[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Israel kills IDF soldiers in Lebanon to prevent their kidnap

46% of those deaths were occurring on the day of vaccination or within two days

In 2002 the US signed the Hague Invasion Act into law

MUSK is going after WOKE DISNEY!!!

Bondi: Zuckerberg Colluded with Fauci So "They're Not Immune Anymore" from 1st Amendment Lawsuits

Ukrainian eyewitnesses claim factory was annihilated to dust by Putin's superweapon

FBI Director Wray and DHS Secretary Mayorkas have just refused to testify before the Senate...

Government adds 50K jobs monthly for two years. Half were Biden's attempt to mask a market collapse with debt.

You’ve Never Seen THIS Side Of Donald Trump

President Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director

Joe Rogan Tells Josh Brolin His Recent Bell’s Palsy Diagnosis Could Be Linked to mRNA Vaccine

President-elect Donald Trump Nominates Brooke Rollins as Secretary of Agriculture

Trump Taps COVID-Contrarian, Staunch Public Health Critic Makary For FDA

F-35's Cooling Crisis: Design Flaws Fuel $2 Trillion Dilemma For Pentagon

Joe Rogan on Tucker Carlson and Ukraine Aid

Joe Rogan on 62 year-old soldier with one arm, one eye

Jordan Peterson On China's Social Credit Controls

Senator Kennedy Exposes Bad Jusge

Jewish Land Grab

Trump Taps Dr. Marty Makary, Fierce Opponent of COVID Vaccine Mandates, as New FDA Commissioner

Recovering J6 Prisoner James Grant, Tells-All About Bidens J6 Torture Chamber, Needs Immediate Help After Release

AOC: Keeping Men Out Of Womens Bathrooms Is Endangering Women

What Donald Trump Has Said About JFK's Assassination

Horse steals content from Sara Fischer and Sophia Cai and pretends he is the author

Horse steals content from Jonas E. Alexis and claims it as his own.

Trump expected to shake up White House briefing room

Ukrainians have stolen up to half of US aid ex-Polish deputy minister

Gaza doctor raped, tortured to death in Israeli custody, new report reveals

German Lutheran Church Bans AfD Members From Committees, Calls Party 'Anti-Human'

Berlin Teachers Sound Alarm Over Educational Crisis Caused By Multiculturalism


Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Was Jesus Christ crucified on a cross?
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 18, 2007
Author: Bible
Post Date: 2007-10-18 13:09:07 by richard9151
Keywords: None
Views: 3051
Comments: 195

I find it curious that so many people have so much faith in men. And, in what men say, and this is esp. true when what the men says flys directly in the face of what they claim to represent/say.

I hold to this firmly; A man is known by his actions, and not by his words.

And this leads me directly to what is wrong with America; the churches. And specifically those churches which claim to be Christian churches. And to the men who serve in those churches, and who know that they lie. After all, such men do, supposedly, read the Bible. Well, they have at least one time in their lives I think it is fair to assume. More than that? Pretty doubtful actually.

So this brings me to the question I posed in the title of this post; Was Jesus Christ crucified on a cross?

The only acceptable answer to this comes from the Bible. I assume that everyone who claims to be Christian will agree with this.

My first Bible (that I read extensively) was The King James Study Bible. I have continued to use it, although I have more than a dozen different Bibles now. In the King James;

Galatians 3:13; Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, CURSED is EVERYONE THAT HANGETH ON A TREE.

Second witness; "...for it is written ... " ; Deutronomy 22:22; And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him from a tree; (23) His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shall in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) ...

Now, this may come as a surprise to many of you, but a tree ain't a cross; it is a post. In the Spanish translation of the King James, it is clearer, for they use the term madero, which means board, or, post.

In addition, if you have read anything about the Roman Empire, one of the notable facts about the Romans was their efficiency in killing people. And it is not efficient to use two pieces of wood, i.e., a cross, when a single piece of wood, a post, will suffice. And, in fact, this is how the Romans did hang those who they wished to make examples out of; on a post. (Yeah, yeah, I know; all the movies use crosses. And, your point is?)

There is another point that must be made here; when a man is hung on a post, or, for that matter, if he were to be hung on a cross, with nails, YOU CAN NOT DRIVE THE NAILS THROUGH THE PALMS OF HIS HAND. It will not work, because when the post/cross is lifted up and dropped into the hole prepared for it, the nails will rip out of the hands and the man will drop to the ground. The Romans knew this from, I am sure, experience, and the nails were ALWAYS driven into the wrists of the victim, between the two bones of the arm. This is the only location which offers enough strength to be usuable is such a manner.

