ago in 321AD. Constantine announced an empire wide Sabbath Saturday change to Sunday, the day the worship the Sun due to one of their many polytheistic practise. If your PM today suddenly announced a Country wide day change to something, it had to be something that many if not most are keeping isn't it? Otherwise people would think said PM is nuts for announcing gibberish.
They were all keeping the 7th Day Sabbath Saturday then because Good Friday is crucifixion day, and they even begged to have The Messiah removed from the Cross before the Saturday Sabbath the next day.
This is not too complicated to understand right? Get right with the Creator and keep the 7th Day Saturday Sabbath and be blessed forever as promised in Exodus 31:16. All those who keep such Laws are considered Israelites. And it is part of Commandment Number Four. If that is voided then so is killing, stealing, lying and what not.
Paul said in one of his epistles don't let anyone judge you on what food, drink, Sabbath you keep. Yeap, the Creator cannot judge you too because paul said so. Yeap. No difference to the class of lies spouted in the Garden of Eden.
May the Creator shed all of you Light so a proper revival can be brought onto the New Earth. HAlleluia forever.
|
|
