• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Christianity based upon Pagan ideas?

godnotgod

Thou art That
...the earliest texts we have (from Paul) attest to the importance of the resurrection, not the crucifixion .

Suffice it to say at this point, that Paul's testimony of the Resurrection and the alleged 500 eyewitnesses is laughable.

In fact, Paul (the first person we know of to attest to the idea that Jesus died for our sins) says nothing about "divine blood" washing away anything.

But that is the idea, is'nt it? Divine blood was shed via of Jesus's death, and it was the shedding of divine blood which held the power [somehow] to wash away the sins of mankind. More specifically, (and I was raised a Catholic), the Crucifixion was staged by God for the express purpose of removing the chokehold that the Original Sin of Adam and Eve held upon all of mankind. It is for this reason alone that the Crucifixion is far more important than the Resurrection, which was merely to clinch the idea that the Jesus who had just died on the cross was, in fact, who he said he was. But we know better than than, now, don't we? We know that the Resurrection never occurred, don't we, and that it was all just a big concoction designed to galvanize the belief that Jesus was indeed not only A messiah, but THE Messiah.

Oh, all so "Something Special", now is'nt it?

No, they don't serve the same purpose. Both types of sacrifices have historically been used for a wide variety of purposes. Quite rarely has "absolution" been one of them.

So you say.....

"Ancient Jewish religion involved rites of priestly sacrifice of animal or vegetable offerings, by which a person who had sinned could receive absolution. Early Christianity abandoned this practice in favor of a belief that Christ, by his death on the Cross, had performed the ultimate sacrifice to absolve all believers of their sins through their repentance, faith, and baptism."

Absolution - New World Encyclopedia
 
Last edited:

godnotgod

Thou art That
They were plays depicting the passion of the christ. What is your point?

"The passion play of Bel, the Babylonian Sun-God, was in existence centuries before the birth of Jesus. It was a mystery play acted every year in the beginning of spring. The main features of the play have been deciphered from some tablets discovered from Babylonian ruins. The tablets disclose very remarkable facts which must be disturbing to thousands of honest minds in Christendom.

The story of Bel and the story of Jesus are one and the same, and this not only deprives the evangelical records of the claims to be genuine, but it convicts them of complete plagiarism!"

THE CHRISTIAN PASSION STORY:


1 Jesus is taken prisoner.

2 Jesus is tried in the House of the High Priest and the Hall of Pilate.

3 Jesus is scourged.

4 Jesus is led away to crucifixion on Golgotha.

5 Together with Jesus, two malefactors are led away and put to death. Another (Barabbas) is released to the people, and thus not taken away with Jesus.

6 After the death of Jesus, the veil in the temple is rent (Synopt.), the earth quakes, the rocks are rent asunder, the graves are opened, and the dead come forth into the holy city. (Matthew).

7 Jesus’s robe is divided among the soldiers (Synopt., John, cf. Ps. 22 : 18).

8 The lance-thrust in Jesus’s side and outflow of water and blood (John). Mary Magdalene and two other women busy themselves with the (washing, and) embalming of the body (Mark, Luke).

9 Jesus, in the grave, in the rock tomb (Synopt.) goes down into the realm of the dead (1 Pet. 3 : 19; Matt. 12 : 40; Acts 2 : 24; Rom. 10 : 7, “descent into hell” dogma).

10 Guards are set over the tomb of Jesus. (Matthew).

11 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary sit before the tomb. (Matthew, Mark).

12 Women, in particular Mary Magdalene, came to the tomb to seek Jesus where he is behind the door of the tomb. Mary stands weeping before the empty tomb because they have taken her Lord away (John).

13Jesus’s restoration to life, his rising from the grave (on a Sunday morning).

14 His festival, approximately at the spring equinox, is also celebrated as his triumph over the powers of darkness (cf. Colossians, 2: 15).

________________________________________________________________

THE BABYLONIAN PASSION PLAY:

1 Bel is taken prisoner.

2 Bel is tried in the House on the Mount (the Hall of Justice).

3 Bel is smitten (wounded).

4 Bel is led away to the Mount.

5 Together with Bel a malefactor is led away and put to death. Another, who is also charged as a malefactor, is let go, thus not taken away with Bel.

