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.

 

Terra Papers - I was there

page: 31
80
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
the wiki quote said Adapa/Adam was a SON of EA, not EA but a son of EA. (EA/OANNES is Enki and also RA)

the idea of Berossus that EA/ENKI/OANNES gave them the Enuma Elish, is interesting since it was supposedly given to them by MARDUK. so is he saying EA is also Marduk? I can almost believe that one, too. i think he was body hopping into rulers, particularly god kings, and marduk fits the bill. it would also lend some credibility to marduk's insistence that he was the one that did the things mentioned in the earlier texts that had been originally credited to EA *but unfortunately, he also tries to take credit for enlil's activities as well. of course, it could be scribal error. by the time of babylon, every god had the god word in their names (EL) or at the very least, in one of their god titles.

christ discovered the vine (he made grapes)? i suppose you could massage it out of a verse relating to christ's antiquity... like, he knew us from the foundation of the world, but erm, where does it say in scripture that he created the vine? are they referring to the miracle of water into wine at the marriage? or are they saying christ created the planet's flora?

ya know when justin is saying these things, i don't think he realizes that these references are to other sons of the gods. there's several. the confusion seems to be related to the fact that for quite some time, it was believed the genesis 6 nephilim verses were talking simply about the sons of Cain, who was just a man as far as they were concerned.

in this case, CHRIST's claim to fame is that he is the ONLY BEGOTTEN son of GOD. now there were several sons of gods. so what's it mean? it means he was the only human offspring of the god in question, not created but begotten. and the god in question appears to be Enlil. the sumerian-akkadian texts however, claim enlil had other kids as well, and this is where the confusion resides. they were not born from human women. they were the offspring of the angels with other angels and the offspring of the gods with other gods, and the offspring of the angels/gods with humans, but not the offspring of Enlil with a human woman. at least, that's what the scriptures discussing christ, appear to be saying - that jesus christ was the only human man, begotten by enlil threw a human woman, the virgin mary. (oh, and isis wasn't a virgin
)

and if all of that is the case, then humans are not gods with the exception of jesus christ, who was god in the flesh, according to the scripture. that also would verify that enlil didn't create the flesh man, adam. he created the spirit man, who was put into the flesh body later, by enki. it would also appear to be saying that since jesus was the only begotten of enlil, that adam's flesh was not begotten of enlil, meaning he was definitely created not begotten (et.al enki didn't beget adam by having sex with pre-existing humans, although it may be presented in this fashion in other texts). enki appears to have been mish mashed into biblical texts with enlil.

remember now, i'm not saying (and neither is the biblical texts) that god men were not born, because they were plenty of sons of the gods, but they weren't human, they were hybrids (the nephilim). the differentiation appears to be "dna" related. jesus was fully human, yet spiritually GOD. nephilim were a mix of dna between the angels/gods and humans - et. al, flesh hybrids.

at least, that's what my studies seem to indicate, which would seem to suggest that some of these lesser gods and angels were in physical bodies and capable of birthing offspring. at the same time, it could also be genetic manipulation and artificial insemination, as well. angels are not discussed often enough to clarify their role in all this, beyond the brief mentions of some of them "falling" and leaving their first estate, and being locked in the bottomless pit. (which i theorized is more like locked out of coming here).

perhaps the net that is keeping us from going out there, is also keeping them from coming here.





[edit on 29-4-2009 by undo]




posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   
what we need is a chart to separate the variations in offspring. might help clarify a few things

1. human-angel offspring
--a) human-lesser gods, offspring

2. human-human offspring

3. human-god offspring
--a) created
--b) begotten

4. spirit body offspring
--a) created
--b) begotten (if you believe the mormons, spirit bodies are begotten by sexual congress between two spirit beings on the spiritual plane of heaven, however, this may be a simple case of etymological differences in created vs. begotten, not to mention things like artificial insemination, such as the idea that enlil impregnated mary via artificial insemination of some kind)

now we need to separate the names of the types of offspring

1. humans

2. human-angel hybrids *nephilim
--a) human-lesser god hybrids *nephilim

3. human-god hybrids (this category is really the place where most of the confusion resides)
--a) created
--b) begotten

4. fully human with god's spirit
--a) begotten via a type of artificial insemination

note: 4 is really a clarification of 3, but can't say one without saying the other due to the lack of clarification in the texts.

for your perusal

the nachash and his seed
www.thedivinecouncil.com...

introduction to the divine council
www.thedivinecouncil.com...
www.thedivinecouncil.com...

what is an elohim
www.thedivinecouncil.com...





