embed
/
christianity2.0
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Wiki Activity

Updates

embed 2023-10-11 11:03:11 +00:00
parent ba252c14a3
commit 64b7104607
16 changed files with 943 additions and 70 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
BnaiAmenEbionites.md

@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ of by Yeshua and faithfully recorded in Aramaic by Matthew and others.
### Excerpts from The Gospel of the Ebionites
In the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.2-3),
xIn the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.2-3),
we read:
In the Gospel that is in general use among them (Ebionites) which is

4
ChurchOfTheEastPeshitta.md

@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ It's important to clearly distinguish (over simplified) between:
know that these were rejected: the Canon may have been closed before
these later books were in wide circulation, which may point to the age
of the PeshittA.
3. [[CodexSinaticusSyriac]], which is an oddball similar to the Cureton,
and considered to be an Old Syriac, although not a very good copy
with lot's of copyist errors; it is is Palimpsest. It is
@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ should also be free from Constantinunist or Roman or [[KjvTampering]],
unlike the Westerns which were brought info alignment with the Greek.
I think the OT is considered to be from the Hebrew before 3 c.,
so neither Masoretic nor LXX.
so neither Masoretic nor LXX.
* [[PeshittasEasternOrWestern]]
* [[AramaicClarificationStatementsInNT]]
* https://peshitta.org

4
CodexSinaticusGreekFraud.md

@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ See [[GreekHierosolymitanus]]
Here's a great [19th c. style quote](http://web.archive.org/web/20120512021709/http://preteristarchive.com/Books/1924_mauro_which-version.html)
on the Sinaiticus:
But whether or not the Sinaitic Ms. is the most ancient of all now
known to exist, it is, beyond any doubt whatever, the most defective,
corrupt, and untrustworthy. Our reasons for this assertion
@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ on the Sinaiticus:
ancient Greek Ms. of the N.T., a Ms. which, despite its
unquestioned antiquity turns out to be about the worst and most
"scandalously corrupt" of all the Greek Texts now known to exist.
### Links
* https://www.sinaiticus.net/

4
ConstantinianChurch.md

@ -20,11 +20,11 @@ of the Shema Israel was forbidden as being anti-Trinitarian, yet it is said
### Links
* [[RichardReeves]] on Easter
* [Constantine as the anti-Christ](https://messengers-of-messiah.org/newpdf/6manlawlessnessapostatechurch.pdf)
### JWO Links
#### JWO Links
* [[JWO/JWO_12_01_TheEbioniteRecordsontheTrialofPaul_0063]]
* [[JWO/JWO_12_01_TheEbioniteRecordsontheTrialofPaul_0063]]
* [[JWO/JWO_12_03_TheReliabilityofTheEbionitesDespitetheOne-SidedChargesAgainstThem_0065]]
* [[JWO/JWO_13_01_DidJohnsEpistlesIdentifyPaulAsAFalseProphet__0072]]

60
EarlyEbioniteMatthew.md

@ -131,7 +131,8 @@ Mattith-YaHu, as the following quotes demonstrate:
**Papias (150-170 AD)**
Mattith-YaHu composed the words in the Hebrew dialect,
and each translated as he was able.#1
and each translated as he was able.
(quoted by Eusebius Eccl. History 3:39)
**Ireneus (170 AD)**
Mattith-YaHu also issued a written Gospel
@ -173,8 +174,7 @@ in the Hebrew language and letters,
for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed,
who translated it into Greek, is not sufficiently ascertained.
Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at
Caesarea,
which the martyr Pamphilus, so diligently collected.
Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus, so diligently collected.
I also, was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of
Borea, to copy it.
In which is to be remarked that,
@ -195,8 +195,6 @@ and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands, in Hebrew...
(Jerome; De Vir. 3:36)
(Isho'dad Commentary on the Gospels)
#1 quoted by Eusebius Eccl. History 3:39
Other "church fathers" have testified to the Semitic origin of at least one of
Shaul's/Powlos's[Paul's] epistles. These "church fathers" claim, that Powlos's
Epistle to the Hebrews was translated into Greek from a Hebrew original, as the
@ -207,12 +205,14 @@ In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly, he
[Clement of Alexandria], has given us abridged accounts of all the
canonical Scriptures. The Epistle to the Hebrews, he asserts, was
written by Powlos, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue, but that it
was carefully translated by Loukanus, and published among the Greeks.#10
was carefully translated by Loukanus, and published among the Greeks.
(Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes; referred to by Eusebius in Eccl. History 6:14:2)
**Eusebius (315 AD)**
For as Powlos had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his Country,
some say that the evangelist Loukanus; others that Clement, translated the
epistle.#11
epistle.
(Eusebius; Eccl. History 3:38:2-3)
**Jerome (382)**
"He (Powlos), being a Hebrew, wrote in Hebrew:
@ -221,15 +221,12 @@ while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew,
were more eloquently turned into Greek.
(Lives of Illustrious Men, Book V)
#10 Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes; referred to by Eusebius in Eccl. History
6:14:2
#11 Eusebius; Eccl. History 3:38:2-3
It should be noted that these church fathers, did not always agree
that the other books of the New Testament were written in
Hebrew. Epiphanius for example, believed "that only Mattith-YaHu?, put
the setting forth of the preaching of the Gospel into the New
Testament, in the Hebrew language and letters."#13
Testament, in the Hebrew language and letters."
(Epiphanius, Pan. 30:3)
Epiphanius does however, tell us, that the Yehudish believers would disagree
with him, and point out the existence of Hebrew copies of Yo-Khawnawn and Acts
@ -249,7 +246,6 @@ Aramaic? Would they not known Aramaic? And if Aramaic had also fallen to the
wayside why are there still people to this day still using it handed down
to them from antiquities?
#13 Epiphanius, Pan. 30:3
#14 Epipnanius, Pan. 30:3, 6
#15 Epiphanius, Pan. 30:3, 6, 12
#16 Epiphanius, Pan. 30:3
@ -258,9 +254,47 @@ to them from antiquities?
* Eusebius; Eccl. History
https://archive.org/download/eusebiusecclesia0000euse/eusebiusecclesia0000euse.pdf
#### Some References on the Web
From [Jerome and the Hebrew Matthew - (not canonical Matthew)](https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/jerome-and-the-hebrew-matthew-not-canonical-matthew.543/#post-2292)
by Steven Avery:
The Scholarly Speculation of Jerome Concerning Matthew's Original Hebrew Gospel
Ron Jones and the Titus Institute
http://hebrewgospel.com/Jeromes Scholarly Speculation.php
==========================
For this one the scholarship is fine, but very limited
The Hebrew gospel of Matthew.
Ben Smith
http://www.textexcavation.com/hebrewmatthew.html
This next one is uneven, I will try to look it over.
HEBREW MATTHEW - Shem Tob - du Tillet - Munster
Are we to believe and trust these references by Origen and his student Eusebius?
Malachi
http://oneinmessiah.net/HEBREWMATTHEW.htm
Introduction to the New Testament
Johann Michaelis
http://books.google.com/books?id=sLAXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA146
p. 145-194 and more, even DuTillet and Muenster on p. 185
Nazarene Jewish Christianity by Ray Pritz has a lot of fine material, but he does not seem to have a clear section just on this topic.
Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the New Testament Period Until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century (1988)
Ray Pritz
https://books.google.com/books?id=vh84AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA93
The page there that is of the most interest we have captured as
[[HebrewMatthewShemTob]] and clearly show the Pharisitical changes to the
middle-aged Hebrew Matthew by Shem Tob - du Tillet - Munster.
### Links
* [Hebrew Dialect of Aramaic](http://www.peshitta.org/for/showthread.php?tid=820)
* [Jerome and the Hebrew Matthew - (not canonical Matthew)](https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/jerome-and-the-hebrew-matthew-not-canonical-matthew.543/)
* [original-gospel-of-matthew-knol.html](.../Hebrew-Matthew/original-gospel-of-matthew-knol.html)
* https://gnosis.study/library/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0/ENG/Epiphanius%20of%20Salamis%20-%20The%20Panarion,%20Book%20I%20(Sects%201-46).pdf
* https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelebionites.html

