Was Isaac an Egyptian?

Originally posted by bruxfain
As a consequence the human condition can be understood by studying the dual feminine. For Lilith to live, Eve must die. If they are both on the Earth, War is the rule. For Lilith to be in this world “ON TOP”, Eve must be put below. Can’t you see?

[...]

The question of the OP, “is Isaac Egyptian” is just another one of Lilith’s lies to buy time in this world. Isaac being Egyptian, in addition to being a blatant lie, only serves the purpose of exalting Pharaoh and adds nothing to the character of Isaac and destroys the character of Abraham. Isaac is no more the son of Pharaoh, than Jesus is the son of Caesar.

Wow, that's a lot. Personally I think you are right in some respects, but there's so much emotion in your post, it's hard to really answer because for you, this is what truth is. You believe the bible story of Abraham, and you feel that any link in the bible between Egypt and Israel is a Lilithic tool of decpetion. ...Okay, I guess I'm with you so far.

War is all that I can personally hope for her. When she’s gone, we can then worry about the problems of the world.

She has 8 days left.

Sounds ominous. I guess these are the days of such predicitions and certainly your feelings are valid.

But my question is this: Why is it so hard to follow you? If you speak for truth, and what you are saying is true, then how on Earth can anyone follow you in understanding it? Do they need to just listen to your words?

I find this to be the same problem with so many "truth-seekers" ..They forget that truth, in order to be true, must be simple and easily grasped by even the man in the street, so to speak. Yours, is not. Mine, however, contained in the bible, where Isaac's mom is recorded as spending a few weeks with Pharaoh, is very simple. Ishmael was the line of that Pharaoh, as that Pharaoh then gave his daughter (Hagar) to Abraham once he knew he'd screwed up and impregnated Sarah. Abraham was not "from there" yet he was still a King as we can see from how Pharaoh dealt with him.

You'd call the paragraph above, a "weapon of mass destruction" which I thought was funny. In the 8 days the world has left, maybe you could clarify how making an obvious biblical connection is akin to a bomb which blows up a bunch of people? Are you saying that truth is so fragile that it can be destroyed? ...See I don't believe that. I think truth is always right under your nose and that when found, one will always marvel, "Wow, why didn't I see that before?"

The complicated and personal answer you are giving, seems no different than the smokescreen which hides the connections between Isaac, Joseph and Egypt. If by pointing to that, I am bombing people, well, I guess these are love-bombs, lol



[edit on 5-10-2008 by smallpeeps]

I don’t have any problems and I don’t seek the truth. I know the truth and this is it. My name is Brux, Mary is my wife, and Michael is my son; that is the only truth I need to live. Furthermore, there is nothing simple about your assertion and it makes the story more complicated as you suggest that Isaac was born before Ishmael. Can’t you see? Where is your support for this, that Isaac is Ishmael's older brother?

If Pharoah and Sarah produced an offspring, then it was Hagar. That’s a more plausible mystery.

By you holding to the assertion that Isaac is Pharaoh’s son you are saying that

1. Isaac is older than Ishmael.
2. Isaac is only the adopted brother of Ishmael, they don't share any parents biologically.
3. That Abraham and Sarah were not married in any meaningful way, as they produced no offspring.
4. That Abrahams true and Only wife was Hagar, Pharoah's daughter.
5. That Isaac has no claim to Jerusalem, as he is not Abraham's heir.

The mystery is a perfect reflection of the truth, otherwise known as a fantastic lie. That’s what I mean by the serpent trying to pull Eve into the Mirror, so that she can take her place in reality.

I can’t easily understand what would make you think that is a simple explanation, it’s exceedingly complex.

You have changed the bible and have no support at all to what you are saying. So you must be purposely doing this to create confusion. Do you really not have any idea of the implications of your beliefs?

You should write and publish your own Bible with the truth. Oh, Mohammed already did that.

When you woke up this morning did you say to yourself, "hey, I think I'll desecrate the legacy of Abraham's household?" Your beliefs are mind boggling.

