The Illuminati are the GOOD GUYS!

page: 25
58
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
awww crud. they had me going there for a bit until they condemned jehovah for being a torture god and then 2 paragraphs later said that

"For a few to be immortal, many must die." -- from the film In Time.

sigh. had they been talking about metaphysical death of the flesh body and not literal death, as the text suggests should be the natural outcome of any who cannot ascend to enlightenment, i'd be more interested. but to me, this just reads like same bat time same bat channel of the other stuff that's already going on, just in a "mystery" package.




posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain

So you actually believe in the Reptilian theory then? You seem like an intelligent person considering your stargate thread, so that baffles me. But maybe you know something about this that i don´t. Could you please show me the best evidence for this that you have seen, because everything i have seen have been ridiculous, artifacts in low-res vids, news broadcasts that have been modified and where the viewer is "insinuated" to believe a camera artifact is signs of subject being a reptilian... Evidence like that is just too paranoid for me


eek, you shouldn't ask me such things. it would take your thread hopelessly off topic!
i have quite a bit of circumstantial and historical evidence (which nowadays is considered fairytales but i don't think so).



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
this may end up being a very long, ongoing commentary on my impression of the second link, if you don't mind, based on what i've learned thus far in my search for all that truth stuff. i can tell ya right off the bat, zeitgeist is only partially right and that's the kinda thing that bugs me about movements of that nature. partially right, easily proven so, is not acceptable if you're going to publish it and pretend like it's undeniable truth.

that's why i point it out when i find errors in translations of the biblical text and prove that the erroneous views we have of the effected data today, are a result of the mistranslation. problem is, most people seem to be happy to just take the erroneous views of the mistranslation (meaning they don't even read the actual text that the view arose from), and call it a day. this is not only lazy, it's the opposite of seeking truth. and since knowledge, like zeitgeist claims to be imparting, is advertised as hard core truth seeking, you'd think they'd do a little more homework and not just pick the erroneous views of mistranslations or just simply erroneous views of people who didn't actually care what the text said (cough popes cough) since they were making the rules up as they went along, a'la indiana jones.

edit on 14-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   


The whole story of Christ is absurd from beginning to end, and anyone who thinks carefully about the Trinity and the Incarnation quickly finds these concepts to be incomprehensible. Is the Trinity even compatible with monotheism?


absolutely. just have to do your homework. in my view, jesus was the sumerian enki. (pretty obvious) and since enki, enlil and anu of sumerian-akkadian texts are all depicted at some juncture in the text of the torah, as jehovah, he could truthfully say he was jehovah.

for example, it was enki who "confused" the languages at babel. it was enki who gave the sumerian equivalent of noah, advanced warning of a massive flood arriving, and it was enki who gave this same noah figure, instructions on how to build the ark to survive it. yet it was enlil, who ordered the flood, and it was enlil who was unhappy with homosapians and it was enlil who was sacrificed to when the noah guy got off the boat, after following enki's instructions. (apparently, no humans were supposed to survive the black sea flood?? and enki had been warned under oath, not to warn any humans, so he told "a reed wall" instead, which just so happened to have the noah type guy on the other side of it, listening.

lol

oh there's moooore. more more.

for example. one of enki's names is EA. (akkadian version of his name)
EA is pronounced A-YAH. (that's A like in adam).
And what was jehovah's name? hayah, pronounced HA-YAH.
coincedence? i'm thinking there's a few too many to ignore. Such as Enki's insistence to keep saving humans from the wrath of Enlil, who didn't like humans. Enki has Jesus' modus operandi written all over him.

edit on 14-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I think this is less about being right and wrong, than it is about getting the bigger picture. The original Zeitgeist may not be correct on every single issue (although the updated version seems to be better), but the bigger picture painted if you truly understand it, is nowhere near false. And that is what is important. Nitpicking stuff in such works of art are really like not seeing the forest because of all the trees blocking it.


And i certainly do not mind your comments, i find this could get very interesting, if you truly desire to understand the bigger picture. Beware of the false clues, though, if you know what i mean.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I also find it odd that someone that is so highly educated would be using some of the profanity that was in the material that the OP presented.

Not that I have a problem with profanity, I can cuss the wall paper off the wall.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by undo
 


I think this is less about being right and wrong, than it is about getting the bigger picture. The original Zeitgeist may not be correct on every single issue (although the updated version seems to be better), but the bigger picture painted if you truly understand it, is nowhere near false. And that is what is important. Nitpicking stuff in such works of art are really like not seeing the forest because of all the trees blocking it.


