The Dark Secret of Christianity: Pharmakia, page 4

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:22 PM

link

Originally posted by pthena
Alethia,

How deep do you want to go in exploring the concept of Pharmakia, Scapegoat, and Ostricism? It seems you're getting pulled into a political debate here.

Hi friend. Yes, it seems my threads end up in a schizo knot sometimes---all over the place. But if people associate "scapegoating" with politics, I suppose we could touch on it a bit. In the political area it's often termed "passing the buck" but the past few years I have seen it become absolute scapegoating with ambiguous terms like TPTB, the elites, the Pres.---illusive entities blamed for all wrong in the world when much of the wrongs are assisted and perpetrated by every level of society. The Serpent Brotherhood has infiltrated the grid at every level and many do not even realize who they are serving when they carry out their assignments. Even the scriptures tell us that those who "bear the mark" will be in every level of society, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond.

What we are doing now is fulfillment of the prophecy of the "lambs will feed with the wolves and chew the cud."

Can you spot the wolves?

edit on 3-1-2011 by Alethea because: (no reason given)

poet1b

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:36 PM

link

reply to post by NorEaster

Nice post and excellent summation of the current political and economic climate.

The deception of those behind the scenes manipulating events seems easy enough to see, but so many continue to buy into these lies.

Somehow the PTB has been in control the whole time, yet the U.S. has for the most part been successful for over two centuries now. As recently as 1999 our economy was prospering, and the middle class was growing. It has been the conservatives who have consistently ran our economy into the ground by writing laws that encourage business fraud, ran up huge debts, and wrote the laws that took away most of the liberties we have surrendered.

Yet the people who protest the most about our economic downturn, national debt, and loss of liberties support the very same conservatives who have created these messes. The funny thing is that the more these same people are drawn to religion the more they support the very people doing the things they supposedly are against.

pthena

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 07:49 PM

link

reply to post by Alethea
There are actually two verses about wolves.

ISA 11:6 The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.

This verse is one of peace with everyone basically intelligent. The other verse in Isaiah 66 still has people caught up in their misunderstandings and suffering for it. I think I prefer the former.

I read the whole Pharmakia article from wikipedia and was struck by the fact that it was discussing the scapegoat from a strictly Greek perspective. Which means the scapegoat principle is pretty much a universal principle, most likely even practiced in the Americas, as evidenced by recently discovered mummified children in the Andes.

Alethea

posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:46 AM

link

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by Alethea
There are actually two verses about wolves.

ISA 11:6 The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.

It's interesting to note also, that religions have played a psych-ops on people for years using the phrase the "lion and the lamb" when that is not what the scriptures say. I have noticed that on many occasions a visual is used along with the phrase. Though some people may read the verse correctly, it is the image, the picture of the lion and lamb in a pastoral setting that seems to seal the misinterpretation in their minds. Perhaps religions have promoted the "lion" concept instead of the wolf out of fear that the "lambs" might see who the wolves really are!

Originally posted by pthena
I read the whole Pharmakia article from wikipedia and was struck by the fact that it was discussing the scapegoat from a strictly Greek perspective. Which means the scapegoat principle is pretty much a universal principle, most likely even practiced in the Americas, as evidenced by recently discovered mummified children in the Andes.

I am glad to see you had the interest to dig deeper into this. The scapegoat principle has been in play long before the rituals of old testament. The story of 'Jesus as scapegoat' is just a continuation of this old old distorted philosophy of people always needing a fall guy and for the flaw so inherent in human nature to always blame someone else for their own short comings and mistakes.

It is because of this erroneous "scapegoat" teaching that the nations are being misled and no change can come until people own up and take responsibility for their actions and for the planet. Again, what Jesus taught in his lifetime was the important thing. People forget that and exchange the truth for ritual, dogma, and the absurd notion of ritual sacrifice excusing evil and making it right.

harryhaller

posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:12 AM

link

An awesome thread Alethea, thanks!

Curious text you found, i don't recall it, although i must have read it before. So we're talking about "Babylon" who:

In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth.

