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.

 

What if Jesus returned with a new identity?

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix1111

Originally posted by moocowman



Do you think that you would believe him/ her, or consider him to be the devil trying to confuse you ?


I didn't think you were being serious. My thoughts on the matter of the purpose of Jesus, the Messiah? (I think that's the more relevant question.)

God wants to undo the mistakes of Adam and Eve. When God made Adam and Eve, he said "it is good." But after the Fall, they were no longer good.... So after purifying a lineage to the point that a sinless second Adam could be born, Jesus was born. Jesus was born in the masculine image of God. To be complete and whole, he needed to marry a purified feminine image of God, and produce a family. This didn't take place and so God spent the same amount of time as was spent raising up Judaism to raise up Christianity and the new Messiah, or third Adam. (Approximately 2,000 years.) The wife of the Messiah is of equal standing. Together they make a whole image of God.

How does homosexuality fit in with this pattern of families being the image of God, God's love and God's creation? It doesn't. Homosexuality is the result of the Fall. It is a deviation of God's ideal of love. It is not created in his image. Does God still love homosexuals? Yes. Just as much as hetrosexuals, but they are both out of sync with their true purpose of creation. They are both confused and function out of selfishness. That is the problem with all humankind. The purpose of the Messiah and his wife is to fix that problem.


[edit on 10/7/2008 by Matrix1111]


So allthough you have given a reponse, to be honest it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me, now I know I'm not stupid coz my mum told me, so I must be missing on something in your reply.

My question was, what if the jesusgod changes his mind again and comes back as a woman or a gay, would you recognise him/her or would you consider this to be the satangod out to decieve you? Bearing in mind the jesus god has a long history of not being recoginised by people.

We know that the jesusgod of the bible has a history of changeing his mind this is not arguable, we also would deduce that a god that can do anything can chose to appear as anything be it a woman, man, horse gay, or burning bush.

Now it's no good you responding jesusgod would not do this that or the other because this you cannot know.

You may chose to quote selected bible verses to prove the general nature of the jesus god and somehow claim that it would be unlikely to return as a woman or a gay, The fact remains that because this god has a propensity to change it's mind, it is equally likely to return as a gay or woman.

All I am asking is, if a gay man or woman demonstrates the same attributes as jesusgod of the bible to you, would you accept him/her/it or would you consider this to be the work of the satan god?

Please bear in mind should you reply "god would not do this that or the other" you would not only be insulting what little intelligence that I have but also putting yourelf in a position of knowing the mind of god, which is impossible when this mind has demonstrated according to the bible (it's source) to be changeable.




posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by azureskys
What if Jesus returned with a new identity ?


I can not quote Bible scripture but I think that we are to treat everyone with the same Love that we give to Jesus.

I get this from a Biblical passage I remember reading. It went something like this......
If a stranger comes to your door and asks for food,drink or shelter,would you give it to him...or turn him away?

Might it be Jesus at your door? Would you recognize him? Does it matter
his color,race,creed,rich,poor,deformed or beautiful ?


Very good point. In other words, treat all people like they are precious and holy. That is really what it will take to make this world a world of peace and love. Thanks for the reminder.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 



Sorry. God didn't create Adam and Steve. That was the point of my comments, which you didn't understand. The priniciples governing the universe, cannot be changed. To alter them (change his mind) would mean God is imperfect. What God created is perfect. It's humankind that is imperfect. So from our imperfect state of mind, everything seems confusing. But it is not God who is confusing (changing his mind). It is imperfect humankind who is confused.

Psalm 92:6
The senseless man does not know, fools do not understand.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Sounds like you two could be in charge of Project bluebeam .
Ok yall are wearing me out here ..I am taking a break from this thread ..



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman
All I am asking is, if a gay man or woman demonstrates the same attributes as jesusgod of the bible to you, would you accept him/her/it or would you consider this to be the work of the satan god?

Please bear in mind should you reply "god would not do this that or the other" you would not only be insulting what little intelligence that I have but also putting yourelf in a position of knowing the mind of god, which is impossible when this mind has demonstrated according to the bible (it's source) to be changeable.

