The Sun of God

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by toocoolnc
 


Sun vs Son evolution debate by Mark Woodman (Part 1) 53 mins


(part 2) 58 mins


All the tricks of the deceiver revealed.....extremely informative on this entire topic (veneration of the creation or the creator)




posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 04:08 AM
link   
The light of consciousness is the sun of God. To be awake and aware of the light, to see and to hear.
When you are in deep sleep the sun of God cannot be seen. In deep sleep there is no things, no existence, no light (sun).
When you open your eyes the light shines and things are seen, existence appears.

God is darkness, the dark nothingness of deep sleep, the void.
The sun of God is the light of consciousness.
youtu.be...

Tao Te Ching
Written by Lao-tzu
From a translation by S. Mitchell

Chapter 1.
The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.
edit on 5-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Per the OP, there was definitely a Sun worship theme for religion. Constantine even combined Sun Worship with Jesus that attempt to settle down the battles between the two.

As far as man's early development, Cooper appears to leave off the need for fire in the early culture for man. Fire was a weapon and a protection against the Beasts for early man. Lions and Tigers feared fire, and early man always had to keep the fire alive, feed it, tend to it, for the sake of his own security. It also cooked his meats, made them last longer, and flavored them. Cooking meats, due to the fats, was like gasoline to the fire and made it grow stronger.

So, early man depended upon fire for security from the beasts. There was the Lion as the king of the beasts that was most feared by man, so some of the Sun signs or signs for fire appeard as Lions holding up the symbol. Since the bull could take the Lion in battle, some of the Sun signs were held by Bull's horns.

It is this cross association between the fire that early man required for security from the beasts and the fire in the sky that set up issues for god as protectors of man.

One can find in early cultures, like Sumeria, that Lions hold up the Sun upon their back, as a statement that Fire Conquors Lions, the King of the Beasts. Move to Egypt and the Bull holds up the Sun symbol.

Those same early human relatives that learned to shape flint into scrapers for cutting skin and making animal hide clothes all worshiped fire and had to keep one burning constantly. Somewhere along the way, after they killed a few beasts with fire, they got hungry and noticed the cooked meat from the beasts taste good. Thus were the beginnings of early man in fire, protections from beasts, and processing animal meat with fire.

Then came flint tipped spears, hunters, then arrows. Then little wars. Then walls, then moats, and larger cities.

Then issues of the Lions of Judah in Egypt. Things propped up on Lion symbols were Kings, as above the King of the Beasts. Some Kings acquired god status, that were more than human in Sumeria.


The symbol for Jerusalem was two Lions claws that shaped into a crescent moon shape with a star in the middle, which is a Sun worship related thing for the temple of Solomon. They still had the fire for animal sacafice and symbol of man's dominion over the beasts. The temple was solid gold on the East side and met those in front with the heat of the rising Sun that blinded them almost.

Inside a gold room with a special weapon from nature that freed those that came from Sumeria gods, which was the secret of Moses, kept by David, worshiped in Solomon's temple. It was not fire itself, but derived from the fires of volcanos, but this one took down the beasts of man, the tyrants of humanity. The Lion of Judah was the secrets of the Ark, a special weapon against Pharohs, tyrants of men, and the inner secret of religion for the tribe of Judah.

It all came from fire and fear of beasts, animal and human.


Then Jesus and the Essene come along and they have studied these progressions of religion. They didn't like the animal sacafice, didn't like the Babylon issues of Nimrod nor the Pharisee games, and they had a new plan for the Egyptian therapute and the alchemical knowledge. They were into the healing of humanity, good stewardship toward all. Issues of good food, aka Lord's Supper, and clean mineral water from the Spring of Gihon were the bigger issues to support. And knowing why the temple faced East and the Lands of Sumeria, where man's genetics were affected via what the ancients called gods, elohim, etc.

The ultimate symbol for David was Fire and Water, two triangles, one upon the other, which was the essence of his temple's imagery. It was a monument to many of the highest elements in Egypt's temples, pyramids, spinx, and a miniature desert version of all that came before from Ur/Eridu, Babylon, Egypt, and now this Star of David and the City of David and its little monument to history derived from Sumeria's gods.




edit on 5-8-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Fire, Water, and gods



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by toocoolnc
reply to post by facelift
 


I believe that Coopers words are very very profound.

A lot of what he says seems to fit into my own understanding of how things are.

This thread is for those who may want an alternative view. No one said you have to believe any of it.