14
EbioniteCanon.md

@ -9,26 +9,26 @@ debate having gone into the Roman one - it's basically what Athanasius put out
in a pastoral letter that was adopted at the Synod at Carthage.
So we are free to make our own.
The Ebionites according to
The Ebionites according to
[Epiphanius in Panarion Book 1 30.13.6](https://gnosis.study/library/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0/ENG/Epiphanius%20of%20Salamis%20-%20The%20Panarion,%20Book%20I%20(Sects%201-46).pdf)
had a Matthew without our first
2 chapters. Which means no virgin birth (something there is no strong need for)
which means that Jesus' father was Joseph. That result is Jesus
is of the Davidic line, which is a Hebrew prerequisite for being a Messiah.
(Which may be the whole point for adding it to the early christian Matthew.)
The Ebionites held that Jesus was born a man by Joseph, and acquired His
divine qualities by the Holy Spirit at his baptism. The Ebionites celebrate
Epiphany as celebration of His baptism by the Holy Spirit, and did not
practice paedobaptism.
If we build on the Ebionites we can start with Matthew, without the
first 2 chapters:
[Epiphanius in Panarion Book 1 30.13.6](https://gnosis.study/library/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0/ENG/Epiphanius%20of%20Salamis%20-%20The%20Panarion,%20Book%20I%20(Sects%201-46).pdf)
The Ebionites held that Jesus was born a man by Joseph, and acquired His
divine qualities by the Holy Spirit at his baptism.
The Ebionites held that Jesus acquired his divinity at his baptism:
"this day I have begotten thee". The Holy Spirit was that dove that
entered him by God's will, hence they're non/anti-Trinitarian, as was
the early church - Tertullian et al.
the early church - Tertullian et al. The Ebionites celebrate
Epiphany as celebration of His baptism by the Holy Spirit, and did not
practice paedobaptism.dx
We read Acts as a historical document, being a brief to the Roman
procecutor of Paul, intended to help get Paul acquitted, and hence avoid
@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ written in Aramaic using Hebrew letters, so we would probably follow
the Assyrian [[ChurchOfTheEastPeshitta]] (ACoE) aramaic text, which they
claim to have gotten from the Apostles Thomas and Bartholomew, and have
preserved in Aramaic ever since. It resolves a whole lot of little issues,
(see We ask [[WastheNewTestamentReallyWritteninGreek]]), but with regard
(see We ask [[WastheNewTestamentReallyWritteninGreek]]), but with regard
tp the Ecanon, they don't have Revelation, Jude, 2Peter, 2John, 3John in theirs.
If you don't have the Paulines, you don't have to have Revelation 2,3 or

9
EbioniteWebFriends.md

@ -19,6 +19,15 @@ now gone. His book was available on the site for free-download in PDF and is on
* https://www.atour.com/
* https://aim.atour.com/
### Friends we hope to meet
We have recently come across website [Too Long In theSun](https://toolong.com/)
by [[RichardRives]], and we find that we are essentially in complete
accord with his theology as summarized by the following articles on his website.
We look forward to discussing with him some issues of ours, like
[[PaulApostleOfTheHeretics]], and hope we can work together.
### Research
We engage with bible experts in research forums:

