Sun of God?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Bone_Dancer

This is just too funny really. So are stories of the earth riding on the back of a tortise any more plausible? What about Atlas holding the whole thing up on his shoulders.

So there is only some debatable evidence regarding the historical Jesus outside the NT.

So what you are really saying is that there is just as much evidence of JC's existence as there is of Odin, Zeus, Satan, Lucifer, Ahura Mazda, the Asartu, Shiva, Marduk, etc. ?

I don't know that it's a matter of just as much evidence of JC's existence, because to claim there is any evidence outside the Bible is to imply the Biblical Jesus did exist. And as such there is no non-Biblical credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man or demi-god, as the case may be. As mentioned, not even Nazareth existed in 1st century.

When one considers evangelicals, or Fundamentalist Christians, take the Bible literally and as such believe the Bible inerrant and the aforementioned tales of a flat Earth, such as is related in Matthew 4:8, when the Devil took Jesus to the mountain top and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, context is skewed when it attempts to validate the absurd.

People live their lives believing the Bible is the literal dictation of god's word. That it is a closed cannon, that it was compiled by sinful men, that it was authorized to print by the deviant monarch King James, makes no difference to many. So symbolic meaning, allegory, etc.... is not really an issue in that regard because if a perfect being, called god, is believed to take the time to write a book then that perfect being can never make an imperfect record of creation from Genesis unto Revelation, as an omniscient being.

However, that Jesus did not exist precludes all of that from being true. And that there are other savior gods from which his myth was copied calls into question the entire NT. Not to mention the whole of the OT, to which he referred when he said he had come to fulfill the law contained therein.

So I guess you could say what I'm saying is Christianity is a lie and the sun of god mythos is far more real.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Dunhill

[QUOTE=Bone_Dancer]I don't know that it's a matter of just as much evidence of JC's existence, because to claim there is any evidence outside the Bible is to imply the Biblical Jesus did exist. And as such there is no non-Biblical credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man or demi-god, as the case may be. As mentioned, not even Nazareth existed in 1st century. [/QUOTE]

Just to play devil's advocate...
Hadn't read the Nazareth take before. However equating Nazareth to the equivalent of Bum Fuck Egypt (or Israel) doesn't seem that far fetched.

I have seen how they have discovered ruins of a second Bethlehem that much more closely resembles Biblical description than the traditional Bethlehem.

But I do agree - myopic Biblical literalists really irritate me. For their lack of common sense as well as missing out on some cool stuff. Likewise separating Xianity from earlier traditions - Jewish, Mithraic, Zoroastrian, Manichean, etc. - is impossible. However I do not see borrowing symbolism as negating the message but rather reinterpreting it for the current generation.

I also agree that disclaiming the existence of JC cripples Xianity in general. However I don't see the lack of evidence as absolute proof of negating his existence. Similarly I find the idea that the traditional gospels, gnostic and other related literature (along with the societal as well as spiritual ramifications thereof) to be based on some Jewish disgruntled political activists in a back room to be highly improbable.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Bone_Dancer

Just to play devil's advocate...
Hadn't read the Nazareth take before. However equating Nazareth to the equivalent of Bum Fuck Egypt (or Israel) doesn't seem that far fetched.

I have seen how they have discovered ruins of a second Bethlehem that much more closely resembles Biblical description than the traditional Bethlehem.

But I do agree - myopic Biblical literalists really irritate me. For their lack of common sense as well as missing out on some cool stuff. Likewise separating Xianity from earlier traditions - Jewish, Mithraic, Zoroastrian, Manichean, etc. - is impossible. However I do not see borrowing symbolism as negating the message but rather reinterpreting it for the current generation.

I also agree that disclaiming the existence of JC cripples Xianity in general. However I don't see the lack of evidence as absolute proof of negating his existence. Similarly I find the idea that the traditional gospels, gnostic and other related literature (along with the societal as well as spiritual ramifications thereof) to be based on some Jewish disgruntled political activists in a back room to be highly improbable.

Well, on the matter of the message and reinterpreting for the contemporary generation, via the Bible, I see a message the world can do without. Because the message it's forwarded thus far has helped make the dysfunction that is the world, as it is.

An exclusivist gospel, a mythical messiah meant to bring the message of salvation to those that are damned because the only god cursed them all for being exactly as they were made to be by that omni genesis, and then sent himself (or not depending on which scripture one reads), to save only the chosen from the curse he created himself.

This Bible that is said to be a guide to life and at the same time, in that instruction, advocates misogyny, bigotry and murder, pedophilia, etc... is a message that has created a divisive atmosphere in this world largely populated by those faithful to that what validates their own bias against those they have cause to hate, discriminate against or look down upon because it's always easy to say that's OK, when god hates the same people "you" do. And that's a message this world can do without. Because look where it's gotten us so far. This is hell and this world is heaven. It's all what we create it to be, according to the faith we have in what it means to be here.


Regarding Nazareth, Jesus alleged hometown that did not exist in 1st century, this, I think, provides an interesting read on the subject. When the mans town didn't exist, building from the ground up, it's no stretch to then know the rest of the myth is just that. Fable, fiction, un-true.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: winged one

Why bother to reach. I think it's a dismissive question, when the myth of a fictionurlal Christ has enabled denominations faithful to it to be the most populace believer sects on Earth.
And many Christians today are not aware their Bible is a closed canon, nor are they aware of how that came to pass. Many are of the belief one does not question god and as such , by proxy, one does not question how gods faith came to be.


I think when billions of people believe in a savior that has caused the history to be born as it was in the name of that faith, it's important to scrutinize the legitimacy of those origins.

And while there is no historical non-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus, there was a Yeshua Ben Pantera that did exist about a century before.

Frick!!!! I had a whole post written and then the forums logged me out.

Good point above Bone Dancer.

And Kath I had some responses, but hey...

Meh..For the moment I retire.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Dunhill

Link didn't work - I read the Wiki article which has several theories but may look further.

[QUOTE=Bone_Dancer]An exclusivist gospel, a mythical messiah meant to bring the message of salvation to those that are damned because the only god cursed them all for being exactly as they were made to be by that omni genesis, and then sent himself (or not depending on which scripture one reads), to save only the chosen from the curse he created himself.[/QUOTE]

A rather creative interpretation of Xian theology especially since the 'curse' you speak of is freewill. If you are referring to original sin, it is quite well documented that every man is a sinner (except one notable exception) and yet is still capable of getting into Heaven.

