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.

 

War with the Benjaminites, maidens of Jabesh-gilead and the daughters of Shiloh.

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: LenatasataneL

is it God, Satan or are they both just expressions of humanity.

?




posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: LenatasataneL

originally posted by: chr0naut

The Zohar was supposed to have been penned by Shimon bar Yochai ("Rashbi") about 200 years after Christ. It isn't even written in Hebrew, which perhaps indicates how 'Jewish' it actually was. The work actually was first published an enormous 1,300 years after Christ by Moses de Leon, who scholars suspect was the true author.


Oh, were you under the impression that I didn't already know this? Everyone, Jews included, know this. Nevertheless most accept the legend that it was handed down mouth to ear from Moses regardless. It is a brilliant book.



Kabbalah is later even than the Zohar. So, no way could the Zohar or Kabbalah have influenced Gnostic philosophy, however, the reverse is possibly true.


Funny, I never said that Kabbalah influenced Gnosticism. Misread my quote about the Gnostic's having their own Zohar as if I was saying that the Zohar existed then, huh? Next time I will be more specific because you shouldn't have misinterpreted that at all. They had their own "Zohar", is that better. Never did I say that Kabbalah influenced Gnosticism and I agree, other way around.



Also, while components of Mithraism existed prior to Christianity, those components that echo Christian belief, arose AFTER Christanity (if you anylyze the historical progression of Mithraism).


There is no analyzing the historical progression of Mithraism. Mystery school teachings are lost, information scant. He was born December 25th, he was viewed as the invincible sun, Sol Invictus, by Constantine. Was a Persian yazata or angel that was popular in Persia and bastardized by Rome.

Any sun deity, born on Dec. 25, is related, and I agree that the original Way of Christ did not embrace these things. But the Romans did, and Christianity is dominated by Roman Catholicism's creation, the Bible. And Christmas and Easter originate in paganism also. The imagery, symbols and rites of Catholicism are mostly pagan, many done in secret.

And Mithras birthday on Dec. 25th has nothing to do with Christianity and the similarities are because Mithras comes from the Mazdayaznian (Greeks called it Zoroastrian) Mithra, and from Persians some Jews adopted Mazdayaznian themes into their faith (see Dead Sea Scrolls) which then seeped into Christianity. Mithraism was not influenced by Christianity at all in any historically provable way.

Sacraments true meaning is mystery b.t.w.


The "Sun" = "Son" doesn't work in any other language but English. The roots of Christianity were not in English.

And, if "everyone, the Jewish included" know that the Zohar is a post Christian work, then it would be crazy of them to believe that it was "handed down mouth to ear from Moses". The two are contradictory.

Sol Invictus did not become an official roman cult until 274 years after Christ, by Emperor Aurelian. The co-mingling of Mithraism well after that, if it occurred at all.

Mithras was born on the December solstice, which oscillates between 20-23rd December. Ditto for the Sol Invictus. The choice of a December 25th date is clearly a post-Christian modification.

edit on 8/6/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: LenatasataneL

is it God, Satan or are they both just expressions of humanity.

?



From a Hebrew perspective Ha Satan (The Adversary) is on Yahweh's team despite his unpopular but necessary job.

But Jews believe that both good AND evil come from Yahweh and don't have Satan opposing him. In Job, Ha Satan is able to enter heaven and sits on the Divine Council.

In Christianity everything is blamed on Satan. They even claim he is the Prince of the world, even though he's God's enemy.

Why God would have enemies or put his nemesis in charge of his creation are two things that can't be explained without revealing that Christianity has holes in its story.

But, I believe that desire is the cause of evil, not Satan. That by bettering ourselves through positive thoughts, words and deeds we can come to know how to master desire thereby escaping the world while in it and alive.

No Satan. Evil energies, sure maybe. God, for lack of a better word, is too awesome and terrifying to know in this preparatory lifetime and if we want to go to heaven we must fulfill our destinies or we reincarnate or temporarily go to a hell type place then reincarnate.

We have all drunk the waters of forgetfulness.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LenatasataneL

originally posted by: chr0naut

The Zohar was supposed to have been penned by Shimon bar Yochai ("Rashbi") about 200 years after Christ. It isn't even written in Hebrew, which perhaps indicates how 'Jewish' it actually was. The work actually was first published an enormous 1,300 years after Christ by Moses de Leon, who scholars suspect was the true author.


Oh, were you under the impression that I didn't already know this? Everyone, Jews included, know this. Nevertheless most accept the legend that it was handed down mouth to ear from Moses regardless. It is a brilliant book.



Kabbalah is later even than the Zohar. So, no way could the Zohar or Kabbalah have influenced Gnostic philosophy, however, the reverse is possibly true.


Funny, I never said that Kabbalah influenced Gnosticism. Misread my quote about the Gnostic's having their own Zohar as if I was saying that the Zohar existed then, huh? Next time I will be more specific because you shouldn't have misinterpreted that at all. They had their own "Zohar", is that better. Never did I say that Kabbalah influenced Gnosticism and I agree, other way around.



Also, while components of Mithraism existed prior to Christianity, those components that echo Christian belief, arose AFTER Christanity (if you anylyze the historical progression of Mithraism).


There is no analyzing the historical progression of Mithraism. Mystery school teachings are lost, information scant. He was born December 25th, he was viewed as the invincible sun, Sol Invictus, by Constantine. Was a Persian yazata or angel that was popular in Persia and bastardized by Rome.

Any sun deity, born on Dec. 25, is related, and I agree that the original Way of Christ did not embrace these things. But the Romans did, and Christianity is dominated by Roman Catholicism's creation, the Bible. And Christmas and Easter originate in paganism also. The imagery, symbols and rites of Catholicism are mostly pagan, many done in secret.