369
HebrewMatthewShemTob.md Normal file

@ -0,0 +1,369 @@
Parent: [[RichardRives]]
## HEBREW MATTHEW - Shem Tob - du Tillet - Munster
From: Http://oneinmessiah.net/HEBREWMATTHEW.htm
Info on this page taken from my studies, www.seekgod.ca/roodnewsflash.htm,
by Vicky Dillen and a good brother in the Lord, [[Richard Rives]]. His website
is https://www.toolong.com, check it out!
Beware of those who present the Shem Tob version of Matthew as an accurate
representation of a manuscript.
Many believers in Messiah Yeshua are being led by unbelievers to accept an
unscriptual version of pseudo Hebrew Matthew which was found as a part of a
polemic document entitled Eban Bohan. This document was authored by Shem
Tob, an unbelieving Jewish theologian.
Many unbelievers are going around the country promoting this trash.
Quoting Professor George Howard, translator of Shem Tob:
In regard to theology, Shem-tob’s Hebrew Matthew is heretical
according to the standard of traditional Christianity. It never
identifies Jesus with the Messiah. John the Baptist is given an
exalted role (even takes on messianic traits), --- Shem-Tob’s text
envisions the salvation of the Gentiles only in the Messianic era.
Shem Tob ben Shaprut of Tudela Castle - Spain, 1385 - 14th Century.
Wrote a polemical work against Christianity entitled Eben Bohan (The
Touchstone). Matthew is a separate chapter of Eben Bohan.
A cursive manuscript of Eben Bohan can be found at the Jewish Theological
Seminary of America - New York.
Jean du Tillet - Catholic Bishop of Brieux France:
From a manuscript found at Rome among the Jews in 1553;
Used by Jehovah’s witnesses. James Trim translated du Tillet
Sebastian Munster
1537 confiscated from the Jews.
Some think Munster and du Tillet to be from the same source. Munster
filled in missing portions and made no notes as to which parts he added.
Shem Tob and du Tillet are different texts. They do not always agree.
Munster disagrees with Shem Tob. They do not always agree.
Jerome speaks of a Hebrew Matthew among the Nazarenes in Jordan who fled
Jerusalem. Jerome quotes that text and Professor George Howard who
translated Shem Tob says that Jeromes quotes do not match Shem Tob.
Epiphanius quotes Ebionite Hebrew Matthew. His quotes do not match Shem Tob.
The tetragrammaton does not appear in Shem Tob or in du Tillet.
In Shem Tob it is written as Heh or Heh and two Yods signifying Ha Shem or
The Name.
In du Tillet it is written as three Yods.
### SCRIPTURAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SHEM TOB AND THE GREEK MAJORITY TEXTS AS REPRESENTED IN THE ENGLISH KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE
Never identifies Yeshua / Jesus as Messiah.
Mat 1:1 "the generation of Jesus Christ"
Shem Tob "the generations of Jesus ( )"
-----------
Never identifies Jesus as Messiah.
Mat 1:18 "now the birth of Jesus Christ"
Shem Tob "birth of Jesus ( )"
-----------
The fact that Yeshua / Jesus "shall save His people" omitted
Mat 1:21 "thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from
their sins"
Shem Tob "he shall save my people from their sins"
-----------
Non-Biblical - Rabbinical reference
Mat 4:9 "all these things will I give if thou wilt fall down and worship me"
Shem Tob "if you bare your head to me"
-----------
Jewish sages given equal status with Yeshua / Jesus
Mat 7:29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
"Preaching with great power not as the rest of the sages."
-----------
Reference to the coming kingdom removed
Mat 6:10 "Thy kingdom come"
Shem Tob "may your kingdom be blessed"
-----------
Forgiveness of sin by Yeshua / Jesus removed
Mat 9:2 "thy sins be forgiven thee"
Shem Tob "It is by the faith of God that your sins have been forgiven"
-----------
The gospel set aside
Mat 11:5 "the poor have the gospel preached to them"
Shem Tob "the poor are aquited"
-----------
Elevation of John the Baptist over Yeshua / Jesus
Mat 11:11 - 11:13 "For all the prophets and the law spoke concerning John"
as opposed "prophesied until John".
Mat 21:32 "Because John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did
not believe him."
In Shem Tob - addressed to the disciples instead of the chief priests and
elders.
Quoting Professor George Howard, translator of Shem Tob:
In summary, this series of readings asserts that none is greater than John,
the prophets and the law spoke concerning John, John (Elijah) is to save all
the world, and Jesus’ own disciples are disgraced for not having believed
John. In traditional Christianity such a description is usually applied to
Jesus. Its application to John the Baptist in Shem Tobs Hebrew, elevates the
Baptist to a salvific (salvation) role.
-----------
The temple greater than Yeshua / Jesus
Mat 12:6 "But I say unto you, in this place is one greater than the temple"
Shem Tob "the temple is greater than this"
-----------
Mat 13:11 "it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of
heaven, but to them it is not given"
Shem Tob "to know the kingdom of heaven"
-----------
Man sows seed instead of the son of man:
Mat 13:37 "He that soweth the good seed is the son of man"
Shem tob "the one who sows good seed is man"
-----------
Possible Talmudic influence - Toldoth Yeshu?
Mat 13:55 "Is this not the carpenters son? Is not his mother called Mary?"
"Is this not the son of the smith and Mary?"
-----------
*** James is left out as brother of Jesus in the Shem Tob - Possible
elevation of James
Mat 14:6 In Shem Tob Herods daughter danced - not Herodias’ daughter -
Qumran scrolls condemn niece marriage - Jewish leaders of the time practiced
it.
-----------
Possible Talmudic Influence: Doctrine of the Pharisees unquestioned
Mat 16:12 Told to beware the doctrine of the Pharisees..."
Shem Tob "beware of the behavior of the Pharisees..."
-----------
Salvation by Elijah rather than Yeshua / Jesus
Mat 17:11 "Elijah shall truly shall first come and restore all things"
Shem Tob "Elijah will come and save all the world"
-----------
Salvation by way of "The Son of man" deleted
Mat 18:11 "The Son of man is come to save that which was lost"
Shem Tob "the son of man has stopped saving the enemy"
-----------
Possible Talmudic Implications:
Mat 18:18 "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and
whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"
Shem Tob applies this scripture to being bound or loosed from oaths taken -
Day of Atonement - Col Nidre Prayer - implications ????
Shem Tob "every oath which you shall bind on earth is bound in heaven and
every oath which you shall loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
-----------
Worldly material wealth rather than heavenly treasure
Mat 19:22 "Went away sorrowful for he had great possessions"
Shem Tob "went away angry because he did not have much property"
-----------
Mat 19:28
"When the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory"
"when man sits upon the throne of his glory"
-----------
Mat 20:30
"When they heard the Jesus passed by"
"the prophet Jesus from Nazareth is coming"
-----------
The preaching of the gospel as a witness concerning Yeshua / Jesus "is the
Anti-Christ and this is the abomination which desolates.
Mat 24:14-16 "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the
world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. When ye
therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the
prophet stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then
let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains."
Shem Tob "And this gospel, that is, evungili, will be preached un all the
earth for a witness concerning me to all the nations and then the end will
come. This is the Anti-Christ and this is the abomination which desolates.
Then those who are in Judaea let them flee to the mountains."
-----------
"Son of man" replaced by "the bridegroom."
Mat 25:13 ...day not the hour wherein the Son of man cometh"
Shem Tob "...day nor hour when the bridegroom comes."
-----------
Possible Talmudic implications
Mat 26:2 "...the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified"
Shem Tob "delivered into the hand of the Jews for the gallows"
Mat 27:23 "Let him be crucified"
Shem Tob "let them hang him"
Mat 27:31 "led him away to crucify him"
Shem Tob "gave orders to hang him"
"The Cross" is in parenthesis as if it needed to be connected with the word
gallows.
Mat 27:32 "him they compelled to bear his cross"
Shem Tob "compelled him to carry the gallows, that is "The Cross"
Mat 27:40-42 "Come down from the cross"
Shem Tob v.40 "come down from the gallows" - v.42 "come down from the tree"
Mat 28:5 "ye seek Jesus who was crucified"
"Shem Tob "Jesus who was hung"
-----------
Not the King of the Jews but the King of Israel
Mat 27:37 "THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS"
Shem Tob "This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of Israel"
-----------
Mat 27:46 "with a loud voice"
Shem Tob "in the holy language" (Hebrew ?)
-----------
Mat 27:57 "a rich man of Arimathea"
Shem Tob "A rich man from Karnasiah came . His name was Joseph…"
-----------
Mat 27:59 "when Joseph had taken the body he wrapped it in a clean linen
cloth"
Shem Tob "wrapped it in a very fine silk garment"
-----------
Mat 28:9 - Shem Tob has Jesus substituting YHWH with "Ha Shem" Traditional
Jewish greeting rather than Greek/Roman greeting as is found in majority
manuscripts
"Jesus met them saying All Hail"
"saying May the Name deliver you"
-----------
Shem Tob has 12 disciples going to Galilee after Judas was dead
Mat 28:16 "Then the eleven disciples went away unto Galilee"
"when his twelve disciples came to Galilee"
-----------
"I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" - left out
Mat 28:20 - Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you: and, lo "I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" Amen
Shem Tob - and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded
you forever.
-----------
Quoting Professor George Howard, translator of Shem Tob:
In regard to theology, Shem-tob’s Hebrew Matthew is heretical according to
the standard of traditional Christianity. It never identifies Jesus with the
Messiah. John the Baptist is given an exalted role (even takes on messianic
traits), --- Shem-Tob’s text envisions the salvation of the Gentiles only in
the Messianic era.
---
* [[JwoHebrewMatthew]]

