Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

13 bloodlines of the Illumanati

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 19 2004 @ 01:28 AM
link   
First, Khonsu, I think the many ways to serve lucifer thing was implying that anyone that doesn't worship christ worships the devil. This is of course ridiculous, and it ties in with what LaVey probably meant about not having to practice Satanism to be a satanist.

(assuming the bible is perfectly true) Anyone who doesn't serve Christ doesn't serve the devil... he IS the devil. I spent a lot of hours in reading, praying, asking, thinking, and arguing when i was younger about exactly what all the rules were about in religion, how could God allow there to be evil, wasn't sin basically a trap set by God for his children, etc. The answer I came up with is this- there is only one sin. Vanity. Sin was found in lucifer, who aspired to be more than God, so anyone who puts themself or any interest of theirs above God is becoming another devil, just like lucifer. Thats what theology says anyway... these days i have my doubts. I think religions take themselves way too seriously. They forget, as I have said repeatedly, that even if a devine message was originally given, it has past through generations of priesthood who were undeniably compromised by politics, and who are now being revealed for the pedophiles and drug users within their ranks. What we now have must be taken with a grain of salt, and the realization that we may have to compromise with other traditions to arrive at something resembling the original story which degenerated into our seperate religions.




posted on May, 19 2004 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Some of you seem confused. Let's turn the pages together to Genesis chapter 4. Instantly we see that Cain was older than Abel. We then see Cain killing Abel due to jealousy over an offering. Following that killing Cain gets exiled to Nod, and has a son Enoch, who has a son Yered, who has a son Mechuyael, who has a son Methushael, and Methushael has a son Lemech.

Now here is the plot twist. God said if anyone kills Cain the revenge will be sevenfold. Lemech has three sons and a daughter. Now Lemech comes home one day dismayed at having killed a man and the number 7 is everywhere. Lemech was 77 years of age, and Cain was killed 7 during the 7th generation of his lineage.

Seth, was born later on and was important since Adam's first son was exiled and his second one was killed before having children.

Cain was not the spawn of satan as it specifically states he is the eldest son of Adam and Eve. I'm not sure how any of you arrive at such conclusions. I assume if you mentioned Cain at all in your statements that you are followers of the bible. If so then you must remember something called the great flood. Now if you trace the sole followers of the flood (Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth) all the way up the line, you arrive at SETH, NOT CAIN.

The bloodline from Adam to Noah is described in it's entirety in Genesis Chapter 5. The descendants of Cain were killed in the great flood. That's all there is to it isn't there? Straight from the book.

I'm missing the supposed involvement of Cain in all these sinister things. He and his line were killed, that's it...



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlexKennedy
TgSoe,

I thought you were a Freemason. Why are you lumping us in with Satanists and what-have-you?


I'm not a Freemason yet sir. My Masonic contact told me to keep on studying because he was going to be the Master of his Lodge soon. I really can't decide whether to join the Masons or the Satanist or the Witches. The only thing, women are in charge of witch covens I think. I just want to be a powerful sorcerer like Harry Potter, eating Herbs and casting spells under the Moon.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TgSoe
I just want to be a powerful sorcerer like Harry Potter, eating Herbs and casting spells under the Moon.


As the Bard said, "this learned constable is too cunning to be understood..."

By which I mean, "huh?"

I assume you're being facetious...



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   

What is the one single way that Our Lord may be worshipped?


By studying the bible and practicing it's teaching.

By the way, when did I ever say that I hated anyone?

Ever wonder why so many of the threads in this forum turn into religious debates with Christians? Do you know what the greatest conspiracy of all time is? It has something to do with a guy named Satan masquerading as an "angel of light".



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mountain Man

By studying the bible and practicing it's teaching.


Just to be clear... I study the Bible and practice it's teachings. That means to you I am worshipping Jesus correctly, right?
And my Muslim friend, whose name I will withhold... he studies the Bible (quite literate fellow) and he practices teachings revealed in the Bible that are shared with the Koran. He worships Jesus correctly too, right?

Whereas a person who can't read is automatically a worshipper of Lucifer, because they can't study the Bible, and a person stuck in a hospital bed is automatically a worshipper of Lucifer, because they cannot practice the teachings of the Bible, yes?

Have you ever heard of someone saying of Jesus that he "hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."?

Another thing... you don't hate anybody, eh? You feel that a vast majority of people are worshippers of Lucifer, but you're OK with that... you don't hate them at all? I only want to check.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Not only that, but what about all of the people who lived on Earth for the millenia before the Bible? And what about all those who couldn't read a Bible, let alone afford one?

Bibles were a luxury for only the upper classes until relatively recently - they were also about the only literate class around. Does this mean that all of the poor and meek throughout history were condemned to hell?



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 11:05 AM
link   

You feel that a vast majority of people are worshippers of Lucifer, but you're OK with that... you don't hate them at all?

No, I don't hate them. Is that so difficult to comprehend?


Does this mean that all of the poor and meek throughout history were condemned to hell?

