Is Jesus The Anti-Christ?

[Joshpantera]

Yes, much of the old shit has been rehashed and repackaged into a new religion called 'Christianity'.  It's nothing like the 'way' that Jesus proclaimed, or the early disciples.

Let's consider this then. This is a very common apology that various groups like to make - that they know the way that Jesus proclaimed and all others are mistaken. But, BC, how in the world does anyone suppose that they know the "way" that Jesus proclaimed or the early disciples when there's zero contemporary evidence or literature to turn to when facing this question?

 

We have only 2nd century bits and pieces of manuscript to sort through at the very earliest. And what's more is that the accounts that are available for consideration largely contradict one another about who or what Jesus may or may not have been. In one sense he's the prince of piece and then suddenly he's not here to bring peace but a sword and to turn families agaist one another and cause turmoil on the earth. In short, different writers offered different ideas about what a messiah ought to be depending on the perspective and it was all tossed in together as the gospel story. Apologists have been trying to reconcile it every since but to no avail.

 

God is only love in the sense that God is human idea based on projecting human thoughts, feelings, and emotions onto the mystery of the great unknown. God is just as much hate as God is love though. This too is expressed in the NT where Jesus is love in some areas but then contrasts to statements of people not being worthy of him unless they hate their families who reject his message and so on. It's altogether a pretty twisted patchwork of contradiction between one humans view of things verses another humans view of things. And of course things like trying to cherry pick the Bible for 'feel good' verses while disregarding the rest has indeed become quite popular among many sects and denominations as you suggest. But at the end of the day cherry picking verses is just that, whether growing in popularity or otherwise.

 

It can only be a small fraction of what the myth in question is actually trying to suggest.  

 

People have cherry picked the negative verses in order to justify things like the Spanish Inquisition and so on. Once again, it's not that the Bible is directing hatred as the main thrust of it's message, but it sure as hell is a part of it nonetheless. It's misogynistic, pro-slavery, pro-rape in some cases, pro-castration and also pro-love and pro-peace all at the same time.

 

And the only "way" of Jesus and the disciples that we have to analyze whatsover are the "ways" described in scripture, which, can vary from one extremity to the other.

 

 

So if I speak favourably of Jesus really (UR is a secondary issue), it's because I'm holding out hope there is a God, however he/it has been understood throughout human history.  If this God was real, then as humans developed and evolved, their understanding of 'him' would alter with time.  I see Jesus as the culmination of 'explaining' this God.  He sums God up in 'love'. 

 

The way I see it, as one of the more ancient deconverts around here, is that mankind has produced religious texts which are a reflection of man grasping towards the great unknown and projecting human thoughts and emotions onto it. Love is very much one of these various projections as well as hatred and jealousy and so on.  

 

Jesus sums up God as love and then turns around and demands hatred at the same time.

 

Does God love sin?

 

Does God love idolatry?

 

If God were love, period, bottom line and end of story, then we'd expect a complete absence of any other emotion aside from love wouldn't we?

 

To give a truthful summary of scripture one would have to declare that 'God is partially love in some cases but not others.'

 

So as you can see there are deeper problems surrounding this issue that you may or may not have ever had to face head on in your own mind.

 

 

It seems to be leading to the idea that I can be a follower of Jesus in principle.  That's why I couldn't mock Jesus.  Even if he isn't real, I love him as a person who might have lived and died for loving people, healing them, feeding them and trying to comfort them and give them a hope and a future.   

 

This all sounds quite resonable if in fact (1) an historical Jesus did exist and (2) did only good for people. But the collected evidence involves psycho cult leader characterists as well such as demanding that people leave their families if the said families refuse to accept him. This is true of just about any psycho to be honest. A bit of charity and "works" never seems to justify the dark side of the coin.

 

But I don't think that Jesus was a man of love or hate, I don't think Jesus was any one fixed man at all. I think that Jesus is a composite character within the context of a mythology consisting of various prophet types of the day, some emphasizing love and others gloom and doom and cultish characerists based on "end times." The character sort of encapsulates all of the popular messianic themes of the time and covers the entire range of human emotion, because, that's what a hero character that is supposed to represent or symbolize mankind at large, humanity in general, within the context of a mythology, would be expected to appeal to. Everyone can find something or another in the myth to relate to and indeed people throughout history have picked up on one part or another of the myth and claimed that the 'real Jesus' is, surprisingly, just like them! lol

 

More food for thought...

 

You might want to have a look at a thread which touches and expands more on this issue: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/56146-god-speaking-in-the-bible-why-doesnt-people-question-this/

[centauri]

The reason I started this thread was because I felt (don't have 'proof', just a hunch) that Jesus could actually be identified by scripture as an anti-christ (or at least a false prophet) and wanted to explore this possibility. I don't have a problem going there.. but I can see and understand that some might.

 

I'm interested to see where this goes.

 

Peace!

Rather than an anti-christ or (anti anointed), I tend to think of Jesus as a messianic impostor and a false prophet.

He claimed to be the expected king messiah while he lacked the qualifications and failed to perform the job requirements.

The "second coming" is the rationalization of a messianic failure.

For Christians that love to find fulfillments for Jesus from the OT, this classic is one that Christians laugh at, but it's no less valid than turning Isa 7:14 into a prophecy of Jesus.

 

Isa 14:12-15(NIV)

How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!

You have been cast down to the earth,you who once laid low the nations!

You said in your heart,“I will ascend to the heavens;

I will raise my throne above the stars of God;

I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.

I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”

But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit.

 

Rev 22:16(NIV)

“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

 

Jesus falsely claims to be the root offspring of David and also claims to be the Morning Star.

The archetype in Isa 14 fits Jesus rather well, a usurper who desires to be raise himself up to an exalted level on par with God but in the end is brought down to the realm of the dead, never making good on his promise of a return.

Jesus claimed that he would be seated as an equal to God(Matt 26:64).

Jesus claimed that he had ALL authority in heaven and on earth(Matt 28:18).

Jesus declared that nobody could come to God except through him(John 14: 6-7).

 

Ezek 32:4-9 and Ezek 28 has some stark imagery that could also fit Jesus.

Ezek 28:2-10

"Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre, Thus says the Lord God:

“Because your heart is proud, and you have said, ‘I am a god,

I sit in the seat of the gods,in the heart of the seas,’

yet you are but a man, and no god,though you make your heart like the heart of a god—

you are indeed wiser than Daniel; no secret is hidden from you;

by your wisdom and your understanding you have made wealth for yourself,

and have gathered gold and silver into your treasuries;

by your great wisdom in your trade you have increased your wealth,and your heart has become proud in your wealth—

therefore thus says the Lord God: Because you make your heart

like the heart of a god, therefore, behold, I will bring foreigners upon you,

the most ruthless of the nations; and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of your wisdom and defile your splendor.

They shall thrust you down into the pit, and you shall die the death of the slain in the heart of the seas.

Will you still say, ‘I am a god,’in the presence of those who kill you,

though you are but a man, and no god, in the hands of those who slay you?

You shall die the death of the uncircumcised by the hand of foreigners;

for I have spoken, declares the Lord God.”

 

Jesus died the death of common criminals at the hands of the Romans.

One can make a case that Jesus fits the imagery of these OT passages.

It's no less valid than Christians claiming Jesus fulfilled Isa 7:14, Hosea 11:1 or Isa 53.

 

 

[TheUnknown]

Interesting,

 

 

 

I'm not up on the UR stuff too much, but it seems to me that all apologetics are an exercise in sophistry, what I am familiar with anyway. Still, I believe that if you take ONLY scripture - it is apparent that Jesus is a false prophet, maybe the worst. It takes way to much twisting to make Jesus fit scripture... nope, it doesn't wash, and as Josh has said, it's actually a pretty shoddy job. (and think of all the editing time.. and they still mucked it up)

 

The modern myth of Jesus is pretty amazing actually... it doesn't even match scripture all that much as the majority of his questionable sayings are downplayed, and the disparity between what he preached and the OT is pretty much either ignored or explained away with feel good apologetics. Like it's blasphemous to even inquire into this stuff because his image might be sullied?

 

Actually i totally agree with this. Trying to make the facts fit in any Christian theology is just pure gerrymandering, and quite frankly an exercise in futility. I must be honest and didn't expect to find that Christianity itself could actually be a lie. The evidence for it being a lie seems to become more and more overwhelming though.

 

However, I can also understand where BlackCat is coming from as well. I too, found myself in a similar position for about 2 years after I'd deconverted in late 2009. It actually took me until late 2011 to finally accept that I'd had indeed deconverted. I also was trying to find merit in Christian universalism, but I realized that it also had it's own share of problems as well. For example if it's true, then why is all the suffering and evil necessary in the first place? At one point I argued with a Christian on another thread a few years ago whilst I still had a universalistic mindset and ended up having to lurk for a while because I didn't want to end up copping a double backlash from both the Christians and ex-Christians alike.

 

If I ever reconverted to Christianity again, it would be to Christian Universalism but in order to do that I'd have to somehow unsee what I've seen in the last couple of years. I have to say that it this point in time, it's highly unlikely.

[Guest r3alchild]

It's not just the blood... it's the entire concept of human sacrifice. It doesn't jive with the Levitical law at all: The explaining away of God's law is rampant throughout the NT, while giving it lip service and claiming the authority of Yahweh.

 

"Did the sacrifice of Jesus comply with God's holy law regarding a sin sacrifice where an animal is killed? Jesus stated that he came to fulfill, or make full the law of God (Matt 5:17-20). If this is true, then the sacrifice of Jesus must conform with the law of God, which he was living under as a Jew.

 

According to the law of God (Lev 4), a valid sin sacrifice contains the following elements.

 

* The animal must be a designated animal type, approved of for sacrifice by Yahweh.

* The animal must be physically unblemished.

* The sacrifice must be ritualized by a Levitical priest.

* The sacrifice is to die of blood loss.

* The sacrifice occurs at the officially designated place, the Tent of Meeting/Temple.

* The blood is poured out/sprinkled on the altar.

The human sacrifice of Jesus did not comply with any of these regulations and Jesus scores a perfect 0 out of 6 concerning these listed requirements. (One has to wonder why Yahweh would spend so much time on details of sacrifice in the OT just to have it completely ignored by the NT. Would God's will be thwarted? He was very, very specific about sacrifice in tons of passages from Abraham on down.. and his requirements for atonement for His people.. it doesn't make sense that the ultimate sacrifice would not be as He commanded it if it was really from Yahweh. Why spend all that time and give his prophets so much information on how to properly sacrifice just to throw it out and being so specific if it really didn't matter? The entire point of a sacrifice was that it be 'perfect'.. unblemished, and be offered on an altar and burnt - no sacrifice was ever crucified, ever. It would make more sense if Jesus' throat was cut and he was burned in the Temple.)

 

Particularly noteworthy is that Jesus was allegedly scourged and beaten (Matt 27:26-30).

Being physically injured is reason alone for disqualification as a sacrifice in the sin atonement ritual.

 

Lev 22:20,24

But whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer: for it shall not be acceptable for you.

Ye shall not offer unto the LORD that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut; neither shall ye make any offering thereof in your land.

 

No Levitical priest would have considered Jesus a valid sacrifice after he had be scourged and beaten. The New Testament also claims that every human being is cursed by the taint of inherited sin from Adam. Jesus clearly states that he was human. (ie: Son of Man)

 

"Rom 5:12

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

 

If Jesus is the sin sacrifice for the entire community, then he might be better portrayed as serving the function of the scapegoat involved in the ritual known as the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:5-34). The scapeGOAT (not a lamb!) was the animal upon whose head the sins of the community were placed. The scapegoat was not killed but was released in an uninhabited place.

 

Lev 16:21-22,30,34

And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:

And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.

And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.

 

As the scripture states, the scapegoat involved in the ritual known as the Day of Atonement carried the sins of the community on its head but wasn't killed. Since Jesus was not a goat and was killed, he doesn't remotely fit this form of sin "sacrifice" either. This is probably just as well because it wouldn't sound nearly as fluffy and righteous for Christians to declare that Jesus was the Goat of God, especially when goats were implied to represent sinners (Matt 25:31-33).

 

As is often the case with cults, calculated promotion and advertising are extensively used to create and reinforce certain perceptions and images, which in turn elevate the cult above other competing beliefs. It certainly doesn't sound holy to declare: "Behold the Goat of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

 

In any event, the New Testament attempt to equate Jesus with a Passover lamb (which in reality wasn't a singular animal nor even a sin sacrifice), makes a shambles of God's law as specified in the Old Testament. Ironically, the New Testament character who most closely matches the scapegoat is the criminal Barabbas, who was released into the world after being locked up in prison (Matt 27:15-26).

 

The author of the Book of Hebrews also gets into the act and contributes to the New Testament distortions of the Old Testament by declaring that the sin sacrifice of Jesus not only provides remission for past sins, but preemptively atones for sins yet to be committed in the future.

 

Heb 10:10,12,18

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

 

This is truly a one size fits all savior! Too bad none of it conforms with God's law. It's more creative doctrine manufacturing, which tries to wear a mask of endorsement, by basing itself loosely on the Old Testament. In reality, it writes a new script and recipe for salvation in order to elevate, advertise, and promote the new cult savior called Jesus.