The best depiction of Jesus being executed that I have seen is contained in the Watchtower book; What Does The Bible Really Teach? on page 52.

What does this mean: If you are attending a so-called Christian church, which uses the cross as a part of their worship, and protrays Jesus on that cross with nails through the palms of his hand, then you are participating in a deliberate lie. And, you are in a church properly described in Revelations a one of the daughters of the whore of Babylon. (I paraphrase; not going to look it up today.)

Now, let's look at a couple of other Bibles and see what is said;

New American Standard Bible; Galatians 3:13; Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us -- for it is writte, "CUESED IS EVERY ONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE" --

Second Witness; Deuteronomy 21:22; And if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, (23) his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), ...

Pretty good. Not far off, but.... let's take a quick look at another Bible.

Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text (George M. Lamsa's Translation from the Aramaic of the Peshitta); Galatians 3:13; Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming accursed for our sakes (for it is writtenm Crused is everyone who hangs on a cross).

OOPS! WOW! Boy, do we need that second witness now!

Second Witness; Deuteronomy 21:22; And if any man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is crucified on a tree, and thus put to death; (23) His body shall not remain all night upon the tree but you shall bury him the same day (for he who shall revile God shall be crucified), ...

Gotta a problem here, because the second witness does not confirm what was written in Galatians. That means that there is an error in this Bible, and brings into question any quotes taken from it, unless they be confirmed by a second witness. And this problem probably stems from the translator wanting to believe what he had been taught about the cross. And rather than translate directly, he transposed his beliefs into the translation.


I am a Christian; I freely and happily and contentedly proclaim this to be true. Chritianity is NOT a religion; it is a way of life, attempting to follow in the footsteps of The Christ.

As a Christian, I have a responsibility to study His Word, that I not be lead into error. I accept that responsibility. I also accept the responsibility to help others to learn as well, that any errors that I or they hold may be revealed and corrected jointly.

I have stated this before; I ask for correction in anything that I am in error on. And I have been corrected, and I thank those who help me to learn, and, (this is a big one!) change.

I hope you find this post helpful, and that it helps to bring all of us to a wider understanding of what is being, deliberately, done to America, through what is supposed to be His church (people).

Next post, in a day or so; Is Jesus Christ God?

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-137) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#138. To: Paul Revere (#119)

It matters that Jesus Christ lived--and died. God is a living God. Whether you like that, or accept it, or hate it is of little consequence to anyone, but you- -except for the fact that as a follower of Christ, I would prefer to see you obtain eternal life. The ideal would be for all to have eternal life. But His teachings tell us that He is the truth, the light, the way.

Upon what do you base your assertion that Paul is a 'mad hatter'?

rowdee  posted on  2007-10-21   11:57:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#139. To: aristeides (#129)
(Edited)

But what you're denying is just just the truth of the Bible, but the very existence of the founder of Christianity.

You're wrong again, as usual.

Jesus had NOTHING to do with the creation of Christianity.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-21   12:19:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#140. To: aristeides (#132)

There's controversy about the authenticity of the passage or passages in Josephus (I don't even know enough about the matter to know whether or not there is more than one of them.) A lot of scholars think Josephus mentioned Jesus, but the passage or passages was/were later altered to make them more acceptable to later Christians.

About this statement, you are correct.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-21   12:20:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#141. To: aristeides (#134) (Edited)

Ever stop to consider that there might be some connection between your rejection of religion and the sort of character you exhibit in your postings?

Go sell crazy somewhere else, lady.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-21   12:23:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#142. To: Paul Revere (#140)

A lot of scholars think Josephus mentioned Jesus, but the passage or passages was/were later altered to make them more acceptable to later Christians.

About this statement, you are correct.

If Josephus mentioned Jesus, doesn't that imply Jesus existed?

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2007-10-21   12:23:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#143. To: aristeides (#142)

If Josephus mentioned Jesus, doesn't that imply Jesus existed?

You can't be that stupid.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-21   12:25:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#144. To: Paul Revere (#139)

But what you're denying is just just the truth of the Bible, but the very existence of the founder of Christianity.

You're wrong again, as usual.

Jesus had NOTHING to do with the creation of Christianity.

When you can't win the argument, change the subject.

Because you've lost the argument about whether Jesus existed, you change the subject to whether he founded Christianity.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2007-10-21   12:25:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#145. To: Paul Revere (#141) (Edited)

Go sell crazy somewhere else, lady.