Original sin and mysoginy as mentioned above come a lot from Paul & Augustine - two individuals I have some issues with but each come from a hedonsitic background with some issues with women. For example Augustine thought 'morning wood' was an example of the lustful desires of the sub-conscious meaning man's inner nature was evil.

[QUOTE=Bone_Dancer]This Bible that is said to be a guide to life and at the same time, in that instruction, advocates misogyny, bigotry and murder, pedophilia, etc... is a message that has created a divisive atmosphere in this world largely populated by those faithful to that what validates their own bias against those they have cause to hate, discriminate against or look down upon because it's always easy to say that's OK, when god hates the same people "you" do. And that's a message this world can do without. Because look where it's gotten us so far. This is hell and this world is heaven. It's all what we create it to be, according to the faith we have in what it means to be here. [/QUOTE]

(Insert each and every religion/philosophy) is a message that has created a divisive atmosphere in this world largely populated by those faithful to that what validates their own bias against those they have cause to hate, discriminate against or look down upon because it's always easy to say that's OK, when (the author of a book, group of people or anything else you might agree with) hates the same people "you" do.

With conviction comes intolerance and bigotry - in each and every case. (Agnosticism could be seen as an exception but it could be argued that agnosticism is not conviction - "like using immobility as a method of transportation" (Life of Pi). Once you are right, that makes someone else wrong and therefore lesser than you.People don't need the Bible to hate, a cookbook would do just fine for some.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Bone_Dancer

Link didn't work - I read the Wiki article which has several theories but may look further.



A rather creative interpretation of Xian theology especially since the 'curse' you speak of is freewill. If you are referring to original sin, it is quite well documented that every man is a sinner (except one notable exception) and yet is still capable of getting into Heaven.

Actually the curse I was speaking of was sin. That what separated god from his creation because god made the first of our kind ignorant or without knowledge. Consequently when they ate of the fruit of the tree of Gnosis/knowledge, and became like god god cursed them and their seed to be born sinners for all generations to come.

However, free will is not possible within the domain of omniscient omnipresent omni-genesis. The Adam and Eve could not have surprised omniscience (all knowing), by eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and thereby did they gain the intellect that would have then and only then afforded them the capacity to choose to obey or disobey, by exercising free will.

(Insert each and every religion/philosophy) is a message that has created a divisive atmosphere in this world largely populated by those faithful to that what validates their own bias against those they have cause to hate, discriminate against or look down upon because it's always easy to say that's OK, when (the author of a book, group of people or anything else you might agree with) hates the same people "you" do.

With conviction comes intolerance and bigotry - in each and every case. (Agnosticism could be seen as an exception but it could be argued that agnosticism is not conviction - "like using immobility as a method of transportation" (Life of Pi). Once you are right, that makes someone else wrong and therefore lesser than you.People don't need the Bible to hate, a cookbook would do just fine for some.

I would concur with your take on Agnosticism, in this context as I would also agree that people do not need the Bible to hate. However, the Bible is referenced in this discussion because the OP addressed the myth of Jesus and as such the Bible comes into play in that regard.

Conviction does indeed make for a divisive atmosphere. The notion there is only one right way to live, vote, love, worship, makes a conflict amid those that do not concur. The one thing that unites all people of faith however is the notion of the creator of all things and how that should be defined, or deified for that matter, and worshiped. Which then brings into question the obvious. If there is only one, how can anyone worship anything else but the one!?
Which then makes for the observation that the conflict in that monotheist point of view, is simply a matter of semantics. God, in any religious context, by any other name is still god.

But it takes human ego to think there's only one point of view about that that's correct. And Bibles make that designation quite clear. As did Jesus when he said no one comes to the father but through him. (John 14:6-9) Thereby alienating everyone on earth that does not believe in Jesus and yet Jesus said he did not come to save everyone on Earth that the Christian faith believes are damned by sin unless redeemed by that faith of/in Jesus. Mark 4:11-12.



Presents quite the quandary.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Dunhill

Actually the curse I was speaking of was sin. That what separated god from his creation because god made the first of our kind ignorant or without knowledge. Consequently when they ate of the fruit of the tree of Gnosis/knowledge, and became like god god cursed them and their seed to be born sinners for all generations to come.

I knew that, I just wasn't clear and jumped a step - sin is the result of the exercise of free will.

However, free will is not possible within the domain of omniscient omnipresent omni-genesis. The Adam and Eve could not have surprised omniscience (all knowing), by eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and thereby did they gain the intellect that would have then and only then afforded them the capacity to choose to obey or disobey, by exercising free will.

Ah, but the Fruit only gave them the details about the knowledge of good and evil and the exercise of free will. The very fact that they ate the Fruit in the first place against the command of God is the first act of disobedience meaning there is something more to A&E than a blank slate sheep.

Which then makes for the observation that the conflict in that monotheist point of view, is simply a matter of semantics. God, in any religious context, by any other name is still god.

Mono/poly/heno/Bob-theist really. To be cynical most religions agree on the big stuff, it is in the sematics that they all disagree.

But it takes human ego to think there's only one point of view about that that's correct. And Bibles make that designation quite clear. As did Jesus when he said no one comes to the father but through him. (John 14:6-9) Thereby alienating everyone on earth that does not believe in Jesus and yet Jesus said he did not come to save everyone on Earth that the Christian faith believes are damned by sin unless redeemed by that faith of/in Jesus. Mark 4:11-12.

Salvation outside the church. That indeed has become an issue with the advent of easy global travel and communication. What about Moses, Abraham, etc and all those before JC's time? All the good Jews basically. What about tribes in the Amazon jungle who have never met a missionary? The opening of John (In the beginning was the Word (JC)...) the spirit of JC is eternal and therefore transcends the church. It has been argued that those who haven't heard the Word to have the opportunity to be saved while those who have heard and rejected it are judged more harshly. Similarly the Catholic Church recently re-affirmed that the only True Way is indeed the Catholic Church (as if there was any doubt;) ) but I don't recall anything on Protestants, Orthodox, etc. Essentially, the quote in John is quite ambiguous - except for literalists which we both seem to agree are pretty close minded.

On a humorous thought, it came to me last night that your earlier argument was essentially the author of the Q source was the precursor of L Ron Hubbard.

I must say this thread has gotten more interesting. Thanks.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Bone_Dancer

I knew that, I just wasn't clear and jumped a step - sin is the result of the exercise of free will.

But can there truly exist, 'free will', within the domain of that which is all knowing? And can a perfect being create an imperfect being and retain it's title as inerrant?!

