(This post inspired to a degree by Incoming's heretical rambling. "What if", indeed.)
Each of these, on their own, may be overlooked as coincidences or such, but in combination I believe they warrant examination, for perhaps all is not as it seems.
1. The symbol of Christ on the cross.
This is a question that I believe ought to be raised - why is it that we kneel before this image? It is an apparently good guy being tortured to death! Perhaps, you may say, it represents Jesus dying for us, and to an extent I understand that point of view, but why not have a symbol of Jesus at a more dignifying point in the story of his life?2. The altar.
I've never even thought about this until it occurred to me recently. Why is there an altar? Is something being offered to 'the gods'...a sacrifice perhaps? But that's at best 'pagan' and at worst downright evil (human sacrifice)! Doesn't go well with the deity image of a guy being strung up to die.
3. Communion.
This is the smoking gun to me at least. Here we have people, symbolically, dining on Jesus' flesh and blood...strange but true...and this is the moral institution on which we are to rely? He was killed on the cross, perhaps served on the altar, and now you're eating the guy!
So...perhaps Christians are unwittingly participating, albeit symbolically, in the same rituals as the devil worshipping human sacrificing cults? I suppose if you are coming from a Christian perspective you could look at it in terms of the Devil's trickery. But however you may interpret it, there does seem to be a 'dark side' to, or a 'darker interpretation' of, some elements of Christianity.
If you want to know more about the 'occult' symbolism which for some reason our ruling class have an obsession with hiding in plain sight everywhere, scope out Vigilant Citizen.
The pagan roots of Christianity are exposed - albeit from an atheist point of view - in the first part of Zeitgeist. Jesus may or may not have existed, though the prevalence of Sun/Son worship in this 'anti-pagan' religion cannot be ignored. And I'm not judging whether paganism is inherently good or bad, just that if Christians regard paganism as pure evil, they maybe ought to check their own faith before criticising others.
David Icke on Christianity - check out the symbolism! From Babylon to Rome...the same religion...?
Finally, I want to make it clear that I am not hostile to Christianity at all. I regard Christians as good people generally (well, I regard all people as good generally) and don't really have much time for the wedge issue Religion Wars that are used to divide our society against itself. Definitely Christianity is part of my heritage and I appreciate that, though I have to say that I also view it as a mind prison as much as any dogma is. In the modern world though, there are much more dangerous dogmas being pushed by our anti-Christian ruling class in their efforts to forge a one-world Malthusian-Huxleyite anti-human quasi-Luciferian eugenics religion.
My rough guide to religion:
"If some guy wants you to kneel, it's probably not for your own good"
"If there is an all-powerful being, he/she/it would forgive me for being a little sceptical now and then"
"Anyone who wants you to sacrifice this world for 'the next' is a liar"
"Materialism, belief in the physical existence of the outside world, is a religion every bit as much as Theism"
To me, agnosticism is merely honesty.
Posts
.jpg)
19 comments:
Oh, man! So close.
Spot on with everything, except the rituals and religion described are Catholic, not Christian at all.
If you are looking for whatever it is people look for in life, please do not look towards the Catholics as an example of Christianity.
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." ~2nd Peter 1:20
P.S. If you have any questions about this, you can always email me. Address can be found on my profile.
More than scripture, as whose to read, but you need to understand the context of these things, whether an adaptation to draw gentiles from greece and rome, or to the lineage with judaism. It's too much to get into in a response to a blog post, but I suggest you read not only "official scripture", but the other writing that fall under gnostic gospels as well as what was written in the talmud about Jesus or actually yeshua (and yes the records exist), as his name wasn't Jesus at all. Even for a few kicks read the toledot yeshu. I think you'll come away with some greater understanding.
As far as Son3 knocking RC, well that is not very christian like is it? :) All I can say is evaluate as much information as you can.
Oh yeah, read Pelagius and contrast with Augustine. It's an eye opener in terms of the direction of The Church. It won't be a surprise at who won the argument, but you'll probably more agree with the other.
I agree with you on some of these points about traditions that have come into Christianity through pagan religions. Bowing down to an image of Jesus on the cross is breaking the second commandment that says "have no idols before me." The Romans had to mix the pagan religions with Christianity to basically make Christianity more appealing to the Romans. This includes the sunrise (sun worship) services churches have on Easter morning. And Easter itself is full of pagan traditions.
However, communion is a symbolic service that reminds us what Christ did for us on the cross, He also took communion at the last supper. Thanks for the article.
But you need to remember that the last supper was passover seder. He didn't have communion in the sense that we do today, it was linked to an earlier tradition that has since been discarded by the pauline tradition.
As far as sacrifice goes, look back to the challenge put before Abraham. God asked abraham that he sacrifice his son and stopped him short of it. God showed he could go all the way, and even yeshua was uncertain on that day as he asked his father why did he forsake him. Of course god did not and rose him after the sabbath, which was the jewish sabbath, which was on the third day.
@Right Guy
"look back to the challenge put before Abraham. God asked abraham that he sacrifice his son and stopped him short of it."
Just wondering, what if the G-man of the Bible is actually a bad guy? Sounds pretty sadistic to me.
@ all
Some pagan elements may have been adapted over the years. But what about the fundamentals of the story of Christ?
Son/Sun
12 Disciples/Zodiac
Cross is an old symbol on astrological charts (equinoxes/solstices)
"The light of the world" etc
Dead for 3 days, like the sun around the winter solstice, then 'rises' again
Is it not possible that Christianity is based on camouflaged sun worship?
"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house." ~Matthew 5:14-15
(Analogy of light is reference to that of a candle, not the sun.)
I think the fact that there were twelve disciples was an allusion to the twelve tribes of Israel.
