This is an interesting theory that will undoubtedly piss off some people. Ever since I was a teen, I questioned the legitimacy of the Bible, which is frowned upon when you're raised in a devout Christian household. I think one of the reasons that I am Agnostic is the negative reactions I received whenever I dared to question something or even tried to engage in discussion regarding dizzyingly unnecessary complexity of Christian ideologies. I can't, for the life of me, believe any so-called Word of God that was written by mankind itself, rife with omissions, flimsy translations (either intentional or accidental), and additions. Everything that mankind touches is corrupted due to its thirst for power and control over everything. I don't believe for a second that the Bible has remained untainted. It's a compilation of books written over the course of 1500+ years with multiple authors. Then you have all these translations (and missing/removed books) over hundreds of years. I wouldn't be surprise if, during that time, a group (or groups) of crazies had a hand in its corruption. We all know that Christian holidays are actually pagan holidays linked to cults like Saturnalia.
The original serpent is related to the Australian Aboriginal rainbow serpent. The ancients saw serpents everywhere, the rivers, rainbows, tree roots, the intestine, the penis, the Milky Way, eclipses, the rotations of the heavens, etc. you will notice in most myths a hero being swallowed and regurgitated by the serpent or cut themselves out of it, giving second life. This is just allegory for ejaculation and the seed of life. Lucifer is really Aphrodite or Ishtar, whatever represents the planet Venus because it was believed to pass through the underworld and return.
it actually has everything to do with it. The bible is very young and gives no answer to what lucifer even is. The demonification of Venus , snakes and snake worshippers goes back much further than what is written in the bible.
My point is who cares about the bible's interpretation when there are countless cultures copying the same story analogies which stem from African and Australian origins. The entire concept of Jesus is to take on the "positive" traits of other gods. The Romans wanted to unify cultures just like the Greeks did with Serapis. Sorry to burst your bubble.
The letters of Albert Pike, 33rd degree ... The Masonic religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine
Not surprisingly, Pike never wrote any such thing. But some anti-Masons "discovered" some letters from Pike which they never produced, but were helpful in quoting for posterity... Said letters merely extended and expanded on the already debunked (by its perpetrator) the Taxil Hoax and loosely tied the whole thing in to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, because no conspiracy hoax is complete without a tie-in to the Protocols, I guess.
So, because you don't like his teachers, you'll take as gospel his hoax, but not his retraction, even though his hoax was full of out of character quotes that were never substantiated anywhere else... That seems like an exercise of confirmation bias.
How about we talk about what Freemasonry has actually done. The testimonials of millions of men over 300+ years, millions of dollars donated to charity every day, writings of thousands of Masons in periodicals, proceedings and books over that same period, the character of the men in the Fraternity from Washington to Franklin to Kipling to Churchill to Twain to Voltaire.
Are we perfect? Of course not, but people sling this kind of mud at any organization that seeks to better itself and its members.
But you introduced some very well-known hoaxes in your thesis, so it's hard to take your biblical exegesis seriously. Still, let's look at it:
As most are aware, the name Jesus is a Roman construct, likely overlayed on the Greek deity Zeus
To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The word Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek Iesous, which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua, or again Jehoshua, meaning "Jehovah is salvation." Though the name in one form or another occurs frequently in the Old Testament, it was not borne by a person of prominence between the time of Josue, the son of Nun and Josue, the high priest in the days of Zorobabel.
So, not a Roman name... did you mean that his entire existence was fabricated by the Romans? That's hard to believe, given that his cult were actively hostile to the Romans and that they were generally considered enemies of the state.
There was no 'j' in use in either Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek at the time of the prophecy and alleged birth of the person called Jesus.
Obviously not, we know that the names comes from the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew. That is actually the most solidly attested element of Jesus's life.
The entire New Testament of the bible is about Jesus.
Well... not Revelation, and not the parts that are about his church in the years after his death, but before the codification of the Gospels. But generally, yes.
And Lucifer, a fallen angel from 'heaven'...
Note that the Isaiah passage you're fond of is actually about King Nebuchadnezzar. It's about how a person who seemed so righteous and grand could have fallen so far (you may recall that he's the one who sacked the first Temple at Jerusalem).
Why the British royals, who claim to be bloodline descendants of David...
(citation needed)
Lucifer= Jesus= Satan= the deceiver of the whole world.
An interesting twist on the Gnostic Christian idea that the God of the Torah was the deceiver (and creator) and that it was Jesus who was sent to show humankind the path to gnosis (self awareness) and the way to escape the false deity.
I'm not advocating Gnostic Christianity, but it's interesting that you're arriving at a similar, though slightly different conclusion.
When that Baal drops in NYC...
Subtlety is not your forte...
you are celebrating the fallen angel, the original rebel, Satan]
You know that New Years Eve isn't celebrating Jesus, right?
So, let me give you a different perspective. You're right, there's a conspiracy, but it's not the trivial kind that we can easily understand: a simple lie about a person or event.
