rhutchin

I did not see a reference to the Book of Amos in the cited document.

Littlejohn

OK.

No, the persecution by Paul/Saul was not directed versus Christ's followers, since at that times was still no Christians to persecute. The persecution of those who had contact with Jesus began with Domitian, who was well acquainted of the whole Jesus story (he was the son of Flavius Vespasian, which knew well the story of Jesus, and also knew him personally, as probably the Domitian himself).

Why Domitian persecuted the followers of Jesus, in special way his direct family members (see John "Mark", said Evangelist), was due to the fact that not only Jesus was NEVER CRUCIFIED and even NEVER died in the time of Pilate, but he also participated in the defense of Jerusalem during the siege of 66-70, when the city of Jerusalem was almost completely destroyed by the legions of Titus. In that context, Jesus leaded a small army of about 600 young Galileans and Josephus calls him Jesus the Galilean (see also the Gospels for that title).

Therefore, the hesitation of Domitian was that the family's descendants of Jesus, following the example of the Nazarene, in turn could organize a revolt also. Only with the Emperor Nerva you begin to realize that there was no danger of rebellion from part miliesthe "desposyni", ie families of Jesus and from jesuan-gnostics of the provinces of Asia, which had followed the teaching of Jesus. All of the martyrs of this period (and, almost until the first or second of the third century, were victims gnostic-jesuans that the counterfeiters founders turn as "martyrs" Christians, like the victims of Nero's reaction because the attack versus Simon Magus, led by Peter Simon (see Acts of Peter) and his collaborators of the jewish roman diaspora. (after said "cristian martyrs" by the counterfeiters founders!)


"..And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias.."

This step is the result of a shocking manipulation of historical truth. To try to guess how things went really, it is necessary put together what we read about in Josephus, in the Recognitiones of pseudo-Clement and the passage of the Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius, where he speaks of the aggression and killing of James the Just, citing Hegesippus.

To summarize briefly, Josephus tells us that around 62 James the Just, brother of Jesus the Christ (stepbrother), was done kill by high priest Ananias, who took advantage of a temporary vacancy of roman power, since the procurator Festus was recently died and Albino, appointed as his successor, was en route, from Alexandria in Egypt to Jerusalem.

From Recognitiones by pseudo-Clemente, learn that leading the fatal attack versus the poor James (one of the very few truly positive characters of the evangelic story) was Paul/Saul (and therefore not Paul Tarsus, a character deeply distinct from the former). From Hegesippus (see H.E. by Eusebius of Caesarea) we learn that sudden after the cowardly attack, the crowd, who was a witness of the happened, turned in very angry and tried to catch the perpetrators. Almost certainly Paul/Saul, a coward and ruthless individual, as Josephus us paint him and the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles, was captured by the mob. It was at this point that you set the action of Ananias, the high-priest mandator of the murder of James, who, taking advantage of his authority, managed to rescue Paul/Saul, before the crowd maked him to pieces! So, the episode recounted in the Acts of the Apostles, about the rescue of Paul (obviously not of Tarsus) by Ananias, is almost certainly true, but that the event was happened not in Damascus, but in Jerusalem!

"..The story identifies this as Paul who later says:..."

The character Paul of Tarsus was not a "univoco" character (in a single direction), as the clergy has left up us to believe until today, as this figure, as it is represented in the works of New Testament, it is the result of the syncretistic overlap of TWO distinct characters. The first of these characters was "Paul of Tarsus, "while the second was Paul/Saul: an infamous figure of scoundrel, that only the perverted and counterfeiter minds of the founding fathers could imagine to raise at the dignity of a saint, although "merged" with the character Paul of Tarsus!

To the character as resulted by the "fusion" literature, was given the name "Paul of Tarsus." Neither was called Paul, and neither was native of Tarsus.