Now personally i read "Babylon" as the Roman Catholic Church, who have indeed usurped the true gospel, as taught and lived by Jesus. Now the thing is, Jesus was a "scapegoat" for sin, that's most clearly part of the true gospel. The concept of "sacrifice" was started the moment "sin" entered, by the slaying of an animal, by God, for them to use as clothing (they initially used fig leaves). This need for blood confuses me no end, it's illogical, yet does seem to be inherent in most early cultures, so while unable to justify it, i have to accept it's validity.

I don't believe it's the "blood sacrifice" that is being referred to here, as the "Pharmakia", since it renders the "true" christian gospel as invalid. There must be another aspect than just "christianity", more relevant to the RC church than the protestants.

The main difference, imho, is that the rc church has inserted the priest where he shouldn't be, ie as the only road by which you can both get to God, and be forgiven. Both of these concepts go against the "true" teaching of Christ, who said very plainly that each man has access to God, directly, without the need for an interloper. Also, confession of sin to a priest is also not biblical. We are instructed to confess to each other, as friends, not as a superior / inferior relationship like the rc church has instituted.

The institution of confessional has had massive social impact over the centuries. For starters, the priests and hence the church knew of all weaknesses in people, very specific information which could be used in any manner of ways. Also, it gives the very strong impression (which is very strong, even here) that all you have to do is "confess, say 3 hail mary's and you're saved for eternity". This smacks of the legalistic rubbish that Jesus held against the pharisees of time. They were also religious leaders who stood on form, more than intent.

Jesus' main teaching was that you cannot get to heaven by good works, and that hiding behind good works and such is worse than anything else. It's about sincerity, and the RC church removed sincerity and replaced it with ceremony. That was the "switch", where they took a message of Jesus that basically said all men are equal before God, and changed it into a dependancy upon the RC church. This "minor" change has benefitted the RC church immensely over time, and is largely the reason for it's power today.

I think the way that many here confuse the absolute depravity of the rc church as "the real christians" is proof that a message has been distorted, and now it's become so that you cannot admit to being christian, without being smeared by the blood soaked brush of the catholic church. Infiltrate and subvert, isn't that the method of the "dark powers"?

With regards the quote above, i imagine that even more than we know, the vatican has been responsible for most of the misery we see today, wars famine etc, all thanks to power plays and politics, by the scarlet and purple decked "whores". They are selling what we shouldn't have to pay for, sounds like a whore to me.

pthena

posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:34 PM

link

reply to post by harryhaller

MT 23:29 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, `If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!

MT 23:33 "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

A few things we should take note of here.

1) Jesus pretty much shows he didn't agree with the concept of scapegoating the past, "It was those other people who did it! We honor the dead, therefore we are free of guilt." No, you will do it too.

2) Killing people and shedding blood isn't a good idea. The consequences are undesirable.

Now personally i read "Babylon" as the Roman Catholic Church, who have indeed usurped the true gospel, as taught and lived by Jesus. Now the thing is, Jesus was a "scapegoat" for sin, that's most clearly part of the true gospel. The concept of "sacrifice" was started the moment "sin" entered, by the slaying of an animal, by God, for them to use as clothing (they initially used fig leaves). This need for blood confuses me no end, it's illogical, yet does seem to be inherent in most early cultures, so while unable to justify it, i have to accept it's validity.

About four years ago I saw a documentary about the Inquisition, specifically the implements used to extract confessions and win over hearts and minds to "the truth". When I saw all the religious symbolism of some of the devices, that would pierce the body in just such a way and channel blood in just such a way, it struck me that people who claim to worship someone who was tortured to death had actually become the worshipers of torture and death. The Christians forcing conversion of Jews in Spain were bringing upon themselves the very same blood guilt that Jesus mentioned in his day.

You make a startling admission by saying " This need for blood confuses me no end, it's illogical, yet does seem to be inherent in most early cultures, so while unable to justify it, i have to accept it's validity." Not many believers admit the illogic of some one being a blood sacrifice. I would hazard to say that if it had not been written in a book, you probably never would have thought of it yourself.

