Charles, I read your link in your latest post and I will quote this;
"Two prominent Piso's were mentioned above (previous post). The vain and haughty Pompeius Magnus literally screams for an association with the New Testament figure of Simon Magus/Lazarus/Paul and the Herodian king Tigranes, who was styled after the even earlier diminuative megalomaniac Nebuchadrezzar (Greek Andopompus/Megakles). The Roman name for this "founding father" was Brutus, which relates to the Persian identity of Nebuchadrezzar as Bardiya"
Recently at another forum (New Chronology) the topic of the Peter vs Paul writings came up and we know the rumour that Paul was "Simon Magus" (although I myself feel Simon Peter may fit the image of a "Simon Magus" better since Jesus calls Simon Peter "Satan "etc.).
The Ebionites are known for proposing that Paul was "Simon Magus" so here's what the wiki says on the Ebionites;
"The term "the poor" was at first a common designation for all Christians. Following schisms within the early Church, the graecized Hebrew term "Ebionite" was applied exclusively to Jewish Christians separated from the developing Pauline Christianity, and later in the fourth century a specific group of Jewish Christians or to a Jewish Christian sect distinct from the Nazarenes. All the while, the designation "the Poor" in other languages was still used in its original, more general sense.[page # needed]  The divergent application of "Ebionite" persists today, as some authors choose to label all Jewish Christians, even before the mentioned schism, as Ebionites, [page # needed] while others, though agreeing about the historical events, use it in a more restricted sense. Mainstream scholarship commonly uses the term in the restricted sense.
Origen reinterpreted the name Ebionites as a reference to "their low views of Christ""
In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, several small yet competing new religious movements, such as the Ebionite Jewish Community and others, have emerged claiming to be revivalists of the views and practices of early Ebionites, although their idiosyncratic claims to authenticity cannot be verified.
The counter-missionary group Jews for Judaism favorably mentions the historical Ebionites in their literature in order to argue that "Messianic Judaism", as promoted by missionary groups such as Jews for Jesus, is Pauline Christianity misrepresenting itself as Judaism.
Some Messianic groups have expressed concern over leaders in Israel that deny Jesus' divinity and the possible collapse of the Messianic movement due to a resurgence of Ebionitism.
In a recent polemic, a Messianic leader asked whether Christians should imitate the Torah-observance of "neo-Ebionites""
Anyways, I quoted Charles saying that Paul was Lazarus(the one whom Jesus raises from the dead or another Lazarus??)? I was wondering how you derived this? We know that Peter was present at "The Transformation", so I think it's possible that Simon Peter may have been the one raised from the dead?;
"Elijah(John the baptist-gf) appears in the Synoptic Gospels at the Transfiguration of Jesus. Jesus became vividly bright, and was accompanied by both Moses and Elijah. This event was witnessed by the apostles Peter, John(or Joan-gf), and James"
I feel the Paul vs Peter factions in conflict possibly a century or two ago may be more pivotal to understanding our true history than is realized.
I was curious why you called Paul "Lazarus"? I find this topic exciting so I hope you don't mind me prying into your well of knowledge. I am not challenging you on why you refer to Paul as Lazarus. I really am wondering if this topic can lead to some good revelations.
Responses To This Message
© Charles N. Pope, US Library of Congress. All rights reserved.