Another example of your superb manners.

Do you really believe such behavior is going to persuade or impress anybody? If I had manners like yours, I might say something about stupidity myself.

I notice, by the way, how you've had nothing to say about how I've shown you were precisely wrong about the views of David Friedrich Strauss.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2007-10-21   12:26:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#146. To: aristeides (#144) (Edited)

Jesus had nothing do with the creation of Christianity. That was done by fools who can't fathom spiritual matters, who can only understand silly rituals, and fumbling with beads, and worshipping idols, and thinking they've got it figured out.

The fact that you think Jesus created Christianity demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of early history or how Christianity was created.

You think that if you say something enough it becomes true. It doesn't. You're just another religious fool, stuck in first gear.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-21   12:30:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#147. To: aristeides (#145) (Edited)

Nagging is your primary arguing tool, and I can see why, since you've got nothing else. And you'll keep nagging on this, and I'll keep telling you to go fuck yourself.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-21   12:34:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#148. To: aristeides (#136) (Edited)

My, what tact you exhibit! Do you think that sort of language will persuade anybody?

Is that an example of the reasoning you use in court?

Let me explain this in simple terms, so there's a possibility it might be understood by you.

This is a conversation about a topic. I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything. I don't care what your opinion is, but when you state things as if they're fact and I know they're not, I'm going to call you a liar and a fool, if not both.

This is also not a court of law. If it were, I would be there and you wouldn't, because you couldn't beat a first year lawyer in court. Admit it. You've never even tried a case, and couldn't cross examine a witness if your life depended on it.

Since I've won a number of multi million dollar jury verdicts, I think that's very good evidence my persuasive abilities and demeanor in court are just fine. Now how many jury trials have you won, professor NOBODY?

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-21   12:42:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#149. To: Paul Revere (#117)

Why would they be inclined to write about a 'nobody' from the Galilee? He wasn't born to notable parents, he wasn't a part of some rebellion, or uprising, nor did he 'discover' some star, or some piece of high technology, nor was he a part of any ruling class or community.

rowdee  posted on  2007-10-21   13:56:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#150. To: aristeides (#142) (Edited)

A lot of scholars think Josephus mentioned Jesus, but the passage or passages was/were later altered to make them more acceptable to later Christians.

About this statement, you are correct.

=======================================

If Josephus mentioned Jesus, doesn't that imply Jesus existed?

The Pharisees think He existed:

Who Was Jesus? The Bible gave a warning about a dangerous, false prophet who would arise to test our faith in G-d. In Deuteronomy 13, G-d describes this ... www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm :

Who Was Jesus?

The Bible gave a warning about a dangerous, false prophet who would arise to test our faith in G-d. In Deuteronomy 13, G-d describes this false prophet as a member of the Jewish people (v. 2, 7) who would tell true prophecies and would have the power of miracles. G-d Himself would give this false prophet the power to perform miracles and reveal prophecy, but the false prophet would try to seduce the people away from G-d's Law and towards strange gods unknown to Judaism. The purpose would be to test whether we are truly committed to living under the Law, or whether we will be dazzled and fall for the temptation to join a false path to salvation (v. 3-6, 7-8, 11). In this Biblical passage, G-d repeatedly commands the Jews to kill this false prophet, lest the evil spread and destroy many souls.

To be accepted by the people, the false prophet would sometimes pretend to be a righteous Jew who fulfills the Law, but at key moments he would turn against certain details of the Law in order to make the breach (v. 6, 7). This is the reason that verse 1 commands us not to add or subtract any details from the Law, and verse 5 warns us to remain steadfast with all the traditions of the Law.

In Deuteronomy 17, this false prophet is also described as someone who would rebel against the authority of the judges of the Jewish people, and who should be put to death for his rebelliousness (v. 8-13, esp. v. 12). Who are the judges? The highest court in Israel was the Sanhedrin, which was established by Moses (Exodus 18:13-26; Numbers 11:16-29), and which lasted more than 15 centuries. The members of the Sanhedrin were the rabbis known as "Pharisees" (Pirushim, "those with the explanation"). G-d gave permanent authority to these judges to interpret the Law and G-d's Word, and it is a commandment to follow their decisions without turning even slightly to the right or the left (Deut. 17:11). But the false prophet would challenge the authority of the Sanhedrin, thus revealing himself to be an evil man.