[edit on 5-10-2008 by bruxfain]

Originally posted by bruxfain
I don’t have any problems and I don’t seek the truth. I know the truth and this is it. My name is Brux, Mary is my wife, and Michael is my son; that is the only truth I need to live. Furthermore, there is nothing simple about your assertion and it makes the story more complicated as you suggest that Isaac was born before Ishmael. Can’t you see? Where is your support for this, that Isaac is Ishmael's older brother?

Each of us is making fantastic claims, but only one of us is providing a simple path to the reasons.

It doesn't matter who was born first, why do you think it does? You think there was a birthright? Who gets the birthrights in the bible? Is it the firstborn or the second born? As you may know, it can happen either way, according to the bible.

3. That Abraham and Sarah were not married in any meaningful way, as they produced no offspring.

This is not certain. How can either you or I know how many kids they had? Why do you think these details here, are somehow dealbreakers? Is it inherent to your story that Sarah had such-and-such number of kids or did not have?

4. That Abrahams true and Only wife was Hagar, Pharoah's daughter.

Abraham's wife was Sarah, as the bible says. Where do you get that I am saying otherwise? Haven't you heard of a man who has a wife but then has a secondary wife who gives birth to a second heir? Not really hard to grasp.

5. That Isaac has no claim to Jerusalem, as he is not Abraham's heir.

This is where you'll have to clarify what you are saying. I do not believe Jerusalem is all that important, I believe the first temple of Solomon (Amenhotep III) was built in Amarna Egypt. I am speaking about simple archaeology, not fancy esoteric dreams. I am speaking of actual history of monotheism and rejection of idolatry, as began in Amarna.

You have changed the bible and have no support at all to what you are saying. So you must be purposely doing this to create confusion. Do you really not have any idea of the implications of your beliefs?

The implications? Yes, the implications are that when I am dead, I will not have avoided truth. I am speaking about archaeology and history, not some abstract connecting of threads as you seem to be describing. But hey, if there's only 8 days left in the world, I am ready for that.

Do you really think that me, some guy on a message board, can derail the plans of the One True Creator? ...If you are right, I suppose I'll be going to hell --but my larger question, here or in hell, is Why Abraham said his wife was his sister, and let her have a slumber party at Pharaoh's house?

Why was that left in the bible, when all so many other things were removed or edited?

Why did Joseph say that he had been made "A father to Pharaoh"? I am sure you have some explanation, but really, what I am saying is simple, when one lays the template of 20th centiry archaeology (Tombs of Yuya and Tut) over the bible.

The tombs of Yuya and Tut were meant to be found in our day, so that everyone could overlay those tombs/telescopes-into-the-past, with the words of the bible, and thereby find the truth of what happened. What I am saying can be done at any library or even Wikipedia... What you are saying is that Eve and Lilith are looking at each other in a mirror and one is eating her children. Let the reader use discernment.



[edit on 5-10-2008 by smallpeeps]

reply to post by smallpeeps

this angle is quite interesting. i would love to brush up on the book/verse wherein it states that Sari/Sarah (Princess???) cohabitated w/the pharaoh/king. i thought that abraham's wife (sarah) asked Hagar (sarah's egyptian handmaiden) to into abraham and give them a son......hence ishmael. (Genesis 16:1-3, 15-16, 17, 21:1-2) and thus started the middle east conflict.

i thought God said something to the effect: "What troubles you, Hagar? Do not be afraid; for God has heard the voice of the boy where he is. Come, lift up the boy and hold him fast with your hand for I will make a great nation of him."

also, i am curious enough to read all the other versions and find it most interesting as well. i always like to learn.

reply to post by smallpeeps


Thank you for your calm sensable post smallpeeps.

When I began seeking out things that werent making sense to me, even as a child, I began to see that if I countinued walking the path that I felt the spirit was leading me on, that it would be a path of dedication of the intuition as well as a path that required a open mind. Being a former Christian, this took a while for me to sift through many different beliefs and studying gnostic teachings as well as the lost gospels. It was a decision I had to make within, between me and my spirit and Thee aboce all. It begens as a lonely road, for one knows that the mainstream ideas are not going to support these new curiousities. But, between dreams, strange phenomenons and my mothers near death experience....I could see that things were not all that I was taught them to be.