 

Where does the Torah say that a sin sacrifice could atone for sins that were committed at some future time? According to God's law a sin sacrifice does not atone for sins that have yet to be committed. For example, God instructs that the Day of Atonement sin ritual be observed throughout all generations and is to be conducted every year.

 

Lev 16:34

And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.

 

If sin could be preemptively atoned for, then this ritual would only have to be performed once and not each year as God clearly instructs. The sin rituals in Lev 4 are also for the remission of past sins and do not atone for future sins.

 

Also contrary to the claim made by the author of Hebrews, the Old Testament states that in the messianic era, when the third Temple is built, sin sacrifices will not have been done away but will still occur (Ezek 43:21-27). Another claim made by the author of Hebrews was that the Levitical priesthood was ended by Jesus (Heb 7:11-28). This is another false claim on the part of a New Testament writer.

 

According to God's word from the Old Testament, the priesthood was promised exclusively to the Levites, the descendants of Aaron (Exo 29:4-9). In the messianic era, the Levites would occupy the priesthood, not Jesus.

 

Jer 33:18

Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.

 

Once again, the Old Testament is ignored if it conflicts with the theological agenda of a Christian writer.

 

Christians will often attempt to rationalize the failure of Jesus to comply with the law by claiming that Jesus ushered in the new covenant. They also often claim that God did away with his "old" laws and that faith in Jesus as a sin sacrifice is now the new system that God put in place. This rationalization is blatantly dishonest as it attempts to rewrite the definition of the new covenant.

 

The definition of the new covenant is found in Jer 31:27-37, and that text says absolutely nothing about God's laws being ended or replaced by a new system which requires faith in a human "sin" sacrifice. The new covenant, as defined by Jer 31:17-37, is where God's laws will be reaffirmed under a new contract. If Christians want to claim that God's laws were to be replaced by faith in a human sacrifice, they can validate the claim by finding the verses in Jer 31 which say that. They'll be looking a long time, for there are no verses in Jer 31:27-37 to support such a claim.

 

In retrospect, the New Testament creation of Jesus as the "Lamb of God" and a perfect sacrifice for the sins of all humanity relies on embellishments that are not supported by the scripture of the Old Testament. Embellished stories tend to become more complex and more detailed as time goes on, and the evolution of Jesus is no exception. Christianity grafted itself onto the Hebrew scriptures and proceeded to construct a new religion.

 

The Christian attempt to mold Jesus into a one size fits all savior requires a rank dismissal of and disregard for the laws given by God. The law of God is declared perfect in Psa 19:7. The law of God is declared everlasting in Psa 119:152,160 and Psa 111:7-8.

 

God gave clear instructions for his followers not to tamper with his law by attempting to add qualifiers or by taking away parts that don't suit their whims.

 

Deut 4:2

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

 

Yet, the desires of Christians to have for themselves a cult icon called "Jesus" as a perfect sacrifice for their sins is more important than doing the hard work of reading and obeying God's laws. The core Christian doctrine, which proclaims that Jesus was God's officially approved sin sacrifice for the world, is a manufactured, pious fraud if the Old Testament is to be taken seriously as the word of God."

 

~ source; http://www.losingmyreligion.com/essays/brad/lambofgod.htm

That was a real good read

[BlackCat]

Interesting,

 

The Ugarit texts themselves blow the entire thing out of the water... the original 'creator' god wasn't even Yahweh, but the Canaanite high god, El, (El Elyon, El Shaddai, et al)  Yahweh was one of his 70 sons, along with Ba'al (fertility god) [which explains a lot of the rivalry obvious in the OT between Yahweh and Ba'al] Yahweh even took El's consort for his own (and it seems Ba'al did as well at one point, Asherah).  

This would seem to explain why 'Elohim' is used in some verses e.g 'let us make man in our image'.  There are verses that seem to suggest 'glorious ones'.  This may explain what the trinity doesn't:  Could it be that Jesus is the personification of Yahweh, and the Father is El??  Just a thought.  I'm still studying this 'history of God' and so I'll hold fire til I've read Karen Armstrong's book. 

 

 

I'm not up on the UR stuff too much, but it seems to me that all apologetics are an exercise in sophistry, what I am familiar with anyway.  I think if you checked UR out even briefly, you'd be pleasantly surprised.  I posted a thread on this theology forum about UR and in the OP there is a short video about it, which is very funny too. Still, I believe that if you take ONLY scripture - it is apparent that Jesus is a false prophet, maybe the worst. It takes way to much twisting to make Jesus fit scripture... nope, it doesn't wash, and as Josh has said, it's actually a pretty shoddy job. (and think of all the editing time.. and they still mucked it up)   Now I must disagree very strongly.   It would take hours and hours to go through such a subject.

 

The modern myth of Jesus is pretty amazing actually... it doesn't even match scripture all that much as the majority of his questionable sayings are downplayed, and the disparity between what he preached and the OT is pretty much either ignored or explained away with feel good apologetics. Like it's blasphemous to even inquire into this stuff because his image might be sullied?  When I studied the Hebrew roots of early Christianity (as opposed to the Greek roots of later Christianity), and the translation issues that hide the meaning of Jesus' sayings, in many instances, plus not understanding cultural practices, it struck me, that when we read the gospels in our modern languages, we are only understanding it in a 2D way.  Once you understand word nuances and how some words are completely mistranslated, etc, it then becomes 3D: it comes alive.  An example is where Jesus says to 'hate your Father and Mother'.  Our word 'hate' conveys the wrong meaning.   Our language English doesn't always do justice to the Greek.

 

Well, like any public figure I think it's important to take a good hard look at this person who has won the hearts and minds of so many and see what's behind the curtain... because the truth of the matter is he wasn't all that nice, and his claims are against Yahweh's scripture and laws.  The only instances where Jesus is talking about 'hell fire', he isn't talking about hell at all- yet another mistranslation.  He talked a lot about the fires of Gehenna, a real place- the local rubbish dump, and he used this hyperbolic, judgmental language against the religious leaders, who were on a par with the snake oil preachers of our day.  They were not loving the people, but were in it for the money and 'honour'.  I don't recall Jesus saying anything against the Torah- he deliberately set out to expose man made applications to Torah, and to expose the wrong motives.  He did not break Torah.

 

Of course since I don't subscribe to a god/man, or to Yahweh... it's an intellectual exercise for me... but I do empathize with those for whom this is hard to hear... even in the midst of, or early into deconversion... because the myth is pretty powerful... I know.  I think for me, it's more than just an intellectual exercise- I'm still wondering if there's any truth to any of it.  It's good to examine these things. 

 

I delved into gnosticism for a while so this isn't really news to me, at least the concept that the 'god' we think we know may not be the right one (The Nag Hammadi has more on this, quite fascinating - but it seems to me a derivative of Zoroastrianism, still it's an intriguing concept).

 

The reason I started this thread was because I felt (don't have 'proof', just a hunch) that Jesus could actually be identified by scripture as an anti-christ (or at least a false prophet) and wanted to explore this possibility. I don't have a problem going there.. but I can see and understand that some might.

It's good to test these things.

I'm interested to see where this goes.

 

Peace!

Peace to you. 

[BlackCat]

Let's consider this then. This is a very common apology that various groups like to make - that they know the way that Jesus proclaimed and all others are mistaken. But, BC, how in the world does anyone suppose that they know the "way" that Jesus proclaimed or the early disciples when there's zero contemporary evidence or literature to turn to when facing this question? 

The 'way' that Jesus speaks of ,gels with my 'soul'.  Here's a crude analogy: there are lots of different styles of music.  I like lots of different kinds.  When I first heard some music by a folk singer called Kate Rusby, I was instantly struck by the music and lyrics.  It effected me by stilling my spirit (for want of a better word) and made me feel very peaceful and happy.  When I read the gospels, they have a similar effect: they touch something deep in me, that I understand to be a recognition of truth.  So I suppose, we each have an idea of what the 'way' is. 

 

We have only 2nd century bits and pieces of manuscript to sort through at the very earliest. And what's more is that the accounts that are available for consideration largely contradict one another about who or what Jesus may or may not have been. In one sense he's the prince of piece and then suddenly he's not here to bring peace but a sword and to turn families agaist one another and cause turmoil on the earth. In short, different writers offered different ideas about what a messiah ought to be depending on the perspective and it was all tossed in together as the gospel story. Apologists have been trying to reconcile it every since but to no avail.  I don't see the inconsistencies as the problem they are meant to be.   Jesus can be the Prince of Peace (he supposedly did not take up arms against the Romans) and acknowledge that by following him it may bring turmoil to your family life, which does happen in families where not all are believers and some may have relgious beliefs that cause persecution to the believer in Jesus. 

 

God is only love in the sense that God is human idea based on projecting human thoughts, feelings, and emotions onto the mystery of the great unknown. God is just as much hate as God is love though. This too is expressed in the NT where Jesus is love in some areas but then contrasts to statements of people not being worthy of him unless they hate their families who reject his message and so on. It's altogether a pretty twisted patchwork of contradiction between one humans view of things verses another humans view of things. And of course things like trying to cherry pick the Bible for 'feel good' verses while disregarding the rest has indeed become quite popular among many sects and denominations as you suggest. But at the end of the day cherry picking verses is just that, whether growing in popularity or otherwise.  Love exists, and so the idea of an 'eternal' love seems to  be leading to the idea of 'God'.  Hate also exists.  I have no problem with this mixture.  Our reality produces love and hate.  Jesus was a man who got pissed off.  He was never maliciously evil.  He didn't tell people to hate their families, as I mentioned to Ravenstar.  Check out the Greek word.  If Jesus told us to love our enemies, then it would be crazy for him to be telling us to actually hate our families.  His point, (which I never achieved) was to put him first, before any other human.  I couldn't do that, as he wasn't real enough to me, and I love my family more.  I'm sure if he's real, he understands that.   Paul and Peter and the others 'did' put Jesus first, and were all martyred supposedly. 

 

It can only be a small fraction of what the myth in question is actually trying to suggest.  

 

People have cherry picked the negative verses in order to justify things like the Spanish Inquisition and so on. Once again, it's not that the Bible is directing hatred as the main thrust of it's message, but it sure as hell is a part of it nonetheless. It's misogynistic, pro-slavery, pro-rape in some cases, pro-castration and also pro-love and pro-peace all at the same time.  Yes, it reflects how man behaves, in the name of the God they serve.  If the only 'Christian' record that remained in a thousand years, was an account of the Crusades, no doubt people would have a very bad idea about Jesus.  The same thing that drove the religious leaders of Jesus' day, (killing people to maintain power and money) was no doubt the cause of all the evil done in the name of any religion. 

 

And the only "way" of Jesus and the disciples that we have to analyze whatsover are the "ways" described in scripture, which, can vary from one extremity to the other.  Just like the music I mentioned earlier, as I read the bible, any 'discordant' notes that sound, I tend to discard and the beautiful notes that are left, are enough to form a song.   I can't avoid that.  I have to go by my own inner conscience and 'listen to my heart'.

 

 

 

 

The way I see it, as one of the more ancient deconverts around here, is that mankind has produced religious texts which are a reflection of man grasping towards the great unknown and projecting human thoughts and emotions onto it. Love is very much one of these various projections as well as hatred and jealousy and so on.  That is most likely what has happened.

 

Jesus sums up God as love and then turns around and demands hatred at the same time.  No he doesn't.    Actually, yes.  It's good to hate what is bad, but he doesn't want anyone to hate what we should love e.g love our enemies, turn the othe cheek.

 

Does God love sin?  No one likes mistakes.

 

Does God love idolatry? I suppose it would be like me loving my husband's friend more than my husband or me saying, can I have two husbands? I don't think my husband would be very happy, and I would understand that.   Edit:  actually that is a silly answer.  I suppose Yahweh didn't want people putting their energies into 'the things made' rather than the 'maker'.

 

If God were love, period, bottom line and end of story, then we'd expect a complete absence of any other emotion aside from love wouldn't we? No.  Love surely incorporates everything that is needed or 'good'.  Love is probably something we dont' fully understand or can define exactly.

 

To give a truthful summary of scripture one would have to declare that 'God is partially love in some cases but not others.'  Yes.  God acts in ways that we would say are 'evil'.  The bible confirms this 'God creates 'ra'- evil.  This is understandable when we see how the material universe has to operate. 

 

So as you can see there are deeper problems surrounding this issue that you may or may not have ever had to face head on in your own mind.

Yes.  There sure are.

 

 

 

This all sounds quite resonable if in fact (1) an historical Jesus did exist and (2) did only good for people. But the collected evidence involves psycho cult leader characterists as well such as demanding that people leave their families if the said families refuse to accept him. This is true of just about any psycho to be honest. A bit of charity and "works" never seems to justify the dark side of the coin.  I think Jesus is misunderstood here.  He doesn't command people to leave their families and follow him.  He did invite the disciples to join him 'follow me' was what a rabbi would have told a hopeful student who hoped to 'follow' that particular rabbi.  These 'fishermen' who were not learned in the law, would have been amazed that a rabbi would say 'follow me'.  I'm sure they were eager to do so.  Jesus doesn't force people to give all their riches away.  He said that to the rich young man to test him, as he knew that money was too important for this particular person.  I could go on......