6 After Bel had gone to the Mount, the city breaks out into tumult, and fighting takes place in it.

7 Bel’s clothes are carried away.

8 A woman wipes away the heart’s blood of Bel flowing from a drawn-out weapon (spear?).

9 Bel goes down into the Mount away from sun and light, disappears from life, and is held fast in the Mount as in a prison.

10 Guards watch Bel imprisoned in the stronghold of the Mount.

11 A goddess sits with Bel; she comes to tend him.

12 They seek for Bel where he is held fast. In particular a weeping woman seeks for him at the “Gate of Burial.” When he is being carried away, the same lamented: “O, my brother! O, my brother!”

13 Bel is again brought back to life (as the sun of spring); he comes again out of the Mount.

14 His chief feast, the Babylonian New Year’s festival in March at the time of the spring equinox, is celebrated also as his triumph over the powers of darkness (cf. the creation hymn “Once when on high” as the New Year’s festival hymn).
______________________________________________________________

"There is thus no doubt at all that the passion story of the Bible is simply a re-cast of the story of Bel or Baal.

Being mystified at the identity of their beliefs with pagan ideas, the early Church Fathers blamed the Devil for creating mischief. Tertullian, a church historian, said: “The devil, whose business is to prevent the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments in the Mysteries of Idols.”

Justin Martyr, a church father, says: “... which things the evil spirit has taught to be done out of memory in the mysteries and ministrations of Mithra…”

The Devil has been blamed for many things, but for once a grave injustice has been done to him in that the Fathers of the Church have accused him of something of which he is innocent and totally unaware. This is a most convenient way of evading facts and eluding the truth. The Devil cannot confront the Fathers to defend himself and debate with them the chronological correctness of their assertion. A brazen anachronism was thus perpetrated by them. Did paganism borrow from Christianity or did Christianity plagiarize wholesale from paganism? In the sequence of time: did Christianity come before paganism, or paganism before Christianity?

The Devil thus provided an easy and convenient target for venting wrath and abuse resulting from a patent inability to find a plausible explanation, and from mystification and bewilderment. They would not be reasonable enough, or gentlemen enough, to admit and acknowledge the fact that Christianity was a mere rehash of pagan beliefs. This would be a lowering of their dignity. A scapegoat had to be found. And who could be a better candidate for this honour than old Lucifer himself?!

The wardens of the Church in those days never failed to do two things, until Christianity fully triumphed over the existing creed. They incorporated, on the one hand, almost all of the popular pagan cults into their faith; on the other hand they took particular care to destroy and burn the Pagan records and libraries – amongst them that of Alexandria some 50 years after the death of Constantine – in order to obliterate the origin of the faith so alien to that of Jesus."


The Affinity Between Christianity and Paganism
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
His death was not particularly important to christians.

Nah! His death whose function was to liberate all mankind from Original Sin and re-open the Gates of Paradise is relatively unimportant.

His resurrection was.

Right. Spectacle always trumps necessity. So, of what "importance" was the Resurrection to mankind?

Yes, you have to have death for resurrection.

No! Really?

But as Paul points out, and the church fathers confirm,

Oh, what the hell do they know, anyway? Paul was a charlatan, and the Church Fathers a bunch of stale stuff shirts.

death without resurrection is meaningless.

You must mean "death without a cheap theatrical Big Bang" is meaningless, don't you?

Come now, Oberon. You are still dealing with appearances and glitter. It would be far more significant if the Christian story was just about a man who understood his divine nature, was crucified for his beliefs, and died as a result. No mumbo jumbo; no impossible resurrections. After all, humans, when they die, stay dead. That is the normal course. What's wrong with that? If you require cheap theatrics to convince you, then where is your faith? You should know by now that a God whose existence must be proven is a dead God. You may as well attempt to capture the wind in a box.

[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

Troublemane

Well-Known Member
I think the whole thing is a myth and has to be taken as such. Jesus may have been a real guy who was really crucified, but soon after (as greek followers converted) they took the events of Jesus' life and execution and combined them with a well-established history of APOTHEOSIS. Making one into a god or son of god, by writing in miracles, etc. The ressurrection of the solar god and all. This was a common practice among greek writers at the time, and it makes sense if you are going to compete with other savior cults (like heracles) you gotta at least have a few miracles, including virgin birth, a few healings, temptation by the evil one (just like in buddhism), and of course a death and ressurrection.