Such is the quandary, the contradiction to the status of perfect all knowing god, in the A&E scenario. In a nutshell we are to believe the perfect all knowing god created humans as imperfect beings, because they sinned by disobeying gods command, and then cursed them for that what omniscience would see coming.

Ah, but the Fruit only gave them the details about the knowledge of good and evil and the exercise of free will. The very fact that they ate the Fruit in the first place against the command of God is the first act of disobedience meaning there is something more to A&E than a blank slate sheep.

So by that premise the fruit giving them the details about the knowledge of good and evil it is still more than was in their possession at the time of their creation. If they became like god by consuming the fruit of knowledge/Gnosis, then that means they were imbued with knowledge of good and evil and thereby free will. Hence, prior to that those traits would be absent and as such they would not understand what was evil and what was good, nor could they exercise their will freely when they were not possessed of the intellect to choose willfully to be good or evil.

Also remember, the serpent enticed Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge by telling her it would be a good thing. A boon, as it were. And also remember that all that time A&E were in contact with god it was only through the vehicle of a disembodied voice. They never saw god. So there's the serpent in the tree, talking to Eve and how would she know that would be a bad thing without being possessed of knowledge the serpent was evil?

Furthermore, if man is told in the Bible thou shalt not tempt thy god, what about god tempting his first born!? Would there be a necessity to obey if god had not planted the tree's in the paradise he created?! Why put two tree's that would surely condemn A&E if they ate of their fruit, in paradise!? And can it truly be paradise if there was rooted within it two tree's who's fruit were forbidden to the only two occupants within it who would be subject to gods wrath if those fruits were eaten because they would make humans just like god? And why would that be a bad thing?! If god made the first of our kind ignorant why forbid knowledge and then curse with sin for gaining the knowledge that makes us just like god!?

Mono/poly/heno/Bob-theist really. To be cynical most religions agree on the big stuff, it is in the sematics that they all disagree.

Agreed. But then again, isn't religion itself a vehicle of ego? What hubris it is to institutionalize the human condition by contriving mythologies that purport the creative power of all things cares especially about us and expects us to care particularly about it!?

Salvation outside the church. That indeed has become an issue with the advent of easy global travel and communication. What about Moses, Abraham, etc and all those before JC's time? All the good Jews basically. What about tribes in the Amazon jungle who have never met a missionary? The opening of John (In the beginning was the Word (JC)...) the spirit of JC is eternal and therefore transcends the church. It has been argued that those who haven't heard the Word to have the opportunity to be saved while those who have heard and rejected it are judged more harshly. Similarly the Catholic Church recently re-affirmed that the only True Way is indeed the Catholic Church (as if there was any doubt;) ) but I don't recall anything on Protestants, Orthodox, etc. Essentially, the quote in John is quite ambiguous - except for literalists which we both seem to agree are pretty close minded.

I once asked a minister about the very first part of the quote above. If redemption is only achieved through JC, so says the NT, does that mean all the OT patriarchs died unredeemed and as such are now in hell?

"Yes!" He said, because no one comes to the father but through the new testament.

Then again, John 10:16 implies that even though someone may not hear about the gospels or JC, they can still find grace because Jesus chooses to save them himself, regardless. Yet again the "chosen people" scenario.

On a humorous thought, it came to me last night that your earlier argument was essentially the author of the Q source was the precursor of L Ron Hubbard.

I admit I am lost as to whom or what you are referring relative to, "Q" source? :eh:

I must say this thread has gotten more interesting. Thanks.

Thank you for contributing to that.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Dunhill

So by that premise the fruit giving them the details about the knowledge of good and evil it is still more than was in their possession at the time of their creation. If they became like god by consuming the fruit of knowledge/Gnosis, then that means they were imbued with knowledge of good and evil and thereby free will. Hence, prior to that those traits would be absent and as such they would not understand what was evil and what was good, nor could they exercise their will freely when they were not possessed of the intellect to choose willfully to be good or evil.

I don't agree with the last part. Just because they did not know the difference between good or evil does not mean they acted in a good or evil way, i.e. they could just as easily have been sociopathic nutjobs as well as 'little angels'. For example - did A&E have pre-marital sex including oral and anal? Did Eve have a period and did Adam touch here during that time? Did they lie to each other?

Also remember, the serpent enticed Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge by telling her it would be a good thing. A boon, as it were. And also remember that all that time A&E were in contact with god it was only through the vehicle of a disembodied voice. They never saw god. So there's the serpent in the tree, talking to Eve and how would she know that would be a bad thing without being possessed of knowledge the serpent was evil?

And I do see it as a boon. They also did see God - walking through the Garden even.
She also would know because God told her not to do it and His word trumps talking snakes (flash of 'watery tarts lobbing scimitars at you is no way to form a government).

Furthermore, if man is told in the Bible thou shalt not tempt thy god, what about god tempting his first born!? Would there be a necessity to obey if god had not planted the tree's in the paradise he created?! Why put two tree's that would surely condemn A&E if they ate of their fruit, in paradise!? And can it truly be paradise if there was rooted within it two tree's who's fruit were forbidden to the only two occupants within it who would be subject to gods wrath if those fruits were eaten because they would make humans just like god? And why would that be a bad thing?! If god made the first of our kind ignorant why forbid knowledge and then curse with sin for gaining the knowledge that makes us just like god!?

Exactly. Would eternity in ignorance really be paradise? It wasn't some cruel joke. Would it be more agreeable if A&E were created with the knowledge already? I would say no. It is man's nature not to take the word from somebody else but must learn from experience. One learns more from experience that from a book - kind of like the scene from Goodwill Hunting. While Will may be able to analyze the Sisteenth Chapel, he doesn't know what it smells like on the inside. It wasn't a curse, it was being blessed with humanity.

PS: While I find it impossible to take the A&E myth (as well as a lot of the Bible) literally, some of the symbolism and theological ramifications fascinating.

I once asked a minister about the very first part of the quote above. If redemption is only achieved through JC, so says the NT, does that mean all the OT patriarchs died unredeemed and as such are now in hell?

"Yes!" He said, because no one comes to the father but through the new testament.

That is really too bad and such people really tick me off.

Then again, John 10:16 implies that even though someone may not hear about the gospels or JC, they can still find grace because Jesus chooses to save them himself, regardless. Yet again the "chosen people" scenario.

Reading that passage seems to foreshadow the Mormons. (Shudder) Anyway, how do get 'chosen people' out of that? JC seems busy with other places to go, people to see.