And Mithras birthday on Dec. 25th has nothing to do with Christianity and the similarities are because Mithras comes from the Mazdayaznian (Greeks called it Zoroastrian) Mithra, and from Persians some Jews adopted Mazdayaznian themes into their faith (see Dead Sea Scrolls) which then seeped into Christianity. Mithraism was not influenced by Christianity at all in any historically provable way.

Sacraments true meaning is mystery b.t.w.


The "Sun" = "Son" doesn't work in any other language but English. The roots of Christianity were not in English.


Did I say that sun =son? No, I said all sun gods born on Dec. 25 are related as sun gods. Linguistics I never mentioned.



And, if "everyone, the Jewish included" know that the Zohar is a post Christian work, then it would be crazy of them to believe that it was "handed down mouth to ear from Moses". The two are contradictory.


Yet they do. Hmm. People accepting the legend is more of a pride thing than a fact thing. I don't think they care about what we think. They love it, love thinking that it is ancient oral tradition that was written down by Simeon and a succession of Rabbis ending with De Leon. You know Jesus wasn't born Dec 25th but you still say it's his birthday right? Same principle.



Sol Invictus did not become an official roman cult until 274 years after Christ, by Emperor Aurelian. The co-mingling of Mithraism well after that, if it occurred at all.


I just said Constantine called Mithras Sol Invictus. I didn't say anything else about it. Constantine WAS after 274 so...point please?



Mithras was born on the December solstice, which oscillates between 20-23rd December. Ditto for the Sol Invictus. The choice of a December 25th date is clearly a post-Christian modification.


Actually, the reason Dec 25 is the birthday of the sun and every sun god ever is because for three days before that the sun is a few degrees lower than normal.

On the 25th (or maybe the 23rd) it "resurrects" is "born again" and the days get longer. The days might change every couple thousand years so 23, 25th, the thing that matters is it is the 25th that was the day of the most importance and the culmination of the festivities.

23 might be the sun's actual day of resurrection but it is and was always the 25th they celebrated as the birthday.

It used to be called Saturnalia long before Catholic Rome, or Saturnia, as the city of Rome was known then.

And, still Dec 25. In fact that is the oldest Holy day on earth originating in nature worship/paganism.
edit on 9-6-2016 by LenatasataneL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

We are actually both a little wrong it seems.

Saturnalia, the feast of Solid Invictus, Mithras and all sun gods birthdays in Mesopotamia and Europe were celebrated on the 25th, although the 23rd is the day of the suns "resurrection."

But Jesus b day was originally on Jan 6 until the 12th century when it was purposely combined with the feast of Sol Invictus (a resurgence?) so as to slowly Christianize the cult.

The combination is what makes Christmas pagan but that was very late.

Please read this link from biblicalarcheology.org that I found it is a pro Christian site if that helps

Why December 25th?


Please read that took forever to type in.

On the flip side, if the 3 day "death" of the sun and resurrection wasn't used, despite difference in time of year, in the legend of the resurrection of Christ and even Jonah, that is one hell of a coincidence. No doubt an author who was educated in a the solstice could have incorporated that in his story about Jesus using artistic license.

And I definitely believe that when English was becoming a language sun and son were deliberately made to sound the same. I won't speculate why, I just can't see it being a coincidence.

If the link doesn't work, I have been having trouble, it's www.biblicalarcheology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas

K
edit on 9-6-2016 by LenatasataneL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: LenatasataneL

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LenatasataneL

originally posted by: chr0naut

The Zohar was supposed to have been penned by Shimon bar Yochai ("Rashbi") about 200 years after Christ. It isn't even written in Hebrew, which perhaps indicates how 'Jewish' it actually was. The work actually was first published an enormous 1,300 years after Christ by Moses de Leon, who scholars suspect was the true author.


Oh, were you under the impression that I didn't already know this? Everyone, Jews included, know this. Nevertheless most accept the legend that it was handed down mouth to ear from Moses regardless. It is a brilliant book.



Kabbalah is later even than the Zohar. So, no way could the Zohar or Kabbalah have influenced Gnostic philosophy, however, the reverse is possibly true.


Funny, I never said that Kabbalah influenced Gnosticism. Misread my quote about the Gnostic's having their own Zohar as if I was saying that the Zohar existed then, huh? Next time I will be more specific because you shouldn't have misinterpreted that at all. They had their own "Zohar", is that better. Never did I say that Kabbalah influenced Gnosticism and I agree, other way around.



Also, while components of Mithraism existed prior to Christianity, those components that echo Christian belief, arose AFTER Christanity (if you anylyze the historical progression of Mithraism).


There is no analyzing the historical progression of Mithraism. Mystery school teachings are lost, information scant. He was born December 25th, he was viewed as the invincible sun, Sol Invictus, by Constantine. Was a Persian yazata or angel that was popular in Persia and bastardized by Rome.

Any sun deity, born on Dec. 25, is related, and I agree that the original Way of Christ did not embrace these things. But the Romans did, and Christianity is dominated by Roman Catholicism's creation, the Bible. And Christmas and Easter originate in paganism also. The imagery, symbols and rites of Catholicism are mostly pagan, many done in secret.

And Mithras birthday on Dec. 25th has nothing to do with Christianity and the similarities are because Mithras comes from the Mazdayaznian (Greeks called it Zoroastrian) Mithra, and from Persians some Jews adopted Mazdayaznian themes into their faith (see Dead Sea Scrolls) which then seeped into Christianity. Mithraism was not influenced by Christianity at all in any historically provable way.