I'd say gay men, though not evil, are not the destiny of the human race because they like other men's bums, and not vaginas. Vaginas scare the gay male of today, whereas Jesus was not scared of vaginas.

So no, I doubt that Jesus would return as a gay male, because then it would indicate that the reproductive act should somehow not involve male and female energies. So what you are proposing there, is absurd, unless you feel that the vagina, is the tool of the devil. You are not alone in this belief, if so.

Now as to the second question, what if he returned as a female, that's very different because the female is obviously the root of life. Each female, even a small girl, has all her little ovarian eggs pre-formed in her ovaries, so each female is within herself, essentially a seed for the human race. I wouldn't think it odd if we find Jesus to return in female form to emphasize what has been lost through time: Reverence and love of the vagina (and in a ancillary way, the uterus, ovaries, periods, etc).

Jesus, I believe was far more about sex (female worship) and drugs (mental exploration). I expect to be disbelieved in this regard because todays Christian is sexually crippled and mentally wrecked. How can anyone see the true Christ when they themselves do not understand sexuality and live in bi-sected bodies?

I think Jesus would get people loving vagina again, as when he was alive before and defended that cheating whore which the priests and all the men wanted to stone to death. Jesus was awesome, and would probably be similarly awesome if he came back.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by smallpeeps]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simplynoone
Sounds like you two could be in charge of Project bluebeam .
Ok yall are wearing me out here ..I am taking a break from this thread ..



Me too. But I keep coming back inspite of my better judgment.

Ugh! Trolls!!



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by smallpeeps
 


I'll play devil's advocate here about these statements.

Okay, so maybe it's absurd, or maybe it would show that the human race has now "ascended" above reproduction? When Christ came the first time, he radically changed the way the Jews that followed him thought. Perhaps his next coming will radically change the way we think about our race and the goal of life as well.




"But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ," (1 Cor. 11:3)


Now here, doesn't it seem that the Bible pretty much lays down the law that males are dominant to females, and Christ is dominant to males, and God dominant to Christ?

And why exactly do you think people respect women less than previously? I'd say that if you compared the life of a woman 2000 years ago to the life of one today, in America at least the modern woman has a better life, respect, and equality than the earlier one. Sooo....maybe I just don't get the fact that we have lost respect for women? Of course, if you mean specifically just the women's genitals, doesn't that objectify the woman, propping up the part at the expense of the whole?

Or maybe you're just being cheeky...!


[edit on 8-10-2008 by Avenginggecko]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
reply to post by smallpeeps
Okay, so maybe it's absurd, or maybe it would show that the human race has now "ascended" above reproduction? When Christ came the first time, he radically changed the way the Jews that followed him thought. Perhaps his next coming will radically change the way we think about our race and the goal of life as well.


Your theory, of course, was proposed by Aldous Huxley, in his novel "Brave New World" where the word "mother" is the one forbidden, truly horrific word anyone can utter.

I fully and completely reject the idea that the human race is finished with the vagina as the canal through which life will be born. No, I'd believe in an orgiastic Christ before I'd by a non-sexual one.



"But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ," (1 Cor. 11:3)

Now here, doesn't it seem that the Bible pretty much lays down the law that males are dominant to females, and Christ is dominant to males, and God dominant to Christ?

The Bible? I think you mean Paul, who was not a fan of vaginal issues.



And why exactly do you think people respect women less than previously? I'd say that if you compared the life of a woman 2000 years ago to the life of one today, in America at least the modern woman has a better life, respect, and equality than the earlier one. Sooo....maybe I just don't get the fact that we have lost respect for women? Of course, if you mean specifically just the women's genitals, doesn't that objectify the woman, propping up the part at the expense of the whole?

Well, the most effective part of a woman, is her vagina, and it is the core of all wars, (see Napolean and Jospehine, Mark Antony and Cleopatra, etc) and so when the pwoer of the female is reduced, you'll see people reacting with horror at the vagina, which is what we do see today.

Whereas women DO have a better life in regards to the idea that they aren't (usually) crushed with rocks for having sex (as in Jesus' day), they still do not yet have the sexual power to defeat the homosexual forces which are truly bringing a nihilistic anti-vaginal force to planet Earth.