[edit on 29-4-2009 by undo]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
The website with the bible translations is awesome!


I tried to read and catch up on recent posts - and in some confusion re Ra - he apparently changed records to make himself look like the one, the original - and negated earlier accounts of history to his credit. In that destruction also went the goddess religion that had been here for umpteen thousands of years previous - he turned everything around to (apparently) steal us from 'them'. And yes, I really think what keeps us in also keeps others out! That's why I was so interested in people who've actually astral traveled and met resistance -

Jesus I think was probably a major light being incarnated to try and help us find our way out like others (Buddha, etc.) and his words etc used by the ets to manipulate and control through religions.

The idea of a geneology chart is a great one - I have partials - it takes so much time, though, something I just don't have a lot of anymore.




posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
the wiki quote said Adapa/Adam was a SON of EA, not EA but a son of EA. (EA/OANNES is Enki and also RA)

the idea of Berossus that EA/ENKI/OANNES gave them the Enuma Elish, is interesting since it was supposedly given to them by MARDUK. so is he saying EA is also Marduk? I can almost believe that one, too. i think he was body hopping into rulers, particularly god kings, and marduk fits the bill. it would also lend some credibility to marduk's insistence that he was the one that did the things mentioned in the earlier texts that had been originally credited to EA *but unfortunately, he also tries to take credit for enlil's activities as well. of course, it could be scribal error. by the time of babylon, every god had the god word in their names (EL) or at the very least, in one of their god titles.

Well, here it gets tricky. In Cory's Ancient Fragments, it goes like this:


"Moreover, Oannes wrote concerning the generation of mankind; of their different ways of life, and of their civil polity; and the following is the purport of what he said,

"There was a time in which there was nothing but darkness and an abyss of waters...


While Tertullian.org gives it as:


Furthermore it is said that Oannes wrote about deeds and virtues, giving humankind words and wisdom.

[5] There was a time, he says, when all was dark and water....



christ discovered the vine (he made grapes)? i suppose you could massage it out of a verse relating to christ's antiquity... like, he knew us from the foundation of the world, but erm, where does it say in scripture that he created the vine? are they referring to the miracle of water into wine at the marriage? or are they saying christ created the planet and its flora?

John 15:1. But these are Justin's words, not mine. Apparently he found it to be significant.


ya know when justin is saying these things, i don't think he realizes that these references are to other sons of the gods. there's several. the confusion seems to be related to the fact that for quite some time, it was believed the genesis 6 nephilim verses were talking simply about the sons of Cain, who was just a man as far as they were concerned.

Justin did know, actually: "And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter."


in this case, CHRIST's claim to fame is that he is the ONLY BEGOTTEN son of GOD. now there were several sons of gods. so what's it mean? it means he was the only human offspring of the god in question. and the god in question appears to be Enlil. the sumerian-akkadian texts however, claim enlil had other kids as well, and this is where the confusion resides. they were not born from human women. they were the offspring of the angels with other angels and the offspring of the gods with other gods, but not the offspring of Enlil with a human woman. at least, that's what the scriptures discussing christ, appear to be saying - that jesus christ was the only man, begotten by god threw a human woman, the virgin mary.

No, John was saying that the Logos was the first emanation of the Godhead. And while there may be many "Sons of Jupiter," there is only one Logos, and you are free to believe that this Logos became flesh in Jesus. Philo of Alexandria, who showed no knowledge at all of any historical Jesus, conceived of the Logos as follows:


“Moreover God, as Shepherd and King, leads [and rules] with law and justice the nature of the heaven, the periods of sun and moon, the changes and harmonious progressions of the other stars—deputing [for the task] His own Right Reason (Logos), His Firstborn Son, to take charge of the sacred flock, as though he were the Great King’s viceroy.” 1
...
“For the Father of things that are hath made him rise as His Eldest Son, whom elsewhere He hath called His First-born, and who, when he hath been begotten, imitating the ways of his Sire, and contemplating His archetypal patterns, fashions the species [of things].”