Sacraments true meaning is mystery b.t.w.


The "Sun" = "Son" doesn't work in any other language but English. The roots of Christianity were not in English.


Did I say that sun =son? No, I said all sun gods born on Dec. 25 are related as sun gods. Linguistics I never mentioned.



And, if "everyone, the Jewish included" know that the Zohar is a post Christian work, then it would be crazy of them to believe that it was "handed down mouth to ear from Moses". The two are contradictory.


Yet they do. Hmm. People accepting the legend is more of a pride thing than a fact thing. I don't think they care about what we think. They love it, love thinking that it is ancient oral tradition that was written down by Simeon and a succession of Rabbis ending with De Leon. You know Jesus wasn't born Dec 25th but you still say it's his birthday right? Same principle.



Sol Invictus did not become an official roman cult until 274 years after Christ, by Emperor Aurelian. The co-mingling of Mithraism well after that, if it occurred at all.


I just said Constantine called Mithras Sol Invictus. I didn't say anything else about it. Constantine WAS after 274 so...point please?



Mithras was born on the December solstice, which oscillates between 20-23rd December. Ditto for the Sol Invictus. The choice of a December 25th date is clearly a post-Christian modification.


Actually, the reason Dec 25 is the birthday of the sun and every sun god ever is because for three days before that the sun is a few degrees lower than normal.

On the 25th (or maybe the 23rd) it "resurrects" is "born again" and the days get longer. The days might change every couple thousand years so 23, 25th, the thing that matters is it is the 25th that was the day of the most importance and the culmination of the festivities.

23 might be the sun's actual day of resurrection but it is and was always the 25th they celebrated as the birthday.

It used to be called Saturnalia long before Catholic Rome, or Saturnia, as the city of Rome was known then.

And, still Dec 25. In fact that is the oldest Holy day on earth originating in nature worship/paganism.


Saturnalia is from the 17th to the 23rd of December.

The calculation for the birth day of Jesus is that Mary's cousin, Elizabeth's husband was High Priest in the temple with the duty to burn incense. Zechariah executed his priestly function (Luke 1:8) according to his class. His wife, Elizabeth, conceived (the Church traditionally holds St. John's conception to have taken place on 23 September) just as St. Gabriel said (Luke 1:24) and hid herself away for 5 months. In the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy (Luke 1:26), St. Gabriel appears to Mary to tell her she is to have a child. This is the 25 March, the Feast of the Annunciation. Nine months after the Annunciation, on 25th December, Jesus was born. Nothing to do with pagan feasts.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Zohar documentary

I was hoping you would like to learn more about the Zohar from actual Kabbalists, Jews and Rabbis and exactly what it is and does and means to the Jewish people and interested Christians as well. It is a commentary on Torah (first 5 books) and has grown from a few books to 22 in the set I looked at, commentary by successive Rabbis no doubt.

I've read from Bere#h to Lekh Lekha, which is available here:

Zohar book

It goes up to Abraham but check out the Babel story, you will like the Hebrew insight.
edit on 9-6-2016 by LenatasataneL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Mar

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LenatasataneL

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LenatasataneL

originally posted by: chr0naut

The Zohar was supposed to have been penned by Shimon bar Yochai ("Rashbi") about 200 years after Christ. It isn't even written in Hebrew, which perhaps indicates how 'Jewish' it actually was. The work actually was first published an enormous 1,300 years after Christ by Moses de Leon, who scholars suspect was the true author.


Oh, were you under the impression that I didn't already know this? Everyone, Jews included, know this. Nevertheless most accept the legend that it was handed down mouth to ear from Moses regardless. It is a brilliant book.



Kabbalah is later even than the Zohar. So, no way could the Zohar or Kabbalah have influenced Gnostic philosophy, however, the reverse is possibly true.


Funny, I never said that Kabbalah influenced Gnosticism. Misread my quote about the Gnostic's having their own Zohar as if I was saying that the Zohar existed then, huh? Next time I will be more specific because you shouldn't have misinterpreted that at all. They had their own "Zohar", is that better. Never did I say that Kabbalah influenced Gnosticism and I agree, other way around.



Also, while components of Mithraism existed prior to Christianity, those components that echo Christian belief, arose AFTER Christanity (if you anylyze the historical progression of Mithraism).


There is no analyzing the historical progression of Mithraism. Mystery school teachings are lost, information scant. He was born December 25th, he was viewed as the invincible sun, Sol Invictus, by Constantine. Was a Persian yazata or angel that was popular in Persia and bastardized by Rome.

Any sun deity, born on Dec. 25, is related, and I agree that the original Way of Christ did not embrace these things. But the Romans did, and Christianity is dominated by Roman Catholicism's creation, the Bible. And Christmas and Easter originate in paganism also. The imagery, symbols and rites of Catholicism are mostly pagan, many done in secret.

And Mithras birthday on Dec. 25th has nothing to do with Christianity and the similarities are because Mithras comes from the Mazdayaznian (Greeks called it Zoroastrian) Mithra, and from Persians some Jews adopted Mazdayaznian themes into their faith (see Dead Sea Scrolls) which then seeped into Christianity. Mithraism was not influenced by Christianity at all in any historically provable way.

Sacraments true meaning is mystery b.t.w.


The "Sun" = "Son" doesn't work in any other language but English. The roots of Christianity were not in English.


Did I say that sun =son? No, I said all sun gods born on Dec. 25 are related as sun gods. Linguistics I never mentioned.



