Could you please provide some sources you've used to learn about the creation of Christianity? Genuinely curious.
That the main tenets of the Christian Religion as it is adhered to today has its origins long after the Death of Jesus is not disputed. I learned this in Sunday School many decades ago. There is nothing new here to a Christian. Everytime you say the Nicene Creed you restate the beliefs setup centuries after Christ. This explains the Bible's origins (as it is written today). The Nicene Creed lays out one of the fundamental beliefs of the Christian Religion; the Triune God.
This meeting that determined the tenets of the Religion also determined what books to include in the Bible. There are many books that are referenced in the Bible that were left out. Many have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The book of Enoch is particularly interesting (there are other translations), but there are many others. Not only are there many left out that were referenced in what was included, but there are many others that have been found that are from the same area/time period and were not self-referenced. I suggest an investigation. Many are worth a read.
The Nicene Convention (or rather, the First Ecumenical Council as it is called today) was brought together by Emporer Constantine to create a unifying belief system to control the Roman Empire and give motive to expand his domain. The Nicene convention took from Pagan customs, Egyptian customs, competing Christian ideologies and various other religions that existed in the huge Eastern and Western Roman Empire and married them into one Religion (called Christianity today) allowing for him to bring together the Eastern and Western Empires under a united Rome, his Rome.
This gives a breakdown of the origins of Christianity. I absolutely hate the authors beliefs; suggesting that Judaism is the obvious Truth. Note that the author is a proponent of Judaism, not Zionism (or Satanism), the "other" Jewish religion that is apparently adhered to by the PTB. (The Religious fuckery by the PTB knows no bounds once you start digging.) The reason I am providing this link, despite my distaste for their obvious beliefs, is that they provide a good argument and a fair bit of useful evidence. Like all investigations, you have to learn to ignore the narrative and look at the evidence presented on its own merits. You then have to dig deeper to find corroboration. Even then, don't assume anything is truth. Each step is an attempt to get closer and closer to it. I suggest you don't ever allow yourself to assume you have found it. That only leads to the inability to see evidence to the contrary.
To determine if Constantine was a worshiper of the Sun God throw a stone. If you hit a Christian, they will say either "he was not" or "he converted on his deathbed." If you hit a non-Christian they will say he was a worshiper of Apollo/Mithra. This Sun god is associated with Lucifer, Ba'al, or Horus in some cultures.
The Codex Theodosianus: On Religion is apparently the official document of the Law that became the Christian Church doctrine (or an English translation of it). It clearly lays out in law the allowed beliefs of the Roman Empire. This was to unify the empire and bring it under control. When everyone has one belief, they will listen to one leader. It doesn't really get any more simple than that. This rule became what was eventually Europe, which remained under one rule (the pope) for a millennia. The Roman Empire never really died. I'm not sure, but we might still be Roman citizens (legally speaking). I'm still digging on that.
Of course without an enemy to drive hate and fear, you have less control. The good ole' Hegelian dialectic must be fed to maintain control. This I believe was the reason for the creation of the Muslim Religion. Two enemies created by opposing belief systems. Always looking at each other, allowing themselves to be subjugated by tyrannical rulers (in each case, the society took a step backwards under the religions, though they eventually moved forward again).
I will not be justifying that paragraph. I am laying out an idea. it has supporting evidence, but is outside of the scope of this, as it is on Christianity.
This presents a really nice exploration of the history of the Trinity. His paper with sources can be found here. It concludes that the origin of the Trinity as a foundational Christian doctrine wasn't stated explicitly until the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 A.D., three and a half centuries after the reported death of Jesus. It also suggests that the Disciples of Jesus did not adhere to Jesus as God in the sense of the trinity, but rather in the sense of all of us as God. (What I mean by that requires far more explanation, and I can't do this concept justice in this brief response.)
This looks at the idea of the Trinity having its origins going back many thousands of years all across the world, It does not talk about the exact same Trinity as the foundational tenet of Christianity, but rather a triune idea of God (the father in Christianity), God the Word (Jesus aka The Messiah in Christianity), and God Sophia (wisdom aka The Holy Spirit in Christianity). In this historical reference, and if one takes out the Nicene doctrine and rereads Jesus' teachings, one finds the Trinity more as the trinity (lower case), and that God is one God (the creator). God's word is all of us and God's wisdom is also all of us. Part of the whole, but not the same. Not the same level (because we are trapped on Earth, or we believe that we are).
This is in no small part the same as the teachings of Buddha, but not just Buddha, but its essence can be found in every religion going back millennia. It wasn't until the second Nicene convention that that changed. It changed again 50 years after Muhammad when the Quran was written. I assert these Religions were created not by their original teachers, but long after they died (half a century in the case of Muhammad and three and a half centuries in the case of Christianity). When you really dig in, and take out the "official doctrines" that are included in the books on the topic (not a single word of either that were written by the "teachers") the overall narrative of the doctrine went substantially against the original teachings from both Jesus and Muhammad.
This entire playlist is particularly interesting. I do not agree with many of this persons conclusions, I think he is missing some pieces in his exposure. He tells a fun story (narrative overlay), but the reason I am putting it here is because he presents a ton of evidence, and connections between those pieces of evidence that when you dig deeper have a lot of corroboration. Like one of the links above, it suggests connections between the ancient world's religions and the modern (post Nicene convention) Christianity. By ancient, I mean really ancient. It suggests that there was an advanced, world wide civilization for thousands of years that ended 12,000 years ago. The evidence is very compelling. I highly recommend watching the whole thing and digging in to the parts that seem interesting.
I suggest there is much more to human history than just the past 10,000 years of it for which we have a story, almost all of the official version is based on just a few pieces of evidence, and leaves out more evidence than it includes. Who is writing the history books? More importantly, who is publishing them (i.e. the final editors)?
Lets look at just the Bible itself. I'm just going to expose one discrepancy that shows a fundamental issue with a major Christian tenet, but there are many others. I like this one because its so easy to see. This is from another post of mine:
The bible as known today was a work of dogma created at the convention. A change of phrase here, a word there, can make all the difference in the world. It doesn't take much to completely alter meaning.
It's also very important to realize (which most do, but don't fully grasp) that the entire concept of "the law" part of the bible (Torah) is in large part the Jewish bible. Within it are stories of things like God demanding, or desiring first born son blood sacrifices, etc..
"Oh, but that's just the way the world was then." Really? So the Christian God wanted first born son sacrifices just like Molloch? And then he Changed? But he also says "I am unchanging"?
Look at the original Passover event. The Torah (old Testament) version of the "Creator God" apparently wanted all first born Egyptian sons to die so badly, he sent his angels to kill them all. "Oh, but that was only a last resort because they wouldn't let 'God's chosen people' go" (think about who those people were, one chosen race above all humanity in the entire world). Please note that murder by angel directive is not the same thing as "allowing bad things to happen". This is a direct act of murder by thug. So God wouldn't have killed them all (because presumably such a direct action of murder is bad) if they had only let the people go. God had to choose the lesser of two evils...
What kind of Creator God has to choose the lesser of two evils? Does that make ANY SENSE AT ALL?
Of course, the bible also says "if you run into logic that doesn't allow this book to make sense, take it on faith that the book is right and the logic is wrong".
Where else have we seen such statements?
In no way do I mean to demean the teachings of Christ. I am pointing out possible Luciferian influences in the Bible that creates the Dogma of the Religion. I am not in any way talking about Christ, nor his teachings.
Everyone who thinks the Bible somehow escaped Luciferian influence because the Bible says so when that book was written (final edit) by a self stated worshiper of the Sun God (aka Lucifer in some cultures) is deluding themselves, because that is what that same book told them to do.
Could you please provide some sources you've used to learn about the creation of Christianity? Genuinely curious.
That the main tenets of the Christian Religion as it is adhered to today has its origins long after the Death of Jesus is not disputed. I learned this in Sunday School many decades ago. There is nothing new here to a Christian. Everytime you say the Nicene Creed you restate the beliefs setup centuries after Christ. This explains the Bible's origins (as it is written today). The Nicene Creed lays out one of the fundamental beliefs of the Christian Religion; the Triune God.
This meeting that determined the tenets of the Religion also determined what books to include in the Bible. There are many books that are referenced in the Bible that were left out. Many have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The book of Enoch is particularly interesting (there are other translations), but there are many others. Not only are there many left out that were referenced in what was included, but there are many others that have been found that are from the same area/time period and were not self-referenced. I suggest an investigation. Many are worth a read.
The Nicene Convention (or rather, the First Ecumenical Council as it is called today) was brought together by Emporer Constantine to create a unifying belief system to control the Roman Empire and give motive to expand his domain. The Nicene convention took from Pagan customs, Egyptian customs, competing Christian ideologies and various other religions that existed in the huge Eastern and Western Roman Empire and married them into one Religion (called Christianity today) allowing for him to bring together the Eastern and Western Empires under a united Rome, his Rome.
This gives a breakdown of the origins of Christianity. I absolutely hate the authors beliefs; suggesting that Judaism is the obvious Truth. Note that the author is a proponent of Judaism, not Zionism (or Satanism), the "other" Jewish religion that is apparently adhered to by the PTB. (The Religious fuckery by the PTB knows no bounds once you start digging.) The reason I am providing this link, despite my distaste for their obvious beliefs, is that they provide a good argument and a fair bit of useful evidence. Like all investigations, you have to learn to ignore the narrative and look at the evidence presented on its own merits. You then have to dig deeper to find corroboration. Even then, don't assume anything is truth. Each step is an attempt to get closer and closer to it. I suggest you don't ever allow yourself to assume you have found it. That only leads to the inability to see evidence to the contrary.
To determine if Constantine was a worshiper of the Sun God throw a stone. If you hit a Christian, they will say either "he was not" or "he converted on his deathbed." If you hit a non-Christian they will say he was a worshiper of Apollo/Mithra. This Sun god is associated with Lucifer, Ba'al, or Horus in some cultures.
The Codex Theodosianus: On Religion is apparently the official document of the Law that became the Christian Church doctrine (or an English translation of it). It clearly lays out in law the allowed beliefs of the Roman Empire. This was to unify the empire and bring it under control. When everyone has one belief, they will listen to one leader. It doesn't really get any more simple than that. This rule became what was eventually Europe, which remained under one rule (the pope) for a millennia. The Roman Empire never really died. I'm not sure, but we might still be Roman citizens (legally speaking). I'm still digging on that.
Of course without an enemy to drive hate and fear, you have less control. The good ole' Hegelian dialectic must be fed to maintain control. This I believe was the reason for the creation of the Muslim Religion. Two enemies created by opposing belief systems. Always looking at each other, allowing themselves to be subjugated by tyrannical rulers (in each case, the society took a step backwards under the religions, though they eventually moved forward again).
I will not be justifying that paragraph. I am laying out an idea. it has supporting evidence, but is outside of the scope of this, as it is on Christianity.
This presents a really nice exploration of the history of the Trinity. His paper with sources can be found here. It concludes that the origin of the Trinity as a foundational Christian doctrine wasn't stated explicitly until the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 A.D., three and a half centuries after the reported death of Jesus. It also suggests that the Disciples of Jesus did not adhere to Jesus as God in the sense of the trinity, but rather in the sense of all of us as God. (What I mean by that requires far more explanation, and I can't do this concept justice in this brief response.)
This looks at the idea of the Trinity having its origins going back many thousands of years all across the world, It does not talk about the exact same Trinity as the foundational tenet of Christianity, but rather a triune idea of God (the father in Christianity), God the Word (Jesus aka The Messiah in Christianity), and God Sophia (wisdom aka The Holy Spirit in Christianity). In this historical reference, and if one takes out the Nicene doctrine and rereads Jesus' teachings, one finds the Trinity more as the trinity (lower case), and that God is one God (the creator). God's word is all of us and God's wisdom is also all of us. Part of the whole, but not the same. Not the same level (because we are trapped on Earth, or we believe that we are).