In the book of the prophet Daniel, this false prophet is described as a king (the eleventh horn on a terrible beast) who would wage war against the Jews (the "holy ones"; see Deut. 14:2 on this term) and would change the Law including the calendar and the holidays (Daniel 7:8, 20-25). Elsewhere, this false prophet is described as a king who would disregard the G-d of his fathers, exalting himself as a god and giving honor to this new god-head (Daniel 11:36-39).

The man known today as "Jesus" fulfilled all these prophecies. He became a "king" (over the Christian church) who changed the original Law, doing away with the Hebrew calendar and the Biblical holidays (Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkos the Festival of Tabernacles, Passover, etc.). He disregarded the one, infinite G-d of the Hebrew Bible in favor of a new "trinity" that included himself. And he repeatedly broke the Law by committing terrible sins, while openly challenging the G-d-given authority of the rabbis of the Sanhedrin.

Naturally, Jesus did sometimes pretend to respect the Law, but whenever he thought he could get away with it, he turned right around and broke that same Law. In Matthew 5:17-19, he declared that he came to fulfill the Law, and in Matthew 23:1-3 he defended the authority of the rabbis. But the rest of the time, he rebelled against the Law—thus showing that his occasional words of piety were meant only to hide his evil agenda. The following sins of Jesus are recorded in the "New Testament":

1. Jesus repudiated the laws of kosher food (Mark 7:18-19). [Compare this to the prophet Daniel's strict adherence to kashrus, in Daniel chapter 1.]

2. He repudiated the laws of honoring one's parents, and called on his followers to hate their parents; he also dishonored his own mother (Matthew 10:34-36; Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 14:26).

3. He violated the Sabbath by picking grain, and incited his disciples to do the same (Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-26).

4. 4) He again violated the Sabbath by healing a man's arm, which was not a matter of saving a life, and he openly defied the rabbis in his total repudiation of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9-13; Mark 3:1-5). [Compare this to G-d's view of violating the Sabbath, in Numbers 15:32-36, Nehemiah 10:30-32, and dozens of other places throughout the Bible.]

5. Jesus brazenly defied and disobeyed the rabbis of the Sanhedrin, repudiating their authority (This is recorded in many places throughout the New Testament, but look especially at Matthew 23:13-39 and John 8:44-45).

The Talmud (Babylonian edition) records other sins of "Jesus the Nazarene":

1. He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a).

2. He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone (a brick is mentioned), was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent (Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a).

3. He learned witchcraft in Egypt and, to perform miracles, used procedures that involved cutting his flesh—which is also explicitly banned in the Bible (Shabbos 104b).

The false, rebellious message of Jesus has been thoroughly rejected by the vast majority of the Jewish people, as G-d commanded. Unfortunately, however, this same message has brought a terrible darkness upon the world; today, over 1.5 billion gentiles believe in Jesus. These lost souls mistakenly think they have found salvation in Jesus; tragically, they are in for a rude awakening. Truth and eternal life are found directly from G-d, through performing His Law. Any "mediator" only separates man from G-d:

1. "G-d is not a man, who can lie, nor the son of man, who relents... He has not beheld iniquity in Jacob, nor has He seen perverseness in Israel" (Numbers 23:19).

2. Speaking prophetically of the Christian church, Moses declared, "For their 'rock' is not like our Rock... Where is their god, in whom they trusted?" (Deut. 32:31, 37).

3. "'See now that I, only I, am He, and there is no god with Me. I kill, and I bring to life; I wound, and I heal, and there is none who can rescue from My Hand...' Sing songs of joy, gentiles, with His people, for He will avenge the blood of His servants, and will take vengeance on His enemies, and will forgive His land and His people" (Deut. 32:39, 43).

4. "I, only I am Hashem (the L-rd), and besides Me there is no savior" (Isaiah 43:11).

5. "I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god... Is there a god besides Me? There is no rock; I do not know any" (Isaiah 44:6).

6. "Israel is saved in Hashem with an eternal salvation... Assemble yourselves and come, come near together, you gentiles who have escaped [the judgment]. (They have no knowledge, those who carry wooden sculptures and who pray to a god that does not save.) Announce and bring near, even take counsel together: Who declared this from ancient times, and announced it from then? Is it not I, Hashem? And there are no other gods beside Me, nor any righteous and saving god other than Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all ends of the earth, for I am G-d and there is none else. By Myself I swore, a righteous word went out of my mouth and it will not be withdrawn, that to Me every knee will bow and every tongue will swear" (Isaiah 45:17, 20-23).

