Toto

Go to the archives and search for Rassias

mountainman

More evidence for a 4th century imperial Christian auto da fe (i.e. INQUISITION) or was this just overt "butchery" operations?


Letters of Julian: Letter 41

Chili

Clearly Pete, those were Galileans, and if you call them Christians then all Christians are Galileans, that we call Purgatorians today, and these are those who have been given a scorpion instead of a fish.

So now, you confirm my notion that they were 'other' (different) than the Christians that Catholics know.

The reason why they are not tolerated except inside their own domain, is that they are 'Galileans for life' and must be isolated for life since they act like wolves to feed on their flock.

It is in there, I read it, but maybe not in my words.

Call it butchery if you want, but they were given a chance to stay on their own. And punishment is not whatthey wanted but would:


Bolding mine.

I know them very well Pete, and also know that they must feed from the flock for their own warped righteousness sake.

He called it a disease (like leprosy) while I am polite and call it a dis-ease.

Will Wiley

<scratches head>...<peers around the room>..<makes sure the path to the exit is unobstructed>..what is this thread about?

Chili

Pete will correct me if I am wrong, he always does, but I think it is about the Galileans in Rome that Pete calls the real Christians, such a the gnostics and similar variants popping up on every street corner that Julian tried to subdue, because, obviously, subjugation is not possible for them.

I think my image of scorpion suits them well as opposed to fish in the knock 3 times story of Mt.7:7 on that, who there is given a poisonous snake instead of a fish because desire (tanha) should not be the reason to knock.

In fairness to them, Julian recognized that Romans and Judeans must become galileans in Rome or in Galilee where Paul's race is ran, and was very tolerant with them for that reason only.

Chili

The Difference.

The difference wherein the argument will stand is found in Rev. 13 where the first beast is the naked animal man, i.e. the son or genus, that emerges out of the [celestial] sea by way of tradition and will have victory over the ten commanments with seven virtues to show for, and does bear the stigmata in evidence of that.

Opposite this, the second beast is the animal cloth with religion that comes up out of the old earth. It has with two horns as saved sinner and continuous to point at the first beast that the whole world should worship, and when push comes shove they are willing to die for that cause.

It is a 'look-alike' of the first beast that in essence is a 'deprivation' instead of a 'privation' of the victory that is 'near' to them instead of 'dear.' They so are opposite to each other from which the scorpion image becomes evident wherein darkness returns again and again, and so the seventh day on which evening does not follow remains the illusion for them.

Toto

The thread may be clearer if you ignore Chili's contributions. :Cheeky:

Pete has certain constant themes. One of them is Constantine is EVIL and pagans are GOOD.

There was an attempt by a modern Greek, Vlasis Rassias, to list all of the Christian crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, it was not sufficiently documented and vetted to win internet debates, and critics have found problems in some of Rassias' claims, but Pete keeps trying.

Chili

Constantine is Pagan that is philosopical by nature and Vlassi Rassias obviously was nothing but a sophist himself, and a look-alike who bleeds in deprivation himself.

Why else would Greek muddle in someone elses waters unles he was an outcast himself.

Notice the 2 kinds of Christians here, one that Julian called Galileans and Pete converted to Christians as if Julian does not know the difference between Galileans and Christians.

Just go to Matthew and Mark where the 'crucified and risen' Jesus goes back to Galilee again. Then notice that in both Matthew and Mark the cry from the cross is made "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me," meaning to say: 'my gosh, my gosh, why did you have to fuck me like this,' publicly even, that even my own are ashamed of me now.

Then know that this Jesus is known as James, who is the brother of Jesus to make these two different Gospels known, wherein yes, they were look-alikes and opposites to each other as my 'dear' and 'near' by way of privation as opposite to deprivation, all Plato here now, for which he also uses the phrase 'being the glow' as opposed to 'seeing the glow.'

The problem is that victory is not in walking away from the crisis moment as raised, but in knowing the difference between heaven and hell. This obviously was not so for Matthew and Mark's who dapper as hell went back to Galilee again to get fried some.

So Pete is just defending the wrong Church and with lots of company there will bomb the wrong country again and again.