62
Home.md

@ -6,26 +6,18 @@ It's time for Christianity 2.0.
### Inspired by Early Christianity
* We following the [[EbioniteChristianity]] of Jesus' brother James, until his
murder by the Sadducees and Pharisees in ~63 AD
* we are followers of James and followers of their followers who
later fled to Pella just before the sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
* we follow their rejection of Paul as the [[PaulApostleOfTheHeretics]]
and reject the "Pauline" Epistles.
* we hold to the Mosaic law, and reject the teachings of the Pharesees.
* We following the [[EbioniteChristianity]] of Jesus' brother James and the Apostles,
until his murder by the Sadducees and Pharisees in ~63 AD.
* we are followers of James, and followers of their followers the Ebionites,
who later fled to Pella just before the sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
* we hold to the Mosaic law, and reject the teachings of the Pharisees.
* We have a revised [[EbioniteCanon]], augmented by [[RecentCanonAdditions]].
* We follow their rejection of Paul as an Apostate as shown in Acts,
and we reject of the "Pauline" Epistles: we ask [[DidMarcionWritePaulsLetters]].
and we reject the "Pauline" Epistles: we ask [[DidMarcionWritePaulsLetters]].
### Inspired by Jesus Christ
* We emphasise Christianity as the Way of God in Spirit and in Truth.
* We are Conscientious Objectors - we fight War, but will defend ourselves.
* We place the Emphasis on what Jesus was known for - Healing:
* Conscientious Objectors to pHarma
* Seek remedies to enhance our God-given Natural Healing abilities
* Follow the Christian practices of healing where possible, with healing circles.
* we hope to learn the casting out of demons from the body politic
* We emphasize Christianity as the Way of God in Spirit and in Truth.
* We hold to an intense, literal understanding of the first commandment:
"You shall have no other gods before Me". Because of that, we reject everything that
would deify anything other than God the Father as he’s described within scripture.
@ -33,38 +25,34 @@ It's time for Christianity 2.0.
other deity, but a very special human being uniquely gifted by our Creator.
This means we acknowledge the Holy Spirit as the power of God himself, not a
separate deity.
* We are Conscientious Objectors - we fight War itself
* But we are not pacifists: Christ came not to bring Peace but the Sword.
* We place the Emphasis on what Jesus was known for - Healing:
* We are Conscientious Objectors to pHarma
* We seek remedies to enhance our God-given Natural Healing abilities
* We follow the Christian practices of healing where possible, with healing circles.
* we hope to learn the casting out of demons from the body politic
* We read the Bible but reject KJVOnlyism as a recipe for ignorance and a path to destruction.
* We each make our own covenant with God, without the intermediary of anyone ordained.
### Inspired by the Natural Order
<!-- unabashedly copied from protarion.org -->
* We celebrate the natural order of Creation and thank God he made
women and men so different; we vive-la-difference.
* We promote a strong patriarchal hierarchy and work to get rid of modern communism.
* We reject anything outside of heterosexual relationships as normal or acceptable. * We acknowledge we have enemies, and we may be illegal in woke juristictions.
Hate crime laws are specifically applied to Christians, their intended target.
* We reject transhumanism in all its forms. That means we reject *NA-altering
pharmaceutical products, and AI front-ends that shirk human responsibility.
* We reject almost all vaccines, as all the consequent harm is being systematically
denied, and the victims denigrated.
* We discourage social media and believe it cannot replace realhuman interaction,
with a real human sense of reponsibility.
See our [[StatementOfFaith]]
## Jesus' Words Only or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2
We draw tremendous inspiration from Douglas Del Tonto's work starting with a book
titled "[[JesusWordsOnly]]" that places the emphasis for Christianity on
"Sola Scriptural". He had [a website](https://jesuswordsonly.com) but that is
now gone. His book was available on the site for free-download in PDF and is on
[archive.org](https://archive.org/download/JesusWordsOnlyOrWasPaulTheApostleJesusCondemnsInRevelation22)
We draw tremendous inspiration from Douglas Del Tonto's work:
* starting with a book entitled "[[JesusWordsOnly]]" that places the emphasis for
Christianity on "Sola Scriptura".
* He had [a website](https://jesuswordsonly.com) but that is now gone.
* His book was available on the site for free-download in PDF and is on
[archive.org](https://archive.org/download/JesusWordsOnlyOrWasPaulTheApostleJesusCondemnsInRevelation22)
### OSIS Bible Commentary
We are working on a commentary in OSIS bible format that can create Sword
and ESword modules that can be used alongside any bible reading software.
We favour that as an approach rather than trying to emit a definitive bible
translation of the bible, as the base bibles vary greatly, and we still
need to refer to the KJV for versification.
translation , as the base bibles vary greatly, and we still need to refer to
the KJV for versification.
---