What is the true key to salvation? Those who return to the Law (the Seven Commandments for the Children of Noah, according to the eternal covenant made with Noah in Genesis 9) and who assist the Jewish people (Isaiah 60, 61, 66) will be saved and will participate in the miracles and revelations, including worshipping in the Third Temple, under the kingship of the Messiah. As described in many places, including Jeremiah 16:19-21 and Zechariah 8:20-23, all the old gentile religions of the world will disappear, and their followers will turn to the Jews for spiritual leadership. Until then, Christians are spiritually blinded, and cannot yet understand G-d's wisdom in the Bible.

Ours is the last generation of the era of sin and evil and the first of the Messianic Era. Indeed, for the first time in history, there is a growing consensus of leading rabbis willing to name the man most suited to be the Messiah, and they are agreeing that he is the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The Rebbe is the spiritual leader of our generation, having boldly stirred up controversy over vital issues in which other leaders have remained tragically silent or have even caved in to the growing forces of darkness. He has upheld the Law perfectly and has worked mightily to strengthen the observance of the Law by Jews, as well as the observance of the Noachide Law by gentiles. Through his teaching of chasidus (Jewish mystical teachings, preserved from Moses and Mount Sinai), he has taught the world that G-d is One, the Infinite Who renews creation at every moment. The Rebbe is a direct descendant of King David and has received a true prophecy from G-d that we who are alive in this generation shall be the first in history to see the coming of the true messiah. Many Jews are eagerly anticipating the Rebbe's resurrection from the grave, ready to re-establish the Sanhedrin and anoint the king.

Our job is to finish preparing the way, by announcing the truth and bringing all of mankind back to the Law immediately. Through our divinely mandated efforts, we shall now clear the path for the return of the Garden of Eden and the establishment of the eternal sinless world promised by Isaiah and the other Biblical prophets.

www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm

["yeshu" is a derogatory term. Zionist Christians - A Mossad Operation ....Do Zionist Christians Know That The Name Of Jesus Was Changed In Israel?.....Jesus' name in Hebrew had been changed so that it is now an acronym meaning 'Be His Name and Memories Forgotten.' By Reuven Schossen ... www.middleeast.org/forum/fb-public/1/4541.shtml

Jesus' Membrum in the Talmud What did the Jewish priests think of Jesus? This information will supplement Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- a must read for serious Christians. www.come-and-hear.com/editor/censorship_2.html

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2007-10-21   13:58:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#151. To: Alan Chapman (#80)

okaaay....been suspicious of that "church" since I saw it last night.

closing some windows, but am going to "park" them here until I can study them further....

started with a search "merovee fish" [don't ask me why, 'cause i don't know why]

THE SIX~POINTED STAR

THE MARK OF THE BEAST

PART II

HISTORY OF THE SIX-POINTED STAR [fish, merovee, Dagon, etc.]

www.watch.pair.com/mark2.html

===================

The Roman Eagle (aquila)

[Roman eagle, German eagle, Maccabes, Dan, snake, Habsburgs, Charlemagne, ODIN, Gauls, Franks, Celts [***isn't that a celtic knot in that mosaic?], Greeks, German "Kaiser", Russian "Tsar", USA re Roman Empire, etc.]

www.chinahistoryforum.com...ion/index.php/t15405.html

===========================

**** THE FALSE GOSPEL IN THE STARS

PREPARING THE WAY OF THE ANTICHRIST

. . .and the False Prophet and 10 kings downsized to 7 and. . .

PISCES

THE TWO FISHES

"....THE TWIN MESSIAHS

Gnostics claim to venerate Jesus and John the Baptist as the ‘twin messiahs.’ As Jesus was the “Christ” for the Age of Pisces, John, the Gnostic Christ, will incarnate another messiah for the Age of Aquarius. This is the reason all Grand Masters of the Prieuré de Sion take the name of John (Jean). The authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail disclosed that for some time there has been in existence an esoteric papacy as well as the exoteric papacy of the Roman Catholic Church:...."

"....Students of Scripture may recognize Oannes as the Philistine god, Dagon, but may not realize that this fish-god is also the ‘beast that rises out of the sea,’ in Rev. 13:1. Dagobert’s Revenge identifies Oannes as ‘Lucifer’ whose fallen angels sired a race of giants, the Nephilim, in Genesis 6:

“...Dagon or Oannes, a half-human, half-fish combination who was known as the ‘Lord of the Flood’...was said to rise out of the sea every day to teach his secret knowledge to those who followed him. He is mentioned in Samuel, Chapter 5, when the Philistines capture the Ark of the Covenant and place it in the Temple of Dagon. Two nights later, ‘Dagon was fallen upon is face to the ground before the Ark of the Lord; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the threshold; only the stump of Dagon was left to him.’ It is this character upon which Satan or Lucifer is based, but the physical description attributed to him applied to an entire race of ‘gods’, or as they were described in the Bible, Nephilim, or Fallen Angels, the ‘Great Old Ones’...”