But when Paul started trying to pre-empt the OT by claiming its entire reason for being was to predict the coming of the Savior (who he never knew personally, except second hand through the people he helped persecute),...all i can say is, WOW i bet the jews were really taken aback. The savior was supposed to fulfill a role in jewish belief, not the other way around. How arrogant is it to say a single man is the sole purpose for all jewish history?

I guess christianity probably has multiple pagan roots, as the pope is also the head of the roman church as pontifex maximus, but the fact remains that yes! the myth aspect of jesus rising from the dead etc. was stolen completely from pagan myths. But that dont make it bad mythology. its still good mythology, just NOT TRUE in a historical sense.

I think the real test of peity is to be able to see the brilliance of Jesus' wisdom through the words that survived, even though they have been embedded in a re-cycled infomercial for "eternal life", IMO :angel2:
 

logician

Well-Known Member
Of course Xianity is based up pagan ideas, i.e. pre-existent non-Christian thinking. It just didn't spring up out of thin air. Xmas and Easter, both essential elements of Xianity, are taken straight from pagan tradition. The idea of a blood sacrifice is as old as recorded history. Virgin births around the winter solstice, deaths and ressurections in the spring are all ancient and recurring themes.
 

Bware

I'm the Jugganaut!!
It would be much more significant if the Christian story was just about a man who understood his divine nature, was crucified for his beliefs, and died as a result. No mumbo jumbo; no impossible resurrections.
Woot someone who agrees with me! My thoughts exactly.
 

logician

Well-Known Member
II think the real test of peity is to be able to see the brilliance of Jesus' wisdom through the words that survived, even though they have been embedded in a re-cycled infomercial for "eternal life", IMO :angel2:

What did the supposed Jesus say that was so wise?

There was nothing unique in his teachings, the golden rule had been around for over a thousand years, everything else he taught basically was to keep the poor in line.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
Even if we regard the whole of Christianity as a myth whose elements were taken from pagan ideas, it does not mean we should toss it. Where it's real value lies is in understanding that its outward symbols and themes are really projections of what is going on inside of us. The symbol of the Christ on the cross is really you and I. He is a symbol of our metaphysical distress; our angst, and the Resurrection symbolic of transcendence of the dual world that includes life and death; a return, if you will, to our true state of happiness, that of Absolute Joy, that being the spiritual awakening of our authentic selves. It makes us realize that this life as we know it is, in fact, fiction; that we are pre-programmed characters who are spiritually asleep, acting out a script written by others, and so we suffer. This is existence on the Third Level of Consciousness, that of Waking Sleep, in which we truly believe ourselves to be real, but in actuality, are not. We are totally immersed into the state of Identification. We cannot see beyond the false ego, the "I". Only through concerted effort do we begin to awaken, to unfold, our True Natures. The old self eventually dies, and the authentic self emerges to live its true destiny in this wonderful eternal Present Moment. The Christ, the Buddha within, emerges to live the miracle that already is, and is to be found in ordinary everyday life, now transformed by a new vision. Where previously we saw the spiritual and the physical worlds as two, we now see only The One. The Ordinary and the Miraculous have become what they always have been: One. The miracle is you, sitting there right now, reading these lines, but you do not know it. That is the game of cosmic hide and seek the divine is playing with you. Then you find out that you, in fact, are none other than the divine essence itself, hiding within its own creation.

Play, the missing element in Christianity.

"I chop wood and carry water.
How miraculous!"

Zen source
 
Last edited:

Makaveli

Homoioi
It depends what your definition of "based" is. Every human idea is basically a refined version of a previous one, so in that case Christianity is, indeed, based on pagan ideas going back to the roots of Judaism.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
What did the supposed Jesus say that was so wise?

There was nothing unique in his teachings, the golden rule had been around for over a thousand years, everything else he taught basically was to keep the poor in line.