194
IntroToLukeVirginBirth.md Normal file

@ -0,0 +1,194 @@
<!-- -*-mode: text; fill-column: 75; tab-width: 8; coding: utf-8-unix -*- -->
Parent: [[VirginBirth]]
## How Do We know Virgin Birth Account was not Originally Present?
From https://jesuswordsonly.com/topicindex/225-virgin-birth-issues.html
The one most important fact staring us in the face is the line of the
geneaology itself. Both Matthew and Luke are spending verse after
verse tracing Joseph's lineage, only to have one line at the end stop
short of Joseph begetting Jesus. This makes utterly no sense.
Friedrich Delitzsch in 1908, a theologian, rhetorically asks 'why did
Matthew or Luke bother to trace as they did if it originally ended
with Mary as the sole human procreator of Jesus?' He wrote:
Common sense teaches us that these genealogies, whose sole aim is
to prove that Jesus is the son and descendent of David through
Joseph, the son and descendent of David, would be absolutely
meaningless and useless if Joseph had not been the father of Jesus
according to the flesh, if his fatherhood were only in appearance
and Jesus were [only] a son of Mary. (F. Delitzsch, Whose Son is
Christ?: Two Lectures on Progress in Religion (1908) at 35.)
In Luke's account it is even more obvious that the virgin birth is not
original. First, just as in Matthew, the 'begat' verse is out of place
with the line of descent which Luke presents for Joseph, not
Mary. Also, the virgin birth account appears elsewhere mentioned in
just one verse in Luke's gospel. So if you removed the genealogy
ending and that single verse, you would have no idea that Luke
believed in a virgin birth of Jesus. Finally, what makes it more
obvious an editor added the virgin birth account to Luke's Gospel is
the presence of the story in Luke 8:19-21.
This later passage in Luke which surely is authentic makes it
extraordinarily hard to believe Mary experienced a miraculous virgin
birth as recorded in Luke 1:35. For in Luke 8:19-21, it is clear that
Jesus' family regards that Jesus has gone over the deep-end and do not
believe in Him.
(In the Mark version, Mark says Jesus' family thought he had gone
"crazy" -- including his mother.)
In fact, Mary is among those outside who are understood to fit in this
category. The same is self-evident in Mark 3:31 where the same scene
is depicted -- Jesus' mother and siblings come to get him, and Jesus'
spurns them because He prefers the persons who fit the criteria of his
true family in Mark 3:34-35 which in their hearing was:  
And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said,
Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of
God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother. Cf. Luke 8:21.
If Mary had really experienced a divine birth of Jesus, why would Mary
be apart from Jesus' ministry? Be thinking He was a bit touched? Why
would Jesus spurn his own mother, and call members of a crowd more a
mother to him than his own birth mother?
Thus, we know the single line added to Luke to mention a virgin birth
was a later editor's hand. It was not skillful enough to think to
erase Luke 8:19-21 which was at direct odds with the single-line addition.
In fact, here is Tertullian in the 200s unwittingly proving this point
in his discussion of Luke 8:19-21. Tertullian is not comparing this
passage to the virgin birth story to show how paradoxically it tells
us that Mary was a nonbeliever. However, we can borrow Tertullian's
point to see Luke would not have recorded a virgin birth account and
tell this story in Luke 8:19-21 as it exists now, but certainly not in
how Luke read in the early 200s when Tertullian summarizes it.
They 100% do not fit together.
Tertullian from the early 200s AD begins his comment on this passage
by reasoning that the Gospel portrays a very realistic situation that
can happen in any family where no one respects you. Tertullian
explained:
"The Lord's brethren had not yet believed in Him." [Quoting Luke.]
So is it contained in the Gospel which was published before
Marcion's time; whilst there is at the same time a want of
evidence of His mother's adherence to Him, although the Marthas
and the other Marys were in constant attendance on Him. In this
very passage indeed, their unbelief is evident. Jesus was teaching
the way of life, preaching the kingdom of God and actively engaged
in healing infirmities of body and soul; but all the while, whilst
strangers were intent on Him, His very nearest relatives were
absent. (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch. 5.)
Hence, we can take Tertullian's analysis and use it to question the
presence of the virgin birth story in Luke's original Gospel. How can
Mary, if she truly experienced a virgin birth and the
angel-explanation have been a non-believer, as Luke records? Also,
wouldn't Mary have told Jesus' brothers and sisters of this miraculous
birth so as to have them acknowledge Jesus as Messiah? But they too
are described as non-believers—as if no miraculous birth ever touched
this family. Thus, is it so hard to realize that if you remove just
one verse from Luke (besides the last ‘begat' from Mary alone), the
virgin birth account entirely disappears.
Because the presence of the virgin birth story is so incongruous with
Luke 8:19-21, it appears the virgin birth account was a one-line
addition to Luke's Gospel. It was an inauthentic editorial
change. Both it and the genealogy in Luke are not original.
Similarly, in Luke 2:41-42, Mary says to Jesus that she and "your
father" were worried when they lost track of him. Would Mary think to
call Joseph Jesus' father unless he truly were? Also, when Jesus
responds and says he was about his "Father's" business, neither Joseph
nor Mary understood what Jesus meant. Does that make sense if a virgin
birth happened, and angelic messengers spoke as they supposedly did to
advise of its importance, as recorded supposedly earlier? Obviously
not. Hence, the virgin birth account in Luke mismatches other portions
of Luke, indicating a successful early -- pre-325 AD -- corruption.
And if we regard the Ebionites as the custodians of the earliest
Matthew in Hebrew, prior to the Greek translation, then the recording
in 180, 236 and when the Syriac Sinaiticus of Agnes Lewis (200s) of
having the view Joseph begat Jesus is just one more proof of how the
Gospel of Matthew originally read.
<!-- For the Ebionites' View on the Birth of Jesus, see our article "Ebionites." -->
=== Scholar Affirms That Later Editor Deliberately Corrupted Text to Add Virgin Birth
This is agreed upon by J.R. Wilkinson - a renown Christian scholar of
his day -- in his article "Mr. Conybeare's Textual Theories, Hibbert
Journal, October 1902, p. 96," Hibbert' Journal (1904) at 354 et seq. 
We read at page 358 (link) the following text:
The reading of Syrus Sinaiticus [of Agnes Lewis] Joseph to whom
was betrothed Mary the Virgin begat Jesus who was called the
Christ is clearly due to a mixture of the Western text with the
reading of the original genealogy. [Note: the Western text has the
virgin birth.] It carries us back to the early days when the
canonical gospel was competing with the source or sources from
which it was derived. We have here perhaps a conscious
corruption of the canonical text for we find that in Syriac
Sinaiticus agrees with the famous Old Latin manuscript in omitting
the words mix é y vwo xev a1i ri1v Ewg   [MY NOTE: verse 25,
'before they came together, found with child" omitted in Old Latin
and Syriac Sinaiticus thus proving the Older manuscripts did not
have virgin birth.] The reading of Syriac Sinaiticus [of 1:25]
here is he took his wife and she bore to him a son and he called
his name Jesus. The reading of Timothy and Aquila is as Schmiedel
says a confluence from the Textus Receptus [i.e., Virgin
Birth] and the original genealogy [i.e., "Joseph begat Jesus."]
The article continues and weighs the possibility that the "canonical
evangelist" (not Matthew) may have not been sure which way to go, and
left traces of the original version -- Joseph begat Mary, while trying
to conform to the newer virgin birth account. He calls the "Davidic
Messiahship" idea was the "old Davidic idea" which was gradually being
displaced by the newer "supernatural birth idea" in the mind of the
"canonical evangelist" himself. The article ends suggesting that the
"canonical evangelist" was not the original compiler of the sayings in
Matthew, and that he used a version of Matthew "much in favor in the
church" which had the older text, and then would "corrupt by mixture
the old text," i.e., mixing mention of the "virgin Mary" in 1:16 with
"Joseph begat Jesus." So now it reads in Syr Sinaiticus 1:16 partly in
favor of a virgin birth and partly negating it.
The scholar Wilkinson earlier had agreed on why we are compelled to
believe both Matthew and Luke had to have something like "Joseph begat
Jesus." Otherwise, the point of the geneologies is lost:
[355] The text of Syrus Sinaiticus [of Agnes Lewis] alone seems to
postulate such a clause [i.e., Joseph begat Jesus -- it is not
merely postulated but in the text]; and is it possible to believe
anyone would have taken the trouble to construct the long line of
natural descent if at the last step natural descent were to play
no part? This inconsistency is best seen in the geneaology of
St. Luke, where as Holtzmann [Ham-Kommentatur Zum N.T.] justly
remarks, it is absurd to assume an evangelist would take the
trouble to construct the long geneaology of our Lord through
Joseph, and then as it were, spoil all that he had done by adding
that Jesus was only "accounted" or supposed to the son of
Joseph. The construction of such genealogies presupposes natural
descent throughout. It is evident that in both St. Matthew and
Luke correction has taken place [356] (in the case of St. Luke a
very clumsy correction), so as to render these genealogies
consistent with a virgin birth.