This is in no small part the same as the teachings of Buddha, but not just Buddha, but its essence can be found in every religion going back millennia. It wasn't until the second Nicene convention that that changed. It changed again 50 years after Muhammad when the Quran was written. I assert these Religions were created not by their original teachers, but long after they died (half a century in the case of Muhammad and three and a half centuries in the case of Christianity). When you really dig in, and take out the "official doctrines" that are included in the books on the topic (not a single word of either that were not written by the "teachers") they overall narrative of the doctrine went substantially against the original teachings from both Jesus and Muhammad.
This entire playlist is particularly interesting. I do not agree with many of this persons conclusions, I think he is missing some pieces in his exposure. He tells a fun story (narrative overlay), but the reason I am putting it here is because he presents a ton of evidence, and connections between those pieces of evidence that when you dig deeper have a lot of corroboration. Like one of the links above, it suggests connections between the ancient world's religions and the modern (post Nicene convention) Christianity. By ancient, I mean really ancient. It suggests that there was an advanced, world wide civilization for thousands of years that ended 12,000 years ago. The evidence is very compelling. I highly recommend watching the whole thing and digging in to the parts that seem interesting.
I suggest there is much more to human history than just the past 10,000 years of it for which we have a story, almost all of the official version is based on just a few pieces of evidence, and leaves out more evidence than it includes. Who is writing the history books? More importantly, who is publishing them (i.e. the final editors)?
Lets look at just the Bible itself. I'm just going to expose one discrepancy that shows a fundamental issue with a major Christian tenet, but there are many others. I like this one because its so easy to see. This is from another post of mine:
The bible as known today was a work of dogma created at the convention. A change of phrase here, a word there, can make all the difference in the world. It doesn't take much to completely alter meaning.
It's also very important to realize (which most do, but don't fully grasp) that the entire concept of "the law" part of the bible (Torah) is in large part the Jewish bible. Within it are stories of things like God demanding, or desiring first born son blood sacrifices, etc..
"Oh, but that's just the way the world was then." Really? So the Christian God wanted first born son sacrifices just like Molloch? And then he Changed? But he also says "I am unchanging"?
Look at the original Passover event. The Torah (old Testament) version of the "Creator God" apparently wanted all first born Egyptian sons to die so badly, he sent his angels to kill them all. "Oh, but that was only a last resort because they wouldn't let 'God's chosen people' go" (think about who those people were, one chosen race above all humanity in the entire world). Please note that murder by angel directive is not the same thing as "allowing bad things to happen". This is a direct act of murder by thug. So God wouldn't have killed them all (because presumably such a direct action of murder is bad) if they had only let the people go. God had to choose the lesser of two evils...
What kind of Creator God has to choose the lesser of two evils? Does that make ANY SENSE AT ALL?
Of course, the bible also says "if you run into logic that doesn't allow this book to make sense, take it on faith that the book is right and the logic is wrong".
Where else have we seen such statements?
In no way do I mean to demean the teachings of Christ. I am pointing out possible Luciferian influences in the Bible that creates the Dogma of the Religion. I am not in any way talking about Christ, nor his teachings.
Everyone who thinks the Bible somehow escaped Luciferian influence because the Bible says so when that book was written (final edit) by a self stated worshiper of the Sun God (aka Lucifer in some cultures) is deluding themselves, because that is what that same book told them to do.
Could you please provide some sources you've used to learn about the creation of Christianity? Genuinely curious.
That the main tenets of the Christian Religion as it is adhered to today has its origins long after the Death of Jesus is not disputed. I learned this in Sunday School many decades ago. There is nothing new here to a Christian. Everytime you say the Nicene Creed you restate the beliefs setup centuries after Christ. This explains the Bible's origins (as it is written today). The Nicene Creed lays out one of the fundamental beliefs of the Christian Religion; the Triune God.
This meeting that determined the tenets of the Religion also determined what books to include in the Bible. There are many books that are referenced in the Bible that were left out. Many have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The book of Enoch is particularly interesting (there are other translations), but there are many others. Not only are there many left out that were referenced in what was included, but there are many others that have been found that are from the same area/time period and were not self-referenced. I suggest an investigation. Many are worth a read.
The Nicene Convention (or rather, the First Ecumenical Council as it is called today) was brought together by Emporer Constantine to create a unifying belief system to control the Roman Empire and give motive to expand his domain. The Nicene convention took from Pagan customs, Egyptian customs, competing Christian ideologies and various other religions that existed in the huge Eastern and Western Roman Empire and married them into one Religion (called Christianity today) allowing for him to bring together the Eastern and Western Empires under a united Rome, his Rome.
This gives a breakdown of the origins of Christianity. I absolutely hate the authors beliefs; suggesting that Judaism is the obvious Truth. Note that the author is a proponent of Judaism, not Zionism (or Satanism), the "other" Jewish religion that is apparently adhered to by the PTB. (The Religious fuckery by the PTB knows no bounds once you start digging.) The reason I am providing this link, despite my distaste for their obvious beliefs, is that they provide a good argument and a fair bit of useful evidence. Like all investigations, you have to learn to ignore the narrative and look at the evidence presented on its own merits. You then have to dig deeper to find corroboration. Even then, don't assume anything is truth. Each step is an attempt to get closer and closer to it. I suggest you don't ever allow yourself to assume you have found it. That only leads to the inability to see evidence to the contrary.
To determine if Constantine was a worshiper of the Sun God throw a stone. If you hit a Christian, they will say either "he was not" or "he converted on his deathbed." If you hit a non-Christian they will say he was a worshiper of Apollo/Mithra. This god is attributed to be Lucifer, Ba'al, or Horus in some cultures.
The Codex Theodosianus: On Religion is apparently the official document of the Law that became the Christian Church doctrine (or an English translation of it). It clearly lays out in law the allowed beliefs of the Roman Empire. This was to unify the empire and bring it under control. When everyone has one belief, they will listen to one leader. It doesn't really get any more simple than that. This rule became what was eventually Europe, which remained under one rule (the pope) for a millennia. The Roman Empire never really died. I'm not sure, but we might still be Roman citizens (legally speaking). I'm still digging on that.
Of course without an enemy to drive hate and fear, you have less control. The good ole' Hegelian dialectic must be fed to maintain control. This I believe was the reason for the creation of the Muslim Religion. Two enemies created by opposing belief systems. Always looking at each other, allowing themselves to be subjugated by tyrannical rulers (in each case, the society took a step backwards under the religions, though they eventually moved forward again).
I will not be justifying that paragraph. I am laying out an idea. it has supporting evidence, but is outside of the scope of this, as it is on Christianity.
This presents a really nice exploration of the history of the Trinity. His paper with sources can be found here. It concludes that the origin of the Trinity as a foundational Christian doctrine wasn't stated explicitly until the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 A.D., three and a half centuries after the reported death of Jesus. It also suggests that the Disciples of Jesus did not adhere to Jesus as God in the sense of the trinity, but rather in the sense of all of us as God. (What I mean by that requires far more explanation, and I can't do this concept justice in this brief response.)
This looks at the idea of the Trinity having its origins going back many thousands of years all across the world, It does not talk about the exact same Trinity as the foundational tenet of Christianity, but rather a triune idea of God (the father in Christianity), God the Word (Jesus aka The Messiah in Christianity), and God Sophia (wisdom aka The Holy Spirit in Christianity). In this historical reference, and if one takes out the Nicene doctrine and rereads Jesus' teachings, one finds the Trinity more as the trinity (lower case), and that God is one God (the creator). God's word is all of us and God's wisdom is also all of us. Part of the whole, but not the same. Not the same level (because we are trapped on Earth, or we believe that we are).
This is in no small part the same as the teachings of Buddha, but not just Buddha, but its essence can be found in every religion going back millennia. It wasn't until the second Nicene convention that that changed. It changed again 50 years after Muhammad when the Quran was written. I assert these Religions were created not by their original teachers, but long after they died (half a century in the case of Muhammad and three and a half centuries in the case of Christianity). When you really dig in, and take out the "official doctrines" that are included in the books on the topic (not a single word of either that were not written by the "teachers") they overall narrative of the doctrine went substantially against the original teachings from both Jesus and Muhammad.
This entire playlist is particularly interesting. I do not agree with many of this persons conclusions, I think he is missing some pieces in his exposure. He tells a fun story (narrative overlay), but the reason I am putting it here is because he presents a ton of evidence, and connections between those pieces of evidence that when you dig deeper have a lot of corroboration. Like one of the links above, it suggests connections between the ancient world's religions and the modern (post Nicene convention) Christianity. By ancient, I mean really ancient. It suggests that there was an advanced, world wide civilization for thousands of years that ended 12,000 years ago. The evidence is very compelling. I highly recommend watching the whole thing and digging in to the parts that seem interesting.
I suggest there is much more to human history than just the past 10,000 years of it for which we have a story, almost all of the official version is based on just a few pieces of evidence, and leaves out more evidence than it includes. Who is writing the history books? More importantly, who is publishing them (i.e. the final editors)?
Lets look at just the Bible itself. I'm just going to expose one discrepancy that shows a fundamental issue with a major Christian tenet, but there are many others. I like this one because its so easy to see. This is from another post of mine:
The bible as known today was a work of dogma created at the convention. A change of phrase here, a word there, can make all the difference in the world. It doesn't take much to completely alter meaning.
It's also very important to realize (which most do, but don't fully grasp) that the entire concept of "the law" part of the bible (Torah) is in large part the Jewish bible. Within it are stories of things like God demanding, or desiring first born son blood sacrifices, etc..
"Oh, but that's just the way the world was then." Really? So the Christian God wanted first born son sacrifices just like Molloch? And then he Changed? But he also says "I am unchanging"?
Look at the original Passover event. The Torah (old Testament) version of the "Creator God" apparently wanted all first born Egyptian sons to die so badly, he sent his angels to kill them all. "Oh, but that was only a last resort because they wouldn't let 'God's chosen people' go" (think about who those people were, one chosen race above all humanity in the entire world). Please note that murder by angel directive is not the same thing as "allowing bad things to happen". This is a direct act of murder by thug. So God wouldn't have killed them all (because presumably such a direct action of murder is bad) if they had only let the people go. God had to choose the lesser of two evils...
What kind of Creator God has to choose the lesser of two evils? Does that make ANY SENSE AT ALL?
Of course, the bible also says "if you run into logic that doesn't allow this book to make sense, take it on faith that the book is right and the logic is wrong".
Where else have we seen such statements?
In no way do I mean to demean the teachings of Christ. I am pointing out possible Luciferian influences in the Bible that creates the Dogma of the Religion. I am not in any way talking about Christ, nor his teachings.
Everyone who thinks the Bible somehow escaped Luciferian influence because the Bible says so when that book was written (final edit) by a self stated worshiper of the Sun God (aka Lucifer in some cultures) is deluding themselves, because that is what that same book told them to do.
Could you please provide some sources you've used to learn about the creation of Christianity? Genuinely curious.
That the main tenets of the Christian Religion as it is adhered to today has its origins long after the Death of Jesus is not disputed. I learned this in Sunday School many decades ago. There is nothing new here to a Christian. Everytime you say the Nicene Creed you restate the beliefs setup centuries after Christ. This explains the Bible's origins (as it is written today). The Nicene Creed lays out one of the fundamental beliefs of the Christian Religion; the Triune God.
This determination of the tenets of the Religion also determined what books to include in the Bible. There are many books that are referenced in the Bible that were left out. Many have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The book of Enoch is particularly interesting (there are other translations), but there are many others. Not only are there many left out that were referenced in what was included, but there are many others that have been found that are from the same area/time period and were not self-referenced. I suggest an investigation. Many are worth a read.
The Nicene Convention (or rather, the First Ecumenical Council as it is called today) was brought together by Emporer Constantine to create a unifying belief system to control the Roman Empire and give motive to expand his domain. The Nicene convention took from Pagan customs, Egyptian customs, competing Christian ideologies and various other religions that existed in the huge Eastern and Western Roman Empire and married them into one Religion (called Christianity today) allowing for him to bring together the Eastern and Western Empires under a united Rome, his Rome.