As Cooper says in his own words:

"Listen to everyone, read everything, believe nothing unless you can prove it in your own research."


first we must provide physical and factual proof with the proverbial 'missing link'

we know what dinosaurs turned into birds and we know which fish turned into the shrew, yadda ya... but biologist and zoologist still can not provide for we the people an example of our tree dwelling ancestors?

I'd like to see that instead of representations in museums which have no hard factual evidence that they a accurate.

before this topic can proceed and hold any creditability whatsoever, you must provide unequivocal evidence and hard-core fact... eg; the missing link.

otherwise this is all assumption and based on theory of which we have no concrete evidence or being a factual discussion.
edit on 5-8-2012 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Some of the other issues of human civilization development that Cooper leaves out, is these issues of "Mother Nature." Some of the earliest of cultures had something called goddess worship, but this more correctly put would be more akin to worship of mother nature.

All the Mother Nature theme goddess icons have the goddess around two lions or other big cats, and the meaning was simple that she was supported by the King of the Beasts or reigned over them.

Such stories connected to the lands of milk and honey and the Mother Nature providing for her children.


What is important is all these stories for Mother Nature or gods involved the symbolism of the great cats, mostly lions, as supporting a higher deity, be it the Sun or Mother Nature symbols. The issues of Mother Nature and the Sun being the provider or god was often co-joined in the oldest of cultures as man progressed beyond hunter gathers. The Sun god was mostly Babylon and Egypt (these used Lion and Bull symbols), and cultures much earlier were Mother Nature (this used Lion symbol highly).


So, when one is in search of what is mean't by the term for the "Beast of Revelation", one pays attention to all the King of the Beasts symbolism. There are seven elements for gods such defined, each a part of these old symbolisms. One eventually finds the Lion of Judah and the King David line, and that family shield or crest always has the symbolic Lion.

Thus, the religion of Judiah is closely associated with the issue for the Beasts of Armageddon (one of the elements or heads), and the Lion symbols derived from the earliests of worship for a deity, be the deity that of the goddess/mother nature or that for the Sun/Ra and such. The origination of the Beast for Sun worship was Nimrod and Babylon and the Semiramis story that played herself off as goddess to an extent.


In finding the symbols of the Beasts, one has to understand this long line of the "King of the Beasts" being symbolic for Kings/Pharos and for designation of deity or gods.

Once one makes these associations, then the Spinx begins to make sense, the Lion of Judah / David makes sense, and the transitions from Egypt to Temple symbolism connects, and going back to the earliest of cultures makes sense symbolically. One can follow the progression of human thinking on god from mother nature, to sun gods, to early experimenters in human DNA breeding, to the elements of Jesus want for a change.

edit on 5-8-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Discovery of the Beasts 7 heads



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I am amazed how most still cannot make the connection between Jesus and the sun. Christianity is nothing more than an old age sun-worshiping cult dressed up in fancy words.


John 8:12

When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.


This quote screams sun, yet so many are trapped within the dogma of hell and the consequences that it brings that they simply refuse to see the obvious. They think that if they even consider the idea that Jesus is a metaphor for the sun that they will lose their soul and be banished to eternal suffering and damnation.

It's so painfully obvious, yet some still cannot see it. They read it literally but not contextually, you need both in order to see the hidden meaning.

Good thread, S&F.
edit on 5-8-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


You require 'unequivocal' evidence for everything that doesn't conform to what the bible says, yet when it comes to the bible, it gets a pass on this rule? Do you not see the contradiction ?

Where is the empirical and unequivocal evidence that supports Jesus walking on water and turning water into wine? I guess since it says it in the bible it doesn't require them right? Give me a break.


It doesn't take much to see the connections. It's called common sense, something most Christians lack when it comes to talking about Jesus or the bible.
edit on 5-8-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by toocoolnc
 


Hmm, I wonder who figured this out first...Jordan Maxwell...or this other guy W.C.

Jordan has said all of this (and more) and tells of the ORIGINAL (and thus TRUE) Pagan history of the Bible, and what it means.

It. Is. All. Sun. Worship. (My paraphrasing here.)

That's why all the logos and emblems of businesses so often feature the Sun. They're still worshiping it. Once again, right in front of everyone's faces. And STILL people try to deny it and say it's about something else!

Jordan has said these things in his videos, interpretations of the analogies that trick people today, because they think it has something to do with an actual person:

"Sun walks on water": Sure it does. Go out into the ocean, and at sunset, you'll see a reflection of the sun "walk on water" as it goes down for the day.

