YAHOWSHUA (Jesus) OR PAUL?
Navali
The "first Christians" were not called "Christians"! That term was not used
until years later. They were called "Essene Nazarene Ebionites". For short,
they were usually referred to simply as "Nazarenes" or "Ebonites". Let us
begin our description of early, pre-Pauline Christianity with a look at the
meaning of the terms "Nazarene" and "Ebionite".
>>
Articles on the Essenes by Nazariah
YAHOWSHUA OR PAUL?
ESSENE CHRISTIANITY VERSUS PAULIANITY
AN EXPOSE´ AND CALL TO ACTION
by Rev. Abba Nazariah, D.D.
"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus!"
-- Thomas Jefferson
In previous articles published in 'The Essene Path", I have briefly
touched on the topic of how Paul, the self-proclaimed Apostle, violently
opposed the original vegetarian Essene Christianity of Jesus, first by
killing and imprisoning its leaders, then by infiltrating the movement and
leading a schism. The schism led by Paul -- a meat-eating version of
Christianity -- replaced the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Paul.
As briefly described in previous articles, "Paulianity" evolved into the
Roman Catholic Church and gave birth to all of what is considered mainline
Christianity today, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. Whereas I
have briefly touched on this topic in previous articles, it is the purpose
of this article to deal with it in great depth. I will begin by setting the
stage; I will describe early Christianity as it existed prior to the advent
of Paul. What were the main tenets of this pre-Pauline, Essene Christianity?
What was the early Christian doctrine of salvation? Having set the stage, I
will describe in detail the schism led by Paul which evolved into modern
Christianity. I will conclude this expose´ with a call to action: A CALL
TO REJECT PAULIANITY AND RETURN TO ESSENE NAZARENE EBIONITE CHRISTIANITY.
The choice is simple, yet profound; and every Christian must make it:
YAHOWSHUA (Jesus) OR PAUL?
First, some necessary background information must be given. There was
an ancient Jewish religion which was very mystical, high and noble. It was a
very evolved form of religion, rooted in respect and care for all of
creation. This ancient Jewish religion was both very esoteric -- as
evidenced by its Kaballah mysticism -- and yet very practical, as evidenced
by its emphasis on daily lifestyle disciplines, ecology and communal
economics. It was also VERY VEGETARIAN: not only was animal sacrifice
forbidden, but so was the eating of animal flesh absolutely condemned.
War and slavery had no part in this nonviolent religion. Women were the
equals to men; women were entitled -- in fact, encouraged-- to participate
in the Priesthood. This Priesthood -- called "The Priesthood of Melki
Zadek" -- was governed by God via good angels and the divinely inspired
BOOK OF THE ETERNAL COVENANT. Their original founder was Enoch; later,
Moses led a major remanifestation of their movement. THIS ENLIGHTENED
ANCIENT JEWISH RELIGION WAS KNOWN AS "THE ESSENE NAZARENE HASIDIM."
But Essene Nazarene Judaism was not the only form of Judaism. A
violent, flesh-eating form of Judaism based on bloody animal sacrifice
became the dominant religion in Israel. The nonviolent, vegetarian Essenes
were persecuted by the animal sacrifice cult. Both forms of Judaism
expected a Messiah: the sacrificial cult expected the Messiah to be a
warrior king; the Essene Nazarenes expected a Messiah of Peace, a spiritual
King. And so it was that the Messiah of Peace, the spiritual King of
Israel, came to earth through the Essenes; for it was the Essene scriptures
and prophecies that proved true. And so it was that the Essene Nazarene
Jews, practitioners of the authentic Judaism established by God through
Enoch and Moses, BECAME THE VERY FIRST CHRISTIANS!
The "first Christians" were not called "Christians"! That term was not
used until years later. They were called "Essene Nazarene Ebionites". For
short, they were usually referred to simply as "Nazarenes" or "Ebonites".
Let us begin our description of early, pre-Pauline Christianity with a look
at the meaning of the terms "Nazarene" and "Ebionite".
