Pagan Origin of the Conversion of St. Paul

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
asquared:
I am eagerly awaiting the revelation on the real reason Scotsmen wear the kilt
Click to expand...
Origin of the Scottish “Kilt”.

Frankly I am surprised that you ask. For if you read from the secret Vatican files, from the books of the “Intermediate Testament”, specifically the book of Kiltmenha, and Also the “Pre-Testament” books, specifically the book of Mcnab.

As Gottle of Geer so eloquently recited the relation of Burns, and rabies, these books also confront and declare the true meaning of Kilt. Just reference the “Post Testament” books, written in the Gaelic, tongue and believed to be from the era of 1200 AD, but with revelations from Shem.

Also mentioned in the book Kiltmenha, is Australia. It is mentioned 65 times.

Chipper
 
40.png
Toni:
In celebrating the feast of Timothy and Titus today and discussing yes the infamous SAINT PAUL again cause you know they were friends. I am wondering if there is another day you will post about the cherry tree worshippers?:o But it doesn’t really matter cause I just indoctrinated over 100 students today and another 100 yesterday.🙂
Click to expand...
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! Don’t mention the cherry tree worship yet! We haven’t finished indoctrinating the catechumens in oak tree worship! Let’s not let them make the connection between The Song of the Cherry Tree and the cult of the Child. It will open all those inquiries into Isis and Horus that we aren’t ready to face. As well as all those awkward questions about “gay” gardens and who knows what else!

The Cherry Tree Carol

Traditional English Carol

Oh, Joseph was an old man,
Yes, an old man was he:
He married sweet Mary,
The Queen of Galilee.

And as they went a-walking,
In the garden so gay,
Maid Mary spied cherries,
Hanging over yon tree.

Then Mary said to Joseph,
With her sweet lips so mild,
“Please pluck those cherries, Joseph,
For to give to my child.”

“O then,” replied Joseph,
With these words so unkind:
“I will pluck no cherries
For to give to thy Child.”

So Mary said to cherry tree,
“Bow down to my knee,
That I may pluck cherries
By one, two, and three.”

The uppermost sprig then
Bowed down to her knee:
“Thus you may see, Joseph,
These cherries are for me.”

“O eat your cherries, Mary,
O eat your cherries now,
O eat your cherries, Mary,
That grow upon the bough.”

As Joseph went a-walking,
He heard Angels sing,
This night there shall be born
Our heavenly King.

“He neither shall be born
In house nor in hall,
Nor in the place of Paradise,
But in an ox-stall.”

“He shall not be clothed
In purple nor pall;
But all in fair linen,
As wear babies all.”

“He shall not be rocked,
In silver nor gold,
But in a wooden cradle
That rocks on the mould.”

“He neither shall be christened
In milk nor in wine,
But in pure spring-well water
Fresh sprung from Bethine.”

Then Mary took her Baby,
And she dressed Him so sweet,
She laid Him in a manger
All there for to sleep.

And as she stood over Him,
She heard Angels sing:
“Oh! bless our dear Savior,
Our heavenly King.”
 
40.png
Socrates:
Why is Paul Suffering?

On January 25, Catholics commemorate the conversion of Saul of Tarsus who would become the Apostle Paul. Nowhere does the bible command us to commemorate this event and it is common knowledge that Paul was not converted on January 25, but rather on February 17 or June 4…or something like that…at least we know it sure as heck wasn’t January 25. In fact, the date and origin of this Catholic “holy” day have nothing at all to do with the Paul of the bible.

In ancient Babylon, there was a pagan priest named P’aal who worshipped dirt (in addition to preaching a doctrine of salvation by works). P’aal experienced a stabbing pain in his lower back while trying to bow down to the dirt and needed to stand up and stretch. Upon rising, he saw a great oak tree and his pain subsided a bit. P’aal took this as a sign that the true god was really the tree and not the dirt in which it grew. (P’aal, of course, continued preaching salvation by works.) When did this “conversion” of P’aal’s occur? January 25, of course!!! (for documentation of this, see Alexander Hyslop’s Conjecture: History for Gullible Audiences or the comic tract Those Dirty Pagan Scumsucking Dogs Will Burn in Hell Forever HA HA HA HA HA, which illustrates how to lovingly present the gospel to poor lost Catholics).

The evidence of P’aal’s influence on Catholic worship is apparent even today. In fact it is not uncommon for there to be large oak trees growing on the grounds of some Catholic churches. Also, the pews of many Catholic churches are made of oak. Sometimes even the CHURCHES THEMSELVES are constructed using oak! In some Catholic schools, kindergarteners are forced to use oak leaves --sometimes even acorns– in Autumn arts and crafts projects!. This is attested to by Alberto Rivera who spent much of his life pretending to be an ex-Catholic priest. Dave Hunt’s book, Stuff I Just Made Up, also goes into great detail about Catholic Oakolatry.

Catholics have been duped since birth into believing that they are Christians instead of the pagan oak tree worshippers that they really are. Some have even resorted to reading and studying the bible in order to cover up their oak tree worship. Some of them even claim to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. The deception cannot be allowed to continue. If you love Catholics, you must tell them what idiotic stooges of Babylonian paganism they are.