Really, so much I am saying is very simple to observe, but like in Jesus' day, I expect it will not satisfy people's desire for a dead human sacrifice, whcih they prefer to anything else.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
For those that are really interested in this topic, there are a series of books written by Joseph F. Girzone about a man named Joshua:



When Joshua moves to a small cabin on the edge of town, the local people are mystified by his presence. A quiet and simple man, Joshua appears to seek nothing for himself. He supports himself by working as a carpenter. He charges very little for his services, yet his craftsmanship is exquisite. The statue of Moses that he carves for the local synagogue prompts amazement as well as consternation.

What are the townsfolk to make of this enigmatic stranger? Some people report having seen him carry a huge cherry log on his shoulders effortlessly. Still others talk about the child in a poor part of town who was dreadfully ill but, after Joshua's visit, recovered completely.

Despite his benevolence and selfless work in the community, some remain suspicious. Finally, in an effort to address the community's doubts, the local religious leaders confront Joshua.

source:www.amazon.com...$%7B0%7D
I have read the books and they are quite fascinating.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps


Whoa, I think you're taking my suggestion just a little too far in the course of things. I wasn't suggesting that Christ would return and make us all a test tube, narcissistic civilization. My comment was more to the belief that reproduction could no longer be the only ultimate way our species could survive. Perhaps we would ascend into a more spiritual, ethereal state? That's what I was kind of getting at.

"I fully and completely reject the idea that the human race is finished with the vagina as the canal through which life will be born. No, I'd believe in an orgiastic Christ before I'd by a non-sexual one."

Wouldn't an orgiastic Christ be more in line with "A Brave New World"? People who live on soma all day, having casual sexual encounters with one another? And while there is nothing wrong with your strong and symbolic belief in the female genitals, it really is only a part of the whole. It's no more or less important than a uterus, testicles, vas deferens, ovaries, etc. The female vagina may be like a canal through which life is born, but if you have no ship to sail it through it really is pointless, isn't it?

"The Bible? I think you mean Paul, who was not a fan of vaginal issues."

Well, Paul's writings are a part of the Bible...You can't really pick and choose what you think is right and what isn't. Unless you believe that the Bible is more of a guideline and not law, in which case you can take creative freedome with it.

"Well, the most effective part of a woman, is her vagina, and it is the core of all wars, (see Napolean and Jospehine, Mark Antony and Cleopatra, etc) and so when the pwoer of the female is reduced, you'll see people reacting with horror at the vagina, which is what we do see today."

Those are two examples...but what about World War 1, 2, Vietnam, the War of the Roses, the Civil War, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Cold War, the Crusades, etc etc etc

It's true that all wars are fought for love. But whether or not that war is fought for the love of a woman, or a love for gold, god, or glory, is pretty debatable. In fact it seems like most wars fought over women were the ancient ones (Troy comes to mind) where women were bought, sold, and traded like cattle and the wars came about do to a man's hurt pride and not his love.

"Whereas women DO have a better life in regards to the idea that they aren't (usually) crushed with rocks for having sex (as in Jesus' day), they still do not yet have the sexual power to defeat the homosexual forces which are truly bringing a nihilistic anti-vaginal force to planet Earth."

Well, they have a better life in regards to the rock crushing thing and the near equality to men in the first and (some) second world countries. But I believe the lack of equality in other countries is due to economic/educational issues more than anything else.

And as far as the homosexual forces go...homosexuality is readily evident in nature and it is as old as recorded history itself, and I don't see anywhere where these forces have devalued a woman's genitals. Women may have done that themselves by actually propping themselves up into a greater respect and place in traditional Christian society. That's only because now society respects the woman, and not the part.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
Wouldn't an orgiastic Christ be more in line with "A Brave New World"? People who live on soma all day, having casual sexual encounters with one another?

Not casual, but ritualistic and holy, which is why Huxley knew this was where humanity would head.

When separated from the original essence, it becomes destructive yes, but Huxley knew it would work. When sexuality is surgically removed from the psyche as today, it becomes deadly.



And while there is nothing wrong with your strong and symbolic belief in the female genitals, it really is only a part of the whole. It's no more or less important than a uterus, testicles, vas deferens, ovaries, etc. The female vagina may be like a canal through which life is born, but if you have no ship to sail it through it really is pointless, isn't it?