This gives a breakdown of the origins of Christianity. I absolutely hate the authors beliefs; suggesting that Judaism is the obvious Truth. Note that the author is a proponent of Judaism, not Zionism (or Satanism), the "other" Jewish religion that is apparently adhered to by the PTB. (The Religious fuckery by the PTB knows no bounds once you start digging.) The reason I am providing this link, despite my distaste for their obvious beliefs, is that they provide a good argument and a fair bit of useful evidence. Like all investigations, you have to learn to ignore the narrative and look at the evidence presented on its own merits. You then have to dig deeper to find corroboration. Even then, don't assume anything is truth. Each step is an attempt to get closer and closer to it. I suggest you don't ever allow yourself to assume you have found it. That only leads to the inability to see evidence to the contrary.
To determine if Constantine was a worshiper of the Sun God throw a stone. If you hit a Christian, they will say either "he was not" or "he converted on his deathbed." If you hit a non-Christian they will say he was a worshiper of Apollo/Mithra. This god is attributed to be Lucifer, Ba'al, or Horus in some cultures.
The Codex Theodosianus: On Religion is apparently the official document of the Law that became the Christian Church doctrine (or an English translation of it). It clearly lays out in law the allowed beliefs of the Roman Empire. This was to unify the empire and bring it under control. When everyone has one belief, they will listen to one leader. It doesn't really get any more simple than that. This rule became what was eventually Europe, which remained under one rule (the pope) for a millennia. The Roman Empire never really died. I'm not sure, but we might still be Roman citizens (legally speaking). I'm still digging on that.
Of course without an enemy to drive hate and fear, you have less control. The good ole' Hegelian dialectic must be fed to maintain control. This I believe was the reason for the creation of the Muslim Religion. Two enemies created by opposing belief systems. Always looking at each other, allowing themselves to be subjugated by tyrannical rulers (in each case, the society took a step backwards under the religions, though they eventually moved forward again).
I will not be justifying that paragraph. I am laying out an idea. it has supporting evidence, but is outside of the scope of this, as it is on Christianity.
This presents a really nice exploration of the history of the Trinity. His paper with sources can be found here. It concludes that the origin of the Trinity as a foundational Christian doctrine wasn't stated explicitly until the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 A.D., three and a half centuries after the reported death of Jesus. It also suggests that the Disciples of Jesus did not adhere to Jesus as God in the sense of the trinity, but rather in the sense of all of us as God. (What I mean by that requires far more explanation, and I can't do this concept justice in this brief response.)
This looks at the idea of the Trinity having its origins going back many thousands of years all across the world, It does not talk about the exact same Trinity as the foundational tenet of Christianity, but rather a triune idea of God (the father in Christianity), God the Word (Jesus aka The Messiah in Christianity), and God Sophia (wisdom aka The Holy Spirit in Christianity). In this historical reference, and if one takes out the Nicene doctrine and rereads Jesus' teachings, one finds the Trinity more as the trinity (lower case), and that God is one God (the creator). God's word is all of us and God's wisdom is also all of us. Part of the whole, but not the same. Not the same level (because we are trapped on Earth, or we believe that we are).
This is in no small part the same as the teachings of Buddha, but not just Buddha, but its essence can be found in every religion going back millennia. It wasn't until the second Nicene convention that that changed. It changed again 50 years after Muhammad when the Quran was written. I assert these Religions were created not by their original teachers, but long after they died (half a century in the case of Muhammad and three and a half centuries in the case of Christianity). When you really dig in, and take out the "official doctrines" that are included in the books on the topic (not a single word of either that were not written by the "teachers") they overall narrative of the doctrine went substantially against the original teachings from both Jesus and Muhammad.
This entire playlist is particularly interesting. I do not agree with many of this persons conclusions, I think he is missing some pieces in his exposure. He tells a fun story (narrative overlay), but the reason I am putting it here is because he presents a ton of evidence, and connections between those pieces of evidence that when you dig deeper have a lot of corroboration. Like one of the links above, it suggests connections between the ancient world's religions and the modern (post Nicene convention) Christianity. By ancient, I mean really ancient. It suggests that there was an advanced, world wide civilization for thousands of years that ended 12,000 years ago. The evidence is very compelling. I highly recommend watching the whole thing and digging in to the parts that seem interesting.
I suggest there is much more to human history than just the past 10,000 years of it for which we have a story, almost all of the official version is based on just a few pieces of evidence, and leaves out more evidence than it includes. Who is writing the history books? More importantly, who is publishing them (i.e. the final editors)?
Lets look at just the Bible itself. I'm just going to expose one discrepancy that shows a fundamental issue with a major Christian tenet, but there are many others. I like this one because its so easy to see. This is from another post of mine:
The bible as known today was a work of dogma created at the convention. A change of phrase here, a word there, can make all the difference in the world. It doesn't take much to completely alter meaning.
It's also very important to realize (which most do, but don't fully grasp) that the entire concept of "the law" part of the bible (Torah) is in large part the Jewish bible. Within it are stories of things like God demanding, or desiring first born son blood sacrifices, etc..
"Oh, but that's just the way the world was then." Really? So the Christian God wanted first born son sacrifices just like Molloch? And then he Changed? But he also says "I am unchanging"?
Look at the original Passover event. The Torah (old Testament) version of the "Creator God" apparently wanted all first born Egyptian sons to die so badly, he sent his angels to kill them all. "Oh, but that was only a last resort because they wouldn't let 'God's chosen people' go" (think about who those people were, one chosen race above all humanity in the entire world). Please note that murder by angel directive is not the same thing as "allowing bad things to happen". This is a direct act of murder by thug. So God wouldn't have killed them all (because presumably such a direct action of murder is bad) if they had only let the people go. God had to choose the lesser of two evils...
What kind of Creator God has to choose the lesser of two evils? Does that make ANY SENSE AT ALL?
Of course, the bible also says "if you run into logic that doesn't allow this book to make sense, take it on faith that the book is right and the logic is wrong".
Where else have we seen such statements?
In no way do I mean to demean the teachings of Christ. I am pointing out possible Luciferian influences in the Bible that creates the Dogma of the Religion. I am not in any way talking about Christ, nor his teachings.
Everyone who thinks the Bible somehow escaped Luciferian influence because the Bible says so when that book was written (final edit) by a self stated worshiper of the Sun God (aka Lucifer in some cultures) is deluding themselves, because that is what that same book told them to do.
Could you please provide some sources you've used to learn about the creation of Christianity? Genuinely curious.
That the main tenets of the Christian Religion as it is adhered to today has its origins long after the Death of Jesus is not disputed. I learned this in Sunday School many decades ago. There is nothing new here to a Christian. Everytime you say the Nicene Creed you restate the beliefs setup centuries after Christ. This explains the Bible's origins (as it is written today) and laid out one of the fundamental beliefs of the Christian Religion; the Triune God.
This determination of the tenets of the Religion also determined what books to include in the Bible. There are many books that are referenced in the Bible that were left out. Many have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The book of Enoch is particularly interesting (there are other translations), but there are many others. Not only are there many left out that were referenced in what was included, but there are many others that have been found that are from the same area/time period and were not self-referenced. I suggest an investigation. Many are worth a read.
The Nicene Convention (or rather, the First Ecumenical Council as it is called today) was brought together by Emporer Constantine to create a unifying belief system to control the Roman Empire and give motive to expand his domain. The Nicene convention took from Pagan customs, Egyptian customs, competing Christian ideologies and various other religions that existed in the huge Eastern and Western Roman Empire and married them into one Religion (called Christianity today) allowing for him to bring together the Eastern and Western Empires under a united Rome, his Rome.
This gives a breakdown of the origins of Christianity. I absolutely hate the authors beliefs; suggesting that Judaism is the obvious Truth. Note that the author is a proponent of Judaism, not Zionism (or Satanism), the "other" Jewish religion that is apparently adhered to by the PTB. (The Religious fuckery by the PTB knows no bounds once you start digging.) The reason I am providing this link, despite my distaste for their obvious beliefs, is that they provide a good argument and a fair bit of useful evidence. Like all investigations, you have to learn to ignore the narrative and look at the evidence presented on its own merits. You then have to dig deeper to find corroboration. Even then, don't assume anything is truth. Each step is an attempt to get closer and closer to it. I suggest you don't ever allow yourself to assume you have found it. That only leads to the inability to see evidence to the contrary.
To determine if Constantine was a worshiper of the Sun God throw a stone. If you hit a Christian, they will say either "he was not" or "he converted on his deathbed." If you hit a non-Christian they will say he was a worshiper of Apollo/Mithra. This god is attributed to be Lucifer, Ba'al, or Horus in some cultures.
The Codex Theodosianus: On Religion is apparently the official document of the Law that became the Christian Church doctrine (or an English translation of it). It clearly lays out in law the allowed beliefs of the Roman Empire. This was to unify the empire and bring it under control. When everyone has one belief, they will listen to one leader. It doesn't really get any more simple than that. This rule became what was eventually Europe, which remained under one rule (the pope) for a millennia. The Roman Empire never really died. I'm not sure, but we might still be Roman citizens (legally speaking). I'm still digging on that.
Of course without an enemy to drive hate and fear, you have less control. The good ole' Hegelian dialectic must be fed to maintain control. This I believe was the reason for the creation of the Muslim Religion. Two enemies created by opposing belief systems. Always looking at each other, allowing themselves to be subjugated by tyrannical rulers (in each case, the society took a step backwards under the religions, though they eventually moved forward again).
I will not be justifying that paragraph. I am laying out an idea. it has supporting evidence, but is outside of the scope of this, as it is on Christianity.
This presents a really nice exploration of the history of the Trinity. His paper with sources can be found here. It concludes that the origin of the Trinity as a foundational Christian doctrine wasn't stated explicitly until the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 A.D., three and a half centuries after the reported death of Jesus. It also suggests that the Disciples of Jesus did not adhere to Jesus as God in the sense of the trinity, but rather in the sense of all of us as God. (What I mean by that requires far more explanation, and I can't do this concept justice in this brief response.)
This looks at the idea of the Trinity having its origins going back many thousands of years all across the world, It does not talk about the exact same Trinity as the foundational tenet of Christianity, but rather a triune idea of God (the father in Christianity), God the Word (Jesus aka The Messiah in Christianity), and God Sophia (wisdom aka The Holy Spirit in Christianity). In this historical reference, and if one takes out the Nicene doctrine and rereads Jesus' teachings, one finds the Trinity more as the trinity (lower case), and that God is one God (the creator). God's word is all of us and God's wisdom is also all of us. Part of the whole, but not the same. Not the same level (because we are trapped on Earth, or we believe that we are).
This is in no small part the same as the teachings of Buddha, but not just Buddha, but its essence can be found in every religion going back millennia. It wasn't until the second Nicene convention that that changed. It changed again 50 years after Muhammad when the Quran was written. I assert these Religions were created not by their original teachers, but long after they died (half a century in the case of Muhammad and three and a half centuries in the case of Christianity). When you really dig in, and take out the "official doctrines" that are included in the books on the topic (not a single word of either that were not written by the "teachers") they overall narrative of the doctrine went substantially against the original teachings from both Jesus and Muhammad.
This entire playlist is particularly interesting. I do not agree with many of this persons conclusions, I think he is missing some pieces in his exposure. He tells a fun story (narrative overlay), but the reason I am putting it here is because he presents a ton of evidence, and connections between those pieces of evidence that when you dig deeper have a lot of corroboration. Like one of the links above, it suggests connections between the ancient world's religions and the modern (post Nicene convention) Christianity. By ancient, I mean really ancient. It suggests that there was an advanced, world wide civilization for thousands of years that ended 12,000 years ago. The evidence is very compelling. I highly recommend watching the whole thing and digging in to the parts that seem interesting.
I suggest there is much more to human history than just the past 10,000 years of it for which we have a story, almost all of the official version is based on just a few pieces of evidence, and leaves out more evidence than it includes. Who is writing the history books? More importantly, who is publishing them (i.e. the final editors)?
Lets look at just the Bible itself. I'm just going to expose one discrepancy that shows a fundamental issue with a major Christian tenet, but there are many others. I like this one because its so easy to see. This is from another post of mine:
The bible as known today was a work of dogma created at the convention. A change of phrase here, a word there, can make all the difference in the world. It doesn't take much to completely alter meaning.
