Gospel Forgeries Torah Prophecies

-Invazia regelui Sennacherib al Asiriei (circa 710 i.e.n.) si uciderea sa de catre proprii
sai fii, neatacarea Ierusalimului; Isaia 37.36,38 si 36.1,2
-Prezicerea, cu o suta de ani inainte, a invaziei Babilonului impotriva Israelului (Iudea)
si distrugerea regatului israelian; Isaia 39.5,7
-Prezicerea, cu o suta cincizeci de ani inainte, a cuceririi Babilonului de catre MedoPersi; Isaia 13.17,22-Prezicerea, cu aproape doua sute de ani inainte, a refacerii
Templului din Ierusalim de catre regele Cirus al Persiei; Isaia 44.28 si 45.4
-Prezicerea, cu aproape trei sute de ani inainte, a invingerii Medo-Persilor de catre
Grecia; prezicerea domniei lui Alexandru Macedon si a impartirii imperiului sau intre
cei patru generali; Daniel 8.19,23
-Prezicerea, cu sapte sute de ani inainte, a locului nasterii lui Iisus Christos; Mica 5.2
-Prezicerea, cu sute de ani inainte, a detaliilor vietii lui Iisus Christos: Isaia 35.4,6,
52.13,14, 52.15, 53.1,6, 53.9; prezicerea vanzarii si a tradarii facuta de Iuda pentru 30 de
monezi de argint a Mantuitorului Iisus, Zaharia 11.12,13; prezicerea, cu o mie de ani
inainte, a suferintei crucificarii, Psalmi 22.16,18; prezicerea anului nasterii si
mortii/invierii lui Iisus, Daniel 8,9,10.
Torah/Old Testament prophecies fulfilled:
Chapters 2 and 3 from Late Great Planet Earth:
http://books.google.ro/books?
id=cWt3rSMgmm8C&dq=late+great+planet+earth+pdf&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl
=ro&ei=5yfOScbxMMXDAa2htXUBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA19,M1
http://books.google.ro/books?
id=cWt3rSMgmm8C&dq=late+great+planet+earth+pdf&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl
=ro&ei=5yfOScbxMMXDAa2htXUBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA27,M1
Documentatia completa a falsificarii celor patru evanghelii de catre conspiratorii esenieni, si a
epistolelor din Noul Testament, de asemenea adaugarea primelor trei capitole (plus citatul cu
blasfemia din cap. 22) din Apocalipsa (al carei autor a fost Ioan Botezatorul).
Multe alte informatii si despre Vechiul Testament.
Cateva greseli neintentionate legate de traducerea Bibliei:
-Prima este traducerea termenului ABUR (VAPOR DE AER) in STILP DE SARE
(nevasta lui Lot a fost ucisa de ploaia de meteoriti care sa intamplat la Sodomah,
sumerieni numind radiatia acesteia, vintul cel rau--nu a fost vorba deloc de vreo
explozie 'nucleara');
-In Geneza 6, termenul gigantii (NEPHILIM) se traduce si in 'cei care au venit din
ceruri pe Pamint';
-Cuvintele CAMILA si FUNIE GROASA sunt asemanatoare, cel care a tradus 'e mai
usor sa intre camila prin gaura acului...' nu si-a dat seama;
-In Geneza termenul NUME a fost tradus dezastruos de catre cei care nu cunosteau

limba sumeriana in care se vorbeste despre SEM (SHAMAH) adica 'vehicol zburator
ceresc' sau farfurie zburatoare;
-Cind Adam a vazut-o pe Eva pentru prima data a rostit o exclamatie de admiratie si
incantare si nicidecum 'os din osul meu, carnea din carnea mea', asa cum a fost tradus
din ebraica...
-Cea mai interesanta dintre toate greselile neintentionate s-a comis in Apocalipsa 13. Am
cercetat versiunea originala greceasca pentru fraza 'ranit de sabie' si 'care avea rana de
sabie si traia' si intradevar au fost traduse gresit: in original spune asa 'whose deadly
wound was healed' 13:14 si mai ales 'FATALLY WOULD COME BACK TO LIFE'
13:12, care se potriveste mult mai bine cu personajul din Apocalipsa 13.
http://www.neogen.ro/group/33645/view-posts/61198
http://www.neogen.ro/group/33645/view-posts/61200
Conspiratorii Essenieni au introdus si alte citate complet false in Noul Testament, de la
falsificarea completa a Evangheliilor dupa Ioan si Luca, la falsificarea epistolelor semnate
Ioan, Iacov si Iuda (am aratat mai sus the forgeries of the Peter epistles), dar nu s-au oprit
aici...
Tot ei au copiat profetiile originale ale lui Ioan Botezatorul, si anume cap. 4-22 din
Apocalipsa, la care au adaugat cap. 1-3, complet false, si blasfemia de neimaginat, adica
Luceafarul de Dimineata, din doua locuri din Apocalipsa...
Iata site-ul care discuta acest aspect:
http://www.thegodabovegod.com/index_files/Jim%20West%20Articles/Lucifer%20the
%20Lightbringer.htm
Cina cea de Taina falsificata
http://www.forumcrestin.com/index.php?topic=3829.msg484611#msg484611
http://www.forumcrestin.com/index.php?topic=3829.msg484641#msg484641
But look for a moment at this vignette from the gospel attributed to John, Chapter 13 :
43N 13 4



43N 13 4 He rose from the supper and laid aside his garments. And, taking a towel, he
girded himself
43N 13 5




43N 13 5 Next he threw water into the wash basin and began to wash the feet of the
learners - and to wipe them off with the towel with which he was girded
43N 13 6

43N 13 6 Then he came to Simon Peter - (who) said to him "Lord, do you wash my
feet?"
43N 13 7

43N 13 7 Jesus answered - and he said to him "What I am doing you have not now
understood. But with these things you shall learn to know"
A gnostic scenario - and a gnostic statement to go with it. 'You have not yet understood.
Raymond Brown, in his book 'The Gospel According to John' [Ref.1], notes that "... it was
customary hospitality to provide water for a guest to wash his own feet. But as the Midrash
Mekilta on Exodus xxi 2 tells us, the washing of a master's feet could not be required [even]
of a Jewish slave". Again he writes that "... there was nothing in the ritual of the Passover
meal that can be compared to the footwashing. Footwashing was done when one entered the
house, not during the course of the meal".
The story seems thus incongruous. Taken as a record of a social gathering, it is not a realistic
scenario.
V-ati uitat cu atentie vreodata la Evanghelia dupa Ioan? Nu?
13,1.
Iar nainte de srbtoarea Patilor, tiind Iisus c a sosit ceasul
Lui, ca s treac din lumea aceasta la Tatl, iubind pe ai Si cei din lume,
pn la sfrit i-a iubit.
In acelasi capitol, si discutia despre Iuda si tradarea sa...
Din Matei:
26,17.
n cea dinti zi a Azimelor, au venit ucenicii la Iisus i L-au
ntrebat: Unde voieti s-i pregtim s mnnci Patile?
Discutia despre Iuda, in acelasi capitol...
Din Marcu:
14,12.
Iar n ziua cea dinti a Azimilor, cnd jertfeau Patile, ucenicii Lui
L-au ntrebat: Unde voieti s gtim, ca s mnnci Patile?
EPISODUL CU SPALAREA PICIOARELOR NU A AVUT NICIODATA LOC; NU AR
FI AVUT CUM SA AIBA, DATA FIIND INTERDICTIA COMPLETA DIN VECHIUL
TESTAMENT:
Numeri 28,18
Numeri 28:18 n ziua dinti, s fie o adunare sfnt: s nu facei nici o
lucrare de slug n ea.

Cei care au scris Evanghelia dupa Ioan, au mutat episodul Cina

cea de Taina, din prima zi de sarbatoare in ziua precedenta, DAR
AU UITAT SA MODIFICE DISCUTIA DESPRE IUDA, PREZENTATA IN
CELELALTE EVANGHELII CA FIIND PURTATA IN ZIUA INTAI DE
PASSOVER, CAND IISUS NU AR FI AVUT CUM SA SPELE PICIOARELE
CELOR 12 APOSTOLI, DATA FIIND INTERDICTIA CLARA DIN NUMERI
DE A PRESTA VREO LUCRARE DE SLUGA: Numeri 28:18 n ziua
dinti, s fie o adunare sfnt: s nu facei nici o lucrare de slug
n ea.
Sarbatoarea Azimilor (Passover/Pesach) includea doar paine
NEDOSPITA, in greceste AZYMOS, si niciodata si nicidecum paine
dospita, in greceste ARTOS. In episodul numit Cina dea de Taina,
este folosit cuvantul ARTOS, lucru absolut imposibil
While there are several uses of the word Azumos (unleavened
Bread) in the NT none of them refer to the bread used in the
Lords Supper, but rather they are either references to the feast
of unleavened bread (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:1, Mark 14:12,
Luke 22:1, Luke 22:7, Acts 12:3, Acts 20:6) or an analogy for a
congregation purging out sin from their midst and walking in
holiness (1 Corinthians 5:8).
In all other places that the word bread occurs in the NT, it is the
Greek word Artos meaning a loaf of common leavened bread.
Nothing leavened may you eat; wherever you dwell you may eat only
unleavened bread."
Exodus 12:20
3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat
unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction; for in haste didst
thou come forth out of the land of Egypt; that thou mayest remember the
day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy
life.
Painea insotita de vin era un ritual pagan, introdus cu viclenie in cele patru
evanghelii, pentru a induce in eroare pe cei care credeau in marturia lui
Iisus. Vinul/mustul erau absolut interzise pentru liderii spirituali/religiosi
din Israel:
Vezi Levitic 10.9, Ezechiel 44.21, Exod 30.9
Levitic 10.10
Proverbe 31.45, Osea 4.11, Eclez. 10.16
De asemenea, la acea Cina, lipsesc celelalte ingrediente specifice Pastelui
Evreiesc...

http://www.nabion.org/html/gospel_of_john.html )supersite=

http://paracleteforum.org/archive/email/bible/johnauthentic/dialogue.html
http://www.christianorigins.com/4gproblem.html
http://vridar.wordpress.com/2007/01/27/loisy-on-the-gospel-of-john/
http://www.geocities.com/atheistdivine/john.html
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/john.html
http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/LifeJ/TeacherJesusJn.htm
Instead the speeches of Jesus in John's Gospel are often a whole chapter long and sound like
profound "theological" teaching. What John tells about Jesus' last days and hours of his life
is also different from what the Synoptic Gospels had found in the tradition of the community
of believers. There is no mentioning of a "Last Supper" during which Jesus gave bread and
wine as symbols of his life for mankind. In John's Gospel Jesus gives his friends during the
(Paschal-)meal the example of his serving-love by washing their feet, then he talks to them
and prays for them to the Father and for all those who will come to believe in him through
their testimony. John does neither speak about Jesus' suffering in the garden of Gethsemane
nor does he mention Jesus' "ascension" to the Father.
Ati citit cu atentie primul capitol din Ioan?
Cititi aceasta analiza senzationala:
http://www.nabion.org/html/gospel_of_john.html
Today, many believe that the Gospel of John has in fact undergone
massive changes from its original writings; that originally it was a false
Gnostic gospel written by Cerinthus.
In Greek it was called the Logos the very concept that opens the Gospel
of John, and one that is now lamely attributed to meaning Word as a
metaphor of Christ. Logos in Greek never meant word in this context. It is
the word from which even English derives the word for logic the
reason; the meaning. (I heard one preacher say that Rema means written
word in Greek and logos is oral word. Both statements are incredibly
false). Logos is essentially The Force.
It is clear from the beginning of the Gospel of John that Cerinthus
particular Gnosticism is detectable, whether redacted or not by John the
Elder. Actually, before quoting, it is plain to see that being ignorant of
Gnosticism has buffered the true Christian from seeing that the author of
the introduction does divide between God, Logos, Jesus Christ and the

Father, because the basic Christian has read them as all the same. But
when one realizes Cerinthus philosophy, as set forward by Irenaeus, one
can see plainly that Cerinthian philosophy is dominant, though slightly
Christianized. Read it again:
In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the
Logos was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things
were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was
made. [4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men. [5] And the
light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. [6] There
was a man sent from God, whose name was John. [7] The same came for a
witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might
believe. [8] He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that
Light. [9] That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh
into the world. [10] He was in the world, and the world was made by him,
and the world knew him not. [11] He came unto his own, and his own
received him not. [12] But as many as received him, to them gave he
power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
[13] Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the
will of man, but of God. [14] And the Logos was made flesh, and dwelt
among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of
the Father,) full of grace and truth. [15] John bare witness of him, and
cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is
preferred before me: for he was before me. [16] And of his fullness have
all we received, and grace for grace. [17] For the law was given by Moses,
but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. [18] No man hath seen God at
any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he
hath declared him.
An interesting arrangement. The Logos is the creative reason and power
behind God, intimately a part of him, and it was in the world before it
takes on bodily form as Jesus, begotten not of God but of the Father.
Again, an interesting derivation: No man hath seen God at any time; the
only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared
him. The Father and God appear separate entities.
DECI, LOGOS INSEMNA DE FAPT UN CONCEPT PAGAN DERIVAT DIN
MISTERELE EGIPTENE...

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/plott/start/johnE.html )very good

http://www.bibletoday.com/harmony/trinity_text.htm )good
http://www.nabion.org/html/trinity.html

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01594b.htm
http://latter-rain.com/church/cerin.htm

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/dionysius_syrus_revelation_01.htm
http://www.nabion.org/html/irrelevant_revelation.html
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976733655
http://www.nabion.org/html/apocryphal_apocolypticism.html
Dr. Schleiermacher, one of Germany's greatest theologians, after a critical analysis of Luke,
concludes that it is merely a compilation, made up of thirty-three preexisting manuscripts.
Bishop Thirlwall's Schleiermacher says: "He [Luke] is from beginning to end no more than
the compiler and arranger of documents which he found in existence" (p. 313).
The basis of this Gospel is generally believed to be the Gospel of Marcion, a Pauline
compilation, made about the middle of the second century. Concerning this Gospel, the Rev.
S. Baring-Gould in his Lost and Hostile Gospels, says: "The arrangement is so similar that we
are forced to the conclusion that it was either used by St. Luke or that it was his original
composition. If he used it then his right to the title of author of the Third Gospel falls to the
ground, as what he added was of small amount."

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg03.htm supersite
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm
http://www.nabion.org/html/gnosticism.html
http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/ending-mark.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mark_16.htm

Massyngberde-Ford, J. Revelation: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. The Anchor

Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975.
Massynberde-Ford believes that the Apocalypse is a patchwork of editing based on a
pre-Christian apocalypse originating from John the Baptizer and his disciples. Her
theories have been rejected by virtually all Revelation scholars. The value of the book lies
in its fresh, idiomatic paraphrase of the Greek text.
The Evangelist then added text of his own, notably the letters to the seven churches.
The difference in writing style is apparent in the letters to the churches also.
These scholars argue convincingly that Chapters 4 through 11 had their origin in the
Baptist's preaching and that chapters 4 through 11 are the earliest portions of the

Apocalypse. J. M. Ford explains all of this in detail (The Anchor Bible: Revelation: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), p. 3).
http://www.geocities.com/mauricewms2003/Lindex.html

http://www.deusdiapente.net/science/nt.php
http://www.deusdiapente.net/science/gospels.php )interesting=
GJohn contains some of the longest, most otherwordly and most implausible speeches for
Jesus. The length of the discourses in itself mitigates against their historicity simply by virtue
of the implausibilty of those speeches surviving verbatim for 70 or more years in the memory
of this fisherman (and nowhere else. These discourses are found nowhere else in early
Christian literature). They do not have the short and sweet anecdotal quality of the Q
pericopes which are easy to remember and transmit through oral tradition.
GJohn also shows layered authorship. It is not the contiguous work of a single author but the
result of multiple redactions by multiple hands.
Supersite
http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/gospel-john.html
Then later, according to the theory, an unknown person tried to introduce some new ideas into
the gospel. To do so, this second author invented long speeches for Jesus, and also added
several new theological concepts. This author may have also eliminated some material, such
as stories about demonic possessions.
If this theory is correct, the long speeches in John are fabrications that give a false picture of
how Jesus talked and what he said. And some of the ideas in the gospel come from a later
stage in the development of Christianity than what is found in the other gospels.
http://www.islam-guide.com/bqs/12cotradictions.htm
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1592/
john baptist revelation
Finally, the letters to the seven churches were added (Ford, p. 3).

http://www.geocities.com/mauricewms2003/
http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/584677
(2) A newer camp: The central chapters of the book (4-19) were written prior to the
destruction of Jerusalem -- perhaps as a result of vision(s) by St. John the Baptist, with the
first four and closing chapters written later by the evangelist. The harlot of Babylon refers to
corrupt Jesusalem. The prophetic vision of the destruction of Babylon (Jerusalem) was what
motivated the early Christians to flee the city, saving them from elimination with the Jews
during the destruction of 70 AD.

However, as part of her thesis, she also promotes that idea of the central portions of the
Revelation occurred prior to 70 AD, and provided the impedus for the Christian evacuation of
the city. This idea appears in work by other authors.
Although many Biblical scholars claim that John the Evangelist wrote all of Revelation at
Patmos in A.D. 96, some Biblical scholars claim that the Evangelist did not compose chapters
4 through 11. John the Baptist was the source of those chapters. J. M. Ford in the Anchor
Bibles commentary, in the volume entitled Revelation, supports this claim (Ford, pp. 3, 28).
She concurs with Boismard, Hopkins, and others that Revelation chapters 411 and 1222
were the oral preaching of John the Baptist and reflect his own and, later, his disciples
understanding of He that cometh before Christ began his public ministry (Ford, p. 3).
Doyle, in his 2005 interpretation of Revelation, agrees with Ford (Doyle), p. xii) and states
that Revelation was written over a thirty-year period, with many additions, insertions, and
elaborations (Doyle, p. 97).
Ford suggests that chapters 1222 were composed at a later date (in the mid 60s) but still had
their initial origin from the Baptists disciples who predicted the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Ford suggests that chapters 13 (the letters to the seven churches) were added last by a Jewish
Christian disciple who knew Jesus Christ (Ford, p. 3). There is no doubt that disciple was
John the Evangelist. Ford cites a nine-page General Selected Bibliography containing
books and articles discussing Revelation (Ford, pp. 5866).
http://www.manicreaders.com/index.cfm?disp=bookDetail&bookid=3375
Just the past week I was looking at some very informal and preliminary work I did on the
New Testament book of Revelation, inspired by my former colleague at the University of
Notre Dame, Josephine Masssyngberde Ford in her volume on Revelation in the Anchor
Bible Commentary series (now Anchor Yale Bible Commentary, edited by J. J. Collins).
Although colleagues have been fairly critical of Fords work in this volume, and particularly
her claim that the book of Revelation can be traced back to pre-Christian John the Baptizer
circles, with links to Qumran and the DSS, I have found her basic insights quite compelling.
In opinia mea, doar capitolele 4-19 au fost scrise de Ioan Botezatorul; iar din capitolul 20,
doar o parte din aceasta sectiune, si anume versetele 11-15, pentru ca versetele 1-10 contrazic
atat continutul Cartii lui Enoh cat si Geneza.

THE THREE HEAVENLY WITNESSES FORGERY

Bishop Clement of Alexandria, writing around 200 A.D., thus quotes a comparatively trivial
and innocuous passage from the forged First Epistle of St. John (v, 7),which, through
fraudulent tampering later became one of the chief stones of the corner of the Holy Church
that the Fathers built: John says: For there are three that bear witness, the spirit, and the
water, and the blood: and these three are one. (Clem. Alex., Fragment from Cassiodorus, ch.
iii; ANF. iii, 576.) This is self-evidently the original text of this now famous, or infamous,
passage. Turning now to the Word of God as found in the Authorized Protestant and in the
Chaloner-Douay Version of the Catholic Vulgate, we read with wonder: {193}

7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Ghost: and these three are one.
8. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one. (I John, v, 7, 8.)
Let us now turn to the same text, or what is left of it, in the Revised Version. Here we read,
with more wonder (if we do not know the story of pious fraud behind it), what seems to be a
garbled text:
8. For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the
three agree in one.
Erasmus first detected the fraud and omitted the forged verse in his edition of the Greek
Testament in 1516. (New Comm. Pt. III, p. 718-19.) This verse 7, bluntly speaking, is a
forgery: It had been wilfully and wickedly interpolated, to sustain the Trinitarian doctrine; it
has been entirely omitted by the Revisers of the New Testament. (Roberts, Companion to the
Revised Versions p. 72.) This memorable text, says Gibbon, is condemned by the silence
of the Fathers, ancient versions, and authentic manuscripts, of all the manuscripts now extant,
above four score in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old. (Ch. xxvii, p.
598.) Speaking of this and another, Reinach says: One of these forgeries (I John v, 7) was
subjected to interpolation of a later date. ... If these two verses were Authentic, they would be
an affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity, at a time when the gospels, and Acts and St. Paul
ignore it. It was first pointed out in 1516 that these verses were an interpolation, for they do
not appear in the best manuscripts down to the fifteenth century. The Roman Church refused
to bow to the evidence. ... The Congregation of the Index, on January 13, 1897, with the
approbation of Leo XIII, forbade any question of the authenticity of the text relating to the
Three Heavenly Witnesses. It showed in this instance a wilful ignorance to which St.
Gregorys rebuke is specially applicable: God does not need our lies. (Orpheus, p. 239.)
But His Church does; for without them it would not be; and without the forged Three
Heavenly Witnesses, and the forged Baptism Formula of Matthew (xxviii, 19), there
would be not a word in the entire New Testament hinting the existence of the Three-in-One
God of Christianity. The Holy Trinity is an unholy Forgery!
Lest it be thought by some pious but uninformed persons that the foregoing imputation may
be either false or malicious, we shall let CE. make the confession of shame, with the usual
clerical evasions to save the face of Holy Church confronted with this proven forgery and
fraud. From a lengthy and detailed review, under separate headings, of all the ancient MSS.,
Greek, Syriac, Ethiopia, Armenian, Old Latin, and of the Fathers, the following is condensed,
but in the exact words of the text:
The famous passage of the Three Witnesses [quoting I John, v, 7]. Throughout the past three
hundred years, effort has been made to expunge from our Clementine Vulgate edition of the
canonical Scriptures the words that are bracketed. Let us examine the facts of the case. [Here
follows the thorough {194} review of the MSS, closed in each instance by such words as:
The disputed part is found in none; no trace; no knowledge until the twelfth century,
etc. etc.] The silence of the great and voluminous St. Augustine, [etc.] are admitted facts that
militate against the canonicity of the Three Witnesses. St. Jerome does not seem to know the
text,[Jerome made the Vulgate Official Version].
Trents is the first certain ecumenical decree, whereby the Church established the Canon of
Scripture. We cannot say that the Decree of Trent necessarily included the Three

Witnesses[for reasons elaborately stated, and upon two conditions discussed, saying):
Neither condition has yet been verified with certainty; quite the contrary, textual criticism
seems to indicate that the Comma Johanninum was not at all times and everywhere wont to
be read in the Catholic Church, and it is not contained in the Old Latin Vulgate. However,
the Catholic theologian must take into account more than textual criticism! (CE. viii, 436.)
More shaming proofs and confessions of forgery of pretended words of the Christ . . . than of
this falsified command to preach a forged Gospel to the credulous dupes of Paganism. Gentile
Christianity collapses upon its forged foundations.
However, Christianity for Gentiles is given in Acts 15 (and 21:25). It dispenses with what
Jesus said for Jews (everything he said, actually), and keeps just four requirements. No to
blood food (including Brat, Wurst, black pudding, etc.) is one of them - as bad as adultery, or
the other way round.
Wheless thinks that baptism formulas are most likely forged too. He brings up how likely
it is that the baptism part of these gospel sections are forged. "The elaborated forgery of
Matthew, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," are sufficiently
branded with falsity in the preceding paragraphs, and may be dismissed without further
notice. And the Holy "Trinity" spoken of in it, was not actually invented until the Council of
Constantinople, in 381 AD. McCabe says "It was fraudulently added to the gospel when the
priesthood was created." It is almost certain that baptism at first was into the name of Jesus
Christ, and not formally into the name of the a Trinity. [Joseph Wheless. Forgery in
Christianity

The biblical origin of Lucifer begins in Isaiah 14:12, How you are fallen from
heaven O Lucifer, son of the morning! This quote is from the King James, but
the Hebrew text says How you have fallen from heaven O morning star, son
of the dawn! Note that the Hebrew text does not contain the proper name of
any god. I have been unable to determine if the ancient Israelites actually
identified the morning star with any angel or god. Among Semitic cultures in
general the morning star was identified with the god Azizos (Azazel?). It is in
the Greek Old Testament that the morning star was first identified with the
name of a god. Apparently the words son of the dawn reminded the
Hellenistic Jewish translators of Eosphoros in Greek tradition. Eosphoros is the
Greek equivalent of Lucifer, and this was the source from which Lucifer
entered into both Latin and English translations of the Bible, in both the Old and
New Testaments (see below).

http://www.thegodabovegod.com/index_files/Jim%20West%20Articles/Lucifer%20the
%20Lightbringer.htm )supersite=
http://www.exminister.org/Jeremiah_forgery.html

However, C.K.Barrett sees the Wedding at Cana, exclusive to John, as full of both
Hellenistic and synoptic themes. Wine rituals were central in Dionysian rites, which were
popular in Hellenism.
John had a clear knowledge and understanding of both Hellenistic and Jewish ideas. There is
a clear hostility to the Jews and a very definite separation between the two groups.
This contrast between the Dionysian Christ and the Essene John continues in Luke 7:33 "For
John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, 'He hath a devil'.
The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, 'Behold a gluttonous man, and a
winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!' But wisdom is justified of all her children."
The Eucharist of Maria:
The living sacrament of Maria is named teonanactl - "the flesh of the gods" of the Aztecs,
Toltecs and the Mayas, called by Wasson "the divine mushroom of immortality".
"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,
and drink his blood,
ye have no life in you." (John 6:53)
"Take, eat. This is my body (soma) and blood which is shed for you."
The flesh of the gods reverses the sacrificial cycle, in which the living flesh of man was
offered to the gods. The gods are instead offering us their flesh - a neutral gift of the fungal
kingdom, which can heal the rift between the planter goddess and the shepherd king, and
replace the flesh and blood of human sacrifice with the reward of peace. It forms a convergent
ending for two great sacrificial traditions. The lightning of Tlaloc, in which the sky father
fertilizes the earth mother is itself the sacred hieros gamos of the cosmos in which the
mushroom was mythically created, prophesying its sacred role between the sexes. It is the
Dune spice of Gaea. It is the sacrament of the White Goddess of the moon, whose sacred tree,
the Alder is the preferred substrate for Ps. cyanescens, widespread in Europe. The Eleusinian
rites appear to have used a similar mushroom.
According to John, Jesus performed his first public miracle at a wedding feast in Cana, when
he turned water into wine (John 2:1-11). Similarly, Pagan myth records Dionysus turning
water into wine at his own wedding to Ariadne (Freke/Gandy, 38). Also in John, Jesus
miraculously helped his disciples catch a large number of fish at the Sea of Galilee -- 153, to
be precise (John 21 : 11). In the aretalogy written by Porphyry, the great mathematician
Pythagoras also performed this supernatural feat. Further, the Pythagoreans regarded 153 as a
sacred number due to its use in a mathematical ratio called "the measure of the fish," which
produces the mystical symbol of the vesica pisces -- the intersection of two circles which
yields a fish-like shape. This "sign of the fish" is, of course, still widely used today as a
symbol of Christianity (Freke/Gandy, 39).
http://www.greatdreams.com/numbers/jerry/153.htm supersite

Why does almost everyone but a committed Catholic believe that the
fourth gospel is a fake?
Consider the evidence:
Points of detail at odds with the synoptic gospels:
the duration of Christ's public ministry is extended by John from one
year to over three years, during which time John recounts three visits
by Jesus to Jerusalem, not just one; within this extended time frame,
John moves the so-called purification of the temple, which the synoptics
put at the end of the Christ's ministry, to the beginning.
John does not agree with the others on the day of crucifixion
surely an occasion of the utmost import? John says Christ held his last
supper with his apostles on Thursday; according to the synoptics, the last
supper was on Friday.
OK, so the old mans memory could have been failing (though he
remembers torturous dialogue verbatim!). But then consider the content
of the gospel very different from what we would expect from the
memoirs of an apostle:
While the synoptics focus on the anticipated Kingdom of God (and
Christ is Son of Man), John centres on Christ himself, as Son of God
and eternal king, and upon the evangelical goal of convincing others that
Christ was the Messiah sentiments more in keeping with an
established church.
the advanced theology of the fourth gospel is difficult to reconcile with
the homely simplicity of the synoptics; this is allegedly an old fishermans
tale, after all.
the long discourses and colloquies of Jesus remembered so clearly
after more than sixty years?
the dogmatic character of John's narrative sits oddly alongside the moral
discourses of Jesus in the synoptic gospels.
Oddities:

John's Gospel is the work of a trained mind who wrote good Greek
with some semitizing; but Acts 4.13 says that John was illiterate.
John makes little reference to Galilee, which is scarcely what we
would expect from a native of the province, especially since Galilee
(supposedly) was the centre of Christs ministry. Nor does he mention at
all his brother James.