Q Source. Acutally that is redundant as Q stands for quelle which is German for source - lots of German terms in theology. Looking at Mark and Luke/Acts (likely the earliest of the synoptic gospels - same author for Luke and Acts), they duplicate each other on several points. This leads one to believe that each may have been copying perhaps an earlier prime souce - the Q document. You can then compare the differences and analyze the reasons for them. Similar work had been done with the Old Testament, I believe coming up with four disctinct authors like the Deuteronomic Historian. I don't recall the other initials. For example there are numberous essentially editorial comments in several of the books which was common practice for the time. There are also two disctinct sections in Isaiah leading one to believe there were two authors writing far apart in time.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Bone_Dancer

I don't agree with the last part. Just because they did not know the difference between good or evil does not mean they acted in a good or evil way, i.e. they could just as easily have been sociopathic nutjobs as well as 'little angels'. For example - did A&E have pre-marital sex including oral and anal? Did Eve have a period and did Adam touch here during that time? Did they lie to each other?

Well, consider the impact of disobedience upon the seed of both A&E after that one transgression of ignorance. How would Eve know not to eat when the Serpent made it so enticing and told her she and the Adam would be like unto god, which he did not want, if she but ate of the fruit!?
And why would god test his first born as an omniscient creator and then condemn them for being exactly as made!? A condemnation that separated our kind from god forever. And metaphorically speaking how can there be a true paradise, for all that would imply, if the antethesis of god (devil) can enter in disguise and overcome his order not to eat of tree's that could not be in paradise had god not planted them there, foreseeing the whole scenario beforehand, as an omniscient omnipresent power!? Which also means, being everywhere present, that the serpent would not only not have been able to enter paradise but would never have been able to do what it did without god's knowledge.


So, I think the question then becomes, why? Why would god create humans and then allow them to be damned for possessing his characteristics!? Which is actually what condemned them. Disobedience, was made possible by god's permitting the tempter access to paradise. Which can not be paradise if evil can enter in.

And I do see it as a boon. They also did see God - walking through the Garden even.
She also would know because God told her not to do it and His word trumps talking snakes (flash of 'watery tarts lobbing scimitars at you is no way to form a government).

Actually I believe the Bible says they heard god walking through the garden. (Eden)
1 John 4:12 says no one has ever seen god. Not even Moses, whom god only allowed to see his back parts. (Oh the visual. Mooning by god! Oh yeah! lol)
(Exodus 33:23).

Exactly. Would eternity in ignorance really be paradise? It wasn't some cruel joke. Would it be more agreeable if A&E were created with the knowledge already? I would say no. It is man's nature not to take the word from somebody else but must learn from experience. One learns more from experience that from a book - kind of like the scene from Goodwill Hunting. While Will may be able to analyze the Sisteenth Chapel, he doesn't know what it smells like on the inside. It wasn't a curse, it was being blessed with humanity.

Blessed!? The whole account of the A&E creation and fall is what made necessary humanities redemption from the curse of sin god placed upon them. As well as that separation between humans and god ever after, for the transgression of our fore-bearers . (God cursed the seed of both A&E). So, if it is a blessing that we became possessed of our humanity would then it have been a curse had Eve obeyed god in all things and not eaten of the fruit!? And as that is the polar opposite destiny of us all, given your scenario, what does that say about god from the outset in this analogy?!

PS: While I find it impossible to take the A&E myth (as well as a lot of the Bible) literally, some of the symbolism and theological ramifications fascinating.

Agreed. That's why I enjoy discussing such things.

I once asked a minister about the very first part of the quote above. If redemption is only achieved through JC, so says the NT, does that mean all the OT patriarchs died unredeemed and as such are now in hell?

"Yes!" He said, because no one comes to the father but through the new testament.

That is really too bad and such people really tick me off.

Ministers have a deft way of doing that in their arrogant ignorance. I've heard ministers say a great many things that are ridiculous and insult their god in the process. Televangelists being one example.

Reading that passage seems to foreshadow the Mormons. (Shudder) Anyway, how do get 'chosen people' out of that? JC seems busy with other places to go, people to see.

Busy, busy savior. lol I get "chosen people' out of the passage saying Jesus saying other sheep will hear his voice and they shall be saved. But mostly I take the chosen people paradigm to be described early on in the NT. When JC came to save the Jews and when they did not accept him as the long awaited Messiah, he and his Disciples took the message to the Gentiles. (Goy). And even then, we're talking a message intended for the Jews and as such only those that were meant to understand it, even among the Goy, would be saved. Hence, chosen people. Which means not only did Jesus words arrive not for all people to understand, but so that only the select would be redeemed while all others would suffer damnation.
How does god create the condition of damnation and then send himself to save only the few of all that he created and damned himself, in his capacity as omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, omni-genesis!?

Q Source. Acutally that is redundant as Q stands for quelle which is German for source - lots of German terms in theology. Looking at Mark and Luke/Acts (likely the earliest of the synoptic gospels - same author for Luke and Acts), they duplicate each other on several points. This leads one to believe that each may have been copying perhaps an earlier prime souce - the Q document. You can then compare the differences and analyze the reasons for them. Similar work had been done with the Old Testament, I believe coming up with four disctinct authors like the Deuteronomic Historian. I don't recall the other initials. For example there are numberous essentially editorial comments in several of the books which was common practice for the time. There are also two disctinct sections in Isaiah leading one to believe there were two authors writing far apart in time.

Thank you for that explanation.

I know I've heard the NT Apostolic texts, (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were written decades after Jesus alleged crucifixion and not by the apostles themselves. And I would agree there are a huge number of discrepancies in the Bible so that one may infer there were scribes that were not in contact with one another when they were compiling what is todays Bible. The two different accounts of creation in Genesis 1 & 2 being the first examples of things to come.


Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Dunhill

[QUOTE=Bone_Dancer]Well, consider the impact of disobedience upon the seed of both A&E after that one transgression of ignorance. How would Eve know not to eat when the Serpent made it so enticing and told her she and the Adam would be like unto god, which he did not want, if she but ate of the fruit!? [/QUOTE]

She should have known not to eat it because God told her not to. The really funny thing about this whole situation as a proof of mankind's arrogance, need to explore and general stubbornness is that they both were told point blank-directly by God not to do something and they still went ahead and did it. Considerting this I find it really naieve of evangelicals to expect people to follow, from their perspective, divinely inspired words in a book.