88
KjvTampering.md Normal file

@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
Parent: [[ChurchOfTheEastPeshitta]]
## Kjv Tampering
The AV 1611 KJV has been tampered with to both major and minor extents,
which adds to it's problems relative to the [[ChurchOfTheEastPeshitta]].
Although they pale in comparison to the Wescott and Hort wholesale re-engineering,
we collect some of them here for reference.
### Major KJV Tampering
The most major tampering in the KJV was by King James himself.
When King James commissioned the King James Version, he decreed
[15 principles of translation](https://petergoeman.com/15-rules-of-translation-for-the-king-james-version-kjv/index.html) which were instituted by
Richard Bancroft, the bishop of London in 1604. The 3rd rule was:
3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not
to be translated Congregation et. cetera.
Rule 3 is a travesty of Tyndale's work. Whilst running and hiding and
fleeing the agents of a sadistic English Lord Chancellor who wanted him dead,
he still took the time to
[write a book](https://archive.org/details/ananswertosirth00unkngoog/)
back at the sadist defending his translation of ekklesia as "Congregation"
not "the Word Church". The book explains in detail Tyndales's reasons for
the critical choices of translation he made of the "et. cetera" words.
These changes are major and systematic, and change the whole flavour of
the KJV relative to a real Tyndale bible like Matthew's, which nonetheless
are the root of the bibles that the KJV was made from (rules 1 and 14).
As James wanted.
As Tyndale gave his life to prevent.
PS: The [PeshittA](https://www.thearamaicscriptures.com/matthews-gospel.tsv)
uses Assembly, which my Greek speaking friends tell me is just as valid
a translation for ekklesia as congregation, the former having less of
a religious flavour. As in English: we congregate or we assemble.
### Mid-sized KJV Tampering
#### (1John 5:7-8) [Johannine_Comma]
The Johannine Comma was added in Erasmus' 3rd edition, without explication,
he having said explicitly before that he would not add it to his 2nd edition -
["it was omitted in his first and second editions"](https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00261).
Someone got to him, as it is used to support the Trinity.
Tyndale based his bible on the 2nd edition, perhaps because he was dead
before the 3rd came out.
Issac Newton wrote a
[length essay](https://books.google.com/books/download/An_Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Cor.pdf?id=mQ4JOuiEMWoC&hl=en&capid=AFLRE72PWnGe-IIwNcNSvOOGTqYlJf46AzjFc6CaFaA00RnhM7pzY5r4CMYkPhgufJ0V-1dh5qUMlcmBAcBXkQsTlgEfMtCOxg&continue=https://books.google.com/books/download/An_Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Cor.pdf%3Fid%3DmQ4JOuiEMWoC%26output%3Dpdf%26hl%3Den)
on it, which he called a pious fraud, but didn't dare publish the essay
in England, because the fraud was then being used by the episcopals to
support the Trinity. Pious fraud was the best they could do, but they
backed it up by up to life in prison for those who denied it. He saw what
happened to his former protoge Whiston, who was more overtly honest.
Whiston did not include the Johannine Comma in his
[Whiston Primitive NT 1745 Bible](https://www.eswordlibrary.com/download/bblx/Whiston-Primitive-NT-1745.bblx)
It's not in the [PeshittA](https://www.thearamaicscriptures.com/1st-john.html).
#### (1 Timothy 3:16)
In the KJV (1Tim. 3:16) reads:
; And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was
manifest in the flesh...
Newton showed the word "God" was substituted to make the phrase read
"God was manifest in the flesh" instead of "which was manifested in the flesh".
Again the KJV has rewritten the bible to try to support the Trinity.
The [PeshittA](https://www.thearamaicscriptures.com/1st-timothy.html) has:
And truly, great is this Mystery of Righteousness; The One
who was manifested in the flesh, ...
* https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00261
* https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00262
* (http://www.classicapologetics.com/l/clernew.pdf
* https://books.google.com/books/download/An_Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Cor.pdf?id=mQ4JOuiEMWoC&hl=en&capid=AFLRE72PWnGe-IIwNcNSvOOGTqYlJf46AzjFc6CaFaA00RnhM7pzY5r4CMYkPhgufJ0V-1dh5qUMlcmBAcBXkQsTlgEfMtCOxg&continue=https://books.google.com/books/download/An_Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Cor.pdf%3Fid%3DmQ4JOuiEMWoC%26output%3Dpdf%26hl%3Den
* https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/isaac-newton-two-notable-corruptions.395/
### Minor KJV Tampering