I dont worry anymore about offending those following the mainstream, I worry more about offending God in thinking he orderd man to kill and used men that slept with many women and this God needed the blood of animals in orde to dwell with these men. In my heart, that is offensive to God to say he did those things.

To debate with someone about this is not what I tried to do, this is a conspiracy forum and I feel its a perfect subject to discuss with others who might be open minded. Thank you for participating with me in the discussion.

You brought up two great questions.

Why did this man, who God works through, let his wife lie with the Pharoh? The idea that Abraham would of been killed because she would of been stolen from him due to her beauty....I dont buy it.

Why does God tell Joseph that he will be the father of a pharoh?

Futher more, questions I posted earlier, why does the 12 tribes of Israel come from the line that tricked his Father?

If God brought circumcisions to the hebrews as a sign of them, why were Pharohs circumsizing themselves before this? Did the Hebrews use the circumcision because this is what the Pharohs already practiced?

If the idea of the Ark was special to the Hebrews, if this was original becuase God had never dwelled with a people before....why does Amun Ra get carried in an Ark?

The Bible sometimes refers to Egypt as the land of Idols...bad things. But then, Jesus learns in Egypt and also it was a safe haven for the parents of Jesus to take him and find safety.

Originally posted by smallpeeps

Originally posted by bruxfain
I don’t have any problems and I don’t seek the truth. I know the truth and this is it. My name is Brux, Mary is my wife, and Michael is my son; that is the only truth I need to live. Furthermore, there is nothing simple about your assertion and it makes the story more complicated as you suggest that Isaac was born before Ishmael. Can’t you see? Where is your support for this, that Isaac is Ishmael's older brother?

Each of us is making fantastic claims, but only one of us is providing a simple path to the reasons.

It doesn't matter who was born first, why do you think it does? You think there was a birthright? Who gets the birthrights in the bible? Is it the firstborn or the second born? As you may know, it can happen either way, according to the bible.

3. That Abraham and Sarah were not married in any meaningful way, as they produced no offspring.

This is not certain. How can either you or I know how many kids they had? Why do you think these details here, are somehow dealbreakers? Is it inherent to your story that Sarah had such-and-such number of kids or did not have?

4. That Abrahams true and Only wife was Hagar, Pharoah's daughter.

Abraham's wife was Sarah, as the bible says. Where do you get that I am saying otherwise? Haven't you heard of a man who has a wife but then has a secondary wife who gives birth to a second heir? Not really hard to grasp.

5. That Isaac has no claim to Jerusalem, as he is not Abraham's heir.

This is where you'll have to clarify what you are saying. I do not believe Jerusalem is all that important, I believe the first temple of Solomon (Amenhotep III) was built in Amarna Egypt. I am speaking about simple archaeology, not fancy esoteric dreams. I am speaking of actual history of monotheism and rejection of idolatry, as began in Amarna.

You have changed the bible and have no support at all to what you are saying. So you must be purposely doing this to create confusion. Do you really not have any idea of the implications of your beliefs?

The implications? Yes, the implications are that when I am dead, I will not have avoided truth. I am speaking about archaeology and history, not some abstract connecting of threads as you seem to be describing. But hey, if there's only 8 days left in the world, I am ready for that.

Do you really think that me, some guy on a message board, can derail the plans of the One True Creator? ...If you are right, I suppose I'll be going to hell --but my larger question, here or in hell, is Why Abraham said his wife was his sister, and let her have a slumber party at Pharaoh's house?

Why was that left in the bible, when all so many other things were removed or edited?

Why did Joseph say that he had been made "A father to Pharaoh"? I am sure you have some explanation, but really, what I am saying is simple, when one lays the template of 20th centiry archaeology (Tombs of Yuya and Tut) over the bible.

The tombs of Yuya and Tut were meant to be found in our day, so that everyone could overlay those tombs/telescopes-into-the-past, with the words of the bible, and thereby find the truth of what happened. What I am saying can be done at any library or even Wikipedia... What you are saying is that Eve and Lilith are looking at each other in a mirror and one is eating her children. Let the reader use discernment.



[edit on 5-10-2008 by smallpeeps]

I haven't made any claims, the claims were made by the author of the Book of Genesis. I just haven't any reason to doubt its accuracy and I still don't as even you have decided to use it to prop up your own perception of reality.