Consider this: If it was right and proper for Jesus to be killed, why wasn't it his own followers who did the deed. If they had spent three years following him around hearing him speaking of himself as a sacrifice for sin, wouldn't they have beat everyone else in having the honor of sacrificing him?

robinmorningstar

posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 08:51 PM

link

The Bible says that God will give us plants and foods as medicine. Everything that we need to heal the body is here, unaltered and ready for consumption. This world has taken control, changed and manipulated, and that's the "sorcery" that we live under today. I'm brand new to ATS, but I'm going to try to attach a very good YouTube video that I recently watched that is really well done and rather eye opening. As I said, I just began using this site, so I'm not certain how to do that (though I see people do it all the time, I can probably discern it), but if not, here's a link. Check it out, it's 6 parts, but worth the time it takes to watch it. Peace...

www.youtube.com...

Alethea

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:31 AM

link

Originally posted by harryhaller
The concept of "sacrifice" was started the moment "sin" entered, by the slaying of an animal, by God, for them to use as clothing (they initially used fig leaves). This need for blood confuses me no end, it's illogical, yet does seem to be inherent in most early cultures, so while unable to justify it, i have to accept it's validity.

This blood sacrifice killing of an animal is a metaphorical illustration. The animal you kill is the friend, co-worker, family member, or stranger that you sacrifice by letting him take the blame for something you did. That is the "covering (up) of sin". You "wear" this on your soul. It covers up your guilt so that no one sees you were the wrong-doer. Have you ever been in a situation where you knew it was your fault or partially your fault and you let someone else be wrongly accused and suffer the blame for it? If that person is innocent, then that is blood sacrifice. "Blood" in the sense that it destroys a part of the victims heart and may change the course of his life. He may bear the scars of the retribution that should have been yours. And yet, you are allowed to walk away guilt free because the misdeed was conveniently and erroneously pinned on someone else.

Just as an example, it is a standard practice in many professions that if a higher up does something wrong, someone lesser on the totem pole will have to take the blame for it and lose their job. If a physician makes a mistake, it will be the nurse who is faulted and fired. After all, the nurse is the doctor's right hand so it is presumed that she handed him the incorrect instrument, papers, etc. The doctor is too valuable of an asset to admit mistake and lose his position. Never mind that the nurse may lose her license and never be able to work again. See how conveniently scapegoating works?

Originally posted by harryhaller
Now the thing is, Jesus was a "scapegoat" for sin, that's most clearly part of the true gospel.

Sorry, Harry, but the point of this thread is that this teaching of scapegoat sacrifice is morally corrupt.

Originally posted by harryhaller[/i
I don't believe it's the "blood sacrifice" that is being referred to here, as the "Pharmakia", since it renders the "true" christian gospel as invalid.

The evidence is there through the etymology of the word and the sense that it defines. Belief and facts are often diametrically opposed. Much of the information we have available at our fingertips today has been both obscure and withheld for many centuries.

harryhaller

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link

Originally posted by pthena

"MT 23:33 "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation."

You make a startling admission by saying " This need for blood confuses me no end, it's illogical, yet does seem to be inherent in most early cultures, so while unable to justify it, i have to accept it's validity." Not many believers admit the illogic of some one being a blood sacrifice. I would hazard to say that if it had not been written in a book, you probably never would have thought of it yourself.

Consider this: If it was right and proper for Jesus to be killed, why wasn't it his own followers who did the deed. If they had spent three years following him around hearing him speaking of himself as a sacrifice for sin, wouldn't they have beat everyone else in having the honor of sacrificing him?

Ok, i think we're on the same page here, that Matt 23-33 excerpt is exactly right for this discussion.

You're perfectly correct, i would never have imagined something as ... bizarre as killing for anything other than food, or some other "use". However, the practice of sacrifice is as old as anything we know, from Cain and Abel, and i still don't understand why the lamb was preferable to the produce, imho the farmer worked harder, the shepherd just sat around (?). As much as i've tried to understand it, i cannot. Same goes for christianity as a whole. BUT: i do accept that there is a "higher" level of laws, something frequently referenced in the bible, that are not logical in any way, but part of "God's way". If that is so, the the requirement of a sacrifice existed, for each and every sin, as performed by the priest, to please God.