In spite of the fact that I have been stating that Christianity was based upon pagan ideas, and whether he actually said it or not, the following statement attributed to one Jesus Christ as he hung from a cross is of profound importance:

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"

As I stated previously, Jesus was not asking forgiveness for Sin, but for Ignorance, and therein lies the crucial difference.

Most people find it very difficult, if not impossible to forgive what they deem as "Sin", and when they are able to to do so, must first demand contrition and repentance on the part of the sinner before such forgiveness can be granted. Jesus asked for no such pre-conditions. His forgiveness was totally unconditional, now. But Ignorance can indeed be forgiven without condition, and far more readily, when we realize all of the factors involved in a person's ignorant state. Those soldiers who pierced Jesus's side acted out of a complete sense of righteousness, as they had been instructed by their authorities. They firmly believed they were meting out punishment to one who deserved it, according to the Law. This Jesus was a political criminal on the one hand, and a blasphemer on the other.

So if anything was unique about Christianity, it was this one idea: to forgive those who do evil against you. Having said that, such an idea was not actually new, but it was new to the old Jewish idea of "an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth". This idea of requiting hatred with love comes from the East, actually. It had already been part of Buddhist, Hindu, and Taoist thought for some time, and it was these teachings which strongly influenced the Nazorean Essenes, the Jewish mystical cult to which Yeshua (Jesus) belonged. What Christians call "Sin" is, in terms of Eastern thought, the Outcome of the state of Ignorance; of Desire, and it is because the "sinner" does not actually exist. There is no "do-er". That is an illusion, and realizing one's own Enlightenment dissolves the do-er away.

"Only he that rids himself forever of desire can see the Secret Essences;
He that has never rid himself of desire can only see the Outcomes."

Tao te Ching, Ch. 1
 
Last edited:

godnotgod

Thou art That
It depends what your definition of "based" is. Every human idea is basically a refined version of a previous one, so in that case Christianity is, indeed, based on pagan ideas going back to the roots of Judaism.

Thank you for pointing out that distinction. I suppose I also should have made the distinction between "pagan" and "tribal". The superstitious beliefs of tribal man would take it back even further than Judaism.

I think the key theme running through it all is Fear.

When Fear is understood and transcended, we open the door to the enlightened state, and our understanding of the divine is completely transformed.
 

slave2six

Substitious
In spite of the fact that I have been stating that Christianity was based upon pagan ideas, and whether he actually said it or not, the following statement attributed to one Jesus Christ as he hung from a cross is of profound importance:

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"

As I stated previously, Jesus was not asking forgiveness for Sin, but for Ignorance, and therein lies the crucial difference.
I don't see how you conclude that. He was asking forgiveness of sin. There is no forgiveness of ignorance because ignorance isn't an offense. When one is tried for murder and pleads "not guilty by reason of insanity" it is not to say that no murder was committed. Similarly, Jesus was pleading "Not guilty by reason of ignorance" but that doesn't mean an offense wasn't committed.

What baffles me is that the life of Christ, his teachings, and this statement at the time of his death are in complete contrast to the teachings of Christianity which condemns people for simply not believing in Jesus. Throughout the gospels Jesus was going around freely forgiving people without demanding that they trust in some blood sacrifice but after his death it was the blood sacrifice that made forgiveness possible. It is impossible to reconcile the two.
 

Wannabe Yogi

Well-Known Member
What evidence exists that points to Pagan roots as the basis for many of the ideas found in the Christian religion?

Philo of Alexandria (20 BC - 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term logos to mean the creative principle. Philo is a figure that spans both Greek and the Hebrew cultures. Philo was seen as a synthesis of both traditions.Clement of Alexandria, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen all saw the use of the idea of logos in the first chapter of John as a shout out to Philo. With the use of the concept of logos in John that alone shows a Pagan Greek root to the Christian Faith.
 

logician

Well-Known Member
In spite of the fact that I have been stating that Christianity was based upon pagan ideas, and whether he actually said it or not, the following statement attributed to one Jesus Christ as he hung from a cross is of profound importance:

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"

As I stated previously, Jesus was not asking forgiveness for Sin, but for Ignorance, and therein lies the crucial difference.