[QUOTE=Bone_Dancer]And why would god test his first born as an omniscient creator and then condemn them for being exactly as made!? A condemnation that separated our kind from god forever. And metaphorically speaking how can there be a true paradise, for all that would imply, if the antethesis of god (devil) can enter in disguise and overcome his order not to eat of tree's that could not be in paradise had god not planted them there, foreseeing the whole scenario beforehand, as an omniscient omnipresent power!? Which also means, being everywhere present, that the serpent would not only not have been able to enter paradise but would never have been able to do what it did without god's knowledge. [/QUOTE]

I don't see it as a condemnation but rather a liberation. Manking is no longer given everything it wants but has to work for it and in doing so appreciate it. Man must learn from doing.

Also, equating the serpent with the devil was a much later interpretation. On this note the Apolcalypse of Moses is an interesting tale of Eve trying to get back in the Garden to get the apple of life as Adam is dying.

[QUOTE=Bone_Dancer]Blessed!? The whole account of the A&E creation and fall is what made necessary humanities redemption from the curse of sin god placed upon them. As well as that separation between humans and god ever after, for the transgression of our fore-bearers . (God cursed the seed of both A&E). So, if it is a blessing that we became possessed of our humanity would then it have been a curse had Eve obeyed god in all things and not eaten of the fruit!? And as that is the polar opposite destiny of us all, given your scenario, what does that say about god from the outset in this analogy?![/QUOTE]

But manking is not separated for all eternity. Enter JC to allow humans to rejoin the Godhead. The only true separation between people and God is Hell.

If Eve didn't listen to the serpent, then neither of us would be having this conversation and A&E would never have had kids. Although those mysterious daughters of Eve that suddenly appeared to marry her sons might explain it. Consider this - if they had had kids before the fruit then there would be a lineage born without original sin.

[QUOTE=Bone_Dancer]I know I've heard the NT Apostolic texts, (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were written decades after Jesus alleged crucifixion and not by the apostles themselves. And I would agree there are a huge number of discrepancies in the Bible so that one may infer there were scribes that were not in contact with one another when they were compiling what is todays Bible. The two different accounts of creation in Genesis 1 & 2 being the first examples of things to come. [/QUOTE]

Mark is about 70 CE, Luke/Acts & Matthew soon after. John a little later if I recall correctly.

A few comments on the two creation stories.
Some think Adam did have two wives. Lilith being the first who left him after he wouldn't allow her to be on top during sex.
Aquinas & Augustine really hit the second story hard as it fueled their thoughts regarding subserviant women in the church.

Suggested reading - Pagels Adam, Eve and the Serpent. The Origin of Satan is also good.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: amunptah777

While my own studies in this area have been horribly expository at best, I appreciate a sound mind, and an educated tongue. The authors obviously know what they're discussing in a traditional way.

Further, I'd have to say without question, the concept of the male sun deity is only about 4000 years old, codified and solidified by the abrahamic faiths.

And I'm here to tell to tell you. This concept is false.



Thet

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Bone_Dancer

She should have known not to eat it because God told her not to. The really funny thing about this whole situation as a proof of mankind's arrogance, need to explore and general stubbornness is that they both were told point blank-directly by God not to do something and they still went ahead and did it. Considering this I find it really naieve of evangelicals to expect people to follow, from their perspective, divinely inspired words in a book.

Well, evangelicals believe the Bible is inerrant and the literal words of god. After that you can sell them anything as long as you convince them their soul's on the line should they choose not to believe. I think when pastors of the word say one has to set aside their intellect in order to have faith in god, it says quite a lot. Translation: One must choose to be stupid, to believe this religion.

I don't see it as a condemnation but rather a liberation. Manking is no longer given everything it wants but has to work for it and in doing so appreciate it. Man must learn from doing.

I dare say, in my understanding of the Bible and particularly the beginning as related in Genesis, it was never a matter of being given anything, when god planted two vehicles for newborn ignorant humans damnation into his created paradise and then told those possessed only of the intellect he invested into them: "Don't touch!" Instead, I read it as conditional love and as such Eden was a pseudo-paradise.

There is nothing Omniscience can not foresee. When god planted two tree's bearing such fruits as eternal life and Gnosis and then made them off limits at the very peril of mortals soul eternally, he said he wanted humans to be mortal and limited in life span as well as ignorant. Why would benevolence damn his creation for being exactly as made!?

Nothing was given Adam and Eve. They were made, tempted, cursed and expelled by an omnipotent father. Therefore, man was made to learn from doing in the beginning. When omnipresence cursed lesser beings after it tempted them in their ignorance.

If I tell a newborn, "Don't touch that flame on the candle!" And it does and burns itself, is it fit parenting to let the wound remain untreated until years later when I feel like healing it with a salve!?

Of course not. I would be called, and rightly so, an unfit parent. So the analogy best describes, in the garden, that very scenario. Adam and Eve were newborns without intellect or discretionary powers. They , in essence, touched that flame and they and their seed were cursed to suffer for it. Until god sent himself, (or not depending on which NT scripture one reads), to change the rules he made himself when he set forth that sin/barrier between himself and the inbred seed of his first human creation forever.

I don't see it as a liberation, when one is first made to inhabit a realm where there are planted two traps to divest one's self from a life free of the god given burden of sin.

Also, equating the serpent with the devil was a much later interpretation. On this note the Apolcalypse of Moses is an interesting tale of Eve trying to get back in the Garden to get the apple of life as Adam is dying.

Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 would relate that the serpent was indeed Satan. II Corinthians 11:3 and John 8:44 (Jesus speaks) all imply the serpent was the Devil/Satan, in the Garden.

An interesting side note. In Ezekiel 28:14-15, it is referring to the perfection of Satan, as he was made by god who has no beginning. (Alpha/Omega) And how Satan's perfection, remained until iniquity was found in him. How can a perfect being (god) create a perfect being that then is found to be imperfect unless it's creator (god) made it so!?


This relates, in the characteristics attributed to god, in that a perfect being can not be imperfect, nor can it make imperfect beings unless it is by design. There is no free will in the lesser intelligence that is the possession of mere mortals, compared to the higher intelligence, "supreme being" that would necessarily qualify as god.

But manking is not separated for all eternity. Enter JC to allow humans to rejoin the Godhead. The only true separation between people and God is Hell.

And yet, god resides in hell and is both the evil and the good. ( Psalm 139:8 & Isaiah 45:7)

And if Jesus did die for the sins of the world then why is there still sin in the world!? Even as a burden that the Christian must be ever watchful against, even after they accepted Jesus as their savior!?