 John makes frequent and unnecessary references to the "the

Jews", as if they were a hostile group, e.g. "as I said unto the Jews"
(John 13.33) said by Jesus (a Jew) to a group of Jews. He was one of
them, was he not? John's knowledge of Judaism is also tainted. Critics cite
John 18.13 in this regard (as if there were an annual priest): "and
brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the
high priest that year."
The author of this work would hardly refer to himself as "the disciple
Jesus loved."
John does NOT mention the 'Transfiguration' when supposedly
Jesus was joined by Moses and Elias on a mountain top, transformed into
"glory" and was addressed by God himself an astounding omission
considering that we are informed by each of the synoptic gospels that
John was one of only three eye witnesses to this stunning miracle!
"And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up
into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. And his
raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.
And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus." Mark
9.2,9.
Similarly, John omits any mention of the raising of Jairus's daughter but according to
Mark's gospel it was John who was a privileged witness:
"And he suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, and James, and John the brother of
James. And he cometh to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and seeth the tumult, and
them that wept and wailed greatly ... And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she
was of the age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great astonishment." Mark
5.37,42.
Nor does John mention the 'Ascension', one of the crucial events of the whole Christian
story. Yet apparently John was a witness to this grand finale whereas the two reporters of the
bizarre story (Mark and Luke) were not!
"And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered
together, and them that were with them, And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the
midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you ... And it came to pass, while he
blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven." Luke 24.33,51.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/john.htm
(un site interesant, dar care merge mult prea departe, autorii nu au cercetat destul
profetiile Vechiului Testament)
(an interesting site, but which goes much too far, its authors have not researched
thoroughly the subject, the prophecies concerning the Messiah, in the Torah)

For example, the gnostic Marcion was using a Gospel of Luke around 140 CE which did not
conform to our canonical text; chapters 1 and 2 are later additions. The last 12 verses of
Mark's Gospel and the last chapter of John's Gospel are also later additions. The church father
Origen acknowledged that manuscripts had been edited and passages added to suit the needs
of the changing theological climate [2]. As already shown, all the revisions have done nothing
to remove the major discrepancies in the gospels.
Once an historical Jesus had been created, the Acts of the Apostles was written (150-177 CE)
to account for his disciples. It reads like a fantasy novel, misquotes the Old Testament, and
contradicts Paul's letters. It is now acknowledged to be largely if not entirely a fabricated
picture of Christian origins designed to serve the purposes of the Roman Church. Finally, the
Letters of the Apostles were written (177-220 CE). Modern scholars have shown that the
letters ascribed to Peter, James and John are forgeries written much later to combat heretical
(gnostic) ideas within the early church; they attack 'many deceivers' who 'will not
acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh' (2 John 7).
Meier[53] notes that several points of interest about the seemingly simple story of the
miracle at Cana turn out to be not so simple. First, he notes that this story is especially
puzzling and that it resembles in some ways the only other gift miraclethe feeding of the
multitude. Meier notes that there are three specific points that set this miracle apart from all
the other miracle stories in the Gospels.

Instead of a clear petition on the part of someone for help, there is only the laconic
observation of Jesus mother: They have no wine (John 2.3). Meier notes that in
this story there are ellipsis and silence where further explanation is often imagined
by commentators.
The miracle is seemingly performed in an indirect fashion. Jesus simply gives two
orders to the servants: fill the jars with water...[and] draw off some of the liquid and
bring it to the headwaiter (John 2.7-8).
Meier notes, lastly, the concluding acclamation is likewise indirect and allusive. The
wine steward simply notes that the best wine was left for last (John 2.10). Meier notes
that it is Johannine irony that has the person extolling the quality of the wine in
2:10 not realizing that he is acclaiming a miracle but the servants knew (John 2.9).

Meier also notes that this miracle is unlike every other miracle story.Within the Four
Gospels, the wine miracle of Cana truly stands alone.[54] Meier[55] comments that of the
two miracles in The Gospel according to John that are performed in Cana [the second is the
healing of the officials son], the first of the miracles at Cana shows itself to be the
beginning in more ways than one.
Rensberger[66] notes that Nicodemus is a symbolic figure who is to be understood as a
communal symbolic figure. He cites evidence within the Gospel itself for Nicodemus as a
symbolic figure. Rensberger notes that in 3.2 Nicodemus addresses Jesus: Rabbi, we know
you are a teacher come from God. He notes that later Jesus tells him, You people must be
born again (3.7). Rensberger further cites 3.11-12 where the plural is used yet again: We
speak of what we know, and testify to what we have seen, and you people do not accept our
testimony; Rensberger then refers to Jesus speaking to you people of earthly and heavenly
things, which you people fail to believe. [67]

Rensberger elaborates that the use of these plural terms must signify that Nicodemus does not
stand for an individual person but for some specific group. Rensberger states that the group
for which Nicodemus stands is the Johannine Christians over against the group represented
by Nicodemus.
This writer is willing to consider the validity of Rensbergers argument. It could be that
Nicodemus could stand for bothhimself and the group of which he is a member.
Meier[68] states that Jesus is noted to engage in civilized debate or even friendly dialogue
with Pharisees, scribes, or rulers, the priests are never presented in such positive light; so
the Sadducees are not considered. Thus, it is apparent that Nicodemus was one of those
Pharisees who were willing to listen to Jesus, debate with him, and consider his teachings.
Proto-Gnostic Symbolism: T.G. Brown[69] goes on to state that Jesus statement about being
born anew in 3.3 would result in the person bearing an honor status of Godreceiving an
honor rating commensurate with divine birth[being] deemed worthy of the kingdom of
God. She goes on to elaborate that [b]y emphasizing spiritual birthas the prerequisite to
eternal life, the Evangelist is setting up a dualistic structure, contrasting the earthly sphere
with the God-sphere.
Painter[70] notes what this writer considers a Proto-Gnostic symbolism hidden within the
narrative of this story. He calls attention to the fact that Nicodemus came to Jesus by night
and the furtive nature of the visit. The knowledge that Nicodemus sought from Jesus would
bring to light Nicodemus search for information. This again is a dualistic symbolism that
would easily be understood by readers of the time.
This writer notes that there is further dualistic reference in this story. Jesus tells Nicodemus,
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the
kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit
is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, You must be born anew. The wind blows where it
wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know when it comes or whither it goes; so
it is with every one who is born of the Spirit (3.5-8).
This statement of Jesus contains the dualistic baptismal symbolism of being born of
water/spirit and the dualistic symbolism of spirit/flesh. Even the term wind is a reference to
the Spirit as the words for spirit and wind are the same in Greek, pneuma.
Reprise: This writer sees a reprise to the story of Nicodemus. It is Nicodemus who together
with Joseph of Arimathea who at the death of Jesus came with 100 pounds of myrrh and
aloes, wrapped the body of Jesus in linen cloths and buried Jesus in the tomb in the garden
(19.39-41).
In elaborating on these three points T.G. Brown observes that the first detail noted about the
woman in Johns Gospel is that she came to draw water at midday (4.6-7). This bit of
information informs the reader that she came alone to draw water at a very unusual time.
Women usually drew water in the mornings and/or the evenings and always came in the
company of other women. T.G. Brown notes that the Samaritan woman by going to the well
alone at this particular time enters into public space, or male space. She further elaborates
that the ancient Mediterranean world was basically divided into two areas: public and private.
Public space was reserved for men; private space, specifically, the home, was reserved for

women; at specific times and with certain accompanying reservations women could invade
public space without opprobrium; that is, women could be in public space at certain times
when domestic responsibilities were being fulfilled. These places were generally restricted to
public wells and ovens. As a result of these rules, male space allowed interaction with non-kin
individuals; female space allowed women contact only with males who were family.
Burge[77] comments, Johns Gospel is the only NT writing to mention living water. It
seems clear from Burges following comments that the teaching in this story is directed at the
Jews of the synagogue. Burge notes the following points:

John has Jesus using living water in conceptually parallel ways: The Old
Testament, Jewish monuments, and Jewish institutions are contrasted with the gift of
Jesus.
In this story the historic well of Jacob becomes redundant when Jesus offers his
living water.
Water was a metaphor for the Spirit in both Old Testament and Rabbinic thought.
The Qumran also used water and Spirit as a metaphor, but from the standpoint of a
ritual sense of purification.
Jesus also referred to water and Spirit in the story of Nicodemus (3.5) noted above:
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter
the kingdom of God.
The metaphor of the living water depicts two things:
o The valueless institution which Jesus replaces in his person.
o The newness Jesus brings.

Lastly, Burge notes that his story has its climax in the Samaritan expectation of living water
which is fulfilled if one believes in Jesus. He notes that John then lists christological titles
that give substance to this belief: prophet (vv.19, 44), Messiah and Christ (v. 25), I am.(v
26), and Savior of the world (v. 42).
T.G. Brown,[78] citing several scholars, notes living water is interpreted as a metaphor for
spirit and refers to the story of Nicodemus 3.5 where Jesus speaks of being born of water
and the spirit; she then notes that being born of the spirit opens up possibility of receiving
the eternal life available through Jesus. She cites John 19.34 where Jesus side is pierced and
water and blood came out of the wound. She concludes that drinking living water means a
transition from the earthly realm into becoming one of Gods children. She notes [as this
writer has noted previously in this paper] that here too symbols are integrally related
concepts where living water/spirit will become a spring of water welling up to eternal
life (4.14). The living water/spirit that Jesus offers opens up the possibility of entrance into
the realm of God and eternal life by allowing believers a new ascribed honor status as
children of God.
T.G. Brown notes that the conversation concludes with Jesus disclosing to her his identity as
the Messiah, in the form of an absolute I am statement (v.26). This is the first occurrence of
the I am formula in the Gospel and the absence of a statement of who I am functions to
recall the utterance of the divine name in the Old Testament. Lastly, she notes that the
narrative closes with this marginalized group of people giving voice to the most exemplary
confession in the Gospel thus far: It is no longer because of your (the Samaritan womans)
words that we (the people of the town in which the Samaritan woman lives) believe, for we

have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world (4.42).
Painter[79] notes that the story of the Samaritan woman takes up a new theme not discussed
before in The Gospel according to John. He states that in his opinion John himself developed
the story of Jesus dealing with the Samaritans. He agrees with T.G. Brown stating, Jesus was
not restricted by the conventions of his time but freely initiated this relationship with a
Samaritan woman (4.9). Painter does note that obviously Jews and Samaritans did associate
at certain levels because the disciples had purchased food (4.31). He notes that it was the
context [that] was unusual. He also agrees that while Nicodemus simply disappears, the
woman responded positively to Jesus. He concludes that by the end of the story the
Samaritan womans search for life has been satisfied beyond her expectation.
Meier[99] notes that the entirety of chapter nine is such a huge and complicated work of
literary and theological art that a number of stages of tradition and redaction must have taken
place between the primitive miracle story[100] and the monumental tract of Johannine
theology that is chapter nine. He notes that the core of this story of the man born blind must
have originated in Jesus time as this story takes for granted the topography of pre-A.D. 70
Jerusalem. Specifically, the pool of Siloam is known to have existed before C.E. 70 from
two independent sources, Josephus and the Copper Scroll found at Qumram; it seems the pool
at Siloam was destroyed when the Temple was destroyed.
Meier also notes that another unique element in the story of the man born blind is that Jesus
used spittle to make mud to anoint the eyes of the blind man but that it is only when the
man washes in the pool that he can see. Meier notes, Apparently the mud is meant to
symbolize the blindness that is washed away when the blind man obeys Jesus command to
wash in Siloam. He further notes that the man born blind is a convenient symbol of a
humanity born into a world of spiritual darkness.
Proto-Gnostic Symbolism and Hellenistic Elements: Painter[101] considers that 9.3-5 (Jesus
answered, It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be
made manifest in him. We must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day; night
comes, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. ) is
the beginning of symbolic development of the themes of sight and blindness which are
concluded in verses 13-38; these verses are those where the Pharisees interrogate the man
born blind, accuse Jesus of working on the Sabbath, interrogate the mans parents about his
blindness, interrogate the man a second time, and end up expelling the man born blind from
the synagogue.
Painter[117] notes that Mary is a known person in this story as she is noted as being the one
who wiped the feet of Jesus with her hair (a story from the following chapter 12). Lazarus is
identified as her brother. Painter goes on to note that it is strange that, while Mary is
mentioned first, Martha is given the leading dialogue in this story. Painter also notes that
Jesus is mentioned as having loved them all (11.5), that he was deeply moved in spirit and
troubled (11.33), that Jesus wept (11.35), and that Jesus was deeply moved again (11.38).
[118]
http://www.theandros.com/pregnostic.html

Even one of the canonical books of the New Testament- the Gospel of John- is primarily of
Gnostic origin. In it we can see a heavy Egyptian influence. The book begins with the words:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The
same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not
any thing made
This is a reflection of the Gnostic concept of the Logos ("Word"). The Logos is an aspect of
the Christos ("Anointed One")- the Divine Spirit of Redemption that existed long before the
birth of Jesus. It was with God at the very beginning, and was in fact the very Word with
which all was created. (See Genesis I: "And God said...") It is self-created, and is equated
with both the Consciousness of God and the consciousness within mankind.
The concept descends quite directly from ancient Egyptian views

You should be struck by the somewhat strange comments following in the Gospel of
John, verses 9-17, regarding "12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of darkness" as well as
the reference to Lazarus being "dead for 4 days" especially in light of the prior
understanding when studying the Winter Solstice that it is on the 4th day, December
25th, following three days where the Sun remained "asleep" or "dead" as it sunk and
remained at the same spot on the southwestern horizon as the Sun set for 3 days in a
row. Remember for just a second what we learned; namely, that the Sun was "reborn
from the dead" on the 4th day which just happened to be December 25th.
http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/raise_lazarus_truth_sun_myth.htm /supersite=
http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/comparison_of_sungods_with_life_of_jc_concer
ned.htm
(again, the site goes too far, not understanding the prophecies concerning the Messiah in
the Torah)
http://www.gnostics.com/reviewtjm.html
comfortercontroversy
http://www.islam-guide.com/bqs/12cotradictions.htm
http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch6.3.html )supersite=
Dar despre cuvintele Mangaietor din Ioan 14:14,16, v-ati gandit vreodata
care ar fi sursa acestor concepte gnostice?
In the Bible we can find the following four passages wherein Jesus (pbuh)
predicts a great event:
John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another
Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever"
John 15:26 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you

from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the
Father, he shall testify of me"
John 14:26 "But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father
will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to
your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
John 16:7-14 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I
go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I
depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the
world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they
believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye
see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I
have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all
truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear,
[that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify
me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you."
In these four verses, the word "comforter" is translated from the word
"Paraclete" ("Ho Parakletos" in Greek). Parakletos in Greek is interpreted
as "an advocate", one who pleads the cause of another, one who councils
or advises another from deep concern for the other's welfare (Beacon
Bible commentary volume VII, p.168). In these verses we are told that
once Jesus (pbuh) departs, a Paraclete will come. He will glorify Jesus
(pbuh), and he will guide mankind into all truth. This "Paraclete" is
identified in John 14:26 as the Holy Ghost.
It must be pointed out that the original Greek manuscripts speak
of a "Holy pneuma." The word pneuma {pnyoo'-mah} is the Greek
root word for "spirit." There is no separate word for "Ghost" in the
Greek manuscripts, of which there are claimed to be over 24,000
today. The translators of the King James Version of the Bible
translate this word as "Ghost" to convey their own personal
understanding of the text. However, a more accurate translation
is "Holy Spirit." More faithful and recent translations of the Bible,
such as the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), do indeed now
translate it as "Holy Spirit." This is significant, and will be
expounded upon shortly.
John 14:26 is the only verse of the Bible which associates the Parakletos
with the Holy Spirit. But if we were to go back to the "ancient manuscripts"
themselves, we would find that they are not all in agreement that the
"Parakletos" is the Holy Spirit. For instance, in the famous the Codex
Syriacus, written around the fifth century C.E., and discovered in 1812 on
Mount Sinai by Mrs.Agnes S. Lewis (and Mrs. Bensley), the text of 14:26
reads; "Paraclete, the Spirit"; and not "Paraclete, the Holy Spirit.".
Is this just knit picking? "Spirit" or "Holy Spirit," what's the big deal?

Obviously they both refer to the same thing. Right? Wrong! There is a big
difference. A "spirit," according to the language of the Bible simply means
"a prophet".
1) Christian scholars see evidence of tampering:
In the famous "Anchor Bible" we find the following quote:
"The word parakletos is peculiar in the NT to the Johnannine literature. In
John ii Jesus is a parakletos (not a title), serving as a heavenly intercessor
with the Father ... Christian tradition has identified this figure (Paraclete)
as the Holy Spirit, but scholars like Spitta, Delafosse, Windisch, Sasse,
Bultmann, and Betz have doubted whether this identification is true to the
original picture and have suggested that the Paraclete was once an
independent salvific figure, later confused with the Holy Spirit."
The Anchor Bible, Doubleday & Company, Inc, Garden City, N.Y. 1970,
Volume 29A, p. 1135
3) The Holy Ghost was already with them:
In the above verses we read "if I go not away, the Comforter will not come
unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." The comforter can not
be the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost (according to the Bible) was
"with" them already (and even quite active) long before the coming of
Jesus (pbuh) himself and then throughout his ministry. Read for example.
Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness
[was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the
face of the waters."
1 Samuel 10:10 "And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a
company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and
he prophesied among them."
"And the Spirit of God came upon Saul when he heard those tidings, and
his anger was kindled greatly."
1 Samuel 11:6
"Then he remembered the days of old, moses, and his people, saying,
Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his
flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?"
Isaiah 63:11
"For he (John the Baptist) shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall
drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy
Ghost, even from his mother's womb."

Did they or did they not already receive the Holy Ghost? Was Jesus (pbuh)
not still with them when they received the Holy Ghost? Was the Holy Ghost
not with Simeon, Mary, Elisabeth and Zacharias before the birth of Jesus
(pbuh)? Was the Holy Ghost not with Moses (pbuh) when he parted the
seas? There are many more similar verses to be found in the Bible. In the
above verses, we are told that if Jesus (pbuh) does not depart then the
"parakletos" will not come. Thus, the "Holy Ghost" cannot be the one
originally intended since it was already with them. The contradiction is
quite obvious.
Now go back to John 14:16 and notice the words "another Paraclete." If the
comforter is the Holy Ghost then how many Holy Ghost's are there? The
word "another" is significant. We have already seen how this term is
applied to Jesus (pbuh) himself. In English, "another" may mean "One
more of the same kind" or "one more of a different kind." If the latter were
the one intended then the current Christian interpretation might bear
some merit. However, if "One more of the same kind" was what was
intended then this is positive proof that the coming Paraclete would be just
like Jesus (pbuh), a human being and a prophet, not a ghost. The actual
Greek word used was the word "allon" which is the masculine accusative
form of "allos" {al'-los}: "Another of the SAME kind." The Greek word for
"another of a different kind" is "heteros" {het'-er-os}.
Prof. Abdul-Ahad Dawud (formerly Rev. David Benjamin Keldani, Bishop of
Uramia)* says:
"The adjective 'another' preceding a foreign noun for the first time
announced seems very strange and totally superfluous. There is no doubt
that the text has been tampered with and distorted."
Muhammad in the Bible, Prof. Abdul-`Ahad Dawud, p. 211
"The Paraclete is a parallel figure to Jesus himself; and this conclusion is
confirmed in the fact that the title is suitable for both. It is clear from
14:16 that the source thought there were sendings of two Paracletes,
Jesus and his successor, the one following the other"
The Gospel of John a Commentary, Rudolf Bultmann, p. 567
"RAFODON:
"pr, RPH, Raph, or Reph; 'Healer, Physician, Consoler, Comforter, Paraclete.'
"Nwd), the name of the Phoenician Sun-God, Adon.
"So that, Rephadon, Raphadon, or Rafodon, is 'Adon the Healer, Consoler, or
Comforter.'"

The Society of Ormus consisted of the Therapeutae of Alexandria and the Essenes of Qumran, who
became the Prieur de Sion.
"Alexandrian Gnostics...were the spiritual heirs of the Essenes after Hadrian had suppressed the
Order in 132 A.D." - 406:150
"According to Baron de Westerode, the founder of the Rosicrucians was one Ormesius, who had been
converted by St. Mark, at Alexandria, in A.D. 46. He purified the Egyptian Rites, and reconciled them
with Christianity, carrying his disciples with him, and founded the Society of ORMUS, or of the Light,
each member wearing a red cross. To this society the Essenes and Therapeutae joined themselves,
and conserved the Masonic Secrets." - 636 (Part 3)
"Therapeutae. (Gr.) or Therapeutes. A school of Esotericists, which was an inner group within
Alexandrian Judaism... They were 'healers' in the sense that some 'Christian' and 'Mental' Scientists,
members of the [Theosophical Society], are healers, while they are at the same time good
Theosophists and students of the esoteric sciences. Philo Judeaus calls them 'servants of god'...'an
esoteric circle of illuminati, of 'wise men'... They were contemplative Hellenistic Jews.'" (H.P.
Blavatsky) - 316:329
The Essenes, according to archaeologist Bargil Pixner, had a major 'camp' or 'quarter' on Mt. Sion
(Pixner 1976:245-275). Moreover, Richard Mackowski held that the material evidence on Mt. Sion
shows that it 'was not only the mahaneh of the Essenes during the time of Jesus, but also the
birthplace of this extremely orthodox Jewish sect in Jerusalem' (Mackowski 1980:63 cf. 145). - 1100
One noteworthy fact that is known about the Essenians is that Gomorrah and Sodom were among the
places where they had established colonies [T]oo little attention has been paid to the fact that
Qumran, according to an identification formerly suggested by F. de Saulcy, was Gomorrah. Moreover,
according to the evidence of Synesius of Cyrene, Dion Chrysostome (who lived between A.D. 42 and
125) has also, somewhere, praised the Essenians, who constitute quite a blessed city established
near the Dead Sea in the middle region of Palestine close to Sodom." - 230:299
It is possible, as has been maintained, that north Europe was the centre whence the Orientals derived
their legends, and that Chaldean, whence Culdeean, was as appropriate to the Druids as to the
Babylonian, and that as the Essenians were Babylonians, the Culdees were Essenes, as held by the
venerable Bede, and thus the Essenes, or Assidiana, were Culdees.
The chief British gods were Hu and Ceridwen, or the Ouranos and Ghe of the Cabiri.
The emblem of the Druid was a vitrified egg, chased in gold, and hung from the neck, and which held
up to the light shewed a sacred token; the "Serpents," or Druids, prepared it.
Gnostics refer to the pre-Flood era as the Golden Age because the world worshipped the Sun.
The Druids are the present day Freemasons. The Druids were apostate Jews.
"The Arabs afterward gave the name of 'Solomon's seal' to the six-pointed star-like figure (see Magen,
Dawid) engraved on the bottom of their drinking-cups... In Western legends, however, it is the
pentacle, or "druid's foot," that represents the seal." (Jewish Encyclopedia) - 259 ("Solomon, Seal of")
The Essene priests were Jewish heretics who claimed to be the sons of Zadok.
"Finally the imagination of Ezekiel establishes the rules for the priesthood that would become the
landmarks of the Essenes of Qumran. The legitimate priests of the sanctuary are to be the sons of
Zadok, the erstwhile chief priest. Known to the people of Qumran as Zadokites, these sons of Zadok
would wear white linen garments when they entered the inner court." - 162:181

Qumran, where the Essene community was established, is located on the site of Gomorrah, the city
which God judged with for its sexual perversion. (Genesis 19; see also Jer. 17:5,6)

The Essenes were actually the priests of Ashtoreth/Diana.