 

But I don't think that Jesus was a man of love or hate, I don't think Jesus was any one fixed man at all. I think that Jesus is a composite character within the context of a mythology consisting of various prophet types of the day, some emphasizing love and others gloom and doom and cultish characerists based on "end times." The character sort of encapsulates all of the popular messianic themes of the time and covers the entire range of human emotion, because, that's what a hero character that is supposed to represent or symbolize mankind at large, humanity in general, within the context of a mythology, would be expected to appeal to. Everyone can find something or another in the myth to relate to and indeed people throughout history have picked up on one part or another of the myth and claimed that the 'real Jesus' is, surprisingly, just like them! lol  Possibly.  We shall see.....

 

More food for thought...

 

You might want to have a look at a thread which touches and expands more on this issue: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/56146-god-speaking-in-the-bible-why-doesnt-people-question-this/

I will check this out.  Thank you.   

[BlackCat]

Rather than an anti-christ or (anti anointed), I tend to think of Jesus as a messianic impostor and a false prophet.

He claimed to be the expected king messiah while he lacked the qualifications and failed to perform the job requirements.

The "second coming" is the rationalization of a messianic failure.

For Christians that love to find fulfillments for Jesus from the OT, this classic is one that Christians laugh at, but it's no less valid than turning Isa 7:14 into a prophecy of Jesus.

 

Isa 14:12-15(NIV)

How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!

You have been cast down to the earth,you who once laid low the nations!

You said in your heart,“I will ascend to the heavens;

I will raise my throne above the stars of God;

I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.

I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”

But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit.

 

Rev 22:16(NIV)

“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

 

Jesus falsely claims to be the root offspring of David and also claims to be the Morning Star.

The archetype in Isa 14 fits Jesus rather well, a usurper who desires to be raise himself up to an exalted level on par with God but in the end is brought down to the realm of the dead, never making good on his promise of a return.  So is it not possible and plausible that the 'usurper' could be the one usurping the role of 'bright morning star'?  This 'usurper is a human king of that time, if memory serves me right, and has nothing to do with Satan.  Google this verse.  There's lots of interesting information.     I agree he doesn't seem to have made good his promise to return.  That is my stumbling block.  Why is he taking so long?  He did indicate in his parables that he'd go away for a long time.  This is one of the things I lost faith in: his promised return. 

Jesus claimed that he would be seated as an equal to God(Matt 26:64).   he said he would be seated at God's right hand.  Like Joseph was Pharoah's right hand man.   Joseph was a 'type' of Jesus.   

Jesus claimed that he had ALL authority in heaven and on earth(Matt 28:18).  Phaorah gave all authority to Joseph, but we assume that authority didn't go higher than Pharoah.  ''For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has

been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself,'' 1 Cor 15:27.

Jesus declared that nobody could come to God except through him(John 14: 6-7).  This is a big claim.  Before Jesus, people could only come to God through the Mosaic 'system' or when the priests and High priest made sacrifices.  Man needed a mediator then and Jesus is saying that He is the ultimate mediator. 

 

Ezek 32:4-9 and Ezek 28 has some stark imagery that could also fit Jesus.

Ezek 28:2-10

"Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre, Thus says the Lord God:

“Because your heart is proud, and you have said, ‘I am a god,

I sit in the seat of the gods,in the heart of the seas,’

yet you are but a man, and no god,though you make your heart like the heart of a god—

you are indeed wiser than Daniel; no secret is hidden from you;

by your wisdom and your understanding you have made wealth for yourself,

and have gathered gold and silver into your treasuries;  I don't recall Jesus having any material riches.

by your great wisdom in your trade you have increased your wealth,and your heart has become proud in your wealth—

therefore thus says the Lord God: Because you make your heart

like the heart of a god, therefore, behold, I will bring foreigners upon you,

the most ruthless of the nations; and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of your wisdom and defile your splendor.

They shall thrust you down into the pit, and you shall die the death of the slain in the heart of the seas.

Will you still say, ‘I am a god,’in the presence of those who kill you,

though you are but a man, and no god, in the hands of those who slay you?

You shall die the death of the uncircumcised by the hand of foreigners;

for I have spoken, declares the Lord God.”

 

Jesus died the death of common criminals at the hands of the Romans.  Which is why he is a stumbling block to most Jews. 

One can make a case that Jesus fits the imagery of these OT passages.  You could, but Jesus wasn't an earthly king with wealth.  He claimed to be God's son, not the Father.  This is an area I am not sure of, as I can see that if he is a 'son' he would be divine in some sense, but all through the gospel accounts, Jesus always humbles himself to the father and says, 'not my will, but yours'.  I don't believe in the trinity.  This has probably caused more stumbling as it misrepresents the son, and seems to elevate him to an equal position to the Father, but Jesus never gives that impression: 'I am going to my God and yours.....the Father is greater than I.....etc.'.

It's no less valid than Christians claiming Jesus fulfilled Isa 7:14, Hosea 11:1 or Isa 53.  I understand how some people think Jesus has been shoe horned to 'fit' with OT verses.  This is a big subject and there are many many verses, not just direct references, but there are many indirect references that you may not know of.  There seems to be layers of 'evidence' pointing to Jesus, or to a man who would be born at the time Jesus was and would die, etc etc.

 

 

[BlackCat]

 

Interesting,

 

 

 

I'm not up on the UR stuff too much, but it seems to me that all apologetics are an exercise in sophistry, what I am familiar with anyway. Still, I believe that if you take ONLY scripture - it is apparent that Jesus is a false prophet, maybe the worst. It takes way to much twisting to make Jesus fit scripture... nope, it doesn't wash, and as Josh has said, it's actually a pretty shoddy job. (and think of all the editing time.. and they still mucked it up)

 

The modern myth of Jesus is pretty amazing actually... it doesn't even match scripture all that much as the majority of his questionable sayings are downplayed, and the disparity between what he preached and the OT is pretty much either ignored or explained away with feel good apologetics. Like it's blasphemous to even inquire into this stuff because his image might be sullied?

 

Actually i totally agree with this. Trying to make the facts fit in any Christian theology is just pure gerrymandering, and quite frankly an exercise in futility. I must be honest and didn't expect to find that Christianity itself could actually be a lie. The evidence for it being a lie seems to become more and more overwhelming though.

 

However, I can also understand where BlackCat is coming from as well. I too, found myself in a similar position for about 2 years after I'd deconverted in late 2009. It actually took me until late 2011 to finally accept that I'd had indeed deconverted. I also was trying to find merit in Christian universalism, but I realized that it also had it's own share of problems as well. For example if it's true, then why is all the suffering and evil necessary in the first place? At one point I argued with a Christian on another thread a few years ago whilst I still had a universalistic mindset and ended up having to lurk for a while because I didn't want to end up copping a double backlash from both the Christians and ex-Christians alike.

 

If I ever reconverted to Christianity again, it would be to Christian Universalism but in order to do that I'd have to somehow unsee what I've seen in the last couple of years. I have to say that it this point in time, it's highly unlikely.

 

 

Thanks for your post.    I suppose I'm still in the process of establishing 'truth'.  There seems to be way too much 'good stuff', or 'stuff that makes sense' in the Bible,  for me to throw it all out in one fell swoop.  I'm still hanging on to the bits that make sense.  UR makes the most sense, and more so because of all the suffering.  We all have to experience suffering- it's part of life.  What makes it all worth while is to think that the suffering is temporary (maybe to teach us stuff???) and like child birth- there is an end in sight and joy is the outcome.  Check out this video.  I can't imagine anyone not longing for this  :

 

[centauri]

 

Jesus claimed that he would be seated as an equal to God(Matt 26:64).   he said he would be seated at God's right hand.  Like Joseph was Pharoah's right hand man.   Joseph was a 'type' of Jesus.   

Jesus wasn't Joseph nor was he king according to the specifications required by the Hebrew scriptures.

Jesus claimed that he had ALL authority in heaven and on earth(Matt 28:18).  Phaorah gave all authority to Joseph, but we assume that authority didn't go higher than Pharoah.  ''For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has

been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself,'' 1 Cor 15:27.

As an impostor to the throne of David, he had not even earthly authority.

Jesus declared that nobody could come to God except through him(John 14: 6-7).  This is a big claim.  Before Jesus, people could only come to God through the Mosaic 'system' or when the priests and High priest made sacrifices.  Man needed a mediator then and Jesus is saying that He is the ultimate mediator. 

He wasn't even a valid king according to God's specifications.

Yahweh declared that he was the only savior, there are no others, and salvation came through obedience to his law.

The system didn't change, that's simply the claim made by Christians, which contradicts the edicts of the Old Testament.

and Ezek 28 has some stark imagery that could also fit Jesus.

Ezek 28:2-10

"Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre, Thus says the Lord God:

“Because your heart is proud, and you have said, ‘I am a god,

I sit in the seat of the gods,in the heart of the seas,’

yet you are but a man, and no god,though you make your heart like the heart of a god—

you are indeed wiser than Daniel; no secret is hidden from you;

by your wisdom and your understanding you have made wealth for yourself,

and have gathered gold and silver into your treasuries;  I don't recall Jesus having any material riches.

Jesus was given material riches by the Magi at his birth.

Jesus died the death of common criminals at the hands of the Romans.  Which is why he is a stumbling block to most Jews. 

Well, since an expected king messiah was to actually sit on the throne and usher in a messianic era, rather than being killed, I'm not surprised they reject Jesus.

One can make a case that Jesus fits the imagery of these OT passages.  You could, but Jesus wasn't an earthly king with wealth.  He claimed to be God's son, not the Father.  This is an area I am not sure of, as I can see that if he is a 'son' he would be divine in some sense, but all through the gospel accounts, Jesus always humbles himself to the father and says, 'not my will, but yours'.  I don't believe in the trinity.  This has probably caused more stumbling as it misrepresents the son, and seems to elevate him to an equal position to the Father, but Jesus never gives that impression: 'I am going to my God and yours.....the Father is greater than I.....etc.'.

Trinitarians will provide verses where they say Jesus equates himself to God.

I'll leave the bantering back and forth about that to the experts.

It's no less valid than Christians claiming Jesus fulfilled Isa 7:14, Hosea 11:1 or Isa 53.  I understand how some people think Jesus has been shoe horned to 'fit' with OT verses.  This is a big subject and there are many many verses, not just direct references, but there are many indirect references that you may not know of.  There seems to be layers of 'evidence' pointing to Jesus, or to a man who would be born at the time Jesus was and would die, etc etc.

In another post you wrote this:

"I don't recall Jesus saying anything against the Torah- he deliberately set out to expose man made applications to Torah, and to expose the wrong motives. He did not break Torah."

 

Jesus undermined the dietary law in Mark 7.

All foods are not clean.

 

As I wrote earlier, you can believe anything that makes you feel good.

You're enamored with the Jesus character that you've molded for yourself.

If it works for you that's great, but it's nothing more than opinion to me.

The evidence I studied paints a far different picture.

[Joshpantera]

Jesus can be the Prince of Peace (he supposedly did not take up arms against the Romans) and acknowledge that by following him it may bring turmoil to your family life, which does happen in families where not all are believers and some may have relgious beliefs that cause persecution to the believer in Jesus. 

 

Let's have a look at Matthew 10:

 

 

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it."

 

This is pretty standard psycho cult leader babble, or shall we say Babylon? 

 

We're looking at what some have termed "Psycho Jesus" which is but one of his many split personalities. I realize that apologists have long sought to side step this ridiculousness in the Bible but as said before, in the end it's to no avail. This is quite frankly in response to people getting the idea that Jesus came to bring "peace on earth," perhaps due to the messages of peace found in the gospel tale. This is a correction and a rather harsh one at that. For those who got off thinking I came to bring peace on earth, you're wrong, I have not come to bring peace but a sword. Telling Peter to put down the sword has no bearing on this contradiction. They have this character both telling Peter to put down the sword and also claiming to be the one bringing the sword nonetheless.  

 

Now pay closer attention to the dialogue, BC.

 

This is supposed to be Jesus talking to others. So why in the hell would Jesus be talking to people about taking up their "crosses" and following him before he ever went to the cross and there's no relevant context at the time in question in which to suggest to any one that they even should take up a cross? This is obviously written not by any 'eye witness' to anything that an actual historical Jesus really said or did, this is obviously the mad ramblings of an anonymously written book which was later entitled "Matthew" more towards the end of the 2nd century CE.  

 

It takes a while to catch on to what's going on in the gospel myths but once you do start to catch on these little things tend to jump out at you after a while. Such as Matthew saying in his gospel, 'and the one they called Matthew...'  And before long you can see through the Christian lenses we were all raised with, along with their biased focus knobs, and then began to see just how shoddy the literature actually is with an unreligoiusly biased eye.

 

For what it's worth I do understand that the Jesus myth can be interpreted in many different ways. A lot of people resort to mystical ways of reading it as a spiritual lesson and approach it from a more Gnostic type of perspective instead of just trashing the whole thing and tossing it out. A lot of Campbellian's lean towards a metaphorical approach and just accept the Gospel fable in terms of a classical "Heros Journey" tale full of all of the trappings that humans feel so drawn towards. Whether Krishna, Buddha, or Christ, same basic themes apply and they are meant to relay mystical type of realizations that have no real dependence on historicity when coming from that comparative mythological angle. 

