Because they were students of egypts school of mystery id presume.
Wasnt egypt the epicenter of philosphy and occult science for a long time?
I do not see the language thing as discrediting towards thomas. But i guess well have to agree to disagree here.
The first Syriac Christian texts wouldnât be translated until the second century. Being the Old Testament and the Gospels.
Yes. Next topic.
I donât think that they were capable of raising the dead, it was likely a mythic addition later on. The Gospel of Mark has zero resurrections.
Thatâs certainly a position one could take. Personally, if I were trying to make up a religion, that time my Rabbi was outwitted by a Gentile probably wouldnât be something that I would make up. It is recorded in Mark, which is the one with the least mythic additions and itâs present in all of our manuscripts , so itâs 99.999% not a later addition.
I keep telling you that Jesus isnât a sorcerer.
Actually, there wasnât a while lot of contact between Egypt and India.
It was one of them, three were plenty of places with highly advanced knowledge and wisdom. They had the Library of Alexandria though.
So, youâre perfectly fine with a Jesus who states that all women go to hell? Then, yes, we absolutely will agree to disagree.
Why do Christians say Maranatha?
Thatâs Sanskrit for Demon Lord.
Maybe thereâs some Aramaic and Sanskrit relationship.
Itâs Aramaic for either âCome Lordâ or âOur Lord has comeâ, it depends on whether you break it as âmaran athaâ or âmarana thaâ, respectively.
I looked it up, but Maranatha doesnât mean Demon Lord in Sanskrit. Check for yourself: English to Sanskrit dictionary translation online | Tamilcube
Natha is Lord
Mara is the one who tempted the Buddha.
It is Sanskrit.
I did some more research and youâre correct. Though, translating Mara as demon is bad practice. Since, itâs a proper name it would just translate to Lord Mara. Which is interesting because Mara represents everything that is antagonistic to enlightenment.
Matthew 10:34
(Jesus speaking)
I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
I am going to ask purely for debate, what do you interpret these lines as? I do not understand why you would bring this quote into a debate if you have no argument for its meaning
Further on in the book of Matthew this is said
With that, one of Jesusâ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
Matthew 26:51-52
âPut your sword back in its place,â Jesus said to him, âfor all who draw the sword will die by the sword." in reference to Peter who brutally bludgeoned off the ear of a high priests servant.
Jesus was a mystic if I am using the terms correctly.
I am also quite surprised as to how much debate a topic on a QNA with the ascended master can be. Itâs also quite interesting to find someone who is well versed in Scripture and in Early Christian texts as well whether it be heretical or apocryphal
Maranatha
Demon Lord
There is a Sanskrit Hebrew Connection.
Iâm not sure where the fuck up happened, but on one part it appears that Jesus isnât a great guy after all, from Matthew 10:34 it makes it seem that heâs against Peace and only wants war, this is consistent with the Maranatha/Demon Lord interpretation. On the other hand the assholes who scribed the Bible may have gotten their ancient stories mixed up with other ancient stories, itâs obvious somebody fucked up somewhere because all the other stories about Jesus paint him as this nice guy who helps people. Itâs because of these inconsistencies that I cannot agree with the Bible being considered the Word of God, an ascended Master, or a Messiah.
An Ascended Master wouldnât let a bunch of assholes crucify him for the sins of the world, most likely what happened he was crucified for claiming to be god, teaching others his Sorcery. If he had any real power he would have prevented them from killing him. Maybe he did, and the bastards who wrote the Bible changed what actually happened so that it would fit their narrative.
All in all, none of anything Christian can be trusted, not Jesus, not the Bible. It is best to seek answers elsewhere, the Bible is a waste of time. Too many ancient stories pulling from different cultureâs histories all lumped together as one. Itâs a cluster fuck of bullshit.
But it says in the Bible that he was accused of Sorcery, and in league with Beezelbub. Jesus said some shit in regards to this but Sorcerers will lie to protect their asses. I do it around angry Christians looking for Witches to burn.
If you know anything about Summoning the Goetia Demons youâll see where Jesus gets his power to change water to wine, calm seas, raise the dead. There is a Demon Power for each one of these miracles.
Iâm assuming youâve never studied this.
But yes, Jesus was a Sorcerer. Itâs obvious as Fuck.
Do you even know what Sorcery is?
Can we please keep this civil, and discuss the topic, not insult the person posting it?
As for Maranatha and Jesus not being for peace. Well, at the time there was the idea that the messiah was a militant messiah. He would take down the roman empire and all those who would seek to destroy Israel and establish Israel as the âKingdom of Godâ.
Why would he let people crucify him? Perhaps not being prepared. The Jewish leaders being jealous of his power and thus telling the Romans to crucify him by saying things like âhe is not a roman citizen, he is addressing heresies to your imperial cult, he is treasonous and says he will destroy all you have builtâ.
