It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

As above, so below. From Nimrod to Jesus

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: SelectStart

Heiser is a bum and crackpot.


I quite clearly stated I used more than the Bible.

So go check with your guru if it is OK to read Apocrypha.


I have never needed to rely on another man to read a book for me and tell me what it means. Name dropping some paid lecturer who no doubt is financed by one church or another and will never tell you anything beyond the profane interpretation is not going to impress me.

But everything I said is correct based on the Bible, Books of Enoch and the Zohar so whatever you are saying that the Bible doesn't say is in one of those books. Use the link.




posted on May, 23 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: SelectStart

I wouldn't bet you're life on that it is a fact that no town named Nazareth existed at that time and it should read Jesus the Nazarene.

A Nazarene was a very old tradition going back to the Nazirites of the OT. It was a sub sect of Judaism and not a town.


The Nazarenes and Ebionites rejected Paul for obvious reasons and were persecuted into extinction by the heretics for being heretics.

So basically the church Jesus was a member of was destroyed by the church you think has preserved God's Word for 2000 years all the while murdering non believers and destroying the history of the ancient world.

But yeah I am sure Jesus would approve of his teaching being ignored and changed into a pile of dog crap by the classic "if you can't beat em, join 'em (infiltrate)" scenario by a guy that never met him.

But it is a myth anyway. Take it as history and the messages becomes impotent.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Parazurvan
a reply to: SelectStart

Heiser is a bum and crackpot.


I quite clearly stated I used more than the Bible.

So go check with your guru if it is OK to read Apocrypha.


I have never needed to rely on another man to read a book for me and tell me what it means. Name dropping some paid lecturer who no doubt is financed by one church or another and will never tell you anything beyond the profane interpretation is not going to impress me.

But everything I said is correct based on the Bible, Books of Enoch and the Zohar so whatever you are saying that the Bible doesn't say is in one of those books. Use the link.


Bum and a crackpot? I would have to argue this is a crackpot statement. Disagree with him? Yes that's a logical statement, many other experts in the field of ancient scripture and language do disagree with him. Again, bum and crackpot? This is ignorant. He IS an expert, much more than me or chances are you even. He is not the end all be all, but rather just another opinion and worth listening to, if for nothing more than understanding another viewpoint.

He uses much more than the Bible, all you would have to do is watch the 3 videos where he goes over his book, and you would understand he uses much more than the Bible. There is nothing wrong with using more than the Bible for understanding history and religion.

He is not my guru. I come to my own conclusions regarding the history and religions of the Levant. I use his research as a tool, just like anyone would use anyone else's work as a tool for their understanding. I have read, I cannot say all of, but many things from Albert Pike, to Manly P. Hall, to Joseph Smith, to Catholic doctrine, to the history of not only the "Holy" Roman Empire, to Protestants murdering other Protestants, to divisions in the modern American churchs, to Scientology, Aleister Crowley, Anton Lavey, I've read a portion of magical works from Henry Agrippa, I've read Gilgamesh, parts of the Secret Doctrine by Helen Blavatksky, the English translations of the religions of the Akkadians, Babylonians, Caananites, Assyrians, Egyptians, I've read Norse mythology and Hindu mythology. I am NOT an expert on ANY of the material whatsoever. I, like anyone else whether an expert or not, have a mind and an intellect, and I have come to my understanding, which I can discuss and argue logically. I admit at some junctures but not all, I have to connect dots that are missing. These connected dots may be only historical things, but they also may include matters of belief in supernatural things.

I only "name drop" Dr. Heiser because his research and conclusions are fascinating. They are mostly fascinating, because he actually gives a much more thorough teaching of scripture in it's original language than what modern mainstream churches teach. In fact most mainstream teaching of the Old Testament, and by default then the teachings of the New Testament, occludes much of the original meaning. Such as the word Elohim. If you just WATCH the videos he put on youtube, even just the 1st one alone, you will understand what I'm saying.

Elohim is used all over the old Testament to describe the sons of god, the counsel of god, the Angel of god, other angels, Samuel's spirit when the witch of Endor calls him out from Sheol, other gods of the other peoples of the world, and also YHWH. As such he logically concludes that Elohim does not only have to refer to YHWH. However whoever wrote the scriptures, recorded in them that the God YHWH held a different and unique position of being the highest of all these spiritual beings. So the modern Christian church has obscured this in modern English translations, at the fear that the word "God" might be wrongly thought of when any other god like Ba'al or when angels called literally "sons of god" as being recorded with the same term that YHWH is called. They are all Elohim. The difference comes in what the word "god" means to a person, whether that person was writing the Bible or a contemporary of the writer that worshipped other gods, whether that person was a Hebrew or any one else like a Babylonian or Caananite or an Egyptian.