This is not about birthright it is about the composition of the House of Abraham (God) and the House of Pharaoh (Man). The armies of the world are not arrayed around Amarna.

You have arbitrarily chosen archeology and history over the Bible, as either one could easily be manipulated, as you have shown that you will do.

God made marriage sacred, between A man and A woman, just because men have taken more than one wife doesn't make it right or according to God's way; instead that is the path of Cain.

Offspring are the product, evidence even, of the union. "A Man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife and they become one flesh" If they had no Children, then why would someone else's children carry around a written history of them. Unless they were trying to hijack a tradition and keep it as their own. That's like me carrying around the history of you and your family, while rejecting the story of my own family.

Men are irrational, as you have shown about yourself, and violent. If Abraham would have revealed himself to Pharaoh his death was certain, just as when Jesus revealed himself to the Romans. He said what he said because you're unrepentant murderers and can't live with the truth.

I know you can't derail anything, you can't even handle me, let alone God's plan.

The claim of Monotheism, coming from the mind of a person who believes what you believe is nothing more than a veiled rejection of Jesus as the Son of God. Please try it with someone else.

If you didn't care about Hell, surely you wouldn't be defending your erroneous beliefs so ferociously.

If the tombs of those dead men held the truth, they wouldn't require the Bible as a support document. That just sounds ridiculous. Your assertion is that the Egyptians intended for you to uncover some tombs and use that information along with the documents of a foreign nation to find the truth of what happened. Someone is lieing to you and it ain't me.

reply to post by musselwhite


You brought up a great point to add here musselwhite...Sarahs name actually means Princess. How strange it is that all of these Hebrew stories, the parents names their children in a way that was almost fortelling of what their life would mean.

reply to post by bruxfain



I think we can handle you bruxfain...you just keep qouting your Bible, and dont forget to throw in that odd ball from left field now and then, we can keep up I assure you.

You are here for a debate, I am not. You follow wrathful ways and follow men who have lived unjust lives. You make excuses for these actions and you place justification for God of blood on his hands.

Men who have God dwelling within are humble, peaceful and do not promote fear to others. They remind eachother, to stand sure footed in love and peace and remind eachother they are loved. That is how I find the seed of God in others. If I am wrong, then God will take care of that, you dont need to do it for Thee. My wrongs are between me and Thee, not between me and you.

But thanks for your thoughts, for all of our thoughts have value.

About hell...

I think this is hell. The place where God can not walk with us in spirit, he place where there must be a veil of Gods presence. The place where it is not obcious to the material eye that there is a God. The place of darkness, of material, the place that can disolve your soul into nothing.

I see this place, hell, like a wine press that presses the grapes through to receive the best of the product. Wine represents a chemical change, a change in substance, a pressing out of the spirit (light) from the flesh (dark).

Imagine, if you will with a open mind for one sec. Imagine a place where souls come into matter to experience the seperation of their nature, which is in the spirit. What if you keep getting re booted back into this place because you havent figured out what your nature is. What if, the idea of your soul dying is the idea that you have been reborn so many times there hardly exsist any spirit (light) within you. And eventually, your soul will cease to exsist.

I believe God is a mater at recycling. Look at how mother nature works. Look at how the cycles of life work. Its all about recycle recycle recycle.

Remember the story about God walking through the winepress being covered in the juices of the grapes. God is walking through this winepress (earth) and will be covered in our jiuces, our blood, in order to not loose any of Thees light. No light shall be lost, and this is how I see God making sure none gets lost. Every last spark of our Fathers light will be sifted and pressed through....in the blink of an eye. The process is slow, but the result will come swiftly.

leovirgo,

i may have missed your reference but which blood on God's hands are you referencing?

this angle is quite interesting. i would love to brush up on the book/verse wherein it states that Sari/Sarah (Princess???) cohabitated w/the pharaoh/king.