It's also very important to realize (which most do, but don't fully grasp) that the entire concept of "the law" part of the bible (Torah) is in large part the Jewish bible. Within it are stories of things like God demanding, or desiring first born son blood sacrifices, etc..
"Oh, but that's just the way the world was then." Really? So the Christian God wanted first born son sacrifices just like Molloch? And then he Changed? But he also says "I am unchanging"?
Look at the original Passover event. The Torah (old Testament) version of the "Creator God" apparently wanted all first born Egyptian sons to die so badly, he sent his angels to kill them all. "Oh, but that was only a last resort because they wouldn't let 'God's chosen people' go" (think about who those people were, one chosen race above all humanity in the entire world). Please note that murder by angel directive is not the same thing as "allowing bad things to happen". This is a direct act of murder by thug. So God wouldn't have killed them all (because presumably such a direct action of murder is bad) if they had only let the people go. God had to choose the lesser of two evils...
What kind of Creator God has to choose the lesser of two evils? Does that make ANY SENSE AT ALL?
Of course, the bible also says "if you run into logic that doesn't allow this book to make sense, take it on faith that the book is right and the logic is wrong".
Where else have we seen such statements?
In no way do I mean to demean the teachings of Christ. I am pointing out possible Luciferian influences in the Bible that creates the Dogma of the Religion. I am not in any way talking about Christ, nor his teachings.
Everyone who thinks the Bible somehow escaped Luciferian influence because the Bible says so when that book was written (final edit) by a self stated worshiper of the Sun God (aka Lucifer in some cultures) is deluding themselves, because that is what that same book told them to do.
Could you please provide some sources you've used to learn about the creation of Christianity? Genuinely curious.
That the main tenets of the Christian Religion as it is adhered to today has its origins long after the Death of Jesus is not disputed. I learned this in Sunday School many decades ago. There is nothing new here to a Christian. Everytime you say the Nicene Creed you restate the beliefs setup centuries after Christ. This explains the Bible's origins (as it is written today) and laid out one of the fundamental beliefs of the Christian Religion; the Triune God.
This determination of the tenets of the Religion also determined what books to include in the Bible. There are many books that are referenced in the Bible that were left out. Many have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The book of Enoch is particularly interesting (there are other translations), but there are many others. Not only are there many left out that were referenced in what was included, but there are many others that have been found that are from the same area/time period and were not self-referenced. I suggest an investigation. Many are worth a read.
The Nicene Convention (or rather, the First Ecumenical Council as it is called today) was brought together by Emporer Constantine to create a unifying belief system to control the Roman Empire and give motive to expand his domain. The Nicene convention took from Pagan customs, Egyptian customs, competing Christian ideologies and various other religions that existed in the huge Eastern and Western Roman Empire and married them into one Religion (called Christianity today) allowing for him to bring together the Eastern and Western Empires under a united Rome, his Rome.
This gives a breakdown of the origins of Christianity. I absolutely hate the authors beliefs; suggesting that Judaism is the obvious Truth. Note that the author is a proponent of Judaism, not Zionism (or Satanism), the "other" Jewish religion that is apparently adhered to by the PTB. (The Religious fuckery by the PTB knows no bounds once you start digging.) The reason I am providing this link, despite my distaste for their obvious beliefs, is that they provide a good argument and a fair bit of useful evidence. Like all investigations, you have to learn to ignore the narrative and look at the evidence presented on its own merits. You then have to dig deeper to find corroboration. Even then, don't assume anything is truth. Each step is an attempt to get closer and closer to it. I suggest you don't ever allow yourself to assume you have found it. That only leads to the inability to see evidence to the contrary.
To determine if Constantine was a worshiper of the Sun God throw a stone. If you hit a Christian, they will say either "he was not" or "he converted on his deathbed." If you hit a non-Christian they will say he was a worshiper of Apollo/Mithra. This god is attributed to be Lucifer, Ba'al, or Horus in some cultures.
The Codex Theodosianus: On Religion is apparently the official document of the Law that became the Christian Church doctrine (or an English translation of it). It clearly lays out in law the allowed beliefs of the Roman Empire. This was to unify the empire and bring it under control. When everyone has one belief, they will listen to one leader. It doesn't really get any more simple than that. This rule became what was eventually Europe, which remained under one rule (the pope) for a millennia. The Roman Empire never really died. I'm not sure, but we might still be Roman citizens (legally speaking). I'm still digging on that.
Of course without an enemy to control emotions, you have less control. The good ole' Hegelian dialectic must be fed to maintain control. This I believe was the reason for the creation of the Muslim Religion. Two enemies created by opposing belief systems. Always looking at each other, allowing themselves to be subjugated by tyrannical rulers (in each case, the society took a step backwards under the religions, though they eventually moved forward again).
I will not be justifying that paragraph. I am laying out an idea. it has supporting evidence, but is outside of the scope of this, as it is on Christianity.
This presents a really nice exploration of the history of the Trinity. His paper with sources can be found here. It concludes that the origin of the Trinity as a foundational Christian doctrine wasn't stated explicitly until the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 A.D., three and a half centuries after the reported death of Jesus. It also suggests that the Disciples of Jesus did not adhere to Jesus as God in the sense of the trinity, but rather in the sense of all of us as God. (What I mean by that requires far more explanation, and I can't do this concept justice in this brief response.)
This looks at the idea of the Trinity having its origins going back many thousands of years all across the world, It does not talk about the exact same Trinity as the foundational tenet of Christianity, but rather a triune idea of God (the father in Christianity), God the Word (Jesus aka The Messiah in Christianity), and God Sophia (wisdom aka The Holy Spirit in Christianity). In this historical reference, and if one takes out the Nicene doctrine and rereads Jesus' teachings, one finds the Trinity more as the trinity (lower case), and that God is one God (the creator). God's word is all of us and God's wisdom is also all of us. Part of the whole, but not the same. Not the same level (because we are trapped on Earth, or we believe that we are).
This is in no small part the same as the teachings of Buddha, but not just Buddha, but its essence can be found in every religion going back millennia. It wasn't until the second Nicene convention that that changed. It changed again 50 years after Muhammad when the Quran was written. I assert these Religions were created not by their original teachers, but long after they died (half a century in the case of Muhammad and three and a half centuries in the case of Christianity). When you really dig in, and take out the "official doctrines" that are included in the books on the topic (not a single word of either that were not written by the "teachers") they overall narrative of the doctrine went substantially against the original teachings from both Jesus and Muhammad.
This entire playlist is particularly interesting. I do not agree with many of this persons conclusions, I think he is missing some pieces in his exposure. He tells a fun story (narrative overlay), but the reason I am putting it here is because he presents a ton of evidence, and connections between those pieces of evidence that when you dig deeper have a lot of corroboration. Like one of the links above, it suggests connections between the ancient world's religions and the modern (post Nicene convention) Christianity. By ancient, I mean really ancient. It suggests that there was an advanced, world wide civilization for thousands of years that ended 12,000 years ago. The evidence is very compelling. I highly recommend watching the whole thing and digging in to the parts that seem interesting.
I suggest there is much more to human history than just the past 10,000 years of it for which we have a story, almost all of the official version is based on just a few pieces of evidence, and leaves out more evidence than it includes. Who is writing the history books? More importantly, who is publishing them (i.e. the final editors)?
Lets look at just the Bible itself. I'm just going to expose one discrepancy that shows a fundamental issue with a major Christian tenet, but there are many others. I like this one because its so easy to see. This is from another post of mine:
The bible as known today was a work of dogma created at the convention. A change of phrase here, a word there, can make all the difference in the world. It doesn't take much to completely alter meaning.
It's also very important to realize (which most do, but don't fully grasp) that the entire concept of "the law" part of the bible (Torah) is in large part the Jewish bible. Within it are stories of things like God demanding, or desiring first born son blood sacrifices, etc..
"Oh, but that's just the way the world was then." Really? So the Christian God wanted first born son sacrifices just like Molloch? And then he Changed? But he also says "I am unchanging"?
Look at the original Passover event. The Torah (old Testament) version of the "Creator God" apparently wanted all first born Egyptian sons to die so badly, he sent his angels to kill them all. "Oh, but that was only a last resort because they wouldn't let 'God's chosen people' go" (think about who those people were, one chosen race above all humanity in the entire world). Please note that murder by angel directive is not the same thing as "allowing bad things to happen". This is a direct act of murder by thug. So God wouldn't have killed them all (because presumably such a direct action of murder is bad) if they had only let the people go. God had to choose the lesser of two evils...
What kind of Creator God has to choose the lesser of two evils? Does that make ANY SENSE AT ALL?
Of course, the bible also says "if you run into logic that doesn't allow this book to make sense, take it on faith that the book is right and the logic is wrong".
Where else have we seen such statements?
In no way do I mean to demean the teachings of Christ. I am pointing out possible Luciferian influences in the Bible that creates the Dogma of the Religion. I am not in any way talking about Christ, nor his teachings.
Everyone who thinks the Bible somehow escaped Luciferian influence because the Bible says so when that book was written (final edit) by a self stated worshiper of the Sun God (aka Lucifer in some cultures) is deluding themselves, because that is what that same book told them to do.
Could you please provide some sources you've used to learn about the creation of Christianity? Genuinely curious.
That the main tenets of the Christian Religion as it is adhered to today has its origins long after the Death of Jesus is not disputed. I learned this in Sunday School many decades ago. There is nothing new here to a Christian. Everytime you say the Nicene Creed you restate the beliefs setup centuries after Christ. This explains the Bible's origins (as it is written today) and laid out one of the fundamental beliefs of the Christian Religion; the Triune God.
This determination of the tenets of the Religion also determined what books to include in the Bible. There are many books that are referenced in the Bible that were left out. Many have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The book of Enoch is particularly interesting (there are other translations), but there are many others. Not only are there many left out that were referenced in what was included, but there are many others that have been found that are from the same area/time period and were not self-referenced. I suggest an investigation. Many are worth a read.
The Nicene Convention (or rather, the First Ecumenical Council as it is called today) was brought together by Emporer Constantine to create a unifying belief system to control the Roman Empire and give motive to expand his domain. The Nicene convention took from Pagan customs, Egyptian customs, competing Christian ideologies and various other religions that existed in the huge Eastern and Western Roman Empire and married them into one Religion (called Christianity today) allowing for him to bring together the Eastern and Western Empires under a united Rome, his Rome.
This gives a breakdown of the origins of Christianity. I absolutely hate the authors beliefs; suggesting that Judaism is the obvious Truth. Note that the author is a proponent of Judaism, not Zionism (or Satanism), the "other" Jewish religion that is apparently adhered to by the PTB. (The Religious fuckery by the PTB knows no bounds once you start digging.) The reason I am providing this link, despite my distaste for their obvious beliefs, is that they provide a good argument and a fair bit of useful evidence. Like all investigations, you have to learn to ignore the narrative and look at the evidence presented on its own merits. You then have to dig deeper to find corroboration. Even then, don't assume anything is truth. Each step is an attempt to get closer and closer to it. I suggest you don't ever allow yourself to assume you have found it. That only leads to the inability to see evidence to the contrary.
To determine if Constantine was a worshiper of the Sun God throw a stone. If you hit a Christian, they will say either "he was not" or "he converted on his deathbed." If you hit a non-Christian they will say he was a worshiper of Apollo/Mithra. This god is attributed to be Lucifer, Ba'al, or Horus in some cultures.
The Codex Theodosianus: On Religion is apparently the official document of the Law that became the Christian Church doctrine (or an English translation of it). It clearly lays out in law the allowed beliefs of the Roman Empire. This was to unify the empire and bring it under control. When everyone has one belief, they will listen to one leader. It doesn't really get any more simple than that. This rule became what was eventually Europe, which remained under one rule (the pope) for a millennia. The Roman Empire never really died. I'm not sure, but we might still be Roman citizens (legally speaking). I'm still digging on that.
