Christianity is a Sophist Front.

reply to post by undo

so are you saying that the adam that were males and females, created in the image of elohim, were evil fallen ones?

No, I am outlining that the Adam and Eve's were Originally made good and genetically pure in a Holy likeness, and THEN they were corrupted by the angels that were meant to serve God and mankind, however went against His Plan (and were cast out of the Heavens for such).

Adam and Eve, like two hemisphere's of the brain divided, by annanuki labs, to lay seige to the progression and awakening, so cast out of paradise/home, into the conquered war zone, and much harsher scarsity system and nonstop war.

I see the metaphor in it, thats for sure. But don't see 2 people in the story, really.

reply to post by Egyptia


well it started with just reading the text with the assistance of a concordance, in this case, a strongs concordance. when i realized it originally said adam was made male and female in plural "them" form and in the image of elohim, which is a plural word, i realized the way we are taught it traditionally is not applicable to everyone, only to the line of jesus. in other words, the opening creation chapters are about everybody, but the language narrows down eventually to just the lineage of jesus.

next, i was watching a video called "israelites vs. hyksos in ancient egypt" which you can see here:

the premise of the video is that the hyksos expulsion was the equivalent of the biblical exodus.

later, i watched a video from a more negative perspective which made numerous mistakes but still managed to hit some really good points on the lineage of jesus, including naming every person in his family and identifying them with real historical figures. this video was called the ring of power, and was semi based on ralph ellis' work on the subject that jesus was the son of cleopatra, who sent him on the silk route to save his life, after julius caesar was killed. it's a fascinating section of the video, that even identifies several patriarchs as pharaohs as well. for example, siamun is solomon. it's really quite fascinating, however, it's over 4 hours long and spends most of its time, complaining about rich jews and the brits.

also work by david rohl, michael s. heiser, peter goodgame, and of course, zecharia sitchin.

I'm sure Jesus had many qualities. Was one of them that he was a "sophist" in some way? I don't know. But I do know that to put a singular label on somebody is to negate everything else that they are. Jesus seems to remind people of a lot of things. Maybe he designed it that way so that everybody could relate to him in some way. Even the evil, sophists out there, sophing about with reckless abandon...

Just for fun, do you think you could list some of the crimes against humanity committed by the sophists, without making it an attack against any religion, or without mentioning religion in any way? I think that might help me,.and others, to understand what a sophist is. Is it just anyone who charges money, goods or services for teaching? Or anyone who speaks metaphorically? Could you also name some suspected modern day sophists, again without bringing up religion?

I'm really interested in understanding this, from you, in your own words.

PrimeLight
reply to post by undo

 

so are you saying that the adam that were males and females, created in the image of elohim, were evil fallen ones?

No, I am outlining that the Adam and Eve's were Originally made good and genetically pure in a Holy likeness, and THEN they were corrupted by the angels that were meant to serve God and mankind, however went against His Plan (and were cast out of the Heavens for such).

technically, that is true, but literally, from the position of the adam, it was not the issue.
for example, why does it say their eyes were open as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge? (don't answer this yet, read what i have to say, then answer it). they were already made in the image of elohim. how much more perfect could they be? are we just assuming the created adam were dumb? what was different then? they couldn't create new adam. new adam were created by elohim by copying, some kind of cloning perhaps. there was no pain associated with childbirth yet, because they weren't procreators .

when the adam gained knowledge from the tree of knowledge, which was dna related to procreation, THEN they noticed each other's sex appeal, visually, their eyes were opened, because before that, they had no sex drive, as they weren't procreative. so the whole eyes opened thing, is about noticing each other's naked bodies were naked. naked before that didn't mean anything. the sex drive brought with it, all the things related to survival of the fittest as a matter of natural cause and effect.

If travel is searching,
And home what's been found

I'm not stopping

I'm going hunting
I'm the hunter
I'll bring back the goods,
But I won't know when

I've fought while they've disorganized freedom
How "Americanist" of me
This is who I am
You figured it out, didn't you?

You could smell it,
So you left me on my own
To complete the mission
Now I'm leaving it all behind

I'm going hunting
I'm the hunter
I'm the hunter
I'm the hunter

You just didn't know me,

So what I'm saying is you should...

JesuitGarlic
reply to post by Klassified

 

I won't say alien abduction isn't real, because I can't. The possibility is there, and no one can prove otherwise. But the evidence points to alien abduction being a psychological(spiritual?) event.