Most people find it very difficult, if not impossible to forgive what they deem as "Sin", and when they are able to to do so, must first demand contrition and repentance on the part of the sinner before such forgiveness can be granted. Jesus asked for no such pre-conditions. His forgiveness was totally unconditional, now. But Ignorance can indeed be forgiven without condition, and far more readily, when we realize all of the factors involved in a person's ignorant state. Those soldiers who pierced Jesus's side acted out of a complete sense of righteousness, as they had been instructed by their authorities. They firmly believed they were meting out punishment to one who deserved it, according to the Law. This Jesus was a political criminal on the one hand, and a blasphemer on the other.

So if anything was unique about Christianity, it was this one idea: to forgive those who do evil against you. Having said that, such an idea was not actually new, but it was new to the old Jewish idea of "an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth". This idea of requiting hatred with love comes from the East, actually. It had already been part of Buddhist, Hindu, and Taoist thought for some time, and it was these teachings which strongly influenced the Nazorean Essenes, the Jewish mystical cult to which Yeshua (Jesus) belonged. What Christians call "Sin" is, in terms of Eastern thought, the Outcome of the state of Ignorance; of Desire, and it is because the "sinner" does not actually exist. There is no "do-er". That is an illusion, and realizing one's own Enlightenment dissolves the do-er away.

"Only he that rids himself forever of desire can see the Secret Essences;
He that has never rid himself of desire can only see the Outcomes."
Tao te Ching, Ch. 1

This is presupposing this event even happened, which it didn't, the statement could be taken as quite an arrogant one, i.e. how dare they kill a god!
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
This is presupposing this event even happened, which it didn't, the statement could be taken as quite an arrogant one, i.e. how dare they kill a god!

Yes, I failed to mention that it may not actually have occurred, but that is actually beside the point, that being the unconditional forgiveness of ignorance.

Now, would a man with an arrogant attitude ask forgiveness for anyone, for anything? On the contrary; he might ask that his Father wipe them all out with one fell swoop.

For that matter, would a divine being, assuming he was authentically divine, have a shred of arrogance within his being? The two states are exclusive of each other.
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
Suffice it to say at this point, that Paul's testimony of the Resurrection and the alleged 500 eyewitnesses is laughable.

Not really. It is entirely plausible that in some way a large number of people "experienced" a risen christ, much in the same way paul did.



But that is the idea, is'nt it?

No, it isn't.
Divine blood was shed via of Jesus's death, and it was the shedding of divine blood which held the power [somehow] to wash away the sins of mankind.

You keep harping on divine blood. But Paul doesn't. The sacrifice wasn't about divine blood, or even divine sacrifice, as paul never calls Jesus divine. In fact, searching through all of early christian literature, there isn't much focus on shedding divine blood at all.

It is for this reason alone that the Crucifixion is far more important than the Resurrection, which was merely to clinch the idea that the Jesus who had just died on the cross was, in fact, who he said he was.

Simply incorrect. The crucifixion means nothing without a risen Jesus, as Paul noted. Plenty of people were crucified. It was the fact that Jesus willingly (according to christian theology) gave up his own life for the sake of mankind, and was resurrected, that was so important.

We know that the Resurrection never occurred, don't we

No, we don't. I don't believe it did. I don't believe that the buddha was a historical person, or that Muhammed received the koran from Allah either. But I don't know.



"Ancient Jewish religion involved rites of priestly sacrifice of animal or vegetable offerings, by which a person who had sinned could receive absolution. Early Christianity abandoned this practice in favor of a belief that Christ, by his death on the Cross, had performed the ultimate sacrifice to absolve all believers of their sins through their repentance, faith, and baptism."

Again, Jews were harldy the only people who made sacrifices, and they did it for many reasons. The most common was simply to honor YHWH.

"The passion play of Bel, the Babylonian Sun-God, was in existence centuries before the birth of Jesus. It was a mystery play acted every year in the beginning of spring. The main features of the play have been deciphered from some tablets discovered from Babylonian ruins. The tablets disclose very remarkable facts which must be disturbing to thousands of honest minds in Christendom.

You really need to work on your sources. Can you cite the primary texts of the so-called "babylonian passion?" Or do you simply troll bad websites on "the Jesus myth" bunk?
 