3
PassoverNotEaster.md Normal file

@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
## Passover Not Easter

4
PeshittAEnglishTranslations.md

@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ which vary (subjective opinion):
1. The [Holy Aramaic Scriptures](https://web.archive.org/web/20211121073227/https:/theholyaramaicscriptures.weebly.com/)
which is CoE (Eastern)
2. "John Wesley Etheridge is primarily The PeshittA except for a very few
changes like Hebrews 2:9. The absence of Pericope Adulterae is in keeping
with the PeshittA text of the Khabouris. Etheridge used the same words
changes like Hebrews 2:9. The absence of Pericope Adulterae is in keeping
with the PeshittA text of the Khabouris. Etheridge used the same words
in his marginal notes as appears in the Khabouris."
3. Lamsa's which is mainly CoE, but he took
[personal liberties](http://www.peshitta.org/for/showthread.php?tid=871)

8
PeshittaVsPeshitto.md

@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ in general use and hence they were not known rather than refused, or
were considered disputed as they were later in Eusebius' time.
Here is a list of other differences between the two manuscript families
compiled by Thirdwoe (Chuck Hudson).
compiled by Thirdwoe (Chuck Hudson).
https://theoscholar.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-eastern-peshitta-vs-western-peshitto.html
**1: Matthew 4:21**
@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ The Diatessaron though, has the Peshitta text's reading "my Lord". The
Mingana Ms. reads the same as the Khabouris text.
UBS Peshitto: has "they all said" as does Bauscher, Magiera, Jahn, and
Werner, lacking "the Disciples". The Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest
Werner, lacking "the Disciples". The Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest
(Old Scratch) and The Curetonian versions have "and so all of them also said".
**5: Luke 22:17**
@ -187,9 +187,9 @@ have it. The Mingana Ms. does not have it.
UBS Peshitto: Bauscher, *[Murdock], Alexander, Pashka, Lamsa, *Jahn, and
Werner, have it.
* Murdoch has this note: “this verse is removed to the margin in the
* Murdoch has this note: “this verse is removed to the margin in the
editions of the British and Foreign Bible Society.”
* Herb Jahn has a note for this verse which says, "not in the Aramaic",
* Herb Jahn has a note for this verse which says, "not in the Aramaic",
yet he has it translated.
**13: Acts 18:23**