No, history completley invalidates your point because the homo priests have spent the last 2000 years removing actual depictions of female genitals from holy places.

wiki/Venus_of_willendorf


More pictures of historical vulvas


Well, Paul's writings are a part of the Bible...You can't really pick and choose what you think is right and what isn't. Unless you believe that the Bible is more of a guideline and not law, in which case you can take creative freedome with it.

I can completely deny Paul, as a Christian. I see no reason to believe him in most cases. The church which promoted him, has embraced a hatred of the female power, and so I believe Paul was not a advocate of truth. I do not believe in his conversion, nor do I accept him as an agent of truth.



It's true that all wars are fought for love. But whether or not that war is fought for the love of a woman, or a love for gold, god, or glory, is pretty debatable. In fact it seems like most wars fought over women were the ancient ones (Troy comes to mind) where women were bought, sold, and traded like cattle and the wars came about do to a man's hurt pride and not his love.

Not by people who understand the mind. So anybody who has read Freud, who suggested that Akhenaten and Moses were contemporaries and at least knew each other, would probably not agree with you.



But I believe the lack of equality in other countries is due to economic/educational issues more than anything else.

Beliefs are fun things. I believe right now some little girl is getting her clitoris carved out, in some third world, in the name of the Abrahamic god. In fact, I know it's true because the numbers say so. Some sadistic comedians might call it "circumcision" but it is entirely different. The removal of the foreskin from a male child was an Egyptian ritual before Hebrews were even a solidified group, as Freud points out quite clearly.

If Jesus came back, this would be one of the primary things he'd stop, somehow. Jesus will clarify the origin of circumcision and its horrific misapplication to girl children. He'll straighten a lot of people out regarding their genitals and what God actually cares about, which is death and murder.

Yes, death and murder are far more offensive to the Creator than vaginas, and the world which Jesus will bring forth, will reflect that, I think.



[edit on 8-10-2008 by smallpeeps]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix1111

Originally posted by moocowman


I didn't think you were being serious. My thoughts on the matter of the purpose of Jesus, the Messiah? (I think that's the more relevant question.)

God wants to undo the mistakes of Adam and Eve. When God made Adam and Eve, he said "it is good." But after the Fall, they were no longer good.... So after purifying a lineage to the point that a sinless second Adam could be born, Jesus was born. Jesus was born in the masculine image of God. To be complete and whole, he needed to marry a purified feminine image of God, and produce a family. This didn't take place and so God spent the same amount of time as was spent raising up Judaism to raise up Christianity and the new Messiah, or third Adam. (Approximately 2,000 years.) The wife of the Messiah is of equal standing. Together they make a whole image of God.

How does homosexuality fit in with this pattern of families being the image of God, God's love and God's creation? It doesn't. Homosexuality is the result of the Fall. It is a deviation of God's ideal of love. It is not created in his image. Does God still love homosexuals? Yes. Just as much as hetrosexuals, but they are both out of sync with their true purpose of creation. They are both confused and function out of selfishness. That is the problem with all humankind. The purpose of the Messiah and his wife is to fix that problem.


[edit on 10/7/2008 by Matrix1111]


Thanks for that non answer, I didn't ask you your opinion of the purpose of jesus, and no it's not more relevent.

The post topic was what if jesus returned with a new identity, an example of which is a woman or gay.
You were not asked (by me at least) anything at all about the messiah and his wife.


I asked you would you accept the jesusgod if he returned as a woman or a gay or would you reject him/her and consider him/her to be satan trying to deceive you ?

It's common knowledge that the jesus god is not immutable, unless of course you disagree with this. You have not stated that you disagree so one can assume it's not too difficult for you to answer the question if indeed you are able to.

If you are unable to answer for whatever reason, a simple "I don't know or I'm incapable of coming to a logical conclusion " would be answer enough.

I'm not out to try and get anyone over a barrel here dude, I'm just curious how a possible homophobic would react to his idol appearing to him in a new guise, possibly gay or female.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix1111
reply to post by moocowman
 



Sorry. God didn't create Adam and Steve. That was the point of my comments, which you didn't understand. The priniciples governing the universe, cannot be changed. To alter them (change his mind) would mean God is imperfect. What God created is perfect. It's humankind that is imperfect. So from our imperfect state of mind, everything seems confusing. But it is not God who is confusing (changing his mind). It is imperfect humankind who is confused.