I am skeptical on whether people are actually taken somewhere, it appears that the entities give the person a vision, but it just occurring in their bed while awake and paralyzed. The entities seem to have abilities I can not grasp like the ability to appear to one person while that person is in the presence of others. They are definitely have a psychological impact but the 'victims' aren't making it up. You have people who are paralyzed. hovering over their beds and if they stop the experience they have dropped back down on bed and their partner has been woken up by this telling them to stop jumping on the bed, even though the victim is lying flat.

It is not something occurring merely in the mind.

So you have never had an encounter of this type you can recount by experience...
...you know victims were paralyzed because you weren't there...you know they were hovering over thier beds and that they 'drop' down onto the bed and wake thier partner (errr, because they 'dropped' presumably, and you weren't there?!)...and even though the victim is lying flat (almost as if you were there to see it and experience it yourself)...brilliant!

Oh...and it's 'definitely' not something occuring in the mind?!

That'd be, because it's occuring in your mind...

Å99

swordwords
Atheists frequently note perceived parallels between Christ and pagan deities as an indication that Christ is in some way derived from earlier false gods. If it is fair to accept these parallels as evidence to the real origins of Christian beliefs, then the below parallel seems also to be worth some consideration in regards to Christianity’s origin:

From Mark 14:10-12:

10 When he (Christ) was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"

From Plato’s Theaetetus:

Socrates: “In the name of the Graces, what an almighty wise man Protagoras must have been! He spoke these things in a parable to the common herd, like you and me, but told the truth, his Truth, in secret to his own disciples.”

(Coincidence or intentional allusion? It is a simple decision like deciding between the red and blue pill.)
Protagoras was supposedly the first professional Sophist making his living by teaching for money. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines Sophist as:

1: PHILOSOPHER
2capitalized: any of a class of ancient Greek teachers of rhetoric, philosophy, and the art of successful living prominent about the middle of the fifth century B.C. for their adroit subtle and allegedly often specious reasoning
3: a captious or fallacious reasoner

In Plato’s Sophist, Socrates and his companions struggle to define a Sophist. As they gradually work toward a definition, something occurs to the “Stranger”:

“Stranger: By heaven, they are cousins! It never occurred to us.
THEAETETUS: Who are cousins?
Stranger: The angler and the Sophist.
THEAETETUS: In what way are they related?
Stranger: They both appear to me to be hunters.”

As the dialogue progresses, it becomes clear that the object of the hunt for the Sophist is man and therefore one should then naturally view the idea of “fishers of men” (Matthew 4:19) to be a reference to Sophists. It strikes me as incredible that atheists seem to have missed this. Don’t they read Plato? Does the term “angler” instead of “fisherman” throw them? I am sure that some nitpickers will attempt to argue that there is a significant difference between fishing with a hook and fishing with nets, but the motive is the same and given Christ’s parallel with Protagoras, it seems that there is a good reason to view this connection as deliberate.

In Plato’s Protagoras we find this comment regarding the Sophists:

“Now the art of the Sophist is, as I believe, of great antiquity; but in ancient times those who practiced it, fearing this odium, veiled and disguised themselves under various names, some under that of poets, as Homer, Hesiod, and Simonides, some, of hierophants and prophets, as Orpheus and Musaeus, and some, as I observe, even under the name of gymnastic-masters, like Iccus of Tarentum, or the more recently celebrated Herodicus, now of Selymbria and formerly of Megara, who is a first-rate Sophist. Your own Agathocles pretended to be a musician, but was really an eminent Sophist; also Pythocleides the Cean; and there were many others; and all of them, as I was saying, adopted these arts as veils or disguises because they were afraid of the odium which they would incur.”

This idea that the Sophists employed “veils” to hide their true nature has a couple of implications in regards to Christ. First of all there is the “Messianic Secret” which involves Christ asking others to keep silent about who he really was. If the character of Christ was the veil of a Sophist, then it is no longer any mystery as to what was really going on. (Christian apologists offer no less than four explanations for the Messianic Secret which means that they really don’t know themselves or they are pretending not to know.)

