So-called Da Vinci code proves religion is false

Once I determined that the Bible and other ancient writings were written in allegory, I began to work on determining the true meaning of these works in much the same way that a codebreaker would break a code. My interpretations reveal that religion was founded by those who were once known as Sophists and their objective was to enslave mankind through psychological manipulation. Hidden within their allegories are secret histories that detail their accomplishments. Also, Greek philosophy emerged as a "school" for these Sophists in which metaphoric relationships were defined by the use of other metaphors. A sample of my approach is provided below:

The Gospel of Mark 4:10-12 (NIV) reads:

10 When he (Jesus) 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!'"

In Theaetetus Plato (4th century BC) quotes Socrates as remarking:

"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."
Microsoft Encarta says:
"Protagoras was the first thinker to call himself a Sophist and to teach for pay, receiving large sums from his pupils."
In Protagoras Plato states:
"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."
From Plato's Sophist: "Socrates. Is he not rather a god, Theodorus, who comes to us in the disguise of a stranger?"

Gospel of Mark 3:11-12:
11 Whenever the evil spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, "You are the Son of God." 12 But he gave them strict orders not to tell who he was.
Gospel of Mark 8:27-30:
27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?" 28 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets." 29 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Christ." 30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

Correctness
HERMOGENES: "I should explain to you, Socrates, that our friend Cratylus has been arguing about names; he says that they are natural and not conventional; not a portion of the human voice which men agree to use; but that there is a truth or correctness in them, which is the same for Hellenes as for barbarians. Whereupon I ask him, whether his own name of Cratylus is a true name or not, and he answers 'Yes.' And Socrates? 'Yes.' Then every man's name, as I tell him, is that which he is called. To this he replies--'If all the world were to call you Hermogenes, that would not be your name.' And when I am anxious to have a further explanation he is ironical and mysterious, and seems to imply that he has a notion of his own about the matter, if he would only tell, and could entirely convince me, if he chose to be intelligible." Cratylus Plato

SOCRATES:"…a king will often be the son of a king…and similarly the offspring of every kind, in the regular course of nature, is like the parent, and therefore has the same name. Yet the syllables may be disguised until they appear different to the ignorant person, and he may not recognize them, although they are the same… in like manner the etymologist is not put out by the addition or transposition or subtraction of a letter or two, or indeed by the change of all the letters, for this need not interfere with the meaning" Cratylus Plato

"I (Callicles) feel towards philosophers as I do towards those who lisp and imitate children. For I love to see a little child, who is not of an age to speak plainly, lisping at his play; there is an appearance of grace and freedom in his utterance, which is natural to his childish years. But when I hear some small creature carefully articulating its words, I am offended; the sound is disagreeable, and has to my ears the twang of slavery." Gorgias Plato

Rom. 6:22 "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God…"

The "lisp" in practice—Pule (Greek for "gate") = Paul = Paulus (Greek for "small") = Phaulus (Greek for "evil") = Philos (Greek for "friend") = allegoric interpretation [Protagorus = protos (first) Horus or protogonistes (chief actor)?]

SOCRATES: "And therefore I have the most entire conviction that he (Hesiod) called them demons, because they were daemones (knowing or wise), and in our older Attic dialect the word itself occurs." Cratylus Plato
Correctness at work
"demon" ="dam" (Hebrew for "blood") = "damam" (Hebrew for "dumb" or "silent") = "silent" = "tacit" = "tranquil"
From Microsoft Encarta
Tacitus, Cornelius (55?-after 117), Roman historian, born probably in Rome.
Suetonius, full name Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (70?-130?), Roman biographer and historian of culture
Josephus, Flavius (ad 37?-101?), Jewish historian, born in Jerusalem of both royal and priestly lineage.
Joseph of Arimathea = Joseph bar Matthias (a.k.a. Josephus)

Isa. 36:11 "Then Eliakim, Shebna and Joah said to the field commander, 'Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, since we understand it. Don't speak to us in Hebrew in the hearing of the people on the wall.'"
"…Shebna the secretary…" (2 Kings 18:18,37;19:2;Isa 36:3,22;37:2)
Isa.22:15 "This is what the Lord, the LORD Almighty, says: "Go, say to this steward, to Shebna, who is in charge of the palace: 16 What are you doing here and who gave you permission to cut out a grave for yourself here, hewing your grave on the height and chiseling your resting place in the rock?" ("grave" = "written history")

