[dangus]

How is it un-Catholic to show that Jesus was asserting monotheism? How does it support the "Zoro is the soources of all" if I am showing how Zoroastrianism is opposed to Christianity?

>>Perhaps you have some unorthodox reasoning that is just not apparent to me.<<

I trust you mean unorthodox as in "unusual" and not as in "heterodox," right? ;^)

[broadsword]

I trust you mean unorthodox as in "unusual" and not as in "heterodox," right?

Of course, my friend. I am not one of those "You're an SSPXer!" screamers. Just unusual, as you guessed. I am in total disagreement with what I understand you take on the passage to be, though.

He was asserting that in contradiction to the notion that the devils would only obey Satan. The pharisees needed that explained to them, since they had fallen into thinking in dualistic terms.

I don't think the Jews were dualists. I don't think they believed that God Almighty did not have a power over the devils. They were trying to discredit Jesus by accusing Him of being in cahoots with the devil and putting on a show to deceive folks.

At any rate, you and I see it differently. We could go on asserting the same arguments over and over, but it serves no purpose.

Dominus vobiscum

Jesse

[nmh]

There are many things you state that trouble me but I think the root premise of Zoro being around first is a premise you need to check into first since it is false. From there I believe alot of your ideas will corrected.

Feel free to sue the timeline I already gave you that clearly indicates that Zoro people originated AFTER the Bible was written. So there is no way that Zoro beliefs influenced Christianity since the Bible was written BEFORE Zoro people were around to try and corrupt Judeo Christian teachings.