This IS the crux of the discussion and you are not being very honest in my opinion OR you are not open minded enough to understand this concept if you just dismiss the other side of the argument as naïve, ignorant or foolish. I DO understand your view quite well, and I do not think it is garbage. I think your view is solid regarding that much of Jewish religion of ancient times WAS polytheistic. It's just that the description of the religion of the writers of the God YHWH of the Bible was extremely NOT polytheistic, he was the HIGHEST "Elohim" spirit that existed that created all other "Elohim" spirits that people wrongly worshipped as the highest Elohim. Basically yes other spirits did and do exist, but they are not deserving nor should they be worshipped. Whether this is true or a distortion, it can be argued. But the FACT remains that it is recorded in the Old Testament and has made it's way to our year 2016. The FACT remains that there is evidence of this as being a part of Jewish history and religion. It is my opinion BOTH views are historically accurate, because as a fact it is recorded in the Old Testament, that there are many instances the Jewish people did practice a lot of polytheism which was indeed mixed in with the worship of YHWH. This is not only a fact that this is recorded, but it is a fact that someone had the idea that YHWH was very angry that any other worship other than worship of him, made him upset.

I have not read all of Enoch or Zohar. I have read parts of Enoch (although I have it in print at home) and none of Zohar, or at least none directly myself have I read. I will study them based on what you are saying, read and become more informed of both to further my knowledge.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: SelectStart

originally posted by: Parazurvan
a reply to: SelectStart

Heiser is a bum and crackpot.


I quite clearly stated I used more than the Bible.

So go check with your guru if it is OK to read Apocrypha.


I have never needed to rely on another man to read a book for me and tell me what it means. Name dropping some paid lecturer who no doubt is financed by one church or another and will never tell you anything beyond the profane interpretation is not going to impress me.

But everything I said is correct based on the Bible, Books of Enoch and the Zohar so whatever you are saying that the Bible doesn't say is in one of those books. Use the link.


Bum and a crackpot? I would have to argue this is a crackpot statement. Disagree with him? Yes that's a logical statement, many other experts in the field of ancient scripture and language do disagree with him. Again, bum and crackpot? This is ignorant. He IS an expert, much more than me or chances are you even. He is not the end all be all, but rather just another opinion and worth listening to, if for nothing more than understanding another viewpoint.

He uses much more than the Bible, all you would have to do is watch the 3 videos where he goes over his book, and you would understand he uses much more than the Bible. There is nothing wrong with using more than the Bible for understanding history and religion.

He is not my guru. I come to my own conclusions regarding the history and religions of the Levant. I use his research as a tool, just like anyone would use anyone else's work as a tool for their understanding. I have read, I cannot say all of, but many things from Albert Pike, to Manly P. Hall, to Joseph Smith, to Catholic doctrine, to the history of not only the "Holy" Roman Empire, to Protestants murdering other Protestants, to divisions in the modern American churchs, to Scientology, Aleister Crowley, Anton Lavey, I've read a portion of magical works from Henry Agrippa, I've read Gilgamesh, parts of the Secret Doctrine by Helen Blavatksky, the English translations of the religions of the Akkadians, Babylonians, Caananites, Assyrians, Egyptians, I've read Norse mythology and Hindu mythology. I am NOT an expert on ANY of the material whatsoever. I, like anyone else whether an expert or not, have a mind and an intellect, and I have come to my understanding, which I can discuss and argue logically. I admit at some junctures but not all, I have to connect dots that are missing. These connected dots may be only historical things, but they also may include matters of belief in supernatural things.

I only "name drop" Dr. Heiser because his research and conclusions are fascinating. They are mostly fascinating, because he actually gives a much more thorough teaching of scripture in it's original language than what modern mainstream churches teach. In fact most mainstream teaching of the Old Testament, and by default then the teachings of the New Testament, occludes much of the original meaning. Such as the word Elohim. If you just WATCH the videos he put on youtube, even just the 1st one alone, you will understand what I'm saying.