And, if "everyone, the Jewish included" know that the Zohar is a post Christian work, then it would be crazy of them to believe that it was "handed down mouth to ear from Moses". The two are contradictory.


Yet they do. Hmm. People accepting the legend is more of a pride thing than a fact thing. I don't think they care about what we think. They love it, love thinking that it is ancient oral tradition that was written down by Simeon and a succession of Rabbis ending with De Leon. You know Jesus wasn't born Dec 25th but you still say it's his birthday right? Same principle.



Sol Invictus did not become an official roman cult until 274 years after Christ, by Emperor Aurelian. The co-mingling of Mithraism well after that, if it occurred at all.


I just said Constantine called Mithras Sol Invictus. I didn't say anything else about it. Constantine WAS after 274 so...point please?



Mithras was born on the December solstice, which oscillates between 20-23rd December. Ditto for the Sol Invictus. The choice of a December 25th date is clearly a post-Christian modification.


Actually, the reason Dec 25 is the birthday of the sun and every sun god ever is because for three days before that the sun is a few degrees lower than normal.

On the 25th (or maybe the 23rd) it "resurrects" is "born again" and the days get longer. The days might change every couple thousand years so 23, 25th, the thing that matters is it is the 25th that was the day of the most importance and the culmination of the festivities.

23 might be the sun's actual day of resurrection but it is and was always the 25th they celebrated as the birthday.

It used to be called Saturnalia long before Catholic Rome, or Saturnia, as the city of Rome was known then.

And, still Dec 25. In fact that is the oldest Holy day on earth originating in nature worship/paganism.


Saturnalia is from the 17th to the 23rd of December.

The calculation for the birth day of Jesus is that Mary's cousin, Elizabeth's husband was High Priest in the temple with the duty to burn incense. Zechariah executed his priestly function (Luke 1:8) according to his class. His wife, Elizabeth, conceived (the Church traditionally holds St. John's conception to have taken place on 23 September) just as St. Gabriel said (Luke 1:24) and hid herself away for 5 months. In the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy (Luke 1:26), St. Gabriel appears to Mary to tell her she is to have a child. This is the 25 March, the Feast of the Annunciation. Nine months after the Annunciation, on 25th December, Jesus was born. Nothing to do with pagan feasts.


Like I said before his original birthday was celebrated on January 6th, but changed to December 25th to combine the feast of Sol Invictus in the 12th century according to Biblical archeology.org.

Whatever the case, it absolutely was combined with a pagan feast, the reason it is celebrated on Dec. 25 is because the Roman Church made a strategic decision to combine the 2 celebrations. That is in the books.
It's funny, you are the first I've ever heard believe that Dec. 25 is ACTUALLY Jesus birthday.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Interesting conversation, much fun, but I don't want to debate Christmas. I have learned too much to ever again believe that it didn't start as a pagan holiday. Or believe that it has anything to do with Jesus, other than being the reason for the holiday today.

I am bored with it, honestly, and if IF I was wrong, nothing would change my mind because the evidence is overwhelming.

Any other topic is fine. The Zohar, you check out the book link yet?
edit on 9-6-2016 by LenatasataneL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 04:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
Mar

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LenatasataneL

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LenatasataneL

originally posted by: chr0naut

The Zohar was supposed to have been penned by Shimon bar Yochai ("Rashbi") about 200 years after Christ. It isn't even written in Hebrew, which perhaps indicates how 'Jewish' it actually was. The work actually was first published an enormous 1,300 years after Christ by Moses de Leon, who scholars suspect was the true author.


Oh, were you under the impression that I didn't already know this? Everyone, Jews included, know this. Nevertheless most accept the legend that it was handed down mouth to ear from Moses regardless. It is a brilliant book.



Kabbalah is later even than the Zohar. So, no way could the Zohar or Kabbalah have influenced Gnostic philosophy, however, the reverse is possibly true.


Funny, I never said that Kabbalah influenced Gnosticism. Misread my quote about the Gnostic's having their own Zohar as if I was saying that the Zohar existed then, huh? Next time I will be more specific because you shouldn't have misinterpreted that at all. They had their own "Zohar", is that better. Never did I say that Kabbalah influenced Gnosticism and I agree, other way around.



Also, while components of Mithraism existed prior to Christianity, those components that echo Christian belief, arose AFTER Christanity (if you anylyze the historical progression of Mithraism).


There is no analyzing the historical progression of Mithraism. Mystery school teachings are lost, information scant. He was born December 25th, he was viewed as the invincible sun, Sol Invictus, by Constantine. Was a Persian yazata or angel that was popular in Persia and bastardized by Rome.

Any sun deity, born on Dec. 25, is related, and I agree that the original Way of Christ did not embrace these things. But the Romans did, and Christianity is dominated by Roman Catholicism's creation, the Bible. And Christmas and Easter originate in paganism also. The imagery, symbols and rites of Catholicism are mostly pagan, many done in secret.

And Mithras birthday on Dec. 25th has nothing to do with Christianity and the similarities are because Mithras comes from the Mazdayaznian (Greeks called it Zoroastrian) Mithra, and from Persians some Jews adopted Mazdayaznian themes into their faith (see Dead Sea Scrolls) which then seeped into Christianity. Mithraism was not influenced by Christianity at all in any historically provable way.

Sacraments true meaning is mystery b.t.w.


The "Sun" = "Son" doesn't work in any other language but English. The roots of Christianity were not in English.


Did I say that sun =son? No, I said all sun gods born on Dec. 25 are related as sun gods. Linguistics I never mentioned.



And, if "everyone, the Jewish included" know that the Zohar is a post Christian work, then it would be crazy of them to believe that it was "handed down mouth to ear from Moses". The two are contradictory.