GENESIS 12:10 Now there was a famine in the land. So Abram went down to Egypt to sojourn there, for the famine was severe in the land. 11 When he was about to enter Egypt, he said to Sarai his wife, “I know that you are a woman beautiful in appearance, 12 and when the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife.’ Then they will kill me, but they will let you live. 13 Say you are my sister, that it may go well with me because of you, and that my life may be spared for your sake.” 14 When Abram entered Egypt, the Egyptians saw that the woman was very beautiful. 15 And when the princes of Pharaoh saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh. And the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house. 16 And for her sake he dealt well with Abram; and he had sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male servants, female servants, female donkeys, and camels.

17 But the Lord afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife. 18 So Pharaoh called Abram and said, “What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? 19 Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife; take her, and go.” 20 And Pharaoh gave men orders concerning him, and they sent him away with his wife and all that he had.

...This of course was written by Moses, aka Akhenaten, in his Leivitcal/Monotheistic epic, "Genesis", also know as "Damn I gotta move these people when they don't wanna move."

But was it only Freud, who alluded to the syncretic Judeaic/Levitical/Pharonic conflict down through time? Was he, when he mentioned that circumcision, for example, was an Egyptian custom, being delusional, as some have said?


I will make this very simple: There is only one dynamic which is needed to unlock the mystery of our present age, and it is in the comprehension of the past ages. When did the Pharaohs fall and Moses rise? Who led both groups at that time in history. Who stood for inddependence from old ways and promotion of an equal perspective bwteen male and female powers?

There is only one man, and it is Akhenaton, 18th dynasty Pharaoh.

This man, stepped down, off of the plateau of Pharonic vision, and took his hme among his own people, greeting them in the streets and living with them, openly and in disguise.

This man had beautiful daughters, who watched him in his studio, as he sculpted representations like no king's hands were ever able to do. His head artisan called himself "The student of my master". ...In fact, I'll go so far as to say that Akhenaten probably sculpted the famous bust of his wife, Nefertiti, and that maybe even his little daughter, Meritaten, even had a few taps in the chisel, with her father guiding that hand. This was a tremendous family we are talking about here, who opened themselves to their people in a way few Czars or Presidents would ever do.

Akehnaten's daughters, so capable of producing offspring, were sent deep into the parts of the Earth, at the time of his dispersal --his persecution, by the priests and the military. His paradise, which he had created, was too great a threat to the power elite in Egypt. His father Amenhotep had come under the sway of the Vizier Yuya's monotheistic religion, and his full rejection and abandonment of old ways, had infuriated those wealthy priests.

Do you see this man, Akhenaten, as you gaze short of him, or past him, in time? Do you see his scantily clad wife and daughters, now gloriously revealed to you through the centuries? He brought himself down to the level of the people, and the layout of his temples, one larger, and one smaller, is the first temple of Solomon.

The temple of Solomon, that is to say, Amarna, was a wonderful thing to behold. It was built so quickly, and yet so well considered, that to hide it, has been the burden of time.

Now that burden is lifted.

Amarna was a paradise of half-clad free-thinking hippies of that day, and the military/church disbanded that party. You didn't know this until just this last 100 years, and yet I think Luther and Leo and Innocent and so on, all did know this.

Imagine a world of sculpture and artisans and games and healthy religion. Healthy religion in which open air and presentation of sacrifices related to earth and toward the female aspects of creation and rebirth are commonplace and the secrecy of the pyramids is forgotten, even if only for a moment. ...That is what Amarna was.

I believe Amarna will be rebuilt, eventually. This time, for a thousand years. I mention this picture so you can grasp what is being said. Perhaps I am the antichrist? If I propose a world like that of Amarna, surely the fasting/crucified Jesus would be also welcome there. --But would he come in, and what message would he preach to them?

Amarna was not a sodom and gommorah type situation. No, that's what we have today, because the female aspect (boobs and butts I mean, very simple here) is not being shown. It is a fully pyramidicaly aligned world we got here, and the idea that Isaac, grandfather of Joseph, was an adopted son of Abraham, speaks much more highly to me because people put too much weight into bloodlines.

All through history people support the king because he is the king, but then here is Abraham, with an adopted son, whom an angel prevents him from killing (let's say) and so he hterefore adopts him.

Now today we have both sides of this pivot in control of Earth because Isaac (kingly line) and Ishmael (kingly line) have infiltrated such a large percentage pf bloodlines that a large amount of humans are ready to go to war and die.