 

So Biblical criticism doesn't always lead to throwing the baby out the with bathwater and I don't think that what we've been discussing here suggests that it should. It just depends on what you consider the baby of the myth to be and then what is the bathwater which is to get tossed out? 

 

 

This all sounds quite resonable if in fact (1) an historical Jesus did exist and (2) did only good for people. But the collected evidence involves psycho cult leader characterists as well such as demanding that people leave their families if the said families refuse to accept him. This is true of just about any psycho to be honest. A bit of charity and "works" never seems to justify the dark side of the coin.  I think Jesus is misunderstood here.  He doesn't command people to leave their families and follow him.  He did invite the disciples to join him 'follow me' was what a rabbi would have told a hopeful student who hoped to 'follow' that particular rabbi.  These 'fishermen' who were not learned in the law, would have been amazed that a rabbi would say 'follow me'.  I'm sure they were eager to do so.  Jesus doesn't force people to give all their riches away.  He said that to the rich young man to test him, as he knew that money was too important for this particular person.  I could go on......

In Matthew 10 the anonymous writer putting words into the character of Jesus' mouth doesn't come right out and have Jesus demanding that people leave their families to follow him if the families are opposed to Jesus, but it is certainly insinuated by the tone of the dialogue. This writer sees Jesus coming to cause turmoil and shake things up to the point of pinning family members against one another. What is the logical outcome? Staying together in a house as mortal enemies or an inevitable separation?

 

Your comments seem to stray away from the point being made to where I don't suppose that you really caught the drift of where I was going with it. 

 

The underlying problem is that it's far too questionable at this point to assume that Jesus actually said or did anything that is ascribed to him in the Gospel tale. Bart Ehrman would disagree and go on to state stripped down versions of the myth that might seem to suggest real sayings, but then again most of these can be contested by discovering the midrash dimension to a lot of it. Just about all of the main themes are lifted by quote mining the OT and these attempts are generally found to be taken way out of context as those of us who have been into this focus for years have been hinting at. Although we've merely scratched the surface so far. I guess I thought that you were further along with Karen Armstrong, Israel Finkelstein, and other issues raised in previous threads so I may have jumped too far ahead thinking that you could easily follow along. Some of these things I'm calling attention to require some more back ground reading and digestion than you've probably had time to get to yet. 

 

What we're saying here is that yes, we're familiar with how Christians have tried to twist the OT in their favor. That's the starting point that I believe everyone here participating started out with as a Christian. But moving forward from the first assumption we find that no, the NT is not actually in accord with the OT in the way the Christians would like to have it. You're response so far seems to be to go back to the first assumption and say "look everyone, the NT is in accord with the OT just look at these things predicted of Jesus." But we're quite a ways past that already. These things supposedly predicted were not necessarily so. 

 

And it's to the point where Ravenstar has decided to explore the possibly of Jesus being an anti-christ or false prophet because it's that far out of whack to where such a question can be raised. 

[Joshpantera]

Ravenstar, as to the topic of the thread let's continue with taking a look at this post:

 

 

Isa 14:12-15(NIV)

How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,you who once laid low the nations!
You said in your heart,“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.
I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”
But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit.

Rev 22:16(NIV)
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

 

This is all tied up in the astrological symbolism mystery school dimension of the texts in question, here's Robert Price on the matter: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJCxcez5U0M

 

Looking again at BC's first impression on this matter:

 

 

 

 This 'usurper is a human king of that time, if memory serves me right, and has nothing to do with Satan.

 

Actually, it seems to have something to do with creating the myth of Lucifer the fallen angel which was then transformed into a myth about Satan. And it's very astrological in orientation making a play off of the planet Venus as an arrogant little god shining bright and then getting blown away by the glory of the sun. Some people assume that by bright morning star Jesus is aligning with the sun as the bright morning star in Revelation, but at the same time this may be the case where Jesus is usurping the role of Lucifer as the planet Venus in previous myths. The name Jesus is actually sparse in Revelation and some believe that the names were interpolated into an older mystery school text about the end of the Great Year in the age of Aries as it was transformed into a Christianized context during the common era. That bit about the morning star may have been original to whatever the context of the mystery was directed at before having been Christianized. There's so much going on that it's hard to say anything with certainty. 

 

The only thing I find very certain about it is that clearly men were manipulating the content of religious texts in order to reflect their own personal opinions and then stamping these texts as authoritative and God inspired regardless of what contradictions they may contain. 

 

The above is an example of one of those strange parallels between Jesus and Satan to do exist in the Bible. I've been aware of it for a long time but I have yet to make complete sense of it. That's what makes this type of investigation all the more interesting. We may turn up some better answers than I've found so far as the result of everyone giving the issue depth and focus...

[Ravenstar]

I brought this up in another thread, but I forget which one. Satan/Lucifer and Jesus do have texts that apply to them both..and I have stated that both Satan and Jesus are identified as the Morning Star..

 

You could even look at the temptation as an inner struggle (with Jesus rejecting the 'wordly' title of King of the Jews - the actual awaited messiah - in favor of a more 'spiritual' goal.. but again it sounds like the justification of a cult leader).

 

(Egypt has many myths surrounding Venus, The planet Venus was called the "star of the ship of the Bennu-Asar" (Asar is the Egyptian name of Osiris - the Bennu was a bird associated with the Phoenix  ie: resurrection). [sirius is sometimes also called the morning star - and is associated with Isis - the goddess who resurrected Osiris after Set killed and dismembered him]

 

Of course we really get confused when it's obviously an older pantheon it's lifted from...  'Helel' is translated in Greek to Heophorus [Eosphorus, Son of Eos - Goddess of the dawn], or Phosphorus, (light-bringer or dawn-bringer) which translates in middle English to 'Lucifer'. Shahar is the Canaanite God of the Dawn, and Helel is his son. (son of dawn).

 

We also can't discount the influence of the Persians and Zoroastrianism, which the Hebrews would have been exposed to during the captivity in Babylon and their exposure to the Set/Osiris/Horus mythology. (another dying god/resurrection story) as well as hellenized themes. Now why would Jesus identify himself with these pagan themes?

 

[an aside: weirdly, sometimes Ba'al is identified as a sun god, but Shapash was the Canaanite goddess of the sun]

 

 

The Hebrew text was directly lifted from the original Canaanite texts as shown in the Ugaritic texts

Isaiah 14:12 (KJV with Hebrew)
"How art thou fallen from heaven,
O Helel, son of Shahar!
how art thou cut down to the ground,

Helel, or Day Star, is a Canaanite god. Shahar is another Canaanite god


Isaiah 14:12-15
"How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn [i.e., Helal, son of the god Shahar]!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!
You said in your heart,
`I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of El; I will sit on the Mount of Assembly on the heights of Zaphon
[the sacred mountain of El where the Assembly of the Gods met in council].
But you are brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the Pit"

Mt. Zaphon, also known as Mt. Casius, is located just north of Ugarit, a Canaanite city located in northern Palestine during the 13th and 14th centuries BCE about half a mile inland near the tip of Cyprus.

This information regarding the Ugarit polytheistic religion from which the Jews copied from or were part of. The Old Testament contains evidence of a polytheistic past where references were kept as the guardians of the monotheistic tradition may have forgotten what they were as the Jews moved from polytheism to monotheism from the time of the Captivity in Babylon.

The names of Helel, or Helal, Shahar and Mt. Zaphon, the site of Ba'al, in the Old Testament shows Judaism emerged from the Ugaritic polytheistic religion or copied the legends, prophecies and gods from the Ugaritic religion.

 

 

It seems to me, and I have no evidence/quotes yet but I'm sure it's there, that some of the scriptures read like they are smatterings of mystery school knowledge... like a child would write about advanced science concepts. They heard it but didn't fully understand it, or only had a layman's understanding. I absolutely agree with you about the similarities between Satan and Jesus.. there IS something there and I'm not sure what it means either but I think it's important.

 

I also truly believe that Paul was another cult leader...and a heck of a promoter for his own agenda... as the scripture attributed to him changes the entire tone of the Bible. Christianity is far more Pauline than Hebrew.

 

Another issue.. birthright/heredity was VERY important to the Hebrews. Bastards are not even allowed in the congregation... so since Jesus could not claim blood relation to Joseph that disqualifies him from claiming the throne of David right there. (Though through Mary he can claim to be a Jew).

 

BC... I get where you are coming from, I really do. I suggest however that you read some other religious/philosophical texts and compare the 'good stuff'. It's easy to think highly of something when that's the majority of what you've read or studied. But things like; The Law Code of Hammurabi, The Epic of Gilgamesh, Quetzacoatl, The Egyptian Pyramid texts, The Rig Vedas, Buddhism, Confucius, Aristotle, Plato, Marcus Aurelius...show that what we think of as 'biblical' stuff actually isn't. These things existed in many cultures and you will see that the Bible is actually pretty common (pedestrian) and in some areas not even as 'moral' or ethical as others. Read about the archetype of the dying/resurrected god (which comes from astrology and agriculture), the hero's journey and other themes that are VERY familiar around the world.

 

Once one has a grip on mythology it's easy to see that Jesus is a highly mythologized character.. whether there was a single man once called Jesus 2000 years ago or not - what's in christianity is an obvious composite of very popular and pretty much worldwide concepts of a savior god. He's not unique, at all, nor are his sayings. I too had this affection for the person I thought Jesus was.. I LOVED the idea of him. I still do - but I'm at a point where I realize that that idea was formed from cherry-picking, modern mythology, and a misunderstanding of the sources of the myth as well.

 

And... he still doesn't fit the OT requirements, as a king or a messiah, or a sacrifice, or even a scapegoat. Yahweh established his Law to create a people who were separate from their neighbors (the pagans) in very specific ways. The OT is clear that the law is perfect, and will not ever be changed or done away with, that only Yahweh is the savior of mankind and only through Yahweh will his people be able to live according to His laws.. because the LORD God is a jealous god! and will not share glory with anyone... nope, not even Jesus - at least that's what the OT says. (Though SHALT NOT have ANY gods before me - it's the very first one)... sounds pretty clear to me. I think we can also shred the whole triune god thing fairly easily.

 

(did you know that the word LORD, is actually Ba'al? and is not the same as EL, the "Most High". "Ba'al" can be a name or a title.. it means Lord, Master... etc...it's a territorial title)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal

 

 

I maintain my original position that Jesus is a false prophet or an anti-christ, according to scripture, and I believe the evidence supports this. I add to this that he may also be a pagan idol. I think the parallels between him and Satan are also VERY intriguing.

 

Thanks all!! Great stuff! will reply more when I have the time to give it my full attention.

 

[BlackCat]

I think what everyone's replies are showing me, is that I need to check all this stuff out properly.   I'll start with Karen Armstrong's 'A History of God'.  So no more theological musings from me for now.    

 

I will just say, that last night as I tried to get off to sleep, I was mulling over what we've been discussing and I suddenly felt very low and pissed off with theology.  I used to feel like this all the time when I was still going to church and trying to be a believer.  I haven't felt that negative way for a while now.  The stuff I've mainly discused on here i.e scientific stuff, has had a positive exhilarating effect.  Trying to understand the bible seems to screw my brain up.  I'd forgotten it did that. 

 

I'll let you all know how I get on with the book.

[Joshpantera]

Thanks for adding more depth to the Robert Price video, Ravenstar.

 

Many esoterics have pointed out that Revelation is an astrological drama about the ending in scale of one Platonic Great Year and may have Egyptian and Zoroastrian roots. From there it appears to reflect the Elusian mysteries and that may be where it funneled through John the Revelator in Asia Minor reworking the drama into a Christianized context as if it were a vision from God.

 

You could even look at the temptation as an inner struggle (with Jesus rejecting the 'wordly' title of King of the Jews - the actual awaited messiah - in favor of a more 'spiritual' goal.. but again it sounds like the justification of a cult leader).

 

This is interesting because if we approach this logically from a Hero Myth stand point, the Hero can represent humanity in general and therefore has a subconscious appeal to everyone. With that representation comes the inner struggle within all human beings between light and dark tendencies. So why might Jesus in some instances carry similar symbolism ascribed to Lucifer or Satan in other areas of scripture?

 

The simple explanation might be just that, for the purpose of expressing the human condition along the lines of any other mythology seek to do the same. I don't think that the NT writers meant to portray Jesus as the devil or a false prophet when they align the character with dark symbolism because they clearly saw the character as the victor over darkness. But with that victory the Hero does have to in some way interact with the dark forces and essentially over power them. Like I said, I've never been able to fully put my finger on this problem in any absolute sense. But there is definately something going on though.

 

Here's some more depth to issue.

 

When I came across the modern Christian Yahwists here in the states who rail against using "Jesus" and even "Yeshua" as a transliteration for Jesus in favor of "Yahshua" a few interesting things turned up in the process. Their point is that the Father and Son are both "Yah" and the emphasis is based on keeping close to the idea that Yahshua IS Yahweh in human form. In all of this I was looking at the tetragrammaton character by character for it's alphabetic and symbolic order.