Secondly, there is the story of St. Veronica. As if the Bible did not offer enough clues as to what was going on, “tradition” provides an additional clue. Tradition tells us that a woman named Veronica supposedly wiped the face of Christ with her veil as he was carrying his cross to Golgotha and as a result the image of Christ’s face miraculously appeared on the veil. The name “Veronica” is understood by many to mean “true image”, so what are we to think when the “true image” of Christ is connected to a veil? This tradition seems so blatant in the message that it sends, that one has to wonder why critics of Christianity have not picked up on it.

Furthermore it should be noted that the identification of Orpheus as a Sophist also helps to explain the parallels between Christ and Dionysus, while the identification of Homer and Hesiod as Sophists indicates that Sophism played a major role in Greek religions as a whole, so why not Christianity? It also seems obvious that the veils employed by the Sophists relied on their words having hidden meanings and this helps to explain the role that parables played in Christ’s “ministry”. Could it be that the seemingly “fallacious” reasoning of the Sophists and Christians is the result of their words having hidden meanings? Could the parallels between Christ and other deities simply be due to the fact that messages are being repeated using the same metaphors or they are deliberate allusions inserted to provide context? Could the “errors” and “contradictions” which so many critics have observed and which have been so carefully preserved in the Bible really have a hidden purpose or meaning which requires their preservation?

By failing to take the clues Plato offered in regards to Sophism seriously, we have failed to form a clear understanding of what Sophism is. How and when Sophism began is difficult to determine, but it is clear that by the time Plato came onto the scene, they had already been responsible for greatly altering people’s perceptions of the world by describing nearly everything in metaphor. It is the world created by the Sophists that was the true subject of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. Through their numerous covers and disguises the Sophists have had a major impact on the world as we see it and until we recognize this fact, we are destined to be their slaves. It is the Sophists that have created the Matrix (a.k.a. “egg in a basket”) in which we live.

It is up to the amateurs to expose the Sophists, because too much is at stake for the “experts”. Much of our educational system is based on the literal and semi-literal understanding of their allegoric works and if they are exposed for what they really are, advanced degrees in philosophy, history, religion, and other areas will become virtually worthless, because they are based on a false contexts and false understandings.

Sophism probably originated directly through the realisation that the mind/brain processes sophise themselves. A shimmering body of water in the middle of the desert - must be made sense of somehow...optical illusions are brain sophisms of sorts...it'd be natural at some stage to reverse that process so that the illusion is 'put up the right way' in the brain...

Å99

reply to post by 3n19m470

3n19m470
I'm sure Jesus had many qualities. Was one of them that he was a "sophist" in some way? I don't know. But I do know that to put a singular label on somebody is to negate everything else that they are. Jesus seems to remind people of a lot of things. Maybe he designed it that way so that everybody could relate to him in some way. Even the evil, sophists out there, sophing about with reckless abandon...

Just for fun, do you think you could list some of the crimes against humanity committed by the sophists, without making it an attack against any religion, or without mentioning religion in any way? I think that might help me,.and others, to understand what a sophist is. Is it just anyone who charges money, goods or services for teaching? Or anyone who speaks metaphorically? Could you also name some suspected modern day sophists, again without bringing up religion?

I'm really interested in understanding this, from you, in your own words.

Well, the "virgin birth" gives away Christ's most telling quality; He is not a historical figure. The entire Bible is in Sophist allegory and every idea that was presented through Christ and other Biblical characters have hidden meanings. Ideas such as "peace" and "love" do not mean what we would like them to mean.

As to Sophist crimes against humanity it is difficult to be precise because Sophists tend to influence others to commit the crimes for them and the Sophists themselves are usually disguised and their real identities are frequently lost in time. However, the Sophists make a great effort to make sure that allegoric ideas are played out in real life so certain people whose characteristics are related to “evil” ideas are made targets of persecution. Because “black” is associated with hidden knowledge, dark skinned peoples need to be kept “below” everyone else. It takes a “male” and “female” to create allegory, so same sex coupling is anti-allegorical (i.e. literal), and therefore, homosexuals needed to be persecuted. The name “Judah” is intended to mean “knowing” (from the Hebrew “yada”) and so it was necessary to persecute the Jews, whether they knew anything or not. When it was decided that persecution had gone too far, the Sophists arranged for Jews to take on the name of Semites (from the Hebrew name “Shem” which means “name”) and so now to be anti-Jewish is to be “anti-name” which means in opposition to the use of metaphors. Thus the Anti-Semites are now the ones being persecuted. (Circumcision is also a metaphor played out in real life, and I imagine many people might also consider that a crime.)