Of course without an enemy to control emotions, you have less control. The good ole' Hegelian dialectic must be fed to maintain control. This I believe was the reason for the creation of the Muslim Religion. Two enemies created by opposing belief systems. Always looking at each other, allowing themselves to be subjugated by tyrannical rulers (in each case, the society took a step backwards under the religions, though they eventually moved forward again).
I will not be justifying that paragraph. I am laying out an idea. it has supporting evidence, but is outside of the scope of this, as it is on Christianity.
This presents a really nice exploration of the history of the Trinity. His paper with sources can be found here. It concludes that the origin of the Trinity as a foundational Christian doctrine wasn't stated explicitly until the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 A.D., three and a half centuries after the reported death of Jesus. It also suggests that the Disciples of Jesus did not adhere to Jesus as God in the sense of the trinity, but rather in the sense of all of us as God. (What I mean by that requires far more explanation, and I can't do this concept justice in this brief response.)
This looks at the idea of the Trinity having its origins going back many thousands of years all across the world, It does not talk about the exact same Trinity as the foundational tenet of Christianity, but rather a triune idea of God (the father in Christianity), God the Word (Jesus aka The Messiah in Christianity), and God Sophia (wisdom aka The Holy Spirit in Christianity). In this historical reference, and if one takes out the Nicene doctrine and rereads Jesus' teachings, one finds the Trinity more as the trinity (lower case), and that God is one God (the creator). God's word is all of us and God's wisdom is also all of us. Part of the whole, but not the same. Not the same level (because we are trapped on Earth, or we believe that we are).
This is in no small part the same as the teachings of Buddha, but not just Buddha, but its essence can be found in every religion going back millennia. It wasn't until the second Nicene convention that that changed. It changed again 50 years after Muhammad when the Quran was written. I assert these Religions were created not by their original teachers, but long after they died (half a century in the case of Muhammad and three and a half centuries in the case of Christianity). When you really dig in, and take out the "official doctrines" that are included in the books on the topic (not a single word of either that were not written by the "teachers") they overall narrative of the doctrine went substantially against the original teachings from both Jesus and Muhammad.
This entire playlist is particularly interesting. I do not agree with many of this persons conclusions, I think he is missing some pieces in his exposure. He tells a fun story (narrative overlay), but the reason I am putting it here is because he presents a ton of evidence, and connections between those pieces of evidence that when you dig deeper have a lot of corroboration. Like one of the links above, it suggests connections between the ancient world's religions and the modern (post Nicene convention) Christianity. By ancient, I mean really ancient. It suggests that there was an advanced, world wide civilization for thousands of years that ended 12,000 years ago. The evidence is very compelling. I highly recommend watching the whole thing and digging in to the parts that seem interesting.
I suggest there is much more to human history than just the past 10,000 years of it for which we have a story, almost all of the official version is based on just a few pieces of evidence, and leaves out more evidence than it includes. Who is writing the history books? More importantly, who is publishing them (i.e. the final editors)?
Lets look at just the Bible itself. I'm just going to expose one discrepancy that shows a fundamental issue with a major Christian tenet, but there are many others. I like this one because its so easy to see. This is from another post of mine:
The bible as known today was a work of dogma created at the convention. A change of phrase here, a word there, can make all the difference in the world. It doesn't take much to completely alter meaning.
It's also very important to realize (which most do, but don't fully grasp) that the entire concept of "the law" part of the bible (Torah) is in large part the Jewish bible. Within it are stories of things like God demanding, or desiring first born son blood sacrifices, etc..
"Oh, but that's just the way the world was then." Really? So God wanted first born son sacrifices just like Molloch?
Look at the original Passover event. The Torah (old Testament) version of the "Creator God" apparently wanted all first born Egyptian sons to die so badly, he sent his angels to kill them all. "Oh, but that was only a last resort because they wouldn't let 'God's chosen people' go" (think about who those people were, one chosen race above all humanity in the entire world). Please note that murder by angel directive is not the same thing as "allowing bad things to happen". This is a direct act of murder by thug. So God wouldn't have killed them all (because presumably such a direct action of murder is bad) if they had only let the people go. God had to choose the lesser of two evils...
What kind of Creator God has to choose the lesser of two evils? Does that make ANY SENSE AT ALL?
Of course, the bible also says "if you run into logic that doesn't allow this book to make sense, take it on faith that the book is right and the logic is wrong".
Where else have we seen such statements?
In no way do I mean to demean the teachings of Christ. I am pointing out possible Luciferian influences in the Bible that creates the Dogma of the Religion. I am not in any way talking about Christ, nor his teachings.
Everyone who thinks the Bible somehow escaped Luciferian influence because the Bible says so when that book was written (final edit) by a self stated worshiper of the Sun God (aka Lucifer in some cultures) is deluding themselves, because that is what that same book told them to do.
Could you please provide some sources you've used to learn about the creation of Christianity? Genuinely curious.
That the main tenets of the Christian Religion as it is adhered to today has its origins long after the Death of Jesus is not disputed. I learned this in Sunday School many decades ago. There is nothing new here to a Christian. Everytime you say the Nicene Creed you restate the beliefs setup centuries after Christ. This explains the Bible's origins (as it is written today) and laid out one of the fundamental beliefs of the Christian Religion; the Triune God.
This determination of the tenets of the Religion also determined what books to include in the Bible. There are many books that are referenced in the Bible that were left out. Many have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The book of Enoch is particularly interesting (there are other translations), but there are many others. Not only are there many left out that were referenced in what was included, but there are many others that have been found that are from the same area/time period and were not self-referenced. I suggest an investigation. Many are worth a read.
The Nicene Convention (or rather, the First Ecumenical Council as it is called today) was brought together by Emporer Constantine to create a unifying belief system to control the Roman Empire and give motive to expand his domain. The Nicene convention took from Pagan customs, Egyptian customs, competing Christian ideologies and various other religions that existed in the huge Eastern and Western Roman Empire and married them into one Religion (called Christianity today) allowing for him to bring together the Eastern and Western Empires under a united Rome, his Rome.
This gives a breakdown of the origins of Christianity. I absolutely hate the authors beliefs; suggesting that Judaism is the obvious Truth. Note that the author is a proponent of Judaism, not Zionism (or Satanism), the "other" Jewish religion that is apparently adhered to by the PTB. (The Religious fuckery by the PTB knows no bounds once you start digging.) The reason I am providing this link, despite my distaste for their obvious beliefs, is that they provide a good argument and a fair bit of useful evidence. Like all investigations, you have to learn to ignore the narrative and look at the evidence presented on its own merits. You then have to dig deeper to find corroboration. Even then, don't assume anything is truth. Each step is an attempt to get closer and closer to it. I suggest you don't ever allow yourself to assume you have found it. That only leads to the inability to see evidence to the contrary.
To determine if Constantine was a worshiper of the Sun God throw a stone. If you hit a Christian, they will say either "he was not" or "he converted on his deathbed." If you hit a non-Christian they will say he was a worshiper of Apollo/Mithra. This god is attributed to be Lucifer, Ba'al, or Horus in some cultures.
The Codex Theodosianus: On Religion is apparently the official document of the Law that became the Christian Church doctrine (or an English translation of it). It clearly lays out in law the allowed beliefs of the Roman Empire. This was to unify the empire and bring it under control. When everyone has one belief, they will listen to one leader. It doesn't really get any more simple than that. This rule became what was eventually Europe, which remained under one rule (the pope) for a millennia. The Roman Empire never really died. I'm not sure, but we might still be Roman citizens (legally speaking). I'm still digging on that.
Of course without an enemy to control emotions, you have less control. The good ole' Hegelian dialectic must be fed to maintain control. This I believe was the reason for the creation of the Muslim Religion. Two enemies created by opposing belief systems. Always looking at each other, allowing themselves to be subjugated by tyrannical rulers (in each case, the society took a step backwards under the religions, though they eventually moved forward again).
I will not be justifying that paragraph. I am laying out an idea. it has supporting evidence, but is outside of the scope of this, as it is on Christianity.
This presents a really nice exploration of the history of the Trinity. His paper with sources can be found here. It concludes that the origin of the Trinity as a foundational Christian doctrine wasn't stated explicitly until the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 A.D., three and a half centuries after the reported death of Jesus. It also suggests that the Disciples of Jesus did not adhere to Jesus as God in the sense of the trinity, but rather in the sense of all of us as God. (What I mean by that requires far more explanation, and I can't do this concept justice in this brief response.)
This looks at the idea of the Trinity having its origins going back many thousands of years all across the world, It does not talk about the exact same Trinity as the foundational tenet of Christianity, but rather a triune idea of God (the father in Christianity), God the Word (Jesus aka The Messiah in Christianity), and God Sophia (wisdom aka The Holy Spirit in Christianity). In this historical reference, and if one takes out the Nicene doctrine and rereads Jesus' teachings, one finds the Trinity more as the trinity (lower case), and that God is one God (the creator). God's word is all of us and God's wisdom is also all of us. Part of the whole, but not the same. Not the same level (because we are trapped on Earth, or we believe that we are).
This is in no small part the same as the teachings of Buddha, but not just Buddha, but its essence can be found in every religion going back millennia. It wasn't until the second Nicene convention that that changed. It changed again 50 years after Muhammad when the Quran was written. I assert these Religions were created not by their original teachers, but long after they died (half a century in the case of Muhammad and three and a half centuries in the case of Christianity). When you really dig in, and take out the "official doctrines" that are included in the books on the topic (not a single word of either that were not written by the "teachers") they overall narrative of the doctrine went substantially against the original teachings from both Jesus and Muhammad.
This entire playlist is particularly interesting. I do not agree with many of this persons conclusions, I think he is missing some pieces in his exposure. He tells a fun story (narrative overlay), but the reason I am putting it here is because he presents a ton of evidence, and connections between those pieces of evidence that when you dig deeper have a lot of corroboration. Like one of the links above, it suggests connections between the ancient world's religions and the modern (post Nicene convention) Christianity. By ancient, I mean really ancient. It suggests that there was an advanced, world wide civilization for thousands of years that ended 12,000 years ago. The evidence is very compelling. I highly recommend watching the whole thing and digging in to the parts that seem interesting.
I suggest there is much more to human history than just the past 10,000 years of it for which we have a story, almost all of the official version is based on just a few pieces of evidence, and leaves out more evidence than it includes. Who is writing the history books? More importantly, who is publishing them (i.e. the final editors)?
Lets look at just the Bible itself. I'm just going to expose one discrepancy that shows a fundamental issue with a major Christian tenet, but there are many others. I like this one because its so easy to see.
The bible as known today was a work of dogma created at the convention. A change of phrase here, a word there, can make all the difference in the world. It doesn't take much to completely alter meaning.
It's also very important to realize (which most do, but don't fully grasp) that the entire concept of "the law" part of the bible (Torah) is in large part the Jewish bible. Within it are stories of things like God demanding, or desiring first born son blood sacrifices, etc..
"Oh, but that's just the way the world was then." Really? So God wanted first born son sacrifices just like Molloch?
Look at the original Passover event. The Torah (old Testament) version of the "Creator God" apparently wanted all first born Egyptian sons to die so badly, he sent his angels to kill them all. "Oh, but that was only a last resort because they wouldn't let 'God's chosen people' go" (think about who those people were, one chosen race above all humanity in the entire world). Please note that murder by angel directive is not the same thing as "allowing bad things to happen". This is a direct act of murder by thug. So God wouldn't have killed them all (because presumably such a direct action of murder is bad) if they had only let the people go. God had to choose the lesser of two evils...
What kind of Creator God has to choose the lesser of two evils? Does that make ANY SENSE AT ALL?
Of course, the bible also says "if you run into logic that doesn't allow this book to make sense, take it on faith that the book is right and the logic is wrong".
Where else have we seen such statements?
In no way do I mean to demean the teachings of Christ. I am pointing out possible Luciferian influences in the Bible that creates the Dogma of the Religion. I am not in any way talking about Christ, nor his teachings.
Everyone who thinks the Bible somehow escaped Luciferian influence because the Bible says so when that book was written (final edit) by a self stated worshiper of the Sun God (aka Lucifer in some cultures) is deluding themselves, because that is what that same book told them to do.