"[Diana's] constant symbol is the bee... The chief priest himself was called Essn, or the king-bee." 156:195
"[Diana/Artemis] was undoubtedly a representative of the same power over conception and birth that
was adored in Palestine under the name Ashtoreth." - 299:484
The Essenes influenced the Alexandrian Gnostics.
"Alexandrian Gnostics...were the spiritual heirs of the Essenes after Hadrian had suppressed the
Order in 132 A.D." - 406:150
The Essenes became the Knights Templar/Priory of Zion.
"According to Baron de Westerode, the founder of the Rosicrucians was one Ormesius, who had been
converted by St. Mark, at Alexandria, in A.D. 46. He purified the Egyptian Rites, and reconciled them
with Christianity, carrying his disciples with him, and founded the Society of ORMUS, or of the Light,
each member wearing a red cross. To this society the Essenes and Therapeutae joined themselves,
and conserved the Masonic Secrets." - 636 (Part 3)
The Essene priests plan to reinstitute the Temple worship of Baal/Ashtoreth in the Jerusalem Temple
with a counterfeit Melchizedek/ Archangel Michael as the high priest.
"Whoever the Teacher of Righteousness was, he must have been a pious, holy man and apparently
was a priestly descendant of Zadok, who revealed to his Community that they were living in a time that
would be 'the end of days' as predicted by the old prophets. Soon, he told them, God would crush His
enemies in a final cosmic battle and usher in the new age of righteousness, and as the Community
was the last remnant of true Israel--the people of Yahweh's covenant--it would be they who would fight
the battle and would return to Jerusalem to purify the Temple and re-institute proper worship.
"...God, however, will save His people by the hands of two messianic figures who will arise at the end
of time; one from 'the Branch of David' and the other 'the Interpreter of the Law'." - 162:201-2
"Merovee, king of the Franks, from 447 to 458 A.D., was an adherent of the religious cult of Diana." 127:12

supersupersite
http://www.watch.pair.com/new-age.html
http://www.watch.pair.com/new-jerusalem.html

The aim of the Brotherhood was to preserve the great knowledge attained
by the wisest of Egypt. It could in some ways be seen as a school of
philosophy. Students from around the globe travelled to Egypt in order to
study under their directorship. It was therefore necessary to have
different branches in various locations. Two of these were the Essenes
and Rosicrucians.
The name Essene is thought to derive from the Egyptian kashai, meaning

secret. There is also a Jewish word chshai, meaning secret, or silent,

which would naturally translate as Essene. The Jewish historian, Josephus
found that the Egyptian symbols for light and truth were represented in
the word chosen, which in Greek also translates to Essen, leading to
speculation that the Essenes may in fact be the chosen ones mentioned
in The Bible. Chosen is derived from the Aramaic asaya, meaning
physician, or healer, a role for which the Essenes were well known and
highly respected. The Greek word for physician is of course, therapeautae,
and for this reason, The Brothers were known as Therapeutae within the
Greek speaking world.
The Essenes referred to themselves as essania, meaning 'Sons of the
Sun'. This may help to explain why one of the most important movers in
the early formation of the Brotherhood, the so called heretic Pharaoh,
Akhenaten (Tuthmose III Great, Great Grandson) abandoned the old Gods
in favour of the Aten, as represented by the solar disc.
http://www.juneaustin.co.uk/esseneandnotheard.html

The "cunning" priests of The White Brotherhood in the Temples of the Sun were the Egyptian
Therapeutae; the healers associated with the Caduceus symbol (the double serpents around the
staff with the wings on top). It is interesting that this symbol with the obvious associations
with the Tree of Life and the chakras centers of the spinal cord is used by doctors today and
they also wear white coats.
The Essenes were of the Egyptian Therapeutae. In fact, in Robert Feather's book THE
MYSTERY OF THE COPPER SCROLL OF QUMRAN, he shows that the Copper Scroll
found with the Dead Sea Scrolls was of the same composition and technology of the 18th
dynasty, the time of Pharaoh Akhenaten. The strong connection between the Essenes and the
18th dynasty is more clearly understood in view of the fact that these were Hyksos Pharaohs
who had immigrated to Egypt about 1550 BC to rule for about 200 years.

John19 34

The final version of Johns gospel is generally taken to be later than the three synoptics.
There are additions in it that can be taken as ecumenical with the European religions. The
main detail that we will look at today has correspondences with Germanic and Celtic
religions, although not with other Mediterranean religions.
John 19:33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not
his legs:
19:34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out
blood and water.
19:35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true,
that ye might believe.

A) By adding the spear, the crucifixion of Jesus resembles those of Esus and particularly
Odin. Esus had been popularized among educated Romans by Lucans epic poem Pharsalia
in the +60s. The religion of the northern Teutons and Germans was at this time more the
Vanir fertility religion rather than the Odinistic warrior religion. However the Odinists may
have started on their migration from Anatolia to Russia to Scandinavia by the +first century as
reported in Snorri Sturluson, popularized by Manly P. Hall and as semi-confirmed in Thor
Heyerdahls last project before he died. Some think that the references to Mercury in
Tactitus Germania (circa +98) are references to Odin. However Snorri Sturluson is late (13th
century), but what matters is that during the Christianization of the northern lands, the
Crucifixion of Jesus and that of Odin were compared.
John does not name the soldier with the spear, but in the Acts of Pilate (4th century maybe)
the soldier is said to be a centurion named Longinus. This may be based on the Greek word
for spear: longke. The name of course appeals to those (see Gary Courtney and Francesco
Carotta) who see the gospels as rewrites of the hagiography of Julius Caesar for Gaius Cassius
Longinus was a major plotter in the Julian Passion. In Dantes Inferno, Cassius Longinus
along with Marcus Junius Brutus and Judas Iscariot are the only persons deemed sinful
enough to be chewed in the three mouths of Satan.
They are, moreover, said to water the Apis also from a special well, and by all means to keep
him from the Nile,not that they think His 7 water stained with blood because of the
Crocodile, 8 as some think (for nothing is so precious to Egyptians as the Nile),
Attis's worshipers ate a sacramental meal of bread and wine. The wine represented the
God's blood; the bread became the body of the saviour.
Attis's followers believed that "he whom they had buried a little while earlier had come to
life again." Firmicus Maternus, The Error of the Pagan Religions, Ch 3
They were baptised in this way: a bull was placed over a grating, the devotee stood under
the grating. The bull was stabbed with a consecrated spear. "Its hot reeking blood poured in
torrents through the apertures and was received with devout eagerness by the worshipper ...
who had been born again to eternal life and had washed away his sins in the blood of the
bull." [Frazer, Attis, chapter 1]
http://www.control-z.com/pgs/descending17.html
The Templars, like all other Secret Orders and Associations, had two doctrines, one
concealed and reserved for the Masters, which was Johannism; the other public, which was
the Roman Catholic. Thus they deceived the adversaries whom the sought to supplant. Hence
Free-Masonry, vulgarly imagined to have begun with the Dionysian Architects or the German
Stone-workers, adopted Saint John the Evangelist as one of its patrons, associating with him,
in order not to arouse the suspicions of Rome, Saint John the Baptist, and thus covertly
proclaiming itself the child of the Kabalah and Essenism together.
http://watch.pair.com/death-phoenix.html
eucharistcontroversy
http://www.pocm.info/pagan_ideas_sacred_meal.html supersite

The Gnostics claimed that, like the gospels, Paul's letters encoded secret teachings. Paul
taught in 'two ways at once': the Outer Mysteries [and] the Inner Mysteries [...].
Jesus said He would not again drink of the fruit of the VINE until the kingdom, indicating the
wine does not become his blood, but is just plain old wine.
The ancient pagan Babylonians made wafer cakes in their worship of a false god. Jeremiah
7:18; 44:17-19; etc.
An essential ritual of Gnosis was the cannibalistic eucharist, which converted the holy body
and blood of the god-man into the flesh of his worshiper, who could then share in his
resurrection. A Mithraic inscription reads: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my
blood so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."
http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/easter-02.asp supesupesite
http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/easter-04.asp
http://www.bible.ca/history-ignatius-forgeries-250AD.htm
Nothing leavened may you eat; wherever you dwell you may eat only unleavened bread."
Exodus 12:20
3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread
therewith, even the bread of affliction; for in haste didst thou come forth out of the land of
Egypt; that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all
the days of thy life.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0516.htm
While there are several uses of the word Azumos (unleavened Bread) in the NT none of
them refer to the bread used in the Lords Supper, but rather they are either references to
the feast of unleavened bread (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:1, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:1, Luke 22:7,
Acts 12:3, Acts 20:6) or an analogy for a congregation purging out sin from their midst and
walking in holiness (1 Corinthians 5:8).
In all other places that the word bread occurs in the NT, it is the Greek word Artos meaning
a loaf of common leavened breadWhile this doesnt necessarily mean that Jesus was using
leavened bread after the Last Supper (this is highly unlikely) it means that all the gospel
writers didnt regard the use of unleavened bread to be important enough to record,
something that they surely would have had it been an essential compo. nent like the prayer
before the distribution of the elements, especially considering their letters and gospel accounts
were being read primarily by Gentiles who normally used leavened bread for all their meals.
Robert Reyburn: First, a rationale is provided for the use of unleavened bread in the
Passover Feast. That is, we know why it was used. The reason is given in Exodus 12:34, 39.
With the dough they had brought from Egypt, they baked cakes of unleavened bread. The
dough was without yeast because they had been driven out of Egypt and did not have time to

prepare food for themselves. And, in Deut. 16:3 we are explicitly reminded that the
significance of bread without yeast in the Passover Feast was to remind Gods people that
they left Egypt in haste so that all the days of your life you may remember the time of your
departure from Egypt.
There is no teaching in the Bible to suggest that the remembrance of the flight from Egypt is
brought into the Lords Supper. Bread and Wine in the Supper serve what seem to be very
different purposes. Another redemption is being remembered in the Lords Supper, that of
ourselves from sin and death through the body and blood of the Lord Jesus. Unleavened bread
does not in any obvious way contribute to that symbolism. It is not anywhere in the NT said
to be the kind of bread used in the Lords Supper - while the text of the institution of the
Lords Supper makes a point of mentioning wine (the fruit of the vine), bread is referred to
simply as bread not as unleavened bread. The lack of yeast was a detail belonging to the
old ceremony, not the new, it seems. Remember, it is bread in each case. The Lord took
bread, we are told. That it happened to be unleavened is neither mentioned nor hinted
at. What is significant is that it is bread, not unleavened bread. What is more, when the
church moved into the Gentile world, a world that had no recollection of the Passover,
bread would mean for them the ordinary bread that was the staple of life. So, in other
words, as the scholastic theologians put it, that the bread was unleavened in the first
Lords Supper belonged to the accidental circumstances of that first feast, not to the
necessity of it. [Turretin, 430]
Rev. Robert Grossman: 1. In all three Gospels what Jesus gave the disciples is artos,
meaning simply bread. It is striking that He is not said to have given them azumos or
azuma which are the proper words for unleavened bread, AND which are clearly available
since they are used in each of the Gospels in the context to refer to the Passover. In other
words, the use of artos by Matthew, Mark and Luke to tell us what Jesus gave the disciples
makes the fact that this may have been unleavened bread of NO importance. At the same time
we also must recognize that because the Scripture NOWHERE calls it unleavened bread,
we cannot at all be sure that it was (throughout the NT artos is used for common or
leavened bread). We simply may not base our teaching on the silence of Scripture because
then we are really basing our teaching on a human conjecture. So, the fundamental argument,
Jesus used unleavened bread, therefore we should too, is in fundamental error. This should
close the case, but there is more.
1. In the rest of the New Testament the Lords Supper is often called breaking bread,
the same language that is used for ordinary meals (Acts 2:42 for example is most
likely speaking of fellowship in a meal rather than the Lords Supper because in the
immediate context they ate their bread from house to house.) In any case, the word
artos is used for what is broken. There is never a description of the Supper in the NT
in which that which is broken or eaten is called anything but artos. This argues quite
strongly against requiring unleavened bread in the Supper because artos in a general
use would simply mean ordinary bread.
http://jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=265&Itemid=228
lords prayer

"Joseph and his mother marvelled at

those things which were spoken of him" (Lk. ii, 33). It is false,
the original says: "His father and his mother marvelled." etc. Here

is another holy forgery stuck into Luke ii, as is the later verse,
"and Joseph and his mother knew not of it" (v. 43). The true
original reads "and his parents knew not of it," -- just as in
verse 41; "Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the
feast of the passover"; and as in verse 48, "thy father and I have
sought thee sorrowing."
All three on this important point are
liars, if John be believed; for after the crucifixion and burial of
Jesus, and the discovery on the third day of his empty grave by the
Magdalene, which she immediately reported to Peter and John, they
ran doubting to the grave, looked in, and "saw, and believed"; and
John positively avers: "For as yet they knew not the scripture,
that he must rise again from the dead." (John xx, 9.) But this
inspired assertion contains a grave anachronism: for "as yet" there
was, of course, no "scripture" about the death and resurrection at
all, nor for well over a century afterwards, as in this chapter is
proven.
Applying Tertullian's test of authenticity, that contradictory
passages betray a later "interpolation," the closing verses, 16-20,
of the last chapter of Matthew -- as of Mark 9-20, -- are
themselves late interpolations or forged passages.
Matthew previously quotes Jesus as declaring: "I am not sent
but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (xv, 24; x, 6); and
his command to the Twelve: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles.
... but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (x, 5,
6). Also Matthew (as Mark) has reiterated the assurance of the
immediacy of the end of the world and the "second coming" in glory:
"Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of
Man be come." (Mt. x, 23; cf. x, 7; xxvi, 28, 34, passim.) So that
neither in reason nor in truthful statement could it be possible
for Jesus to have met the Eleven a few days after his resurrection,
in Galilee, and commanded them in this wonderful language: "Go ye
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: ... and, lo, I am
with you always, even unto the end of the world" -- which he had
just, and repeatedly, averred should happen in the life-time of his
hearers and before they could preach even to the Jews of little
Palestine. (Mt. xxviii, 18, 20; cf. Mk. xvi, 15-16.) This "command"
could only have been "interpolated" into the forged ending of
Matthew and Mark long after the original form of the tradition of
Jesus had been first written, and when the "second coming" in the
"Kingdom of God" and the immediate "end of the world" had become
impossible of further credit by lapse of long years of time and
disappointed expectation.
THE "WOMAN IN ADULTERY" FORGERY
The CE. has admitted that the so-called pericope adulterae,
was regarded as spurious until the Council of Trent, in 1546,
declared it divine truth; but Reinach says: "The episode of Jesus
and the woman taken in adultery, which was inserted in John's
gospel in the fourth century, was originally in the [apocryphal]
'Gospel according to the Hebrews.'" (Orpheus, p. 235.)

(Rev. 2:23) for the sins of their mother. Yet the Old Testament says The fathers shall not be
put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every
man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deu 24:16). We are responsible for our own sins
(Deu 24:16, Ez. 18:20, Jere. 31:30, Ps. 40:6, Isa. 1:11, Micah 6:7-8, Matt 9:13, 12:7,
There is a mixture of Jewish and Gentile material. For example, the passage Matthew 5:17-20
was penned by a Jewish Christian, but Jesus praise for wine (Matt. 9:17, Mk. 2:22, Lk 5:37)
and glorifying the Roman emperor (Matt. 22:21, Mk 12:17) is penned by a Pauline. The Old
Testament condemns wine (Lev. 10:9, Prov 4:17, 20:1, Isa. 28:7, Hos. 4:11, Joel 1:5
Jesus turning water into wine (John 2:1-10), and saying All foods are clean (Mk 7:18-20) is
penned by a Pauline. The deceiver Paul said all foods are clean (Rom 14:14, 20), but Jewish
Christians abstained from pork and only ate kosher meat (Lev. 11:7). The Old Testament
condemns wine (Lev. 10:9, Prov 4:17, 20:1, Isa. 28:7), Paul said it was okay (1 Tim 5:23), so
the Gospels have Jesus praise and glorify wine (Matt. 9:17, Mk. 2:22, Lk. 5:37, Jhn 2:1-10).
Yet, Jesus preached the Law and Prophets (Matt 5:17-20) that condemned wine! The pagan
god Dionysus transformed water into wine hundreds of years before Jesus [1]. The command
to baptize the world (Matt. 28:19) is from a Pauline Christian who believed Jesus ought to
share the Gospel with gentiles, yet Jewish Christians wrote: "Do not go among the Gentiles or
enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel (Matt. 10:5-6) and "I
was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." (Matt. 15:24-25).Why should Jesus specifically
forbid, on the one hand, preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles Matthew 7:6,15:24,26)
and yet on the other, tell the disciples to teach all the nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost? (Matthew 28:19). In fact, the passage
Matt. 28:19 is a complete forgery:
van Eysinga lists several pages of parallels between the logia in the gospels and the Old
Testament. Also the Talmud is full of parallels. The Talmud writers can't possibly be
borrowed from a declared Minim leader and misguider of the Hebrew people, thus the
Talmudic logia can't be plagiated from the gospels, but must be from prior Jewish tradition.
One of many listed examples is the Lord's Prayer, found in a similar form, essentially
lacking the final doxology, in the Talmudic Sota.
http://www.egodeath.com/EysingaChristMystery.htm
http://www.historian.net/lp-pap2.html
The Lord's Prayer was prefigured by an Egyptian hymn to Osiris-Amen beginning. 'O
Amen, O Amen, who are in heaven.' Amen was also invoked at the end of every prayer."
The Eucharist, or the sharing of the god's blood and body, has been a sacred ritual within
many ancient mystery religions and is part of the Mythos and Ritual. In a standard ritual that
was practiced around the world, and which continues in some places, participants in the ritual
actually ate and drank the "god's" body and blood, which was in reality that of a sacrificed
human (king) or animal. The Christian form of the Eucharist is very similar to the ritual that
was practiced as part of the Greek Eleusinian Mysteries, in detail, as is outlined by Taylor.

The Eleusinian Eucharist honored both Ceres, goddess of wheat, and Bacchus/Dionysus, god
of the vine. The Christians also adopted the Bacchanal symbol IHS (Greek) or IES Iesu/Jesus. These letters stood for the sun. (See below.) "Mr. Higgins observes, 'The whole
paschal supper (the Lord's supper with the Christians) was in fact a festival of joy to
celebrate the passage of the sun across the equinox of spring.'" (Graves)
On pages 63 and 64 of Randel Helms book, he shows how the story of Jesus raising the
widow of Nains son found in Luke 7:11-16 was taken directly from 1 Kings 17. The Gospel
According to Luke was written in Greek, so the the author of Luke referred to the Septuagint
(the Greek translation of the Old Testament). This is apparent because of the borrowing of
idiomatic phrases that are found in Greek and not in Hebrew (e.g. kai egeneto). In addition,
the author of Luke included the wall around the city while archaeological findings reveal that
there was no wall around the city of Nain - Luke plagiarized this story from the Old
Testament.
http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/jan08scr.html
The so-called "Lord's Prayer" is merely a reiteration of similar prayers in the Jewish
Talmud.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_199809/ai_n8815843 &supersite
http://www.mazes.com/LordsPrayer.html supesite
The version originally written by the author of the Gospel of Matthew apparently did not
contain the ending phrase "for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever,
Amen." Those words seem to have been added later. I
John Dominic Crossan in The Historical Jesus, 1991, Harper San Francisco, p294, does
not believe that the Lords Prayer originated with Jesus but was composed by later
Christians as a summary of Jesus themes. The basis for his belief is that a prayer given
by Jesus himself would have greater attestation and be more uniform in versions. This is
a rare occasion where I disagree with that eminent scholar.

The invocation "Our Father" = "Abinu" or Abba (hence in Luke simply "Father") is one
common in the Jewish liturgy (see Shemoneh 'Esreh, the fourth, fifth, and sixth benedictions,
and comp. especially in the New-Year's ritual the prayer "Our Father, our King! Disclose the
glory of Thy Kingdom unto us speedily"). More frequent in Hasidan circles was the
invocation "Our Father who art in heaven" (Ber. v. 1; Yoma viii. 9; Soah ix, 15; Abot v. 20;
Tosef., Demai, ii. 9; and elsewhere: "Yehi raon mi-lifne abinu she-bashamayim," and often
in the liturgy). A comparison with the addish ("May His great name be hallowed in the
world which He created, according to His will, and may He establish His Kingdom . . .
speedily and at a near time"; see Baer, "'Abodat Yisrael," p. 129, note), with the Sabbath
"edushshah" ("Mayest Thou be magnified and hallowed in the midst of Jerusalem . . . so that
our eyes may behold Thy Kingdom"), and with the "'Al ha-Kol" (Massek. Soferim xiv. 12,
and prayer-book: "Magnified and hallowed . . . be the name of the supreme King of Kings in
the worlds which He created, this world and the world to come, in accordance with His will . .
. and may we see Him eye to eye when He returneth to His habitation") shows that the three
sentences, "Hallowed be Thy name," "Thy Kingdom come," and "Thy will be done on earth
as in heaven," originally expressed one idea only-the petition that the Messianic kingdom

might appear speedily, yet always subject to God's will. The hallowing of God's name in the
world forms part of the ushering in of His kingdom (Ezek. xxxviii. 23), while the words "Thy
will be done" refer to the time of the coming, signifying that none but God Himself knows the
time of His "divine pleasure" ("raon"; Isa. lxi. 2; Ps. lxix. 14; Luke ii. 14). The problem for
the followers of Jesus was to find an adequate form for this very petition, since they could not,
like the disciples of John and the rest of the Essenes, pray "May Thy Kingdom come
speedily" in view of the fact that for them the Messiah had appeared in the person of Jesus.
The form reported to have been recommended by Jesus is rather vague and indefinite: "Thy
Kingdom come"; and the New Testament exegetes explain it as referring to the second
coming of the Messiah, the time of the perfection of the kingdom of God (comp. Luke xxii.
18). In the course of time the interpretation of the sentence "Thy will be done" was broadened
in the sense of the submitting of everything to God's will, in the manner of the prayer of R.
Eliezer (1st cent.): "Do Thy will in heaven above and give rest of spirit to those that fear Thee
on earth, and do what is good in Thine eyes. Blessed be Thou who hearest prayer!" (Tosef.,
Ber. iii. 7).
Relation to Messianic Expectation.
The rest of the prayer, also, stands in close relation to the Messianic expectation. Exactly as
R. Eliezer(Mek.: "Eleazar of Modin") said: "He who created the day created also its
provision; wherefore he who, while having sufficient food for the day, says: 'What shall I eat
to-morrow?' belongs to the men of little faith such as were the Israelites at the giving of the
manna" (Mek., Beshalla, Wayassa', ii.; Soah 48b), so Jesus said: "Take no thought for your
life, what ye shall eat or . . . drink. . . . . O ye of little faith. . . . Seek ye first the Kingdom of
God, . . . and all these things shall be added to you" (Matt. vi. 25-34; Luke xii. 22-31; comp.
also Simeon b. Yoai, Mek. l.c.; Ber. 35b; id. iv. 14). Faith being thus the prerequisite of
those that wait for the Messianic time, it behooves them to pray, in the words of Solomon
(Prov. xxx. 8, Hebr.; comp. Beah 16a), "Give us our apportioned bread" ("leem hui"),
that is, the bread we need daily.
Repentance being another prerequisite of redemption (Pire R. El. xliii.; Targ. Yer. and Midr.
Leah ob to Deut. xxx. 2; Philo, "De Execrationibus," 8-9), a prayer for forgiveness of
sin is also required in this connection. But on this point special stress was laid by the Jewish
sages of old. "Forgive thy neighbor the hurt that he hath done unto thee, so shall thy sins also
be forgiven when thou prayest," says Ben Sira (Ecclus. [Sirach] xxviii. 2). "To whom is sin
pardoned? To him who forgiveth injury" (Derek Ere Zua viii. 3; R. H. 17a; see also Jew.
Encyc. iv. 590, s.v. Didascalia).
Accordingly Jesus said: "Whensoever ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have aught against any
one; that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses" (Mark xi. 25,
R. V.). It was this precept which prompted the formula "And forgive us our sins ["obot" =
"debts"; the equivalent of "'awonot" = "sins"] as we also forgive those that have sinned
["ayyabim" = "those that are indebted"] against us."
Directly connected with this is the prayer "And lead us not into temptation." This also is
found in the Jewish morning prayer (Ber. 60b; comp. Rab: "Never should a man bring
himself into temptation as David did, saying, 'Examine me, O Lord, and prove me' [Ps. xxvi.
2], and stumbled" [Sanh. 107a]). And as sin is the work of Satan (James i. 15), there comes
the final prayer, "But deliver us from the evil one [Satan]." This, with variations, is the theme

of many Hasidan prayers (Ber. 10b-17a, 60b), "the evil one" being softened into "yeer hara'" = "evil desire," and "evil companionship" or "evil accident"; so likewise "the evil one" in
the Lord's Prayer was later on referred to things evil (see commentaries on the passage). The
doxology added in Matthew, following a number of manuscripts, is a portion of I Chron.
xxix. 11, and was the liturgical chant with which the Lord's Prayer was concluded in the
Church; it occurs in the Jewish ritual also, the whole verse being chanted at the opening of the
Ark of the Law.
On closer analysis it becomes apparent that the closing verses, Matt. vi. 14-15, refer solely to
the prayer for forgiveness. Consequently the original passage was identical with Mark xi. 25;
and the Lord's Prayer in its entirety is a later insertion in Matthew. Possibly the whole was
taken over from the "Didache" (viii. 2), which in its original Jewish form may have contained
the prayer exactly as "the disciples of John" were wont to recite it.
http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/text/lordpray.htm supersite
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/christian-lords-prayer-related-to-772.html