 

But I stumbled into things that these Yahwists were not discussing at all.

 

- Yud, Heh, Vav, Heh (YHWH).

 

- To create, to reveal, to secure, to reveal.

 

In this way Yahshua comes in behind the tetragrammaton as a - no kidding - "pentagrammaton."

 

- Yud, Heh, Vav, Shin, Ayin (YHWSHO) - the Shin is rendered SH in English but the name remains a five character "pentagrammaton" in Hebrew.

 

- To create, to reveal, to secure, to consume / destroy, to see / to know / to experience.

 

Let's just look at YHWH as the God who creates the universe, a realm of existence is then revealed, it's secured for life to exist, and then something else is to be revealed later. That would be a round about way of looking at the symbolism of YHWH in Hebrew as more or less that which creates realms of existence for life and then "reveals" such and such to living beings. That seems more or less consistent with scripture.

 

But when we turn to Yahshua we find the same beginning but a different ending to the symbolism. Now suddenly we would have a realm of existence created, revealed, secured for life, and then life enters the picture because it's based on the consumption of other living things whether fruits, vegetables, or meats, and then finally self conscious life forms appear that must "consume / destroy" in order to survive and which are capable of 'seeing, knowing, and experiencing.' And what are living beings capable of 'seeing, knowing, and experiencing?' Good and evil as it turns out. I began to suspect that this mythology is layered far deeper than I had previously imagined.

 

And more importantly I began to see Jesus as an archetype for the human condition not unlike other archetypes of a similar fashion. They certainly layered this with solar symbolism too, which, is of course common to many other Hero Myth characters and would be expected. There's so many levels at work in the myth. On that note, when we approach verses like John 10:30 "I and my Father are one" which is the blasphemy charge that apparently sent Jesus to the cross, it can be interpreted as an attempt by mystical and learned hellenistic Jewish-like people to incorporate something along the lines of what we find in the east in the Upanishads and so on. There is a parallel going on here with the "thou art that" teaching in Advaita Vendanta. If Jesus is represent humanity, the church is the body of Christ and Christ and the Father are one, then the congregation is therefore merged together with the God of the mythology by means of the middle man symbolic representation. The God is "within you" in otherwords. Is this not the efforts of learned and mystical saavy writers attempting to bring about a type of enlightenment doctrine into a western Judaized framework?

 

We might consider that in previous cultures and the solar mysteries the sun was used as a symbol for the unseen creative force of the universe, or God, the sun had traditionally played the role of 'mediator' between humanity and the transcendent mystery force within the sun - and indeed all things - from which all of the universe arose. I've poured over lectures on the solar mysteries from Manly P. Hall and other esoterics just to get a grip on what it means to them.

 

Now it would seem that the Gospel writers have plugged in Jesus as an archetype for humanity in general ( "girt about the paps," male and female in his mystical presentation in Revelation)  into this formerly solar role and therefore sought to consume all of the previous mediator type solar attributes from Egypt and the near east into their Judaized presentation. They also worked in statementes like "No one goes to the Father but through me." That's precisely the role of the sun in the ancient solar mysteries. I find so much conscious thought and effort going into the gradual creation of this myth for these reasons and more.

 

But it didn't pass!

 

The Jews rejected the myth as utter nonsensem, heretical, and a blasphemy!

 

I keep thinking that the whole thing was based on hellenized Alexandrian and Asia Minor Jews who wanted to better integrate with the gentile cultures they lived in and slowly started producing works that were on one hand heavily layered with pagan mythology, and on the other hand bodly declaring that they are in perfect alignment with Jewish scripture and prophecy. It would seem that they wanted to convince the more orthodox Jews that what they were peddling is perfectly acceptable by Jewish standard.

 

*Not unlike what we see going on right now with liberal Christians who take off on their own wild fantasy wags like UR which to orthodox believers is completely apostate and openly deceptive in nature. They would ask, "who want's everyone to believe that even the devil can be saved? And the answer, of course, would be that the devil would like everyone to believe that even the devil can be saved regardless of what scripture may say that contradicts that analysis. It does not accord at all with scripture as a whole and those who are learned in scripture can clearly see that and will brand any such foolishness as apostate. That more or less presents a modern analogy similar to the struggle that may have been taking place between these hellenized Jews in the first few centries CE who were pushing apostate and heretical ideas as if they are in perfect accord with scripture, not only in accord with scripture but superior to the traditional orthodox interpretations.

 

And in the process it would seem that these hellenized Jewish types of the Roman Empire created a false prophet in the eyes of those learned enough in scripture to know better. The target audience became the illiterate, the poor, the weak, and basically those ignorant enough to fall for such a thing. And by golly that ignorance passed right down to our generations and we had no way of knowing the truth as Christian born children (for those of us who were born into this thing). They created a false prophet for what they thought were the right reasons - perhaps to bring enlightenment to Judaism which had previously lacked any such thing.

 

Oh Ravenstar, this thing runs deeper than we can probably ever reach in our lifetime...

[♦ ficino ♦]

Sorry guys, I can't escape the impression that Revelation was written by someone who was the ancient equivalent of the most picked-on kid in eighth grade.

[centauri]

I keep thinking that the whole thing was based on hellenized Alexandrian and Asia Minor Jews who wanted to better integrate with the gentile cultures they lived in and slowly started producing works that were on one hand heavily layered with pagan mythology, and on the other hand bodly declaring that they are in perfect alignment with Jewish scripture and prophecy. It would seem that they wanted to convince the more orthodox Jews that what they were peddling is perfectly acceptable by Jewish standard.

After I read some of the works of Philo of Alexandria, I came to the conclusion that the melding of Greek and Jewish spiritual concepts had a great deal to do with the beginnings of Christianity.

Philo , who was Jewish,lived at just the right time for his works to possibly have been read prior to Paul's epistles and the Gospels.

Philo wrote of the Logos and incorporated some Greek concepts into his thesis.

Christianity opened the door to gentiles by picking and choosing which laws were applicable, even to the extent of getting rid of the circumcision requirement and the food restrictions.

Considering the turmoil of the Jewish condition in the late 60's, with the destruction of the Temple and the diaspora that followed, Christianity was perfectly situated to fill the void or at least provide an appealing alternative.

[Joshpantera]

^Well said. 

 

 

[Ravenstar]

BC...  it's okay. I've been studying this stuff for most of my life and I'm a research-aholic (lol) and an Historian. As Josh mentions it is complicated and immense, and getting through the hubris surrounding it, especially if one has been indoctrinated, is like trying to swim in quicksand.

 

It is anger-provoking and depressing, to realize you've been lied to... by the (supposedly honest and educated) people you were told you could trust. You are extremely bright and a very quick learner - but some things take time to digest on an emotional level.

 

It's taken me many years to get where I am and be able to delve in without the emotional attachment I had to my formerly beloved ideals. Now, I find this as stimulating as you do the astrophysics (and BAA is a marvelous teacher), but it didn't happen overnight - and it sure didn't happen out of pure logical thought. I had to change my entire belief matrix about reality and my place in it and that took me a very long time.

 

Don't jump in here if it depresses you though. It's not worth it... see that's the neat thing about being an EX, you can choose what to put your attention on, what works for you, in your own time, and enhances your own life. No more being told, or guilted into anything.

 

I really appreciate your contributions to this thread. I learned things I didn't know before - and that's what it all about in the end.. humans sharing and communicating...

 

Thanks for adding more depth to the Robert Price video, Ravenstar.

 

Many esoterics have pointed out that Revelation is an astrological drama about the ending in scale of one Platonic Great Year and may have Egyptian and Zoroastrian roots. From there it appears to reflect the Elusian mysteries and that may be where it funneled through John the Revelator in Asia Minor reworking the drama into a Christianized context as if it were a vision from God.

Whenever you come across texts that have numbers like 7, and 12 and MULTIPLES (7 churches, 7 lamp stands, 12 tribes, 144 )... you are looking at astrological metaphors. The Bible is rife with astrological symbolism, as you have pointed out before... and even certain animals/characters point to the zodiac, and the great ages, lambs, bulls, fishes...etc... (virgins! hehe). Revelations is very much astrological, as well as a political commentary of Roman (where Rome takes on the 'cloak' of Babylon - a former enemy) rule and Emperor Nero. In the gospels it speaks of the Magi - who were the Magi? They were astrologers, probably from Persia. They are given quite a lot of respect/weight in the Bible... weird, because they would not have been jewish, and they were most certainly fortune-tellers and sorcerers.

 

You could even look at the temptation as an inner struggle (with Jesus rejecting the 'wordly' title of King of the Jews - the actual awaited messiah - in favor of a more 'spiritual' goal.. but again it sounds like the justification of a cult leader).

 

This is interesting because if we approach this logically from a Hero Myth stand point, the Hero can represent humanity in general and therefore has a subconscious appeal to everyone. With that representation comes the inner struggle within all human beings between light and dark tendencies. So why might Jesus in some instances carry similar symbolism ascribed to Lucifer or Satan in other areas of scripture?

 

The simple explanation might be just that, for the purpose of expressing the human condition along the lines of any other mythology seek to do the same. I don't think that the NT writers meant to portray Jesus as the devil or a false prophet when they align the character with dark symbolism because they clearly saw the character as the victor over darkness. But with that victory the Hero does have to in some way interact with the dark forces and essentially over power them. Like I said, I've never been able to fully put my finger on this problem in any absolute sense. But there is definately something going on though.

Reminds me of the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the struggle/relationship between the two main characters, one representing civilized man and the other the wilder, darker side...hmmmmm    I think there are very many parallels here with the archetype of the hero. Even the myth of Persephone touches it - though it is also a myth about agriculture and the cycles of nature - she has to 'descend' into darkness and come out again. Classic hero fare and allegory for the human condition. Satan respresent all hat is dark.. Jung's 'Shadow' so to speak....

Here's some more depth to issue.

 

When I came across the modern Christian Yahwists here in the states who rail against using "Jesus" and even "Yeshua" as a transliteration for Jesus in favor of "Yahshua" a few interesting things turned up in the process. Their point is that the Father and Son are both "Yah" and the emphasis is based on keeping close to the idea that Yahshua IS Yahweh in human form. In all of this I was looking at the tetragrammaton character by character for it's alphabetic and symbolic order.

 

But I stumbled into things that these Yahwists were not discussing at all.

 

- Yud, Heh, Vav, Heh (YHWH).

 

- To create, to reveal, to secure, to reveal.

 

In this way Yahshua comes in behind the tetragrammaton as a - no kidding - "pentagrammaton."

 

- Yud, Heh, Vav, Shin, Ayin (YHWSHO) - the Shin is rendered SH in English but the name remains a five character "pentagrammaton" in Hebrew.

 

- To create, to reveal, to secure, to consume / destroy, to see / to know / to experience.

 

Let's just look at YHWH as the God who creates the universe, a realm of existence is then revealed, it's secured for life to exist, and then something else is to be revealed later. That would be a round about way of looking at the symbolism of YHWH in Hebrew as more or less that which creates realms of existence for life and then "reveals" such and such to living beings. That seems more or less consistent with scripture.

 

But when we turn to Yahshua we find the same beginning but a different ending to the symbolism. Now suddenly we would have a realm of existence created, revealed, secured for life, and then life enters the picture because it's based on the consumption of other living things whether fruits, vegetables, or meats, and then finally self conscious life forms appear that must "consume / destroy" in order to survive and which are capable of 'seeing, knowing, and experiencing.' And what are living beings capable of 'seeing, knowing, and experiencing?' Good and evil as it turns out. I began to suspect that this mythology is layered far deeper than I had previously imagined.

Wow, didn't know that about the linguistic roots. These themes seem to come from very deep places in the human psyche. I suspect they have been with us for a lot longer than written history.

And more importantly I began to see Jesus as an archetype for the human condition not unlike other archetypes of a similar fashion. They certainly layered this with solar symbolism too, which, is of course common to many other Hero Myth characters and would be expected. There's so many levels at work in the myth. On that note, when we approach verses like John 10:30 "I and my Father are one" which is the blasphemy charge that apparently sent Jesus to the cross, it can be interpreted as an attempt by mystical and learned hellenistic Jewish-like people to incorporate something along the lines of what we find in the east in the Upanishads and so on. There is a parallel going on here with the "thou art that" teaching in Advaita Vendanta. If Jesus is represent humanity, the church is the body of Christ and Christ and the Father are one, then the congregation is therefore merged together with the God of the mythology by means of the middle man symbolic representation. The God is "within you" in otherwords. Is this not the efforts of learned and mystical saavy writers attempting to bring about a type of enlightenment doctrine into a western Judaized framework?

People forget that the ancients weren't exactly sheltered. There was an immense trade industry, with people moving around and interacting all over the place - some of the ancient cities are described as being very cosmopolitan (Alexandria being one where people came from all over the known world to study). I'm sure that Hindu ideology was absorbed as well as middle-eastern concepts. The OT never expresses the 'oneness' concept like the NT does.. it would have been blasphemous.. even Jesus states "Know ye not that ye are gods?".  !!!  No OT prophet would have said anything like that. So, I think you are onto something there - it's a decidedly Indian idea. (Brahma)

We might consider that in previous cultures and the solar mysteries the sun was used as a symbol for the unseen creative force of the universe, or God, the sun had traditionally played the role of 'mediator' between humanity and the transcendent mystery force within the sun - and indeed all things - from which all of the universe arose. I've poured over lectures on the solar mysteries from Manly P. Hall and other esoterics just to get a grip on what it means to them.

