Haven't looked too much further into it yet, and also would like input from somebody who can actually read the greek. This is going to be centered around when the Marys came to the tomb after His resurrection, there seems to be some inconsistent details on the incident, anyways here we go;
We start in Matthew 28 by seeing only the two Marys come to the tomb some time after a Sabbath early in the morning, but this is where the inconsistencies seem to start, in Matthew's account we see that both of them come to the closed tomb, then there is an earthquake because an angel descends and rolls away the stone, and sits upon it, and the guards faint or are paralyzed or something for fear of the angel, the angel then tells them Messiah is not there, then proceeds to invite them into the tomb to see where ADONAI layed. But in Luke's account in Luke 24 we start by seeing the two Marys "and some with them" found the stone already moved, then entered in and while they're confused about it, then two what I would assume to be angels speak to them and tell them "He is not here, but is risen." anyways would like you guys' thoughts and opinions on it. Shalom! 😁 *Edit* Aight reading Mark at least the "and some with them" part may be corroborated, Mark says Salome accompanied them, it's just apparently the greek of Shalom as in Peace, security etc. but apparently could also be a woman's name, doubt it though, Mark seems to be more so saying peace accompanied them, but IDK...
I am working on a paper to explain this and some other issues with the cannon. For now I'll sum it up with, I believe Matthew and Mark with the correct "missing" ending. Are the only two trustworthy Gospels. Everything Paul says is echoed in Matthew. John has a highly debatable history and extremely Gnostic undertones very similar to Thomas, and Luke was affiliated with Paul insomuch as they were not eyewitnesses to even the event at Pentacost. The inconsistency is from centuries of back and forth debates from within the Orthodox Church viewing for the most suitable canon
Aight, sweet, thanks for the share. I haven't completely rejected P(S)aul as to not take a chance potentially blaspheming the RUACH, but there are some things of His that seem REALLY hard to understand/reconcile if reconcilable at all. So for now I avoid him even kind of out of personal challenge, if Paul really just had an EXCELLENT understanding of Father's Torah, I want to have an equally great or even greater understanding. Would also be interesting to try it out on the other Apostles in the future, again as a personal challenge, to truly see how well one understands the Torah and Gospel.
Have you read The Paul Paper on Christian Truthers website
Not yet, have it saved though, I've watched Justin's vids on it though. What's funny is I was reading one of N.J. Hadley's articles on TheUnexpectedCosmology site and found out we both live in Florida, lol. And I have a little bit of knowledge (although not understanding) that Luke was apparently full on Helen(Greek) and has ties to Paul.
Hahah that's awesome. Read the paper and think about the inconsistency in all of Paul's writings. It is easier to compare if you've had any experience with Gnostic writings. But knowing the Paul was the 13th so called apostle, with an experience that is inconsistent with the Tanahk, and himself is inconsistent in his writings, a Roman citizen, highly educated Pharisee, and Herodian, there is huge suspect in his intentions. Additionally, he speaks in a proto Gnostic manner and given the times of his writings and direction of his words, there is reason to consider he was the first Gnostic writer before the gnostics became a sect
lol, yeah heard a little of those too. The things that really stick out to me is in one writing he says not to get circumcised then somewhere else says that circumcision is keeping YAH's commands. Like, which is it dude. (Thank YAH I was circumcised at birth cause my Dad was raised catholic, though he realized it (catholicism) was, excuse my french, BS) And the one thing that really sticks out to me when I remember originally reading some of Romans was where he says something along the lines of "I've become all things to all people, to the greeks as a greek, to those under the law as on under the law" it just came off sooo.... manipulative. But I didn't really question it and assumed that I didn't understand at the time cause it's well, ya know... THE BIBLE, lol.
It goes deeper than that. I've spent about 4 years trying to find he right questions to ask to get me to the right material to study. Three things that should be firmly grasped are: Greek Philosophy and it's affect on acquired lands Roman Philosophy and it's affect on acquired lands And Epiphanius' work: Panarion. You can download part one and two for free online. From here you can see the development of the Christian Church through the sects that arose from Paul's teachings. And then correlate the influences over time. The same string continues through each sect and all point back to Paul. Even John is suspect because none of his "disciples" ever mention John's writings or teachings in any of their work. In fact the early Christian Church sough for decades to totally remove the Gospel of John for being a Gnostic work. And dating it puts it more realistically in the second century because the topics described were not fleshed out until around then in the Orthodox secta
Intriguing, I'm kinda already at the point of "Christianity is the false religion", I've kinda put 2 and 2 together, but not too deep on the understanding of it all. So thanks for the share.🙂 John being iffy is completely new to me actually.
I to believe that Christianity is a false religion. That name j---s sends bad feelings thru me. I can't pray with these christians anymore. They are the most deceived of all. So so sad.
It's funny because when you take the characters that represent the Number of the Beast, it is obvious that it isn't a representation of numerical pronunciation but a verbal pronunciation of the characters which when read, sounds strikingly like broken english for Jesus (Che'ezuse) pronounce it just as that is spelled. It is akin to saying Four instead if 4
Christianity by definition is a Hellenistic Messianic religion that was adopted by the Romans and used as a political tool to continue conquering more nations. Roman society was a very liberal and religiously tolerant culture that relied on status as a means of internal influence. Having a new religion, to them was just another way to make themselves unique to others. Conversions weren't very serious as we would understand it. They still held to their traditions and cults because that was simply part of their culture. The bishops were almost always the most powerful persons in the area who were convinced to adopt the religion. Not saying they didn't eventually become very devout, but the doctrines were very skewed so the corruption was just passed down and further influences by Greek and Roman philosophies
The last of understanding and pure hatred the early church had for the Jews resulted in a total disregard for Jewish and Israelite history, culture, society, and faith. They built their own faith using the few scrolls available to them and the oral teachings passed down from whichever disciple they listened to.
They're lack of understanding*
🎯