If you want to talk about war, I'll talk to you about how to stop it, and that's peace and love and naturally occurring substances. Akehnaten knew that, and I wish he was around these days. Earth would be much better for his presence, I believe.

[edit on 5-10-2008 by smallpeeps]

smallpeeps,

you will not have avoided what truth? i'm still not certain what you mean about yuy and tut. can you explain your position to me? so far, all i've read is that you don't like the bible's version of abe and sarah and reject most of ancient history because it's too complicated.

reply to post by undo



The God of the Old Testament not only ordered man to kill the animals for their sacrafices but also ordered then to kill thousands of families in order for them to have land.

To me, this is the masses deception, much bigger then the Isaac family curioustites I posted. The deception that we all believe that God ordered and justified those men to kill. Why, in the time of the Law given to Moses...would God turn around and tell them to go against this Law? Why? Oh, becuase it is God givine the ordered so the Law is thrown out? Is God that contridiction? Why would God show such heartless behavior, a loss of hope even for all of these people. What about the shepard who looks for every lost sheep. Did God truly have special people who the Law didnt pertain to? Oh yea, I almost forgot, after they do wrong, they slaughter a animal (more blood) so God can forgive them.

In the Gospels of the Holy Twelve, it shows Jesus teaching man that blood is not required of God. It also shows Jesus teaching that animals have souls becuase they have life. Anything that have the life of blood within has a soul (a spark of God).

To me, by claiming the whole Bible as word for word, we say that God is a heartless murdurer and using us as the ones who does the killings. This make my stomach turn, I just cant accept it. The Old Testament drips with blood and justifies it also.

Originally posted by bruxfain
If the tombs of those dead men held the truth, they wouldn't require the Bible as a support document. That just sounds ridiculous. Your assertion is that the Egyptians intended for you to uncover some tombs and use that information along with the documents of a foreign nation to find the truth of what happened. Someone is lieing to you and it ain't me.

They don't require the bible as a support document. The bible is that book which has been drilled into everyone's heads. Tehy simply provided a key, through time.

Yes, see, a key is a very simple thing. Its a way to look at a text, for example, and yet you, who have the key, can unlock the truth. The bible is the document, and the simple, FRONT PAGE archaeology of the 20th century was the key.

All the other distractions during the 20th Century were distractions so that you wouldn't see the key, the tomb of Tut, a virtual crystal clear window into 3300 years of history, into one of the most amazing times ever, on earth.

What I am saying is this: Truth must be simple.

The truth which comes from the pulpit or from a conspiracy website, is always going to be too complex for the average person to grasp. TRUTH IS NOT COMPLEX though it MUST BE HIDDEN.

So there are two parts to the mystery, yes, one is the bible, the other is this time of technology in which we saw Tut's face and really haven't researched why it just sorta happened that way.

Whereas the average person would see a simple coincidence, that the most wonderful picture into the past was unleashed just prior to WW2. I do not count myself among them.

It was meant for us to grasp what Amarna was. Truth had to be coded into the bible such that at a later date, things would make more sense. That late date is know, when internet allows people to learn about very recent archaeologhy pertaining to the time of Moses and free-love via history's enigma, Nefertiti.

Its a simple key, which was encoded in the bible, and in history, then when the tombs were opened in our day, it was meant to make us think differently about Jesus, the lesser/greater(?) Akhenaton. In the transfiguration, it is meant to say that Jesus represents the spirit of Elijah and Moses, but who was Moses?

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
To me, by claiming the whole Bible as word for word, we say that God is a heartless murdurer and using us as the ones who does the killings. This make my stomach turn, I just cant accept it. The Old Testament drips with blood and justifies it also.

Yes, Moses had to give the people a way to shed blood, in a mobile fashion, because he knew he needed to flee Egypt. He went north and found his ancestors sacrificing humans. He tried to talk them out of it and gave them a code and said he talked to god up in the hills. They believed him.