Biblically speaking, Christianity has no symbolism, and the crucifix is a Roman invention of torturous execution; the fact that it is similar to the ultimate pagan symbol of the sun may have been the reason for its creation, and perhaps that's the reason why the Son of God was killed on it (sacrificed on a pagan alter, you might say).
Even if it is a candle, is that not a possible reference to the flame of Tammuz (Babylonian 'Son' god), another expression of which is the torch held by the statue of Liberty, itself a representation of Queen Sumerimis the Babylonian version of Mary?
Have you seen the David Icke lecture on religious symbolism that is linked above? It may well be correct, but I'm not jumping to conclusions here.
I would add that I am not necessarily saying the whole story was made up. It is possible that Jesus was a real person, whose story has been infused with astrological and/or Babylonian symbolism as a kind of 'revege' for his teachings etc.
I think perhaps an overlooked element of the Jesus story is the confrontation with the money changers. If Roth/Rock are so powerful today, imagine what it may have been like back then!
Son3, you have to consider the sacrifices jews made at the alter as well. gain, at one point, Paul and james were at odds. One the jewish tradition which christianity got it's start and the other reaching out to gentiles. Paul won. In the history of The Church, it would seem that the people that wanted to spread the word to other peoples outside of palestine as well as control people(Augustine) won out over what I call the Jamesian/Pelagian view. What is taught now isn't the christianity of 60 ad or even 200 ad.
No, I hadn't seen Icke's presentation. I generally steer clear of Icke. He has many things right, but one heck of a lot wrong.
The frequent references to light throughout all religions is referencing the initial conflict between the one, true God and Lucifer.
Lucifer, as his name implies, was and is the "angel of light", but he rebelled against God, who is also of light, and God cast him out of Heaven; in fact, there was a literal war between Michael the Archangel and Lucifer, and Lucifer's forces included a third of all the angels (33%).
It is for that reason that most occultist religions have their supreme deity depicted as a torch or a flame or something of that nature, and also why 33 is such an important number to many cults. Even though Satan is the epitome of evil and "darkness", he is the angel of "light".
I would say the "Perpetual (<--not) Virgin Mary" is the Catholic representation of Queen Sumerimis, not the other way around.
I had always assumed the Statue of Liberty was emulating the Colossus of Rhodes. Perhaps a double-intention of sorts?
@ The Right Guy (I sincerely apologize for the length, but it was necessary):
"Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." ~1 Corinthians 1:12-24
@ Son3
Interesting little detail about the statue of Liberty...it was a gift from French Freemasons.
This brings up whole other questions about the Masonic background of the Founding Fathers...well you know what the Washington Monument is don't you? ;)
Check out the Vigilant Citizen article on the Capitol also:
http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=1734
Old image of Queen Semiramis, identical to the Statue of Liberty:
http://www.samliquidation.com/queenofheaven.htm
Lots more info here:
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=270351075&blogId=323242910
It's an odd contradiction to note the heavy occult influence on the Founding Fathers, since they are supposed to be the good guys.
But have you heard about this?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25254103/106-Benjamin-Franklin-House-Kids-Corner-Bodies-Found
Now officially, the reason the human remains were there was because Franklin, scientist as he was, wanted to study the human anatomy. Officially.
Consider this. The Tea Parties started as a wholesome movement of the people, then Dick Armey et al co-opted them and took credit for them.
What if the Founding Fathers who we revere were, in spite of their undeniable genius, an 18th century version of FreedomWorks?
Better article on the Franklin thing. Or just search engine 'Franklin home dead bodies found'
http://healthandsurvival.com/2008/09/05/10-dead-people-at-ben-franklins-home/
Yes, I've done rather lengthy studies of the various, occult origins of D.C.'s layout, and find the majority of the claims to be credible, obelisks, pentagrams, etc.
I've looked into the twisted ties and strange company many of the founder's kept, and I find it puzzling. I must admit to you that at this hour I don't know what to make of it all.
But the founder's of my country being deliberate counterfeiters and deceivers? This I cannot, at this time, accept. Certainly, they were involved in more nefarious dealings than just the holy cause of Liberty, but so was King David.
I am not excusing the blatant darkness surrounding many of the founders and symbols, but by observing the fruits of their labor and the unlikely success of their work, I cannot accept that God merely allowed America to rise from these beginnings.
No, they were no FreedomWorks.
And yes, I consider tea parties to be a distraction; a steam-valve from more effective organizing, shall we say.
It's possible that some of the Founders were co-opters and some were not...take Jefferson for instance, if anyone was the real deal he was...
There is one other possibility here, I know it sounds ridiculous but I came across this quite a while ago and have only taken it seriously as I have learnt more about the occult and about the trickeries employed in the legal system.
Could it be that you (USA Corporation) technically never left the Holy Roman British Empire?
http://www.natural-person.ca/pdf/Great_Britain_owns_USA.PDF
Oh my, I just looked up the Colossus of Rhodes (hadn't heard of it before), yup the synchronicity of symbolism continues...
I've heard the theory before.
If look at the reference to the United States being a "corporation" (Resublica v. Sweers 1 U.S. 41 (1779)), it is a major misunderstanding of the term "body corporate". It basically means it exists as a legal entity in international law, not a "corporation" owned by another entity.
Interesting.
http://law.onecle.com/ussc/1/1-us-41.html
"The first exception was, 'that, at the time of the offence charged, the United States were not a body corporate known in law.' But the Court are of a different opinion. From the moment of their association, the United States necessarily became a body corporate; for, there was no superior from whom that character could otherwise be derived. In England, the king, lords, and commons, are certainly a body corporate; and yet there never was any charter or statute, by which they were expressly so created."
I intend to look further into the legal stuff both British and foreign, but all that gibberish...my TV and videogame affected mind can't process it! (which is of course the point.)
Post a Comment