Jesus replaced both priest and sacrifice, and through HIM we can "be allowed" into heaven.

The inquisition was ... pure evil. definitive proof that they are not what they say they are. It had nothing to do with "right" in any way.

I don't think the disciples understood what was happening, in any way really. What they learned, after the fact, was that they in fact were culpable, as the rest of us, their duty wasn't to perform the "sacrifice", merely to witness it. I also think there's a strange duplicity, where Jesus certainly wasn't meant to be sacrificed for any good, he was murdered to silence him. That it had a greater significance than say the thieves wasn't known until after the fact. (I'll leave Judas out of this one!)

Alethea: Hmmmm ... as per our 21st century intellectual morality, yes a scapegoat is wrong. What i have begun to suspect, through my own bible readings etc, is that as "topsy turvy" as it appears, it conforms to a HIGHER "morality" than we currently possess. I think that's where the issue of faith matters the most, where there is no rational reason for it, but you believe in it anyway.

There's a whole lot of "intellectuality" that we don't have, starting from concepts such as "origional sin", "knowledge of good and evil" and the like. Heck, "knowledge" could be the intellectuality that we're using?? Ergo we will never revert to a pure state UNLESS we drop the intellectuality, which in this kind of forum is obviously self defeating.

I cannot agree that the scapegoat theory is morally corrupt, as it certainly was a higher morality than that which proceeded it. Pre-religious people had NO means of "undoing" wrong. They first had to come to an understanding of wrong, then a conception of "penance" and only then sacrifice AS penance. Your example in the corporate world is really a bastardisation of the concept. IMHO in the "Jesus example" the opposite has happened, the CEO has taken the fall to absolve the lower level workers. That happens, and when it's clear that the CEO has done no wrong, yet still accepts ultimate blame, it's seen as a "moral" act.

Morality is a shifting scale, and always relative, to other factors. The act of a lion eating a deer is perfectly moral, yet the same lion eating a man is immoral. Why?

Is it immoral for a sacrifice to become the scapegoat of your conscience? Why? If so ... what other options are available? Like i said, in society the acceptance of personal wrongdoing was a tremendous achievement, but the same act intellectually was ... nonsensical. If indeed there was a "higher" morality, call it "spiritual", and if it makes sense on THAT level, then surely we will NOT be able to rationalise it on an intellectual level, such as this.

I think my whole perspective is that Jesus was NOT just another guy, that He had SOME sort of special "mission" that operated within a certain framework of "morals". That what He very clearly fought against later claimed to be His sole representation ... well you can see the problem.

I'm not saying you're wrong anywhere, but as i mentioned, the actions of the RC church cannot be taken in any way as "christian", because in doing so you open yourself to all manner of inconsistencies and contradictions. i believe this has happened in the thread.

Peace ;-)

Rosha

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link

reply to post by Alethea

Fantastic piece...thank you.

Rosha

Alethea

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link

Originally posted by harryhaller

i would never have imagined something as ... bizarre as killing for anything other than food, or some other "use". However, the practice of sacrifice is as old as anything we know, from Cain and Abel, and i still don't understand why the lamb was preferable to the produce, imho the farmer worked harder, the shepherd just sat around (?). As much as i've tried to understand it, i cannot.

The lamb is used as a metaphor and symbol. It is white, and the color white symbolizes innocence and purity. The one who ends up on the chopping block is innocent of the "crime" or wrongdoing aka "sin".

Why was the lamb preferable to produce? Because the lamb represents a living creature which is more valuable than carrots. It is a creature that has feelings. Lettuce cannot feel any pain in being slaughtered.

This story is not meant to be taken at face value. It is trying to tell you that when a person is evil he will "kill" someone innocent in order to cover up his crime. "Kill" is not to always be taken literally, either. When you falsely accuse someone you can damage their reputation for life. That is one way that the evil ones "kill" people.

What kind of "god" would approve of this kind of behavior?

harryhaller

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link

reply to post by Alethea

I know the rationalised version, as you've presented. I disagree that a plant feels any less pain than an animal ... but again, arguing in a "big picture' sense is impossible. We are not "God" and can't judge "Him", or His "laws".