Yet they do. Hmm. People accepting the legend is more of a pride thing than a fact thing. I don't think they care about what we think. They love it, love thinking that it is ancient oral tradition that was written down by Simeon and a succession of Rabbis ending with De Leon. You know Jesus wasn't born Dec 25th but you still say it's his birthday right? Same principle.



Sol Invictus did not become an official roman cult until 274 years after Christ, by Emperor Aurelian. The co-mingling of Mithraism well after that, if it occurred at all.


I just said Constantine called Mithras Sol Invictus. I didn't say anything else about it. Constantine WAS after 274 so...point please?



Mithras was born on the December solstice, which oscillates between 20-23rd December. Ditto for the Sol Invictus. The choice of a December 25th date is clearly a post-Christian modification.


Actually, the reason Dec 25 is the birthday of the sun and every sun god ever is because for three days before that the sun is a few degrees lower than normal.

On the 25th (or maybe the 23rd) it "resurrects" is "born again" and the days get longer. The days might change every couple thousand years so 23, 25th, the thing that matters is it is the 25th that was the day of the most importance and the culmination of the festivities.

23 might be the sun's actual day of resurrection but it is and was always the 25th they celebrated as the birthday.

It used to be called Saturnalia long before Catholic Rome, or Saturnia, as the city of Rome was known then.

And, still Dec 25. In fact that is the oldest Holy day on earth originating in nature worship/paganism.


Saturnalia is from the 17th to the 23rd of December.

The calculation for the birth day of Jesus is that Mary's cousin, Elizabeth's husband was High Priest in the temple with the duty to burn incense. Zechariah executed his priestly function (Luke 1:8) according to his class. His wife, Elizabeth, conceived (the Church traditionally holds St. John's conception to have taken place on 23 September) just as St. Gabriel said (Luke 1:24) and hid herself away for 5 months. In the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy (Luke 1:26), St. Gabriel appears to Mary to tell her she is to have a child. This is the 25 March, the Feast of the Annunciation. Nine months after the Annunciation, on 25th December, Jesus was born. Nothing to do with pagan feasts.


Like I said before his original birthday was celebrated on January 6th, but changed to December 25th to combine the feast of Sol Invictus in the 12th century according to Biblical archeology.org.

Whatever the case, it absolutely was combined with a pagan feast, the reason it is celebrated on Dec. 25 is because the Roman Church made a strategic decision to combine the 2 celebrations. That is in the books.
It's funny, you are the first I've ever heard believe that Dec. 25 is ACTUALLY Jesus birthday.


Yes, but the Eastern Orthodox Churches had the 6th December date (which some still hold to, to this day). No one really knows but the calculation of a date based upon a date for the annunciation sounds more reasonable than taking up a celebration of an opposing faith.

But I am interested in the Zohar video and Kabbalah and I'll watch the video as soon as I have an opportunity.

I'll get back to you when I've seen it.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

👍👍👍✌😀. Can't wait!



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
a reply to: chr0naut

Zohar documentary

I was hoping you would like to learn more about the Zohar from actual Kabbalists, Jews and Rabbis and exactly what it is and does and means to the Jewish people and interested Christians as well. It is a commentary on Torah (first 5 books) and has grown from a few books to 22 in the set I looked at, commentary by successive Rabbis no doubt.

I've read from Bere#h to Lekh Lekha, which is available here:

Zohar book

It goes up to Abraham but check out the Babel story, you will like the Hebrew insight.


OK, I have viewed the documentary and right at the core of Kabbalistic belief there is, to my mind, a reasoned contradiction. That is, if God is able to be affected by human action, surely the secrecy and mystic nature of Kabbalah is actively preventing human interaction with God on the larger scale. The Kabbalists are actually doing the reverse of what they wish to achieve by 'hiding' their philosophic and procedural revelations.

Also, there are elements actually at odds with Jewish law and revealed scripture.

The concept that there are feminine aspects of God actually anthopomorphises the Godhead philosophically but this is not unknown to Christian or Jewish thinkers. Of course the truth is that God is not at all bound by our limitations and could be any gender, race or whatever 'He' wants.

Paul in his letters sometimes uses female gendered language when describing attributes and gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The whole idea in Genesis of the Holy Spirit "brooding" over the primeval chaos takes its meaning from a word that describes a mother hen nesting her eggs and young chicks.

This is further reinforced where Jesus (in Mark 3:29) suggests that the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (i.e: misrepresenting the Holy Spirit). It is like "you can say what you want against Dad & I, but don't dare talk bad about Her".

As concepts of the triune nature of God prior to Christianity were quite indistinct (but not altogether absent from the scriptures - which explicitly mention the Son of God [Proverbs 30:4] as well as the Holy Spirit [Numbers 11:17]), Kabbalah most likely got this idea from trying to avoid Christian concepts like trinity, instead binding the "feminine" Spirit into the Sephirot of the Godhead.

Also, little comments like the one that 'Moses meditated before opening the Red Sea' are at odds with the situation where the Egyptian army were trying to advance and were being actively already held back by God's Shekinah. Moses hurried to do God's bidding and open the sea according to the actual account. Only when the people were across did God lift the Shekinah and then close the sea over the Egyptians who also tried to cross.

If such stories were also only allegorical as Kabbalists have suggested and were only recounted to hide some alternate meaning, it removes the power and truth of the account, rendering it to fiction and therefore pointlessness. So there's also that rational contradiction at the core of their philosophy.

I still have to read the Zohar as I've only skimmed through bits and commentary. As you may guess, it will take me some time.

