Was Jesus the Morning Star?

Adding to the mud:

This film here is by a fundamentalist christian, however he accidently stumbles across something of interest that is relevant to the discussion going on here.
His codebreaking does come across some fairly interesting similarities that does point to Apollo the Sun God...and if we follow that Constantine chose Apollo as Jesus...then yes, The story of Jesus would be Apollo, the biblical morning star.

I messaged this guy presenting this concept...he has not sent any word back.

reply to post by SaturnFX


That bible is one, sick, twisted book I don't understand how can the "sun" do all this bad stuff, am I missing something? I might be a little slow today far some reason

Originally posted by warisover
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

That bible is one, sick, twisted book

I don't understand how can the "sun" do all this bad stuff, am I missing something? I might be a little slow today far some reason

Ultimately, I think its a simplistic view of a description beyond anything they can comprehend going on.

I am satisfied with the bible discussing alien interventionism of a couple different species messing with the slave race known as mankind...I am just trying to figure out which one is the good guy actually...the lord or the god.

probably the snake.

The sausage or the breakfast patty? The bible is very confused and a bizarre attempt to mix together as much marketing BS as would sucker people into thinking it was authoritative spiritual info (hidden in their somewhere) . That it was necessary to have some person who had some book learning in it to guide you. That if you followed and accepted during your lifetime that you would get a free ride and that ride. There are likely many different gods referenced in the bible corresponding to various lower entities. Not surprising that a lack of spiritual legitimacy would produce a hodgepodge of junk.

reply to post by SaturnFX


ok the great whore of babylon is the bisexual sun god halios, ( which the free masons worship) I just threw up a little bit in my mouth


edit to add: that's why all those ptb have those homosexual orgies and ritual killings, they are just paying tribute to their god, right?

[edit on 21-3-2010 by warisover]

reply to post by warisover


I dont know, fundamentalists tend to love the word whore when discussing catholics in general...its like their one word they can spout all the time without feeling like a jerk.

Ultimately, that last video I posted was simply to show how he connects the number of the beast with Apollo (Helios) and how Christ is actually the story of Apollo/Helios that the church dusted off and renamed.

So, perhaps the church did in fact choose to insult the hebrews and their weird God by corrupting it and worshipping the opponent in their religion.

Something to consider.

As far as the whore of babylon stuff...christans call any organization they dont like the whore of babylon.

reply to post by SaturnFX


In that last video you posted why did he say helios was bisexual, how does he know?

eta: and do you think the word HELL comes from helios?

eta2: well I think I just bored the OP so I will go now but I wish more people would have commented on this thread it is very intersting.

[edit on 21-3-2010 by warisover]

[edit on 21-3-2010 by warisover]

Originally posted by warisover
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

In that last video you posted why did he say helios was bisexual, how does he know?

eta: and do you think the word HELL comes from helios?

[edit on 21-3-2010 by warisover]

Well, that is just a historical aspect of Apollo:

Apollo was the Greek God of light and of prophecy. He is the patron of music, medicine, archery and the lyre. He and his twin sister, Artemis, are the children of Zeus and Leto. He is the father of Asclepius, the healing God. When Zeus killed Asclepius with a thunderbolt, Apollo killed the Cyclops who manufactured Zeus's thunderbolts. In retaliation,

some backstory...this bit here is interesting:

Apollo was forced to spend a year as a herdsman for the Argonaut, Admetus.

The lord is my shepherd....

anyhow, the relevant bits of his bisex tendencies followed

He and Artemis hunted down and killed Tityus, the Euboeoan giant after the giant attempted to rape their mother, Leto.

Apollo is bisexual and is reputed to have enjoyed the company of many women and men both mortal and divine.

Apollo is a sun God and is depicted with spreading golden hair

Apollo:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3bc25a0ede81.gif[/atsimg]
Jesus:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0e0e7e20ca04.jpg[/atsimg]
Helios/Apollo
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3efa20968d3.jpg[/atsimg]
Jesus:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e1e6c63e1fd9.jpg[/atsimg]
Baptism of Christ:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7c6729fe2f30.jpg[/atsimg]

The Jesus character is just the newest plagiarism of the NUMEROUS sun-gods that were MYTHS existing before him. There is NOTHING of the Jesus character that didn't ALREADY exist. NOTHING original whatsoever. Yet it is 2010 with the invention of computers and internet and masses of uneducated folks haven't discovered this SCAM yet. Perhaps that's why religion is all about BLIND faith. That and IGNORANCE keeps it alive to this very day.

Edit-Typo.