I dont know from preterism, or whether the kingdom come in Jesus prayer is more
imminent than in the Kaddish. To the Jews who heard Jesuss rendering of the Kaddish,
though, what would stand out as particularly startling would be the first two words: Our
Father. The Kaddish refers to God as lord and creator but not as father. Jesus starts off his
prayer with a bang.
Well-versed in the New Testament, we dont realize how few are the Old Testament passages
that proclaim Gods fatherhood. Often he is called the God of our fathers; rarely is he our
Father. God is a father metaphorically in Psalm 68:5 and 103:13, Proverbs 3:12 and Jeremiah
3:19. There are a few passages with explicitly messianic connotations: Psalm 2:7 (Thou art
My Son, today I have begotten Thee), Psalm 89:26-27 (I also shall make him My firstborn, the
highest of the kings of the earth), Isaiah 9:6 (For a child will be born to us and His name
will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace).
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/nasamason.html
Matei (Matthew) obvious false gospel insertions
6.24
10.34,36
11.14
5.29,30
18.8,9
15.10,20
15.21,28
10.16
10.21
16.17,19
17.12,13
18.18,20

19.28
21.43
25.41 (vezi 7.23)
26.26,29
26.30,46
26.69,75
28.18,19
Matei 3.6 vezi (see) Ezechiel 36.25,27; 11,19, Numeri (Numbers) 19
Matei 3.11 vezi Isaia 11.1,2; 4.4; 61.1
Marcu (Mark)
3.21 (vezi 3.31,35)
7.14,23
7.24,30
9.13
9.43,48
9.49
9.50
14.22,25
14.26,31 14.32.42 14.51,52 14.66,72
16.15,20
Luca (Luke) 1,2,3 (in special/especially 1.78)
3.1
3.23,38
12.49,53 (compara cu 9.51,56)
13.1,5
16.19,31
22.28,30
22.15,20
24.13,35
24.37,40
24.47,49
Luca 7.32,35 (vin, must)
Vezi Levitic 10.9, Ezechiel 44.21, Exod 30.9
Levitic 10.10
Proverbe 31.45, Osea 4.11, Eclez. 10.16
Numeri 9.11 (azime, ierburi)
Exod 12.20 (azime)
Numeri 29.1
Deut. 16.3
Ioan (John) 13.1 falsificat, 13.18,20 vanzarea
Vezi
Matei 26.17 + 26.21,25

Marcu 14.12 + 14.18,21

Luca 22.7 + 22.21,23
"Again he asked, 'What shall I compare the kingdom of God to? It is like yeast that a
woman took and mixed into a large amount [Greek 'three ' '(probably about
1/2 bushel or 22 liters)] of flour until it worked all through the dough.'"
- Luke 13:20-21 // Matthew 13:33
"...Leaven in the ancient world was a symbol of moral corruption [since it was] made by
taking a piece of bread and storing it in a damp, dark place until mold forms. The bread rots
and decays...modern yeast...is domesticated....In Israel there is an equation that leaven is the
unholy everyday, and unleaven the holy, the sacred, the feast."
- Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus
(1989)
"The kingdom of God is ENTOS hUMWN (among you / within your purview). It is the seed
that has been sown in the ground that is growing; it is the leaven that is hidden in the dough. It
is Satan bound but not yet fully conquered. It is here, but not yet fully consummated."
- Dr. Mark Goodacre (CrossTalk - 15 Jun 1998)
"Jesus has seen a vision of what is going on in the cosmic realm, the effects of which are
beginning to be realised in the coming of the kingdom on earth, witnessed in the successes of
the Seventy."
- Antonio Jerez (CrossTalk - 15 Jun 1998)
"It's easier for a camel to squeeze through a needle's eye than for a wealthy person to get
into God's domain."
- Mark 10:25; (Mattthew 19:24; Luke 18:25)
"The Aramaic word gamla is the same word for 'camel' and 'a large rope.' Matt. 19:24 should
read, 'It is easier for a rope to go through a needle's eye, etc."
- The Gospels from the Aramaic, translated by George M Lamsa
The Lord's Prayer

(1) A Private Petition

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the
synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have
received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and
pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret,
will reward you."
- Matthew 6:5-6
"Notice in that the admonition is not to pray in public. Yet the Lord's Prayer is a 'we-our'
prayer -- public. This contradiction indicates that significant redaction was done upon the
source. The original prayer within the source document could well have been a private prayer
directed to one's own spirit, which the writer of Matthew would have found unacceptable and
in need of heavy redaction, so as to turn it into a prayer to God for a group within a church. If

so, the hallower of one's spirit was meant to be one's own conscious self."
- Jim Deardorff (Synoptic L)
"This is strongly reminiscent of a Jewish prayer, the Kaddish, which was almost certainly in
use in synagogues at the time of Jesus."
- Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), paperback,
p. 194
"May he establish his kingdom in your lifetime and in your days and in the lifetime of all the
house of Israel, even speedily and at a near time'."
- Kaddish

(2) As in Heaven So on Earth

"'Thy will be done' was a prayer used by magicians (- Papyri graecae magicae XII.189), and
'on earth as it is in heaven' expresses the most general objective of magical action: to change
the natural order by influence of the supernatural (in this case, as often, the god's will.)"
- Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? (1978) p. 174
"Tat, Tat, Tat...come...and reveal thyself to this boy here today...for I will glorify thee in
heaven before Phre, I will glorify thee before the Moon, I will glorify thee on Earth."
"I am he whom you met under the holy mountain to whom you gave the knowledge of your
greatest Name, which I shall keep holy, communicating it to none save to your fellow initiates
in your holy rites."
- Papyri graecae magicae XII.92ff
"The Lord's Prayer also contains the great Hermetic Maxim 'as above so below', Matt. 6:10:
'Tavo Malkhutkha, yeasse retzonkha, KMO BASHAMAYIM KEN BAARETZ'
translated as 'thy kingdom come, thy will be done as in Heaven so on Earth'."
- Liora Bernstein, letter to Beacon, June 1997
(Hebrew letters named from right to left)
as
(kaf/chaf, mem, vav)
in
(bet)
heaven
(shim, mem, yod, final mem)
so
(kaf, final nun)
in/on
(bet)
earth
(aleph, rish, final tzadik)
"It is true that in the English translation it is written 'on earth as it is in Heaven', and in the
French translation it is written 'ta volonte soit faite sur la terre comme au ciel', but the Hebrew
translation (from Greek) quoted above says 'as in Heaven so on earth' (Greek 'heaven' =
'
'; Gr. 'earth' = ' '),) and so does the Vulgate in Latin...'sicut in
caelo, et in terra'.

"The Aramaic N.T., 4th century C.E. (the Khaboris Mss) also uses the same order of words,
i.e. as in Heaven so on earth."
- Liora Bernstein, (private correspondence)
taithay malkoothakh,
nehwey sevyanakh,
AIKENNA DEVESHMAYA UP BERAH.
taitheya
let come
malkoothakh
your kingdom
nehwey
let be
sevyanakh
your will
aikenna
even as
deveshmaya
in heaven
up
so
berah
on earth
- Thanks due to Mr. Don Hargis for assistance with the Aramaic and the Greek (private
correspondence)
This phrase was evidently a later addition and did not appear in the original prayer.
"It is possible that vernacular translators were aware of the Hermetic streak and consequently
reversed the order of words.
"The question arises how the Hermetic maxim found its way into the Lord's Prayer. The Kitab
Sirr al-Khaliqu wa San at al-Tabi'a, c.650, is the earliest known work to contain the Emerald
Tablet with the Hermetic maxim.
"One may also argue that that this phrasing is accidental, and that it is not identical. However,
The Gospel of Thomas, which was written not later than the mid second century C.E. and
possibly 'even perhaps somewhat before the gospels in the bible' (i.e.beginning of the second
half of the first century C.E). contains the phrase 'upper/lower' directly."
- Liora Bernstein, (private correspondence) [See The Gospel of Thomas FAQ.]
"..when you make ... the upper like the lower ... then you will enter the kingdom."
- Thomas 22
(4) Connections with Later Traditions
"The Lord's Prayer mentions...one Sfira [one of the spheres in the spiritual world - Sefirot described in the Kabbalah] implicitly. The implicit Sfira is Chessed which...means doing
charitable things with your body, not with money and hopefully anonymously....The
expression 'by the grace of God' is translated into Hebrew as
i.e., by the 'Chessed'
of God. The word Grace in the Christian meaning has no equivalent in Hebrew and is
translated into the word 'Chessed'."
- Liora Bernstein, letter to Beacon, June 1997
"The Lord's Prayer, the Pater Noster, has an attachment to it, called 'doxology' . Nobody
knows when it was attached. It is the phrase 'for thine is the kingdom, the power and the
glory'. This phrase is not in the Catholic version (the Vulgate). At any rate, in Hebrew, it says:

lecha

thine

ha

the

mamlach
kingdom
a
(Malchut)
ha

the

Gevurah

power

ve

and

ha

the

Tipheret

glory

[The words in gold are Sefirot.]

- Liora Bernstein (private correspondence)
A prayer attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John echoes Hellenistic magical tradition.
"Glorify me as I have glorified the Name of your son Horus!"
- Papyri graecae magicae VII.504; cp. XXXVI.165f.
"Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you."
- John 17:1
"The Sermon on the Mount, in which the law of the new covenant is proclaimed, is structured
after Exodus 19. This dependence is quite evident in the prelude to the sermon (Mt 5:1-20),
whose background must be found in Exodus 19:1-8."
- Otto Betz, "Jesus and the Temple Scroll" in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (James H.
Charlesworth, Ed. - 1992), p. 98
"In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt--on the very day--they came to the Desert of
Sinai. After they set out from Rephidim, they entered the Desert of Sinai, and Israel camped
there in the desert in front of the mountain. Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD
called to him from the mountain and said, 'This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob
and what you are to tell the people of Israel: "You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt,
and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully
and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although
the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." These are
the words you are to speak to the Israelites.'
So Moses went back and summoned the elders of the people and set before them all the words
the LORD had commanded him to speak. The people all responded together, 'We will do
everything the LORD has said.' So Moses brought their answer back to the LORD."
- Exodus 19:1-8
Prayer of Manasseh
"You, O Lord, according to your gentle grace,
promised forgiveness to those who repent from their sins,
and in your manifold mercies

appointed repentance for sinners as the (way to) salvation."

- Prayer of Manasseh 7b
"Both the Woes and the Beatitudes in the Gospels probably derive from Jesus, and indicate he
inherited from contemporary Judaism both God's judgment (1 Baruch, 4 Ezra) and his
forgiveness (Prayer of Manasseh). Yet he replaced the stress on a distant, vengeful God about
to annihilate the Wicked - Jews and Gentiles - with an emphasis on a present, forgiving father
who wished repentance from all Jews. The eschatological prophets urged the righteous to
remain faithful to Torah and its moral laws; Jesus urged all Israel (and perhaps the Gentiles
also) to repent and believe the good news of God's final act."
- James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism
Note that the designation for the early Christian community that originated in Jerusalem was
Ebionites.
"But the meek shall possess the land, and delight themselves in abundant prosperity."
- Psalms 37:11
"The elect shall possess light, joy, and peace; and they shall inherit the earth."
- Enoch 5:7a
Sectarians in the Dead Sea Scrolls also referred to themselves as the "Poor" and "Meek".
(Click here for more information.) According to some scholars, who do not interpret "the
meek" as a name for the early Christian movement, the beatitudes cannot be attributed to
Jesus himself.
"The 'peacemakers' here does not mean pacifists of any kind, it refers to those who were
working for 'shalom', the state of peace, prosperity and general well-being that would arrive
when the pillars of 'tsedeq' and 'mishpat' were finally put in place....The reference applies
solely to the Qumran Community."
- Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas, The Hiram Key: Pharaohs, Freemasons and the
Discovery of the Secret Scrolls of Jesus
A Creation of Matthew's?
Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong argues that the author of the Gospel of Matthew created
all eight beatitudes as part of Christian celebration during the Jewish liturgical year.
"The Jews marked <Pentecost with a twenty-four-hour vigil divided into eight segments. It
was designed to remember Moses at Sinai and to extol the wonders and virtues of the law."
"The Sermon on the Mount also reveals the form of a twenty-four-hour watch vigil, for it
divides neatly into eight subgoupings, which would provide a proper Christian reading for
each of the three-hour segments of the liturgical watch that marked the Pentecost
celebrations."
"...It is very clear that the Sermon on the Mount was a Matthean creation and was patterned
by Matthew on Psalm 119, the psalm of Pentecost."
- John Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels, pp. 113, 115
"Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord.
Blessed are those who keep his testimonies, who seek him with their whole heart, who also do

no wrong, but walk in his ways."

- Psalms 119:1-3
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled."
- Matthew 5:6
"...Luke is particularly interested in poverty and riches. In Matthew, however, God's blessing
is promised to a rather different group: to those who 'hunger and thirst after righteousness'
(5:6), i.e. to those who are 'hungry' to do God's will.quot;
- Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), paperback,
p. 70-71
Supersupersite
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/ministry.html

This is a very small section taken from the `Mystical Quabalah`

A JEWISH TRADITION, and `THE BOOK` of freemasonry:
"The closing clause of the Lords` Prayer is pure Quabalism,
`MALKUTH` The Kingdom, `HOD` The Power, and
`Netzach` The Glory, form the basal `tri-angle` of the TREE
OF LIFE, with Yesod the Foundation, or Receptacle of
Influences, as the central point. Whoever formulated this
`prayer` knew their Quabalah"!

The Kabbalistic Cross

The Kabbalistic Cross is self-contained and can be performed as its own ritual. It also
interlocks within the larger framework of the LRP. As used by the Golden Dawn, it is based
on an interpretation of a passage from Eliphas Levi, who wrote:
"The Sign of the Cross adopted by Christians does not belong to them exclusively. This also is
kabalistic and represents the oppositions and tetradic equilibrium of the elements. We see by
the occult versicle of the Lord's Prayer, which we have cited in our 'Doctrine', that it was
originally made after two manners, or at least that it was characterized by two entirely
different formulae, one reserved for priests and initiates, the other imparted to neophytes and
the profane. For example, the initiate said raising his hand to his forehead, 'For thine,' then
added 'is,' and continuing as he brought down his hand to his breast, 'the kingdom,' then to
the left shoulder, 'and the mercy' then clasping his hands, he added, 'in the generating
ages.' Tibi sunt Malkuth et Geburah et Chesed per aeonas a Sign of the Cross which is
absolutely and magnificently kabalistic, which the profanations of Gnosticism have lost
completely to the official and militant Church. This Sign, made after this manner, should
precede and terminate the Conjuration of the Four [elements]."[5]
Certain words are said when making the Kabbalistic Cross. The phrase is, "Atah Malkuth, ve
Geburah, ve Gedulah, le ohlahm Amen." This means, "Unto thee is the kingdom, the power
and the glory unto the ages Amen." This is the final line of the Lord's Prayer as given in the

King James Bible, translated into Hebrew to emphasize the Kabbalistic manner with which
the passage is interpreted in the Golden Dawn rituals.
http://thelemistas.org/site/en/MSS/SpiritualExercises/07-pentagram

The inerrancy of the Bible - contradictions on Torah reform

in the Gospel of Matthew.

There are notable inconsistencies in the presentation of Jews and Gentiles

in Matthew's gospel, something that also becomes apparent when you
consider the falsified, polemical genealogy that opens the book. (see below)
This is not the only example of doctrinal contradictions in the manuscript. You
can also consider Matthew's statement on the 'infallible inerrancy' of the
scriptures found in the Sermon on the Mount.It is self evident that the bible is
not 'infallibly inerrant' no matter who was alleged to have taught this false
doctrine.
Matthew's sermon on Torah regulations opens with a declaration of
infallibility, inclusive of both prophets and the Torah, parts of which the
prophets condemned, and which was also condemned by the early church, and
the gospels, making this statement incongruous to the least. This is then
followed by a number of rejections of Torah ideology expressed in the formula
'you have heard it said (ie. in the Torah) ... but what I say to you is this.' For
example you have heard it said (in the Torah) 'an eye for an eye' but 'what I say
you is this ... resist not evil ... turn the other cheek.' There are a number of such
statements found in Matthew chapter five, and one has to wonder just how the
Torah can be both 'infallible' and how not one rule can be relaxed, and then
what follows is nullifications and rejections which go beyond mere relaxing.
These comments on the Torah are made according to the following formula.
You have heard it said in the Torah that you should do this, but what I say to
you is that you should not do that, but rather you should do this other thing
instead. So a good case could be made that the verse extolling Biblical
infallibility was a later interpolation recognizable, as such interpolations always
are, by the contradictions in doctrine they introduce.
The best explanation for these inconsistencies is that the original Jewish community that
produced the gospel were for Torah reform and did not produce the 'to the Jews only'
passages in the gospel, but that the reactionary defence of the 'inerrancy' of the Torah
and the doctrine that Gentiles were dogs were added later by a reactionary segment of
the community, into whose hands the gospel was eventually passed. It is more than likely
the case that this segment of the Jewish congregation were also responsible for the
'Gentile dog' parable found in Matthew's gospel, and thus being against Torah reform
and for the 'infallible inerrancy' of scripture and against Gentiles, they could also not
have been responsible for the genealogy which opens the book.

It is this ideological outlook that informs the gospel of Matthew's anti-Gentile

polemics, including the Gentile dog' parable. Nevertheless they appear to have
absorbed something of the radical tradition, encapsulated in Ruth, in that they
keep the attitude that Gentiles are dogs, but if they acknowledge their dog-like
state, and lower themselves into the dust, then perhaps they can be thrown
some scraps from the table. This strange harmonization' constitutes keeping
both the Torah and the prophets, at least in the gospel of Matthew.
"And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, "Have
mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a
demon." But he (Christ) did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and
begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us." He answered,
"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and
knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me." And he answered, "It is not fair to
take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." She said, "Yes, Lord, yet
even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."" (Matthew
Chapter 15 verse 22)
It was quite clear then that the Jewish people were the masters of the
house, and Canaanites, not to mention Ammonites and Moabites and so on,
were the household dogs. In contradiction to Mark's account, this reactionary
element found in Matthew will insist that Christ was sent only to the Jews'
which is a reflection of their own ideological outlook, and not a rendition of
historical fact.
The insertion of the 'gentile dog' parable into Mark's gospel (Mark Chapter 7 verse 25) is
one of the most obvious examples of scribal harmonization of the gospel parables. In
Mark's gospel this parable becomes the story of Christ calling a Syro-Phoenician'
Gentile woman a dog' who he could not bother to help. (Christ was sent only to Jews,
not to the dog Gentiles.) This is a version of parable that appears in the gospel of
Matthew, with the difference that in Matthew's version the woman who Joshua calls a
dog is a Canaanite'. The theme of Christ preaching in Judea, and only to Jews in any
case, even when he toured the northern Gentile territories, is a feature of Matthew's
gospel, not Mark's. Joshua does not even go near Judea in Mark's gospel until the very
end of his life. Furthermore, in Mark's gospel Joshua preaches to entire cities in Gentile
territory, and thus it seems strangely out of place for Mark to suddenly sound like
Matthew and start calling Gentiles dogs'. Whenever such inconsistencies are found in
Biblical manuscripts it is an indication that inconsistent passages have been introduced
into a manuscript by scribes.
In Matthew's gospel, Samaritans are, of course, included on the list of banned
dog-type' peoples.
"These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, "Go nowhere among the
Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep
of the house of Israel." (Matthew Chapter 10 verse 5)
This would be a good time to point out once again the inconsistencies in
Matthew's account. In the opening chapters of Matthew's gospel he follows

Mark in opening the ministry in Gentile territory, and then goes so far as to
suggest that the sending of the Messiah to the Gentiles was in fact the great
fulfillment of a prophecy of Isaiah.
"And leaving Nazareth he went and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea, in the
territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah
might be fulfilled: "The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, toward the
sea, across the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles the people who sat in
darkness have seen a great light, and for those who sat in the region and
shadow of death light has dawned." (Matthew 4:13)
We are told in Matthew's gospel that Gentiles were 'dogs' that he could not
bother even talking, too, much less heal. Then again we are told that,
"And he went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the
gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every infirmity among
the people. So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all
the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, demoniacs,
epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them. And great crowds followed him
from Galilee and the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond the
Jordan." (Matthew chapter 4 verse 23)
You might note that Syria, Galilee ('of the Gentiles'), the Decapolis, and the
lands 'beyond the Jordan' are Gentile territories.
We are told in Matthew's gospel that the Torah is infallible, and that the
Torah requires reform. We are told in the Matthew gospel that the gospel is for
the Jews only, and that Gentiles and Samaritans are 'dogs' who must be
avoided. Then again we are told that Gentiles are to inherit the Kingdom of
Heaven and that it is the Jewish people who will be cast out (presumably into
hell, where they will 'weep and grind their teeth'). In Matthew Chapter 8:5-13 we
are told the story of a Roman (Gentile) centurion who received a miracle, and
furthermore is presented as holier than the Jewish people.
"As he entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him
and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible distress."
And he said to him, "I will come and heal him." But the centurion answered
him, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the
word, and my servant will be healed. For I am a man under authority, with
soldiers under me; and I say to one, Go, and he goes, and to another, Come,
and he comes, and to my slave, Do this, and he does it." When Jesus heard
him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, "Truly, I say to you, not
even in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and
west (ie. Gentiles) and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the
kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom (ie. the Jewish people) will
be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.""
(Matthew Chapter 8 verse 5)
If we assume that the original Matthew was 'pro-Jewish' then the parable of
the Centurion, which is pro-Gentile, would be a later interpolation by the

church fathers. Another possibility is that the parable was original to Matthew,
and the 'Gentile dog' and other reactionary material were later interpolations by
certain reactionary elements in the Jewish congregation that inherited the
manuscript. This seems to me to be the most likely scenario since it would
then be the original ideological outlook that the Matthew gospel was being
critical of Jewish reaction and rejection of Joshua as Messiah, was for Torah
reform, against the Pharisees, and was employing this 'pro-Gentile' parable as
a means to shame and pressure the rest of the Jewish people. It would also
explain the presence of 'master-slave' parables in the gospel (the Jewish
people were being invited to consider themselves slaves who being taking
beatings for the rejection of Christ).
The falsified genealogy that opens the book of Matthew is an interesting enigma. (For
more information on the problems such genealogy introduce see the page on
chronological problems in the Bible comared in chart form to Matthew's genealogy or
the page on conflicting genealogy of the Bible. In Matthew's version of the lineage of the
messiah we are told that Christ was descended from both Rahab the harlot (a Gentile in
Jericho) and Ruth the Moabite (another Gentile). In other parts of the book we are told
that Gentiles are dogs and also that the Torah, which also condemns Gentiles, is
infallible, perfect, and without error, right down to the last dot over the last letter 'i'.
The genealogy is obviously false in many ways (the story of Rahab the harlot is
separated by a lot more than just a generation from that of the time of Ruth). It is
interesting to note that the author of this genealogy mentions men, which is
characteristic of all other Bible genealogies, and then makes a point of mentioning a
harlot and a (supposedly eternally cursed) Moabite woman.
Supesupersite
http://www.awitness.org/essays/virgin.html
If one or more of the communities possessed writings from the old country, with sayings of
the Teacher such as we find in the Gospel of Thomas or the reconstructed Q gospel, words
actually spoken by the Teacher during his earthly life, it is odd that they were not used. The
early writings, and the Markan gospel too, have only a very few echoes of them. The
destruction of Qumran, and Jerusalem, in 70AD must have precipitated a fresh wave of
refugee Nazoreans the last to leave the sinking ship. The possibility must be considered
that with them came precious scrolls, collections of the sayings of the Teacher. These were
mostly not present in the first gospel, which is usually dated to 70-80AD. The later
evangelists use the first gospel as a foundation for their own augmented accounts, weaving the
sayings, including the Sermon on the Mount, into essentially the same narrative.