Then there's always this little verse: 1 John 3:9

If Eve didn't listen to the serpent, then neither of us would be having this conversation and A&E would never have had kids. Although those mysterious daughters of Eve that suddenly appeared to marry her sons might explain it. Consider this - if they had had kids before the fruit then there would be a lineage born without original sin.

Well, that would be true if the Bible account of our creation were true. It's not. Also remember, "Original Sin" was a concept contrived by St. Augustine of Hippo. Thus, OS was not something created by god, but by man.

A few comments on the two creation stories.
Some think Adam did have two wives. Lilith being the first who left him after he wouldn't allow her to be on top during sex.
Aquinas & Augustine really hit the second story hard as it fueled their thoughts regarding subserviant women in the church.

Ah yes, Lilith. Good for her! :p
However, I don't believe the two chapters I mentioned in Genesis related to Lilith but referenced the creation of the first man/woman. Also, I would imagine the copyists at the time would have omitted completely any reference alluding to a Lilith creation. Whereas chapters 1 & 2 and those aforementioned verses are glaring errors as to one creation in what is the Christian Bible and it's account of god's infallibility. Also, the Hebrew account of the creation of Lilith is in no wise related to chapter/verses in Genesis (1:27 & 2:7, 21 & 22).

Suggested reading - Pagels Adam, Eve and the Serpent. The Origin of Satan is also good.

I've heard of the Pagels book and shall look for it at the local library. In the meantime I'd also recommend, "The Secret History of Lucifer".



If you search it out @ Amazon.com you'll note they have amended the original title (above) to reference the DaVinci code. Quite unfortunate that the publisher (I can only presume) thought it a keen notion to ride on the coat tails of a questionable account. But it's still a fascinating read. Included is the research that led Ms.Picknett to discover some accounts/myths, that relate Lucifer was actually a Goddess or female figure, as opposed to the usual male imagery.



(*Just an aside. In your remarks above, did you intend to write: "Manking" ? Or is that a typo for, "Mankind"? )

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Dunhill

[QUOTE=Bone_Dancer]Nothing was given Adam and Eve. They were made, tempted, cursed and expelled by an omnipotent father. Therefore, man was made to learn from doing in the beginning. When omnipresence cursed lesser beings after it tempted them in their ignorance.

If I tell a newborn, "Don't touch that flame on the candle!" And it does and burns itself, is it fit parenting to let the wound remain untreated until years later when I feel like healing it with a salve!?

Of course not. I would be called, and rightly so, an unfit parent. So the analogy best describes, in the garden, that very scenario. Adam and Eve were newborns without intellect or discretionary powers. They , in essence, touched that flame and they and their seed were cursed to suffer for it. Until god sent himself, (or not depending on which NT scripture one reads), to change the rules he made himself when he set forth that sin/barrier between himself and the inbred seed of his first human creation forever.
[/QUOTE]

True. Nothing was given to them, or at least they thought so. The choice to eat or not to eat was given to them. Live in blissful ignorance and luxury or receive knowledge with all the pain that goes along with it. Still, I do not see this as a curse. Will the newborn touch a candle again? Hopefully not. As for the salve you speak of, is that not what JC was all about? The seed did not suffer but was made stonger.

[QUOTE=Bone_Dancer]Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 would relate that the serpent was indeed Satan. II Corinthians 11:3 and John 8:44 (Jesus speaks) all imply the serpent was the Devil/Satan, in the Garden. [/QUOTE]

Revelations was written from 60-90 CE and I can see how the serpent could be Satan in the Garden but don't think so. Could a dragon fit in a tree? I think A&E would have noticed the difference. Creation myths involving dragons was quite common - Rahab & Leviathan, Corinthians does not equate the serpent to Satan directly. John is also ambiguous. I recommend the Apocalypse of Moses for and interesting conversation with the satan serpent.

[QUOTE=Bone_Dancer]An interesting side note. In Ezekiel 28:14-15, it is referring to the perfection of Satan, as he was made by god who has no beginning. (Alpha/Omega) And how Satan's perfection, remained until iniquity was found in him. How can a perfect being (god) create a perfect being that then is found to be imperfect unless it's creator (god) made it so!? [/QUOTE]

The King of Tyre is Satan? But ah, the old how did evil come about. You cannot have free will without the introduction of evil. Does that make the one who gave you the choice also the source of the evil?

[QUOTE=Bone_Dancer]And yet, god resides in hell and is both the evil and the good. ( Psalm 139:8 & Isaiah 45:7)[/QUOTE]

Neither of which directly refers to the Xian hell. The first is Sheol and depths refers to the primordial water creation myth. This seems to refer to Gods omnipresence. For Isaiah, to some extent yes. God had a habit of destroying things and sending invading armies at you so that could be seen as both good and evil. But I have always had a problem with the personification of God into good, evil and even love.

[QUOTE=Bone_Dancer]Well, that would be true if the Bible account of our creation were true. It's not. [/QUOTE]

I never said it was. However people's belief in its message - literal or sybmolic - is quite real.

[QUOTE=Bone_Dancer]Also remember, "Original Sin" was a concept contrived by St. Augustine of Hippo. Thus, OS was not something created by god, but by man.[/QUOTE]

Here you seem to be contradicting yourself with the invention of original sin by Augustine with lamenting the introduction of sin into the Garden.

[QUOTE=Bone_Dancer]However, I don't believe the two chapters I mentioned in Genesis related to Lilith but referenced the creation of the first man/woman. Also, I would imagine the copyists at the time would have omitted completely any reference alluding to a Lilith creation. Whereas chapters 1 & 2 and those aforementioned verses are glaring errors as to one creation in what is the Christian Bible and it's account of god's infallibility. Also, the Hebrew account of the creation of Lilith is in no wise related to chapter/verses in Genesis (1:27 & 2:7, 21 & 22).[/QUOTE]

I disagree. The fact that there are two apparent differences is the reason why some see them as two different stories. While Xians, and I would gues Jews as well, would see them as being the same woman, some see the the differences as two different events. The first wife being Lilith, the seond being Eve. Lilith was an established deity already with so I don't see a problem with incorporating her imagery in a Jewish text. Similarly Asmodeus, a Zoroastrian demon of wrath, appears by name in the Apocryphal Tobit, as well as Jewish texts and even marries Lillith. (Levite and others would be better to ask on this but I think I accurately hit the high points)

But anyway you can blame Augustine & Acquinas for putting more weight behind the rib story showing woman's subservience to man although both could very well have known the Lilith story as well.