I'd also like to emphasize a comment from the documentary that the Zohar was written in Aramaic by someone who wasn't good with the language and that it contained words from Portuguese and Spanish languages. This argues strongly that the Zohar is not ancient, nor even early Christian era.

edit on 9/6/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: LenatasataneL

Ha, ha. Did you see the mess ATS's filters made:

Bere#h

Beres.h.i.t.h

Aren't we silly!



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
Mar

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LenatasataneL

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LenatasataneL

originally posted by: chr0naut

The Zohar was supposed to have been penned by Shimon bar Yochai ("Rashbi") about 200 years after Christ. It isn't even written in Hebrew, which perhaps indicates how 'Jewish' it actually was. The work actually was first published an enormous 1,300 years after Christ by Moses de Leon, who scholars suspect was the true author.


Oh, were you under the impression that I didn't already know this? Everyone, Jews included, know this. Nevertheless most accept the legend that it was handed down mouth to ear from Moses regardless. It is a brilliant book.



Kabbalah is later even than the Zohar. So, no way could the Zohar or Kabbalah have influenced Gnostic philosophy, however, the reverse is possibly true.


Funny, I never said that Kabbalah influenced Gnosticism. Misread my quote about the Gnostic's having their own Zohar as if I was saying that the Zohar existed then, huh? Next time I will be more specific because you shouldn't have misinterpreted that at all. They had their own "Zohar", is that better. Never did I say that Kabbalah influenced Gnosticism and I agree, other way around.



Also, while components of Mithraism existed prior to Christianity, those components that echo Christian belief, arose AFTER Christanity (if you anylyze the historical progression of Mithraism).


There is no analyzing the historical progression of Mithraism. Mystery school teachings are lost, information scant. He was born December 25th, he was viewed as the invincible sun, Sol Invictus, by Constantine. Was a Persian yazata or angel that was popular in Persia and bastardized by Rome.

Any sun deity, born on Dec. 25, is related, and I agree that the original Way of Christ did not embrace these things. But the Romans did, and Christianity is dominated by Roman Catholicism's creation, the Bible. And Christmas and Easter originate in paganism also. The imagery, symbols and rites of Catholicism are mostly pagan, many done in secret.

And Mithras birthday on Dec. 25th has nothing to do with Christianity and the similarities are because Mithras comes from the Mazdayaznian (Greeks called it Zoroastrian) Mithra, and from Persians some Jews adopted Mazdayaznian themes into their faith (see Dead Sea Scrolls) which then seeped into Christianity. Mithraism was not influenced by Christianity at all in any historically provable way.

Sacraments true meaning is mystery b.t.w.


The "Sun" = "Son" doesn't work in any other language but English. The roots of Christianity were not in English.


Did I say that sun =son? No, I said all sun gods born on Dec. 25 are related as sun gods. Linguistics I never mentioned.



And, if "everyone, the Jewish included" know that the Zohar is a post Christian work, then it would be crazy of them to believe that it was "handed down mouth to ear from Moses". The two are contradictory.


Yet they do. Hmm. People accepting the legend is more of a pride thing than a fact thing. I don't think they care about what we think. They love it, love thinking that it is ancient oral tradition that was written down by Simeon and a succession of Rabbis ending with De Leon. You know Jesus wasn't born Dec 25th but you still say it's his birthday right? Same principle.



Sol Invictus did not become an official roman cult until 274 years after Christ, by Emperor Aurelian. The co-mingling of Mithraism well after that, if it occurred at all.


I just said Constantine called Mithras Sol Invictus. I didn't say anything else about it. Constantine WAS after 274 so...point please?



Mithras was born on the December solstice, which oscillates between 20-23rd December. Ditto for the Sol Invictus. The choice of a December 25th date is clearly a post-Christian modification.


Actually, the reason Dec 25 is the birthday of the sun and every sun god ever is because for three days before that the sun is a few degrees lower than normal.

On the 25th (or maybe the 23rd) it "resurrects" is "born again" and the days get longer. The days might change every couple thousand years so 23, 25th, the thing that matters is it is the 25th that was the day of the most importance and the culmination of the festivities.

23 might be the sun's actual day of resurrection but it is and was always the 25th they celebrated as the birthday.

It used to be called Saturnalia long before Catholic Rome, or Saturnia, as the city of Rome was known then.

And, still Dec 25. In fact that is the oldest Holy day on earth originating in nature worship/paganism.


Saturnalia is from the 17th to the 23rd of December.

The calculation for the birth day of Jesus is that Mary's cousin, Elizabeth's husband was High Priest in the temple with the duty to burn incense. Zechariah executed his priestly function (Luke 1:8) according to his class. His wife, Elizabeth, conceived (the Church traditionally holds St. John's conception to have taken place on 23 September) just as St. Gabriel said (Luke 1:24) and hid herself away for 5 months. In the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy (Luke 1:26), St. Gabriel appears to Mary to tell her she is to have a child. This is the 25 March, the Feast of the Annunciation. Nine months after the Annunciation, on 25th December, Jesus was born. Nothing to do with pagan feasts.


Like I said before his original birthday was celebrated on January 6th, but changed to December 25th to combine the feast of Sol Invictus in the 12th century according to Biblical archeology.org.

Whatever the case, it absolutely was combined with a pagan feast, the reason it is celebrated on Dec. 25 is because the Roman Church made a strategic decision to combine the 2 celebrations. That is in the books.
It's funny, you are the first I've ever heard believe that Dec. 25 is ACTUALLY Jesus birthday.


'Might possibly' actually be Jesus birthday would be closer to the truth.