The sense that i have, is that God doesn't approve or disapprove of this, it merely IS. God created us "perfect" and with free will. We messed it up (apparently) and "plan B" came into action. Plan C would have been "Jesus" ... there seems to be a ... rule somewhere.

Our entire social philosophy is based on a "higher morality" that what we "have". How can it be any different?

Alethea

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link

Originally posted by harryhaller

I disagree that a plant feels any less pain than an animal ...

So you think an apple feels pain when I bite into it? Really, harryhaller?

Originally posted by harryhaller
We are not "God" and can't judge "Him", or His "laws".

Are you accepting information written and embellished by the Vatican as the absolute truth without researching its history? Do you believe some supernatural being wrote in stone with his bare finger all of the "laws"? Do you not know that Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses was a magi and instructed Moses in delegating responsibilities and aided him in controlling the masses by politics and religion? It was Jethro who gave Moses "the Laws".

Originally posted by harryhaller
The sense that i have, is that God doesn't approve or disapprove of this, it merely IS.

If "God doesn't approve or disapprove" then why does God need to have a blood sacrifice to believe you are really sorry for what you did?

(That is just not even believable. I know that is what religionists have taught people. It's wrong.)

Man was created and then the Creators gave man dominion over the earth and stepped out of the picture. All these things that you think have been required by some "god" have been made up by men.

harryhaller

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link

reply to post by Alethea

I'm not going to say they feel pain, but it's as ludicrous to think of them as inanimate

I hear where you're coming from, can't say i agree, but i also can't say you're wrong at all. Big grey area that really is impossible to confirm. We can merely speculate.

I think i'd like to think that there is a God, who gets around the obvious defincies in His creation ... another paradox. peace

HattoriHanzou

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link

Originally posted by Alethea

Originally posted by mr10k

The merchants...the big bankers. By sorcery, the nations were decieved....by making history repeat itself, the nation was decieved into electing Obama, that will cause the crumbling of the Republic. Thats instantly what I though of.

Prime example of the Scapegoating I explained above.
"The nation was deceived into electing Obama."
Adam said :"The woman deceived me into eating the apple."

If you are a citizen, a voter, a patriot, then it is your duty to uphold and respect your elected leaders whether you voted for them or not. That's your part of the deal for the benefits you receive for being in this country. To blame all the ills of the world on one man is scapegoating.

edit on 27-12-2010 by alien because: (no reason given)

It is not your duty to uphold and respect a president. He is just a man, not some sort of enshrined god-man of the Republic.

Your duty to the Republic is to disagree with leaders who you believe may be working against the best interests thereof. Anything else is mere idolatry.

veritaslibertas

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link

This is what happens when one chooses the tree of knowledge over the tree of life. Humans in our modern society have given up learning for themselves by looking within and ultimately to God for guidance. Quick to accept what they are told and move on with their life of entertainment and consumption. Everything is dictated by those with power and wealth. Arrogance, complacency, greed, selfishness etc... These are just some of the traits that have prevailed throughout history unfortunately. Many of us have let evil and reckless individuals mind our temple rather than tending to it ourselves.

dominicus

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link

reply to post by pplrnuts

Now, what are we talking about? And when do the unicorns and leprechauns come into the story?

Oh I have something I can give you and will allow you to meet the fabled unicorns and leprechauns. You'll walk away completely convinced that they exist in another dimension.

poet1b

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link

reply to post by Alethea

Great stuff, I think you have unlocked a metaphor that is all too often, too hard to see.

I see deflection of blame, along with theft of credit, as the essence of corporate politics in our current era.

It goes along with the growing gap between idealism and reality, actions and consequences, and finally wrong and right.

It is so easy to do horrible things to others as long as you can pretend that you are only doing what you were told.

Bob Dylan "Highway 61"

"God said Abraham, kill me a son
Abraham said, God I don't know what you want
God said Abraham, I'll tell you what,
You can do what you want
But next time you see me, you better run.

Abraham said,
tell me where you want this killin done.

God said, out on highway 61"

JohnSmith880

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link