Yahweh/Enlil (?) originally had a wife, too, at least until he started getting all cranky about people making "cakes to the queen of heaven". Maybe she got fat?


(oh, and isis wasn't a virgin
)

Oh, no? The Veil of Isis, page 266, from a magical papyrus:


"Isis, pure virgin, give me a sign that may let me know the accomplishment, uncover your sacred peplos."


[edit on 29-4-2009 by Eleleth]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
isis was married to osiris, who was alive before he died. ever read the shabaka stone text? horus is already alive.

can you give me the dates those texts were written in? if they are post jesus, i'd be cautious in assuming they were legit, since they are just as likely (if not moreso, since it's after the fact) of making it appear as if it were the correct way to interpret what he said.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
isis was married to osiris, who was alive before he died. ever read the shabaka stone text? horus is already alive.

There are many versions. This only shows that the characters were infinitely malleable, especially in the later Greco-Roman world, because they were not historical.


can you give me the dates those texts were written in? if they are post jesus, i'd be cautious in assuming they were legit, since they are just as likely (if not moreso, since it's after the fact) of making it appear as if it were the correct way to interpret what he said.

You are implying that the pagans conspired to make Isis into a virgin solely to discredit Christianity, which is plainly ludicrous. Now, I cannot access the endnotes from the Google Preview, so you will have to find the book for yourself. But here are more sources:

From The Veil of Isis, p. 265, again:


The allusion in Proclus to Horus and to the tunic that has not been raised indicates that Isis is being presented as a virgin mother.
...
The impossibility of raising the peplos of Isis, and the fact that she engendered the sun all by herself, allude to the goddess' virginal character.

The Cult of Isis Among Women in the Graeco-Roman World


It is noteworthy that at this early date women already played a major part in these ceremonies, Isis and Nephthys being portrayed by two virgin priestesses. (p. 54)

The Virgin Goddess By Stephen Benko, p. 144


Virgo, in Greco-Roman religious usage can also mean any one of the "virgin" goddesses — Demeter, Juno, Isis, Atargatis, Caelestis, and Aphrodite, ...

The Virgin Goddess By Stephen Benko, p. 85


The publication of Wilhelm Bousset's commentary on the book of Revelation in 1906 was a major event; this book still has not been superseded. For the interpretation of Revelation 12 his major contribution was the investigation of Egyptian mythology, in which he pointed to the figures of Hathor = Isis, the great mother of the gods; Horus, the young sun-god, and the dragon Typhon as parallels to the figures in Revelation 12.

The Wisdom of the Egyptians p. 258


The Lotus (Illustrations No. 47, 48, Plate IV) is a symbol with two meanings. Emblematical of the sun in the ancient days of Egypt and typifying light, understanding, fruitfulness, and plenty, it was believed to bring the favors of the god Ra. Later it is described as "the pure lily of the celestial ocean," the symbol of Isis, who is sometimes alluded to as "the white virgin." It became typical of virginity and purity, and having the double virtue of chastity and fecundity it was alike prized for maiden- and motherhood.

Thrice-Greatest Hermes, Vol. 3, by G.R.S. Mead, pp. 159-160


Isis as the Virgin Mother is a familiar idea to students of Egyptology 1; she is κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, the “World-Virgin.”

Introduction to the History of Christianity By Tim Dowley, J. H. Y.


The devotees of Isis, herself called 'the Great Virgin' and 'Mother of the God', naturally tended to look to Mary for comfort when paganism was outlawed...

And the final nail in the coffin (of Osiris), quoted in Taking Ancient Mythology Economically By Morris Silver


In a text from the Abydos Temple of Seti I [1302-1290], Isis herself declares: 'I am the great virgin'.