I see the bible not as the word of god but of parables, stories, âmoralsâ if you will that people choose to live by. I see it as containing a history(if even a biased source of history) of the Kingdom of Israel and Judea. Itâs their history from the ancient times of Mesopotamia. There are stories even of Abraham being from Mesopotamia and that God would lead his children to the âpromised landâ.
The original semetic people were nomadic from what I have read in the bible. They worshipped many gods and had a pantheon. Yahweh was a warrior god who when the babylonians enslaved the âisraelitesâ so to speak told them âfollow me alone, no other godsâ. So Israelâs chief and patron god became that of Yahweh.
Multiple kingdoms around had different gods they worshipped as well. Tell tale stories of how there were kings who were afraid of Yahweh that they would partake in child sacrifice to keep their kingdom from being conquered.
I have studied Goetia. I know all too well what each of his miracles can be done by. Zagan being able to turn water into wine, Shax being able to steal and give sight to man if the operator chooses it to be so. When I studied the goetia, I learned âIsnât this what Jesus did too?â and then my logic was âitâs the Holy Spiritâ.
Some argue well, is the Holy Spirit that of King Solomon? Every Christian exorcist or leader uses the Holy Spirit to command âdemonsâ and evil spirits correct? Did Solomon not do the same thing?
What was the insult?
I didnât interpret that.
I donât think she did either.
I was going off of that, itâs not in itself an overt insult but it is the kind of thing that can tend to turn a conversation sideways into personal attack etc.
Hey, thatâs very interesting. I remember seeing a documentary years ago about an ancient grave in the middle east that had the inscription âMaraâ. It was said in that documentary that Mara was the female form of âMaâ and would mean something like âthe Ladyâ. I always wondered if it was connected to Maria.
Thereâs a context to that. Basically, Jesusâ teachings are a sword that will divide families. This prophecy is being fulfilled right now by us here. What other topic is as divisive as the topic of Jesus.
Mystic is the proper term. I think thereâs an argument to be made that Jesus was another in the long line of prophets chosen by Yahweh. In the Gospel of Mark, the one with the least amount of mythical additions, Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist in a Baptism of Repentance, and then the skies open up and a voice declares, this is my son in whom Iâm well pleased. The earliest Christians, believed in a form of adoptionism, the belief that Jesus was adopted as Godâs son for whatever reason. The proto-Orthodox denied this and when the next Gospels were written they were all written with the intent to show that Jesus was the Son of God from birth. And so they added (likely mythic) additions about his genealogy, birth, and childhood. Whether he possessed the power from Yahweh at birth or at baptism is irrelevant. Because his supernatural powers come from his devotion to his Father, Yahweh. Bakhti Yoga develops siddhis too.
Weâve been over this, Mara is a proper name, and Mara doesnât mean demon. It should be Lord Mara.
Of course, no one is saying that the Bible itself is an ascended master or Messiah. 
I agree that the amount of contradictions in the Bible are pretty daunting and cause one to question the veracity of the entities in question. However, I already believe that most gods/demons/angels people are âworking withâ on the forum only exist as a function of their subconscious mind.
Another contradiction is Yahweh says that he is a jealous god, but Paul the Apostle writes that jealousy is a fruit of the flesh, and anyone who possesses them wonât inherit heaven.
I think thatâs the point. Jesus teaches about an upside-down kingdom where the servants are on the top. Jesus used his life to teach that truth until the end.
Yes, in Jewish eschatology there are two messiahs. Messiah son of David and Messiah son of Joseph. Jesus made the drastic claim that he was both.
Jesus was constantly on his disciples asses all the time for their lack of faith, for their little faith, we cannot rely on the discipleâs interpretation of what they think Faith is. They are unworthy.
One disciple betrayed him, another denied him, they are unworthy.
The New Testament is entirely the assumptions of the disciples. Therefore complete bullshit. We cannot rely upon the New Testament for evidence of Jesusâ divinity.
Therefore, Fuck what Paul thought.
God refers to himself in the plural many times.
Let us make man in our image.
You will not surely die, for when you eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil your eyes will open and you will become like gods knowing good and evil.
The man has become like us knowing good and evil, dare we let him take from the tree of life and live forever.
Christians would interpret this as the Trinity. But for like 5000 years the Jews never interpreted this, its only because the Church enforced that.
Paul cannot know what god is like, neither can the Christians.
Whatâs the difference between god, the angels, the demons, and Satan, they all have powers and are immortal? When Christians pray to their unknown god, its like playing with a Ouija board, any spirit could answer.
Maybe god is a collection of the whole. The good characteristics of god represented by the angels, the dark side represented by the demons.
According to scripture, Judas was the chosen betrayer
I agree. Paul for the most part was someone who I believe held a guilty conscience for what he did. However, he was also extremely sexist as well