Mechanism of Salvation

Leo Volont

Registered Senior Member
Mechanism of Salvation

Few Christians bother to reflect upon the fact that they believe in a Mechanism for Salvation that was never taught by Jesus and is only vouched for by Paul, who was not an Apostle. Indeed, we have in Revelation 2:22 the mention that Paul was run out of Asia Minor for teaching this False Doctrine, and we have in Paul’s own letter to Timothy the admission that he was run out of Asia Minor. Then we have in Galatians and Corinthians Paul frankly teaching his congregations to treat the Real Apostles as their enemies. We need to ask ourselves whether we should take our Christian Doctrines from those who were handpicked by Christ Himself, or from Paul the Murderer who opposed them, and for whose ‘calling’ we have nobody’s word but his own.

Paul’s doctrines lay out a Mechanism for Salvation that goes like this: The Murder of Christ was tantamount to a sacrifice that would eternally nullify every sin of anyone who would assent with Belief in the power of that Sacrifice. We are to believe that if we say that Christ being Murdered was a Good Thing, we are thus Saved. Paul, as a member of the Committee that voted to execute Jesus, of course, was anxious that such an abominable act could somehow be rationalized and justified. To stave off feelings of his own abysmal guilt, he turned a Murder into a Sacrifice. But Paul did more than just that to assuage his guilt. Because the Sacrifice was all sufficient, the Law could then be dispensed with. There would be no Moral Criteria to hold anybody to. Just so nobody would continue to believe Righteousness important, Paul would insist that all Men were inherently and naturally sinful, and that Christians of his Congregations were encouraged rather to receive Forgiveness than to strive for Righteousness.

There can be little wonder that the True Apostles were shocked and appalled at such a Doctrine of Condoned Sin, and aggressively went against Paul, ejecting him from Greek Asia Minor and eventually engineering his arrest and execution.

But if we are not Saved by the Murder of Christ, then are we Saved at all, and how? For this we need to go back to the Teachings of Christ. In all of His major Teaching Sermons we find that we will be judged against a Moral Criteria. We hear of the Wide Way of Destruction, which we can easily assign to Paul, and we hear of the Narrow Way of Moral and Spiritual Pursuit. We are urged to Perfection and an Imitation of Christ. At no time did Christ say that such Teachings would be cancelled out because of his Murder. On the contrary, we have several Parables that speak of the Son of the King being murdered, and it being seen not as a Sacrifice but as a Crime.

As a Catholic I have often wondered about the significance of the Crucifix, which comes to us from the Blessed Virgin Mary who was first to turn it into a Religious Icon. Paulists would insist that the Crucifix is symbolic of the Sacrifice which Saves us. However, looking at the History of the last 2000 years, it would be difficult to conclude that God was significantly appeased because the Jews and the Romans Murdered the Messiah. First Jerusalem was destroyed and then the Roman Empire collapsed not so long afterward. So I would think that the Crucifix has been intended to keep the Crime ever before our eyes so that we may be able to form some conception of the extreme penance that would be demanded of us. God did not send a Messiah to be tortured and butchered, but that is what happened. It was a Crime at least as evocative of God’s Curse as Adam taking the Forbidden Fruit. Humanity has had to live down that horrible Crime against God, and History shows that the toll has been terrible.

But I anticipate that Penance need not last forever, and that Christ will come again when finally enough suffering has been endured. Then The Second Coming will give us a Second Chance, and then it is to be hoped we will honor Christ and let him Rule in Glory and lead the World into a Moral and Spiritual reanimation that will truly turn the World into The Kingdom of God. I certainly hope that when the Time Comes nobody will take it into their head to Murder Him again so that we can be Twice as Saved.
 
That makes sense, Jesus would be more concerned about moral issues than this strange doctrine of blood sacrifice appeasing the God.
 
spidergoat said:
That makes sense, Jesus would be more concerned about moral issues than this strange doctrine of blood sacrifice appeasing the God.

Yes!

So we need to wonder about the strange popularity of Paul's Murderous Doctrine. I think that in its day it fit well in the context of the Greek Mystery Cults. They had their own New Age Movement where Con Men profiteered by selling very elaborate ceremonies which promised all of Heaven and Earth for a fee. They catored to Rich People who did not want to do any actual Spiritual Work, but wished to get Transcendence the same way they got everything else... by buying it. The Teachings of Christ did not conform to this formula -- too much hard work -- so Paul cut it down to a simple Magic which offered such a Great Promise that nobody ever considered examining the mechanism too closely, until myself of course.

The Doctrine continues to propagate itself. Again, it is because it is so Sin Friendly that rich and powerful sinners insist that it be maintained. Haven't we all heard a thousand times that the World cannot operate without Sin. We hear of assorted Moral Violations and instead of outrage, we hear that that is the way the World Works. This is the essence of paulist doctrine, that Sin makes the World go round. It is the Rejection of the Kingdom of Heaven and thus the cause of my insistence that Paul was and is the Antichrist.
 
Leo Volont: So we need to wonder about the strange popularity of Paul's Murderous Doctrine. I think that in its day it fit well in the context of the Greek Mystery Cults. The Teachings of Christ did not conform to this formula -- too much hard work -- so Paul cut it down to a simple Magic which offered such a Great Promise that nobody ever considered examining the mechanism too closely, until myself of course.