You might need to have a seat after all of this ownage -> \_

[edit on 29-4-2009 by Eleleth]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
no, i'm not talking about the older texts you've been discussing. i'm talking about later attempts to interpret the older texts. just like with my later interpretation of older texts, they were limited by the available data of the timeframe, and the current views of those who stood the most chance to make a meaningful impact on academia; which, frankly, is one of the points of this thread. alot of what stands today for a genuine interpretation of the ancient texts, are articles/papers/theses/opinion pieces/research papers, written hundreds of years ago, some of which preceeded the advent of archaeology, and many of which refuse to consider any new evidence, make changes to their original theories and hypotheses, based on the evidence, or admit that what appears to be real people, living in real places, doing real things, is not just a metaphor and a myth. you should know by now, i totally disagree with any attempt to suggest the ancients like isis, were not real.

isis was real. she was inanna. inanna was real.



[edit on 29-4-2009 by undo]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
no, i'm not talking about the older texts you've been discussing. i'm talking about later attempts to interpret the older texts. just like with my later interpretation of older texts, they were limited by the available data of the timeframe, and the current views of those who stood the most chance to make a meaningful impact on academia; which, frankly, is one of the points of this thread. alot of what stands today for a genuine interpretation of the ancient texts, are articles/papers/theses/opinion pieces/research papers, written hundreds of years ago, some of which preceeded the advent of archaeology, and many of which refuse to consider any new evidence, make changes to their original theories and hypotheses, based on the evidence, or admit that what appears to be real people, living in real places, doing real things, is not just a metaphor and a myth. you should know by now, i totally disagree with any attempt to suggest the ancients like isis, were not real.

isis was real. she was inanna. inanna was real.

I am not saying that the gods are not real. Even an egregore is real to its believers. I am saying that the texts about them were written for ritual purposes and cannot unconditionally be taken records of historical events—which even you have acknowledged in the past. When we find contradictions in texts like the Shabaka Stone, how are we meant to determine which is the "real" history? They can't all be true, can they?

Apuleius affirmed that the gods were still quite real:


“Accessi confinium mortis; et calcato Proserpinæ limine, per omnia vectus elementa remeavi. Nocte media vidi solem candido coruscantem lumine, deos inferos, et deos superos. Accessi coram, et adoravi de proximo.”

“I approached the confines of death: and having trodden on the threshold of Proserpina returned, having been carried through all the elements. In the depths of midnight I saw the sun glittering with a splendid light, together with the infernal and supernal gods: and to these divinities approaching near, I paid the tribute of devout adoration.”


[edit on 29-4-2009 by Eleleth]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
the next logical step is: if she's real and she's inanna, then inanna's exploits are hers as well. in which case, she was not a virgin
perhaps since she was a high ranking member of the egyptian and mesopotamian social order and the daughter of a god, they suggested her virginal status to remove any bad press she might've gotten for her mesopotamian exploits. if we agree to the concept that she was inanna, it seems only logical to agree to the concept that what inanna was up to, was what isis was up to. unless i'm missing something?



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
oh i think i know where you're going with this.
you think she's virgo, doncha?



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
oh i think i know where you're going with this.
you think she's virgo, doncha?

No. The current craze for "astro-theology" is nothing but misdirection. Isis is, as I have said repeatedly, the Mysteries, and particularly the mysteries of Nature as the female principle:


Behold, Lucius, moved with thy supplications, I am present; I, who am Nature, the parent of things, mistress of all the elements, initial progeny of the ages, the highest of the divinities, queen of departed spirits, the first of the celestials, of gods and goddesses the sole likeness of all: who rule by my nod the luminous heights of the heavens, the salubrious breezes of the sea, and the woful silences of the infernal regions, and whose divinity, in itself but one, is venerated by all the earth, in many characters, various rites, and different appellations.

Hence the primitive Phrygians call me Pessinuntica, the mother of the gods; the Attic Autochthons, Cecropian Minerva; the wave-surrounded Cyprians, Paphian Venus; the arrow-bearing Cretans, Dictynnian Diana; the three-tongued Sicilians, Stygian Proserpina; and the inhabitants of Eleusis, the ancient goddess Ceres. Some, again, have invoked me as Juno, others as Bellona, others as Hecaté, and others as Rhamnusia; and those who are enlightened by the emerging rays of the rising sun, the Æthiopians, and Aryans, and likewise the Ægyptians powerful in ancient learning, who reverence my divinity with ceremonies perfectly proper, call me by my true appellation Queen Isis.