And i certainly do not mind your comments, i find this could get very interesting, if you truly desire to understand the bigger picture. Beware of the false clues, though, if you know what i mean.



please read this whole thing

i'd like your comments on my post about enki, above.
the serpent in the garden was enki. jesus even said of himself, that he was like the serpent raised on the staff of moses in the desert to heal the people (oh man, just think about that for a minute. if you know your ancient lore, bells and whistles should be going off right about now). it isn't really a serpent in the literal sense. it's age old data about dna. the dude was the great physician. (he was a geneticist in common, modern day parlance, who designed homo sapians).

the first adam was not a man.
i'll tell ya how i arrived at this theory.
according to the text, the first adam was both male and female. some people believe this means the first adam was a hermaphrodite. nope. the word adam is plural. it was a race of males and females and they were named after their progenitors. it dawned on me that because moses was raised as an egyptian, he would use egyptian words to describe the same things. i checked the description of the egyptian god atum, also a plural word, and realized moses was saying the adam race were clones of male and female gods named the atum.

the mistranslation of the text there claims this first adam was a man (as in male. not only was adam not a man (as in homo sapian), adam was not singular, nor was adam only male beings but also female beings.
because they were cloned, the female adam had no pain in childbirth as new adam were created via cloning. it wasn't until you see eve in the text for the first time, that homo sapians arrives on the scene. if you read the text there carefully, it becomes apparent that whatever the adam were before eve, one thing they weren't, was human as the "human" part is the result genetic manipulation. the text nearly screams it at the reader once you realize how delicate this part of the translation is and how even the slightest misstep can give it a totally different meaning. for example, translators used the word "man" where it originally said, "adam."

so what were the atum?
i'll let you figure out that part lol



edit on 14-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Searching for a pattern will usually create one.

While i admire your historical interpretations of things, and can agree on the things you say as plausible conclusions, i also see another pattern here.

First off, basically everything you say confirms the bigger picture painted in the Zeitgest movie, that the bible and abrahamic religions are just a rehash of previous religions, such as sumerian history/religion, slighty altered to fit in "with the current times" and timeline.

Secondly, to go more into the specifics, it might just be that this Enki guy (which seems to be the good guy) is actually Lucifer(snake, granting "enlightment" upon humans with the "forbidden fruit", hence light-bearer), while Enlil, is actually Satan, trying to punish and destroy(flood, etc) humankind several times over. Failing this, he finally succeeds with the greatest deception ever: in creating the abrahamic religions he successfully deceives most of humankind into worhipping him as "the one true god", distorting the real history in the process to make this impossible to detect in the bible, unless you examine the previous work(like sumerian texts) like you have done.

This seems to be exactly what the Illuminati seem to be trying to convey as well.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Gen 1:26 And God 430 said 559, Let us make 6213 man 120 in our image 6754, after our likeness 1823: and let them have dominion 7287 over the fish 1710 of the sea 3220, and over the fowl 5775 of the air 8064, and over the cattle 929, and over all the earth 776, and over every creeping thing 7431 that creepeth 7430 upon the earth 776.

Gen 1:27 So God 430 created 1254 man 120 in his [own] image 6754, in the image 6754 of God 430 created 1254 he him; male 2145 and female 5347 created 1254 he them.

words with numbers after them have original words available for them.
The first verse there has a few clues.
The word "God" there is actually Elohim, which is a plural word. That's the first clue.
the word "man" there is actually Adam, which is a plural word. That's the second clue.
"Let us" and "our image" and "our likeness" and "let them" (have no description), are the third, fourth and fifth clues.

In the second verse we have...

Elohim again, adam again. the words "in his own", "he him" and "he them" have no description in the original language for this verse, so i'm assuming this means they may have been added by translators or earlier scribes, as a sort of assumption, something i call generational bias. the english and latin translators would've likely consulted hebraic texts which may or may not have included generational bias in this section.

so let's look at it again: Elohim (plural gods) created adam (plural) image. (image? sounds like a copy). image Elohim created, male female created.