Matt. 27:59 Joseph (of Arimathea) took the body (of Christ), wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock(G. petra). He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away.
John 19:38 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away.
-- From Microsoft Encarta:
"According to tradition, Joseph of Arimathea kept the (Holy) Grail after the Last Supper and collected Jesus’ blood in it when Jesus was crucified." © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
"I (Josephus) saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered." (Life of Josephus para. 75)
John 1:42 And he (Andrew) brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter).
Simon = Shim'own (Hebrew) = shemen (Hebrew for "oil" as used in "anointing") = shem (Hebrew for "names")
[Peter, by some accounts, was succeeded as Pope by "Linus" whose name means "linen" in Greek.]
Josephus = caphar (Hebrew for scribe) = Cephas = rock = Peter = Pater (father) = Joseph the "carpenter" and earthly father of Christ ["caphar" = "cipher"? Coincidence?] Josephus' histories are allegories that hide a history of early Christianity.
"carpenter" = "charash" (Hebrew for "carpenter" AND "silence") = "Kowresh" (Hebrew name for Cyrus the Great who freed the Jews from the Babylonian Captivity.)
Matt. 16:18 And I (Christ) tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (Plato=Pluto=Hades) Paul's version of Christ belonged to an earlier incarnation of the Phoenix.
-- From Microsoft Encarta:
"Philo Judaeus, also Philo of Alexandria (circa 20bc-ad50), Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher; although considered the greatest Jewish philosopher of his age, he appropriated so completely the doctrines of Greek philosophy that he must be considered also a Greek philosopher…" (© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.)
Maria = merea' (Hebrew for "friend") = Philos (Greek for "friend") = "mother" of Christ (Plato's Ion defines "John")
Judas = Judah (H. Yehuwdah) = yada' (Hebrew meaning "to know")—KNOWLEDGE BETRAYED CHRIST
The Gospels are allegoric interpretations that combine elements taken from Josephus with those of John/Philos.
When the true secrets of allegoric interpretation were exposed, Philo used disinformation to create/resurrect Christ.

Da Vinci and many other "demons" knew and did not tell. Instead they left "parables" that pass on the truth to those with the ability to see. This is the nature of the Great Mysteries. Cratylus is a key. Josephus is a key. Alchemy is a key. Clues (balls of thread in the Labyrinth) are everywhere, they only need to be seen for what they are and followed.

The Sophists are still around today and it is probable that they are responsible for many of the conspiracies dealt with in this forum. For example the story of the UFO crash at Roswell could have been intended to insert a metaphor into the historic record that would correspond to some other event that was affecting the Sophists at the time. (Sophists are often referred by ancient writers as "strangers" which can also mean "aliens".)

In other words, my approach offers promise at resolving numerous mysteries and destroying religions. All that is required is a concerted effort to completely break the Sophist code.

First off, you see what you want to see.
Secondly, a lot of people you quoted are not even sophists.

Third, time matters, if you can't fit in a timeline, then you really don't have anything.

Just a few helpful hints. I always thought there was more to the Bible than meets the eye, but I've never thought the Sophists might be behind it, but rather some mysterious Egyptian cult.

Originally posted by Alexander Arthur
Once I determined that the Bible and other ancient writings were written in allegory, I began to work on determining the true meaning of these works in much the same way that a codebreaker would break a code.

So what proves to you that the entire bible is composed of allegories? what makes you think you can come up with the correct allegories?

where there is a parable in the gospels, it is defined AS A PARABLE. No where esle should you concider the contents in the bible are a parable, unless you find something you don't like or doesn't argree with your veiwpoint. A lot of bad churches are using "It's a parable" to explain things and allow themsleves to not have to belive creationisum based on faith. THat is including the Egyptian plagues, noahs flood, and even Adam and Eve

Alas, one of your major points of contention isn't founded on a good translation of the original material. Plato/Socrates' quote doesn't mean "you can take a word and rearrange letters and if it means something in another language then they're related!"

What he's saying is that if you know a language or a root word, you can understand how meaning is derived.

For instance, "Tacitus" comes from the Latin, "tacit", which means "assumed/silent." A "tacit" agreement, for instance is one that is silently met (as parents might do in agreeing that a screaming child needs to be taken out of a restaurant -- they look at each other and one of them removes the child.)
www.etymonline.com...

It's the same way that we derive "nite" from "night" (but not "knight", which comes from "knicht.") Etymology tells us that the English speakers got their "night" from Saxon "naeht" (and we know this because of written documents) and that "knight" was an imported word from the German language and refers to a servant/vassal (military servant, not a body servant) of a ruler.

And the derivation games you play with Paul's name are not terribly meaningful, I'm afraid.

The Da Vinci code is an interesting book of fiction, based (as the best fiction is) on some shreds of truth. But you

Errr so christianity is every religion? You cant bust Islam or whatever other religion with that.

"so-called" fiction is a poor basis for proof, wouldn't you agree ?

These sophists are pretty creative. When you look at the timelines of when the worlds major religions originated, the basic philosophies, and locations, these guys and gals got around !