I haven't read Pinkett before but looking at her other books I would be quite skeptical about them. Or perhaps I haven't gotten over beign burned on the Hiram Key - which seems to deal with similar subjects with an equal amount of imagination and sketchy research. In other words I initially cringe when I read about the Templars being some uber-group of sorcerer occultist group with a centuries old secret agenda.

Do you have these passages memorized? That woudl be impressive. I am giving the online NIV a workout.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: sami999x

It's sometimes when I believe that Lucifer was just a good God. And maybe he was just God who was tormented on another planet, kinda like the Jesus cricifixion. I don't belive his name was exactly Luficer for sure. But the way angels and Jehovah treat him and Lilith, that's similar to the way Jesus got crucified. And what it Lucifer was some alien who was crucified on another planet, and then came down here to prove that the only God to be worshipped should be a liberator like him only.

ON the other hand, once you read up on the psyches of Jehovah, and Iblis, you can then figure out how the minds of judgemental assholes work. And it's more of some kind of an encoded message that makes them both similar the evil snake God that was an enemy of Ra. They represent nothing but "suppression of KNowledge".

But on the other hand, I view Lucifer & Lilith as a scientists. More like kind scientists, and not the David Banner type.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Bone_Dancer

True. Nothing was given to them, or at least they thought so. The choice to eat or not to eat was given to them. Live in blissful ignorance and luxury or receive knowledge with all the pain that goes along with it. Still, I do not see this as a curse. Will the newborn touch a candle again? Hopefully not. As for the salve you speak of, is that not what JC was all about? The seed did not suffer but was made stonger.

I see it as a curse. To be burdened to suffer the pains of surviving, under the mantel of sin per god's ordinance all their days. And then for their seed, for all the generations to come, to suffer similarly for the "sins" choices of their parents. In a paradise garden wherein the all knowing creator of all that was there, set the stage for it all to transpire. Yes, I see it as a curse.

But it's interesting that in Revelation, specifically chapter 22, the tree of life forbidden in Genesis bears leaves that heal the 12 nations and humanity, loyal unto god, may eat of it's fruits then. That humanity, newborn, were forbidden that boon in their beginning so as to suffer all their lives for making the choice that is not a choice within the domain of all knowledge, says quite a lot about god. Perhaps damning humanity gave him something to do, to prove his powers yet again. As he did with the Pharaoh in Egypt, when he slaughtered the first born of every living thing so as to prove (Contrary to forced pregnancy advocates that claim their god is pro-life), that he was the higher power in the land.

Revelations was written from 60-90 CE and I can see how the serpent could be Satan in the Garden but don't think so. Could a dragon fit in a tree? I think A&E would have noticed the difference. Creation myths involving dragons was quite common - Rahab & Leviathan, Corinthians does not equate the serpent to Satan directly. John is also ambiguous. I recommend the Apocalypse of Moses for and interesting conversation with the satan serpent.

I'll have to look into the Apocalypse of Moses for that. And no, Corinthians does not allude to Satan directly, however it alludes to the characteristics that are possessed by Satan. Besides, what other than the antithesis of god would tempt Eve in gods garden?
http://www.biblestudygames.com/biblestu ... nnames.htm

The King of Tyre is Satan?

It would appear so. http://whatthebibleteaches.com/wbt_510.htm

But ah, the old how did evil come about. You cannot have free will without the introduction of evil. Does that make the one who gave you the choice also the source of the evil?

Well, I think if we consider the characteristics of "god" first. (Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omni-genesis) how can anything , including evil, exist without being created by what the whole Bible affirms is the one and only god of all things. Who has no beginning, no end and who's words are eternal and unchanging forever and ever!? There can be no free will in humans, given they are created by that what is omniscient and omnipresent.
Nor, as can be argued quite well by Vexen Crabtree, can god be possessed of free will. But since god is suppose to be superior in knowledge to humanity..... http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/god_has ... _will.html

Neither of which directly refers to the Xian hell.

Perhaps you did not read the Psalms passage correctly. The Bible is not written for Jews, but for Christians. Therefore the reference to Hell is referencing the Christian Hell.

But I have always had a problem with the personification of God into good, evil and even love.

Well, we're talking about the perspective/context of the Bible being "god's word" and how it is perceived as such by the Christian faithful. Ergo, when god says he is the evil and the good, he should indeed know what he speaks of when he is to be held in faith as the creator of all that is, was and ever shall be.

Here you seem to be contradicting yourself with the invention of original sin by Augustine with lamenting the introduction of sin into the Garden.

No, I don't believe so. God said A&E sinned against him through their disobedience.

You spoke of "Original Sin". St. Augustine of Hippo is responsible for framing the concepts of original sin. (Wikipedia provides a related article to that effect. )
Original sin is then the curse attached to the seed of A&E, according to St.Augustine, as an inherent nature of the condemned seed of A&E, for all time, because of the sin of disobedience in the garden. Ergo, it is "original" sin. It was god that declared ignorance exercising itself in the garden via A&E was a sin. There did not exist such a thing until god called it so.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Genetic

Wow...this has been a good read. I almost feel bad for submitting this comment, but I found a like minded video of the original post. Take a look, I find this one a bit better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aW2N46vf4Q

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Dunhill

I'll have to look into the Apocalypse of Moses for that. And no, Corinthians does not allude to Satan directly, however it alludes to the characteristics that are possessed by Satan. Besides, what other than the antithesis of god would tempt Eve in gods garden?

Satan as in devil or satan as in the accuser from Job? Enter Zoroastrian dichotomy for that slight but very important change.

Well, I think if we consider the characteristics of "god" first. (Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omni-genesis) how can anything , including evil, exist without being created by what the whole Bible affirms is the one and only god of all things. Who has no beginning, no end and who's words are eternal and unchanging forever and ever!? There can be no free will in humans, given they are created by that what is omniscient and omnipresent.

Now we are enterinting into a giant fuzzy people have been debating for centuries. While I find that proof interesting it is my no means compelling. Just because you know you will do something tomorrow does not necessarily influence your decision to do so. Likewise what it today and tomorrow happened at the same time? A little Star Trekky perhaps but linear time is by no means absolute. Similarly just becuase you can change something doesn't mean you have to. Predestination is quite a boring and pointless subject to talk about really. I got invovled in a lengthy discussion a while ago with Shang Tsung on this very subject. To summarize predestination from a scientific point of view is much more compelling than from a religious one. What can break that chain of causality could very well be the soul/consciousness.