The term "Nazarene" refers to a member of the Essene movement
associated with Mount Carmel in Northern Israel. The Essenes considered
Mount Carmel to be so holy that none of the natural vegetation growing there
could be disturbed: no trees cut, no bushes cleared away, no permanent
dwellings built. Some of their priests lived on Mount Carmel in tents
(similar to yurts) but no permanent structures were permitted. Even their
Temple atop Carmel was a type of large tent, a beautiful yurt with a
bloodless altar. Only a small contingent of their priests actually lived
atop Mount Carmel, the majority of their membership lived in an Essene
cooperative village -a couple miles from the southwestern edge of the base
of the mountain. That Essene village was called "Nazareth". Those who lived
there were called "Nazarenes", as were all members of the Essene sect
associated with Mount Carmel. Thus, the fact that Jesus was referred to
as "the Nazarene" and his first followers were called "the sect of the
Nazarenes" demonstrates the link between early Christianity and the Essene
Nazarenes of Mount Carmel.
The other term that the first Christians were called was "Ebionite".
The word "Ebionite" comes from the Hebrew word "Ebon" which literally means
"poor" but implies "THOSE WHO HAVE VOLUNTARILY RENOUNCED WORLDLY MATERIALISM
TO ENTER THE ESSENE LIFESTYLE OF SIMPLE LIVING AND RADICAL SHARING IN
COMMUNITY." Simply put, an "Ebionite" is an "Essene renunciate", an Essene
who has given up materialism to serve God within the context of the
communal lifestyle in which all is shared. While all fully initiated Essene
Nazarene Ebonites lived in, or were sent out on missions by, the network of
Essene Christian communes, there was a large outer-circle of members not
yet fully initiated who still lived in private homes. These outer-circle
devotees were called "Hearers"; until ready to divest themselves of private
wealth and join the communal economy, they studied the teachings and
supported the communes by tithing. In the beatitudes of the Sermon on the
Mount, Jesus declared "Blessed are the Ebon ("Poor"), for they shall inherit
the Earth." He was not pronouncing a general blessing on all poor people;
neither was he praising poverty. Rather, he was making specific reference
to his sect, the Essene "Ebon" or "Ebionites" gathered around him atop
the Mount.
Jerry Martin
slightest idea of what you are talking about. The Bible is authentic and to
change Gods word is the one unforgivable sin and that is blasphemy. Watch
yourself.
Peace
Jerry Martin
Navali wrote in message <7hnpo8$npe$1...@iceman.tac.net>...
The Naive Halfling
The reason why Navali is bringing up these important points is to discern
that "unforgivable sin" that seems to have been made by the countless
succession of early church fathers (the ones who are responsible for
creating Christianity) I find Navali fairly well informed about what he was
speaking of. It's possible you don't want to know what he's talking about.
It's obvious that your religion doesn't like to promote its sordid history
to its followers.
Ignorance doesn't disturb, truth does.
Jerry Martin <m1...@mcia.com> wrote in message
news:1hV%2.1068$UD6....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
Astalis
>
> I don't know if Navali is trying to belittle or not.
>
> My intention is to have people more informed about their choices.
> So since I found out about the origination of the Christian religion,
> through my own need to understand and not letting dogma discourage me, I
> felt it important to offer information to anyone who has not been informed.
> In no way am I belittling Jesus or God, yet I feel there must be light shed
> on the men who came after to interpret and define such important topics for
> us...
Navili has been crossposting to various Christian newsgroups
among others for awhile now putting down Christianty at it's core
in order to uplift hiw own mystical and paganistic view for awhile now.
Within the essay he posted he mentioned the early Christians
were not called Christians but "Essene Nazarene Ebionites". What does
Scripture state?
Acts 11
26 And when he had found him, he brought him to
Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they
assembled with the church and taught a great many
people. And the disciples were first called Christians
in Antioch.
Before then those outside the faith termed followers of
Christ as a form of the Jewish religion. Navili seems to
base his essay on a misunderstanding and miscpnception of
what others outside early Christianity thought of them and
claim that as a reason for why the Gospel should be denied.
This isn't a light. It's an attempt of darkness to
smother the light.
Astalis
--
"And yet there is a time
For everything that's under heaven.
A time to run, a time to stand and fight.
So in the face in cold despair,
No matter what seems right,
Remember darkness drives us to the light..."
**from Michael Card's "Under the Sun"**
-----------------------
astalis at epsi dot net
morning_light at juno dot com
ICQ! Num: 2453141#
-----------------------
Galuuk
<<< Navili has been crossposting to various Christian newsgroups
among others for awhile now putting down Christianty at it's core
in order to uplift hiw own mystical and paganistic view for awhile now.
Within the essay he posted he mentioned the early Christians
were not called Christians but "Essene Nazarene Ebionites". >>>>
First of all Astalis, when you refer to anyone as "paganistic" you are
inferring that they have no knowledge or belief in God. This is both insulting
and condescending. It is typical of many Christian fundmentalist groups as
well as many Muslim groups as well, though Muslims often refer to someone who
doesn't believe as they do as "infedels".