Now if you look at the overall impression of the verse with so many plurals, english would require words like "image" "male " and "female" to be plurals as well. in fact, all of them are capable of being plurals as the original words can be either plurals or singulars (the fact the translators or scribes chose not to make them plural suggests generational bias). whereas Elohim can only be plural. That should end the argument about monotheism.

edit on 14-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


that's sorta what i believe happened, with a few provisos. for example, i don't think the hebrews stole the data, i think they were there, and the torah is the end result of their oral histories of the events, most of which is recounted by moses. (according to the text of genesis 10, the fertile crescent was repopulated by the survivors of the flood,some of which migrated to ethiopia and egypt. (moses would've had access to the history via his relatives whose ancestors had migrated there)). so it isn't so much taken from, it's shared history.

i kinda view enki and enlil as a good cop/bad cop team. isn't that the hegilian dialectic? problem solution synthesis or something.

sometimes enlil's the bad guy. sometimes enki's the bad guy. it seems to vacillate back and forth, which i'm not sure about. like there are times when it seems the hebrews are enki-ites and sometimes enlil-ites. rarely anu-ites though, which is where my big question comes in, cause i think i have found an etymological link between the egyptian AMUN (not amun-ra, cause i think that's an enki-enlil mix-up) and the ending of prayers "amen". at first i didn't believe they were related, but now i think it may be another example of just slight, very slight, mistakes in translation and perhaps a bit of generational bias tossed in.

edit on 14-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
here you go. take a seat. this is worth it.


www.youtube.com...
edit on 14-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
guess i should start writing this now, so i can perhaps lessen the amount of questions the video may have inspired.

first i don't believe the video is accurate. i think the research in it, makes many assumptions and in some cases, flat out omits important information.

for example, as she's recounting the exodus of the habiru (hyskos shepherd kings) out of egypt, she attempts to say it's a peaceful migration. this is not accurate. they were chased out of egypt by the pharaoh ahmose. she also says there's no evidence they were ever slaves. this is also not accurate. according to the egyptian story, the hyskos pharaohs ruled for 100 years and became unpopular, supposedly because they taxed the people too heavily. as a result, they weren't just moved to the north of egypt, as she says, but also deposed (removed from leadership) and instead, became slaves to the pharaoh, doing what they do best: building temples. in addition, she doesn't mention that the story of the exodus is set in the time of pharaoh ahmose. she even has the wrong pharaoh. at least it was a hyskos time-frame pharaoh. (anyway, the important hint here is that moses was named after the pharaoh at the time, which tutmose qualifies for, but wrong pharaoh even then).

her info also omits data on the mesopotamian connection of the habiru. for example, in ancient sumer-akkad, enlil had a temple at the city of nibru (supposedly modern day nippur (etymology: nibru, nibbur, nippur). these were enlil's people, his temple builders. they didn't just build temples for enlil, they also built for anu (remember i mentioned anu may be amun?). you can even see evidence for this skill in the story of nimrod, who the akkadian story of "Enmerkar and the Lord of Arrata", elaborates on. He was an architect. in effect, the habiru were architects and master builders. building an altar for the lord, might entail building a ziggurat or pyramid. theoretically, this is how they worked their way into the pharaoh's good graces in egypt, and eventually ascended the pharaonic throne themselves.

she also omits hundreds of thousands of additional pieces of information, pertinent to the overall picture, which i think categorizes the film as being almost as bad as zeitgeist but at least she has connected many important clues, and for that, i think the zeitgeist guy would be smart to visit her data, particularly if the life of jesus is of any consequence to him, which it appears to be (at least on first glance).

the big flashing light for me is the virgin birth. in accordance with my data about enki, i believe the virgin birth is evidence that cleo didn't have sex with caesar in order to give birth to esa and that caesar wasn't really the father, and that theoretically, she was implanted artificially (artificial insemination), and delivered artificially (she had a ...wait for it.. ..wait for it.....a caesarian). in effect, it really was a virgin birth. that's a very important point, as it literally is an immaculate conception. maybe not the only one, but the only one that counts in this example.

edit on 14-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
oh a bit more to add (see above)

the whole isis thing is also an important point. for example, nimrod had a brief stint as the first post flood emperor. as i mentioned earlier, he was known by the akkadian name of enmerkar in mesopotamia. in egypt he was known as narmer. he started the post flood pharaonic lineage at abydos, egypt. that means, right from the word go, descendants of noah, were rulers of egypt after the flood. he was also known as osiris after he died. subsequent pharaohs were buried in his name. (see any burial text in which the deceased pharaoh's name is preceeded by "osiris."). this is yet another important point.

once you realize who nimrod was, and how the names crossed cultural and geographical boundaries, you can also find isis back in sumer-akkad. she is none other than inanna (variant spelling, inana), as is seen in biblical texts under various names. if you research who inanna was, this will all begin to clarify itself. just remember, if it's in the bible, it's gonna have alot of egyptian-mesopotamian connections, not just egyptian-israel connections. alot of the data on her identity refers to "holy prostitution." it's not prostitution. it's not even sex. translators have a problem in this area, because they see everything ancient as being scientifically backwards. that couldn't be farther from the truth.

so her lack of review of the mesopotamian connection, leaves big glaring chunks out of the overall picture, as you can probably imagine.