Elohim is used all over the old Testament to describe the sons of god, the counsel of god, the Angel of god, other angels, Samuel's spirit when the witch of Endor calls him out from Sheol, other gods of the other peoples of the world, and also YHWH. As such he logically concludes that Elohim does not only have to refer to YHWH. However whoever wrote the scriptures, recorded in them that the God YHWH held a different and unique position of being the highest of all these spiritual beings. So the modern Christian church has obscured this in modern English translations, at the fear that the word "God" might be wrongly thought of when any other god like Ba'al or when angels called literally "sons of god" as being recorded with the same term that YHWH is called. They are all Elohim. The difference comes in what the word "god" means to a person, whether that person was writing the Bible or a contemporary of the writer that worshipped other gods, whether that person was a Hebrew or any one else like a Babylonian or Caananite or an Egyptian.

This IS the crux of the discussion and you are not being very honest in my opinion OR you are not open minded enough to understand this concept if you just dismiss the other side of the argument as naïve, ignorant or foolish. I DO understand your view quite well, and I do not think it is garbage. I think your view is solid regarding that much of Jewish religion of ancient times WAS polytheistic. It's just that the description of the religion of the writers of the God YHWH of the Bible was extremely NOT polytheistic, he was the HIGHEST "Elohim" spirit that existed that created all other "Elohim" spirits that people wrongly worshipped as the highest Elohim. Basically yes other spirits did and do exist, but they are not deserving nor should they be worshipped. Whether this is true or a distortion, it can be argued. But the FACT remains that it is recorded in the Old Testament and has made it's way to our year 2016. The FACT remains that there is evidence of this as being a part of Jewish history and religion. It is my opinion BOTH views are historically accurate, because as a fact it is recorded in the Old Testament, that there are many instances the Jewish people did practice a lot of polytheism which was indeed mixed in with the worship of YHWH. This is not only a fact that this is recorded, but it is a fact that someone had the idea that YHWH was very angry that any other worship other than worship of him, made him upset.

I have not read all of Enoch or Zohar. I have read parts of Enoch (although I have it in print at home) and none of Zohar, or at least none directly myself have I read. I will study them based on what you are saying, read and become more informed of both to further my knowledge.



Yada yada yada. Heiser is a bum, and I notice you said Manly Hall I don't read his books I am not fascinated with Freemasonry at all.

Other than that I see you wrote a little essay but it was to boring and I could not finish.

Good day.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Parazurvan
a reply to: SelectStart

I wouldn't bet you're life on that it is a fact that no town named Nazareth existed at that time and it should read Jesus the Nazarene.

A Nazarene was a very old tradition going back to the Nazirites of the OT. It was a sub sect of Judaism and not a town.


The Nazarenes and Ebionites rejected Paul for obvious reasons and were persecuted into extinction by the heretics for being heretics.

So basically the church Jesus was a member of was destroyed by the church you think has preserved God's Word for 2000 years all the while murdering non believers and destroying the history of the ancient world.

But yeah I am sure Jesus would approve of his teaching being ignored and changed into a pile of dog crap by the classic "if you can't beat em, join 'em (infiltrate)" scenario by a guy that never met him.

But it is a myth anyway. Take it as history and the messages becomes impotent.


en.wikipedia.org...

There have been many past problems with sites cited in the Old Testament, and from what you are saying the New Testament as well, not being found archaeologically. However, in due time some of these discrepancies have been verified through newer archaeological findings, and support the historicity in SOME degree or another Biblical scriptures. Historical view points of modern critics change with the ebb and flow of newer findings, as well as various theories put forth by the minds of men that also were not there to witness history unfold, just as I was not there either. Can the dating of some settlements or times of the kings or events of the Bible be argued as too early or too late? Sure they can. However, the fact that the kings, events and settlements did exist historically have been verified as true. This puts the Biblical record as (bizarrely to some) being as far as I know, one of the most archeologically fruitful collection of books of ancient times in existence.

Nazareth was a small town, with maybe a population at the time of Jesus and prior, of about 400. This would not have much at all in the way of historical record of it, prior to 300 CE. By this time, it would now be "on the map" so to speak, because of the story of Jesus Christ.