Could you please provide some sources you've used to learn about the creation of Christianity? Genuinely curious.
That the main tenets of the Christian Religion as it is adhered to today has its origins long after the Death of Jesus is not disputed. I learned this in Sunday School many decades ago. There is nothing new here to a Christian. Everytime you say the Nicene Creed you restate the beliefs setup centuries after Christ. This explains the Bible's origins (as it is written today) and laid out one of the fundamental beliefs of the Christian Religion; the Triune God.
This determination of the tenets of the Religion also determined what books to include in the Bible. There are many books that are referenced in the Bible that were left out. Many have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The book of Enoch is particularly interesting (there are other translations), but there are many others. Not only are there many left out that were referenced in what was included, but there are many others that have been found that are from the same area/time period and were not self-referenced. I suggest an investigation. Many are worth a read.
The Nicene Convention (or rather, the First Ecumenical Council as it is called today) was brought together by Emporer Constantine to create a unifying belief system to control the Roman Empire and give motive to expand his domain. The Nicene convention took from Pagan customs, Egyptian customs, competing Christian ideologies and various other religions that existed in the huge Eastern and Western Roman Empire and married them into one Religion (called Christianity today) allowing for him to bring together the Eastern and Western Empires under a united Rome, his Rome.
This gives a breakdown of the origins of Christianity. I absolutely hate the authors beliefs; suggesting that Judaism is the obvious Truth. Note that the author is a proponent of Judaism, not Zionism (or Satanism), the "other" Jewish religion that is apparently adhered to by the PTB. (The Religious fuckery by the PTB knows no bounds once you start digging.) The reason I am providing this link, despite my distaste for their obvious beliefs, is that they provide a good argument and a fair bit of useful evidence. Like all investigations, you have to learn to ignore the narrative and look at the evidence presented on its own merits. You then have to dig deeper to find corroboration. Even then, don't assume anything is truth. Each step is an attempt to get closer and closer to it. I suggest you don't ever allow yourself to assume you have found it. That only leads to the inability to see evidence to the contrary.
To determine if Constantine was a worshiper of the Sun God throw a stone. If you hit a Christian, they will say either "he was not" or "he converted on his deathbed." If you hit a non-Christian they will say he was a worshiper of Apollo/Mithra. This god is attributed to be Lucifer, Ba'al, or Horus in some cultures.
The Codex Theodosianus: On Religion is apparently the official document of the Law that became the Christian Church doctrine (or an English translation of it). It clearly lays out in law the allowed beliefs of the Roman Empire. This was to unify the empire and bring it under control. When everyone has one belief, they will listen to one leader. It doesn't really get any more simple than that. This rule became what was eventually Europe, which remained under one rule (the pope) for a millennia. The Roman Empire never really died. I'm not sure, but we might still be Roman citizens (legally speaking). I'm still digging on that.
Of course without an enemy to control emotions, you have less control. The good ole' Hegelian dialectic must be fed to maintain control. This I believe was the reason for the creation of the Muslim Religion. Two enemies created by opposing belief systems. Always looking at each other, allowing themselves to be subjugated by tyrannical rulers (in each case, the society took a step backwards under the religions, though they eventually moved forward again).
I will not be justifying that paragraph. I am laying out an idea. it has supporting evidence, but is outside of the scope of this, as it is on Christianity.
This presents a really nice exploration of the history of the Trinity. His paper with sources can be found here. It concludes that the origin of the Trinity as a foundational Christian doctrine wasn't stated explicitly until the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 A.D., three and a half centuries after the reported death of Jesus. It also suggests that the Disciples of Jesus did not adhere to Jesus as God in the sense of the trinity, but rather in the sense of all of us as God. (What I mean by that requires far more explanation, and I can't do this concept justice in this brief response.)
This looks at the idea of the Trinity having its origins going back many thousands of years all across the world, It does not talk about the exact same Trinity as the foundational tenet of Christianity, but rather a triune idea of God (the father in Christianity), God the Word (Jesus aka The Messiah in Christianity), and God Sophia (wisdom aka The Holy Spirit in Christianity). In this historical reference, and if one takes out the Nicene doctrine and rereads Jesus' teachings, one finds the Trinity more as the trinity (lower case), and that God is one God (the creator). God's word is all of us and God's wisdom is also all of us. Part of the whole, but not the same. Not the same level (because we are trapped on Earth, or we believe that we are).
This is in no small part the same as the teachings of Buddha, but not just Buddha, but its essence can be found in every religion going back millennia. It wasn't until the second Nicene convention that that changed. It changed again 50 years after Muhammad when the Quran was written. I assert these Religions were created not by their original teachers, but long after they died (half a century in the case of Muhammad and three and a half centuries in the case of Christianity). When you really dig in, and take out the "official doctrines" that are included in the books on the topic (not a single word of either that were not written by the "teachers") they overall narrative of the doctrine went substantially against the original teachings from both Jesus and Muhammad.
This entire playlist is particularly interesting. I do not agree with many of this persons conclusions, I think he is missing some pieces in his exposure. He tells a fun story (narrative overlay), but the reason I am putting it here is because he presents a ton of evidence, and connections between those pieces of evidence that when you dig deeper have a lot of corroboration. Like one of the links above, it suggests connections between the ancient world's religions and the modern (post Nicene convention) Christianity. By ancient, I mean really ancient. It suggests that there was an advanced, world wide civilization for thousands of years that ended 12,000 years ago. The evidence is very compelling. I highly recommend watching the whole thing and digging in to the parts that seem interesting.
I suggest there is much more to human history than just the past 10,000 years of it for which we have a story, almost all of the official version is based on just a few pieces of evidence, and leaves out more evidence than it includes. Who is writing the history books? More importantly, who is publishing them (i.e. the final editors)?
Lets look at just the Bible itself. I'm just going to expose one discrepancy that shows a fundamental issue with a major Christian tenet, but there are many others. I like this one because its so easy to see.
The bible as known today was a work of dogma created at the convention. A change of phrase here, a word there, can make all the difference in the world. It doesn't take much to completely alter meaning.
It's also very important to realize (which most do, but don't fully grasp) that the entire concept of "the law" part of the bible (Torah) is in large part the Jewish bible. Within it are stories of things like God demanding, or desiring first born son blood sacrifices, etc..
"Oh, but that's just the way the world was then." Really? So God wanted first born son sacrifices just like Molloch?
Look at the original Passover event. The Torah (old Testament) version of the "Creator God" apparently wanted all first born Egyptian sons to die so badly, he sent his angels to kill them all. "Oh, but that was only a last resort because they wouldn't let 'God's chosen people' go" (think about who those people were, one chosen race above all humanity in the entire world). Please note that murder by angel directive is not the same thing as "allowing bad things to happen". This is a direct act of murder by thug. So God wouldn't have killed them all (because presumably such a direct action of murder is bad) if they had only let the people go. God had to choose the lesser of two evils...
What kind of Creator God has to choose the lesser of two evils? Does that make ANY SENSE AT ALL?
Of course, the bible also says "if you run into logic that doesn't allow this book to make sense, take it on faith that the book is right and the logic is wrong".
Where else have we seen such statements?
In no way do I mean to demean the teachings of Christ. I am pointing out possible Luciferian influences in the Bible that creates the Dogma of the Religion. I am not in any way talking about Christ, nor his teachings.
Everyone who thinks the Bible somehow escaped Luciferian influence because the Bible says so when that book was written (final edit) by a self stated worshiper of the Sun God (aka Lucifer in some cultures) is deluding themselves, because that is what that same book told them to do.
Could you please provide some sources you've used to learn about the creation of Christianity? Genuinely curious.
That the main tenets of the Christian Religion as it is adhered to today has its origins long after the Death of Jesus is not disputed. I learned this in Sunday School many decades ago. There is nothing new here to a Christian. Everytime you say the Nicene Creed you restate the beliefs setup centuries after Christ. This explains the Bible's origins (as it is written today) and laid out one of the fundamental beliefs of the Christian Religion; the Triune God.
This determination of the tenets of the Religion also determined what books to include in the Bible. There are many books that are referenced in the Bible that were left out. Many have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The book of Enoch is particularly interesting (there are other translations), but there are many others. Not only are there many left out that were referenced in what was included, but there are many others that have been found that are from the same area/time period and were not self-referenced. I suggest an investigation. Many are worth a read.
The Nicene Convention (or rather, the First Ecumenical Council as it is called today) was brought together by Emporer Constantine to create a unifying belief system to control the Roman Empire and give motive to expand his domain. The Nicene convention took from Pagan customs, Egyptian customs, competing Christian ideologies and various other religions that existed in the huge Eastern and Western Roman Empire and married them into one Religion (called Christianity today) allowing for him to bring together the Eastern and Western Empires under a united Rome, his Rome.
This gives a breakdown of the origins of Christianity. I absolutely hate the authors beliefs; suggesting that Judaism is the obvious Truth. Note that the author is a proponent of Judaism, not Zionism (or Satanism), the "other" Jewish religion that is apparently adhered to by the PTB. (The Religious fuckery by the PTB knows no bounds once you start digging.) The reason I am providing this link, despite my distaste for their obvious beliefs, is that they provide a good argument and a fair bit of useful evidence. Like all investigations, you have to learn to ignore the narrative and look at the evidence presented on its own merits. You then have to dig deeper to find corroboration. Even then, don't assume anything is truth. Each step is an attempt to get closer and closer to it. I suggest you don't ever allow yourself to assume you have found it. That only leads to the inability to see evidence to the contrary.
To determine if Constantine was a worshiper of the Sun God throw a stone. If you hit a Christian, they will say either "he was not" or "he converted on his deathbed." If you hit a non-Christian they will say he was a worshiper of Apollo/Mithra. This god is attributed to be Lucifer, Ba'al, or Horus in some cultures.
The Codex Theodosianus: On Religion is apparently the official document of the Law that became the Christian Church doctrine (or an English translation of it). It clearly lays out in law the allowed beliefs of the Roman Empire. This was to unify the empire and bring it under control. When everyone has one belief, they will listen to one leader. It doesn't really get any more simple than that. This rule became what was eventually Europe, which remained under one rule (the pope) for a millennia. The Roman Empire never really died. I'm not sure, but we might still be Roman citizens (legally speaking). I'm still digging on that.
Of course without an enemy to control emotions, you have less control. The good ole' Hegelian dialectic must be fed to maintain control. This I believe was the reason for the creation of the Muslim Religion. Two enemies created by opposing belief systems. Always looking at each other, allowing themselves to be subjugated by tyrannical rulers (in each case, the society took a step backwards under the religions, though they eventually moved forward again).
I will not be justifying that paragraph. I am laying out an idea. it has supporting evidence, but is outside of the scope of this, as it is on Christianity.
This presents a really nice exploration of the history of the Trinity. His paper with sources can be found here. It concludes that the origin of the Trinity as a foundational Christian doctrine wasn't stated explicitly until the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 A.D., three and a half centuries after the reported death of Jesus. It also suggests that the Disciples of Jesus did not adhere to Jesus as God in the sense of the trinity, but rather in the sense of all of us as God. (What I mean by that requires far more explanation, and I can't do this concept justice in this brief response.)
This looks at the idea of the Trinity having its origins going back many thousands of years all across the world, It does not talk about the exact same Trinity as the foundational tenet of Christianity, but rather a triune idea of God (the father in Christianity), God the Word (Jesus aka The Messiah in Christianity), and God Sophia (wisdom aka The Holy Spirit in Christianity). In this historical reference, and if one takes out the Nicene doctrine and rereads Jesus' teachings, one finds the Trinity more as the trinity (lower case), and that God is one God (the creator). God's word is all of us and God's wisdom is also all of us. Part of the whole, but not the same. Not the same level (because we are trapped on Earth, or we believe that we are).
This is in no small part the same as the teachings of Buddha, but not just Buddha, but its essence can be found in every religion going back millennia. It wasn't until the second Nicene convention that that changed. It changed again 50 years after Muhammad when the Quran was written. I assert these Religions were created not by their original teachers, but long after they died (half a century in the case of Muhammad and three and a half centuries in the case of Christianity). When you really dig in, and take out the "official doctrines" that are included in the books on the topic that were not written by the teachers, but long after their death went substantially against the original teachings from Jesus and Muhammad.