Be it infedels or pagans, the inherant intolerance that these terms foster is
unacceptable in todays world. Your attitude reeks of bigotry, elitism, and
separatism.
As to the other matter at hand, the Essenes were a Jewish sect that existed at
the time of and before the time of Jesus. As far as the name "Christ" it did
not even exist during the time the man spoke. It was not recognized until
long, long after he died.
I have no idea or knowledge of the group Essene Nazarene Ebionites but there is
ample evidence that Jesus studied with the Essenes for a period of time. It
would be logical that those who followed his teachings would be called such,
since this is the part of the world where Jesus was from.
You quote the Christian Bible as if its unalterable in literal truth. The
Christian Bible also states that slaves should obey their masters and other
such abominations of humanity. It states on more than one occassion that
there are FOUR corners of the earth. For Fifteen Hundred Years Christian
purists took that to mean that the world was flat. Those who professed
otherwise were tortured and killed for herasy.
There are many truths in the Bible but the book is not meant to be taken
literally at every corner. I humbly suggest that you take your smug, holier
than thou attitude and douse it in God's True Ocean of Love and Mercy.
Joey
The Naive Halfling
in this thread, which is what this thread was to be questioning. YAHOWSHUA
(Jesus) OR PAUL? There is a difference, literally a world of difference. I
have my personal beliefs that have developed through my life and have
abstained from presenting them, yet it is valid to present information
relative to Christianity. If an apple is corrupt to the core, would you only
peel off the skin? The reformation was only an attempt at behavior
modification, it dared not admit something was wrong internally. How did
this religion produce such poisonous history? That should bring you to
investigate deeper into the constructs of the religion and how it affects
the human.
Also, when needing to learn about something, you should obtain many
different angles on the subject and ecspecially not confine yourself by
self-referencing. Much has been discovered about subjects like the Essenes
in the last 200 years and can only give us a clearer context with which to
understand these things.
Navali
is your problem!
Jerry Martin wrote:
>
> I read very little of your post to find you a quack and you don't have the
> slightest idea of what you are talking about.
--------
Lakum Diinukum--Unto you your Religion
WA LIYA DIIN--AND UNTO ME MY RELIGION
Kaafiruun--Disbelievers - Surah 109:6
Navali
Navali
IN YOUR CASE SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS!
SEE HOW YOUR OWN SCRIPTURE PROVES YOU WRONG:
Matthew 2:23 And he [JESUS] came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth:
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be
called a *Nazarene.*
:
:
Acts 24:5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of
sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of
the *sect of the Nazarenes:*
-------
NOTICE: JESUS WAS CALLED A NAZARENE IN HIS OWN LIFETIME -- WHEREAS HIS
FOLLOWERS, 'A SECT OF NAZARENES' [OR ESSENES].
BOTH VERSES WERE RECORDED IN YOUR SCRIPTURE -- LONG BEFORE PAULINE
CHRISTIANITY WAS FOUNDED BY PAUL. ON THE OTHER HAND, HE CALLED HIS
PAGAN/GENTILE FOLLOWERS *CHRISTIANS* -- IN A FOREIGN LAND, IN CASE YOU
HAVE MISSED THAT POINT IN YOUR DEFENSE:
*And the disciples were first called _Christians in Antioch._*
---------
Astalis wrote:
>
>
> Navili has been crossposting to various Christian newsgroups
> among others for awhile now putting down Christianty at it's core
> in order to uplift hiw own mystical and paganistic view for awhile now.
> Within the essay he posted he mentioned the early Christians
> were not called Christians but "Essene Nazarene Ebionites". What does
> Scripture state?
>
> Acts 11
> 26 And when he had found him, he brought him to
> Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they
> assembled with the church and taught a great many
> people.
*******And the disciples were first called Christians
> in Antioch.******
>
=====
Astalis
>
> First of all you seem to have been quoting from "scripture" written by Paul
Acts was written by Luke. Not Paul.
The Naive Halfling
in fact some guy actually named Luke wrote it, then good for him, yet these
were the least important issues in my previous message.
Astalis
> > slightest idea of what you are talking about. The Bible is authentic and
> to
> > change Gods word is the one unforgivable sin and that is blasphemy. Watch
> > yourself.
> > Peace
> > Jerry Martin
The Naive Halfling wrote:
>
> jerry, I recommend you mind your church father's feces.