This said... Dr. Ken Dark in 2013 wrote:
"Recent work by the Nazareth Archaeological Project (established in 2004) is transforming our understanding of first-century Nazareth and its hinterland, by applying modern archaeological methods and theory to its study for this first time. In Nahal Zippori, the broad valley between Nazareth and Sepphoris, survey has revealed a pattern of many small agricultural settlements, probably established at, or just before, the start of the Roman period. Those closer to Nazareth seem to have used only artefacts produced in what are known to have been Jewish contexts, but those closer to Sepphoris used a much wider range of material, including imported goods. This, along with other evidence, strongly suggests that a Roman-period cultural boundary existed between communities nearer Sepphoris and those nearer Nazareth, casting doubt on many recent interpretations of the relationship between the two centres. Turning to Nazareth itself, a reinvestigation of the archaeological site below the present Sisters of Nazareth convent, just across the street from the Church of the Annunciation, has demonstrated a long sequence of activity from the Roman period onward. This begins with an exceptionally well-preserved domestic building, probably a ‘courtyard house’, dating to the first century. The structure was disused within that century, and burials, including an almost-complete kokhim tomb of mid- to late- first-century form, dug in its immediate vicinity. Later, the site was used for the largest Byzantine church yet identified in Nazareth, with the earlier house and tombs contained and venerated in its crypt. The church may well be the ‘lost’ Church of the Nutrition, referred to in the seventh-century Insular Latin text De Locis Sanctis."

And I'm sure I can find more that supports archaeologically the existence of the city of Nazareth that Jesus was recorded to have been born in.

You appear to be confusing the Nazarene sect. What exactly do you know about this Nazarene sect that you are referring to? I'd like to research this for my own knowledge. From what I can tell "Nazarene" was first used to describe Christians, and also it was later used to describe a theoretical first manuscript of the gospel of Matthew, which either Matthew was derived from, or that it was derived from Matthew. That it was a gospel written to the Jews of the day, much the way Matthew was. These Nazarene's were Jews that followed the Jewish law, but also believed Jesus was the Messiah. This would be much like today a Messianic Jew, with the exception that no Temple exists today. Maybe there was a Nazarene sect I do not know about, kind of like the other more obscure sects of Judaism of the time of Christ, such as the Essenes and others. Which, if there was, by no means discredits there being a historical Nazareth city during the time of Christ. Also, later when it was argued that the Nazarene's may be heretical because they followed the law and were Messianic, would also not discredit Nazareth historically existing during the time of Christ. There were already divisions regarding following the law or not amongst Jewish Christians recorded in the New Testament of the Bible. Today even, this is a debate that occurs, and goes even further into not just Judaism, but also amongst completely "gentile" Christians of all denominations. Good works vs saving faith. Similar argument, as "the law" is not only for Jews alone as recorded in the Bible. There is a law that all men know for themselves intrinsically (their conscience). Obviously, this "law" is subjective and not universal. The fact that there is a conscience that all men are aware of no matter what they believe, is universal. This however is why Jesus said "I am the way". That way we know what our conscience should be patterned to.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: SelectStart

Again blah blah. I am not going to argue with a follower who doesn't care about anything but Christianity and thinks Nazareth was a town.

Other than that I have already said everything I want to say about Jewish demonology and the invented mythical Satan being of Catholicism and Christianity not being consistent with its ancestors and the OT.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Parazurvan

"Yada yada yada. Heiser is a bum, and I notice you said Manly Hall I don't read his books I am not fascinated with Freemasonry at all.

Other than that I see you wrote a little essay but it was to boring and I could not finish.

Good day." - Parazurvan's reply to myself.

Well, there is a lot of understanding some Freemasons have regarding religion throughout history. This is difficult to accept by people that do not wish to accept it, but none the less writings of some freemasons are interesting to say the least. Interesting, not just by the way they view humanity and spirituality, but also because they also have for hundreds of years now if not longer, historically been the rulers of much of the Western world decade after decade. Freemasons have loose yet historical ties to the Catholic Church, the Nazi party when it came to power in Germany (publically not after Hitler was Fuhrer though), various Protestant denominations, the founding of the USA, the French revolution, the Knights Templars, the Crusades, the now defunct or not defunct Bavarian Illuminati, Aleister Crowley and Thelema, the OTO, Marvel Jack Parsons and the invention of solid rocket fuel, space exploration, the New Age movement in the music industry, classical literature, classic movies, Disney, the Bohemian Grove, various world politicians and royal families. So this should carry some weight of thought regarding what some of their leaders have written.

I'm sorry to have bored you by being longwinded. I'd like to be able to use less words to say more, but I'm not that good of a writer or a speaker. I did however, try to address some of what you presented in your posts that was a response to me.