This entire playlist is particularly interesting. I do not agree with many of this persons conclusions, I think he is missing some pieces in his exposure. He tells a fun story (narrative overlay), but the reason I am putting it here is because he presents a ton of evidence, and connections between those pieces of evidence that when you dig deeper have a lot of corroboration. Like one of the links above, it suggests connections between the ancient world's religions and the modern (post Nicene convention) Christianity. By ancient, I mean really ancient. It suggests that there was an advanced, world wide civilization for thousands of years that ended 12,000 years ago. The evidence is very compelling. I highly recommend watching the whole thing and digging in to the parts that seem interesting.
I suggest there is much more to human history than just the past 10,000 years of it for which we have a story, almost all of the official version is based on just a few pieces of evidence, and leaves out more evidence than it includes. Who is writing the history books? More importantly, who is publishing them (i.e. the final editors)?
Lets look at just the Bible itself. I'm just going to expose one discrepancy that shows a fundamental issue with a major Christian tenet, but there are many others. I like this one because its so easy to see.
The bible as known today was a work of dogma created at the convention. A change of phrase here, a word there, can make all the difference in the world. It doesn't take much to completely alter meaning.
It's also very important to realize (which most do, but don't fully grasp) that the entire concept of "the law" part of the bible (Torah) is in large part the Jewish bible. Within it are stories of things like God demanding, or desiring first born son blood sacrifices, etc..
"Oh, but that's just the way the world was then." Really? So God wanted first born son sacrifices just like Molloch?
Look at the original Passover event. The Torah (old Testament) version of the "Creator God" apparently wanted all first born Egyptian sons to die so badly, he sent his angels to kill them all. "Oh, but that was only a last resort because they wouldn't let 'God's chosen people' go" (think about who those people were, one chosen race above all humanity in the entire world). Please note that murder by angel directive is not the same thing as "allowing bad things to happen". This is a direct act of murder by thug. So God wouldn't have killed them all (because presumably such a direct action of murder is bad) if they had only let the people go. God had to choose the lesser of two evils...
What kind of Creator God has to choose the lesser of two evils? Does that make ANY SENSE AT ALL?
Of course, the bible also says "if you run into logic that doesn't allow this book to make sense, take it on faith that the book is right and the logic is wrong".
Where else have we seen such statements?
In no way do I mean to demean the teachings of Christ. I am pointing out possible Luciferian influences in the Bible that creates the Dogma of the Religion. I am not in any way talking about Christ, nor his teachings.
Everyone who thinks the Bible somehow escaped Luciferian influence because the Bible says so when that book was written (final edit) by a self stated worshiper of the Sun God (aka Lucifer in some cultures) is deluding themselves, because that is what that same book told them to do.
Could you please provide some sources you've used to learn about the creation of Christianity? Genuinely curious.
That the main tenets of the Christian Religion as it is adhered to today has its origins long after the Death of Jesus is not disputed. I learned this in Sunday School many decades ago. There is nothing new here to a Christian. Everytime you say the Nicene Creed you restate the beliefs setup centuries after Christ. This explains the Bible's origins (as it is written today) and laid out one of the fundamental beliefs of the Christian Religion; the Triune God.
This determination of the tenets of the Religion also determined what books to include in the Bible. There are many books that are referenced in the Bible that were left out. Many have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The book of Enoch is particularly interesting (there are other translations), but there are many others. Not only are there many left out that were referenced in what was included, but there are many others that have been found that are from the same area/time period and were not self-referenced. I suggest an investigation. Many are worth a read.
The Nicene Convention (or rather, the First Ecumenical Council as it is called today) was brought together by Emporer Constantine to create a unifying belief system to control the Roman Empire and give motive to expand his domain. The Nicene convention took from Pagan customs, Egyptian customs, competing Christian ideologies and various other religions that existed in the huge Eastern and Western Roman Empire and married them into one Religion (called Christianity today) allowing for him to bring together the Eastern and Western Empires under a united Rome, his Rome.
This gives a breakdown of the origins of Christianity. I absolutely hate the authors beliefs; suggesting that Judaism is the obvious Truth. Note that the author is a proponent of Judaism, not Zionism (or Satanism), the "other" Jewish religion that is apparently adhered to by the PTB. (The Religious fuckery by the PTB knows no bounds once you start digging.) The reason I am providing this link, despite my distaste for their obvious beliefs, is that they provide a good argument and a fair bit of useful evidence. Like all investigations, you have to learn to ignore the narrative and look at the evidence presented on its own merits. You then have to dig deeper to find corroboration. Even then, don't assume anything is truth. Each step is an attempt to get closer and closer to it. I suggest you don't ever allow yourself to assume you have found it. That only leads to the inability to see evidence to the contrary.
To determine if Constantine was a worshiper of the Sun God throw a stone. If you hit a Christian, they will say either "he was not" or "he converted on his deathbed." If you hit a non-Christian they will say he was a worshiper of Apollo/Mithra. This god is attributed to be Lucifer, Ba'al, or Horus in some cultures.
The Codex Theodosianus: On Religion is apparently the official document of the Law that became the Christian Church doctrine (or an English translation of it). It clearly lays out in law the allowed beliefs of the Roman Empire. This was to unify the empire and bring it under control. When everyone has one belief, they will listen to one leader. It doesn't really get any more simple than that. This rule became what was eventually Europe, which remained under one rule (the pope) for a millennia. The Roman Empire never really died. I'm not sure, but we might still be Roman citizens (legally speaking). I'm still digging on that.
Of course without an enemy to control emotions, you have less control. The good ole' Hegelian dialectic must be fed to maintain control. This I believe was the reason for the creation of the Muslim Religion. Two enemies created by opposing belief systems. Always looking at each other, allowing themselves to be subjugated by tyrannical rulers (in each case, the society took a step backwards under the religions, though they eventually moved forward again).
I will not be justifying that paragraph. I am laying out an idea. it has supporting evidence, but is outside of the scope of this, as it is on Christianity.
This presents a really nice exploration of the history of the Trinity. His paper with sources can be found here. It concludes that the origin of the Trinity as a foundational Christian doctrine wasn't stated explicitly until the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 A.D., three and a half centuries after the reported death of Jesus. It also suggests that the Disciples of Jesus did not adhere to Jesus as God in the sense of the trinity, but rather in the sense of all of us as God. (What I mean by that requires far more explanation, and I can't do this concept justice in this brief response.)
This looks at the idea of the Trinity having its origins going back many thousands of years all across the world, It does not talk about the exact same Trinity as the foundational tenet of Christianity, but rather a triune idea of God (the father in Christianity), God the Word (Jesus aka The Messiah in Christianity), and God Sophia (wisdom aka The Holy Spirit in Christianity). In this historical reference, and if one takes out the Nicene doctrine and rereads Jesus' teachings, one finds the Trinity more as the trinity (lower case), and that God is one God (the creator). God's word is all of us and God's wisdom is also all of us. Part of the whole, but not the same. Not the same level.
This is in no small part the same as the teachings of Buddha, but not just Buddha, but its essence can be found in every religion going back millennia. It wasn't until the second Nicene convention that that changed. It changed again 50 years after Muhammad when the Quran was written. I assert these Religions were created not by their original teachers, but long after they died (half a century in the case of Muhammad and three and a half centuries in the case of Christianity). When you really dig in, and take out the "official doctrines" that are included in the books on the topic that were not written by the teachers, but long after their death went substantially against the original teachings from Jesus and Muhammad.
This entire playlist is particularly interesting. I do not agree with many of this persons conclusions, I think he is missing some pieces in his exposure. He tells a fun story (narrative overlay), but the reason I am putting it here is because he presents a ton of evidence, and connections between those pieces of evidence that when you dig deeper have a lot of corroboration. Like one of the links above, it suggests connections between the ancient world's religions and the modern (post Nicene convention) Christianity. By ancient, I mean really ancient. It suggests that there was an advanced, world wide civilization for thousands of years that ended 12,000 years ago. The evidence is very compelling. I highly recommend watching the whole thing and digging in to the parts that seem interesting.
I suggest there is much more to human history than just the past 10,000 years of it for which we have a story, almost all of the official version is based on just a few pieces of evidence, and leaves out more evidence than it includes. Who is writing the history books? More importantly, who is publishing them (i.e. the final editors)?
Lets look at just the Bible itself. I'm just going to expose one discrepancy that shows a fundamental issue with a major Christian tenet, but there are many others. I like this one because its so easy to see.
The bible as known today was a work of dogma created at the convention. A change of phrase here, a word there, can make all the difference in the world. It doesn't take much to completely alter meaning.
It's also very important to realize (which most do, but don't fully grasp) that the entire concept of "the law" part of the bible (Torah) is in large part the Jewish bible. Within it are stories of things like God demanding, or desiring first born son blood sacrifices, etc..
"Oh, but that's just the way the world was then." Really? So God wanted first born son sacrifices just like Molloch?
Look at the original Passover event. The Torah (old Testament) version of the "Creator God" apparently wanted all first born Egyptian sons to die so badly, he sent his angels to kill them all. "Oh, but that was only a last resort because they wouldn't let 'God's chosen people' go" (think about who those people were, one chosen race above all humanity in the entire world). Please note that murder by angel directive is not the same thing as "allowing bad things to happen". This is a direct act of murder by thug. So God wouldn't have killed them all (because presumably such a direct action of murder is bad) if they had only let the people go. God had to choose the lesser of two evils...
What kind of Creator God has to choose the lesser of two evils? Does that make ANY SENSE AT ALL?
Of course, the bible also says "if you run into logic that doesn't allow this book to make sense, take it on faith that the book is right and the logic is wrong".
Where else have we seen such statements?
In no way do I mean to demean the teachings of Christ. I am pointing out possible Luciferian influences in the Bible that creates the Dogma of the Religion. I am not in any way talking about Christ, nor his teachings.
Everyone who thinks the Bible somehow escaped Luciferian influence because the Bible says so when that book was written (final edit) by a self stated worshiper of the Sun God (aka Lucifer in some cultures) is deluding themselves, because that is what that same book told them to do.
Could you please provide some sources you've used to learn about the creation of Christianity? Genuinely curious.
That the main tenets of the Christian Religion as it is adhered to today has its origins long after the Death of Jesus is not disputed. I learned this in Sunday School many decades ago. There is nothing new here to a Christian. Everytime you say the Nicene Creed you restate the beliefs setup centuries after Christ. This explains the Bible's origins (as it is written today) and laid out one of the fundamental beliefs of the Christian Religion; the Triune God.
This determination of the tenets of the Religion also determined what books to include in the Bible. There are many books that are referenced in the Bible that were left out. Many have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The book of Enoch is particularly interesting (there are other translations), but there are many others. Not only are there many left out that were referenced in what was included, but there are many others that have been found that are from the same area/time period and were not self-referenced. I suggest an investigation. Many are worth a read.
The Nicene Convention (or rather, the First Ecumenical Council as it is called today) was brought together by Emporer Constantine to create a unifying belief system to control the Roman Empire and give motive to expand his domain. The Nicene convention took from Pagan customs, Egyptian customs, competing Christian ideologies and various other religions that existed in the huge Eastern and Western Roman Empire and married them into one Religion (called Christianity today) allowing for him to bring together the Eastern and Western Empires under a united Rome, his Rome.
This gives a breakdown of the origins of Christianity. I absolutely hate the authors beliefs; suggesting that Judaism is the obvious Truth. Note that the author is a proponent of Judaism, not Zionism (or Satanism), the "other" Jewish religion that is apparently adhered to by the PTB. (The Religious fuckery by the PTB knows no bounds once you start digging.) The reason I am providing this link, despite my distaste for their obvious beliefs, is that they provide a good argument and a fair bit of useful evidence. Like all investigations, you have to learn to ignore the narrative and look at the evidence presented on its own merits. You then have to dig deeper to find corroboration. Even then, don't assume anything is truth. Each step is an attempt to get closer and closer to it. I suggest you don't ever allow yourself to assume you have found it. That only leads to the inability to see evidence to the contrary.