The Sermon on the Mount

The mountain setting may be chosen to

suggest authority (Luke puts the discourse
on the plain).
Not really a sermon, but a group of
sayings.
The beatitudes from Q: four sayings: the
poor, the hungry, those who mourn, those
who are reviled.
Lukes version: 6:20-22.
Matthews discourse expands this to nine.
Adding sayings on meek, merciful, pure in
heart, peacemakers, those persecuted for
righteousness.
And changes the focus somewhat of those
directed toward poor, hunger,
mourning.
The effect of the additions in Matthew?

Sermon continued: other

themes:

Refinement of teachings from Law:

Murder > anger;
Adultery > looking with lust;
Divorce > no divorce (except for
unchastity);
Swearing falsely > no swearing at all;
Eye for an eye > no resistance at all.
Love your neighbor > love your enemy!
Interiority of righteousness:
Hide your almsgiving.
Pray in secret.
Fast secretly.
Avoidance of anxiety: set kingdom first

Lords prayer

The Aramaic Kaddish and the Lord's

Prayer:
Kaddish, now the Jewish prayer at death,
was a simple benediction of God.

Kaddish: Magnified and sanctified be his

great name in the world which He hath
created according to his will.
Lords prayer: Our Father in heaven,
hallowed [sanctified] be your name.
Kaddish: May He establish his kingdom
during your life and during your days, and
during the life of all the house of Israel,
ever speedily and at a near time, and say
ye, Amen.
Your kingdom come. Your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.

Do unto others:

In everything do unto others as you would

have them do unto you; for this is the Law
and the prophets.
Rabbi Hillel: Do not do unto others what
you would not have them do to you.

Both this teaching and the Lords Prayer

indicate the rabbinic nature of these
teachings.
Including the use of Abba to refer to
God an invocation in which reverence
and intimacy are mingled (Geza Vermes).
Dead sea scrolls (Qumran) also address
God as Father.
A close relationship between these
teachings of Jesus and the Judaism of his
time.

For those, however, who consider one or other of the modern source hypotheses of the
Gospels more credible (cf. Synoptic Problem), the source of the Sermon on the Mount is
uncertain. It contains only a handful of parallels with Mark, but does have a number of loose
parallels with Luke's Sermon on the Plain. The parallels indicate to those who hold the Two
source hypothesis that much of this text likely came from the hypothetical ancient (and no
longer extant) document referred to as Q. Furthermore, some of the sayings can be found in
the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas. However, McArthur argues that the parallels in Luke tend
to be very loose, and that there are a considerable number of verses having no parallel, thus
theorising that there was an extra step between the sources used by Matthew and Luke.
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/1999_Corruption_of_Scripture_in_the_Second_Ce
ntury.html

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a
letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished."
- Matthew 5:18 // Luke 16:17
"The complex Matthew 5:17-19 reflects a controversy in the early Christian community over
whether the Law was still binding on Christians. Matthew's position is that the most trivial
regulation, metaphorically represented by an iota (the smallest letter of the Greek alphabet)
and by the serif (the tiny strokes added to the ends of letters) must be observed. Matthew
thereby nullifies Jesus' relaxed attitude towards the Law, the centrality of the love

commandment in Jesus' teaching, and Jesus' repeated distinction between the qualitative
fulfillment of God's will and the formal observance of the Law, especially the ritual Law."
- Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels
In 'You who weep now', "the reference is to the Qumran Community [more properly the
Yahad who did not necessarily live at Qumran] and other pious Jews who grieved for the
Temple of Yahweh in the hands of the unworthy. This saying also appears in a Qumranian
psalm."
- Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas, The Hiram Key: Pharaohs, Freemasons and the
Discovery of the Secret Scrolls of Jesus
* The Sermon on the mount has no original material and this may shock some
people. It was made up of fragments from Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, The
Secrets of Enoch and the Sherome Esreh. This Sermon was unknown to the
oldest Gospel, the apocryphal Gospel of Mark.

Additional Beatitudes in Matthew "Into the list he inherited [from Mark] Matthew
introduces four congratulations not found in either Luke (Q) or Thomas. To commend the
meek, the merciful, those with undefiled hearts, and those who work for peace is quite
different from congratulating the poor, the hungry, and the weeping. These additional
beatitudes offer reward for virtue rather than relief from distress. People normally expect
virtue to be rewarded; and the virtues in question are well known and widely accepted among
Judeans of the period. There is no surprise, no reversal, no paradox. In sum, these sayings are
not characteristic of Jesus."
- Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels , p. 139
Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong argues that the author of the Gospel of Matthew created
all eight beatitudes as part of Christian celebration during the Jewish liturgical year.
"The Jews marked <Pentecost with a twenty-four-hour vigil divided into eight segments. It
was designed to remember Moses at Sinai and to extol the wonders and virtues of the law."
"The Sermon on the Mount also reveals the form of a twenty-four-hour watch vigil, for it
divides neatly into eight subgoupings, which would provide a proper Christian reading for
each of the three-hour segments of the liturgical watch that marked the Pentecost
celebrations."
"...It is very clear that the Sermon on the Mount was a Matthean creation and was patterned
by Matthew on Psalm 119, the psalm of Pentecost."
- John Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels, pp. 113, 115

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/newgospel.html
"We have found one instance in which Jesus, in effect, demanded transgression of the law: the
demand to the man whose father had died."
- E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism

"Another disciple said to him, 'Lord, first let me go and bury my father.' But Jesus told him,
'Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.'"
- Matthew 8:21-22 // Luke 9:59, 60; Thomas 86:1-2
"In both the gentile and Judean worlds, one had a basic filial duty to bury one's father. It
would have been an acute form of dishonor to leave one's father unburied or to permit
someone else to bury him: it would have brought shame, not only on the father's memory, but
also on the son."
- Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels
http://users.bigpond.net.au/bstone/akhenaton.htm
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a
single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child
of hell as yourselves."
- Matthew 23:15
"...Both the detailed knowledge of Pharisaic argument and the level of invective in many of
the sayings recorded in Matthew 23:1-36 reflect the later historical context, not the public life
of Jesus."
- Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels
"Jesus said, 'Damn the Pharisees! They are like a dog sleeping in the cattle manger: the
dog neither eats nor [lets] the cattle eat.'"
- Thomas 102; Matthew 23:13, Luke 11:52
"The saying was attributed to Aesop and other sages and was widely known in the ancient
Near East. It belongs to the category of common wisdom that was frequently attributed to
Jesus by his followers."
- Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels

According to Episcopal Bishop, John Shelby Spong, the parable about the Good Samaritan
did not originate with Jesus. Luke created the story in order to make his Christian lection for
the day parallel the Torah as it was read during Jewish liturgical year.
"Jesus was beaten prior to His crucifixion, as was the common practice. He was tied to a post
and beaten nearly to death using a short whip called a flagrum. The flagrum was made using
leather thongs into which were woven sharp pieces of bone and lead. The pieces of bone and
lead would cut into the back and shoulders of the prisoner with each stroke, eventually
opening the back to expose the interior organs. The Jews were limited by their law to 40
lashes. The Romans, however, had no limits."
Supersupersite
http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/easter-04.asp

http://www.all-creatures.org/discuss/didjesuseatfish-jv.html
http://www.progressiveu.org/003039-skeptical-bible-study-who-wrote-gospels
ghetsemane
The evidence of Luke (ix. 35), in the account of the
Voice at the Transfiguration, points to an original
" Chosen". John also, who says that the Baptist called
himself a Voice, adds that the Baptist described Jesus,
if we Jtccept the Syro-Sinaitic reading, not as '* Son of
God," but as (i. 34) " the chosen of God." These and
other facts indicate that the Synoptic Voice was based
on Isaiah xlii. i ("my Chosen"). Owing to the similarity of the Hebrew for " my Chosen " and the Hebrew
for " in my beloved^'' Matthew (xii. 18) has mistranslated
" Chosen " as if it were " Be/oved.^' The context of
Isaiah (xlii. i ^^ my ^Servant... my Chosen") calls the
Messiah " Servant."^ This is rendered by the LXX
'' boy^' meaning *^^ Servant " but liable to be taken to
mean " Son^\ The Synoptists have mostly taken !* thus,
converting Isaiah's ^^ Chosen... Servant''' into ^^ Beloved
Son." This confusion was facilitated by the fact that
the Hebrew "zwy beloved" literally means "y only
one^^ but is specially applied to a '' son "...
But all this is lost or obscured in the extant Synop^tic
narratives partly because they have taken '''He a]fh
Reared [as] Moses and Elijah unto them''^ as meaning
" There-appeared Moses and Elijah unto them^^ which
has led them into distracting details. But a greater
obscuration consists in the stress laid on manifestations
of physical splendour, such as "sun," "white," "light,"
"fuller," while there is scarcely an indication or suggestion (except in Luke) of the true glory that of selfsacrifice. Hence the Synoptic Transfiguration, regarded
as a manifestation of divine glory, is greatly inferior to
the Mosaic Theophany in which, answering the Lawgiver's petition, " Shew me thy glory" Qod replied " I
will make all my GOODNESS pass before thee." For
these reasons John rejected the whole of the narrative
of 'the Transfiguration, as being not only historically
false but also spiritually inadequate.

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Temptations.htm
three temptations
If you're interested in seeing how Luke stitched together the passage from Mark and the one from Q, take a look
at 4:2. There he borrows directly from Mark (the devil tempted Jesus for forty days); but in the following verses
he draws from Q (the devil gave Jesus three temptations). The two sections don't quite match: The story from Q
seems to take place on a single occasion; Mark reports a different kind of temptation over a longer period. Luke
simply cut and pasted the two sources without trying to reconcile them.
Israel faced three temptations and failed them all. They received manna from heaven to show they should
depend on God (Deuteronomy 8:3), but they rebelled (Dt 9:7-9). They were told to worship God alone (Dt 6:13),
but they turned to false idols (Judges 3:5-7). They were asked not to tempt God (Dt 6:16), but they forced Moses
to have God provide water from the Rock (Exodus 17:1-7; Numbers 20:1-13; Psalm 95:8-11), a request which
they later believed cost Moses his entry to the promised land (Dt 32:48-52).

Matthew seems to soften Mark's rather chaotic temptation episode. In Mark, the Spirit drove
Jesus into the wilderness, but Matthew puts a positive spin on it by having the Spirit lead
Jesus into the wilderness. Matthew has no "wild beasts" with Jesus, and Jesus seems more in
control of the situation. He fasts for "forty days and forty nights"--a direct reminder of the
children of Israel in the wilderness--and only afterward is he hungry.
Matthew identifies the devil as "the tempter," one of only two uses of this word in the New
Testament--the other is 1 Thess. 3:5. Matthew certainly gives a well-rounded portrait of this
"tempter."
Matthew does this different. In regard to bread, Matthew goes with the plural--"stones"
rather than "stone," "loaves of bread" rather than "bread." The second temptation in Matthew
is Luke's third--"the pinnacle of the temple." The third temptation in Matthew takes place on
a mountain. Matthew is especially fond of mountains. Jesus' stirring inaugural sermon was
on a mountain. Likewise, at the close of his gospel, the disciples meet the risen Jesus on a
mountain. These serve as reminders of Moses and Mount Sinai, and also tap into peoples'
somewhat mystical association of mountains with being "higher up" and "closer" to God.
In Matthew, however, we see him showing Christ not only all the kingdoms of the world, but
also all their glory, perhaps taking more than a moment of time to do it so as to make it more
enticing.
In addition to these discrepancies, we find that Jesus prophesies that Peter shall deny
him thrice "before the cock crow," while in Mark the cock crows immediately after the
first denial: in Luke, Jesus and Peter remain throughout the scene of the denial in the
same hall, so that the Lord may turn and look upon Peter; while Matthew and Mark
place him "beneath" or "without," and make the third denial take place in the porch
outside--a place where Jesus, by the context, certainly could not see him.
http://loyno.edu/~richard/synoptics/mark.html
luke plutarchus piso
http://books.google.com/books?
id=KnIYRi3upbEC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=apollonius+paul+conspiracy&source=bl&
ots=b8Fpl_iHZb&sig=XW8qnO0HBCjLzCZN9vl2kSkq_Ls&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result
&resnum=1&ct=result
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/890/paul.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/autoc.html
http://sangha.net/messengers/appolonius.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20060623122853/http://sangha.net/messengers/appolonius.htm
Luke was actually Plutarchus
http://www.thenazareneway.com/plutarchs_parable.htm
http://www.thenazareneway.com/plutarchs_parable2htm.htm
http://www.gottnotes.com/ArticlesLukeandPlutarch2.html

http://www.gottnotes.com/Josephus.html
http://littlebirdsings.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/who-really-wrote-lukes-gospel/
Elohim Tsebaoth -The LORD of hosts (PS 84:8;Jer 15:6)
Elohim Gibbor- The LORD is mighty (Is 42:13)
http://www.israelofgod.org/elohim1.htm
It seems that Paul can't count very well. Paul's right hand man was Luke. Luke was a
physician under Paul's ministry and wrote the book of Luke from second hand information of
the life of Christ since Luke appears decades after the death of Jesus. Luke states that the
Apostles chose Matthias as an Apostle. Since Luke was intensely faithful to Paul, he would
not ever dare to say the Apostles chose James the brother of Jesus as a new Apostle. Why is
because James apposed Paul's strange doctrine. While Luke attempts to hide the fact that
James was chosen, Paul It seems that Paul can't count very well. Paul's right hand man was
Luke. Luke was a mistakenly admits it.
The Apostles knew Paul as a preying insect that had no remorse.
Those who believe the bible is absolutely true might note that Peter throughout quotes from
the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. If he did then the story about Mark being his
interpreter is false. Why should he need an interpreter if he already understood Greek? It is
hard to believe that a simple Galilaean fisherman spoke and read Greek so well that
quotations from the Greek bible habitually fell from his lips. Since the Galilaeans were
followers of the doctrine of Judas the Galilaean, they would have avoided speaking Greek.
Even mistakes in the Septuagint are propagated so that Peter speaks of pains of death when
bonds is the word used in the Hebrew version of Psalms. The error had already appeared in
the Septuagint and Peter repeats it, but people are held by the bonds of death not by its
pains. The man who spoke Greek and quoted from the Septuagint was Luke, proving that
the speeches he wrote were composed. If this mistake had occurred in some Essene recension
of the Psalms from which the Septuagint had been translated, then the error might have been
genuinely Peters but it would also prove him to have been a follower of the Essenes.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
This is plainly doctored. This part of Acts 2:38 is written at least 50 years after the event and
perhaps much later than thatmuch of the mythology was in place. Peters instructions that
the crowd be baptized in the name of Jesus are unlikely to have been original.
Parabola gnostica adaugata de vicleanul Plutarch (Luke):
Luke's parable of Lazarus and Dives echoes an earlier Egyptian tale
involving torment for the rich and comfort for the poor.
'In one of the few cases where a concept that figures in the New
Testament has been taken to be ultimately of Egyptian origin, Jesus's
parable of Dives and Lazarus, it has quite correctly been assumed that this
transmission took place by way of Jewish material.'

- Seigfreid Morenz, Egyptian Religion

'In the so-called Setna Story [II Setna, II, 9ff - Memphis], written in
demotic, the hero of the tale looks into the realm of the dead and there
see (or learns) how, in accordance with a divine judgment, the pompous
furnishings of a rich but unjust man's tomb are assigned to a poor but just
man, who is buried in simple fashion; the latter achieves happiness next to
Osiris, while the rich man suffers the torments of hell.'
Ne putem baza DOAR pe PROFETIILE DIN VECHIUL TESTAMENT,
PESTE 300, DESPRE MESIA...care descriu caracterul adevarat al lui
Emmanuel Mesia.
Supersite
The Jew-baiting of 3:13 proves that the speech is false. Like all of these people, Peter was a
Jew and could not have spoken as if he were of a different and superior race of people. Luke
could, and, of course, puts his words on the tongue of Peter! The taunting continues in Acts
3:14, where the expression habitually used by the Essenes of their Righteous Teacher is used
of Jesusthe holy and righteous onea title which appears in the Enoch literature, highly
regarded by the Qumran sectaries.
Meanwhile, Peter exonerates Pilate, the Roman governor, to placate the target audience of
Lukes books, the Romans. The Christian revision of the incident of Barabbas is known to
Luke.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/3678/JOEGOS2.htm
http://stargods.org/ChurchMythsChurchofPaul.htm
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/christprise/pagan-origins.html
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2005-July/024147.html
http://www.yahwehism.com/html/yahweh-samaria.html
http://yahwehism.com/html/eleleu-ih.html
http://members.tripod.com/CarlosEnrique/GODNAME01.html
http://members.tripod.com/CarlosEnrique/GODNAME02.html
http://www.yahwehism.com/html/sacred-name.html
http://www.yahweh.com/PWMags/PW08-07/False-1.htm
http://www.revelations.org.za/NotesS-Name.htm
http://www.seekgod.ca/htname.htm
http://theassemblyofyahowahtheeternal.com/yahowah+familyname/NameofHoshu.html
http://www.yahwehism.com/html/yahowah.html
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=35753453
http://www.revelations.org.za/NotesS-Name.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/htwhatsinaname.htm
The Esessenes cooked up the four Gospels:
h] The writer of Mark, the earliest of the canonical gospels, apparently had no knowledge of
a virgin birth for the following reasons: 1) no birth narrative, 2) Mark's Jesus only became
aware of his divine status when he was baptism, 3) when in Mark 10:17-18 a follower
addressed him as "Good Teacher" Jesus replied, "Why callest thou me good? There is none
good but one, that is God". thereby not only denying the virgin birth and the incarnation, but
also the doctrine of the holy trinity,
Having said that, I point out that the purpose of the genealogies, to establish a direct family
linkage from Jesus to King David, is an important one since Jewish prophetic writings makes
it clear that the Messiah must be a direct descendant of King David (2 Samuel 7:16, Psalms
89:3-4 and 132:11-12,) although this requirement is brought into serious question by Jesus
himself (Mark 12:35-37.)
According to Mark (1:11) when Jesus was baptized a heavenly voice declares to him, "Thou
art my beloved son. Note that the voice addresses Jesus directly as if it were announcing
something to him that he and his family were heretofore unaware of.
The Adulteress - John 8:1-11, the story of the adulterous woman, is intriguing. Some
Christians are quick to declare it to be a testimonial to Jesus compassion toward women. But
is that true? First, it appears only in the Gospel of John. However, the oldest manuscripts do
not contain it
Divorce - Biblical pronouncements on divorce are so convoluted, contradictory, impractical
and gender biased as to be downright nonsensical. Let us examine them beginning with Mark
10:11-12, where Jesus says, "Whosoever shall put away (divorces) his wife, and marry
another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away (divorce) her
husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery". This passage clearly states that
both the husband and the wife have the right of divorcement. Once divorced, however, neither
can remarry without committing adultery, a capital crime. No exception is made even in the
event of the death of a divorced spouse. So, according to Mark both parties in the divorce
must remain unmarried for the rest of their lives.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus again speaks to the subject of divorce (Matthew 5:31-32),
but here he says something entirely different, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him
give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife,
saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, and whosoever shall
marry her that is divorced committeth adultery". First, notice that in contrast to Mark, the
right of a woman to divorce her husband is not acknowledged. But, the man who is unwary
enough to marry a divorced woman, joins her in committing adultery. The original husband,
oddly enough, is held responsible for the whole thing. The clause, saving for the cause of
fornication, is indeed puzzling because in this case fornication is synonymous with adultery.
Because adultery is a capital crime, the woman would automatically be put to death thereby
rendering divorce unnecessary. Apparently the husband is free to fornicate to his heart's
content.

This raises a question regarding Mark 10:12 in which women have the right of divorcement.
Why would the writer of Mark have said such a thing? One possible explanation is that who
ever wrote the Gospel of Mark was unfamiliar with Jewish law and customs. The passage
reflects the Hellenistic culture where women have always had the right to divorce their
husbands.
Mark, the oldest of the four canonical gospels, tells us in 11:8 that this event was
accompanied by the spreading of leafy branches that they cut from the fields (NSRV). This
poses a serious problem, Where did the people get those leafy branches? Its much too early
in the year for them.
The writer of Matthew, who drew liberally from Mark, makes a small but important change.
Recognizing Marks goof, Matthews writer simply omits any reference to leaves. Some
people spread their cloaks while others cut and waved bare branches (21:8). A branch without
leaves might better be called a stick, and sticks are not normally thought of as instruments that
can be spread or waved. It is the leaves that provide the cover on the ground on which the
procession can move. It is the leaves that flutter when the branches are waved. So, we become
more skeptical.
The source of this story is Zechariah 9:9: Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O
daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh upon thee: he is just, and having salvation;
lowly, and riding upon an ass, and on a colt, the foal of an ass. (KJV) According to this
prophecy, the king will come riding on a young donkey, i.e. a foal. The gospel writers claim
that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy by way of his alleged triumphal entry into Jerusalem where,
according to Mark, Luke and John, he does indeed come riding in on a young donkey. But,
the writer of Matthew, apparently in his overzealous determination to prove prophecy
fulfillment, apparently misread Zechariah 9:9 and in so doing creates what can only be seen as
a huge embarrassment.
From Youngs Literal Translation of the New Testament. Mt. 21:2 ". . . you will find a donkey
tied there and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me". 3 ". . . The Lord had need
of them and immediately he will send them". If there was only one animal, why didnt Jesus
say "it" instead of the plural, "them"? And all of this came to pass so that it might be fulfilled
what was spoken through the prophet saying, (here Matthew repeats Zechariah 9:9.) Verse 7:
and brought the donkey and the colt and laid upon them their garments and sat him thereon.
So according to the writer of Matthew, Jesus road triumphantly into Jerusalem astride two
mounts, an ass and her colt.