Truth is stranger than fiction. To quote a famous poet of our time, "This is the strangest life I've ever known". All views are fascinating to me, however that doesn't blot out that I have views of my own, and that you have yours which also interest me. I apologize for my boredom or apparent argumentativeness, kind sir or madam.

As above so below as some have said. Or what Jesus said, "On Earth as it is in Heaven". Interesting topic.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Parazurvan
a reply to: SelectStart

Again blah blah. I am not going to argue with a follower who doesn't care about anything but Christianity and thinks Nazareth was a town.

Other than that I have already said everything I want to say about Jewish demonology and the invented mythical Satan being of Catholicism and Christianity not being consistent with its ancestors and the OT.


In this post you state I don't care about anything but Christianity, however you go right ahead and write about Christianity. It is just that you are writing a different view point of it. You are still speaking of Christianity as I am.

You have stated your case for your view of Jewish demonology, a Catholic mythical Satan and a Christianity that isn't consistent with it's roots in Jewish history. I have stated that there is evidence and record that Chritianity IS consistent with the Old Testament record of YHWH being upset that the Jews worshipped other gods, that Jewish demonology (this includes "Satan") is just part and parcel of that other god worship in one form or another. How the Old and New Testament DO agree, and that it is the "lense" we choose to peer through, is the only difference between what you are saying and what I am, in a nutshell of course. You may disagree greatly with that statement, it is your prerogative. I stand by it. It IS the same history, the same stories, the same Elohim, the same common thread and old Jewish historical tradition isn't monotheistic in many respects. It's just that the Bible still stands OT to NT as being a record that some people, some long time ago, wrote, that attests to the viewpoint I hold to regarding what you are stating, just from the other side of the coin.

I'll leave you alone now about all this. I think I have said all I needed to, in order to express my view. Thank you for expressing yours to me as well. Cheers.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: TefarimCanin

As I understand it, "As Above, So Below" refers to the Cycle of Precession: the radiation of the constellations have a direct effect on human mentality as the cycle shifts. This is the Great Cycle of Mankind and was known as the "Great Year" by the Greeks.

I will give you an example. The past 2000 years have been the Age of Pisces. The symbol of Pisces is the Two Fish. The planet ruler is Neptune, also known as Posiedon, God of the Sea. The archetype of this age is Jesus. He baptised in the sea, chose fishermen as disciples, controlled the sea and fish, was crucified on a wooden mast and the symbol of Christianity is the Fish. The effect on humanity of this constellation is Compassion and Self-Sacrifice. This can also be seen in the life of the archetype, Jesus. Notice that Jesus had to perform certain actions in order to become the archetype of the age, such as refusing to drink when he was dying on the cross.

The Earth may be billions of years old but our civilisation is not. Mankind goes round and round in cycles of growth and destruction. These cycles are a direct reflection "below" of what is happening "above".



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: rottensociety

Yes, symbols of the current zodiacal age are revered and were worshipped. That is an example of the principle in action.

But it does begin with Nimrod as the OP stated, and is more about literally living making earth our heaven. That is the greater meaning, even the EU uses the tower of Babel symbol as an in your face symbol of recreating that kingdom of Nimrod with a united world.
edit on 27-5-2016 by Parazurvan because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2016 by Parazurvan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Parazurvan

I believe it begins withe Age of Leo, ruled by the Sun. Leo brings self-awareness, the Ego and masculinity. This is shown in the Bible as the time of "Adam" and the Egyptians revered the first Sun-god, "Ra". As this time, the Earth comes out of a very long, almost inhabitable era (Virgo) and the Sun brings new growth and vegetation as well as inspiring mankind with a new vitality and creativity, so: "In the beginning was Creation".

After this comes the Age of Cancer, passiveness and femininity (the time of "Eve") although the constellation "Hydra", the Water Serpent, which can be seen below Cancer, disturbs this otherwise peaceful time.

Then the Earth suffers a Great Flood which is shown in the group of constellations (Argo) which are all named after parts of a ship. If you look at a map of the constellations, you'll see these come just after and below Cancer.

The Age of Gemini follows. This is the time of Travel and Communication. Humans start spreading across the Earth and develop their language and writing. The end of this era is symbolised in the Bible as the Tower of Babel falling.



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: rottensociety

That is possible.

It seems to truly come out of Egypt, and Nimrod is also Osiris, but if you find Osiris death, of the top of my head I want to say 10,500b.c. but don't quote me. Chronology is often muddled but astrology seemed to keep time. Better than the records for people I think.
edit on 28-5-2016 by Parazurvan because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join