[edit on 21-3-2010 by SunIsSon]

OK, I've watched the first video. He's certainly fervent in his beliefs. Regardless, he makes an error is his supposition. He's basing a good bit of it on Isaiah 14:12, which is a good translation in latin, but a bad translation in english. The lucifer he's referring to is latin for bearer of light or bringer of light, it was used to refer to the mornig star or day star as well. It's not a name in this context. Satan was referred to by name many times in the Old Testament/Tanakh, I believe that if they were referring to him it would have been by name here as well. (On a completely unrelated note: There's a Christian broadcasting network called Daystar Television Network. Given that most of Christianity believed that the day star reference meant Satan.... Oh the irony.. LOL)

He mentions that there are two distinctly different creations stories. I can see where he gets this. It's not what I got from Genesis 1 & 2, but I can see his point. Again, the plural forms and God/Lord God bit is in favor of his argument. However, I don't see where, assuming there were two creation stories, it says anything was done on the seventh day. It does say that 'these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that HaShem G-d made earth and heaven'. Then it goes on to describe the creation of plants, man, and a garden.

I do have to say that nowhere does it say that Adam was the first man created. He's certainly the first man named in the bible, but that's about it.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I am just trying to figure out which one is the good guy actually...the lord or the god.

probably the snake.

The snake. He gave man the gift of knowledge.

reply to post by zeropistons


Looking forward to your views as you muddle through the videos.

Originally posted by warisover
reply to post by SaturnFX
In that last video you posted why did he say helios was bisexual, how does he know?

Well, he was a Greek god and would personify some of the most admirable characteristics that the Greeks had (as well as some of their bad ones.) Bisexuality was common in greek men of that era. There was no social stigma, it was seen as right. Men could provide each other with a type of love that women could could not. At a young age, (early teens), boys were expected to have an older man woo them. Again, this was normal for the culture and time. (I read this in Professor Larry Gonick's "The Cartoon History of the Universe vol 1". Laugh now, but my kids will be getting a copy, I promise. It's an outstandingly frank historical primer for kids.)

OMG, are you saying jesus was queer??? And if jesus was the "morning star," the "sun" how could the sun be queer?.

eta: before the mods delete my post I would like to say that Webster's Dictionary definition of queer is: different from the usual; strange;eccentric.

I hope that satisfies the mods.

[edit on 21-3-2010 by warisover]

Just finished the second video. I honestly want to know what he keeps looking at off to his right. Come on! I have to know. He seems to be on this very big Christian cover up conspiracy trip. Again, I can see where he's coming from, but he needs to realize that the Old Testament is pretty much the same as the Tanakh, with the exception of some *cough cough* translation errors. There are added books, which for whatever reason the Catholic church saw fit to decree as part of the Old Testament. (Christian conspiracy? Eh, could be.)

Now, on to what he was talking about. The plurality of Adam! Now, God named him Adam. The Lord God (for the sake of following his argument, I'm presuming two entities.) made man and woman, and called them Adam. If you assume two entities with two different titles, it works out pretty well. Although, he hasn't mentioned cloning or genetic engineering yet, I'd certainly move in that direction. (If I were omnipotent all my creations would be called 'Binky'. Let history sort out the reason why.)

Now, he has a very good argument as far as whether or not Adam was the first man. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that. However, he doesn't take translation into his argument. In the Old Testament, adam (in the original language) is used as a noun, both singular and plural, and as a pronoun. Specifically, it's used 408 times for man (noun), 131 times for men (noun), 13 times for Adam (pronoun), 8 times for persons.

He should probably do a little more research, but on the Judaic Tanakh side of the story. His entire premise rests on Christianity, but Christianity is based on Judaism, which is a strictly monotheistic religion (Christianity, eh, not so much..). Christianity is of course a blend of every religion it consumed, Judaism is not. (I'm a Christian, but I'm pretty practical about these things. I know exactly where Christianity came from.) I think part of the impression that people have of Christianity comes from people trying to push it on others, and they don't really understand it themselves. They've learned by rote, and they pass their interpretation on, or they try to push whatever they've just read in the latest Christian feel good self help book. (Sorry, I digress.)

Oh, and whoever it was that pointed out the Blue Letter Bible online - you're awesome! That's a great resource. I knew the uses of adam, but I didn't have figures for them.

Originally posted by warisover
OMG, are you saying jesus was queer??? And if jesus was the "morning star," the "sun" how could the sun be queer?.

eta: before the mods delete my post I would like to say that Webster's Dictionary definition of queer is: different from the usual; strange;eccentric.

I hope that satisfies the mods.

[edit on 21-3-2010 by warisover]

LOL, no I didn't say that, nor would I ever entertain it. (However, Elton John did say it.) I did say that Apollo, the Greek god, was most likely bisexual. That was the norms for the Greeks at the time. Again, it was a fact of life at the time and had none of the social stigma that people attach to it today.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Just watched the video. just wondered if you could answer a couple of questions (if i missed something or am being dumb i apologise).