Rebuilding the dynamic through which Christianity was founded, it is now possible, thus as it is possible to remove the patristic "mask" from the personalities involved in the Gospel story, starting from the same Jesus of Nazareth. Data there are all or almost (those who lack to the "appeal" are almost always of marginal importance). However it is need a huge research work, since these data are dispersed, diluted in a large number of writings of various nature. If, for adventure, they had been reunited in a written only, this latter never would come down to us, since it would have been certainly destroyed by the "pious" hands of counterfeiters. This is what has happened to literature Pagan, Gnostic, Manichaean, etc.. in the centuries in which dominated Constantinian emperors, with the only exception of Julian the Apostate.

Yet literature of the Jews also was destroyed by "purifying" burning of the holy christian clergy, and often came down on over the burning, in order to roast them, yet Jewish owners of literary works: all, obviously, for the "greater glory of God!" (Ad maiorem Dei gloriam). However, the Jewish community does not disappeared as the others, but managed to resist until the present day, although it was made object of continued progroms anti-Semitic and persecutions of all kinds, by part of the "holy" inquisition. The works destroyed were rebuilt, thanks to the extraordinary ability of Jews to hand down, by generation in generation, almost like a photocopy the content of the scriptural records in oral form. In addition, there were the works written by the community of diaspora who lived outside the borders of Roman Empire, where the rapacious claws of the clergy could not reach they. Surely these records (such as the Talmud) were very useful to the western jewish community to rebuild their records, destroyed by the murderess fury of the clergy satanic of those times.

There are now over 11 years that I began research on the origins on Christianity. When I started to be sure of being on the right road, I intensified up to research. Now that I am retired, I spend even 12-14 hours a day in front of the computer: a fantastic strument, without which the search for the truth would have been impossible, as evidenced by the failure of scholars, yet very talented, that we have preceded.


Littlejohn

_________________________

All of the material posted by Littlejohn, or with other nicknames traceable to him, must be considered in all respects copyright.
.

rhutchin

And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) (Acts 1:15)

And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. (Acts 6:1)

And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith. (Acts 6:7)

And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, (Acts 9:1)

And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; (Acts 9:10)

Acts makes it clear that Saul/Paul does direct his attacks against those who are disciples (followers) of Christ). This persecution began in Jerusalem initiated by the religious leaders. There was a later persecution of the followers of Christ by Domitian.

The idea that Christ was not crucified is clever and imaginative but I am not buying into it.

It seems clear from Acts that there are two people named Ananias. One was the high priest you refer to above. The other was a disciple of Jesus. The story you tell is distinct from that which we find in Acts and not the same in any way.

Again, clever and imaginative, but I am going with Acts on this.

Littlejohn

Yet here also, as in an infinite number of cases, the historical reality has been severely distorted. Indeed, on this occasion was not elected a successor to Judas Iscariot (namely Mattias), but the successor of John the Baptist, killed and then beheaded. Successor that was elected was James the Just. About it also you can find in Eusebius of Caesarea.

Note however that the book 'Acts of the Apostles' was prepared to "table" in mid-second century, and what it contains was purely functional to the needs of the counterfeiters, who built the catholic-christian worship on a combination of hallucinating lies.

This was the REAL Paul/Saul, also mentioned by Josephus! Paul of Tarsus was a character profoundly different from the first.

OK, I understand....

I try to provide hints for the research, then everyone can use they as wish.


PS: the true story of the origins of Christianity and the true historical profiles of the characters involved in the gospel story, were totally different from as has been reported by the clergy for nearly 19 centuries. If you do not set yourself into right mental "habit", it is very unlikely that you will be able to get unravel the hank.


Littlejohn
.

rhutchin

I will go with the account in Acts.

skepticdude

I'm not asking you to argue against my freedom to hold the views I hold.

If you disagree with anything I said, I'm asking you to explain why you think I'm wrong. Telling me this doesn't violate my freedom to hold my position!

It sounds like you disagree with my hypothesis, but you can't explain why, so you'd rather find a face-saving way to bow out of the discussion without having to admit I gave you something you can't refute.

rhutchin

So, what did you say other than imagine this and then imagine that and presto, we get this neat result. If you could provide some tangible basis for your speculations (other than, Gee, Paul and Barnabas probably communicated with each other through visions), that would give me something to work with.