Modern day Sophists are certainly involved in modern movie making, but it is difficult to know who is actually writing the scripts for the movies. Usually the Sophist will have a name that helps to identify him, but unfortunately it is also possible that a person might be selected to be involved in a movie simply because they have the right name. (I suspect this is why so many actors change their names when going into the movie business.) For example, John Carpenter has a name with significant metaphoric meaning and he has created a number of Sophist films, but it is possible that he has been chosen by the Sophists to make these movies simply because he has the right name. The Wachowski “Brothers” are also responsible for Sophist movies and while their names are not clearly agreeable with their Sophist roles, the gender change of Larry Wachowski is full of meaning. (As I mentioned it takes “female” and “male” to create allegory and therefore this gender change corrects an imbalance.) Lucas’s Starwars movies and some Spielberg’s movies are also Sophist. (Generally, in order for me to determine that a movie is Sophist, I need to establish a context and in order to do this I need to know the original story that has been allegorized. Thus far I only have a firm understanding of allegory surrounding the birth and early years of Christianity so if a movie is allegory related to Sophist inspired events of a later period, I will not recognize its real subject and therefore I must withhold judgment.)

Movies are the most visible and obvious expressions of Sophist allegory, but it is also in our literature (including comic books), paintings, architecture, music and even in our fashion.

The literal idea that a Sophist was a teacher for pay was simply a mask. The modern Sophist’s fall into two broad areas; art and politics (with religion and education being viewed as products of these areas). It is the job of the artistic Sophist to mold our thinking. They may keep us as “slaves to fashion” or they may prepare us for war. Political Sophists work behind the scenes to control us from above and they are virtually impossible to spot from the outside. They are often connected to secret societies, but that alone cannot be viewed as proof since many members of secret societies are ignorant of their real purpose. Lower ranking members of secret societies a manipulated in the same way outsiders are manipulated.

The true Sophist will know how to employ the allegory to send secret messages to other Sophists, but they do not have to use it in everyday communications. Sophist allegory follows rules and is employed just like a code. (I have cracked a portion of this code and this is how I have learned their secrets.) The works of authors who employ this code are usually highly praised and their works become “classics”. The work of those that employ allegory that does not follow the Sophist rules is branded inferior and destined to be forgotten in time.

reply to post by swordwords

The works of authors who employ this code are usually highly praised and their works become “classics”. The work of those that employ allegory that does not follow the Sophist rules is branded inferior and destined to be forgotten in time.

examples? what's the code? discuss. that's what you're here for.

reply to post by swordwords

Atheists frequently note perceived parallels between Christ and pagan deities as an indication that Christ is in some way derived from earlier false gods.

And therefore did not exist. Which is a an idea popularized among atheists via an untold
number of mythicism writers. Never mind the absolute fact, that no Scholar would ever
deny that Jesus was a man. He was a Jew and he was crucified at the hands Pontius Pilate
during the rein of Tiberias.

If it is fair to accept these parallels

So it isn't fair to accept those lies.

reply to post by randyvs


Jesus was a man (maybe). Christ is a whole different ball of wax!

reply to post by windword


I was referring to Jesus Christ.

reply to post by randyvs


Christ is a concept of Greek and Roman mytholigies that existed long before the birth of Jesus. I think the OP is referring to the "Christ" deity, not the human being Jesus, and how this "mytholigical" personality relates to and is presented in terms of past mytholigies and philosophies, particularly, sophism.

windword
reply to post by randyvs

 

Christ is a concept of Greek and Roman mytholigies that existed long before the birth of Jesus. I think the OP is referring to the "Christ" deity, not the human being Jesus, and how this "mytholigical" personality relates to and is presented in terms of past mytholigies and philosophies, particularly, sophism.

you keep leaving out egypt. you shouldn't.

undo

windword
reply to post by randyvs

 

Christ is a concept of Greek and Roman mytholigies that existed long before the birth of Jesus. I think the OP is referring to the "Christ" deity, not the human being Jesus, and how this "mytholigical" personality relates to and is presented in terms of past mytholigies and philosophies, particularly, sophism.

you keep leaving out egypt. you shouldn't.

My bad!

reply to post by undo

undo
reply to post by swordwords

 

The works of authors who employ this code are usually highly praised and their works become “classics”. The work of those that employ allegory that does not follow the Sophist rules is branded inferior and destined to be forgotten in time.

examples? what's the code? discuss. that's what you're here for.