Psalm 92:6
The senseless man does not know, fools do not understand.




Dude the Adam and steve bit is only amusing to christians.

Here is but one example of the god of the bible changeing his/it's/her mind

The internal contradictions between Exodus 32:10, 32:14 and 33:2-3 on the one hand and Exodus 33:14 on the other, clearly raises many problems of theological and moral concern from the Biblical context. In spite of God’s determination to punish the Israelites for their idolatrous conduct, he/she/it, did NOT execute punishment due to the intercession of Moses who had “reminded” God of His promise made with Abraham and the patriachs for their descendents. This Biblical passage seems to implicitly suggest that this “reminder” had made God realise his “wrong” decision and have Him repenting for it. Such an obvious “error” or even to imply such a thing is hardly befitting any person of integrity, let alone God, the Almighty.

So now we know that the jesusgod is able to return as a woman or a gay or anything he/she/it decides or undecides. would you reject him/her /it ?



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
[quo
I'd say gay men, though not evil, are not the destiny of the human race because they like other men's bums, and not vaginas. Vaginas scare the gay male of today, whereas Jesus was not scared of vaginas.

So no, I doubt that Jesus would return as a gay male, because then it would indicate that the reproductive act should somehow not involve male and female energies. So what you are proposing there, is absurd, unless you feel that the vagina, is the tool of the devil. You are not alone in this belief, if so.

Now as to the second question, what if he returned as a female, that's very different because the female is obviously the root of life. Each female, even a small girl, has all her little ovarian eggs pre-formed in her ovaries, so each female is within herself, essentially a seed for the human race. I wouldn't think it odd if we find Jesus to return in female form to emphasize what has been lost through time: Reverence and love of the vagina (and in a ancillary way, the uterus, ovaries, periods, etc).

Jesus, I believe was far more about sex (female worship) and drugs (mental exploration). I expect to be disbelieved in this regard because todays Christian is sexually crippled and mentally wrecked. How can anyone see the true Christ when they themselves do not understand sexuality and live in bi-sected bodies?

I think Jesus would get people loving vagina again, as when he was alive before and defended that cheating whore which the priests and all the men wanted to stone to death. Jesus was awesome, and would probably be similarly awesome if he came back.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by smallpeeps]

That was an interesting reponse,
Firstly, being hetrosexual (up until today at least) I cannot know whether vaginas scare homosexual males or not. Perhaps the best bet would be to ask a number of homosexuals no? You speak as though you know this as fact so am I to assume that you are a homosexual and are sacred of vaginas and do you speak for all other homosexuals?

Your next paragraph goes on a little about the jesusgod not coming back as a gay because of something to do with energies, claiming my proposition to be absurd.

Clearly you have some sort of direct line with the jesusgod and you know his mind in that there's something the creator of everything that is cannot do or would choose not to do.

Pleas explain how you know that the jesusgod is #1 Is incapable of doing something and #2 would choose not to do something, not why you believe such. Be it returning as a gay or turning the earth into a toaster.

My original question still stands, If you don't know what you'd do just say it, if you just can't even consider the possibility just say it, you don't have to go into some freudian rabbit hole of vaginas and bums.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   
The Christians see him as the return of Christ, the Buddhists see him as the reincarnation of Buddha, the Muslims see him as Mohammad, and so on and so forth, but he is one man that is seen as a savior of the world, not for one religion.

They're all waiting for the same thing, but they don't realize that it is one person under one truth for all that is transparent and conveys peace and stability, it is not many men that will come one for each individual religion, but one for all people, one man for the world, but it's not the man that is important, it's the message.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by smallpeeps
 



No, history completley invalidates your point because the homo priests have spent the last 2000 years removing actual depictions of female genitals from holy places.