“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose… There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” Gen. 6:1-4

Oannes was the same fish-god described in Bloodline of the Holy Grail as the ‘mysterious sea-beast’ which sired Merovee, the Frankish king who founded the Merovingian dynasty. For this reason, **** the Merovingian dynasty were designated “Fisher Kings.”

“Despite the carefully listed genealogies of his time, the heritage of Meroveus was strangely obscured in the monastic annals. Although the rightful son of Clodion, he was nonetheless said by the historian Priscus to have been sired by an arcane sea creature, the Bistea Neptunis..

“The Sicambrian Franks, from whose female line the Merovingians emerged were associated with Grecian Arcadia before migrating to the Rhineland. As we have seen, they called themselves the Newmage – ‘People of the New Covenant’, just as the Essenes of Qumran had once been known. It was the Arcadian legacy that was responsible for the mysterious sea beast – the Bistea Neptunis – as symbolically defined in the Merovingian ancestry. The relevant sea-lord was King Pallas, a god of old Arcadia... The immortal sea-lord was said to be ‘ever-incarnate in a dynasty of ancient kings’ whose symbol was a fish – as was the traditional symbol of Jesus.” (pp.166,175)

“And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy...and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.” Rev. 13:1-2

In his blasphemous book, The Real Meaning of the Zodiac, D. James Kennedy stated: “In Pisces these fishes are a representation of the Church.” Fred Gettings associated the fish emblem with the so-called “Christian zodiac,” which the Neo-Platonists based on the pagan Zodiac.

“In the Christian zodiac, as in the pagan zodiac, the two fishes of Pisces appear to be associated with the idea of the spirit and soul... Whether this Neoplatonic notion did influence the symbolism of Pisces or not, the spiritual nature of the fishes was adapted by the medieval image-makers as relating very distinctly to the spiritual nature of Christ. In any case, from the earliest times, Christ had been linked with the image of the fish. The drawings of fish in the catacombs were symbols for Christ, and a whole battery of more or less esoteric interpretation was erected to account for this symbolism. A sample of this esotericism, derived from a Sibylline prophecy, is set out in the notes on Augustine's acrostical treatment of the fish...” (911:28-9)

Christians have been badly misinformed that the fish symbol represents Christ and His followers because they are “fishers of men.” This pagan emblem, which derives from the pagan zodiac, found its way into the Catholic Church via St. Augustine, a Neo-Platonist. Augustine attempted to justify the adoption of elements of pagan worship in the Church's syncretism, thereby Christianizing pagan practices, emblems and even pagan deities. Augustine wrote concerning the fish: “If you combine the initial letters of the five Greek words, which are Iesous Chreistos Theou Uios Soter, Jesus Christ the Son of God the Saviour, they make the word ichthus, meaning fish, and the mystic meaning of this noun is Christ, because He had power to exist alive, that is, without sin, in the bottomless pit of our mortal life, as in the depths of the sea.”

In The Two Babylons, Alexander Hislop stated that Jesus Christ “began to be popularly called ICHTHYS (or ICHTHUS), that is 'the Fish', manifestly to identify Him with Dagon...[and] that Icthus, or the Fish, was one of the names of Bacchus.” Dagon was the Philistine Fish-deity and Bacchus was the Greek name for Tammuz, the Babylonian Sun-god. Making an artistic representation of the fish for religious reasons is forbidden in the Book of Deuteronomy.

“Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.” (Deut. 4:15-19)...."

www.watch.pair.com/pisces.html

also:

THE LOST TRIBE OF DAN: "Fish merovingian" and www.watch.pair.com/dan.html#3c1

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2007-10-21   23:33:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#152. To: Paul Revere (#147)

Still no admission that you were totally wrong about David Friedrich Strauss? So how many of the people on your list actually did say Jesus did not exist, or even cast his existence into doubt? How many of them had any expertise on the matter? What evidence do you have?

If you have no evidence that any experts have agreed with you, what does that mean?

Do you really think ad hominem arguments attacking me do anything to prove your case?

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2007-10-22   6:45:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#153. To: aristeides (#152) (Edited)

God, you're a cry baby.

Whiner.