I have discussed this code elsewhere and for the most part I have been ignored; I assume because so many others have made similar claims which have been proven unsubstantiated. I will repeat some of my previous remarks here:

"All real world ideas can be expressed with multiple metaphors, many of which are linked together through phonetic similarities in either Hebrew or Greek. (I first came across this idea in Plato’s Cratylus.) For example, the Hebrew word for “name” is “shem” and a couple of metaphors that express this idea are “sun” (H. shemesh) and “oil” (H. shemen). Thus you can be “blinded” by the “sun” (i.e. John Carpenter’s They Live) when an object has been “anointed” or “christened” with a name. If you are familiar with Kabbalah, then you may have seen a similar game played with the explanation of the word “Sefirah” in which the Hebrew words “sefer”, "sippur", "sappir", "separ", and "safra" are all included in the meaning. Kabbalah is all about this code, but some red herrings have also been thrown in as a distraction (i.e. Atbash cipher, Gematria). Some Old Testament books such as Song of Solomon are actually intended to serve as a sort of thesaurus that links metaphors with other metaphors. This wide variety of metaphors means that there can be a multitude of “correct” interpretations, but only one will be correct for the real world.

The code also relies heavily on allusions that generally help to provide a context. (Establishing a context is important because literal time and place elements are distorted due to allegoric requirements.) These allusions often are in the form of “parallels”. Many of these parallels are easily seen even by the literal reader, but they can also be masked so that a house with a hole in the roof might represent a hippodrome or moving trees might be intended to suggest a fleet of sailing ships. Sometimes it will be an “error” or “contradiction” that will help to complete an allusion, which is why these have been carefully preserved. A significant number of allusions in the New Testament identify passages from the works of the Jewish historian Josephus as source material and once you know the “Satan” behind Christ, it becomes easier to put the pieces together. Other allusions point to the Old Testament, Plato, Josephus’ contemporaries, Philo, Greek mythology, and undoubtedly other sources that I have not yet identified.

You can also think of the allegory as dualistic, just like many religions, with the “above” representing the literal meanings and the “good” with the “below” representing hidden meanings and things “evil”. If you follow the logic that this suggests, you can discern the real meaning of some religious concepts without much effort. For example, “eternal life” is associated with “heaven” and therefore suggests that the “good” might have their history preserved in literal writing. The “evil” ones are condemned to the “underworld”.

Since literal time is irrelevant in allegory, and there is such a wide variety of metaphors for each real world idea, we are often fed the same story again and again without realizing it. This retelling of the same story is sometimes accomplished through the “grafting of vines” in which history from one time period is merged into the literal history of another time period. For example many of the events related to Christ’s story are actually an allegoric retelling of events that took place during the so-called Jewish Revolt of 66-70CE. This practice also frequently involves “reincarnation” where a historic character is renamed (with an appropriate metaphor) and transplanted into a later history."

My suggestion that Sophist works are preserved as classics is based on my observation that every ancient work that I have examined produced by Hebrew, Greek, Egyptian, or Roman is Sophist. That includes the Bible, the Talmud, The Book of the Dead; works by Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Virgil, Lucretius, Livy, Herodotus, Hippocrates, early church “fathers”, and of course Homer and Hesiod. This observation led me to believe that survival of texts depended on whether they were of Sophist origin. I suppose that this might not be true with more modern classics, when it is so much easier to produce vast numbers of copies, but thus far I have found enough Sophist allegory in later classics to convince me that Sophist content is at least a major consideration in the determination of a “classic”.

I only make a determination that a “classic” is allegory if I have already read it since making my discovery and since classics are not my favorite reading material the list will be somewhat short.

Melville’s Moby Dick
Shelley’s Frankenstein
Stoker’s Dracula
Verne’s Journey to the Center of the Earth
Baum’s Wizard of Oz (probably no surprise here which is why I read it.)
Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur (again no surprise)
Hugo’s Hunchback of Notre Dame
Leroux’s Phantom of the Opera

The nature of these works makes it rather easy to establish context. I have also read Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities and Oliver Twist and although these show some Sophist influence, I was not able to establish a context that would clearly identify them as Sophist.

reply to post by swordwords


that's quite a bit of research. so what you are saying is, if metaphor or parables are used, they are sophist?