Okay I'm somewhat confused about this. The link you provided is a description of an ancient fertility statue, yes, but it says nothing about priests or homosexuals defacing it to fit their purpose. The patriarchal structure that formed out of the fertile crescent/mediterranean may have dominated Western history, but I see nothing about "homosexual priests" going out of their way to crush female genitalia. My point still stands that women are respected more as an individual and not as a part. If you have some valid sources that there is a homosexual priest conspiracy to crush the female gender, could you provide some sources? Please make sure they clearly connect homosexual priests to a conspiracy to destroy the sanctity of the female body. Not trying to be rude, just want to understand better is all. Thanks



I can completely deny Paul, as a Christian. I see no reason to believe him in most cases. The church which promoted him, has embraced a hatred of the female power, and so I believe Paul was not a advocate of truth. I do not believe in his conversion, nor do I accept him as an agent of truth.


Paul was also the advocate against homosexuality in the New Testament. Does your dislike of homosexuals stem from this, or from the Old Testament? And if it is the OT, why do you accept the rule against homosexuality and not all the other odd and often violent rules contained within? If it is the NT, why do you accept some of Paul and not all? And, if Christ came back as an orgiastic pleasure being, wouldn't he accept and promote all types of pleasure that can be the highest and most intimate form of sharing with one another? Wouldn't that include male and female homosexuality?


Not by people who understand the mind. So anybody who has read Freud, who suggested that Akhenaten and Moses were contemporaries and at least knew each other, would probably not agree with you.


Well I have read Freud, and I've still been able to form my own opinions on the matter. Can you take any of those wars I listed and connect them to a singular female cause? If not, I'd have to say my point still stands that women are not always the cause of war, and haven't particularly been for a long, long time.


Beliefs are fun things. I believe right now some little girl is getting her clitoris carved out, in some third world, in the name of the Abrahamic god. In fact, I know it's true because the numbers say so. Some sadistic comedians might call it "circumcision" but it is entirely different. The removal of the foreskin from a male child was an Egyptian ritual before Hebrews were even a solidified group, as Freud points out quite clearly.

If Jesus came back, this would be one of the primary things he'd stop, somehow. Jesus will clarify the origin of circumcision and its horrific misapplication to girl children. He'll straighten a lot of people out regarding their genitals and what God actually cares about, which is death and murder.


Well, I agree with some of that
Actually, a bit of research yields that most of the Judeo-Christian tradition and lore stems from practices picked up in Egypt as the early Jewish people migrated throughout the Upper Kingdom



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
If you have some valid sources that there is a homosexual priest conspiracy to crush the female gender, could you provide some sources? Please make sure they clearly connect homosexual priests to a conspiracy to destroy the sanctity of the female body. Not trying to be rude, just want to understand better is all. Thanks


I am pointing to surviving items, as these have been destroyed down through history. Only the people who are ignorant of the "destruction of evidence" through history, keep clamoring for evidence. Let me explain this to you very simply: Circumstantial evidence is enough to describe a truth. Do you see? If, for example, I have a jigsaw puzzle in the shape of a circle, I may only have 7 or 8 of the edge pices, but even those are enough for me to observe and prove to myself, that it is a circle I am seeing. People like you seem to claim that if we do not have ALL the edge pieces of the circle, then we cannot say, that it is a circle, and prehaps even, it might be reasonable tohave a prolonged discussion about the possibility of it being a square or something else.

Only NOW in the last fifty years or so are things coming to light, so any appeals to time or tradition will be summarily slapped aside if you don't mind.

I don't need any more evidence about a conspiracy of buttloving priests. God himself knows the secret payments and bribes to families and so on --I needn't elborate. South Park said it better than anybody could. What forces do you represent if you don't know that? Priests promote their man/boy loving world. Didn't you know this happens all over the world and has done through time?

Why do you think the priests of Akhenaaten's day got so upset about his idea of an idolatry-free and openly female-appreciative world without a priesthood? Surely if they'd been fans of vagina, they'd have flocked to Amarna, what with Nefertiti and her daughters being known around the world at that time (see the Armarna Letters)

Didn't you know the Roman church (and prior to it, the power that was behind it) is anti-female and pro-homosexual males? See, I am not homophobic, because I am not afraid to consider the male anus. I have no interest in it, except perhaps in regard to my own, that is. No, I like females, and I like female sculptures --and the forces I am describing here, do not.