The Accursed Fig Tree - Mark (11:12-14) tells us that on his way home after cleansing of
the Temple, Jesus spied a fig tree in the distance and went to it seeking figs. This is strange
indeed since fig trees do not bear fruit in late March when this is supposed to have taken
place. Upon finding no figs Jesus and proceeded to curse the fig tree. Now to curse a fig tree
for not bearing fruit in March is not unlike kicking a dog because it can not speak English
thereby punishing it for the inability to do the impossible. Mark concludes this story by telling
us that due to Jesus' curse the fig tree withered and died. By destroying a fruit tree Jesus broke
Gods law (Deut. 20:19). The writer of Matthew (21-18-20) repeats this story but says that the

unfortunate tree withered and died instantly. Although he mentions fig trees in a couple of
places (13:6, 21:29) the writer of Luke wisely skips this story as does the writer(s) of John.
The concluding point emphasized in Mark and Matthew is that with enough faith one can
literally move mountains. But, its indeed hard to get the connection.
Peters Denial - Of all of the New Testament stories that of Peters denial (Mark 14:66-72
and parallels) is one of the most well known. In summary it says that following Jesus arrest
by agents of the chief priest Peter is identified by three people as being one of Jesus
followers. Peter vehemently denies this accusation rejecting Jesus in the process. After the
third denial a cock crows, and Peter suddenly remembers Jesus predicting that he would deny
him err the cock crows. Peter wept. This story has provided the text for many sermons and
Sunday school lessons, but did it really happen?
One of the main problems with the denial story lies with Jesus' prophecy. It's indeed hard to
take this account seriously when different versions of it appear in all four gospels as follows:
Mark 14:30, "Truly I say to you, that you yourself this very night, before a cock crows twice,
shall three times deny me".
Matt. 26:34, "Truly I say to you that this very night, before a cock crows, you shall deny me
three times".
Luke 22:34, "I say to you, Peter, the cock will not crow today until you have denied three
times that you know me".
John 13:38, "Truly, truly, I say to you, a cock shall not crow, until yo deny me three times".
As one can see, Jesus allegedly says four different things, yet these are given as direct quotes.
Why, for example, did the author of Mark, the oldest gospel, omit Peter's name while the
writer of Luke, who obviously plagiarized Mark, includes it? Also, the writer of Luke assures
Theophilus (1:4) that what he is about to tell him is the unvarnished truth yet when compared
to the other versions he leaves out some very important details. The whole thing is obviously
bogus.
Pauls position as leader of the Christian community at Antioch was challenged by Peter. Paul
discusses this dispute at length in the second chapter of Galatians considered by most Bible
scholars to be one of the few Pauline epistle judged to be authentic. In Galatians 2:11-13 Paul
openly accuses Peter of hypocrisy but fails to mention the denial. This is highly significant
because it would have been a powerful weapon Paul could have used against Peter. Peters
denial coupled with Jesus stern warning in Matthew 10:33 , would have easily won the day
for Paul. So, we can only conclude that the denial story is a late Christian invention.
12

The Ordination of Peter - In Matthew 16:17-19 Jesus blesses Peter pronouncing him the
"rock" upon which he will build his church while giving him the "keys to the kingdom". Peter,
therefore, stands as Jesus' undisputed successor. In fact, Peter's recognition by the Roman
Catholic Church as the first pope is based primarily on this passage. However, the evidence of
forgery is undeniable. First, although it constitutes an essential element of the Christian
religion, the ordination of Peter is mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament, not even in
First and Second Peter, the epistles allegedly written by the great apostle. Second, excluding

this passage, Jesus never attempted to establish a "church". Such a project would have been
absurd in view of the fact that he assured his followers that the world would end and he would
return in glory during their lifetime to establish the kingdom of God. In fact, the use of the
word "church" suggests a level of organization not acquired until long after the event
allegedly occurred. In that regard, it is interesting to note that throughout the four gospels the
word "church" appears only twice thereafter, and both are in the same verse, Matthew 18:17.
Third, and perhaps the most revealing, although Mark and Luke do not contain the ordination,
they do contain duplicates of Matthew 16:16 and 16:20, the verses immediately preceding and
following the ordination13. The so called ordination of Peter is without a doubt a later
insertion, i.e. a forgery.
The Resurrection of the Saints - Matthew 27:52-53~ And the graves were opened; and
many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of their graves after His
resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
This astounding account appears in Matthew's narrative immediately following Jesus death.
That means the saints were resurrected sometime late Friday afternoon thereby contradicting
Acts 26:23 which says that Jesus will be "the first to rise from the dead". Having risen, the
saints did not go into Jerusalem until after Jesus was resurrected. The exact date and time of
Jesus alleged resurrection is never given. It can only be assumed that it took place sometime
prior to the following Sunday morning when the women discovered the empty tomb
Therefore, we are to believe that these resurrected saints were content to just sit in their open
graves from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning. Be that as it may, however, this event, if
true, ranks as the most electrifying miracle ever recorded. By rights it should consume whole
chapters of contemporary history. Had it really happened, it would be reviewed at length in
official government documents as well as in religious scriptures. It would have been the
chosen theme of all New Testament writers because it would have proven their doctrine, their
cause and their apostleship. Yet we find that it is mentioned only in an offhanded manner by a
single gospel writer and totally ignored by everyone else. What is most revealing, however, is
that both Mark and Luke contain in sequence the passages immediately preceding and
following Matthew 27:52-53 almost verbatim.
The writer of Matthew did not bother to tell us who those resurrected saints were. Nor did he
deem it important to tell us what happened to them afterwards. Did they return to their
graves? If they did not, where are they now? According to the passage they appeared to many.
But where are the eyewitness accounts? Did they go to claim their wives and property which
they had owned at the time of their death? If so, how were they received? It is strange indeed
that not another word was ever written about what undoubtedly ranks as the most amazing
event in all of history. But why was such an outlandish statement included?
In Zechariah 14:4-6 it prophecies that when Israel is under attack God will come to the rescue
and all the saints will come with him. Because the writer of Matthew was obsessed with the
need to have Jesus fulfill Old Testament prophesy, he was compelled to somehow include
saints. Because there were apparently no recognized saints living at that time, his only
alternative was to resurrect some. So, out of sheer desperation he simply inserted verses 52
and 53 at the appropriate place in chapter 27. His clumsy attempt to deceive is obvious. This
so-called miracle never happened.
In Matthew 18:21-22 when Peter came to him, and asked, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin
against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times? Jesus replied, "I say not unto thee, until

seven times: but, until seventy times seven". Wasnt Jesus obligated by his own words to
forgive Judas? But instead of forgiving him, Jesus openly cursed Judas when during Passover
Seder (Matthew 26:24; Mark 14:21) he said, "But woe to that one by whom the son of man is
betrayed for it would have been better for him had he never been born". Contrary to Peter,
Judas never denied Jesus. While his action may not have been all together ethical, Judas,
unlike Peter, committed neither apostasy nor blasphemy, the two unforgivable sins.
35. The Olivet Discourse (13:1-37)
The whole apocalyptic discourse of Mark is a cento of scripture
paraphrases and quotations, and it will be sufficient simply to match each
major verse to its source. Mark 13:7 comes from Daniel 2:28; Mark 13:8
from Isaiah 19:2 and/or 2 Chronicles 15:6; Mark 13:12 from Micah 7:6;
Mark 13:14 from Daniel 9:27 and 12:11 and Genesis 19:17; Mark 13:19
from Daniel 12:1; Mark 13:22 from Deuteronomy 13:2; Mark 13:24 from
Isaiah 13:1; Mark 13:25 from Isaiah 34:4; Mark 13:26 from Daniel 7:13,
and Mark 13:27 from Zechariah 2:10 and Deuteronomy 30:4 (Bowman,
pp. 241-242, Miller, pp. 300-301).
36. The Anointing at Bethany (14:3-9)
Helms (pp. 98-100) is surely correct that the Johannine version of the
Bethany anointing (John 12:1-8) most clearly reveals its origin in the
resurrection mythology of the Egyptian Osiris (Mary and Martha = Isis and
Nephthys; Lazarus=Eleazer=El-Osiris; Bethany=Beth-Annu, house of the
Sun=Heliopolis). It is apparent that the story even as Mark knew it was
already derived from Osiris. Just as Isis restored the slain Osiris to life by
anointing him in some versions, the reference here to the unnamed
woman anointing Jesus for the day of his death and burial must originally
have been set on that day, the day when she raised him from the dead.
(The story of Joseph probably came ultimately from the same source, as
numerous parallels make clear.)
"And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the Sabbath day; and his
disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him,
Behold, why do they on the Sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them,
Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungered, he, and they
that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high
priest, and did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also
to them which were with him? And Jesus said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man,
and not man for the Sabbath: Therefore the son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath".
Here the disciples were clearly breaking the law of the Sabbath as the Pharisee correctly
pointed out. But Jesus defended them by saying that they were hungry and needed food. So
their situation made an act that would otherwise have been wrong proper for them to do. This
story has Jesus advocating situation ethics, an anathema to most Bible believers. Situation
ethics denies the doctrine of absolutism so fundamental to the devout Christian. But there are
other problems with this passage more serious than that of the application of situation ethics.

Jesus here condones the breaking of the law - - 4th Commandment. It reads - Remember the
Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh
day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work. How does this square
with Jesus' famous statement in Matthew 5:17-19? While delivering the hallowed sermon on
the mount he declares with passion, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and
earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he
shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven".
The writer of Mark obviously did not do his homework before composing this passage. He
has Jesus make two statements that are inconsistent with the Old Testament story to which it
refers. This story is found in I Samuel 21:1-6. In it the high priest is Abimelech not Abiather
as Jesus says. Also according to I Samuel, David was not in the company of other men. He
was alone. He only pretended to have others with him.
http://www.inu.net/skeptic/ntforge.html
But what of Jesus prayer? That Mark is creating, not reporting, is evident
from the fact that he has eliminated from the scene anyone who might
have listened in on it. Mark derived the contents of the prayer from one of
the traditional Passover hymns, which he has had Jesus sing at the close
of the supper, Psalm 116:10-15, My distress was bitter. In panic I cried,
How faithless all men are!... I will take in my hand the cup of salvation
and invoke the LORD by name... A precious thing in the LORDs eyes is
the death of those who die faithful to him (Helms, p. 111).
"It is highly probable that not one of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) was in
existence in the form which we have it, prior to the death of Paul. And were the documents to
be taken in strict order of chronology, the Pauline Epistles would come before the synoptic
Gospels."
History of Christianity in the Light of Modern Knowledge, Rev. Charles Anderson Scott,
p.338
This statement is further confirmed by Prof. Brandon:
"The earliest Christian writings that have been preserved for us are the letters of the apostle
Paul"
"Religions in Ancient History," S.G.F. Brandon, p. 228.
In the latter part of the second century, Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth says:
"As the brethren desired me to write epistles(letters), I did so, and these the apostles of the
devil have filled with tares (changes), exchanging some things and adding others, for whom
there is a woe reserved. It is not therefore, a matter of wonder if some have also attempted to
adulterate the sacred writings of the Lord, since they have attempted the same in other works
that are not to be compared with these."

Victor Tununensis, a sixth century African Bishop related in his Chronicle (566 AD) that
when Messala was consul at Costantinople (506 AD), he "censored and corrected" the Gentile
Gospels written by persons considered illiterate by the Emperor Anastasius. The implication
was that they were altered to conform to sixth century Christianity which differed from the
Christianity of previous centuries (The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gospel of Barnabas, and the
New Testament, by M. A. Yusseff, p. 81)
These "corrections" were by no means confined to the first centuries after Christ. Sir Higgins
says:
"It is impossible to deny that the Bendictine Monks of St. Maur, as far as Latin and Greek
language went, were very learned and talented, as well as numerous body of men. In Cleland's
'Life of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury', is the following passage: 'Lanfranc, a
Benedictine Monk, Archbishop of Canterbury, having found the Scriptures much corrupted
by copyists, applied himself to correct them, as also the writings of the fathers, agreeably to
the orthodox faith, secundum fidem orthodoxam."
History of Christianity in the light of Modern knowledge, Higgins p.318
In other words, the Christian scriptures were re-written in order to conform to the doctrines of
the eleventh and twelfth centuries and even the writings of the early church fathers were
"corrected" so that the changes would not be discovered. Sir Higgins goes on to say:
"The same Protestant divine has this remarkable passage: 'Impartiality exacts from me the
confession, that the orthodox have in some places altered the Gospels'."
The author then goes on to demonstrate how a massive effort was undertaken in
Costantinople, Rome, Canterbury, and the Christian world in general in order to "correct" the
Gospels and destroy all manuscripts before this period.
Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf was one of the most eminent
conservative biblical scholars of the nineteenth century. One of his greatest lifelong
achievements was the discovery of the oldest known Biblical manuscript know to mankind,
the "Codex Sinaiticus," from Saint Catherine's Monastery in Mount Sinai. This was one of the
manuscripts which influenced the Christian recognition of the need to produce the RSV Bible.
One of the most devastating discoveries made from the study of this fourth century
manuscript was that the gospel of Mark originally ended at verses 16:8 and not at verse 16:20
as it does today. In other words, the last 12 verses (Mark 16:9 through Mark 16:20) were
"injected" by the Church into the Bible sometime after the 4th century. This conclusion was
supported by the fact that the early Church fathers of the second century C.E. such as Clement
of Alexandria and Origen never quoted these verses. Later on, it was also discovered that the
said 12 verses, wherein lies the account of "the resurrection of Jesus," do not appear in
codices Syriacus, Vaticanus and Bobiensis. Originally, the "Gospel of Mark" contained no
mention of the "resurrection of Jesus" (Mark 16:9-20). At least four hundred years (if not
more) after the departure of Jesus, the Church, by way of father Ariston, received divine
"inspiration" to add the story of the resurrection to the end of this Gospel and then allow
Christianity to attribute these inserted verses to "Mark."
In Mark chapter 9, the words "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." are
again missing.

In Mark 6:11, our modern Bibles contain the words "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more
tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." However, these
words are not to be found in either of these two most ancient of Christian Biblical
manuscripts, having been introduced into the text centuries later.
The words of Matthew 6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for
ever." Are not to be found in these two most ancient manuscripts as well as many others. The
parallel passages in Luke are also defective.

"The concept of plagiarism was unknown in the ancient world. Authors freely copied from
predecessors without acknowledgment. Sages became the repository of free-floating proverbs
and witticisms. For the first Christians, Jesus was a legendary sage: it was proper to attribute
the world's wisdom to him. The proverb in Mark 2:17, for example, is attested in secular
sources (Plutarch and Diogenes for example)...in the parallel to the Markan passage, Matthew
adds a sentence taken from the prophet Hosea (Matt 9:13)."
Also:
"Hard sayings are frequently softened in the process of transmission to adapt them to the
conditions of daily living...Variations in difficult saying often betray the struggle of the early
Christian community to interpret or adapt sayings to its own situations... Matthew's version of
the aphorism "The last will be first and the first last"(Matt 20:16) is softened in Mark 10:31 to
"MANY of the first will be last, and of the last MANY will be first"."
38 Mark 11 (Jesus, spoke with the elders of the Jews on the third day after his arrival in
Jerusalem) Matthew 21 (Jesus, spoke with the elders of the Jews on the second day after his
arrival)
39 Matthew 8 (Jesus healed a leper, then the servant of the centurion, then healed the mother
of Simon's wife) Mark 4,5,7 (healed the mother of Simon's wife, then a the leper, then the
servant of the centurion)
40 Matthew 20:30-34 (Jesus healed two blind men after leaving Jericho) Mark 10:46-52
(Jesus healed one blind man called Bartimaeus after leaving Jericho)
42 Matthew 8:28 (When Jesus came into the country of the Gergesenes, he met two men
possessed with devils coming out of the tombs) Mark 5:2 and Luke 8:27 (When Jesus came
into the country of the Gadarenes., he met one man possessed with devils coming out of the
tombs)
57 2 Samuel 8:4 (7 hundred horsemen) 1 Chronicles 18:4 (7 thousand horsemen)
58 1 Chronicles 21:12 (Three years famine) 2 Samuel 24:13 (Seven years famine)
59 Deuteronomy 2:19 & Deuteronomy 2:37 (Moses deprived land of Ammon) Joshua 13:2425 (Moses gives land of Ammon as inheritance)

60 2 Samuel 24:9 (800,000+500,000) 1 Chronicles 21:5 (1,100,000+470,000)

61 2 Chronicles 36:9 (Eight years, three months +10 days) 2 Kings 24:8 (Eighteen years,
three months)
62 2 Samuel 10:18 (700, 40,000 horsemen) 1 Chronicles 19:18 (7000, 40,000 footmen)
63 1 Kings 7:26 (two thousand baths) 2 Chronicles 4:5 (Three thousand baths)
64 2 Samuel 6:23 (Michal had no children) 2 Samuel 21:8 (Michal had five sons)
65 Genesis6:3 (mankind shall not live past 120 years) Genesis 11:10-32
(500,438,433,464,...etc.)
66 2 Chronicles 9:25 (4,000 stalls) 1 Kings 4:26 (40,000 stalls)
67 Isaiah 40:28 (God does not faint nor weary) Exodus 31:17 (God rested, and was
refreshed.)
68 Genesis 1: (God creates Plants, then animals, then man and woman.) Genesis 2: (God
creates man, then plants, then animals, then woman)
69 Ezekiel 45 and 46 (Doctrines of offerings and sacrifices) Numbers 28 and 29
(Contradictory doctrines of offerings and sacrifices)
70 1 Chronicles 8:29-38 (One list of names) 1 Chronicles 9:35-44 (A contradictory list of
names)
71 2 Samuel 5 and 2 Samuel 6 (David brought the ark after fighting the Philistines) 1 Samuel
13 and 1 Samuel 14 (David brought the ark Before fighting the Philistines)
72 Genesis 6:19-20 (Noah was to bring onto the ark "of every living thing of all flesh, two of
every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive ....male and female....of fowls....of
cattle....of every creeping thing of the earth..."). Genesis 7:2-3 (Noah was to bring onto the ark
"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts
that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male
and the female...").
73 2 Samuel 8:1 ("David took Methegammah out of the hand of the Philistines"). 1
Chronicles 18:1 ("David...took Gath and her towns out of the hand of the Philistines").
74 2 Samuel 8:8 ("And from Betah, and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer, king David took
exceeding much brass"). 1 Chronicles 18:8 ("Likewise from Tibhath, and from Chun, cities of
Hadarezer, brought David very much brass").
75 2 Samuel 8:10 ("Then Toi sent Joram his son unto king David") 1 Chronicles 18:10 ("He
sent Hadoram his son to king David")

76 2 Samuel 8:12 ("Of Syria, and of Moab, and of the children of Ammon, and of the
Philistines, and of Amalek"). 1 Chronicles 18:11 ("from Edom, and from Moab, and from the
children of Ammon, and from the Philistines, and from Amalek.
77 2 Samuel 8:13 ("And David gat him a name when he returned from smiting of the Syrians
in the valley of salt, being eighteen thousand men"). 1 Chronicles 18:13 ("And he put
garrisons in Edom; and all the Edomites became David's servants").
78 2 Samuel 8:17 ("and Seraiah was the scribe") 1 Chronicles 18:16 ("and Shavsha was
scribe")
79 1 Kings 15:33-16:6 ("In the third year of Asa king of Judah began Baasha the son Ahijah
to reign over all Israel in Tirzah, twenty four years..... So Baasha slept with his fathers, and
was buried in Tirzah"). 3+24=27. 2 Chronicles 16:1 ("In the thirty sixth year of the reign of
Asa, Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah"). But he died in the twenty seventh year!
Was he resurrected? So how did he invade Judah 10 years after his death?
80 Genesis 7:1 Noah was righteous
Job 1:1, Job 1:8, Job 2:3, Job was righteous.
Supersupersite
http://www.answering-christianity.com/sake.htm

The fact that Eve enters into the conversation with the serpent, in spite of the fact that she had
heard slander at God from him, shows that her love for God had not yet had time to develop,
that she is not yet spiritually mature. And in her answer, she obviously succumbs to the deceit
of the serpent: she somewhat distorts the words of God as well, exaggerating their strictness.
God did not say: "Do not touch them." Maybe, if Eve had repeated Gods words with absolute
precision and truthfulness, the d would have run away from her, for he hates only the absolute
truth of Gods words. But he tolerates the distorted half-truth and continues his tempting
tactics.

Taking into consideration that, at the time, mankind consisted of two branches: the
descendents of Cain, the first murderer, and the progeny of the righteous Seth, who were the
ones who began to appeal to the Lord, we, without any ticklish fantasies, shall understand
what this excerpt is talking about: men from the progeny of the righteous Seth began to be
fascinated by the women of Cains descendants and became corrupt because of it.
http://www.piney.com/HsLikeADove.html

Some narratives that omit "dove" add that the Spirit "rested"
(or " abode ") : some that insert " dove " omit " rested."
The Hebrew for " rested" closely resembles that for

" dove."''
More probably, however,
" dove " was not a part of the Original, but was introduced, by error, as a Hebrew corruption for "rested."

http://www.archive.org/stream/pts_contrastoraprophet_1687_6/pts_contrastoraprophet_1687_
6_djvu.txt
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/markend.html

Very good site

http://www.nccg.org/227Art-TrinityDogma.html
If Daniel is a fiction of the second century B.C., of whom does the prophet Ezekiel speak? No
mythic, shadowy figure fits as well as the most obvious choice, our man in BabylonDaniel:
even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would save only their own lives by their
righteousness, declares the Sovereign LORD. Ezekiel 14:14.
even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, they could not save their
own sons and daughters; they would save only their own lives by their righteousness. Ezekiel 14:20.
You are wiser than Daniel; no secret is hidden from you. Ezekiel 28:3.

The final score should count the brave Maccabeans who looked back upon the Book of
Daniel as an heroic example of moral fortitude despite whelming odds. The Book of
Maccabees captures this instance:
Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael believed and were saved from the flame. Daniel, because of his innocence,
was delivered from the mouth of the lions. And so observe, from generation to generation, that none of those
who put their trust in him will lack strength. I Maccabees 2:5961. ( NRSV).

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3x.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~ironmen/authen.htm
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/daniel.htm

Gesenius thinks pieces of uncoined silver is meant.

In the New Testament "pieces" is the rendering of the Greek argurion (Matt 26:15; 27:3,56,9) in the account of the betrayal of our Lord for "thirty pieces of silver."
These are often taken to be denarii, but on insufficient ground.
The parallel passage in Zechariah (Zech 11:12-13) is rendered "thirty shekels of silver."
This was the sum payable as compensation for a slave that had been killed (Ex
21:32),
and also the price of a bondslave (Hos 3:2).
By paying thirty shekels (about ninety denarii) they therefore gave him to
understand that they did not estimate his services higher than the labor of a

purchased slave.

disciples are portrayed as mourning together after the crucifixion

Justin Martyr (link is to table of gospel narrative comparisons) of around 150 c.e. is
interesting for appearing to know only the same gospel narratives:

Herod and the Jews crucify Jesus under Pilate (see Dialogue with Trypho 32, 85,
104 and the First Apology 13)
He always speaks of the 12 as a constant unified band without any hint of a Judas (See
Dialogue with Trypho 42, 53, 106 and First Apology 39 and 50)

The interesting connection of these early accounts with the Testimonium Flavianum in the
Slavonic Josephus (scroll to section IV) is that here is provided a narrative explanation for
these unusual depaertures from the canonical versions:

Pilate, on finding Jesus innocent, releases him an action that so offends the Jewish
leaders that they bribe Pilate with 30 talents to allow them (the Jews) to execute
Jesus
This bribing of Pilate with 30 talents removes any room for a Judas betrayal (for 30
pieces of silver) since it is Pilate who (in weakness and against his better judgment)
betrays Jesus for 30 talents to the Jewish leaders, not Judas.

http://drchojnowski.blogspot.com/2005/11/pilates-silver-josephus-account-of.html
http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/unter01.htm
Desi D. Brown pretinde ca a cercetat continutul operei sale literar/stiintifice in mod detaliat,
CldV nu include cateva teme extrem de interesante...
~Imediat dupa sosirea lor in Tara Sfanta, cavalerii Templieri au intreprins mai multe calatorii
misterioase in Eritreea de unde au recuperat Chivotul Legamantului (Ark of the Covenant);
acesta fiind depozitat intai in Franta iar apoi, in Scotia; puterea lor financiara/politica crescand
imediat la un nivel superior statului/bisericii; cavalerii Templieri erau un element constitutiv
important al conspiratiei initiate de kaballah pentru a crea un imperiu financiar/bancar--acest
scop a fost indeplinit 500 de ani mai tarziu prin dinastia Rothschild
~Dinastia regala iudaica a parasit Ierusalimul in anul 66-67 e.n. cu destinatia Franta, odata ce
devenise clar faptul ca rascoala pregatita indelungat (incendiul Romei in 64 e.n. a fost pornit
de conspiratori cabalisti, deghizati in crestini) nu va destabiliza imperiul Roman astfel incat
poporul lui Israel sa devina liber din nou; aceasta fiind de fapt povestea adevarata despre
SanGraal/dinastia Merovingiana; omul care a pus capat rebeliunii a fost Vespasian
~O organizatie mult mai puternica decat Priory of Sion, 'parintele' acesteia a fost Rozacruce
(Rosenkreuzer) din care faceau parte Giordano Bruno, Nicolas Copernic, Galileo Galilei,
Isaac Newton
~Francmasoneria /conspiratia cabalista/ doreste sa instaureze un haos general /razboi-colaps
economic-si altele- din care sa rezulte un fel de dictatura mondiala, conducatorul, patriarh al
bisericii universale si lider politic, fiind un descendent direct al regelui David; CldV face parte
din pregatirea /sau conditionarea/ psihologica-sociala necesara pentru indeplinirea acestui
deziderat