"Water into wine": Yes, between the water (rain) and the Sun, we get grapes, which ferment into wine. It's not a miracle, it's a natural process.

Those are the only two I can think of that aren't covered in Cooper's post.

So strange you can tell this to people, and it's so obvious in the paintings of "jesus" the [Sun], the anointed one, the oiled, the lard, the "lord"...that it's all about the Zodiac, astrotheology.

Man long ago didn't have TV or movies, so he wondered in awe of the stars that drifted through the night. It's only natural that they worshiped them and found meaning in them, and worshiped the Sun especially because it was so close and bright.

People need to learn to admit when they are wrong. Quit clinging to fantasy fairy tales that just make you feel good. It's a lie. Lies almost always feel better than the truth, but it is corrupting our entire future as a species. I'm sick of this mess. The wars between religious groups. The rituals and sacrifices. The hate.

Had they never started lying to people long ago to control them, we might be living in peace right now.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by daynight42
 


I came to those same exact conclusions about the 'miracles' Jesus performed.

Healing the sick is another. Time is the measurement of the suns path across the sky, with time the sick will heal themselves. That's why the bible said Jesus 'walked the Earth' performing these miracles.

Feeding five thousand people with five loaves of bread and two fish is explainable as well. With the seeds of wheat, many wheat stalks can be grown and many loaves of bread made to feed many.

Why does it point out that there were two fish? Why not just one? Because with a male fish and a female fish many fish can be reproduced and in turn those fish can spawn other fish which can feed many generations of people. It's a metaphor for the reproduction cycle of anything that lives.
edit on 5-8-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-8-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
Per the OP, there was definitely a Sun worship theme for religion. Constantine even combined Sun Worship with Jesus that attempt to settle down the battles between the two.


Boy, if there's ever a challenger to God for the power of omnipotence, it's gotta be Constantine. I've seen him credited with doing almost everything


Combining sun worship with Jesus? No.

If you don't take the time to study and understand the Jewish religion, you will never understand Christianity and continue to make nonsensical statements about it, like this. Christianity has the same basis as Judaism, the only difference is that people are reconciled to God through Christ, rather than through the Law.

To that end Judaism and Christianity are explicitly opposed to any notion that God is an object. Saying that God (or, by extension, Christ,) is the sun is as absurd as saying that a vase a potter makes is the potter. Claiming that Christianity is relabeled sun worship is completely contrary to Christian theology, history and teaching, and is without any reasonable basis, apart from haters just wanting it to be true.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


So you choose to ignore the obvious similarities? Typical, block everything out and call it nonsense.

What sounds like more of a fairy tale: a few powerful men creating a story centered around natural things to dupe billions to earn an extra buck or a man who could walk on water and a snake that could talk?

You see the corruption that is taking place as we speak from those in power. Why would it be any different 2,000 years ago?

It's all for money, nothing more. Sure not every Christian donates money, but a lot of them do because they feel like they are buying their way into heaven, and that plays right into the churches hands.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
 


So you choose to ignore the obvious similarities? Typical, block everything out and call it nonsense.


Cats and dogs have obvious similarities. Do you think that they are the same thing?

You're looking at superficialities -- as I said, if you don't understand what the core Judaic faith is, you're never going to get beyond the superficialities.


What sounds like more of a fairy tale: a few powerful men creating a story centered around natural things to dupe billions to earn an extra buck or a man who could walk on water and a snake that could talk?


Judaism was never aimed at anyone other than the Israelites, and Christianity was little more than a minor sect of that faith when the New Testament was written, so your claim that "powerful men made it up to dupe billions" is a completely irrational one.

They weren't powerful, they were a minuscule fraction of the world's population, and if you think that Paul or James foresaw what Christianity is today, you testify to their prophetic abilities, lol.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Who are the ones that edited the bible? Kings and rich men, those who were powerful at the time.

The KJV was edited over a period of seven years, the fact that they spent seven years editing the bible goes to show just how much effort they put into it. It doesn't take seven years to change just a few things, that time span implies that MASSIVE changes were made, so how can you be so sure the bible we have today resembles anything that it started out as?

You put too much faith in the work of men, powerful ones at that. You can't completely edit the bible without having some form of power, thinking otherwise is total ignorance.

So these similarities are just superficialities? They are more than just superficial, they are the core of what makes up the doctrines of Christianity. Maybe that's why you choose to ignore them? Because they are more than just superficial?