When the guys says that 666 is 3 sigmas how does he get to this conclusion?

Its just it only looks like a 6 if you rotate the greek letter anti-clockwise 90 degrees and even then its a push.

Also, when he talks about the roman numerals why is the M dropped?

Thank you in advance

Peace

I've just watched video 3. This guy is entertaining. I may actually subscribe to his Youtube videos. He's definitely fired up about what he believes, and I applaud him for that. I haven't been creeped out by him, either. Not like some of those others on Youtube... You know who you are... LOL)

Now, back to the video. He's basing this portion of his theory that Christianity is a conspiracy to cover up Jesus being Satan being the Lord referred to in the Old Testament on the number of animals ordered to be taken into the ark. (Yes, it's a terrible run on sentence. I know. There will be more..)

Cliff notes: In Genesis 6 God commands Noah to take two animals of every kind, including the fowl, the creeping beasts, etc. Then, in chapter 7, the Lord (distinctly different in his premise) says "of every clean beast thou shall take seven" male and female, and goes on to include seven male & female of fowls of the air to keep seed alive. Conflicting orders, from two different entities. He gets into the Trinity, but really, do we need that confusion right now? Thus Jesus is Satan, the Lord of the earth. End cliff notes...

It's evident to me that what was ordered was two sets of instructions, one for unclean animals, and one for clean animals. Now, were the fowl originally referred to unclean? Thus there were only two needed? Or, was it decided, as stated, that fowl were necessary to keep seed alive? (BTW, pretty good understanding of the ecosystem for the time.) Judaism does have fowl that aren't to be eaten. Specifically 20 named fowl, however, that includes the bat, which isn't a fowl and four legged flying things. Everything else is fair game, so to speak. (The raven, which was the first bird freed from the ark, is unclean. The dove was clean.)

Let's just assume that I've repeated myself about the perils of not looking into the original language that the text came from. Aside from that, it's acknowledged that there are different names for God in the Old Testament or Tanakh. The original authors really didn't like to say the name. Hell, they even went very far out of their way to not write it at times. Unfortunately, it's what he's basing a good bit of his argument on.

Here's where I have a problem. Judaism as a religion works just fine without Christianity. However, Christianity must have the essential elements of Judaism to exist. He says Christianity is completely made up, then he says that Jesus is Satan is the Lord. Which would mean that Judaism is also wrong and completely made up, but not worth picking on. (Probably because nobody wants to debate Judaism as a conspiracy except on obscure conspiracy forums and Youtube. ...of course, we do have some time on our hands... ) But he's basing ALL of his arguments on Christianity without regard to the religion that it originated from.

It's obvious he's trying to go somewhere with this other than what he's stated in his first three videos, I'll have to watch those, also.

Again, pretty good arguments, but lacking in supporting research.

nice to see your keeping on it. you seem to have a good grasp of the underlying issues.
Your right, if you want to truely shake up all religions straight across the board, you focus on the keystone, not the additions. If the torah was made invalid, then all the religions that sprouting out of that core would likewise crumble.

I think ultimately his issue is simply that there are two beings that christianity is saying is only 1. he does put together more interesting stuff.

Originally posted by tempest501
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Just watched the video. just wondered if you could answer a couple of questions (if i missed something or am being dumb i apologise).

When the guys says that 666 is 3 sigmas how does he get to this conclusion?

Its just it only looks like a 6 if you rotate the greek letter anti-clockwise 90 degrees and even then its a push.

Also, when he talks about the roman numerals why is the M dropped?

Thank you in advance

Peace

Good question. Can't wait to watch it. It sounds like he's trying to make it fit his perception of 666. But sigma isn't 6 in Greek. It looks like our modern number six, though.

In Greek six hundred and sixty six looked like this:

ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ

Or this, if it's written as numerals:

χξϛʹ

Originally posted by SaturnFX
nice to see your keeping on it. you seem to have a good grasp of the underlying issues.
Your right, if you want to truely shake up all religions straight across the board, you focus on the keystone, not the additions. If the torah was made invalid, then all the religions that sprouting out of that core would likewise crumble.

I think ultimately his issue is simply that there are two beings that Christianity is saying is only 1. he does put together more interesting stuff.

I think he could easily argue against Christianity without taking on Judaism, but I think he wouldn't be able to take his argument where he wants it to go. I am surprised that he hasn't focused a bit more on Christianity's similarity to older religions. It's evident that these were subsumed by Christianity, or at least parts of them were. Of course, I don't mean the original concept of Christianity, but Christianity as it was made to appease the masses.