Secretul din spatele cartii lui D. Brown, Codul Da Vinci este tocmai faptul ca nu mentioneaza
deloc cine a fost de fapt Jose Maria de Escriva, fondatorul Opus Dei (1928 ), originea sa
etnica si organizatia conspirativa din care facea parte...
Despre 'manuscrisele' /documentele/ de la Nag Hammadi
http://www.gotquestions.org/Nag-Hammadi.html
http://www.iamnext.com/spirituality/prioryofsion.html
http://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/Tendential_ ... _code.html
http://www.skepticfiles.org/xhate/morm007a.htm
However; the Nag Hammadi writings are of 'Gnostic' origin which were written during the
first to fourth century A.D.
The Gnostic heretics did cherish both the Old and New testament Scripture, but re-interpreted
them in terms of a mythological Gnostic Redeemer. Gnosticism gave rise to the writings of a
number of totally spurious apocalyptic books, false gospels and epistles that incorporated their
own mysticism.
Gnosticism was a movement that vigorously contended with Orthodox Christianity for
supremacy. Writings by the early Church Fathers show how widespread and influential
Gnosticism was; and it was combatted as a lethal threat to the proclamation of the Gospel.
The bishops pointed out the great gulf between Biblical Christianity and Gnosticism, even
though the Gnostics made use of Biblical text. It is obvious that Paul, the Apostle, knew of
the false ideas of Gnosticism, and spoke out against such doctrines several times in the
Scriptures.
So, what are we to make of the Nag Hammadi library? Should some or all of the scrolls be in
the Bible? To put it simply and bluntly - absolutely not! First, the Nag Hammadi scrolls are
forgeries. They were not written by whom they claim. The Apostle Philip did not write the
gospel of Philip. The Apostle Peter did not write the acts of Peter. The gospel of Thomas was
not written by the Apostle Thomas. These scrolls were fraudulently written in their names in
order to give them a legitimacy in the early church. Thankfully, the early church fathers were
nearly unanimous in recognize these Gnostic scrolls as fraudulent forgeries that espouse false
doctrines about Jesus Christ, salvation, God, and every other crucial Christian truth. There are
countless contradictions between the Nag Hammadi library and the Bible.
While the Nag Hammadi library was an exciting find, the only 'value' in the Nag Hammadi
library is that the scrolls give us insight into what early 'heretics' taught and practiced.
Recognizing the false doctrine that plagued the early church will help us better to understand
it and refute it today.
Often called the secret or hidden gospels, they are in fact neither. Only four have the name
gospel attached to them and they in no way resemble the richness and historicity of their
four counterparts in the New Testament. Many Church Fathers, of which Saint Irenaeus (A.D.
125203) is the best example, wrote volumes refuting the writings of the Gnostics of the midsecond century who they quite correctly saw as subverting the beliefs established by Christ
and the Apostles. The texts found at Nag Hammadi are either based on the earlier heresies or
are Coptic translations of them. Since the oldest text did not appear until around AD 150, we
are not talking about two systems that developed side by side as the Gnostics would have it.
The organized, monolithic, hierarchical Church had predated these writings by several
decades, perhaps even a hundred years. Therefore the so-called hidden gospels represent the

effort of a group of dissidents and malcontents bent on subverting the traditional beliefs
established by Divine Revelation.
Cel mai formidabil site pe tema codul da vinci:
http://watch.pair.com/mystery-babylon.html (4 pagini)
Identitatea adevarata a lui Jose Maria de Escriva (fondatorul Opus Dei):
http://www.opusdeialert.com/opus-deis-rabbis.htm
Tot nu ati inteles despre ce e vorba in acele razboaie din primele 5 carti ale Torah; in Canaan
traiau DOAR descendenti din neamul lui Cain; exista liste intregi in Deuteronom, Levitic,
Numeri cu crimele comise de acesti hibrizi (sange de sarpe cu sange de om), de aceea au fost
eliminati.
Avraam a fost pus la incercare; pentru salvarea neamului omenesc Dumnezeu si-a pus in joc
totul, El nu avea nevoie de acel sacrificiu, Avraam avea nevoie sa vada cata credinta are in el
de fapt pentru misiunea sa de mai tarziu.
Sa nu uitam, ca Dumnezeu DEJA facuse promisiunea lui Avraam ca fiul sau, Isaac, va
mosteni pamantul sfant:
Now the LORD had said to Abram, Depart from your country, and from your kindred, and
from your father's house, to a land that I will show you:
And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and
you shall be a blessing:
And I will bless them that bless you, and curse him that curses you: and in you shall all
families of the earth be blessed.
- Gen. 12:1-3
To obey God's call requires a sacrifice. Genesis 22 tells us that God puts Abraham to the
ultimate test of his faith, commitment and willingness to sacrifice everything to obey God's
call. God tells Abraham to go to Mt. Moriah and sacrifice His son. This is where we begin to
see a true commitment and sacrifice.
Was Abraham's love for God greater than any other love? Was it greater than that of the
pagans for their gods? Greater even for Abraham's love for his son, Isaac? When God called
Abraham, his response to God was immediate and without question, "Ready Lord.". In
another translation it reads, "Here I am Lord." Either way it means that Abraham was ready,
prepared, and willing to do whatever God asked of him without grumbling or questioning.
On their way up the slopes of Mt. Moriah Isaac asks his father, "The fire and wood are here
but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" Abraham answered him, "God himself will
provide the lamb for the burnt offering." When they arrived at the summit he bound his son
Isaac and laid him on the wood which had been placed on the altar and he raised a knife to
slay his son. The very moment that Abraham was to plummet the knife into the heart of Isaac,
the angel of the Lord spoke and declared the Lord's promise to him, "Abraham, Abraham, do

not harm the boy. I know now how devoted you are to God, since you did not withhold from
me your own beloved son".
Abraham looked around and saw a ram caught in the bushes by its horns. As we know, this
was a foreshadowing of Jesus the "spotless lamb" on Calvary. Abraham named the site
"Yahweh Yireh" which means, "His provision shall be seen". When we are prepared to serve
Jesus Christ and the Church in loving obedience, we too will see God's provision and blessing
for our faithful service.
It would have been easy for Abraham's love to be totally diverted from what God required and
give concern to save Isaac. Due to the fact that Abraham was very old and past having any
more children, we can imagine the joy and desire to spend every possible moment with Isaac.
The deep heart-felt love of a parent would certainly put the welfare of their child as a first
consideration. Abraham's faith was in God's promise relating to Isaac. His faith justified him
and God met his need.
As Abraham watched his beloved son -- living proof of the power of words -- could he have
any doubts about the truth of the chilling prophecy that suddenly came to him through those
same trusted methods?
"And He said to him: Take your son -- your only son whom you love -- Isaac, and go to the
land of Moriah and offer him up there as a whole offering on one of the mountains that I will
tell you." (Genesis 22:1-2).
This was the ultimate mountain, Abraham's supreme test. The familiar prophetic voice was
telling him to sacrifice his son to God.
From his earliest years Abraham had been destined for priesthood. The woman who wanted
him to bring a sacrifice to Terach's idols (see Abraham smashes the idols) felt instinctively
that Abraham understood about divine ministry. The question was not whether to bring
offerings but to whom. Abraham saw the absurdity of bringing offerings to powerless idols,
but he knew a great deal about offerings and self-sacrifice to HaVaYaH.
Did the path of prayer and devotion really lead to literal human sacrifice?
This is not the place for a discussion of the profound mysteries of the Binding of Isaac, which
has been discussed at length by philosophers and moralists throughout the ages. The fact is
that in the end it turned out that it was not the will of God to shed human blood -- not even for
the sake of a holy sacrifice, let alone in murder and warfare.
After three days of anguish following the prophecy, Abraham finally reached Mount Moriah.
This was the place from whose Earth Adam's body was formed. This was where Noah offered
sacrifices after the Flood. This was the place which was -- and will be -- the site of the Holy
Temple of God.
They came to the place that God told him, and Abraham built the altar there and arranged
the wood and bound Isaac his son and put him on the altar on top of the wood. And Abraham
stretched out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son.
And the angel of God called to him from the heavens and said: "Abraham! Abraham!" And he
said, "I am ready!" And He said, "Do not put your hand to the boy and do not do anything to
him. For now I know that you revere God and you did not hold back your only son from Me".

(ibid. 9-12)
It was not Isaac's blood that God wanted. Isaac's very life was to be the sacrifice. He was to be
the exemplar of total submission to God and obedience to His law.
Yet Abraham was not satisfied. Had he climbed all the way to the top of the mountain in total
surrender, only to leave without surrendering anything?
Abraham raised his eyes and saw that there was a ram caught by its horns in the thicket.
Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as an offering in place of his son.
John had been deeply moved as he saw Jesus bowed as a suppliant, pleading with tears for the
approval of the Father. As the glory of God encircled Him, and the voice from heaven was
heard, John recognized the token which God had promised. He knew that it was the worlds
Redeemer whom he had baptized. The Holy Spirit rested upon him, and with outstretched
hand pointing to Jesus, he cried, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world.
None among the hearers, and not even the speaker himself, discerned the import of these
words, the Lamb of God. Upon Mount Moriah, Abraham had heard the question of his son,
My father, . . . where is the lamb for a burnt offering? The father answered, My son, God
will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering. Gen. 22:7, 8. And in the ram divinely
provided in the place of Isaac, Abraham saw a symbol of Him who was to die for the sins of
men. The Holy Spirit through Isaiah, taking up the illustration, prophesied of the Saviour, He
is 113brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us
all (Isa. 53:7, 6); but the people of Israel had not understood the lesson. Many of them
regarded the sacrificial offerings much as the heathen looked upon their sacrifices,as gifts
by which they themselves might propitiate the Deity. God desired to teach them that from His
own love comes the gift which reconciles them to Himself.
Iata de exemplu, cum a fost modificat citatul crucial din Geneza 4.1 de catre conspiratorii din
linia genealogica Cain - Ham:
(Gen. 4:1), I have gotten a man
the Lord; which Jonathan ben Uzziel paraphrases thus,
"I have gotten a man, the angel of the Lord;"
"This (Seedline) interpretation is confirmed in the ancient literature of Israel, especially the
commentaries on the Hebrew Bible written in Aramaic and commonly known as Targums.
The commentaries were written after the (remnant's, people from the Tribes of Judah,
Benjamin and Levi) return from Babylon...One text gives this interpretation of Genesis 4:1:
And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by the Angel, and she conceived and bare
Cain; and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like the earthly beings, and she said, I have
acquired a man, the angel of the Lord." (Targum of Jonathan to Genesis 4:1) Another ancient
commentary gives a similar interpretation of the same passage: And Adam knew his wife
Eve, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Cain; and she said, I have
acquired a man, the angel of the Lord..." (Palestinian Targum to Genesis 4:1) In another
rabbinic work we find a similar interpretation...And she saw that his likeness was not of
earthly beings, but of the heavenly beings, and she prophesied and said: I have gotten a man
from the Lord."
Eva a nascut trei copii; pe Abel, pe Cain si pe sora lui Cain, Luluwa.

Acum, de ce au fost eliminate popoarele cu sange reptilian din Canaan:

Levitic
17.10,16
18
20
(crimele Canaanitilor, neamurilor din jur)
Numeri
25.2,28
(de ce au fost ucisi Medianitii)
Deuteronom
12.29,31
18.9.14
(crimele Canaanitilor)
7
10
11
(de ce a fost ales neamul din linia genealogica Avraam - Isaac)
Canaanitii proveneau din linia genealogica Cain - Ham - Nimrod; comiteau atrocitati de tot
felul, din cauza pornirilor animalice care izvorau din sangele reptilian...urmasii lor au pus la
cale cele doua razboaie mondiale, si il planuiesc pe cel de al treilea...
Iata materialul despre Pavel, adoratorul Soarelui:
http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/paul_ ... ceiver.htm
http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/paul_ananias.htm
http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/false_apostle.htm
http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/who_wrote_hebrews.htm
http://quicksitemaker.com/members/disciples/custom.html
Falsificarea epistolelor 1 si 2 Petru de catre Silvanus si Pavel:
http://quicksitemaker.com/members/disci ... stom3.html
Falsitatea notiunii de 'rapire la Cer':
http://quicksitemaker.com/members/disci ... pture.html

Saul/Pavel era contestat de primii crestini (Galateni cap. 1 si2; 2 Corinteni cap. 10-12); '
Cand a ajuns la Ierusalim, Saul a cautat sa se lipeasca de ucenici; dar toti se temeau de
el, caci nu puteau sa creada ca este ucenic' (Fapte 9:26). Motivul indoielilor
celorlaltirezulta din propria sa marturisire: 'N-am sa va crut deloc; caci cautati o
dovada ca Christos vorbeste in mine' (2 Corinteni 13:2-3).
Marile discrepante si relatari mincinoase din falsa convertire a lui Saul la crestinism:
-Fapte 9:3,4,7
Pe drum, cnd s-a apropiat de Damasc, deodat a strlucit o lumin din cer n jurul lui.
El a czut la pmnt, [B]i a auzit un glas, care-i zicea... Oamenii care-l nsoeau, au rmas
ncremenii; auzeau n adevr glasul, dar nu vedeau pe nimeni.
-Fapte 22:6,7,9
... deodat, pe la amiaz, a strlucit mprejurul meu o mare lumin din cer. Am czut la
pmnt, i am auzit un glas, care-mi zicea... Cei ce erau cu mine, au vzut bine lumina, i sau nfricoat; dar n-au auzit glasul Celui ce vorbea.
-Fapte 26:13,14
Pe la amiaz, mprate, pe drum, am vzut strlucind mprejurul meu imprejurul tovarilor
mei o lumin din cer, a crei strlucirentrecea pe a soarelui. Am czut cu toii la pmnt; i
eu am auzit un glas, care-mi zicea...
Plasmuirea acestei 'intamplari' a mers pana intr-acolo incat Barnaba a sustinut ca Pavel L-a si
vazut pe Iisus, nu doar L-a auzit: 'Barnaba...le-a istorisit cum, pe drum, Saul vazuse pe
Domnul' (Fapte 9:27)
Versiunile despre convorbirea care ar fi avut loc:
Fapte 9:4-6
Saule, Saule, pentru ce M prigoneti? Cine eti Tu, Doamne? arspuns el. i Domnul a
zis: Eu sunt Isus, pe care-L prigoneti.i-ar fi greu s arunci napoi cu piciorul ntr-un
epu. Doamne, cevrei s fac? Scoal-te , i-a zis Domnul, intr n cetate, i i seva spune
ce trebuie s faci.
Fapte 22:7-8,10
,Saule, Saule, pentru ce M prigoneti? ,Cine eti, Doamne? am rspunseu. i El mi-a zis: ,Eu
sunt Isus din Nazaret, pe care-L prigoneti.,Ce s fac, Doamne? ,Scoal-te , mi-a rspuns
Domnul, ,du-te n Damasc,i acolo i se va spune ce trebuie s faci.
Fapte 26:14-18
Si acum discursul ticluit de Pavel, o sporire/augmentare nemasurata fata de cele doua versiuni
precedente.
,Saule, Saule, pentru ce M prigoneti? i este greu s arunci, cupiciorul napoi n vrful unui
epu. ,Cine eti, Doamne? am rspunseu. i Domnul a zis: ,Eu sunt Isus, pe care-L
prigoneti. Darscoal-te, i stai n picioare; cci M-am artat ie, ca s te punslujitor i
martor att al lucrurilor, pe care le-ai vzut, ct i allucrurilor, pe care M vei vedea
fcndu-le. Te-am ales din mijloculnorodului acestuia i din mijlocul Neamurilor, la
care te trimit, ca sle deschizi ochii, s se ntoarc de la ntuneric la lumin, i de
subputerea Satanei la Dumnezeu; i s primeasc, prin credina n Mine,iertare de

pcate i motenirea mpreun cu cei sfinii.

Vedeniile false au continuat: Faptele 16:9, 18:9, 22:18, 23:11, 27:23,la fel si auzirea vocilor
invizibile: 9:4-6, 18:9-10, 22:18, 23:11.
Pavel isi recunoaste insusirile psihotice:
2 Corinteni 12:11: Am ajuns nebun
(si 2 Corinteni 11:21)
2 Corinteni 11:23: Vorbesc ca un iesit din minti
Si din blasfemiile lui Pavel:
1 Corinteni 4:10: Noi suntem nebuni pentru Christos
1 Corinteni 2:14: Omul firesc nu primeste lucrurile Duhului lui Dumnezeu, caci, pentru el,
sunt o nebunie
Intoleranta si impulsivitatea lui Pavel:
2 Corinteni 13:2: Spun iarasi mai dinainte celor ce au pacatuit maiinainte, si tuturor celorlalti,
ca, daca ma voi intoarce la voi, n-amsa va crut.
2 Corinteni 1:23: N-am mai venit pana acum la Corint tocmai ca sa va crut.
Pavel face urmatoarea afirmatie complet falsa, aceasta clasificare neputand fi gasita nicaieri in
Cuvantul lui Dumnezeu:
1 Corinteni 12:28: i Dumnezeu a rnduit n Biseric, nti, apostoli;al doilea, prooroci; al
treilea, nvtori; apoi, pe cei ce au darulminunilor; apoi pe cei ce au darul tmduirilor,
ajutorrilor,crmuirilor, i vorbirii n felurite limbi.

Pavel desconsidera darurile Duhului Sfant (vezi 1 Corinteni 12:31, casi cand el ar avea daruri
mai bune), minimalizand importanta harurilorprimite: 1 Corinteni 12:29-30, 14:22, 14:9,19.
Harul anuntat de Iisus: In Numele Meu...vor vorbi in limbi noi (Marcu 16:17)
Atacurile lui Pavel la adresa femeii (nemaintalnite in Vechiul sau NoulTestament): 1 Timotei
2:12, 1 Corinteni 14:34-36, Efeseni 5:21-22,Coloseni 3:18, Tit 2:5, 1 Corinteni 11:6-7, 1
Corinteni 11:3 si citatulteribil din 1 Timotei 2:15 'Ea va fi mantuita prin nasterea de fii' darnu
de fiice!
Atacurile viclene si perfide ale lui Pavel la adresacasatoriei/sexualitatii umane: 1 Corinteni
7:1, 1 Corinteni 7:7-8, 1Corinteni 7:27, 1 Corinteni 7:38, 1 Corinteni 7:40, 1 Corinteni
7:29,incalcand astfel citatul din Geneza 1:28 si mai ales cel din Geneza2:18. Chiar si atunci
cand face concesii, vezi 1 Corinteni 7:9, Pavelavertizeaza: 1 Corinteni 7:28 ' ns, dac te
nsori, nu pctuieti.Dac fecioara se mrit, nu pctuiete. Dar fiinele acestea vor
aveanecazuri pmnteti, i eu a vrea s vi le cru. '; cat dispret infraza 'fiintele acestea'.
Pavel neaga c-ar ar fi aflat evanghelia sa de la martorii faptelor sispuselor lui Iisus: ' n-am
ntrebat pe nici un om, nici nu m-am suit laIerusalim la cei ce au fost apostoli nainte de mine'
(Galateni1:16-17); ' Frailor, v mrturisesc c Evanghelia propovduit demine, nu este de
obrie omeneasc' (Galateni 1:11; alte exemple in 2Corinteni 4:3, Galateni 2:2).

In mod fals se autointituleaza 'Pavel, apostol al lui Iisus Christos'(2 Corinteni 1:1, Efeseni 1:1,
Coloseni 1:1,2, 2 Timotei 1:1, Tit 1:1).
Pentru Pavel, credinta era mai presus de Lege si chiar si de fapte. Elpretindea ca omul se
indreptateste prin credinta, si nu prin fapte(Romani 3:27,28; 4:13-16). Spre deosebire de
acesta, Iacov ne arata caameliorarea se dobandeste prin fapte, si nu numai prin credinta,
Iacov2:20-24.
Pavel pune vorbele sale mai presus de Cuvantul lui Dumnezeu: 'ziua cand, dupa Evanghelia
mea, Dumnezeu va judeca prin Iisus Christos' (Romani 2:16)
Si vorbeste despre Dumnezeu 'care poate sa va intareasca, dupaEvanghelia mea si
propovaduirea lui Iisus Christos' (Romani 16:25)
Faptele Apostolilor nu au fost acceptate ca text canonic decat cudificultate si numai la
insistentele lui Iustinus si mai ales ale luiIrenaeus din Lyon, doi gnostici.[/B]
Pavel facea parte din cultul lui Mithra (idolatriza Soarele),iar membrii Fratiei Soarelui
(anturajul imparatului Constantin) aureusit sa-si impuna parerea la Conciliile de la
Niceea si de laLaodicea unde epistolele false si dezastruoase ale lui Pavel au fostincluse,
in mod incredibil, in Noul Testament.
Pavel, Fariseul care adora Soarele:
http://www.hiddencodes.com/sherry/churches.htm
Din minciunile lui Pavel:
http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/paul_a_liar.htm
If Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they need look no further than Paul
-- The English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

We have already noted that every teaching of Jesus was already in theliterature of the day..
Paul, the founder of Christianity, the writerof half the NT, almost never quotes Jesus in his
letters and writings.'(Professor Smith in his The World Religions, p 330)

Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can befound in the words of
Christ..Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paulover Christ.
--Will Durant (Philosopher)

'Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference.'

--Bishop John S. Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark. (Rescuing the Bible from
Fundamentalism, p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991)

'Paul insists that there is only one 'gospel of Christ' (Galatians1:7), so why did later Christians
accept as 'Scripture' four writtengospels?'
--Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), p.125
Pavel nu a murit la Roma:
'Paul (10-67) alias (Saul the Roman citizen), the self-proclaimed apostle
alias a Pharisee, is set free and possibly travels to Spain. Others
suggest he is the Paul (Saulus) who played a key role in the events leading
up to the destruction of Jerusalem. Paul the leader of the Roman Church
has an obvious inferiority complex that is expressed in his anti-Semitism
and defensiveness. It is suggested his attitude is such because he is a
convert to Judaism as he aspired to marry the High Priest Daughter but is
rejected by most sects of Judaism. Paul basically disappears from history,
even his disciples fail to mention his whereabouts.'
'Paul (10-67) the Pharisee-Christian alias Saul the Roman citizen, a
self-proclaimed apostle, writes 2 Timothy and the Letters to the Hebrew
just before his death. Paul (10-67) alias Saul the Roman, and
self-proclaimed apostle, traveled from Jerusalem to Rome where it is
believed he died this year. His ship is wrecked on the way at Melita
(Malta) south of Sicily. The Roman Saul's journeys spanned the years 46-62
(67?). It is noteworthy that there is no direct evidence that he is
executed in Rome in A.D. 67. Irenaeus and Dionysius of Corinth established
this tradition in A.D. 170. Some suggest he is Saulus alias Paul who
played a key role in the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem.
If this is true it explains why the Paulist Church writings are strangely
silent about his death or whereabouts after this time.
Paul (10-67) the Roman-Paulist is alleged killed in Rome under orders of
Nero (54-68 ) the Roman Emperor. Others say Paul (10-67) is beheaded on
the road to Ostia. Others suggest he escaped to Spain. At this time it is
alleged Linus (about 67-76) is appointed by Paul (10-67) as the first Papa
of Rome and headed the Roman Greek Paulist Christian Church not Peter as is
commonly assumed. Simon Peter (d-64-67) is never once recorded as Papa of
Rome and likely only spent 3-4 years in Rome. Most evidence suggests that
James the Just is Papa of the Christian Churches. The writings attributed
to Saul (10-67) comprise nearly 1/3 of the New Testament and are not edited
and compiled until nearly five hundred years after his death. Some think
Paul is likely killed as being a member of the Roman conspiracy and
revolution of 64-68. It is noteworthy that Emperor Nero (54-68 ) toured
Greece executing more conspirators. It is noteworthy that Flavious
Josephus (37-100) the Jewish historian makes no reference to Paul alias
Saul but does speak of Saulus.'
NU EXISTAU VIPERE PE INSULA MALTA:

The Question of the Viper

The title of which is recorded in a Maltese inscription of theAge of Tiberius (IG. xiv,
601) [53] but is otherwise seemingly unknown,is a valuable argument in favour of Malta. The
incident of the viperraises, on the other hand, a serious objection. Of the four species ofsnake
now extant on Malta only the Telescopus fallax (cat snake) ispoisonous but its venom is
generally harmless to men. [54] On Meledapoisonous snakes were, on the other hand,
numerous until the earlyyears of the twentieth century when they were reportedly eliminated
bymongooses imported from India for the purpose. [55]
Whether poisonous snakes existed in Malta at the time of the shipwreckthere is no way of
telling. No fossil remains of any species of snakehave been found in Maltese deposits and the
herpetological evidence asit now stands is too ambiguous to help in the shipwreck debate.
[56]The Maltese tradition takes their existence for granted and CaptainSmith has suggested
that they may have been eliminated as a result ofdrastic environmental change [57] for which
there is, [p.194] in fact,some evidence from Saracenic mediaeval texts. [58 ] A recent
studytries to find evidence for them in Roman Maltas cult of Heracles andargues
unconvincingly that the island must have been snake infestedbecause these reptiles were
sacred to the deity. [59] It thereforeproposes that the natives saw in the viper an instrument of
divineretribution sent by Heracles to punish the shipwrecked stranger. Such ahypothesis
seems to stem from the suggestion by M. Cagiano de Azevedothat the snake as an evil omen
had a long history in Malta being firstassociated with the mother goddess of the prehistoric
temples and thenwith Juno who, according to her myth, sent serpents to suffocate theinfant
Heracles. [60]
If the Acts narrative is to be taken literally, the reaction of thenatives to the miracle implies a
familiarity with poisonous snakes. Itdoes not seem realistic to maintain as done, among
others, by Mgr. Knoxthat the snake was an accidental visitor which may have come over
in,and escaped from, one of the African grain-ships. [61] There remainsthe possibility that
the story is an allegory of the triumph of theapostle over the devil or of the new faith over the
old one. Thebiblical abhorrence of the snake is well known and the classical worldheld it in
superstitious fear. The idea that it is an agent ofvengeance (Acts xviii, 4) finds an echo in
Virgil (Aen., ii, 44-56 andin Pliny (NH, viii, 35-36) who believed all snakes were poisonous.
Theallegorical potential of the story was not missed by Maltese Churchmenwho used it in
pious literature and in panegyrics in honour of St.Paul. One prominent prelate [62] was, for
example, reported to havepicturesquely likened the fire lit by the natives to the flames of
helland the viper to Satan who is vanquished by the apostle. [63]
Either way, naturalists say there are NO venomous snakes on Malta and there never were.
Exista multe alte site-uri superbe care arata ca Pavel (impreuna cuLuca - mai multe despre
felul cum au fost redactate FapteleApostolilor, altadata) a inventat toate 'minunile' savarsite
indiversele sale calatorii.
Citatele incredibile din textele pagane initiatice facutede Pavel in Faptele Apostolilor si in
Epistolele sale; pentru acestmotiv, Festus (care cunostea foarte bine aceste texte) i-a zis
luiPavel: (Fapte 26:24), 'Pavele, eti nebun! nvtura ta cea mult teface s dai n nebunie.'
'PAUL'QUOTED FREELY FROM PAGAN WRITINGS

In his continuing 'MADNESS' (Deut 28:28 Acts 26:24) 'Paul'; in orderthat 'that I may BOAST
myself a little' (2 Corinthians 11:16); AGAINquoted directly from the pagan 'Bacchae of
Euripides' in the scenewhere followers of Bacchus (IHS) have been imprisoned. Suddenly, as
ifby god's hand, 'the chains on their legs snap apart ...untouched by anyhuman hand, the doors
swing wide, opening of their own accord' (lines 447-8 Bacchae of Euripides).
Similarly, in Acts, when Paul and Silas were, as falsely alleged by'Paul';imprisoned in
Phillipi, 'Paul' reports that 'all the doors burstopen and all the prisoners found their fetters
unfastened' (ACTS16:26).
IMPORTANT NOTE: We know that 'PAUL' was LYING and was; as Festus alsoknew;
quoting from the Pagan legend of 'The Bacchae' because Luke tellsus in Acts that 'SILAS'
could not have been imprisoned with 'Paul' inPhilippi because SILAS had RETURNED
WITH JUDAS TO JERUSALEM 'TO THOSEWHO HAD SENT THEM' (Acts 15:33).
******ACTS 15:34 A DELIBERATE CHRISTIAN LIE******
The EVIL WORDS of ACTS 15:34; '[Notwithstanding it pleased Silas toabide there still]'
(KJV) are NOT in the original Greek text but wereDELIBERATELY inserted by
CHRISTIANS in order to deny the precious wordsof Luke in Acts 15:33 (which confirm that
SILAS had returned toJerusalem) but also to promote THE LIE that the faithful SILAS
'wentout from among the twelve apostles' (1 John 2:19) and joined up with'PAUL'.
'Paul'; WHO NEVER ONCE USED THE BLESSED NAME OR SAYINGS OF YESHUWA'
MASHIYACH IN HIS EVIL WRITINGS; quoteddirectly from the pagan writings of
Arastus (c.300 BCE); Epimenides (c600BCE); Menander (c 350 BCE); Hippolytus (c 430
BCE); Terence (c 200BCE) who were extollong the idol 'Zeus' and he also quoted from
theBuddhist scriptures (c 500-250 BCE).
From Arastus 'We (Christians) are his (Zeus) offspring' (Acts 17:28 )
From Epimenides 'god (Zeus) is not far from each one of us for in him we live and move
and have our being' (Acts 17:27,28 )
From Epimenides 'Cretans are always liars, evil brutes lazy gluttons(Titus 1:12)
From Menander 'Bad company corrupts good character' (1 Cor 15:33)
From Hippolytus 'The good that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not do, that
I do' (Romans 7:19)
From Terence 'But if any widow has children or nephews, let them learn first to show
piety at home' (1 Timothy 5:4)
From Mahaparinibanasuta Buddhist scriptures 'Work out your own salvation with fear
and trembling' (Phillipians 2:12)

'PAUL' CONTRADICTED HIMSELF ABOUT THE ALLEGED VISION

'Paul' blatantly LIED in his CONTRADICTORY accounts of his allegedvision. In Acts 9:7 he
stated 'And the men who were with me...HEARD THEVOICE but SAW NOTHING';
whereas in Acts 22:9 he states 'they that werewith me...SAW THE LIGHT but DID NOT

HEAR THE VOICE'.