I am referring to the original template for Jesus, which was Akhenaten. This man created a paradise of female and male counterbalance and equality. This thread is about Jesus having a different identity if he comes, not what his sexual pref's will be, however, I do not think Jesus will be into men's anuses, if he returns. Is that clear enough for you? Priests, are into men's and boy's anuses. When I say "into", of course, I am speaking metaphoricallistically.


Akhenaten veiled himself and became Moses. Jesus remained below the level of attention, or veiled himself by merging with other 'messiahs' ala Life of Brian. Akehnaten is so much better to contemplate than Paul, I mean really, I don't see the Pope displaying the Obelisk of Paul's grandfather, do you?


Paul was also the advocate against homosexuality in the New Testament.

He was a duplicitous, powerful man. The Tony Robbins of his day. I think he really accomplished his mission well, kinda like Lee Harvey Oswald, who pretended to be a commie, imo. Oh yeah, I'm crazy like that. Whenever I see somebody really "convert", I'm usually suspicious. No, the tombs of Tut and Yuya tell me much more than Paul. Sorry.




Well, I agree with some of that
Actually, a bit of research yields that most of the Judeo-Christian tradition and lore stems from practices picked up in Egypt as the early Jewish people migrated throughout the Upper Kingdom


I have a much larger question for anyone following this discussion: Is it posible that Jesus DID NOT visit Amarna, and see androgynous sculptures of Akhenaten? ...And if he did (which obviously he must have done) didn't Jesus, like Sigmund, speculate on whom Moses was? I suppose the larger question is: When eveyone in the world had forgotten about the monotheistic Pharaoh, did Jesus know?

I find it much more telling to observe the gospel from a symbolic and figurative perspective, which I think was intended due to the differences between the texts. Jesus was the Fish and Moses was the Ram. Who will be the Water Bearer? I need to study more before I can really comment, but I feel that the cycles of the sun were known to JEsus, which is why he was preaching to a doomed generation. He didn't even try to get them to fight, because he knew the true resolution would have to wait until the time when each man and woman are far more powerful unto themselves. A day when they could actually fly and spend their own money and live without chains of the like during Jesus or Akehnaten's day. And today, that world exists, as we contemplate the change to Aquarius.

All these Christians ready for their ideas to play out, would be very dissapointed to find out that astrology isn't going to be eradicated as the satanic folly they imagine it to be. They expect Jesus will slice the Zodiac into shards and sit down as the king of eternity. Personally I think that's pretty funny, and I very rarely read my horoscope.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I believe the Monty Python Boys nailed it beyond question when they so brilliantly parodied the emotions and reality of the time in their masterpiece, "The Life of Brian".

Life of Brian Crossed of Banned List

CAPTION: "I am Brian of Nazereth, and I approve this message."

CAPTION: "Ve are ze Judean People's Front!" (this scene appears only in the Director's Cut of the movie)

CAPTION: "We agree that Moses and Akhenaten may have once shared a bagel!" (This is the People's Front of Judea, not to be confused with the Popular Front, who is over there.)

All this movie did was paint the reality how stupid and funny people are when they are in a herd mentality and wanting to be led. I mean how can you not laugh when the leperous beggar says that Jesus had cured him but then calls him a "bloody do-gooder" for depriving him of his livelihood? That is truly priceless satire there.

CAPTION: "Oh! I had an income! Should I go and become a bloody carpenter now then?!"

But most humorless Christians miss the humor in this movie and they even were prompted to PICKET this movie when it came out! But of course the movie does not even show Jesus except at the beginning (sermon on the mount) where he is misunderstod as blessing the "Cheesemakers", so the question which the original poster posed, is ansewered in part by this movie, where we find that there were plenty of opportunities for the kingly historical Jesus to have ducked in and out without making too much fuss. ...Myself I have always imagined Jesus spent his time healing people secretly and not in front of people. I see him healing and teaching only families or maybe even people in backallys and poor-houses. But he surely would also take the time to confront a few of the fakers I'm sure, so from a perception POV, the public could only have known Jesus on a person level. Like the people of that time said to themselves "That's the guy!" though others in the crowd were veiled and thought Jesus to be actually a fool.