This is why you could never try a case. You're incapable of focusing on the big picture. You get bogged down on some point YOU think matters.

There's a reason why you peaked in life 40 years ago. See if you can figure it out.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-22   11:09:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#154. To: Paul Revere (#153) (Edited)

You're incapable of focusing on the big picture. You get bogged down on some point YOU think matters.

Excuse me, but I don't understand this 'focusing on the big picture; getting bogged down on some point that he (or anyone really) thinks matters' routine.......it seems like you've been demanding 'proof' or 'evidence' of the existence of Jesus Christ. You went so far as to list a whole bunch of names, it would seem, as representing evidence of some 'brilliant' minds who support your position.

And when [edit: correct spelling]aristides aristeides found one that differed with you and what you were saying/supporting and pointed it out to you, you're calling it whining and bogged down???

You made a statement that Jesus didn't exist and prvoided a list of those whom you consider back your position....and when at least one was found to not be the case, it suddenly is 'some minute or insignificant point' and doesn't matter. That sort of sounds like like 'stay focused on my left hand; no, don't look at the right one==trust me'.

Anyways, can you explain why it doesn't matter that you put a name out there--at least one--that seemingly doesn't support your position?

Thanx

rowdee  posted on  2007-10-22   12:08:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#155. To: aristeides (#154)

I should have pinged you to the previous comment in that I used your name. Sorry.

rowdee  posted on  2007-10-22   12:12:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#156. To: Paul Revere (#153)

Still no admission that you were wrong about Strauss. What people on your list said what you claim?

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2007-10-22   12:39:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#157. To: rowdee, Paul Revere (#154)

Anyways, can you explain why it doesn't matter that you put a name out there--at least one--that seemingly doesn't support your position?

Not only that. That just happens to be the name I checked (and not even because I thought or suspected Paul Revere was wrong in claiming he took his position. I started to question in my mind my previous assertion -- which turned out to be wrong, when I checked -- that Strauss was French. So I checked.) And that name that I happened to check turns out not to belong on Paul Revere's list.

For all I know, none of the names on his list take the position Paul Revere claims.

Thanks for supporting my position, by the way.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2007-10-22   12:42:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#158. To: Paul Revere (#153)

Whiner.

You're one to talk. What do you call your posts?

Like your complaint about my mentioning my degrees, only to have you long after in the thread start bragging about your courtroom successes. I wonder if they're any more real than your list of scholars.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2007-10-22   12:44:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#159. To: aristeides (#157)

I caught your earlier comments regarding your thinking of Strauss as a Frenchman, and that you were perhaps a little squeamish over that (not the appropriate term, I'm sure) and went to check it out, and found out that not only was the guy not a Frenchie, he did NOT support PR's apparent assertion. Isn't it odd how sometimes one thing leads to the discovery of another! :)

While it may support your position, what actually brought me to this point was that this 'stellar' counsellor has effectively said, 'oh, don't bother looking at the evidence, trust me'. And a lawyer is one of the very last people on earth that I would trust. Anyone that goes to a school to learn how to speak out of both sides of their mouth, as well as take acting, is not exactly someone I would admire.

Principles and ethics mean a lot to this 'dumb old broad'. And when I see something like what PR is doing here-- ignoring questions or grabbing some new subject to bring into the mix, the hackles go up. And if it happens on a topic upon which we don't agree--where we would tend to have our BS meter running, how much BS is put out there as 'gospel' on topics where the BS meter is in OFF position.

rowdee  posted on  2007-10-22   13:15:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#160. To: aristeides (#158)

Whatever, Aristedious.

If I thought your opinion mattered, I would address your comments further. I don't.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-22   21:22:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#161. To: richard9151 (#0)

Was Jesus Christ crucified on a cross?

His telling everyone to quit hating each other is really the more important story.

" Junk is the ideal product... the ultimate merchandise. No sales talk necessary. The client will crawl through a sewer and beg to buy." - William S Burroughs

Dakmar  posted on  2007-10-22   21:40:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#162. To: Dakmar (#161)

His telling everyone to quit hating each other is really the more important story.

You have hit the problem on the nose.

Most worship the man, not the ideals he espoused.

The lessons of Jesus are seldom guideposts for those who claim to follow him.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-22   22:17:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#163. To: Paul Revere (#162)

The lessons of Jesus are seldom guideposts for those who claim to follow him.

I thought he didn't exist.

Fred Mertz  posted on  2007-10-22   22:44:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#164. To: Dakmar (#161)

His telling everyone to quit hating each other is really the more important story.