Additionally, the argument that it would be too cold for the shepherds to be out at that time is also BS. I live in New Zealand, renowned for its sheep. My son-in-law manages a farm here so I have first-hand knowledge. In the Galilean hills in winter the temperature remains above 5 degrees Centigrade (I checked it out on a tourist site). In the first century it would have been hotter and wetter than now. Sheep don't give a damn about temperature or weather, they are covered in wool. They also eat grass, a poor energy source, so they must graze continually. Shepherds would have been out in their fields watching over their flocks at nigh in high winter, in the hills of Galilee. They still do today.

edit on 9/6/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: LenatasataneL

Ha, ha. Did you see the mess ATS's filters made:

Bere#h

Beres.h.i.t.h

Aren't we silly!



I did notice, but I knew you would know when you clicked the link what it meant.

I have heard that argument about the weather and the animals at that time of year.

All I can say is, truly, we will never know when he was born and as the story goes he existed since the beginning, so it's only a technical birth.

And I know celebrating his birthday is not a matter of Salvation or he'd have said so.

I just don't celebrate it.

But ya that is silly, you'd think a computer could recognize it as a different word.
edit on 9-6-2016 by LenatasataneL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
a reply to: chr0naut

Zohar documentary

I was hoping you would like to learn more about the Zohar from actual Kabbalists, Jews and Rabbis and exactly what it is and does and means to the Jewish people and interested Christians as well. It is a commentary on Torah (first 5 books) and has grown from a few books to 22 in the set I looked at, commentary by successive Rabbis no doubt.

I've read from Bere#h to Lekh Lekha, which is available here:

Zohar book

It goes up to Abraham but check out the Babel story, you will like the Hebrew insight.


OK, I have viewed the documentary and right at the core of Kabbalistic belief there is, to my mind, a reasoned contradiction. That is, if God is able to be affected by human action, surely the secrecy and mystic nature of Kabbalah is actively preventing human interaction with God on the larger scale. The Kabbalists are actually doing the reverse of what they wish to achieve by 'hiding' their philosophic and procedural revelations.

Also, there are elements actually at odds with Jewish law and revealed scripture.

The concept that there are feminine aspects of God actually anthopomorphises the Godhead philosophically but this is not unknown to Christian or Jewish thinkers. Of course the truth is that God is not at all bound by our limitations and could be any gender, race or whatever 'He' wants.

Paul in his letters sometimes uses female gendered language when describing attributes and gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The whole idea in Genesis of the Holy Spirit "brooding" over the primeval chaos takes its meaning from a word that describes a mother hen nesting her eggs and young chicks.

This is further reinforced where Jesus (in Mark 3:29) suggests that the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (i.e: misrepresenting the Holy Spirit). It is like "you can say what you want against Dad & I, but don't dare talk bad about Her".


That's exactly how I view the unpardonable sin, same exact thought. It's as if he is saying do NOT talk about my mother! And I always saw the Holy Spirit as a Mother figure.



As concepts of the triune nature of God prior to Christianity were quite indistinct (but not altogether absent from the scriptures - which explicitly mention the Son of God [Proverbs 30:4] as well as the Holy Spirit [Numbers 11:17]), Kabbalah most likely got this idea from trying to avoid Christian concepts like trinity, instead binding the "feminine" Spirit into the Sephirot of the Godhead.


I guess the Shekinah is like God's bride and/or female side. I know that many Jews have converted to Christianity because of the teachings of the Zohar being similar, even Metatron sounds like a description of heavenly Jesus and is called"little Shaddai.". But Enoch is believed to be Metatron, although not the only one.


Also, little comments like the one that 'Moses meditated before opening the Red Sea' are at odds with the situation where the Egyptian army were trying to advance and were being actively already held back by God's Shekinah. Moses hurried to do God's bidding and open the sea according to the actual account. Only when the people were across did God lift the Shekinah and then close the sea over the Egyptians who also tried to cross.

If such stories were also only allegorical as Kabbalists have suggested and were only recounted to hide some alternate meaning, it removes the power and truth of the account, rendering it to fiction and therefore pointlessness. So there's also that rational contradiction at the core of their philosophy.


That is what I have been saying, that it was designed that way. It only removes the power if you don't look for that second meaning and view the first as pointless.

Look at it like this. You have probably learned everything at the literal level, and if it is or isn't fiction it comes FROM God, which makes it Divine fiction (true mythology?) If not for the interesting stories, and the Divine message is learned too fast it is like looking at God's face. Terrifying and awesome and may lead to your demise. So you learn it in levels and that way you can learn things you thought you never would. Slowly.
EDIT
Plus, it was so long ago, and we know it has a basis in history. For instance:

Nimrod was a real person, maybe several. Osiris is Nimrod in Egypt, Amraphel is also Nimrod even though it is supposed to be in Abraham's day it is Nimrod, and he was a Rephaim descended from a Nephilim bloodline all consistent with the physical description of Osiris and his long life who also went abroad establishing kingdoms leaving Isis to run Egypt.

Jericho is probably a true story except it was a Canaanite story and the animals went mad from the trumpets forcing a surrender. The wall falling down is the esoteric element that I would like to know the meaning of myself.

Ezra, Nehemiah and Cyrus were real. Ezra is legendary and little discussed but was responsible for establishing post exilic civilization which was just disgusting before he started teaching Torah. Nehemiah also supplied many of the books from his private collection to help, if I am not mistaken.

So fiction is too harsh. Truth based on truth with a mythological spin is what I would call it.


I still have to read the Zohar as I've only skimmed through bits and commentary. As you may guess, it will take me some time.