> The reason why Navali is bringing up these important points is to discern
> that "unforgivable sin"...Ignorance doesn't disturb, truth does.
Indeed it does. Which is more than likely
the reason Navili seems to be working so hard
crossposting to various Christian newsgroups
demeaning and belittling our Lord and Savior and
the Christian faith in order to declare his own.
God's Word stands on its own regardless
of who rejects it or how many times its rejected.
Astalis
Romans
5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith,
we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
2 through whom also we have access by faith
into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in
hope of the glory of God.
3 And not only that, but we also glory in
tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces
perseverance;
4 and perseverance, character; and character,
hope.
5 Now hope does not disappoint, because the
love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the
Holy Spirit who was given to us.
6 For when we were still without strength,
in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one
die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would
ven dare to die.
8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us,
in that while we were still sinners, Christ died
for us.
9 Much more then, having now been justified by
His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through
Him.
10 For if when we were enemies we were
reconciled to God through the death of His Son,
much more, having been reconciled, we shall be
saved by His life.
11 And not only that, but we also rejoice
in God
through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom
we have now received the reconciliation.
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin
entered the world, and death through sin, and
thus death spread to all men, because all sinned;
13 (For until the law sin was in the world,
but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,
even over those who had not sinned according to the
likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a
type of Him who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the offense.
For if by the one man's offense many died, much
more the grace of God and the gift by the grace
of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.
16 And the gift is not like that which came
through the one who sinned. For the judgment
which came from one offense resulted in
condemnation, but the free gift which came
from many offenses resulted in justification.
17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned
through the one, much more those who receive
abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness
will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man's offense
judgment came to all men, resulting in
condemnation, even so through one Man's
righteous act the free gift came to all
men, resulting in justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were
made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience
many will be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered that the offense
might abound. But where sin abounded, grace
abounded much more,
21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so
grace might reign through righteousness to
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
The Naive Halfling
My intention is to have people more informed about their choices.
So since I found out about the origination of the Christian religion,
through my own need to understand and not letting dogma discourage me, I
felt it important to offer information to anyone who has not been informed.
In no way am I belittling Jesus or God, yet I feel there must be light shed
on the men who came after to interpret and define such important topics for
us. If they were wrong we are even more distorted because of the "telephone
game". Why let others make mistakes for us on such important topics
(i.e.God, Jesus, Spirit, Soul, "Salvation") since this is forfeiting our
freewill. Basically I'm saying we need to be more responsible for what we
choose and so we need to be more aware.
Navali
Timothy II 4:11 Only Luke is with me [PAUL]. Take Mark, and bring him with
thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.
Colossians 4:14 Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.
=========
Astalis wrote in message <374205...@epsi.net>...
>The Naive Halfling wrote:
>
> Acts was written by Luke. Not Paul.
>
>Astalis
>
leland palmer
This doesn't mean he knew nothing of the historical Jesus. In fact, if
we are to believe Paul and Luke/Acts, Saul was persecuting JC's Jewish
followers in Jerusalem and was involved in the stoning of at least one
of them. It seems a giant leap to assume that Saul did not know what it
was that he was persecuting, or that he had gotten it completely wrong.
Therefore, there is a modicum of plausibility to the notion that Paul
knew at least _some_ historical details about the founder of the
movement he was persecuting.
However, those who think that Paul founded Xty, imposed a 'Christ
cult' on Jesus, etc., have to confront an uncomfortable set of facts.
Their argument is that Xty is a Pauline creation. In support of this,
they point to the Gospels, which portray a Jesus vastly different from
Paul's 'Christ the Redeemer of Faith'. Paul shows no awareness of the
Gospel Jesus, they say: he knows nothing of Jesus the Parable Speaker,
Jesus the Healer and Exorcist, Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount/Plain,
etc. Thus, they use the Gospels' portrait of the ministry Jesus to
indicate Paul's unawareness of this Jesus. However, this argument works
against their assumption that Paul created Xty. If Xty is a creation of
Paul, then why are the foundational portraits of Jesus in the Gospels
_completely absent_ from Paul?
That is: remove 'the Gospel Jesus' (angelic intervention re: his
birth, the virginal conception, the association with John the Baptist,
the temptation in the wilderness, Jesus' ministry, teaching, healings,
exorcisms, the conflict with 'the Pharisees', the calling of the
disciples, and many more elements) from Xty - leaving only Paul's
letters - and the result is NOT Xty at all, just a few pious ramblings
by Paul, who 'never knew the historical Jesus'.