Cf. Plutarch:


LIII. 1. For Isis is the feminine [principle] of Nature and that which is capable of receiving the whole of genesis; in virtue of which she has been called “Nurse” and “All-receiving” by Plato, 1 and, by the multitude, “She of ten-thousand names,” through her being transformed by Reason (Logos) and receiving all forms and ideas [or shapes].

2. And she hath an innate love of the First and Most Holy of all things (which is identical with the Good), and longs after and pursues it. But she flees from and repels the domain of the Bad, and though she is the field and matter of them both, yet doth she ever incline to the Better of herself, and offers [herself] for him to beget and sow into herself emanations and likenesses, with which she joys and delights that she is pregnant and big with their generations.

But by quoting from Greco-Roman sources, I am also showing how fluid the definitions of these gods and goddesses became. But even going back to Inanna's Descent to the Underworld, we have an unmistakable predecessor of the central myth of the Eleusinian Mysteries and Demeter's descent into the underworld.

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh spurns Ishtar's advances by saying that everyone she has loved has died. And here I would suggest that there is a bit of a Mystery behind this episode: "the cause of death is love, though Love is all."

Was there actually a time when these gods walked the earth? I can't answer that question—anything is possible. What I continue to maintain is that the records of our past have been from the earliest times in the keeping of Illuminated Brotherhoods whose function was just as much to deceive as to educate.

[edit on 30-4-2009 by Eleleth]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   
well i like jesus' approach to it. it's very simple and straightforward. i recall a gentleman discussing the topic of the usefulness of evolution in an universal sense. my position was, there must be a reason for everything, as everything has a reason... even the attempt to do something without reason stems from a reason ...that of trying to do something without a reason.

so we start with the principle of reason (not so much logic at this point, but definition of action). now let's say we decide we don't want to die out as a species and perfect our science enough that we can redesign our DNA to not shut off, to not break down, to regenerate everything (even the heart and brain) continuously and without pause. to regrow lost appendages or damaged body parts, like a starfish regrows an arm. and so on and so on.

then we go out into the universe and "evolve" even further as a species. after a few billion years, we've seen everything there is to see and done everything there is to do, many things, repeatedly. till it gets so boring and uneventful and predictable that it becomes a drudgery. would people ask to have themselves "shut off"? what would be their motivation to keep going?

very simple: love. love is truly what it's all about and i don't mean sex (nor the planet venus).
love makes each day, new and exciting, even if it is a day like any other day. it reinvents the universe constantly. it adds zest to living, existing, being. it makes the entirety of creation and beyond, an extravaganza of goodness.

so where an evolutionist would maybe think life would lose all meaning, he/she has only to think beyond the biology, and look at love which eminates from our spirits and is pure, incredible, constantly redefining energy.



[edit on 30-4-2009 by undo]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
You two are amazing with your research and resources you quote from!

Possibilities however, is that the first assumption is wrong, therefore making all subsequent assumptions based on an error - and I still suggest Isis is not a real person, but symbolic of the Orions and its omnipotent control over all that is in this universe.

I don't recall in any myths mentioning who Isis' parents were? Or Osiris? I still believe they are symbolic of the Orions and Sirians. If you presume Isis is a real person, and it turns out its a metaphor, what does that do to all subsequent conclusions?

ps - I can't prove one way or another, but I do believe it's a metaphor based on my readings over the years (not so much research done in past few years as I've been dealing with other things, like trying to make a living :-).



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by kshaund
 


do you believe inana was real or just another
representation of orions?



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund
You two are amazing with your research and resources you quote from!

Possibilities however, is that the first assumption is wrong, therefore making all subsequent assumptions based on an error - and I still suggest Isis is not a real person, but symbolic of the Orions and its omnipotent control over all that is in this universe.

Every text I have been able to find says that Isis was associated with Sirius; Osiris was the deity overwhelmingly associated with Orion.