Jesus is apparently a solar deity... he is very similar to other solar deities (The SUN of God isn't too far of a stretch) His association with December 25th, and the spring equinox attests to that as well as other identifying traits. I also believe that there was some influence from Ahkenaten's rule and his foray into Monotheism/monolatry. The influence of Egypt on the Israelites is pretty strongly indicated in the OT.

Now it would seem that the Gospel writers have plugged in Jesus as an archetype for humanity in general ( "girt about the paps," male and female in his mystical presentation in Revelation)  into this formerly solar role and therefore sought to consume all of the previous mediator type solar attributes from Egypt and the near east into their Judaized presentation. They also worked in statementes like "No one goes to the Father but through me." That's precisely the role of the sun in the ancient solar mysteries. I find so much conscious thought and effort going into the gradual creation of this myth for these reasons and more.

Jesus is a strangely hermaphroditic character, isn't he (she?)  hahahah.. sorry, couldn't resist. But it makes sense when you realize that all around the Israelites was sun worship.. and some were male, some female. and... We come again to the psychological  'Anima/Animus' idea.. and the human condition and inner struggles. It's actually quite amazing that one character can embody so many esoteric truths/concepts.

 

I wonder if it was orchestrated though... but who knows what the mystery school adherents/hellenized jews chose to do. We know that Paul was most certainly a Hellenized character, and probably most of the NT writers, if not all.

But it didn't pass!

 

The Jews rejected the myth as utter nonsensem, heretical, and a blasphemy!

 

I keep thinking that the whole thing was based on hellenized Alexandrian and Asia Minor Jews who wanted to better integrate with the gentile cultures they lived in and slowly started producing works that were on one hand heavily layered with pagan mythology, and on the other hand bodly declaring that they are in perfect alignment with Jewish scripture and prophecy. It would seem that they wanted to convince the more orthodox Jews that what they were peddling is perfectly acceptable by Jewish standard.

Something really important happened after the fall of Israel/Judah and the loss of most of the tribes to history and the captivity in Babylon. (the Levites were the holders of the role between the people and Yahweh and they were effectively gone) The only tribe that really survived was Judah, and they were taken to Babylon.. during/after this we see the politicization of Judaism. The worship of Yahweh really changes after this, and then with the rise of Greek and Roman world we see the hellenization that you speak of.

*Not unlike what we see going on right now with liberal Christians who take off on their own wild fantasy wags like UR which to orthodox believers is completely apostate and openly deceptive in nature. They would ask, "who want's everyone to believe that even the devil can be saved? And the answer, of course, would be that the devil would like everyone to believe that even the devil can be saved regardless of what scripture may say that contradicts that analysis. It does not accord at all with scripture as a whole and those who are learned in scripture can clearly see that and will brand any such foolishness as apostate. That more or less presents a modern analogy similar to the struggle that may have been taking place between these hellenized Jews in the first few centries CE who were pushing apostate and heretical ideas as if they are in perfect accord with scripture, not only in accord with scripture but superior to the traditional orthodox interpretations.

 

And in the process it would seem that these hellenized Jewish types of the Roman Empire created a false prophet in the eyes of those learned enough in scripture to know better. The target audience became the illiterate, the poor, the weak, and basically those ignorant enough to fall for such a thing. And by golly that ignorance passed right down to our generations and we had no way of knowing the truth as Christian born children (for those of us who were born into this thing). They created a false prophet for what they thought were the right reasons - perhaps to bring enlightenment to Judaism which had previously lacked any such thing.

Think about who Jesus tells his followers to preach to? The downtrodden, the sick, the weak, the poor, the imprisoned... the cast out. Very vulnerable and uneducated people. We see in the writings of the learned pagans in the early centuries that they mocked christianity as barbaric and primitive. Interesting.

Oh Ravenstar, this thing runs deeper than we can probably ever reach in our lifetime...

It's like the study of evolution... it's a massive field that covers almost everything we know about life, and it's multi-disciplinary. There is no way for any one person to even get the knowledge base to make all the connections - but together I think we get closer to seeing the big picture.  

[Joshpantera]

Ravenstar, I've delved quite deep into the astromythological dimension (the 2nd function of a traditional mythology) over the years myself and I can see that you the have the sort of knowledge base to follow along with that type of mystery school  and astromythological analysis, so I'll go ahead cut loose with some more of what I've learned about it as we go along - I've bumped into some interesting leads that may assist this investigation.

 

Going back to the Lucifer thing for a moment, Someone recently posted this video about the evolution of Lucifer and Satan which goes a bit beyond the previous video I posted with Robert Price.

 

I'll go ahead and share it here because it's relevant to the discussion:

 

[Joshpantera]

Here's some more on Revelation:

 

“The book of Revelations bears a striking resemblance to the Book of Daniel in the Hebrew Scriptures. You will recall that Daniel was compiled about 165 BCE and it was taken from an older Babylonian book. There are also statements lifted directly from Ezekiel and Isaiah. The book of Revelations and the Gospel of John are the two most mystical books of the Christian Scriptures. Both are filled with mystic symbolism and numbers and both have a similar writing style. For example, the number 7 is the most mentioned number in Revelations (as well as the whole bible itself). In Revelations it is seen in the context of the 7 candle sticks representing the 7 known planets and the 7 seals representing the 7 ganglionic centers up the spine ( the 7 stations of Mithra). Remember that the Christian Scriptures were written in Greek after they were copied from earlier versions. You can also find the number 7 being very prominent in the Mithraic (Zoroastrian) Mysteries.

“and in the midst of the seven candlesticks (one) like unto the son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.” – Revelation

This description is claimed to be the mystical description of Jesus. There’s a small problem here. This comes with the last part of the verse: “…girt about the paps with a golden girdle.” The term “paps” here is a medieval term for female breasts. The Greek term which is being translated is “mastos” which also means female breasts. Men wore the girdle around the waist. Does this indicate that Jesus was female or hermaphrodite? If this is not the mystical description of Jesus, what is it?

In order to find out who this is you must go to the Gnostics. The image presented here is an androgynous image: part male and part female. This androgynous being went by different names. It was called Anthropos (primal man) and sometimes Eleleth and it was the archetypal progenitor of humankind. It was bright and shinning in form and resplendent in beauty.” - Gospel Truth, Alexander S. Holub PhD

 

Quite Gnostic really.

 

And apparently the 12 foundational Jewels given near the of drama represent by old tradition the 12 signs of the zodiac. Only they're rendered in reverse order from the annual year starting with Pisces and ending with Aries. I believe that it was Barclay who theorized that it shows St. Johns total disavow with astrology by listing the signs of the zodiac in reverse order. Nice attempt at an apology, accept for one thing. The zodiac given in reverse order squarely signifies the Great Year of the precession of the equinoxes, that which affects which constellation the sun will be rising into during the spring equinox religious festivals, such as passover and easter and so on. From one initiate to another this stands out, to those unlearned this wouldn't have been understandable.

 

So if we do that, take the code key given near the end of the drama blatanly outlining the precession of the equinoxes, then everything else begins to fall into place. I was doing some reading on astrological alignments of the Giza necropolis and getting into some Robert Buvual when something caught my attention. I think it was the step pyramid, I need to go back and check, but in any case he was outlining how the pyramids were laid out and how a priestess would play the role of Sashat with a Leopard print outfit and perform the stretching of the cord ritual. The northern circumpolar sky was a focal point in this ritual. And what do we find circling the northern skies but Draco, the Bear, etc. Knowing the connection between Alexandria Egypt and Antioch in Asia Minor and the filtering of mysteries into Christian context, it occured to me that the celestial drama in Revelation may well reflect things to do with the northern circumpolar sky as a type of passing down ancient knowledge in mystery school format. We have these strange creatures like a Dragon, and Beast, and so on. I could see that Vaguely there may be something going on here.

 

Sure enough, I questioned a buddy about it who then went right to an astronomy software program and started looking into it. I already knew about assertions such as stated below:

 

 

The Book of Revelation is Egyptian and Zoroastrian

"One can find certain allegorical place names such as "Jerusalem" and "Israel" in the New Testament Book of Revelation.

 

Gerald Massey has stated that Revelation, rather than having been written by any apostle called John during the 1st century AD/CE, represents a very ancient text that dates to the beginning of this era of history, i.e. possibly as early as 4,000 years ago.204

 

Massey also asserts that Revelation relates the Mithraic legend of Zarathustra/Zoroaster.205

 

Dr. Hilton Hotema says of this mysterious book, which has baffled mankind for centuries: "It is expressed in terms of creative phenomena; its hero is not Jesus but the Sun of the Universe, its heroine is the Moon; and all its other characters are Planets, Stars and Constellations; while its stage-setting comprises the Sky, the Earth, the Rivers and the Sea."206

 

- Origins of Christianity, page 22

 

What he found was this:

 

 

In the first diagram we see that over the Ages of Pisces and Aries the pole has precessed anti-clockwise through the Little Bear, and for Ages before that the pole precessed through the Dragon. If we consider the period roughly since 4300 BC as the time of the fall, we see that for the first two thousand years the pole was in the constellation of the dragon, while for the last four thousand years the pole has been in the constellation of the bear. We may say from this analogy that the dragon, ie the Age of Taurus when the North Pole was in Draco, gave his power and seat and authority to the Bear/Lion/Leopard, ie the Ages of Aries and Pisces when the Pole has traversed Ursa Minor.

 

Precession can be observed by paying attention to the northern circumpolar sky where through the course of the Great Year the pole will precess through Draco, to the Bear. In Egyptian mythology the Leopard print was symbolic of the stars. He linked Ursa Minor and Leo to the point where it started becoming obvious that we were stumbling into another depth of the precession mythology. For this to be a focus in Egypt and then appear in the drama of Revelation seemed to further indicate some type of connection between the two. And it has to do with laying out a long time count.

 

I was aware of the Vedic Yuga's and Greek Metalic Age conceptions and how they tend to map out against precession with higher and lower ages of enlightenment. I also knew that the Bible roughly covers three worlds ages (Taurus, Aries, Pisces) while foreshadowing a fourth age yet to come (Aquarius). How does this correspond to the Great Year? It maps out precisely the four lower ages of the Great Year that are conceptually ruled by darkness and ignorance - the last two descending ages (Taurus and Aries) and the first two ascending ages (Pisces and Aquarius). And furthermore, I immediately realized that I was looking at exactly "1/3" of the Great Year - 4 worlds ages of a 12 world age total. That's of course another popular number that appears throughout Revelation.

 

So I thought on it some more. "time, times, and half a time" is usually considered against an annual scale by most Christians trying to decipher this strange text. However, unavoidably, I could help but to wonder what it could mean against the precession mythology that Christians are nearly 100% ignorant of. What about this?

 

Time (Taurus)

 

Times (Aries and Pisces)

 

Half a time (the first half of the age of Aquarius)

 

The same 1/3 dark ages of the lower Great Year ruled by darkness and ignorance by esoteric tradition. This happens to be the "times" in which the north pole moves through Draco and Ursa Minor as per the precession of the equinoxes. For the Vedics its the Dwapara and Kali Yuga periods and for Greeks the Bronze and Iron ages as per the precession overlay.

 

What have we been talking about?

 

Hellenized Jews from Alexandria Egypt (the seat of old world knowledge) and Asia Minor?

 

Yeah, this thing seems to run really f@#cking deep.

 

I don't think any of this was ever meant to be understood by the average joe citizen. This is initiate material. When I think of the Christian churches getting a hold of Revelation I imagine a pack of monkey's squeeling and squaking running around with the book held up in the air trying to take it from another with absolutely no clue as what in the world they have to begin with.

 

These world ages also outline a 7,000 year or thereabouts timeline, matching up to the notion of six thousand years and then a thousand years of peace making for a Sabbath rest at the end of the scheme. No doubt a Judaized aspect. Is this the case of harmonizing Genesis with precession mythology? Who knows, but it's there for the taking.

 

The 24 Elders would then logically be the 12 hours of day and night which were important in Egyptian mythology too with 12 male star gods facing Horus and 12 female star gods facing Set. The Five Planets and two luminaries are present as the seven branch candle stick and so on. The Lamb symbolism at the beginning tends to point back at the speculation about a drama originally based on ushering in the end of the Great Year in Aries.

 

The final climax is then set to the period after the first thousand years of the age of Aquarius when according to the ascending and descending age scale, the higher ages begin to take effect and the final stand off with the forces of "darkness" ends in "light" kicking itself free of the dark 1/3 lower ages which are ruled by the "Dragon" and "Beast" (Bear?) as per the observational effects of precession against the northern circulpolar sky. Ahead is the Treta and Satya Yuga for Vedics or the Silver and Golden ages for Greeks. Watching the constellations being the only real way of monitoring which part of the Great Year you happen to live in and what you might expect of the future (prophecy based on astrological cycles?).

 

The drama takes on a whole different perspective, one that makes perfect sense when addressed to a Hellenized community of Jews and Jewish-like gentiles. But very little sense with respect to Christians today.