Thus the argument that Paul created Xty fails by the invocation of
its major premise (namely, that it is clear that Paul created Xty since
he knew nothing of 'the Gospel Jesus'): Xty itself becomes incoherent
and even unrecognizable if we go only by the writings of its supposed
'founder', Paul. Strange, isn't it, that Paul is purported to have
created a corpus of 'Xian' imagery, doctrine, myth, teaching, miracle,
and messianism which exists in the Gospels, but not at all in the
letters of the man who supposedly 'invented Xty'...!
The Naive Halfling
was to investigate if Christianity had primarily evolved from exercising
that which Jesus was trying to communicate through his life or more from
additives and unqualified translations, i.e. what Paul was stirring up.
Though I agree that Paul himself was not responsible for establishing
Christianity, he did setup an interesting scene.
I understand Paul in this analogy:
A man from Africa (who will represent Paul) who we will call O, is very
interested in Music (nature of God). O spends most of his early life
performing and advocating that which he knows, African music. He is quite
devout and sincere and tries to win over neighboring countries to his own
cultural perspectives with concerts and records. O becomes so identified
with his
heritage, he can't bear to listen to other types of Music. Well one day he
turns on his radio to listen to the weather and what does he hear? Some
music by some American named Elvis (Jesus). He becomes furiated and
feels the music is not only evil, but has stolen some qualities from his
tradition. O is so determined to thwart this new sound, he boats to America
to confront this Elvis. Arriving early at an Elvis concert, O begins to play
his music to those waiting in line. At one point O becomes so frustrated at
the
crowd he begins to yell at them about how his music is the original one and
Elvis is just the evil impersonation. Well, he completely loses the
crowd when the concert doors open and he is swept inside by the onslaught of
people wanting to see Elvis. Interestingly enough, by the end of the show,
O becomes completely entranced with Elvis and how he does his "thang". Soon
after Elvis dies, O not only plays his music but is president of an Elvis
fan club. An executive from X Records (Christian forefather) hears a concert
of O's and immediately signs him a recording contract. O has totally
"changed his tune" by now, to the point of even ridiculing those in Africa
who do not favor this wave of
Rock's Roll(Christianity)
O becomes very excited by his new life and he is now starting to sell
even more records than he did in his homeland. "How great" he thought, "to
be so good at Music." O probably couldn't see it, but X Records had a slew
of motivations driving their marketing plans. Not only were they
capitolizing on Elvis's legacy, but they were using O's African image to
influence all the people from his homeland to start listening to Rock'n'
Roll Music. They used him like a pawn and he couldn't see it, because he was
all wrapped up in the momentum and blinded by his secret passion to sell
more records than any other Rock 'n Roller (even Elvis). O was so succesful
at shakin' it and winning over audiences, X Records had him do a tribute
album to Elvis, so they could resell his image and influence the new
generation who were too young to see Elvis live and in person. Whether O
could ever see what X Records' motivations were or not, (greed, elitism,
listener dominance ..etc) doesn't really matter. He served their purpose and
they placed him in the Rock 'n' Roll hall of fame to help all remember the
power of Rock'n Roll.
Michael Wallace
Someone ELSE complaining about "Paul" for a change...
Do you think in the annuls of Karma that it might be the same one!!! <VBG>
Love
Michael
leland palmer <eas...@proaxis.com> wrote in message
news:3742CCA3...@proaxis.com...
Dennis Gentry
<snippage>
>
> First, some necessary background information must be given. There was
>an ancient Jewish religion which was very mystical, high and noble. It was a
>very evolved form of religion, rooted in respect and care for all of
>creation. This ancient Jewish religion was both very esoteric -- as
>evidenced by its Kaballah mysticism -- and yet very practical, as evidenced
>by its emphasis on daily lifestyle disciplines, ecology and communal
>economics. It was also VERY VEGETARIAN: not only was animal sacrifice
>forbidden, but so was the eating of animal flesh absolutely condemned.
>War and slavery had no part in this nonviolent religion. Women were the
>equals to men; women were entitled -- in fact, encouraged-- to participate
>in the Priesthood. This Priesthood -- called "The Priesthood of Melki
>Zadek" -- was governed by God via good angels and the divinely inspired
>BOOK OF THE ETERNAL COVENANT. Their original founder was Enoch; later,
>Moses led a major remanifestation of their movement. THIS ENLIGHTENED
>ANCIENT JEWISH RELIGION WAS KNOWN AS "THE ESSENE NAZARENE HASIDIM."