I'd also like to emphasize a comment from the documentary that the Zohar was written in Aramaic by someone who wasn't good with the language and that it contained words from Portuguese and Spanish languages. This argues strongly that the Zohar is not ancient, nor even early Christian era.


Yeah, a couple words. Ever since ancient times Jews have had the oral and the written tradition. I doubt Yochai wrote any of it myself, but God can inspire a person to create something if he chooses, and maybe it is just time for the Pharisees to cough up the keys to the Kingdom, so to speak. Still, as long as you stay away from Berg and Hollywood Kabbalah bastardization you are going to get a real mental workout plus you have Torah knowledge already so it should be worth it.
edit on 9-6-2016 by LenatasataneL because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-6-2016 by LenatasataneL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: LenatasataneL

I know this is useless with you but I reread the whole three chapters Judges 18-21. these men were as wicked as Sodom and as such were to be killed off.

You will notice that none of the Israelites were able to conquer them without loss to their own people until they got right with the Lord. They were not much better than those who had done this despicable deed to the bride of the Levite. p

Judges 20:26 Then all the children of Israel, and all the people, went up, and came unto the house of God, and wept, and sat there before the LORD, and fasted that day until even, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the LORD.
God allowed the destruction of the Benjamite's because of their wickedness.

But I am sorry though the men of Israel swore to Jehovah not to give their daughters to Benjamin God did not approve of what was instructed the Benjamites to do to the tribe that failed to come and fight with them against Benjamin. If he did it would have been found in Judges 21 but there is no indication of it.

That was the instructions of men much like the many doctrines of men of which Paul spoke of.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I edited my last comment because I don't find fiction appropriate as a description of the Bible.

I think it is a combination of history and mythology, with an exo/esoteric structure requiring years of experience and study along with a commitment to ever increase in wisdom in order to fully understand.

I feel as a matter of fact that the Holy Spirit is reality,( real not being sufficient to describe) and if you follow the instructions spoken of by Jesus in the 4 Gospels regarding how to enter the Kingdom of God you are doing a very real thing. If you follow the one good example that Solomon set and instead of asking for/expecting Salvation to be a ticket to heaven and request that the Holy Spirit guide you in Wisdom so you may have the eyes that see and the ears that hear, (lest you NOT be saved) then no amount of enlightenment, gnosis or illumination can combine to equal the Wisdom that becomes your destiny courtesy of"The Advocate", "Spirit of Truth" and "Comforter."

When John the Baptist speaks of the Baptism of "Spirit and of fire" it is the only time it is mentioned (fire). But fire represents both Wisdom and purity and is a crucial aspect of Baptism. It goes unnoticed by most but I believe that the water washes away repented sins, the Spirit is in you as emerge from the water and fills you with fire for God. Fire can also be passion.

First you MUST believe though.

So you have all four of the elements the ancients divided everything into. Water, wind(Spirit is like the wind), fire and earth (humans). And four Gospels.
edit on 9-6-2016 by LenatasataneL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
a reply to: chr0naut

I edited my last comment because I don't find fiction appropriate as a description of the Bible.

I think it is a combination of history and mythology, with an exo/esoteric structure requiring years of experience and study along with a commitment to ever increase in wisdom in order to fully understand.

I feel as a matter of fact that the Holy Spirit is reality,( real not being sufficient to describe) and if you follow the instructions spoken of by Jesus in the 4 Gospels regarding how to enter the Kingdom of God you are doing a very real thing. If you follow the one good example that Solomon set and instead of asking for/expecting Salvation to be a ticket to heaven and request that the Holy Spirit guide you in Wisdom so you may have the eyes that see and the ears that hear, (lest you NOT be saved) then no amount of enlightenment, gnosis or illumination can combine to equal the Wisdom that becomes your destiny courtesy of"The Advocate", "Spirit of Truth" and "Comforter."

When John the Baptist speaks of the Baptism of "Spirit and of fire" it is the only time it is mentioned (fire). But fire represents both Wisdom and purity and is a crucial aspect of Baptism. It goes unnoticed by most but I believe that the water washes away repented sins, the Spirit is in you as emerge from the water and fills you with fire for God. Fire can also be passion.

First you MUST believe though.

So you have all four of the elements the ancients divided everything into. Water, wind(Spirit is like the wind), fire and earth (humans). And four Gospels.


The Shekinah column of cloud/fire and the Holy Spirit descending as tongues of fire at Pentecost are also direct descriptions of the "fire" aspect.

Some Biblical references to Holy Spirit fire: Isaiah 4:4, Matthew 3:11-12, Luke 3:16-17 & 1 Thessalonians 5:19.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

And the best proof of a second or esoteric message in the old Testament is Jesus himself.

There are no Messianic prophecies about a Messiah who is born of a virgin, establishes a new covenant with God, dies on a cross is resurrected on the 3rd day and ascends to heaven.

Unless you piece together random passages that were never considered Messianic in the first place AND use the Septuagint, because the Hebrew says alma which means young girl AND that isn't a Messianic prophecy either.

Also, theologians often use the term Elohim as proof of the Trinity when it originally meant"Mighty Ones" "GodS" then just "God" in majestic terminology. It is translated God as in God the Father, Yahweh, etc. who makes personal appearances as Elohim that clearly have nothing to do with the Son of God, or ben Elohim would be written.

It just wasn't the reason for the use of the plural Elohim to refer to Yahweh, God, Shaddai or any of his names. There exists a legitimate academic and historic reason for it.

So doing that IS finding esoteric meaning. It is not correct in any way, but WHEN done correctly and not amateurishly or to add legitimacy to something, when it is true and/or was written into the text for that reason, it is a pearl.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join