Why does Jesus talk about eating his body and his flesh? It's (obviously) because Moses drew the people of Jethro away from sacrificng their children, and gave them a code which would not devalue the sacrifices they had made --parents who believe in child-sacrifice tend not to want to abandon that belief because itmeans they killed their kid for nothing. Moses had to codify the rules of shedding blood. Jesus, who carried the theme I am describing, drew the larger analogy into a single ritual, the so-called "last supper"

In that meal, he sat down with his friends (were women present?) and talked about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. How gross is that? What was he talking about? ...Why did he need to say that the bread meant his body? ...To me he was clearly alluding to Moses, who in some similar ceremony of the past, had killed a bull and said to his tribesman, "This means your children. Their lives are not devalued, though I ask you to kill a bull and not your children." ...Jesus was opening their eyes to a much greater horror, and showed himself to be the fulfillment of it in the words of his ritual.

In the last supper, Jesus seems to be saying "Here is how horrible the past was, and here also you may percieve the wisdom of Moses" ...When the picture of Akhenaten's son is burned into all minds yet he himself is not seen in his correct historical light, I am happy to describe what to me, is a very simple key to the past. and to the future.

reply to post by LeoVirgo


blood sacrifice. i have no clue. some of their contemporaries were sacrificing human babies and adults. but they sacrificed sheep, lambs and goats (dunno about cows). it has something to do with blood. it is interesting, i agree. it's for the same reason, jesus' death marked the end of animal sacrifice as well. he was called the "LAMB OF GOD", for this reason.

the sumerian-akkadian texts claim a god had to be killed so that man could be created. i have no idea what that means either. it sounds suspiciously like the change that took place in adam, from an eternal, pastoral existence, to a temporary life of misery, only occassionally punctuated by joy and peace. there have been several theories, but it still doesn't make sense that even with advanced tech, they would need to kill the entire body of the DNA donor, unless there's some hidden bit of cloning we still know nothing about?

sitchin thinks it was just about feeding the gods.
some gods ate animal flesh, some ate human flesh.
pharaoh unis was a cannibal, a particularly nasty one, too.



[edit on 5-10-2008 by undo]

as regards word for word acceptance of the scripture:

there's parts in there that even I suspect, so it always helps to go to the surrounding history to clarify. sumerian-akkadian texts are very revealing on this, and if you can clear a path through the mussed up egyptian timeline, some of their info is pretty good, too.

one of the problems we are dealing with is the first five books were only an oral tradition for some 2 thousand years. they weren't written down till much later. see, the slaves were not allowed to write. only the mainstream versions of history were allowed and those were primarily written by Enki's priests and the priests of his descendancy, which includes, the heirs of Marduk and the heirs of Narmer (of Egypt). humans were taught a trade and that's all they were taught. when they finally gained the freedom to write down their oral history, it sounded similar but different from the mainstream version.

this is a really old battle. it goes back to pre-sumerian times.

To me, Jesus offered his flesh as a lesson that we should not fear death if we are confident of our Fathers grace.

Mans bloody ways still used Jesus' death as a sacrafice, saying his blood was required by God. God offers, not forces. To me, an offering is out of ones free will, a sacrafice is out of force through fear.

By partaking in the understanding of taking Jesus flesh, its not a literal oral consumption. Its a consumption of the mind, letting our mind, entertwine with the life of Jesus, realizing he is a part of us and we are a part of him. When I ponder on what Jesus offered to us, it makes my knees buckle, the thought is so heavy we cant hardly imagine what it really means, to live for others more then ourselves. Picking up the cross, in my mind, means you are dedicating your life for God to use you for the will of unitiy, love and peace. Offering your life, for Gods will. This is what Jesus did.

reply to post by LeoVirgo


and i would agree. its not the literal eating of jesus' flesh, it's symbollism and understanding. but there's something there with the blood and this has been true in every ancient culture. something about blood. what though?

reply to post by undo


Yes, the Old Testament state that atonement of sins is only through the sacrafice of blood. The Old Testament is polluted with this idea, all the way back to Adam and Eve being clothed by God with animal skins (the first sacrafice). Also, we see Cains offerings of plants to God was not good enough, even though Cains intentions seem to be honest, for Cain was a farmer. Abels offering were accepted because it was a offering of flesh/blood. We clearly see with the Old Testament that blood was very important to this 'god'. In fact, it was needed. One could totally get lost in the justification of blood sacrafice. It is repeated over and over. Jesus even tells them, they were wrong in doing these things.