'SAW NOTHING' (Acts 9:7) versus 'SAW THE LIGHT'(Acts 22:9).
'HEARD THE VOICE'(Acts 9:7) versus 'DID NOT HEAR THE VOICE'(Acts 22:9)
'ALL FALLEN TO THE GROUND' (Acts 26:14) versus 'THE MEN...STOOD STILL' (Acts
9:7)
'PAUL' FALSELY CLAIMED THAT HE WAS AN APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES
Exista si dovezi care indica faptul ca discipolii lui Pavel au fost ceicare au incendiat Roma
(focul a pornit din cartierul crestin/evreiesc)cu scopul de a destabiliza Imperiul Roman si de a
oferi sansa uneirascoale in Iudeea.
De la bun inceput, Pavel a intaratat pe Evreii din Ierusalim sicelelalte orase, interzicandu-le sa
mai pastreze Legea si Cele 10Porunci, astfel producand numai certuri si neintelegeri inutile.
Fapte 21:21 (Iacov catre Pavel):
Dar ei au auzit despre tine c nvei pe toi Iudeii, care triescprintre Neamuri, s se lepede de
Moise, c le zici s nu-i taie copiiimprejur, i s nu triasc potrivit cu obiceiurile.
Fapte 21:28
Brbai Israelii, dai ajutor! Iat omul, care propovduietepretutindeni i n toat lumea
mpotriva norodului, mpotriva Legii impotriva locaului acestuia; ba, nc a vrt i pe nite
Greci nTemplu, i a spurcat acest loca sfnt.
Nimeni din Galateea sau Efes nu l-a bagat in seama pe Pavel (desiEpistolele sale sunt adresate
acestor congregatii) pentru ca stiaufoarte bine ca este un impostor care s-a autodeclarat
'apostol al luiYeshuwa' fara nici un fel de temei si nu credeau in relatarea falsafacuta de Pavel
cu privire la convertirea lui.
O examinare riguroasa a celor doua Epistole 'semnate' de Petru, dar scrise/falsificate de Silvan
si Pavel, ne indica ca acesti doi impostori au copiat de cele mai multe ori cuvintele/frazele
exacte din Epistolele ticluite de vicleanul Pavel:
1 Pet 1.3 devine exact Tit 3.5
1 Pet 1.4 = Col 1.5
1 Pet 1.6 = 2 Cor 4.17
1 Pet 1.6 n ea voi v bucurai mult, mcar c acum, dac trebuie, suntei ntristai pentru
puin vreme, prin felurite ncercri
2 Cor 4.17 Cci ntristrile noastre uoare de o clip lucreaz pentru noi tot mai mult o
greutate venic de slav
1 Pet 1.7 = Rom 2.7,10
1 Pet 1.9 = Rom 6.22
1 Pet 1.13 = Efes 6.14; 1 Tes 5.6,8
1 Pet 1.14 = 1 Tes 4.5
1 Pet 1.17 = 2 Cor 5.6; Evr 11.13
1 Pet 1.20 = Rom 3.25; Rom 16.25,26; 2 Tim 1.9,10; Tit 1,2,3; Efes 3.9,11; Gal 4.4; Col 1.26;
Efes 1.10; Evr 1.2; Evr 9.26

1 Pet 2.1 devine exact Efes 4.22,25,31; Col 3.8

1 Pet 2.2 = 1 Cor 3.2; Evr 5.12,13
1 Pet 2.2 i, ca nite prunci nscui de curand, s dorii laptele duhovnicesc i curat, pentru ca
prin el s cretei spre mntuire
1 Cor 3.2 V-am hrnit cu lapte, nu cu bucate tari, cci nu le puteai suferi; i nici acum chiar
nu le putei suferi
Evr 5.12,13 n adevr, voi care de mult trebuia s fii nvtori, avei iari trebuin de
cineva s v nvee cele dinti adevruri ale cuvintelor lui Dumnezeu, i ai ajuns s avei
nevoie de lapte, nu de hran tare. i oricine nu se hrnete dect cu lapte, nu este obinuit cu
cuvntul despre neprihnire, cci este un prunc.
1 Pet 2.5 = Efes 2.21,22; Efes 13.15,16; Filip 4.18
1 Pet 2.6 = Rom 9.32
1 Pet 2.8 = Rom 9.33
1 Pet 2.13 = Rom 13.1; Tit 3.1
1 Pet 3.1 devine exact 1 Cor 14.34; Efes 5.22; Col 3.18; Tit 2.5
1 Pet 3.3 = 1 Tim 2.9; Tit 2.3
1 Pet 3.4 = Rom 2.29; Rom 7.22; 2 Cor 4.16
1 Pet 3.7 = Efes 5.25; Col 3.19
1 Pet 3.8 = Efes 4.32; Col 3.12
1 Pet 3.22 = Rom 8.34; Efes 1.20; Col 3.1; Evr 1.3; Rom 8.38; 1 Cor 15.24; Efes 1.21
1 Pet 4.5 devine exact Rom 14.10
1 Pet 4.8 = Rom 12.13; Evr 13.2
1 Pet 5.1 devine exact Filim 9
1 Pet 5.4 = 1 Cor 9.25; 2 Tim 4.8
1 Pet 5.4 i cnd Se va arta Pstorul cel mare, vei cpta cununa, care nu se poate vesteji, a
slavei.
1 Cor 9.25 Toi cei ce se lupt la jocurile de obte, se supun la tot felul de nfrnri. i ei fac
lucrul acesta ca s capete o cunun, care se poate vesteji: noi s facem lucrul acesta pentru o
cunun, care nu se poate vesteji.
2 Tim 4.8 De acum m ateapt cununa neprihnirii, pe care mi-o va da, n ziua aceea ,
Domnul, Judectorul cel drept. i nu numai mie, ci i tuturor celor ce vor fi iubit venirea Lui.
1 Pet 5.10 = 1 Cor 1.9; 2 Cor 4.17; Evr 13.21; 2 Tes 2.17; 2 Tes 3.3
1 Pet 5.11 = 2 Pet 3.18; 2 Tim 4.18; Evr 13.21; Rom 11:36; Gal 1.5
1 Pet 5.12 = 2 Cor 1.19; 1 Tes 1.1; 2 Tes 1.1
SILVAN ERA PROTEJATUL SI DISCIPOLUL LUI PAVEL; EL A ALCATUIT
IMPREUNA CU PAVEL CELE DOUA EPISTOLE FALSE CARE NU AU FOST
NICIODATA SCRISE DE PETRU
1 Pet 5.12 V-am scris aceste puine rnduri prin Silvan
2 Cor 1.19 ...prin mine, prin Silvan, i prin Timotei...
1 Tes 1.1 Pavel, Silvan i Timotei, ctre Biserica Tesalonicenilor
2 Tes 1.1 Pavel, Silvan i Timotei, ctre Biserica Tesalonicenilor
2 Petru 1.4 devine exact 2 Cor 7.1
2 Petru 1.7 = Gal 6.10; 1 Tes 3.12; 1 Tes 5.15

2 Petru 1.12 = Rom 15.14,15

2 Petru 1.13 si 1.14 = 2 Cor 5.1,4
2 Petru 1.13,14 Dar socotesc c este drept, ct voi mai fi n cortul acesta, s v in treji
aducndu-v aminte; cci tiu c dezbrcarea de cortul meu va veni deodat, dup cum mi-a
artat Domnul nostru Isus Hristos.
2 Cor 5.1,4 tim, n adevr, c, dac se desface casa pmnteasc a cortului nostru trupesc,
avem o cldire n cer de la Dumnezeu, o cas, care nu este fcut de mn ci este venic. i
gemem n cortul acesta, plini de dorina s ne mbrcm peste el cu locaul nostru ceresc,
negreit dac atunci cnd vom fi mbrcai nu vom fi gsii dezbrcai de el. Chiar n cortul
acesta deci, gemem apsai; nu c dorim s fim dezbrcai de trupul acesta, ci s fim mbrcai
cu trupul cellalt peste acesta, pentru ca ce este muritor n noi, s fie nghiit de via.
2 Petru 2.9 devine exact 1 Cor 10.13
2 Petru 2.20 = Evr 6.4; Evr 10.26,27
2 Petru 3.3 devine exact 1 Tim 4.1; 2 Tim 3.1
2 Petru 3.10 = 1 Tes 5.2
2 Petru 3.12 = 1 Cor 1.7; Tit 2.13
2 Petru 3.14 = 1 Cor 1.8; 1 Cor 15.58; Filip 1.10; 1 Tes 3.13; 1 Tes 5.23
2 Petru 3.15 = Rom 2.4; 1 Pet 3.20
2 Petru 3.18 = Efes 4.15; 2 Tim 4.18; 1 Pet 5.11; Evr 13.21; Rom 11.36; Gal 1.5
2 TIMOTEI 1.15: 'tii c cei ce sunt n Asia toi m-au prsit'; doctrina falsa a fariseului Pavel
nu era acceptata si inteleasa de nimeni.
Cat priveste Faptele Apostolilor este clar ca exista doi autori separati; unul, cel mai probabil
Luca (tot prietenul lui Pavel) a scris cap. 1-8, o parte din 9, si cap. 10-11. Celelalte capitole 9,
12-28 au fost scrise de un discipol (sau mai multi) al lui Pavel.
Sectiunea din capitolul 5 (5.1,11) a fost adaugata mai tarziu, fiind clara intentia de a pata
caracterul lui Petru cu o intamplare care nu putea avea loc; mai mult, stim ca Petru a procedat
cu totul altfel (vezi Fapte 8.18,24), iertandu-l pe Simon pentru o fapta similara.
The conspiracy of Ahab and Jezebel to cheat the pious Naboth out of his vineyard (1 Kings
21:1-21:21) has provided Luke the raw material for two of the most exciting episodes of Acts,
those of Ananias and Sapphira and of Stephen (Brodie, pp. 271-275). Ahab finds himself
obsessed with Naboths vineyard, which seems more desirable to him, since he cannot possess
it, than all his royal possessions. Jezebel advises him to take what he wants by devious means.
Luke has punningly made Naboth into the righteous Barnabas, and now it is the latters
donation (rather than possession) of a field that excites a wicked couples jealousy. Ananias
plays Ahab, Sapphira Jezebel. Only they do not conspire to murder anyone. That element
Luke reserves for the martyrdom of Stephen. The crime of Ananias and Sapphira is borrowed
instead from that of Achan (Judges 7), who appropriated for himself treasure ear-marked for
God. Ananias and Sapphira have sold a field (wanting to be admired like Barnabas), but they
have kept back some of the money while claiming to have donated the full price. They have
no business keeping the rest: it is rightfully Gods since they have dedicated it as devoted to
the Lord. Peter confronts Ananias and Sapphira, just as Joshua did Achan (Joshua 7:25) and
as Elijah confronted Ahab (1 Kings 20:17-18 ). Luke takes the earlier note about Ahabs
disturbance in spirit (20:4) and makes it into the charge that Ananias and Sapphira had lied to
the Spirit of God (Acts 5:3b-4, 9b). Elijah and Peter pronounce death sentences on the guilty,

and those of Ananias and Sapphira (like Achans) transpire at once (Acts 5:5a, 10a), while
those of Ahab and Jezebel delay for some time. Fear fell on all who heard of Ananias and
Sapphiras fate, recalling the fear of God sparked in poor indecisive Ahab by Elijahs doom
oracle (1 Kings 20:27-29). Not long after the Naboth incident we learn that the young men of
Israel defeated the greedy Syrians (21:1-21), a tale which likely made Luke think of having
the young men (never in evidence elsewhere in Acts) carry out and bury the bodies of the
greedy couple (Acts 5:6, 10b).
The New Testament refers to washing the body of the deceased in the Book of Acts. Acts
9:36-43 relates the story of a good woman named Tabitha of Joppa. Acts 9:37 mentions the
washing of her body after she died: In those days she fell sick and died; and when they had
washed her, they laid her in an upper room. Earlier on in Acts, however, there is no mention
of washing the bodies of Ananias and Sapphira, a husband and wife who died shameful
deaths. Acts 5:6 tells of Ananiass death and burial:
But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep
back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own?
And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed
in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God. When Ananias heard these words, he
fell down and died. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men rose and
wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.
Acts does not mention any washing of Ananiass body, whereas such a custom was explicitly
mentioned for Tabitha. Sapphiras death and burial is recorded in Acts 5:7-11; she was
accused of the same deed her husband was accused of, and she fell dead at Peters words as
well. She was buried beside her husband, and her burial does not mention any washing of her
body either.
Cum au fost adaugate citatele din Matei 16:18,19 (i Eu i spun: tu eti Petru (Grecete:
Petros.), i pe aceast piatr (Grecete: petra.) voi zidi Biserica Mea, i porile Locuinei
morilor nu o vor birui. i voi da cheile mpriei cerurilor, i orice vei lega pe pmnt, va fi
legat n ceruri, i orice vei dezlega pe pmnt, va fi dezlegat n ceruri.) de catre conspiratori in
textul Evangheliei dupa Matei:
The Ordination of Peter - In Matthew 16:17-19 Jesus blesses Peter pronouncing him the 'rock'
upon which he will build his church while giving him the 'keys to the kingdom.' Peter,
therefore, stands as Jesus' undisputed successor. In fact, Peter's recognition by the Roman
Catholic Church as the first pope is based primarily on this passage. However, the evidence of
forgery is undeniable. First, although it constitutes an essential element of the Christian
religion, the ordination of Peter is mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament, not even in
First and Second Peter, the epistles allegedly written by the great apostle. Second, excluding
this passage, Jesus never attempted to establish a 'church.' Such a project would have been
absurd in view of the fact that he assured his followers that the world would end and he would
return in glory during their lifetime to establish the kingdom of God. In fact, the use of the
word 'church' suggests a level of organization not acquired until long after the event allegedly
occurred. In that regard, it is interesting to note that throughout the four gospels the word
'church' appears only twice thereafter, and both are in the same verse, Matthew 18:17. Third,
and perhaps the most revealing, although Mark and Luke do not contain the ordination, they
do contain duplicates of Matthew 16:16 and 16:20, the verses immediately preceding and
following the ordination13. The so-called ordination of Peter is without a doubt a later
insertion, i.e. a forgery.

As the years since Mark rolled by, the zeal of the Fathers to exalt Peter increased; we have
seen many admitted forgeries of documents having that purpose in view. So it was, obviously,
a new forging Father who took a manuscript of Matthew, and turning to the above verses
copied from Mark, added in, or made a new manuscript copy containing, the notable
forgery of verses 17-19. There, onto the commonplace and unnoticed reply of Peter, Thou art
the Christ, the pious interpolator tacked on:
the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon
Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom
of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever
thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matt. xvi, 16b-19.
That Jesus Christ never spoke the words of those forged verses, that they are a late Church
forgery, is beyond any intelligent or honest denial. The first mention of them in patristic
literature, and that only a reference to the keys, is this scant line of Father Tertullian, in a
little tract called Scorpiace or The Scorpions Sting, written about 211 A.D., in which he
says: For, though you think heaven is still shut, remember that the Lord left to Peter and
through him to the Church, the keys of it. (Scorpiace, x; ANF. iii, 643.) That Jesus did not
use the words of those verses, interpolated into a paragraph of [omitted - RW] from Mark,
and repeated in their original form by Luke, is thus conclusive from internal evidences;
the later and embroidered form is a visible interpolation and forgery. That this is true, is
demonstrated, moreover, by the inherent impossibility of the thing itself.
The On this Rock forgery of Matt. xvi, says Reinach, is obviously an interpolation, made
at a period when a church, separated from the synagogue, already existed. In the parallel
passages in Mark (vii, 27, 32) and in Luke (ix, 18-22), there is not a word of the primacy of
Peter, a detail which Mark, the disciple of Peter, could hardly have omitted if he had known
of it. The interpolation is posterior to the compilation of Lukes gospel. (Orpheus, pp. 224225.)
As aptly said by Dr. McCabe; It [the word ecclesia] had no meaning whatever as a religious
institution until decades after the death of Jesus Christ. In the year 30 A.D. no one on earth
would have known what Jesus meant if he had said that he was going to {181} found an
ecclesia or church, and that the powers of darkness would not prevail against it, and so on. It
would sound like the talk of the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland. (The Story of Religious
Controversy, p. 294.) Indeed, it may be remarked, it is the powers of darkness of mind
which have so far prevailed to perpetuate this fraud; the powers of the light of reason are
hastening to its final overthrow.
Cel mai probabil doar o parte din versetele capitolului 21 din evanghelia lui Ioan sunt
adevarate si au fost scrise de Ioan...
Despre citatul din Ioan (21)...
The whole of chapter 21 of St John's Gospel is probably an 'addition.' Quietly read the last
two verses of chapter 20, verses 30-31. Doesn't it look like a conclusion, an ending on a
farewell note? So is it any surprise when scholars tell us that chapter 21, i.e., the rest of the
'gospel,' wasn't written by St John?

The New Bible Commentary, F.DAVIDSON, A.M.STIBBS, and E.F.KEVAN (eds), 1959
(2nd edition), Inter-Varsity Fellowship, London, pp 895 b and 896 b, though trying to defend
this interloper chapter, says: 'EPILOGUE. xxi. 1-25. Many commentators believe that this
chapter was not written by the evangelist. [...] Conclusion (xxi. 24,25) The last two verses of
the Gospel are added by unknown persons ...'
John L. McKENZIE, Dictionary of the Bible, 1968, Geoffrey Chapman, London, page 447,
writes: 'There are two conclusions, 20:30 f; ... which suggests that 21 is not part of the
original Gospel.'
New Jerusalem Bible, R.C. version (footnotes 1990), is more subtle. Above chapter 21 is
inserted a heading, 'Epilogue,' which is footnoted (page 1272) as follows: 'Added by the
evangelist or one of his disciples.' Hmm! (To WWW 24 Feb 04, improved 02 Mar 04)
Grotius, a famos scholar admitted:
'There used to be twenty chapters in this Gospel. The twnety first chapter was added after the
death of John, by the Church of Ephesus.
Mai multe detalii despre 'epistolele' lui Petru...
The critical considerations which lead to the rejection of both Epistles as not Petrine and
not of the apostolic age, may be very briefly summarized: That I Peter is addressed to the
Sojourners of the Dispersion in Asia Minor, which was Pauls reserved territory. There is
no trace of the questions mooted in the apostolic age. ... The historical conditions and
circumstances implied in the Epistle indicate, moreover, a time far beyond the probable
duration of Peters life. ... The history of the spread of Christianity imperatively demands for I
Peter a later date than 64 A.D., the alleged date of Peters death. The second Epistle, II
{192} Peter, is vaguely addressed to Christians in general (i, 1), yet in iii, 1, the writer
inconsistently assumes that the First Epistle was addressed to the same readers; and he tells
them (i, 6 and iii, 15) that they had already received instructions from him (ostensibly Peter),
and also letters from Paul. The relation of II Peter to I Peter renders a common authorship
extremely doubtful. The name and title of the author are different. ... The style of the two
epistles is different. ... It is late and un-apostolic. (EB. Peter, Epistles of, iii, 3678-3685; cf.
New Comm. Pt. III, pp. 639, 653, 654.) The genuineness of I Peter cannot be maintained.
Most probably it was not written before 112 A.D. (EB. 2940.) The two letters of Peter are
Graeco-Egyptian forgeries. (Reinach, Orpheus, p. 240.) The Church pretense that I Peter was
written at Rome (Babylon) will be judged in its more appropriate place. In the early list of
supposedly apostolic Books drawn up by Tertullian as accepted and read in the several
Churches, while he cites the Book of Enoch as inspired, ... also recognizes IV Esdras, and
the Sibyl, ... he does not know James and II Peter. ... He attributes Hebrews to St. Barnabas.
(CE. xiv, 525.) Bishop Dionysius complains that his own writings had been falsified by the
apostles of the devil; no wonder, he adds, that the Scriptures were falsified by such
persons. (CE. v, 10.) The Peter Books are other instances.
http://www.neogen.ro/group/33645/view-posts/61197
(Saul/Pavel din Tars - Apostolul Fals si Fariseul Minciunii)
http://www.neogen.ro/group/33645/view-posts/61195
(Semnul Crucii - semn pagan si ocult)
http://www.forumcrestin.com/index.php?topic=3829.msg484645#msg484645

The Emperor Hadrian, in a letter to the Consul Servianus, wrote:

'Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle
and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of
Serapis are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis, call themselves
Bishops of Christ.'
Hadrian to Servianus, 134A.D.
(Giles, Hebrew and Christian Records, vol. ii. p. 86. London: 1877).
THE ROMAN CAESAR CONSTANTINE; who worshipped at the TEMPLE FOR
'APOLLO, built by his predecessors, on the Palatine in ROME; went out to battle with the
BLASPHEMOUS words 'IHS ie-sus hominem salvator' [IHS je-sus the saviour of mankind)']
printed on his war banner called 'The Labarum'. IHS means in Latin 'In Hoc Signo' --'In This
Sign'.
IHS; the 'je-sus' symbol; is imprinted onto the blasphemous Roman catholic piece of bread
called 'the host'; which is devoured by christians who say that they 'are eating the body and
blood of 'CHRIST JESUS (666)' (Acts 19:4); when they renew their Bacchus feast which they
call 'the mass' and which is daily offered; by Christian 'SORCERERS' (Revelation 18:23); to
'THE DRAGON, THAT OLD SERPENT, WHICH IS THE DEVIL AND SATAN' (Rev
12:9).
http://www.quicksitemaker.com/members/disciples/markofthebeast.html
The term Krist (or Karast) was a title commonly bestowed by the Essenes to denote one of
their excellent or special initiates who had passed through extraordinary trials and who held
high status and rank. It was not a personal name. The Essenes are known to have referred to
themselves as 'the Elect' or as 'Sons of Light.' Masters of high caliber were known as the
'Star.' This is clearly an astrological title. Paintings have been discovered of priests with starshaped diadems upon their foreheads. The very word minister contains the syllables for moon
(min) and star (ster). We can perhaps understand now why the Vatican did not want the Dead
Sea Scrolls, and other presumably Essenic scriptures, to be found, translated, published, and
commonly read. The Vatican did not want any record or mention of lineages of 'Christed'
men. They wished the world to believe their Jesus to be unique in every way. The literature
and traditions that contradicted this policy were to be sequestered or destroyed. Cults or sects
that preached the contrary were to be condemned and persecuted as heretics. Interestingly,
this word simply meant 'those who choose.'
Essenieni erau urmasi de-ai lui Cain...
...the Egyptian Karast (Krst) is the original Christ, and that the Egyptian mysteries were
continued by the Gnostics and Christianized in Rome - Gerald Massey (Ancient Egypt: Light
of the World, 1907)
the Egyptian karast was the pre-Christian Christ, and the pictures in the Roman Catacombs
preserve the proof. The passing of the karast into the Christ is depicted in the Gnostic
iconography. It is in the form of a child bound up in the swathing of a diminutive Egyptian
mummy, with the halo and cross of the four quarters round its head, which show its solar
origin ibid

De aceea a fost introdus numele Christ de acesti conspiratori...vicleni...

The form 'YESHUA' is from the acronym 'YESHU', a mutilation of Yahushua's Name used
by unbelieving Yahudim during the late 1st and 2nd century CE. The letters in 'YESHU' stood
for the sentence, 'may his name be blotted out' (from the scroll of life). This 'Yeshu' acronym
is the real root of the form 'JESUS', after going through Greek, then Latin...
Books taken out of the Old Testament:
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html (contains many descriptions of the Messiah)
http://www.piney.com/ApocAdEve1.html
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/loj/index.htm
Many verses have been added to the true Adam and Eve book; it is a matter of great skill and
prophetic intuition to separate and to discern the original verses from the later additions.
Cartea lui Adam si Eva contine si multe versete care nu faceau parte din cartea originala,
trebuie san e folosim intuitia profetica pentru a discerne adevarul de fals.
Cartea lui Enoh in limba romana:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1401269/Evanghelii-Apocrife-Cartea-lui-Enoh-Versiuneaetiopian (contine descrierea lui Mesia)
Cartea lui Iov adaugata fraudulent in Torah (Book of Job completely false):
http://www.awitness.org/lostmess/wisdom/job.html
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/job.htm
Teoria Pamantului Plat complet demonstrata:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewforum.php?
f=7&sid=ea737548d3e76ad1dc0607a858d3a147
http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/