[Ravenstar]

That was super... thank you.

 

Here's some more on Revelation:

 

“The book of Revelations bears a striking resemblance to the Book of Daniel in the Hebrew Scriptures. You will recall that Daniel was compiled about 165 BCE and it was taken from an older Babylonian book. There are also statements lifted directly from Ezekiel and Isaiah. The book of Revelations and the Gospel of John are the two most mystical books of the Christian Scriptures. Both are filled with mystic symbolism and numbers and both have a similar writing style. For example, the number 7 is the most mentioned number in Revelations (as well as the whole bible itself). In Revelations it is seen in the context of the 7 candle sticks representing the 7 known planets and the 7 seals representing the 7 ganglionic centers up the spine ( the 7 stations of Mithra). Remember that the Christian Scriptures were written in Greek after they were copied from earlier versions. You can also find the number 7 being very prominent in the Mithraic (Zoroastrian) Mysteries.

“and in the midst of the seven candlesticks (one) like unto the son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.” – Revelation

This description is claimed to be the mystical description of Jesus. There’s a small problem here. This comes with the last part of the verse: “…girt about the paps with a golden girdle.” The term “paps” here is a medieval term for female breasts. The Greek term which is being translated is “mastos” which also means female breasts. Men wore the girdle around the waist. Does this indicate that Jesus was female or hermaphrodite? If this is not the mystical description of Jesus, what is it?

In order to find out who this is you must go to the Gnostics. The image presented here is an androgynous image: part male and part female. This androgynous being went by different names. It was called Anthropos (primal man) and sometimes Eleleth and it was the archetypal progenitor of humankind. It was bright and shinning in form and resplendent in beauty.” - Gospel Truth, Alexander S. Holub PhD

 

We can go back further actually.. to Thoth and before... even to Sumeria. The Sumerian Gods were planets (Tiamat being the dragon - Sumerian mythology is quite fascinating and very astrological)  Okay, Egypt.. let me put this out there... The Age of Leo is speculated as the time when the Sphinx was originally built. I won't go into it here - just wanted to point out that there is precedence, even if speculative, that this esoteric knowledge is very very ancient.

 

Don't forget about the Hindu chakras! Seven is probably the most esoteric number: "Since within the seven, the three of the heaven and the four of the earth are included, it is the first number, that embraces spiritual and secular aspects of the world. It means healing, security, safety, peace, abundance, completeness, synthesis."

 

On hermaphrodite deities.. one from India:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardhanarishvara

 

"Ardhanarishvara symbolizes that the male and female principles are inseparable.^[28] The composite form conveys the unity of opposites (coniunctio oppositorum) in the universe.^{[2][11][46][47]} The male half of Ardhanarishvara stands for Purusha and female half is Prakriti. Purusha is the male principle and passive force of the universe, while Prakriti is the female active force; both are "constantly drawn to embrace and fuse with each other, though... separated by the intervening axis". The union of Purusha (Shiva) and Prikriti (Shiva's energy, Shakti) generates the universe, an idea also manifested in the union of the Linga of Shiva and Yoni of Devi creating the cosmos.^[48][49][50] The Mahabharata lauds this form as the source of creation.^[37] Ardhanarishvara also suggests the element of Kama or Lust, which leads to creation.^[50]

Ardhanarishvara signifies "totality that lies beyond duality", "bi-unity of male and female in God" and "the bisexuality and therefore the non-duality" of the Supreme Being."

 

 

 

Quite Gnostic really.

 

And apparently the 12 foundational Jewels given near the of drama represent by old tradition the 12 signs of the zodiac. Only they're rendered in reverse order from the annual year starting with Pisces and ending with Aries. I believe that it was Barclay who theorized that it shows St. Johns total disavow with astrology by listing the signs of the zodiac in reverse order. Nice attempt at an apology, accept for one thing. The zodiac given in reverse order squarely signifies the Great Year of the precession of the equinoxes, that which affects which constellation the sun will be rising into during the spring equinox religious festivals, such as passover and easter and so on. From one initiate to another this stands out, to those unlearned this wouldn't have been understandable.

 

So if we do that, take the code key given near the end of the drama blatanly outlining the precession of the equinoxes, then everything else begins to fall into place. I was doing some reading on astrological alignments of the Giza necropolis and getting into some Robert Buvual when something caught my attention. I think it was the step pyramid, I need to go back and check, but in any case he was outlining how the pyramids were laid out and how a priestess would play the role of Sashat with a Leopard print outfit and perform the stretching of the cord ritual. The northern circumpolar sky was a focal point in this ritual. And what do we find circling the northern skies but Draco, the Bear, etc. Knowing the connection between Alexandria Egypt and Antioch in Asia Minor and the filtering of mysteries into Christian context, it occured to me that the celestial drama in Revelation may well reflect things to do with the northern circumpolar sky as a type of passing down ancient knowledge in mystery school format. We have these strange creatures like a Dragon, and Beast, and so on. I could see that Vaguely there may be something going on here.

 

Sure enough, I questioned a buddy about it who then went right to an astronomy software program and started looking into it. I already knew about assertions such as stated below:

 

 

The Book of Revelation is Egyptian and Zoroastrian

"One can find certain allegorical place names such as "Jerusalem" and "Israel" in the New Testament Book of Revelation.

 

Gerald Massey has stated that Revelation, rather than having been written by any apostle called John during the 1st century AD/CE, represents a very ancient text that dates to the beginning of this era of history, i.e. possibly as early as 4,000 years ago.204

 

Massey also asserts that Revelation relates the Mithraic legend of Zarathustra/Zoroaster.205

 

Dr. Hilton Hotema says of this mysterious book, which has baffled mankind for centuries: "It is expressed in terms of creative phenomena; its hero is not Jesus but the Sun of the Universe, its heroine is the Moon; and all its other characters are Planets, Stars and Constellations; while its stage-setting comprises the Sky, the Earth, the Rivers and the Sea."206

 

- Origins of Christianity, page 22

 

What he found was this:

 

 

 

In the first diagram we see that over the Ages of Pisces and Aries the pole has precessed anti-clockwise through the Little Bear, and for Ages before that the pole precessed through the Dragon. If we consider the period roughly since 4300 BC as the time of the fall, we see that for the first two thousand years the pole was in the constellation of the dragon, while for the last four thousand years the pole has been in the constellation of the bear. We may say from this analogy that the dragon, ie the Age of Taurus when the North Pole was in Draco, gave his power and seat and authority to the Bear/Lion/Leopard, ie the Ages of Aries and Pisces when the Pole has traversed Ursa Minor.

 

Precession can be observed by paying attention to the northern circumpolar sky where through the course of the Great Year the pole will precess through Draco, to the Bear. In Egyptian mythology the Leopard print was symbolic of the stars. He linked Ursa Minor and Leo to the point where it started becoming obvious that we were stumbling into another depth of the precession mythology. For this to be a focus in Egypt and then appear in the drama of Revelation seemed to further indicate some type of connection between the two. And it has to do with laying out a long time count.

 

I was aware of the Vedic Yuga's and Greek Metalic Age conceptions and how they tend to map out against precession with higher and lower ages of enlightenment. I also knew that the Bible roughly covers three worlds ages (Taurus, Aries, Pisces) while foreshadowing a fourth age yet to come (Aquarius). How does this correspond to the Great Year? It maps out precisely the four lower ages of the Great Year that are conceptually ruled by darkness and ignorance - the last two descending ages (Taurus and Aries) and the first two ascending ages (Pisces and Aquarius). And furthermore, I immediately realized that I was looking at exactly "1/3" of the Great Year - 4 worlds ages of a 12 world age total. That's of course another popular number that appears throughout Revelation.

 

So I thought on it some more. "time, times, and half a time" is usually considered against an annual scale by most Christians trying to decipher this strange text. However, unavoidably, I could help but to wonder what it could mean against the precession mythology that Christians are nearly 100% ignorant of. What about this?

 

Time (Taurus)

 

Times (Aries and Pisces)

 

Half a time (the first half of the age of Aquarius)

 

The same 1/3 dark ages of the lower Great Year ruled by darkness and ignorance by esoteric tradition. This happens to be the "times" in which the north pole moves through Draco and Ursa Minor as per the precession of the equinoxes. For the Vedics its the Dwapara and Kali Yuga periods and for Greeks the Bronze and Iron ages as per the precession overlay.

 

What have we been talking about?

 

Hellenized Jews from Alexandria Egypt (the seat of old world knowledge) and Asia Minor?

 

Yeah, this thing seems to run really f@#cking deep.

 

I don't think any of this was ever meant to be understood by the average joe citizen. This is initiate material. When I think of the Christian churches getting a hold of Revelation I imagine a pack of monkey's squeeling and squaking running around with the book held up in the air trying to take it from another with absolutely no clue as what in the world they have to begin with.

 

These world ages also outline a 7,000 year or thereabouts timeline, matching up to the notion of six thousand years and then a thousand years of peace making for a Sabbath rest at the end of the scheme. No doubt a Judaized aspect. Is this the case of harmonizing Genesis with precession mythology? Who knows, but it's there for the taking.

 

The 24 Elders would then logically be the 12 hours of day and night which were important in Egyptian mythology too with 12 male star gods facing Horus and 12 female star gods facing Set. The Five Planets and two luminaries are present as the seven branch candle stick and so on. The Lamb symbolism at the beginning tends to point back at the speculation about a drama originally based on ushering in the end of the Great Year in Aries.

 

The final climax is then set to the period after the first thousand years of the age of Aquarius when according to the ascending and descending age scale, the higher ages begin to take effect and the final stand off with the forces of "darkness" ends in "light" kicking itself free of the dark 1/3 lower ages which are ruled by the "Dragon" and "Beast" (Bear?) as per the observational effects of precession against the northern circulpolar sky. Ahead is the Treta and Satya Yuga for Vedics or the Silver and Golden ages for Greeks. Watching the constellations being the only real way of monitoring which part of the Great Year you happen to live in and what you might expect of the future (prophecy based on astrological cycles?).

 

The drama takes on a whole different perspective, one that makes perfect sense when addressed to a Hellenized community of Jews and Jewish-like gentiles. But very little sense with respect to Christians today.

Seriously?  What? They didn't realize that the great ages are counter-clockwise to the zodiac? hmmm.... guess not.

 

Now the great dragon (Draco?) is supposed to sweep a third of the stars from the sky with it's tail.. wonder what that signifies?

 

Makes me think also about the Mayans and their calendar which also traces the great ages... and the jaguar is pretty close to the leopard (an Egyptian symbol of the heavens as it's coat represented the stars.)

 

Interestingly.. Taurus signifies the bull.. it is an eminently agricultural sign, which corresponds to the beginning of leaving a hunter/gatherer lifestyle and becoming agriculturally based (at least husbandry)...Most ancient religions show at least one major deity that is either a cow or a bull from this period... (Baal... a golden calf/bull, Hathor...Mithra, etc..)

 

Aries covers the age of war... The Iron age... the age of metal weapons... Darius et al..... I haven't studied this one much. 

 

Pisces is the symbol of spirituality, self-sacrifice and service to mankind (Virgo is service too - but on a more practical level), the esoteric.. addictions (fantasy), dreams, prophecy and petroleum! (really).

 

Aquarius is the symbol of MAN.. science, brotherhood..the internet (really - it's an Uranus thing, Aquarius' ruling planet - electricity, etc...) and the 'group' as in society, yet also the eminence and important of the individual. (all for one and one for all)

 

And don't forget this little tidbit from the Bible:

 

Ezekiel:10

Then it happened, when He commanded the man clothed in linen, saying, “Take fire from among the wheels, (fire is knowledge a la Prometheus) from among the cherubim,” that he went in and stood beside the wheels. 7 And the cherub stretched out his hand from among the cherubim to the fire that was among the cherubim, and took some of it and put it into the hands of the man clothed with linen, who took it and went out. 8 The cherubim appeared to have the form of a man’s hand under their wings.

9 And when I looked, there were four wheels by the cherubim, one wheel by one cherub and another wheel by each other cherub; the wheels appeared to have the color of a beryl stone. 10 As for their appearance, all four looked alike—as it were, a wheel in the middle of a wheel. (The great precession) 11 When they went, they went toward any of their four directions; (four cardinal directions, four elements, etc..) they did not turn aside when they went, but followed in the direction the head was facing. They did not turn aside when they went. 12 And their whole body, with their back, their hands, their wings, and the wheels that the four had, were full of eyes all around. 13 As for the wheels, they were called in my hearing, “Wheel.” (Zodiac means "wheel"  gosh, it's so obvious)

14 Each one had four faces: the first face was the face of a cherub,(Taurus) the second face the face of a man (Aquarius), the third the face of a lion (Leo), and the fourth the face of an eagle.(Scorpio) 15 And the cherubim were lifted up. This was the living creature I saw by the River Chebar. 16 When the cherubim went, the wheels went beside them; and when the cherubim lifted their wings to mount up from the earth, the same wheels also did not turn from beside them. 17 When the cherubim stood still, the wheels stood still, and when one[c] was lifted up, the other[d] lifted itself up, for the spirit of the living creature was in them.

 

AND...