2 videos to support what i said above:

the hyksos shepherd kings (the habiru)


and watch this if you think the builders weren't scientifically advanced


edit on 14-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
p.s. i have a theory that while moses and the habiru were wandering around on the sinai peninsula, they were visiting old temples to enlil, anu and enki, which by then, they probably referred to as simply hayah (yah or yahweh or yhwh) as evidenced by the phrase "i am that i am" (or simply i am i am), which is hayah hayah. the holy mount sinai is most certainly a pyramid or ziggurat, upon which a temple was erected and now has apparently been destroyed or deconstructed. it sounds as if it was already in a state of disrepair when moses visited it.

temple mount in jerusalem was likely the same, and they were sent back there to claim what had been the inheritance of the people (read builders) of enlil. they say the wailing wall is what remains of solomon's temple and i think solomon's temple was built on top of a ziggurat, most likely, with a nice wide platform to house the temple and other items (lavers, courts and what not). so my bet is there's a ziggurat under the wailing wall.


edit on 15-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   
ooo one more little tidbit.

hiram abiff (look it up if you don't already know). that's hiram abyss.
why's that important you may ask?
the abyss is the abzu of enki. the city of abydos, which is where nimrod (narmer/osiris) founded the post flood pharaonic dynasty.

abydos is pronounced abzu (abydos is the greek spelling, the egyptian spelling was abdju, the dj was pronounced z. so abydos=abdju=abzu=abyss).



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


en.wikipedia.org...

The archaeological evidence of the largely indigenous origins of Israel is "overwhelming," and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness


Sorry no evidence for Moses (and even Jewish archaeologist have looked and to their credit stated they had found no evidence of Moses)

en.wikipedia.org...


The tradition of Moses as a lawgiver and culture hero of the Israelites can be traced to 8th or 7th century BCE in the Kingdom of Judah. Moses is a central figure in the Deuteronomist account of the origins of the Israelites, cast in a literary style of elegant flashbacks told by Moses. The Deuteronomist relies on earlier material that may date to the United Monarchy, so that the biblical narrative would be based on traditions that can be traced to about four centuries after the supposed lifetime of Moses.


So Moses is about as real as Merlin is in British folklore – it’s a story and that’s all it is



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
rac,
did you read my info?
it's there.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I just see your opinions - would you like to point out your evidence because I might have overlooked it



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by undo
 


I just see your opinions - would you like to point out your evidence because I might have overlooked it


have you checked the hyksos shepherd kings (the habiru) who were chased out of egypt by pharaoh ahmose (moses was named after him)?



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I had a look at the term ‘hyksos’ from what I can see the situation is not clear as to what happened in Egypt at that time – but what is clear is when archaeologists go looking for evidence of the biblical exodus or this character Moses there is none

Let me put this another way – World War 2 happened but that doesn’t make captain America real

see what im saying?

Now have you seen this?
en.wikipedia.org...


The Book of Exodus of the Hebrew Bible was composed or redacted around the 6th century BC and was influenced by Neo-Assyrian legend. In particular, the image of Sargon as a castaway set adrift on a river resembles the better-known birth narrative of Moses. But the account of Exodus turns the theme on its head— rather than a royal fostered by commoners before rediscovering his royal blood, Moses is the son of slaves who is fostered by the daughter of Pharaoh.[40] Scholars such as Joseph Campbell and Otto Rank have also compared the 7th century BC Sargon account with the obscure births of other heroic figures from history and mythology, including Karna, Oedipus, Paris, Telephus, Semiramis, Perseus, Romulus, Gilgamesh, Cyrus, Jesus, and others.[41]
Furthermore, a number of 20th-century scholars have speculated that Sargon was an inspiration for the biblical Nimrod, mainly since both figures were credited with the construction of the cities Babylon and Akkad.[11]


so no Moses





top topics
 
58
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join