It is the Rejection of the Kingdom of Heaven and thus the cause of my insistence that Paul was and is the Antichrist.
*************
M*W: The more I read, and the more I study, the more profound my belief becomes that Paul IS/WAS the Antichrist -- at least the first one. Is Pauline Christianity the version that is collapsing today? Will the real Christianity please stand up? Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. He would have never ministered to the Gentiles and non-Jews.

I read yesterday that Peter, Moses and David were fictitious characters. It's hard to believe anything written in the Bible. If Peter never went to Rome, then why does the RCC say his bones are buried under St. Peter's? Is every story in the Bible fictional?

The only true Christianity was not perpetuated by Paul, Peter and the Gospel writers. The only true Christianity is what MM believed in, and that was all suppressed by the early church FATHERS. The only writings I believe today are what was written by the early church MOTHERS (i.e. MM). Then, again, I read where she is just another fictional character representing Jesus' feminine side in the hieros gamos (sacred marriage). I guess bottom-line there is no god, so all the characters who were purported to worship god aren't real either. The only thing we can be sure of is that we are alive right now. That's all we've got, and we must live it to the fullest.
 
Medicine Woman said:
M*W: The more I read, and the more I study, the more profound my belief becomes that Paul IS/WAS the Antichrist -- at least the first one. Is Pauline Christianity the version that is collapsing today? Will the real Christianity please stand up? Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. He would have never ministered to the Gentiles and non-Jews.

Jesus gave a mixed message to the Samaratan Woman, hinting that she did not deserve His Ministry but ministering to her anyway. In reference to several Roman Officers, Jesus did not shun them at all but proclaimed them as having more Faith than the Jews. The Three Kings indicated that the Messiah was to have risen to be King of Kings in a Cosmopolitan fashion.

Jesus was called "Rabbi", but you should not hem Him in by what name the People called Him. Names are not Things.


Oh, and by the way, the one thing we have in common, that we both hate Paul seems to be shared by this strange group I have found at another Site -- the Neo-Christianity Homepage that is under the auspices of one Guru Kurt (John Kurt Jackson) who I think is an ex-Hare Krishna Devotee who became fascinated by Christianity, but has easily discerned the same as we, that Paul has got to go. I didn't have time to read into the whole Page, but apparently Guru Kurt is something just short of the Second Coming of Christ, but he would make a better impression if he did not spend page after page whining and complaining that a dozen or so second rate Gurus have more public acclaim than he does. Duh! With a name like "Guru Kurt". Maybe if he were alittle more enlightened, he'd realize he should hire a Public Relations Consultant who would change his name to Guru Kurtanananda. But it is nice to know that the Hate Paul Movement seems to be intuitively obvious to people who come into Christianity with Fresh Eyes.
 
Leo Volont: Jesus gave a mixed message to the Samaratan Woman, hinting that she did not deserve His Ministry but ministering to her anyway.
*************
M*W: Remember that these were the words of Paul or of Paul's Puppet Writers. In that, the entire NT with the possible exception of the Gospel of John and Revelations, cannot be believed in truth.
*************
Leo Volont: The Three Kings indicated that the Messiah was to have risen to be King of Kings in a Cosmopolitan fashion.
*************
M*W: Well that's how the story goes... but the three kings were allegedly astrologers who thought they had seen a star and followed it. Current astronomer-scientists have found numerically that it was a conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter that appeared to be a large star in the East they followed. So that refutes their belief in Jesus as the Messiah.
*************
Leo Volont: Jesus was called "Rabbi", but you should not hem Him in by what name the People called Him. Names are not Things.
*************
M*W: True, but MM called him "Rabboni" a personal title for someone close to a rabbi. Again, those were the words of Paul's Puppet Writers. I haven't checked, but what does the GJohn say in this regard?
*************
Leo Volont: Oh, and by the way, the one thing we have in common, that we both hate Paul seems to be shared by this strange group I have found at another Site -- the Neo-Christianity Homepage that is under the auspices of one Guru Kurt (John Kurt Jackson) who I think is an ex-Hare Krishna Devotee who became fascinated by Christianity, but has easily discerned the same as we, that Paul has got to go. I didn't have time to read into the whole Page, but apparently Guru Kurt is something just short of the Second Coming of Christ, but he would make a better impression if he did not spend page after page whining and complaining that a dozen or so second rate Gurus have more public acclaim than he does. Duh! With a name like "Guru Kurt". Maybe if he were alittle more enlightened, he'd realize he should hire a Public Relations Consultant who would change his name to Guru Kurtanananda. But it is nice to know that the Hate Paul Movement seems to be intuitively obvious to people who come into Christianity with Fresh Eyes.
*************
M*W: No, I haven't heard about this. I don't think I'm going to join-up today, though. There needs to be more scholarly work done on the problem of Paul. Of course your fundamental Christians extol Paul as if he were the messiah because he wrote about the messiah. I believe Paul to be the antichrist that was written about in Revelations. There is so much we don't know. I think if we had more scholarly works on the truth instead of on Paul's presentation, I for one might have a greater respect for Christianity. It's Paul's Christianity, or I should say Anti-Christianity, that cannot be believed.
 
Back
Top