(Copyright 2006, Chick Publications)
Click to expand...
Socrates, since these are not your words, do you believe this?
And also do you believe a Paul really existed?
Why do you except versus and quotes from the bible regarding Paul’s teachings if all of this is from a pagon oak tree worship?

If this was true than is all Christianity false, the protestants quote more from Paul than any other church?
 
I’m a member of a pagan, tree worshipping religion?! :bigyikes: Oh, whatever will I do? Somebody get out the smelling salts, I’m gonna faint!
 
40.png
asquared:
I am eagerly awaiting the revelation on the real reason Scotsmen wear the kilt
Click to expand...

That is easily explained.​

The kilt is a mystic garment which after many long centuries was brought to Scotland by the Patriarch Shem, better known, in the mystic language of the Highlander, as Seumas. (As is clear, all the Patriarchs before the Flood spoke Gaelic, as theirs names and lives show.)

Careful inspection of the book of Genesis proves to a certainty that the kilt is the most ancient of garments, although it was not at first tartan; for that name is of Assyrian origin (2 Kings 20.1) An ancient tradition supports this claim for, according to the Jews, the coat of skins bestowed on our first parents was handed down generation by generation to Noah, whose son Ham stole it, and gave it to to his son Cush, who gave it to his son Nimrod; who doubtless wore it while he was a-hunting. Since Nimrod was the first king of Assyria & Babylonia, and waged many wars, it is not surprising that an Assyrian staff-officer should be the Tartan. That he was so named, tells us three things:
  • that Nimrod was the founder of the kilted regiments
  • that they wore tartan
  • and that they terrified their enemies by their skill in playing the bagpipes
That this is so, is assured by the fact that the laws of the Medes and Persians were unchangeable - for Hislop tells us this was so in Babylon. Since their laws were unchangeable, it is evident that all their institutions must have been; so that what was true of the Assyrian army in the age of 2 Kings, must have been true 1500 years before. As they played the pipes in Daniel’s time, so must it have been in 2200 BC when Nimrod reigned.

The invention of the plaid by Jacob for Joseph supports this account - for:
  • the Patriarchs came from Babylonia
  • a plaid is not much without a kilt
  • Joseph’s brothers envied his having a plaid
  • the Levites were remarkable in wearing a sporran
  • the plaid of the “great kilt” is referred to in Deuteronomy 24.12
One error of Hislop cannot go unnoticed - it is evident that Shem overcame Osiris “by the spirit”, but this spirit must, in view of his travelling to Scotland to become its king (a journey of which the Book of Mormon preserves a garbled account), have been whisky, the “water of life” - the meaning of its name. The “giants” who overcome Osiris must have been the Highlanders of Assyria. It follows that Nimrod was a pious monarch, and that he has been much maligned in “The Two Babylons” - for why would he build a submarine for Shem, or give him a compass to direct his voyaging, if he were the monster of iniquity described in the book ?

It is therefore all but certain that Shem must have been the first Catholicos of Babylon, and the senior cleric at the coronation of Nimrod. This is all but proved by the fact that one Calgacus led the Scots at the battle of Mons Graupius in 84 AD: for what is “Calgacus”, if not “Catholicos” ? Since the Patriarch Methuselah is known to have been a priest, it is not surprising that Shem should be, nor that Melchizedek is evidently Nimrod.

As for king Arthur, Lot king of Orkney is plainly Luath king of Orcaidh: the Orkneys. The likeness of Orcaidh to “Uruk” in Mesopotamia is unaccountable, if Luath did not reign there, and then go to Scotland. We conclude that Shem is Arthur.
 
jacKKK chiKKK is so messed up. i remember coming across a few of his anti catholic comics by accident and at first i honestly thought it was a joke, some wierd form of satire. but when i got to the end i realized that he was sincere. i dunno, i seriously dought someone could be that clueless i think that maybe he is just using thoes conspiracy theories to make money i dought he really believes half the stuff he writes. He probally does hate catholics but some of the theories he has just lack common sence
 
Socrates said:
(for documentation of this, see … the comic tract Those Dirty Pagan Scumsucking Dogs Will Burn in Hell Forever HA HA HA HA HA….
Click to expand...

Bummer
 
Very nice. Reminds me of severinus, whom I haven’t seen post in a long time. Perhaps some of you remember his exposé of Jack Chick, in which he revealed that Jack Chick was actually a Jesuit agent. Very tricky, isn’t he?
 
Jack Chick is a nut that fell from some long extinct hair oak tree.
I’ve seen his name brought up numerous times on this site as well in serveral Catholic books. I don’t find him worthy of mention.
As a Protestant, studying the Catholic faith, I’m ashamed to admit he is one of us. Actually, he’s a hair brained steaming nostril fire brand that most thinking Prostestants ignore. Only some of the more conservative right wingers in the Protestant movement take him seriously. Most of us just consider him an imbarrassment. In fact, most of the Protestants I know, and I know plenty, even have read his swill. Fundamentalists tend to like him and only a few Evangelicals. Yes Toto, there is a major difference between fundamentalists and Evangelicals. Most people don’t know that so we all get cast into the fundamentalist stew.
So as far as Chick goes, just toss the dumb cluck back into his coop and ignore him…we do. (Oh yes…uh…as hard as it may seem…pray that God will redeem his little bird brain. Forgive me Lord for speaking my mind, but this guy has brought more disgrace to the faith than anyone I know.
Thirsty
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top