You may be able to argue against the bible as historically accurate, but claiming religion is false is a huge stretch. I'm always first to question the garden of eden and noahs ark, but how can you use scripture inconsistencies to prove/disprove an afterlife exisits, or that god exists ????


you also have a lot of work to do. I won't ask you to use your proofs on all of the worlds religions, just the top ones. I'll give you until next monday since it seems so easy for you to cut and paste your arguments.

Hinduism - 4000 to 2500 BCE*
Judaism - 2000 BCE
Zoroastrianism - 1000 BCE
Buddhism - 560 to 490 BCE
Shinto - 500+ BCE
Confucianism - 500 BCE
Jainism - 420 BCE
Taoism - 440 CE
Islam - 622 CE
Sikhism - 1500 CE
Bahá'í - 1863 CE

can you kindly demonstrate, for each religion, why it is false, and how the sophists created them ? I don't think thats a lot to ask of someone who claims to have already done the research and come to a conclusion.

A careful reading of the bible, even, will prove religion false.

(by careful I mean in regard to such things aimed at the best possible linguistic purity, etc...just like Byrd mentioned)

Religion is false.

I believe the bible is true--true not necessarily meaning in complete compliance with mankind's 'proven' facts (which are basically records of scientific discoveries, observations, and subsequent hypotheses)--but true as in 'truth.'

I also believe the bible is allegorical, in sections, and as a whole. I believe the people written of lived and did the things it says. There is much in the writing that gives it literary appeal--adventure, drama, etc---this is not a bad thing--after all it keeps the readers interested, for millenia. No one reads a law book--they're boring.

Does allegory=parable? Not necessarily.

Allegory, NOUN:

The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.
A story, picture, or play employing such representation. John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Herman Melville's Moby Dick are allegories.
A symbolic representation: The blindfolded figure with scales is an allegory of justice.

Parable, NOUN:

A simple story illustrating a moral or religious lesson.

(According to the American Heritage Dictionary)

My old faithful New Century Dictionary says allegory means:
figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another; a presentation of an abstract or spiritual meaning under concrete or material forms; a symbolical narrative.

SO...

to say allegory means, by default, 'fiction', is not accurate. Parables are made up--allegories are made upon either a made up or actual account or story. Like a learning living metaphor, so to speak.

And in the case of the bible, in order to teach about spiritual things to beings based in material reality, must be an allegory to work! If it wasn't (IMO) an allegorical masterpiece then it wouldn't be effective. Think about it.


[edit on 8/19/2005 by queenannie38]

Okay but how does that make Islam for example false?

Islam is a religion--religions are man-made systems of superstitious politics which use the name of Deity to make them seem 'approved.' Men think 'if is says God is must be.' Man can say 'God' and God says 'God.' But there is a vast difference between to two statements.

Why is it that one book, Da Vinci code must be true yet another book the Bible must not? I fail to understand how folks reason that one set of theories must automatically prove another is false. It is sorta like when I hear that the media must be lying yet then websites are quoted as a source for truth? What makes one avenue of information better than another? Religion is personal and is about faith. It is amazing that something that many want to discount seems to hold so much power as to cause debates, enemies and wars. If people could somehow really look back into their religion, whatever it may be, they would most likely find that the message is one of peace and love. Somehow, through mankind, that message has been twisted and lost.

You do not have to see, touch, or smell everything in this universe for it to be real. Why are so many so determined to try and snatch peoples faith from them. If a three year old believes in Santa Claus, just how important is it to shatter that belief? What is really accomplished? Is it to deny ignorance? Or just spread hurtful words and ways. If people would spend as much time on helping each other as they do at tearing at each other perhaps we would not be in some of the messes we are.

Originally posted by queenannie38
Islam is a religion--religions are man-made systems of superstitious politics which use the name of Deity to make them seem 'approved.' Men think 'if is says God is must be.' Man can say 'God' and God says 'God.' But there is a vast difference between to two statements.

Well, by your reasoning there would only be one religion. Yet, religious groups all over the world do not believe what "God says" within another religion.

Hmmmm.....

Originally posted by Jamuhn


Well, by your reasoning there would only be one religion. Yet, religious groups all over the world do not believe what "God says" within another religion.

Hmmmm.....

'True' religion is an individual experience, not a group one.
Groups of men = politics.
Politics + 'god' = control of the people using superstition and fear (religion)


Anyway, that's my 'take' on it.

That's the way religion began I agree, but not all religious people perceive God in the same light.

Protestantism came around as people believed they did not need Vatican-approved priests to interpret the Bible for themselves.

More so even today, people interpret religion for themselves even if they subscribe to a body of religion, such as Christianity.

And, also, why is it that so many Christians do not practice what other Christians might deem proper ethics?

It's because people can be part of a religion, but still think for themselves.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
That's the way religion began I agree, but not all religious people perceive God in the same light.