It's a conspiracy of storytelling, and we all participate in it. We all create a narrative around our hopes and dreams and fears and fantasies. We're hard-wired to build a mythology, and that's the reals conspiracy: we lie to ourselves and tell ourselves that what we've become comfortable with believing is true. We might not even like it. People tell themselves that they're trapped in a job they hate. They could walk away at any time, but they're comfortable in their suffering.
The same is true for mythology.
But! There's a kernel of truth in every lie. And in every mythology we've ever developed, there's the seed of something grander, something... divine, if you will. Seek it out, ignore your comfort in finding the easy answer. Read some Aquinas and Scotus and Plato and Lao Tzu and Origen. Don't stop learning. When you convince yourself that you've learned enough, tell that voice to shut up and keep learning.
That which we must say to a crowd is—We worship a God, but it is the God that one adores without superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st, and 30th degrees—The Masonic Religion should be, by all of us initates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian Doctrine.
My point is who cares about the bible's interpretation when there are countless cultures copying the same story analogies which stem from African and Australian origins. The entire concept of Jesus is to take on the "positive" traits of other gods. The Romans wanted to unify cultures just like the Greeks did with Serapis. Sorry to burst your bubble.
26 comments
3 CaucasianEagle 2016-04-06
Black lives matter is playing right into Albert pikes hands.
3 s70n3834r 2016-04-06
With unemployment soaring to 60% in their demographic, I can see how George Soros' rain of money would be all-but irresistible to young urban blacks.
3 Amos_Quito 2016-04-06
Interesting.
Further thought:
"Lucifer" = "Light Bearer".
What "bears" light? Darkness. (What else?)
There is only one thing, but thing cannot perceive itself in the absence of contrast.
It is essential.
2 UngratefulSun 2016-04-06
This is an interesting theory that will undoubtedly piss off some people. Ever since I was a teen, I questioned the legitimacy of the Bible, which is frowned upon when you're raised in a devout Christian household. I think one of the reasons that I am Agnostic is the negative reactions I received whenever I dared to question something or even tried to engage in discussion regarding dizzyingly unnecessary complexity of Christian ideologies. I can't, for the life of me, believe any so-called Word of God that was written by mankind itself, rife with omissions, flimsy translations (either intentional or accidental), and additions. Everything that mankind touches is corrupted due to its thirst for power and control over everything. I don't believe for a second that the Bible has remained untainted. It's a compilation of books written over the course of 1500+ years with multiple authors. Then you have all these translations (and missing/removed books) over hundreds of years. I wouldn't be surprise if, during that time, a group (or groups) of crazies had a hand in its corruption. We all know that Christian holidays are actually pagan holidays linked to cults like Saturnalia.
2 ticklecobra55 2016-04-06
I'm very impressed you've done this much research and just have to ask, where did you find all these different copies of the Bible?
2 [deleted] 2016-04-06
[deleted]
1 ticklecobra55 2016-04-06
cool thanks!
2 s70n3834r 2016-04-06
Might be a good place to leave this: Meet the transgender banker who’s chopped off her ears and had horns implanted... to become a dragon
2 redditeditard 2016-04-06
.
6 you_get_CMV_delta 2016-04-06
That is a very legitimate point you have. I honestly hadn't thought about the matter that way.
2 Enshag 2016-04-06
There is a typo in the video link about the freemason. Here is the right one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBFuEo0Jzd8
2 TheJerkJones 2016-04-06
This is the truth.
1 CaucasianEagle 2016-04-06
The original serpent is related to the Australian Aboriginal rainbow serpent. The ancients saw serpents everywhere, the rivers, rainbows, tree roots, the intestine, the penis, the Milky Way, eclipses, the rotations of the heavens, etc. you will notice in most myths a hero being swallowed and regurgitated by the serpent or cut themselves out of it, giving second life. This is just allegory for ejaculation and the seed of life. Lucifer is really Aphrodite or Ishtar, whatever represents the planet Venus because it was believed to pass through the underworld and return.
2 [deleted] 2016-04-06
[deleted]
1 CaucasianEagle 2016-04-06
All the information is available through comparative mythology, oral tradition and petroglyphs.
1 [deleted] 2016-04-06
[deleted]
1 CaucasianEagle 2016-04-06
it actually has everything to do with it. The bible is very young and gives no answer to what lucifer even is. The demonification of Venus , snakes and snake worshippers goes back much further than what is written in the bible.
1 [deleted] 2016-04-06
[deleted]
1 CaucasianEagle 2016-04-06
My point is who cares about the bible's interpretation when there are countless cultures copying the same story analogies which stem from African and Australian origins. The entire concept of Jesus is to take on the "positive" traits of other gods. The Romans wanted to unify cultures just like the Greeks did with Serapis. Sorry to burst your bubble.
1 [deleted] 2016-04-06
[deleted]
2 CaucasianEagle 2016-04-06
Don't you want to get to the bottom of things?
2 [deleted] 2016-04-06
[deleted]
1 CaucasianEagle 2016-04-06
Jesus also repeated the feats of Dionysus. Should we say he is Dionysus? There is a difference.
2 [deleted] 2016-04-06
[deleted]
1 CaucasianEagle 2016-04-06
Talk about cognitive dissonance.
2 [deleted] 2016-04-06
[deleted]
1 CaucasianEagle 2016-04-06
I just find it funny you mention cognitive dissonance in one of your posts and can't see you're own contribution to it.