That is for God to decide, not me.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Well, didn't Jesus say that the meek would inherit the Earth?



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Meek: adj., Showing patience and humility; gentle.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 11:40 AM
link   
So, just to sum up what I believe you're saying, Mountain Man:

i) There is only one way to worship Jesus, and everyone else, whether they know it or not, is worshipping Lucifer (I presume you mean Satan here, not the Biblical king... no worries, no need to quibble over meanings).

ii) The only valid way of worshipping Jesus is to study the Bible and practice its teachings (we will leave the question of which parts to study and which teachings to practice for now... those are more complex questions).

iii) Therefore, the vast number of people are worshippers of Lucifer. NONETHELESS,

iv) You do not hate any of these worshippers of Lucifer, and

v) You make no statement whatsoever about the salvation or damnation of the souls of these worshippers of Lucifer, for it is only God who will decide whether the particular worshipper of Lucifer is worthy of salvation or not.

If this is the case, well, then, I disagree with you about people worshipping Lucifer, but I can only salute your tolerance (insulting tolerance though it be).



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Yes, that sums it up nicely.

By the way Alex, I notice you last name also appears on this page: www.thewatcherfiles.com... , is there any correlation there?

[Edited on 19-5-2004 by Mountain Man]



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mountain Man
Meek: adj., Showing patience and humility; gentle.


Yes, dictionary definitions are all well and good, but you have to take that word in the context in which it was written in the Bible. Jesus was addressing the poor - if you check the other definition on the page where you got the above from, you will find that it also means those who were easily imposed upon. Basically, the majority back then. Jesus came "to preach good news to the poor".

If you take a look at this link, you will find that the poor and the meek in the context of the Bible were one and the same:

www.jesus-institute.org...

Jesus showed compassion for poor people over all others. Do you think that they would be condemned because they couldn't afford a Bible or if they weren't able to read it? Stating that it is for God to choose is a bit of a cop out. I'd say that God has already stated it in the Bible through Jesus that it doesn't matter what you read - it's how you live.

[Edited on 19-5-2004 by Leveller]



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
generations of priesthood.... ...who are now being revealed for the pedophiles and drug users within their ranks. What we now have must be taken with a grain of salt,...


My advice would be to go to the Bible and if someone anyone gives teaching contrary to its principles face them up on it and if their teaching still does not reflect the principles of the Bible it is time to cuts ties and find someone/somewhere that does.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mountain Man
Yes, that sums it up nicely.

By the way Alex, I notice you last name also appears on this page: www.thewatcherfiles.com... , is there any correlation there?

[Edited on 19-5-2004 by Mountain Man]


Hmm... you're really asking so many questions. My name is, yes, Kennedy, so there is a correlation (because both names are the same). Yes, my family is probably from Ireland or Scotland, it seems like my great-grandfather was from Ireland... we don't know.

On the other hand, the page says "The Satanic Bloodlines," now I know that according to your beliefs I am nominally a Satanist, but I must again assure you that I am not. The page no doubt implies that all Freemasons are Satanists (I haven't slogged through the whole dreary thing). I am a Freemason. But I am not a Satanist, nor, as far as I am aware, are any members of my family.

Tell you what, Mountain Man, why don't you tell us your last name (since I've been so forthcoming), and then maybe I can find a web page that drags it through the mud to hurt your feelings? As they say, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 01:30 PM
link   
My last name is a funny thing. It is Leblanc, but only because my step-father's father was adopted by a French man.

My original last name was Adams-Walsh. My parents wern't married, so I took both my mother's and father's last names. My grandparents last names are Adams, Walsh, Wolfe, and Mansell.



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 06:13 AM
link   
I read somewhere that if you heard the word Isis pronounced in Ancient times it would have sounded almost exactly like Jesus. I can't remember now where I read that.



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Isis's name in Mdw Ntr is Auset, pronounced like "aw-set". Additionally Jesus's name wasnt "Jesus" thats not hebrew, its Yashua.



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Khonsu
Isis's name in Mdw Ntr is Auset, pronounced like "aw-set". Additionally Jesus's name wasnt "Jesus" thats not hebrew, its Yashua.


And even that may not be correct, I believe, since Jesus' name was yod-heh-shin-vav-heh... sound familiar?

That's right, it's the tetragrammaton with shin inserted into the middle. So what's the correct way to pronounce it?



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by TgSoe
I read somewhere that if you heard the word Isis pronounced in Ancient times it would have sounded almost exactly like Jesus. I can't remember now where I read that.


You're thinking of Iesous/Isis; and yes they sound somewhat similiar and are both Greek words; but Khonsu is correct.

That's one little gripe I have with the way that many Rosicrucians, Theosophists and Masons in general, present Kemetic knowledge. They Hellenize the sh*t out of things.

Why say "Hermes" or "Thoth"? People should recognize Tehuti instead.

Why say "Egypt" instead of Kemet?

It's 'Ausar', not "Osiris".






1






top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join