Kingship and the gods By Henri Frankfort, Samuel Noah Kramer


"Lo, he has come as Orion. Lo, Osiris has come as Orion" (Pyr. 819c). The near-by dog star, Sothis, is Isis.

There are also a few Greek sources that associated Osiris with Sirius, and Horus with Orion. Plutarch, as always, is immensely enigmatic:


But the priests say that not only of these Gods, but also of all the other gods also who are not ingenerable and indestructible, the bodies lie buried with them when they 1 have done their work, and have service rendered them, while their souls shine in heaven as stars; and that [of the former] the [soul] of Isis is called Dog by the Greeks, but Sōthis by the Egyptians, while the [soul] of Horus [is called] Ōriōn, 1 and Typhon’s Bear.

That these deities represent "soul-groups" is a possibility; Thomas Taylor held that "instruction was accompanied with a vision of the source from which the soul proceeded." In the Pyramid Texts, you've got the Pharaoh, who was identified with Osiris, returning to his home in Orion:


In the so-called "Pyramid Texts", in his own tomb and that of Teta, the first king of the Sixth Dynasty, the monarch was deified as a star god, and has been identified with the constellation of Orion.



I don't recall in any myths mentioning who Isis' parents were? Or Osiris? I still believe they are symbolic of the Orions and Sirians. If you presume Isis is a real person, and it turns out its a metaphor, what does that do to all subsequent conclusions?

Isis and Osiris' parents were Geb and Nut—literally, Earth and Heaven. And in an Orphic hymn, we also read,


"I am a child of Earth and starry Heaven, but my race is of heaven alone." The soul came from heaven—from the realm of the gods/stars—down to earth for its exile; that is the sense in which it is child of both earth and starry heaven; but since he sees himself as having originated in heaven beore the fall to earth, he declares heaven his true place, as does Ani [in the Book of the Dead], saying, "I am one of you," meaning the heavenly beings.

Note also, in connection with Isis as goddess of the Mysteries, how often Sirius appears on Masonic tracing boards. And here we might also want to consider (with an immense grain of salt) the interpretation in the Hiram Key:


"...the central crucial process of king-making involved the candidate travelling to the stars to be admitted a member of the society of gods and there to be made the Horus, possibly being crowned by the dead king-the new Osiris. At some point in the events of the night the old king and the new king journied to the constellation of Orion together, one to remain in his celestial home and one to return to rule the land of men." (110)


[edit on 30-4-2009 by Eleleth]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Eleleth
 


Hi Eleleth -
I see what you mean - but I believe it may be based on error (again backwards like Ra did to the female/male religions) - I am swamped with "life" things to do today - but will find some information to support why I believe Isis represents Orion and Osiris represents Sirius tomorrow and post here for 'dissection'



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Okay, here goes


I’m paraphrasing here regarding what I re-read per Isis and Osiris from one of Robert’s workshops - this is more or less in Terra Papers, I'm trying to provide more clarification of why I think this is more accurate.

It is his premise that our ancient languages were derived from the Sirius (dog) star system – powerful canine wolf warriors and kings (male dominated society) known as the Dak Warriors.

The Orion empire, a female dominated society (reptilian) and the most ancient of societies has already conquered this universe – and makes an alliance with the Sirians for them to patrol/police this system (probably the galaxies around here) HOWEVER they HAD to have a direct descendent of the Orion Queen at their side and have offspring to ensure continued obedience to the Orion Queen to which they agreed thus further galactic wars prevented.

In the constellation Lorre the Orion hunter has two guardians at his feet, cannus major and cannus minor (my note – I haven’t confirmed this for myself, I expect it is accurate though, kshaund).

In looking for clues that the Orions surpassed the Sirians in power, there are clues such as the pyramids Whereas Egyptologists consider that of the two chambers within the pyramid, the smaller one is the queens and larger one the kings because of the existing mind set of male dominated society, therefore the largest one is the kings.

However, during its construction the largest chamber was oriented towards Orion (the female power that demanded recognition), the smaller one towards Sirius.

EA Wallace Budge Hieroglyphs – S-a-h (guttural h) means Orion. The (Sirian) title for ultimate female, lady, queen was Nin (Neen). The term for queen lady of this world was Har, but she had to be a reptilian, she had to be a Sah (Sag).