Perhaps you did not read the Psalms passage correctly. The Bible is not written for Jews, but for Christians. Therefore the reference to Hell is referencing the Christian Hell.

I did read the passage. Traditionally (but historically doubtful) the pslams were all written by King David and as such were written for Jews. However Christians went along and translated it usually for Christians. As such 'depths' in this case probably got translated as Hell in some cases (NIV didn't) but the word is actually Sheol which isn't Hell so much a a place for souls hang around and do basically nothing.

You spoke of "Original Sin". St. Augustine of Hippo is responsible for framing the concepts of original sin. (Wikipedia provides a related article to that effect. )
Original sin is then the curse attached to the seed of A&E, according to St.Augustine, as an inherent nature of the condemned seed of A&E, for all time, because of the sin of disobedience in the garden. Ergo, it is "original" sin. It was god that declared ignorance exercising itself in the garden via A&E was a sin. There did not exist such a thing until god called it so.

Excellent. Ignorance was not the sin but disobedience, or curiosity even - pride in a stretch. Sin did indeed exist, it was just much simpler. Likewise it doesn't say that Adam did not swear or masturbate, i.e. sin, before eating the fruit. If so then ingorance if sin is a good excuse and disobedience was a big enough sin to get them booted out.

Personally I think Augustine came up with such concepts to help interpret the texts how he wanted them interpreted. Likewise the idea of Immaculate Conception had to come about to take care of Mary & by extension JC. Which brings up an interesting point in that if Mary was born sinless then did she remain so her entire life? After the birth anyway. She obviously knew good and evil but was sinless. Interesting concept.

Mary joke - even clean.
So a priest dies and is in Heaven with St. Peter.
"So, do you have anything you would like to do?" Asks Pete.
"I have venerated the Virgin Mother my entire life and I would love to meet her."
"Sure - she is right over there".
So the priest wanders over and sits beside Mary and says, "I have attempted to live my life as you did in humility and grace. Do you have any regrets?"
Mary pauses a moment and says, "I wish I had a girl."

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Jenfucius

[QUOTE=Kath_;291332]12 steps, well lookie there.


In ancient Egyptian Mythology the God Horus walked on water, and in ancient Greek Mythology the giant hunter and son of the gods Orion walked on water. Hindu, Buddhist, and Greek traditions have stories about characters walking on water.

Osiris rose from the dead on the 3rd day, so did Adonis, so did Mithras... Sun-Day or day of the sun god, incidentally is mithraist in origin.

The Greco-Roman cult of Dionysius had their God, born of the virgin, Semele, being torn to pieces by the Titans. He was then resurrected by his mother. In commemorating his sacrificial death, the devotees ate bread and wine to represent his body and blood.

oh and budhism... Siddhārtha came along about 500 years before jesus, and said many of the same things "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" vs. "don't do unto others as you would have them not do to unto you" and many many others. And its not like these cultures had not mingled, Alexander saw to that.

How to turn water into wine to shock and amaze your guests, and other fun first century party games :



ad infinitum
It's not hard to see christ, as a figurative character probably based on a living person, ending up as a sort of catch-all for a variety of popular middle eastern myths, superstitions, and parables.
"hey those greeks said their guy walked on water"
"really? we'd better make our guy walk on water too.."[/QUOTE]
(I know its an old post)
I'll be curious Kath. If you have a link to the Amphora of Hiron of Alexandria. Its a very good picture of how it worked.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: LadyoftheLight

well, as a christian that learned most of my ideas from a tiny evangelical cell church, i must say dunhill is my hero!

as for my perceptions from worshiping the Christian God:

first, the debate about Jesus versus previous gods....Jesus was never a god!

secondly, i can understand how a god so frustrated by the constant imperfections of His creations would create Himself flesh to understand and once achieving that understanding choose to keep His divinity allowing us forgiveness for doing with faith what He couldn't.

I do not perceive the bible being the literal word of God, but rather fancy the idea of symbols and perceptions of those who encountered Him, allowing those who seek God to understand His lessons as they apply to their life, how many occultists accept tarot cards as being accurate predictors of the future?

it was through this God that i learned to respect myself and my body as His temple being a strong sexual female with the will to choose who worships here, with women like ruth, Haddassah and even mary magdaleine or the mary who listened and washed his feet, chastising her sister for running around doing "women's work" rather than learning from Him; how can anyone insist Abraham's God in either of his incarnations was a misogynist?

it seems this thread centers on adam and eve, skips a thousand or so years up to Jesus, there are such better stories to learn from in between, including the tolerance and protection God afforded those who followed Him, even blessing Adam and Eve, marking Caine for protection and all the other tolerant gestures He offered to bratty, spoiled children who are constantly misbehaving, but love Him absolutely...david is my favorite example for this statement.

and finally, people worshiped animals before any constellation http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=off ... stone-snak and i thought anubis was the jackal headed god of the dead?

and for many women the "curse" is indeed a blessing when involved with fleshly pursuits.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: AETERNITAS0

A secret clue from the Illuminati that Christ never existed, You have BC, before Christ, immediately followed by AD, after death, with nothing in between, where did the thirty years of his life go?
He's a story book character.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Vardigon

[QUOTE=AETERNITAS0;367727]A secret clue from the Illuminati that Christ never existed, You have BC, before Christ, immediately followed by AD, after death, with nothing in between, where did the thirty years of his life go?
He's a story book character.[/QUOTE]

Actually, the AD is an acronym for the latin phrase Anno Domini, which means "In the year of our Lord."

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

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: AETERNITAS0

I wasn't serious.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Vardigon

[QUOTE=AETERNITAS0;367750]I wasn't serious.[/QUOTE]

Ooops. Did not know this. They should really have implemented the sarcasm punctuation mark....

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Homura Goredoun

think of it. there was no one who can write about that 30 years of his life... his parents was poor. mary was with joseph.. i mean, carpentry was their business, what on earth could they earn for writing. his disciples was smart to record their encounter with him. basically the bible is part lie and part truth.. anyway, it is not the Gods that wrote it but man.

Jesus may have existed or maybe not. but one thing for sure is in every eon there is someone that was chosen to teach and enlighten the world. but why didnt they succeed? freewill.. corruption.. or whatever you may call it.. definitely its because of man themselves.

seriously guys, i know some of you hate that there is a religion. but hey, if everyone in the world is enlightened... that could be war...