Last edited:

godnotgod

Thou art That
I don't see how you conclude that. He was asking forgiveness of sin.

Was he? Did he say:

"Father, forgive them for their transgression?" No. He said:

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"..."they do" being the act of the offense, or "sin"; while "not know what they do" being the state of ignorance. In other words, those who crucified him had no concept of the gravity of their act. A good case in point is the Inquisition. Those who carried out the orders of the High Inquisitors did so without batting an eyelash. Why? Because, in their minds, they were doing it for the good of the victim's soul. Burning someone alive at the stake, or torture, were executed for the express purpose of driving out devils and demons, to the benefit of the possessed victim. The screams of the victim were understood as the demon itself being driven out.

There is no forgiveness of ignorance because ignorance isn't an offense.

No, but the act associated with it is. In other words, it is the state of ignorance which leads to the offense, even though the perpetrator is not aware of the gravity of the offense itself. On the contrary, the "offense" is not seen as such; it is seen as the righteous act of administering justice.

When one is tried for murder and pleads "not guilty by reason of insanity" it is not to say that no murder was committed.

You are making my point for me: yes, a murder was committed, but an insane individual cannot be held accountable for it because he has no control over his actions.

Similarly, Jesus was pleading "Not guilty by reason of ignorance" but that doesn't mean an offense wasn't committed.

No, he was pleading neither "guilty" nor "not guilty"; neither blame nor not-blame was being considered. his transgressors did not understand the nature of their act. If they did, that is to say, if they had not been in the state of ignorance, no such act would ever have been committed.

What baffles me is that the life of Christ, his teachings, and this statement at the time of his death are in complete contrast to the teachings of Christianity which condemns people for simply not believing in Jesus. Throughout the gospels Jesus was going around freely forgiving people without demanding that they trust in some blood sacrifice but after his death it was the blood sacrifice that made forgiveness possible. It is impossible to reconcile the two.

It is St. Paul who created the overlay which is the cause of the confusion. Yeshua was a peaceful vegetarian, belonging to a mystical cult which rejected even the idea of animal sacrifice, let alone human sacrifice. Yeshua did not believe in the resurrection of the physical body. St. Paul wrote in the idea of the shedding of blood as atonement for sin, the requirement that one accept Jesus as one's personal Lord and Savior, and the idea of the Resurrection of the physical body. Modern Christians do not practice Christianity, but Paulanity. If you want to expose yourself to the teachings before they were corrupted by St. Paul, go to the Pe****ta, the Aramaic Bible translated directly into English from the language Yeshua spoke. You can download a copy of the Pe****ta in .pdf format here:

Pe****ta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament

Click on the entry "Pe****ta N T & Psalms" in the menu to the right to download a copy.

...and a direct translation into English from the Aramaic Khabouris Codex, a copy of an original Pe****ta manuscript dated to 164 AD within the colophon.

Khabouris Codex Aramaic Pe****ta New Testament Manuscript
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
Was he? Did he say:

"Father, forgive them for their transgression?" No. He said:

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do

We don't know what he said, and even what is recorded changes depending on the gospel used. According to Luke, Jesus says ο δε ᾿Ιησους ἔλεγε· πάτερ, ἄφες αυτοις· ου γαρ οἴδασι τί ποιουσι./ ho de Iesous elege "pater, aphes autois; ou gar oidasi ti poiousi/ and Jesus said "father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do."

Yeshua was a peaceful vegetarian

Right. Now you are simply making things up.

belonging to a mystical cult which rejected even the idea of animal sacrifice

Wrong.

Yeshua did not believe in the resurrection of the physical body

According to whom?


St. Paul wrote in the idea of the shedding of blood as atonement for sin
Quotation?

If you want to expose yourself to the teachings before they were corrupted by St. Paul, go to the Pe****ta, the Aramaic Bible translated directly into English from the language Yeshua spoke. You can download a copy of the Pe****ta in .pdf format here:

You really have NO idea what you are talking about, do you? The pe****ta is syriac, a later from of aramiac, very different from the forms of aramiac spoken in Jesus' day. Moreover, it is a translation from the greek.
 
Top