The discussion here about women is similar to what another person
wrote in his book about the Holy Grail. He claims that the RCC had
made changes in the Bible to make it look like man was superior to
women. All in all, some interesting correlations between what Navali
is writing and what this other person wrote.
<remaining snipped>
BTW, this is just an observation of mine and nothing more.
In Christ,
Dennis
george
Dennis Gentry wrote:
> In article <7hnpo8$npe$1...@iceman.tac.net>, "Navali" <nav...@cybersurf.com> wrote:
>
> <snippage>
> >
> > First, some necessary background information must be given. There was
> >an ancient Jewish religion which was very mystical, high and noble. It was a
> >very evolved form of religion, rooted in respect and care for all of
> >creation. This ancient Jewish religion was both very esoteric -- as
> >evidenced by its Kaballah mysticism -- and yet very practical, as evidenced
> >by its emphasis on daily lifestyle disciplines, ecology and communal
> >economics. It was also VERY VEGETARIAN: not only was animal sacrifice
> >forbidden, but so was the eating of animal flesh absolutely condemned.
> >War and slavery had no part in this nonviolent religion. Women were the
> >equals to men; women were entitled -- in fact, encouraged-- to participate
> >in the Priesthood. This Priesthood -- called "The Priesthood of Melki
> >Zadek" -- was governed by God via good angels and the divinely inspired
> >BOOK OF THE ETERNAL COVENANT. Their original founder was Enoch; later,
> >Moses led a major remanifestation of their movement. THIS ENLIGHTENED
> >ANCIENT JEWISH RELIGION WAS KNOWN AS "THE ESSENE NAZARENE HASIDIM."
>
The Naive Halfling
george <g...@thepentagon.com> wrote in message
news:3744F0CF...@thepentagon.com...
> If Jesus was Jewish why does he have a Mexican name?
Your kidding, right?
Or have you failed to see that our understanding on such things have been
filtered several times over through many different centuries, cultures, and
sects?
For one example, Jeezus' (for us southerns) real name was something along
the lines of Yaohushua Benjoseph.
Galuuk
<<< For one example, Jeezus' (for us southerns) real name was something
along
the lines of Yaohushua Benjoseph. >>>
Yaoh, huh???.....hmmmmm........interesting.....
Let's see.....
Yaaaaoooohh........Yaaaaoooohh......
Sounds like a good spiritual exercise.....
Joey
george
stupid (That's why RLA moved South. He did not want to leave his brother's
behind)
The Naive Halfling wrote:
> george <g...@thepentagon.com> wrote in message
> news:3744F0CF...@thepentagon.com...
> > If Jesus was Jewish why does he have a Mexican name?
>
> Your kidding, right?
> Or have you failed to see that our understanding on such things have been
> filtered several times over through many different centuries, cultures, and
> sects?
>
Dennis Gentry
<g...@thepentagon.com> wrote:
>If Jesus was Jewish why does he have a Mexican name?
He doesn't. Check out Strongs.
In Christ,
Dennis
>Dennis Gentry wrote:
>
>> In article <7hnpo8$npe$1...@iceman.tac.net>, "Navali"
<nav...@cybersurf.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snippage>
>> >
>> > First, some necessary background information must be given. There was
>> >an ancient Jewish religion which was very mystical, high and noble. It was a
>> >very evolved form of religion, rooted in respect and care for all of
>> >creation. This ancient Jewish religion was both very esoteric -- as
>> >evidenced by its Kaballah mysticism -- and yet very practical, as evidenced
>> >by its emphasis on daily lifestyle disciplines, ecology and communal
>> >economics. It was also VERY VEGETARIAN: not only was animal sacrifice
>> >forbidden, but so was the eating of animal flesh absolutely condemned.
>> >War and slavery had no part in this nonviolent religion. Women were the
>> >equals to men; women were entitled -- in fact, encouraged-- to participate
>> >in the Priesthood. This Priesthood -- called "The Priesthood of Melki
>> >Zadek" -- was governed by God via good angels and the divinely inspired
>> >BOOK OF THE ETERNAL COVENANT. Their original founder was Enoch; later,
>> >Moses led a major remanifestation of their movement. THIS ENLIGHTENED
>> >ANCIENT JEWISH RELIGION WAS KNOWN AS "THE ESSENE NAZARENE HASIDIM."
>>