In the question of "Would Jesus Return With a Different Identity?", we have to ask "Why would anyone assume he would return looking or being anything like "Jesus"? People really do reduce Jesus down to their own level of comprehension and seeing a bearded guy in a white robe is beyond iconic. I'd place the stereotypical Jesus right up there with Ronald McDonald in terms of corporate power. Perhaps returning as "Actual White Robed Jesus" might not be as effective, and might even be a violation of the saying "Do not put God to the test."

[NEWSFLASH UPDATE --BELIEVE IT OR NOT]
Jesus, in fact, was the son of Alexander Helios who was the Ptolemaic son of Marc Antony and Cleopatra 7. Alexander Helios, in fact, left off from politics and married a princess, and the two of them took to the earth. They rejected all money, lived simply, and they covertly went undergound. Their son, was Jesus, the rightful Ptolemaic/Pharonic king of his time. The people who welcomed him with palm leaves on his return to Jerusalem were families who had not forgotten the King (Akhenaten) who had been deposed so long ago, just for daring to free the people from priestly-domination.
[END NEWSFLASH --MOVE ALONG]

Let us consider some key similarities between Jesus and Moses (aka Akhenaten, aka Amenhotep IV) First, both men took themselves from a "Pharonic" position straight down to street level. In his day, Akhenaten was the earlier Jesus, swinging a staff like Bruce Lee and cracking the temple priests on the head and whipping them like cattle. Oh yes you better believe that it was the rage of Moses which Jesus channled when he lost it in the temple and started slapping them bitches around.

"How dare you use my father's house to make MONEY!" raged Akhenaten at the Hyksos/Eastern/Levitical priests who were fleecing Egypt. "You bind up heavy loads and put them on the shoulders of the poor!" said Jesus to the Sanhedrin priests, accusing them in front of crowds and in front of the world. "My kingdom is not part of this world." said Akhenaten when he stepped away from Egypt and rejected any mystical control of the populace. And yes, he, like Jesus, knew that whatever he physically accomplished on Earth during his lifetime would be wiped completely from people's minds and memories.

In the case of era-initiators like Jesus and Akehnaten, you can do two things only: One is to condemn them to damnation (where even uttering the name of Akhenaten would mean death by humilation, torture, and execution of your whole family) and to try to erase the memory from the minds of your co-collaborators and from time itself. The other is to alter the truth so that it is in line with what you want people to believe. In the former, we have Akhenaten, in the latter, we have the crucified messiah.

It was important for some groups, that "Christos" or the Piscean king of his age, should be "crucified" just as Akhenaten/Moses had done, at the cusp of the prior age, Aries. These same priests that had "crucified" Moses (when they destroyed his city and scoured his name from history) had a chance to redeem their guilt and did not. Like Moses/Akhenaten's story of "death or disappearance" is a lie, and he actually lived on, I think Jesus' crucifixtion by the priests would similarly have been thwarted, and yes, I do believe the "holy bloodline in Mary's Womb" story. Yes, I do.

Priests live for the death of impious kings, as is the Jesuit motto. Yet the world currently lives with a rule by priests and under the dharmic aura of the "death" of two of the greatest kings that were ever offered to planet Earth, and I am speaking of Akhenaten/Moses and Jesus.

Surely the next king of such caliber would proceed in a manner which would in some ways mirror the past? But whereas the Pharaoh had been "God" then Akhenaten could be called the "Anti-God" because he threw all the glory onto one single creator and then told people to imitate the Pharaoh for the correct simplicity of worshipping God. Similarly Jesus could be considered the "Anti-Pharaoh" because he threw all the people's problems back onto themselves and told them to look inward. So following this thought, we arrive at the idea of the "Anti-Christ", but what would such a person offload onto the human race this time?

I'd say the "Anti-Christ" will force people to face their own sadism, lusts, and the way this is reflected in their treatment of Earth's children (surgical alteration of infant humans would be understood and addressed, openly and truthfully). ...Either humans will survive that revelation and pass through it toward self-realization, or they'll cling to the skirts of the priests. Stonings will be a greatly cathartic thing for them, as has been the case throughout history.


CAPTION: "I am warning you if you say Akhenaten was Moses one more time--!"



[edit on 25-10-2008 by smallpeeps]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join