128
RichardRives.md Normal file

@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
Parent: [[EbioniteWebFriends]]
## Richard Rives
We have recently come across website [Too Long In the Sun](https://toolong.com/)
whilst researching the [[HebrewMatthewShemTob]]. We find that we are essentially
in complete accord with his theology as summarized by the following articles
on his website:
**EASTER**: The pagan festival of Easter originated as the worship of the sun
goddess, the Babylonian Queen of Heaven who was later worshiped under many names
including Ishtar, Cybele, Idaea Mater (the Great Mother), or Astarte for whom the
celebration of Easter is named. Easter is not another name for the Feast of Passover
and is not celebrated at the Biblically prescribed time for Passover…
[(learn more](https://www.toolong.com/easter/)
**CHRISTMAS**: December 25th is well known as the birthday of various pagan gods. A
Roman calendar drawn up by a “Christian” in 354 A.D. shows December 25 to be the
birthday of the sun god Sol Invictus…
[(learn more)](https://www.toolong.com/christmas)
**REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY**: The Sabbath described in Genesis 2 is definitely the
seventh day, Saturday, and not the first day, Sunday. The fourth commandment was
established at the creation of the world and later reconfirmed to Moses in the
wilderness by the creator Himself…
[(learn more)](https://www.toolong.com/the-sabbath-day/)
**TEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS**: There are those who say that the writers of the New
Testament had an agenda to pervert the meaning of scripture…
[(learn more)](https://www.toolong.com/textual-considerations/)
**THE SUN GOD MITHRAS**: Mithras was the sun god of the Persians and subsequent
empires including the Roman Empire through the 4th century. During the 4th century,
Mithras “mysteriously” vanished and Roman “Christianity” began. A Christianity not
like that of the 1st century; but, a polluted, corrupt “Christianity” lacking few
Mithraic rituals…
[(learn more)](https://www.toolong.com/mithra/)
**LAW AND GRACE**: Jesus Christ, our Creator, the law giver, and our Savior said
that until heaven and earth pass away, not even the slightest thing concerning the
law will change. If any of the commandments could have been changed, sin could have
been redefined, and He would not have had to die…
[(learn more)](https://www.toolong.com/law-and-grace/)
**THE ASSYRIANS**: Shalmaneser III, King at the time the Black-Obelisk was inscribed,
honors Bel, the father of the gods, Beltis, the mother of the gods, and the sun god
Shamas and Ishtar at the beginning of the inscription. He calls Asshur the king of
all the four regions, the sun god of the multitude of mankind
[(learn more](https://www.toolong.com/)
**ANOTHER JESUS**: Scriptures warn us to beware of those preaching “another
Jesus””…if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if
ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye
have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.”
[(learn more](https://www.toolong.com/)
**THE BABYLONIANS**: The next civilization was that of Babylonia. They too were sun
worshipers. During the Biblical time of the Judges, wars were being fought between
the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Merodach-Baladan extended his empire to include
upper Babylon and at that time he became known as the “King of Babylon”
[(learn more](https://www.toolong.com/)
**MEDO-PERSIANS**: -As Medo-Persia indicates, it is a kingdom derived from the
combination of the Medes and the Persians. This combination took place under the
ruler-ship of Cyrus the Great. The Biblical Darius was also one of the famous
Medo-Persian kings. Both Cyrus and Darius are important characters as they were
instrumental in the return of Judeans to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity
[(learn more](https://www.toolong.com/)
**THE GRECO-ROMANS**: At the height of his power, in 323 B.C., Alexander the Great
died in Babylon having conquered a vast area stretching from Greece to India,
including Egypt and Israel. Little by little Rome gained dominance over the Grecian
Empire. At the death of Caesar Augustus,the time of Christ, the Roman empire
stretched from Spain to the Caspian Sea, including Egypt, the Sinai peninsula, and
Israel. Christianity was born and grew up in this setting
[(learn more](https://www.toolong.com/)
**SOL INVICTUS**: In the year 307 A.D. Emperor Diocletian, a sun worshipper, was
involved in the dedication of a temple to Mithra and was responsible for the burning
of scripture which made it possible for later emperors to formulate their own
version of “Christianity.”
[(learn more](https://www.toolong.com/)
**LEGALISM**: Is being categorized as legalistic an insult or a compliment? It should
be noted that the word legalism or legalistic is not found in the Bible, however,
its moral synonyms are: – – honorable, chaste, pure, virtuous, just, honest and
righteous. In fact, they are mentioned over 500 times. Could it be that use of the
word legalistic is an attempt to avoid dealing with these important Biblical
issues?
[(learn more](https://www.toolong.com/)
**HAPPY BIRTHDAY**: In 273 A.D. Aurelian brought the worship of Baal, from Syria,
back to Rome, and instituted the cult of Sol Invictus, which combined the worship of
all the pagan sun gods into one – “Sol Invictus.” A few years earlier, the Roman
emperor Elogabalus had unsuccessfully attempted to make the worship of the sun god
Baal the predominant religion in Rome. The way Aurelian was able to get everyone,
with their own specific sun gods, to be happy, was by proclaiming December 25th to
be the birthday of Sol Invictus
[(learn more](https://www.toolong.com/)
**MARTIN LUTHER**: In the year 1517, the Protestant Reformation is known to have been
initiated, when the German monk Martin Luther nailed his ninety five theses to the
door of Wittenberg Church. It is commonly thought that the basis of the reformation
was Sola Scriptura, or Scripture Only; the authority of scripture over that of
church councils and the concept of Papal infallibility
[(learn more](https://www.toolong.com/)
**IMAGES**: Tertullian, the “church” historian, who lived some one hundred years
after Christ, gives us great insight into the use of the cross by the Romans. The
Romans, knew that the symbol of the cross was one of pagan origin. They saw the use
of it by those calling themselves Christians as proof that what was being called
Christianity in Tertullian’s time was no more than re-hashed paganism
[(learn more](https://www.toolong.com/)
**LORD LORD**: Man has not been given the authority to add to, or take away from, the
precepts of God. Yet, as in the garden of Eden, the serpent in an attempt to deceive
asks: “Hath God said?” Yes, He has spoken and the Word of God does not change!
[(learn more](https://www.toolong.com/)
**CONCLUSION**: When that Word became flesh and dwelt among men, the most religious
of all those calling themselves followers of God were found by Jesus to be of the
“devil”, “serpents and vipers.” These people, although very religious, had through
tradition, made God’s laws “of none effect.” Jesus told them: “Ye neither know me,
nor my Father” yet they claimed the highest position of leadership and authority
[(learn more](https://www.toolong.com/)
---
* [[HebrewMatthewShemTob]]

60
StatementOfFaith.md Normal file

@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
Parent: [[Home]]
## Statement Of Faith
### Inspired by the Natural Order
<!-- unabashedly copied from protarion.org -->
* We celebrate the natural order of Creation and thank God he made
women and men so different; we vive-la-difference.
* We promote a strong patriarchal hierarchy and work to get rid of modern communism.
* We reject anything outside of heterosexual relationships as normal or acceptable.
* We acknowledge we have enemies, and we we may be illegal in woke jurisdictions.
Hate crime laws are being specifically applied to Christians, their intended target.
* We reject transhumanism in all its forms. That means we reject *NA-altering
pharmaceutical products, AI front-ends that shirk human responsibility,
and changes to the rule-of-law that make them Android-friendly.
* We reject almost all vaccines, as all the consequent harm is being systematically
denied, and the victims denigrated.
* We must withdraw now from woked public education and work together to educate
our children, rather than putting them in the hands of globalist indoctorination.
* We discourage social media and believe it cannot replace real human interaction,
with a real human sense of responsibility.
* We are opposed to murder:
* abortion,
* euthenasia,
* extra-judicial executions,
* judicial executions
### We Reject Constantine Christianity
* We can be seen as *Sola Scriptura* as we have no dogma unless rooted in the Canon.
* We reject Constantine's usurpation of Christianity to create the "Church"
that suited his paganism:
* We are Anti- PontiFex Maximus, Anti- Sol Invictus, and above all, Anti- Mollech.
* Celbrate Hebrew and Christian holidays: Ephiphany; Pessach, Sukkoth.
We do not celebrate the birthday of Sol Invictus - Xmas.
* We find that Constantinan "Churches" of today are anti-Christian:
* Directly paid by the government (e.g. FEMA); directly working for the enemy.
* Flying the wokely coloured flags to promote debauchery.
* They advocate big Government, big Sins, and big pHarma.
* The are often funded to be Zionist, and twist their theology to match.
* We form congregations in Tyndale's sense of the word.
* Our symbol is not the Cross, or the Chi-Rho; if we have one it is the Sword.
### We are Discriminating in Bible Translations
* We ask the question [[WastheNewTestamentReallyWritteninGreek]] and conclude
that the original language of the New Testament is the Hebrew dialect of Aramaic,
not Greek - and not just the [[EarlyEbioniteMatthew]]
* We reject the "new improved" bibles based on the [[CodexSinaticusGreekFraud]],
and discriminate against the Calvinist and James' [[KjvTampering]],
relative to a better earlier Tyndale version: the Matthew's Bible.
* We are prepared to do the textual criticism work needed to understand the
texts of the Bible, and reject blind or slavish adherence like KJV Onlyism.
* Rather than restricting ourselves to one English translation, we try use a
[[OsisCommentary]] that can be read alongside any Bible with good bible software.
It is also much easier to translate a commentary into into other languages,
which may have similar, different texts.