Perhaps because it is not God's true light they perceive, but rather their own reflection in the mirror darkly (i.e 'image')

Protestantism came around as people believed they did not need Vatican-approved priests to interpret the Bible for themselves.

But their protest became essentially a substitution of that which they protested against.

More so even today, people interpret religion for themselves even if they subscribe to a body of religion, such as Christianity.

See--that's my point--religion is therefore about man. To seek God is to allow God to reveal Himself--not to try to interpret, define, or structure God's nature--and that's something that religion survives on--the supposed increased ability of certain ones to 'know' God and what He wants. Each soul has access to his creator, without another soul's 'guidance.'

And, also, why is it that so many Christians do not practice what other Christians might deem proper ethics?

Because they're all deciding to make themselves judges over others, determined by their own ideas of what is right and wrong. That's basically what I call hypocrisy and the 'blind leading the blind.' Only God can see, and so only through His eyes can we see, too.

So Islam is false because you just think it is man made. What if it isnt man made how can you be convinced that it isnt man made?

Originally posted by tomcat ha
So Islam is false because you just think it is man made. What if it isnt man made how can you be convinced that it isnt man made?

If it weren't man made, then it wouldn't be disputed.

Aside from that, though--addressing Islam specifically--was it not originated by Mohammed? Who was a man?

and, more than 60%(worldwide) of those who believe in God as a Supreme Being/Creator believe that Jesus was just a man - if they believe he ever existed at all.

Your point?

[edit on 20-8-2005 by Al Davison]

Originally posted by Al Davison
and, more than 60%(worldwide) of those who believe in God as a Supreme Being/Creator believe that Jesus was just a man - if they believe he ever existed at all.

Your point?

[edit on 20-8-2005 by Al Davison]

I could ask you the same...What is your point in quoting statistics that support what you believe?

In the case of any poll--just as an 'for instance':

Is the world round? Or is it flat?

The percentage of those who are convinced it is round as opposed to the percentage of those who say it is flat has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it is actually spherical or a linear plane.

My point with that is: the distribution and counts of various viewpoints, opinions, and even beliefs--have no influence on what actually is.

So, back to the first point--if Jesus was the Son of God or if He was just a man--that's already been decided, regardless of who believes what. And that has nothing to do with whether or not Islam was created by a man, or whether or not any other religion is any different in that respect. Jesus Christ--whether prophet/man or Son of Man/Savior--or even just fictional hero in the most widely read adventure story of human history--did not create a religion--and even reading the bible as a book of fiction, with an objective unprejudiced mind--would show that to be true. This, also, is likely against popular opinion or belief. I wouldn't know the stats, but I'm guessing that even more than 60% of the world fully believe Christ came to found 'christianity.'

Still--that doesn't make it so.

Christianity is just as man-made as any of the other religions--and therefore is just as 'false.' Constantine is the main 'founder' of christianity.

Not everyone that believes that Jesus Christ was the Son of God fit into the mold of what many view as 'christian.' Nor are they 'religious' or irrational in their thought processes in regard to what is termed 'spiritual' matters. But I have no doubt this is a minute percentage of the world population. Most everyone is led by emotions in this area--even atheists are driven by emotion, as well as agnostics and every thing that fits anywhere in the gamut of 'spiritual belief.' But emotions are grounded in physical existence--and while a spiritual frame of mind is far from being cold or unfeeling, it is no way emotionally-driven. An emotion is a physical reaction which is basically a memory--of a past event which brought about physiological changes (i.e. fear, sorrow, anger, etc) as a result of certain thought processes--of which are a result of living under the delusion of duality.

Personally, I do not claim to be a christian and will always object vehemently if labeled one. I am a rational and above-average intelligent lover of logic and order. I don't believe anything if it doesn't make sense--according to things that are known through human study, observation, and our species-given ability to reason and deduce--just based on its being an 'accepted' dogma/doctrine believed by a bunch of other people who feel they must be right because they're all together, or because they were handed down certain 'traditions', so-called 'mysteries,' or 'teachings'--by others who 'knew'. In fact, just the quality of being a widely accepted 'fact' brings any concept under the most focused scrutiny and skepticism that I can muster in my education. I tend to view the 'majority opinion' as the most likely to be founded on quicksand and supported by wind--but yet I reserve each of my own verdicts to the individual issue, for my own purposes of discernment, not in order to conform or rebel.

And...once in a while, the 'world' is right--the earth is round, after all--but there was a time, that if I had lived then and believed that, I would have been part of a small minority. Even in the case of the shape of the planet--religion decided for the majority and religion was proved wrong.

If any one religion was totally right, then there would be no need for the other religions.

If any one religion exists, then it is because a message was sent.

Yes!

You are so good at saying much with just a few words!

It takes me half a page to express half of just a little bit of what you say in 2 sentences.

Do you tutor?

jk