Just what the hell do ya mean by that crack, Pal?

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2007-10-22   22:49:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#165. To: Fred Mertz (#163)

I tell everyone to quit hating each other and they just laugh at me.

" Junk is the ideal product... the ultimate merchandise. No sales talk necessary. The client will crawl through a sewer and beg to buy." - William S Burroughs

Dakmar  posted on  2007-10-22   22:50:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#166. To: tom007 (#164)

Just what the hell do ya mean by that crack, Pal?

It's code for you'll get your money for Afghani heroin tonight, watch for a blue stationwagon.

" Junk is the ideal product... the ultimate merchandise. No sales talk necessary. The client will crawl through a sewer and beg to buy." - William S Burroughs

Dakmar  posted on  2007-10-22   22:51:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#167. To: Dakmar (#166)

"one hand washes the other".

Watch for the Red Stick.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2007-10-22   22:53:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#168. To: Fred Mertz (#163)

I thought he didn't exist.

I don't think Jesus lived as represented. I do believe that the lessons he is said to have taught are good lessons which have been taught by wise men. I don't believe all the hero elements that were commonly ascribed to heroes in ancient times. You know, virgin birth, son of God. Crap like that.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-22   22:56:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#169. To: Dakmar (#161)

His telling everyone to quit hating each other is really the more important story.

He said; In secret have I said nothing. He also said, If you Love Me,, do My Words, and the Words that I speak are the Words of my Father, and are not mine. (understand, I paraphase; did not look up the specific quotes/verses.)

The problem, Dak, if you will simply read this thread, as I assume that you have, then you begin to understand that because so many people accept the errors that have been brought into Christianity, they really have no clue as to what is the Truth.

Is it then your contention that it is acceptable to celebrate the birth of Tammuz on Dec. 25th, calling on the son of god to save you? Simply because His (Jesus)telling everyone to quit hating each other is really the more important story?

How about birthdays? Is it acceptable to celebrate any birthdays? Given that the celebration of birthdays is the basis of the acceptance of life begins at birth, and thus abortion is OK? Is that acceptable? Again, simply because?

The message of Jesus is either correct in all respects, or, it is not. For instance, the cross had been used throughout the ages as a fertility symbol. And, it was brought into Christianity by the Roman church, who also brought in Easter, Xmas and etc.

That is the problem we face, finding the Truth.

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

richard9151  posted on  2007-10-22   23:37:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#170. To: Paul Revere (#168)

So you've just conceded that Jesus did exist. Precisely what you've spent this whole thread denying.

You just won't have the decency to admit you lost the argument.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2007-10-23   9:21:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#171. To: Paul Revere (#160) (Edited)

Whatever, Aristedious.

If I thought your opinion mattered, I would address your comments further. I don't.

But, even though you've lost the argument, you continue to insult me. I guess you won't forgive somebody who points out an error you make, and who beats you in an argument.

I wonder if you realize how much you've revealed about what sort of person you are.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2007-10-23   9:22:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#172. To: Paul Revere (#148)

Now how many jury trials have you won, professor NOBODY?

Why don't you just kick your dog? You could still get your frustrations out that way, but it wouldn't annoy us like your whiney posts do.

Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin

Minerva  posted on  2007-10-23   10:04:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#173. To: aristeides (#171)

I wonder if you realize how much you've revealed about what sort of person you are.

Everything is revealed. Everything.

Cynicom  posted on  2007-10-23   10:12:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#174. To: aristeides (#171)

Interesting how all that 'brilliance' can be tarnished so quickly. More interesting, it seems, is just who did their own tarnishing.

I congratulate you on keeping the level of debate/discussion on the high road.

rowdee  posted on  2007-10-23   11:28:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#175. To: aristeides (#170)

So you've just conceded that Jesus did exist.

No, retard, I haven't. I've concluded that talking to a sad old fart like you is a waste of time. Don't you have restrooms to troll?

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-23   12:19:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#176. To: aristeides (#171)

wonder if you realize how much you've revealed about what sort of person you are.

I've revealed what I've always revealed: my utter contempt for you, and the ignorant, simple minded ways for which you stand. Go sell crazy somewhere else, lady.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-23   12:21:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#177. To: Paul Revere (#176)

I've revealed what I've always revealed: my utter contempt for you, and the ignorant, simple minded ways for which you stand. Go sell crazy somewhere else, lady.

Sounds like somebody needs a nap.

Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin

Minerva  posted on  2007-10-23   13:17:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (178 - 195) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]