 

In the middle of the throne, and around the throne were four living creatures full of eyes before and behind. The first creature was like a lion, and the second creature like a calf, and the third creature had a face like a man, and the fourth was like a flying eagle. The four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, Revelation 4:6-8  (Six pairs of wings? maybe? 12?)

 

I find it hilarious when christians say the Bible isn't astrology.. sure it isn't.

 

Now... the satan.. interesting. It's like god is a sybil. Trying to explain a benevolent creator in a dualistic reality does have some complications now doesn't it     and Satan is identified in Revelations as the great dragon.... hmmmmmm   I'm not getting the association with Draco and Satan.

 

I do get the association with the lamb.. and Jesus. ARIES... he did say he came to bring a sword.

 

an aside: He looks so much like Pan.. or Cerrunnos now though, doesn't he?
 

[Ravenstar]

According to what you've written the 'end of the world' is not for at least another.. oh, 1000 - 1200 years. The middle of the age of Aquarius, right?

 

 

whew..! 

[Joshpantera]

This reminds me of a volley ball tournament:

Bump:

If Jesus is to represent humanity and the church is the body of Christ and Christ and the Father are one (John 10:30), then the congregation is therefore merged together with the God of the mythology by means of the middle man symbolic representation. The God is "within you" in other words. Is this not the efforts of learned and mystical saavy writers attempting to bring about a type of enlightenment doctrine into a western Judaized framework?

Set:

 

I'm sure that Hindu ideology was absorbed as well as middle-eastern concepts. The OT never expresses the 'oneness' concept like the NT does.. it would have been blasphemous.. even Jesus states "Know ye not that ye are gods?". !!! No OT prophet would have said anything like that. So, I think you are onto something there - it's a decidedly Indian idea. (Brahma)

Spike!

Thank you for setting up the smoking gun in John:

³⁰ I and the Father are one.”


³¹ Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, ³² but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
³³ “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
³⁴ Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’^[d]?³⁵ If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—³⁶ what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?³⁷ Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father.³⁸ But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”³⁹ Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

We have a blatant quote mine to consider here, one aimed directly at trying to find something that might pass as a scriptural basis for merging eastern enlightenment ideas into a Judaized setting. And now back to Robert Price on the polytheistic origins of Judaism and the traces left behind that give it away:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExTFL1FgL9U

 

Psalm 82 is talking about the other "Gods" of the old Elohim polytheistic pantheon of "Gods." Let's have a close look because this is what the Gospel writer decided to quote mine in order to create the dialogue between Jesus and the "Jews" in John 10:

Psalm 82 (New International Version)

Psalm 82
New International Version (NIV)
Psalm 82 A psalm of Asaph.
 

¹ God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods”:

² “How long will you^[a] defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?^[b]
3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
⁴ Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

⁵ “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

⁶ “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
⁷ But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”

⁸ Rise up, O God, judge the earth,

for all the nations are your inheritance.

The writer of John sees this passage and asserts that YHWH is telling the Israelites that they are "gods," son's of the most high. As if it's some crafty check mate against the Jewish religious authorities. But this is clearly a passage left over from the old polytheism of Judaism where El Elyon most high is coming down on the other "gods" of the pantheon and taking away their power or rule and telling them that they will die like "mere mortals." The rising up O God is addressed to raising YHWH, the son of El Elyon, above the other Gods of the pantheon after taking away their rule. The English translations guise that underlying meaning quite a bit. But this is a transition from polytheism to monolatry on the way to monotheism and it's rather unflattering for monotheism the deeper you get into it.

But here we have some idiot probably reading through the Septuagint (not sure which version he was quite mining) and seeing a passage that he thinks he can use to create a dramatic mythological dialogue where the Hero character who represents humanity can say that he is "one" with the God of Judaism, and then later suggest that the Hero's followers are the body of Christ grafting this enlightenment angle into Judaism. Maybe he thought he was doing a good thing by trying to add an enlightenment angle to Judaism top try and get it on the right track.

But at the same time, what a blatant example of Christian folly in not recognizing the polytheistic nature of the text in question and then trying to apply this type of scripture twisting in order to achieve a preconceived goal. I wonder if they even understood the original context of Psalm 82 that far into the monotheistic evolution of Judaism around the first few centuries CE when these quote mines were made? In his defense, the writer probably didn't even understand the original context of what he was quote mining at all.

Or, if he DID understand what he was doing with the quote mine, then we're looking at one hell of a blatant bullshit artist at work using known polytheistic pantheon oriented texts in order to make FALSE claims to Godhood as per twisting scripture. This mythic Hero character (Jesus) is quite literally presented as what any knowledgeable person of the time would recognize as a FALSE PROPHET, and the "anti" of what should be expected as an "anointed" one by the Jewish standards of the time in question.

Your original assertion is still holding very true Ravenstar!

As a matter of fact the truth of your assertion only strengthens the deeper we get into the matter...

[srd]

wow... that's exactly what the apologists say. But doesn't God say he never changes? Why should it be different in the NT?

 

think for a minute..."Jesus said"... Yahweh never said anything... and a lot of things Jesus said are diametrically opposed to what Yahweh said.

 

On the blood issue:

"Lev 6:30

And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.

 

While some sin sacrifices can be eaten, any sin offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting must not be eaten, it must be burned.

 

Christians will claim that the blood is just symbolic and that wine is the actual drink, but this excuse falls flat. God did not qualify what he said in Lev 17:10, but rather, said that man shall not consume any kind of blood whatsoever.

 

It really doesn't matter if it wasn't real blood but only wine. Drinking real or symbolic blood amounts to real or symbolic sin. Jesus urged his followers to commit symbolic sins in the eyes of God. If Jesus was really the legitimate Son of God, he should have known enough to follow his Father's laws. Jesus even preached about symbolic sin:

 

Matt 5:28

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

 

Do Christians really think God would approve of someone who drinks wine pretending that it represents blood of any type? God had 3,000 Israelites killed for recognizing that a golden calf was a symbol for a god. The Bible God certainly wouldn't put up with his instructions being mocked like that.

 

God even commented on his attitude toward those who practiced pagan blood drinking:

 

Psa 16:4

Their sorrows shall be multiplied who hasten after another god; Their drink offerings of blood I will not offer, Nor take up their names on my lips.

 

The drinking of symbolic blood is no less a sin than drinking the real thing. Symbolic sin is still sin."

 

Very nice. I could use some of this, and your biblical savoir-faire over at my contradictionsinthebible website. It's difficult to get the OT vs NT contradictions as I'm reading through the OT. Just posted one today though: WHo causes blindness and illness, Yahweh or Beelzebub. Basically a difference between the image of God in each culture that produced these texts. Have a look at tell me what you think http://contradictionsinthebible.com/yahweh-or-beelzebub/

 

Also there's a quote in Jonah somewhere that states : there is only one name through which salvation comes -- Yahweh !! I like to toss that one out too.

[Joshpantera]

Ravenstar, on 04 Apr 2013 - 20:22, said:

According to what you've written the 'end of the world' is not for at least another.. oh, 1000 - 1200 years. The middle of the age of Aquarius, right?

 

 

whew..!

That's just it. Revelation has no end of the world. It has a final battle with the forces of darkness followed by a new earth where darkness is out of the picture. And no one goes off anywhere, life continues here on earth for ever and ever but under a new order. It fixes the end of darkness in the world to just after the middle of the age of Aquarius as per the underlying precession theme.

 

Below is a nice image but as you can see it's set according to the Autumnal Equinox so we'll have to look at it in terms of the age axis to see the point of it. As you can see world descends down into the Dwapara and Kali Yugas, Bronze and Iron Ages. And then it begins to ascend in reverse order out of these lower ages. See the zodiacal axis - Taurus/Scorpio, Aries/Libra, Pisces/Virgo and finally Aquarius/Leo. This is 1/3 of the Great Year, the part ruled by darker forces, and man's most materialistic minded ages. It's the time when man is less spiritual and more "beast" like. This isn't necessarily a 3 1/2 year reign of a future anti-christ figure suggestion as Christians expect, but rather an ages long period of time where humanity has to survive a low point that bottoms out around the beginning of the common era and then takes some time to get moving again. Some people would have been expecting the world to bottom out and trying to prepare for it, perhaps try and preserve old world knowledge to last through the darkest times? But for whatever reason they certainly jumped into action myth making and motif borrowing after the turn of the common era when the former Great Year cycle concluded and the new Great Year began.

 

So back to the observation thing, another way of mapping out the Great Year instead of the sun rise at the Equinoxes is following the pole round about the northern circumpolar sky as the earth wobbles on it's axis. That's why Draco and Ursa Minor tie into it. While the earth is precessing through the lower ages the pole is moving through the constellation of the Dragon and Bear / Beast. This is astronomical observation methodology applied to the text. Some one probably thought this ought to be passed along in all of the new myth making going on in the first few centuries CE.

 

Now, about the antiquity of it all that you've raised, yeah, that's what I was getting into by reading Robert Buaval. I don't know if the Sphinx was created in the former Leo/Aquarius axis or created later in order to point back at that time period for some reason, but either way it seems to indicate that people were interested in another way of following the earths wobbling axis besides the methods discussed above. During the last age of Leo/Aquarius Orion's belt stars (the three kings? / Pyramids at Giza) were at the minimum point on the meridian. Buvual sees this as the Egyptians "Zep Tepi", the first time.

 

Over time they have slowly moved up towards their maximum point on the meridian, which, is due to bottom out and then reverse direction again when we hit the opposite age of Aquarius/Leo. That would be the "last time." When you view the "three kings" of Orion's belt at the winter solstices over long periods of time you'll see the axis of the three stars nearly horizontal over the horizon during the age of Leo/Aquarius commemorated by the Giza Necropolis with the Sphinx and three Pyramids, and then become vertical to over vertical by the time of opposite age of Aquarius/Leo that we're coming up on now. This is another way of mapping out the earth's wobbling axis and how it affects the stars and how it takes half a precession cycle to get from the stellar minimum on the meridian to the stellar maximum on the meridian.

 

So there was some type of mystery associated with this astronomical methodology and so when we turn to the Great Year diagram below you can see why Hellenistic writers would have a reason to target the first half of the vernal age of Aquarius in keeping with what was probably an old mystery tradition passed down from Egypt and had to do with the layout of the Giza Necropolis all those years earlier, however earlier. And again, many things point to Revelation starting out as an Egyptian and Zoroastrian celestial mystery drama about the end of the Great Year in the age of Aries and then getting Christianized later by some mystery school savvy initiate and passed along, our St. John the Revelator. Or was that even ripped off from Horus's scribe Aan?

 

In Revelation we find the river of life as the milky way down on the new earth just as the Nile was to reflect the milky way above down below on the earth. Same general "as above so below" symbolism going on which was also going on in the hermetic literature of the time. By this scheme as the world ascends out of the dark lower ages of precession a final battle with darkness goes down basically in the Treta Yuga / Aquarius/Leo (see below) which then also corresponds to when Orion's belt stars finally reach the stellar maximum on the meridian and then reverse direction abruptly in the way that the sun abruptly reverses direction at the solstices. They seem to be suggesting that a celestial shift observed above will have a parallel down below on the earth and result in a conflict. And the shift in directional movement observed above is addressed to mark an end of the dark ages of precession for the rest of the duration of the Great Year. It's after the final battle when the 12 jewels imagery about the zodiac in reverse order is given which can work as a code key for understanding that the drama has been addressed to precession mythology all along, like Ezekiel as you've pointed out and Daniel BTW. Remember the Golden headed statue winding down to Iron and bottoming out with an Iron clay mix? Tends to reflect the Great Year doesn't it?

 

So we're hitting on three different ways for astronomer priests and mystery school initiates to observe the effects of precession on the night sky and equinox sunrises and make predictions based on celestial movements and motion.

 

You know that odd passage in Luke 22:10 about the Water Bearing Man, Aquarius?

 

Well after the last 'passing over' of the sun during the vernal age of Pisces, the 12 disciples or Tribes of Israel / Signs of the Zodiac (per Philo and Josephus), are to follow the Water Man into an 'upper room' or house of the zodiac where the sun will then enter into. The long count that they've sprinkled through scripture would be quite evident to an initiate of the solar mysteries. Until I found out about the Leo to Aquarius cycle I didn't get why the NT writers were concerned with the age of Aquarius. There's two primary points of consideration - the first coming which is the first age of the Great Year in Pisces and the Second coming of the Sun into the second age of the Great Year when the old Leo to Aquarius stellar meridian cycle completes in a delayed reaction to "alpha and omega" point of Aries and Pisces. The first and second coming motif can be set to a purely astromythological lens in this way. And how perfect, it's merely the sun moving into the first and then second world ages of the beginning of the new Great Year cycle.

 

It seems that the NT writers were concerned with the very same thing that concerned the Egyptian astronomer priests who were responsible for laying out the same half a precession cycle theme around the Giza Necropolis. It seems to outline the worlds journey through the lower ages and the Bible begins the "fall of man" with the entry into the lower ages and then end with the "New Jerusalem" exit out of them into to higher ages free of the reign of darkness on the earth. It's only focus seems to be getting through the lower ages.

 

I don't know if you'd made it this far down the rabbit hole yet?

 

But there's more in any case...