So the ‘sisters’ of these pharaohs and Ea/Enlil, etc. were not literally sisters, they were Nin-Har-Sags, direct representatives of the Orion Queen given all rights and privileges as a sister and ensure loyalty to the Queen.

Isis is represented in hieroglyphs as a throne and a throne, Osts, Osts. Two thrones side by side represents bigger than the biggest (ultimate one to which everyone obeys or becomes buffet)…

The husband of Isis (Orion Queen, the female at the very top) married (made an arrangement with) Osiris (the Sirius, male dominated society). Not literal people, but metaphor for their alliance.

Regarding Ra/Marduk, descended of the Sirians had to pledge their allegiance to the Orion Queen, to which Ra rebelled and as a result are the physical erasing of this history from the Egyptian records. It is from this era the grays were put in charge/control of mind-swiping the beasts (that’s us way back) through technology to ensure they didn’t quite catch on and get any gist of where we really are – trapped masters in this ridiculous existence.

From his takeover he made the God a male – the goddess religion, (approximately 4000 BC forward?) was destroyed as well as the original status of women and here we are today.

kshaund – So, in this scenario, would the Orion Queen be a tad upset at the current condition here? Could Nibiru actually be a patrol ship with regular rounds that is what’s heading here in the next couple years? As I understand it Ra/Marduk was run out of here a while back and it’s yet another attempt from behind the curtain to play war games with our lives and existence.

I have tried to take a lot of information and condense it to the bottom lines to help explain why I don’t believe Isis and Osiris were real people in history but representatives of the corporate partnership. So if this really is so, then from this all other interpretations are not accurate if they assume Isis and Osiris were really people, which is my point of trying to go back to the original from whence it all started.

If there’s a clarification or something, I’m happy to try and fill it in.

edit - typo

[edit on 2-5-2009 by kshaund]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I'd never paid attention to the WHO logo before, yesterday I realize its a serpent wrapped around what could be a scepter, not sure what it is.... but I find that REALLY disturbing and yet more acknowledgment of serpents/reptiles. They are so in our faces for us to see if we but look.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Sorry I've been neglecting this thread for too long. (The whole Orion/Sirius thing is a strange one and I'm not sure what to add.)

I am kicking myself for not noticing this before. Quote from the Wiki:


Some hold that the origin of this motif is the Sumerian myth in which the goddess Ninhursag created a beautiful garden full of lush vegetation and fruit trees, called Edinu, in Dilmun, the Sumerian earthly Paradise, a place which the Sumerians believed to exist to the east of their own land, beyond the sea. Ninhursag charged Enki, her lover and husband, with controlling the wild animals and tending the garden, but Enki became curious about the garden and his assistant, Adapa, selected seven plants and offered them to Enki, who ate them. (In other versions of the story he seduced in turn seven generations of the offspring of his divine marriage with Ninhursag). This enraged Ninhursag, and she caused Enki to fall ill. Enki felt pain in his rib, which is a pun in Sumerian, as the word "ti" means both "rib" and "life". The other gods persuaded Ninhursag to relent. Ninhursag then created a new goddess named Ninti, (a name made up of "Nin", or "lady", plus "ti", and which can be translated as both Lady of Living and Lady of the Rib), to cure Enki. Ninhursag is known as mother of all living creatures, and thus holds the same position in the story as does Eve. The story has a clear parallel with Eve's creation from Adam's rib, but given that the pun with rib is present only in Sumerian, linguistic criticism places the Sumerian account as the more ancient.

So here we have confirmation of a very early version of the Genesis story in which Enki takes the role of Adam. This begs the question: is the "rebellion of Satan" and the "fall of man" the same event? Or is this merely what the priesthoods who wrote these stories believe?

[edit on 11-5-2009 by Eleleth]



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   
holy smokes!!

lol ... jeez 31 pages im sorry but i could not read them all!! but ill give my spin on lil ol terro papers.

In the begin.. joking


mm no really If aliens made humans do they ask questions? do they have a god? or god(s)?

; )

We are the bastard child of a question...

sort version



new topics

top topics



 
80
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join