I don't remember the Lizard King in the Bible.
-2 Tyler_Zoro 2016-04-06
You'll want to read up on:
Not surprisingly, Pike never wrote any such thing. But some anti-Masons "discovered" some letters from Pike which they never produced, but were helpful in quoting for posterity... Said letters merely extended and expanded on the already debunked (by its perpetrator) the Taxil Hoax and loosely tied the whole thing in to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, because no conspiracy hoax is complete without a tie-in to the Protocols, I guess.
6 [deleted] 2016-04-06
[deleted]
-1 Tyler_Zoro 2016-04-06
So, because you don't like his teachers, you'll take as gospel his hoax, but not his retraction, even though his hoax was full of out of character quotes that were never substantiated anywhere else... That seems like an exercise of confirmation bias.
How about we talk about what Freemasonry has actually done. The testimonials of millions of men over 300+ years, millions of dollars donated to charity every day, writings of thousands of Masons in periodicals, proceedings and books over that same period, the character of the men in the Fraternity from Washington to Franklin to Kipling to Churchill to Twain to Voltaire.
Are we perfect? Of course not, but people sling this kind of mud at any organization that seeks to better itself and its members.
6 [deleted] 2016-04-06
[deleted]
0 Tyler_Zoro 2016-04-06
So... again, why trust him? Are you suggesting that you should not have quoted from a derivative of his hoax, or are you still backing him?
Edit/Side point: I don't think he was a Jesuit, was he?
2 [deleted] 2016-04-06
[deleted]
0 Tyler_Zoro 2016-04-06
Okay, fair. It's about the Bible.
But you introduced some very well-known hoaxes in your thesis, so it's hard to take your biblical exegesis seriously. Still, let's look at it:
To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia:
So, not a Roman name... did you mean that his entire existence was fabricated by the Romans? That's hard to believe, given that his cult were actively hostile to the Romans and that they were generally considered enemies of the state.
Obviously not, we know that the names comes from the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew. That is actually the most solidly attested element of Jesus's life.
Well... not Revelation, and not the parts that are about his church in the years after his death, but before the codification of the Gospels. But generally, yes.
Note that the Isaiah passage you're fond of is actually about King Nebuchadnezzar. It's about how a person who seemed so righteous and grand could have fallen so far (you may recall that he's the one who sacked the first Temple at Jerusalem).
(citation needed)
An interesting twist on the Gnostic Christian idea that the God of the Torah was the deceiver (and creator) and that it was Jesus who was sent to show humankind the path to gnosis (self awareness) and the way to escape the false deity.
I'm not advocating Gnostic Christianity, but it's interesting that you're arriving at a similar, though slightly different conclusion.
Subtlety is not your forte...
You know that New Years Eve isn't celebrating Jesus, right?
So, let me give you a different perspective. You're right, there's a conspiracy, but it's not the trivial kind that we can easily understand: a simple lie about a person or event.
It's a conspiracy of storytelling, and we all participate in it. We all create a narrative around our hopes and dreams and fears and fantasies. We're hard-wired to build a mythology, and that's the reals conspiracy: we lie to ourselves and tell ourselves that what we've become comfortable with believing is true. We might not even like it. People tell themselves that they're trapped in a job they hate. They could walk away at any time, but they're comfortable in their suffering.
The same is true for mythology.
But! There's a kernel of truth in every lie. And in every mythology we've ever developed, there's the seed of something grander, something... divine, if you will. Seek it out, ignore your comfort in finding the easy answer. Read some Aquinas and Scotus and Plato and Lao Tzu and Origen. Don't stop learning. When you convince yourself that you've learned enough, tell that voice to shut up and keep learning.
I have faith in you.
1 [deleted] 2016-04-06
[deleted]
0 Tyler_Zoro 2016-04-06
If you have to resort to ad hominem...
6 [deleted] 2016-04-06
[deleted]
0 Tyler_Zoro 2016-04-06
You're begging the question. The cited "quotes" previously were hoaxes.
Was not a Freemason until the end of his life, long after he wrote his books about Freemasonry.
Not a Mason.
Hey, you found a Freemason!
I'll just point to this article with regards to Pike on Lucifer:
Use of Knowledge
This is a direct quote from the Taxil Hoax.
2 [deleted] 2016-04-06
[deleted]
0 Tyler_Zoro 2016-04-06
Who do you think I'm quoting?
0 Tyler_Zoro 2016-04-06
So... again, why trust him? Are you suggesting that you should not have quoted from a derivative of his hoax, or are you still backing him?
Edit/Side point: I don't think he was a Jesuit, was he?
0 Tyler_Zoro 2016-04-06
Who do you think I'm quoting?
1 CaucasianEagle 2016-04-06
My point is who cares about the bible's interpretation when there are countless cultures copying the same story analogies which stem from African and Australian origins. The entire concept of Jesus is to take on the "positive" traits of other gods. The Romans wanted to unify cultures just like the Greeks did with Serapis. Sorry to burst your bubble.
2 CaucasianEagle 2016-04-06
Don't you want to get to the bottom of things?