The cat/dog thing is comparing apples to oranges. A more accurate analogy would be comparing a husky to a wolf or a leopard to a cheetah. Sure they may have subtle differences when just glanced at, but if you really dig down you'll see they aren't as subtle as they first appear.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Seriously? You don't think that there are Bibles that pre-date the King James version?

You know, that can be used to compare the different translations to see your imagined changes?

Do you think that Bible translators translate from the King James version?

You've demonstrated cluelessness in the past, but come on. You're joking about this, right?



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


The KJV is the most popular version of the bible behind the NIV and the differences are miniscule. So no, I'm not joking. I never said there weren't any bibles that predate the KJV, what's your point?

Have you personally compared the older versions to the KJV? If not then you have no room to talk. Don't lie to yourself.

Ever heard of John Wycliffe? If not you should look up his story, pretty interesting to say the least.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
 


The KJV is the most popular version of the bible behind the NIV and the differences are miniscule. So no, I'm not joking. I never said there weren't any bibles that predate the KJV, what's your point?


My point is that your argument is idiotic -- how can the King James version have been "edited for seven years" in the 1600s, making changes to allow for the "control of billions" and no one notices that earlier Bibles don't have that extra stuff? Or that Bibles that are translated later don't have it, since they are translated from the earlier Greek and Hebrew texts, not from the King James version.

Did King James have a time machine, and go back a thousand years to make sure his "edits" would appear in ancient versions of the Bible?

Your theory goes even further off the rails, in that the King James translation is a Protestant Bible, not Catholic, so the "evil church" doesn't even use it.

Frankly, the fact that you're trying to defend such an obviously impossible idea is bizarre.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


So you're saying that you have gone through the earliest versions of the bible and translated them to English yourself and are 100% qualified to say that they haven't been purposefully altered?

Most people are not fluent in more than one language, so these changes would go unnoticed, especially with the high illiteracy rate in those days.

I tend to think that you are not an authority on bible translation and have no room to say otherwise. I don't claim to know they have been altered, it's just a feeling that I have because there are so many different versions of it.

Funny how the infallible word of god can have so many different versions isn't it? Almost as if the ones who translate them would have a certain agenda behind their unique translation.

As I said before, you put too much faith in the work of man.
edit on 5-8-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
As I said before, you put too much faith in the work of man.


... and you put too much in yourself, and your "feelings", which lead you to illogical and irrational conclusions. In this thread, you are testifying that you prefer "feelings", impossible scenarios and lies, which support your beliefs, over facts, because they disagree with you.

But, hey, I could be wrong. Please present the passages from the King James Bible (1611 version) that you believe were altered to promote whatever agenda you think King James had, and which are substantially different from any other translation (apart from those derived from King James.) We have a number of ATS members who can read Greek, and can go back to a pre-1604 text to either support or refute you.

Whether or not I have read Greek texts prior to 1604 is a baseless ad hominem argument that has no basis in this discussion.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


So you haven't translated the bible yourself, thanks for clearing that up. You imply that you know it hasn't been altered without doing the research yourself so I guess that puts us on equal ground.

I'd rather have faith in myself and my gut feeling than to have faith in those who have shown time and time again that they are corrupt to the core. You prefer to take their word for it. Why?

If you choose to ignore the obvious connections and similarities then you are being wilfully ignorant and I pity you. No matter what version of the bible you prefer, you still have the same core beliefs, and that is that Jesus is the only way, and that's a very narrow-minded point of view.
edit on 6-8-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-8-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
 


So you haven't translated the bible yourself, thanks for clearing that up. You imply that you know it hasn't been altered without doing the research yourself so I guess that puts us on equal ground.


Oh, but I have done the research, I'm not sure why you think that I have not.


I'd rather have faith in myself and my gut feeling than to have faith in those who have shown time and time again that they are corrupt to the core. You prefer to take their word for it. Why?


Because you have shown yourself incapable of critical thinking in the past, you're espousing an impossible theory here, and your "defense" of it is to attack me. On the other hand, I have both historical evidence, and logical conclusions drawn from non-historical evidence, that proves you wrong. Why would anyone side with you and your "feelings" on such an easily disproven claim?

I asked you, directly, to provide examples of scripture which was significantly changed in the 1611 King James Bible, in order to "control billions". You have, thus far, provided zero such examples. I'm asking you, again, for your examples.

Barring any, I'd suggest that your "gut feeling" is nausea, caused by the realization of your irrationality and vapidly emotional arguments that have no basis in fact.





top topics
 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join