To determine if Constantine was a worshiper of the Sun God throw a stone. If you hit a Christian, they will say either "he was not" or "he converted on his deathbed." If you hit a non-Christian they will say he was a worshiper of Apollo/Mithra. This god is attributed to be Lucifer, Ba'al, or Horus in some cultures.
The Codex Theodosianus: On Religion is apparently the official document of the Law that became the Christian Church doctrine (or an English translation of it). It clearly lays out in law the allowed beliefs of the Roman Empire. This was to unify the empire and bring it under control. When everyone has one belief, they will listen to one leader. It doesn't really get any more simple than that. This rule became what was eventually Europe, which remained under one rule (the pope) for a millennia. The Roman Empire never really died. I'm not sure, but we might still be Roman citizens (legally speaking). I'm still digging on that.
Of course without an enemy to control emotions, you have less control. The good ole' Hegelian dialectic must be fed to maintain control. This I believe was the reason for the creation of the Muslim Religion. Two enemies created by opposing belief systems. Always looking at each other, allowing themselves to be subjugated by tyrannical rulers (in each case, the society took a step backwards under the religions, though they eventually moved forward again).
I will not be justifying that paragraph. I am laying out an idea. it has supporting evidence, but is outside of the scope of this, as it is on Christianity.
This presents a really nice exploration of the history of the Trinity. His paper with sources can be found here. It concludes that the origin of the Trinity as a foundational Christian doctrine wasn't stated explicitly until the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 A.D., three and a half centuries after the reported death of Jesus. It also suggests that the Disciples of Jesus did not adhere to Jesus as God in the sense of the trinity, but rather in the sense of all of us as God. (What I mean by that requires far more explanation, and I can't do this concept justice in this brief response.)
This looks at the idea of the Trinity having its origins going back many thousands of years all across the world, It does not talk about the exact same Trinity as the foundational tenet of Christianity, but rather a triune idea of God (the father in Christianity), God the Word (Jesus aka The Messiah in Christianity), and God Sophia (wisdom aka The Holy Spirit in Christianity). In this historical reference, and if one takes out the Nicene doctrine and rereads Jesus' teachings, one finds the Trinity more as the trinity (lower case), and that God is one God. God's word is all of us and God's wisdom is also all of us. Part of the whole, but not the same. Not the same level.
This is in no small part the same as the teachings of Buddha, but not just Buddha, but its essence can be found in every religion going back millennia. It wasn't until the second Nicene convention that that changed. It changed again 50 years after Muhammad when the Quran was written. I assert these Religions were created not by their original teachers, but long after they died (half a century in the case of Muhammad and three and a half centuries in the case of Christianity). When you really dig in, and take out the "official doctrines" that are included in the books on the topic that were not written by the teachers, but long after their death went substantially against the original teachings from Jesus and Muhammad.
This entire playlist is particularly interesting. I do not agree with many of this persons conclusions, I think he is missing some pieces in his exposure. He tells a fun story (narrative overlay), but the reason I am putting it here is because he presents a ton of evidence, and connections between those pieces of evidence that when you dig deeper have a lot of corroboration. Like one of the links above, it suggests connections between the ancient world's religions and the modern (post Nicene convention) Christianity. By ancient, I mean really ancient. It suggests that there was an advanced, world wide civilization for thousands of years that ended 12,000 years ago. The evidence is very compelling. I highly recommend watching the whole thing and digging in to the parts that seem interesting.
I suggest there is much more to human history than just the past 10,000 years of it for which we have a story, almost all of the official version is based on just a few pieces of evidence, and leaves out more evidence than it includes. Who is writing the history books? More importantly, who is publishing them (i.e. the final editors)?
Lets look at just the Bible itself. I'm just going to expose one discrepancy that shows a fundamental issue with a major Christian tenet, but there are many others. I like this one because its so easy to see.
The bible as known today was a work of dogma created at the convention. A change of phrase here, a word there, can make all the difference in the world. It doesn't take much to completely alter meaning.
It's also very important to realize (which most do, but don't fully grasp) that the entire concept of "the law" part of the bible (Torah) is in large part the Jewish bible. Within it are stories of things like God demanding, or desiring first born son blood sacrifices, etc..
"Oh, but that's just the way the world was then." Really? So God wanted first born son sacrifices just like Molloch?
Look at the original Passover event. The Torah (old Testament) version of the "Creator God" apparently wanted all first born Egyptian sons to die so badly, he sent his angels to kill them all. "Oh, but that was only a last resort because they wouldn't let 'God's chosen people' go" (think about who those people were, one chosen race above all humanity in the entire world). Please note that murder by angel directive is not the same thing as "allowing bad things to happen". This is a direct act of murder by thug. So God wouldn't have killed them all (because presumably such a direct action of murder is bad) if they had only let the people go. God had to choose the lesser of two evils...
What kind of Creator God has to choose the lesser of two evils? Does that make ANY SENSE AT ALL?
Of course, the bible also says "if you run into logic that doesn't allow this book to make sense, take it on faith that the book is right and the logic is wrong".
Where else have we seen such statements?
In no way do I mean to demean the teachings of Christ. I am pointing out possible Luciferian influences in the Bible that creates the Dogma of the Religion. I am not in any way talking about Christ, nor his teachings.
Everyone who thinks the Bible somehow escaped Luciferian influence because the Bible says so when that book was written (final edit) by a self stated worshiper of the Sun God (aka Lucifer in some cultures) is deluding themselves, because that is what that same book told them to do.
Could you please provide some sources you've used to learn about the creation of Christianity? Genuinely curious.
That the main tenets of the Christian Religion as it is adhered to today has its origins long after the Death of Jesus is not disputed. I learned this in Sunday School many decades ago. There is nothing new here to a Christian. Everytime you say the Nicene Creed you restate the beliefs setup centuries after Christ. This explains the Bible's origins (as it is written today) and laid out one of the fundamental beliefs of the Christian Religion; the Triune God.
This determination of the tenets of the Religion also determined what books to include in the Bible. There are many books that are referenced in the Bible that were left out. Many have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The book of Enoch is particularly interesting (there are other translations), but there are many others. Not only are there many left out that were referenced in what was included, but there are many others that have been found that are from the same area/time period and were not self-referenced. I suggest an investigation. Many are worth a read.
The Nicene Convention (or rather, the First Ecumenical Council as it is called today) was brought together by Emporer Constantine to create a unifying belief system to control the Roman Empire and give motive to expand his domain. The Nicene convention took from Pagan customs, Egyptian customs, competing Christian ideologies and various other religions that existed in the huge Eastern and Western Roman Empire and married them into one Religion (called Christianity today) allowing for him to bring together the Eastern and Western Empires under a united Rome, his Rome.
This gives a breakdown of the origins of Christianity. I absolutely hate the authors beliefs; suggesting that Judaism is the obvious Truth. Note that the author is a proponent of Judaism, not Zionism (or Satanism), the "other" Jewish religion that is apparently adhered to by the PTB. (The Religious fuckery by the PTB knows no bounds once you start digging.) The reason I am providing this link, despite my distaste for their obvious beliefs, is that they provide a good argument and a fair bit of useful evidence. Like all investigations, you have to learn to ignore the narrative and look at the evidence presented on its own merits. You then have to dig deeper to find corroboration. Even then, don't assume anything is truth. Each step is an attempt to get closer and closer to it. I suggest you don't ever allow yourself to assume you have found it. That only leads to the inability to see evidence to the contrary.
To determine if Constantine was a worshiper of the Sun God throw a stone. If you hit a Christian, they will say either "he was not" or "he converted on his deathbed." If you hit a non-Christian they will say he was a worshiper of Apollo/Mithra. This god is attributed to be Lucifer, Ba'al, or Horus in some cultures.
The Codex Theodosianus: On Religion is apparently the official document of the Law that became the Christian Church doctrine (or an English translation of it). It clearly lays out in law the allowed beliefs of the Roman Empire. This was to unify the empire and bring it under control. When everyone has one belief, they will listen to one leader. It doesn't really get any more simple than that. This rule became what was eventually Europe, which remained under one rule (the pope) for a millennia. The Roman Empire never really died. I'm not sure, but we might still be Roman citizens (legally speaking). I'm still digging on that.
Of course without an enemy to control emotions, you have less control. The good ole' Hegelian dialectic must be fed to maintain control. This I believe was the reason for the creation of the Muslim Religion. Two enemies created by opposing belief systems. Always looking at each other, allowing themselves to be subjugated by tyrannical rulers (in each case, the society took a step backwards under the religions, though they eventually moved forward again).
I will not be justifying that paragraph. I am laying out an idea. it has supporting evidence, but is outside of the scope of this, as it is on Christianity.
This presents a really nice exploration of the history of the Trinity. His paper with sources can be found here. It concludes that the origin of the Trinity as a foundation Christian doctrine wasn't stated explicitly until the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 A.D., three and a half centuries after the reported death of Jesus. It also suggests that the Disciples of Jesus did not adhere to Jesus as God in the sense of the trinity, but rather in the sense of all of us as God. (What I mean by that requires far more explanation, and I can't do this concept justice in this brief response.)
This looks at the idea of the Trinity having its origins going back many thousands of years all across the world, It does not talk about the exact same Trinity as the foundational tenet of Christianity, but rather a triune idea of God (the father in Christianity), God the Word (Jesus aka The Messiah in Christianity), and God Sophia (wisdom aka The Holy Spirit in Christianity). In this historical reference, and if one takes out the Nicene doctrine and rereads Jesus' teachings, one finds the Trinity more as the trinity (lower case), and that God is one God. God's word is all of us and God's wisdom is also all of us. Part of the whole, but not the same. Not the same level.
This is in no small part the same as the teachings of Buddha, but not just Buddha, but its essence can be found in every religion going back millennia. It wasn't until the second Nicene convention that that changed. It changed again 50 years after Muhammad when the Quran was written. I assert these Religions were created not by their original teachers, but long after they died (half a century in the case of Muhammad and three and a half centuries in the case of Christianity). When you really dig in, and take out the "official doctrines" that are included in the books on the topic that were not written by the teachers, but long after their death went substantially against the original teachings from Jesus and Muhammad.
This entire playlist is particularly interesting. I do not agree with many of this persons conclusions, I think he is missing some pieces in his exposure. He tells a fun story (narrative overlay), but the reason I am putting it here is because he presents a ton of evidence, and connections between those pieces of evidence that when you dig deeper have a lot of corroboration. Like one of the links above, it suggests connections between the ancient world's religions and the modern (post Nicene convention) Christianity. By ancient, I mean really ancient. It suggests that there was an advanced, world wide civilization for thousands of years that ended 12,000 years ago. The evidence is very compelling. I highly recommend watching the whole thing and digging in to the parts that seem interesting.
I suggest there is much more to human history than just the past 10,000 years of it for which we have a story, almost all of the official version is based on just a few pieces of evidence, and leaves out more evidence than it includes. Who is writing the history books? More importantly, who is publishing them (i.e. the final editors)?
Lets look at just the Bible itself. I'm just going to expose one discrepancy that shows a fundamental issue with a major Christian tenet, but there are many others. I like this one because its so easy to see.
The bible as known today was a work of dogma created at the convention. A change of phrase here, a word there, can make all the difference in the world. It doesn't take much to completely alter meaning.
It's also very important to realize (which most do, but don't fully grasp) that the entire concept of "the law" part of the bible (Torah) is in large part the Jewish bible. Within it are stories of things like God demanding, or desiring first born son blood sacrifices, etc..
"Oh, but that's just the way the world was then." Really? So God wanted first born son sacrifices just like Molloch?
Look at the original Passover event. The Torah (old Testament) version of the "Creator God" apparently wanted all first born Egyptian sons to die so badly, he sent his angels to kill them all. "Oh, but that was only a last resort because they wouldn't let 'God's chosen people' go" (think about who those people were, one chosen race above all humanity in the entire world). Please note that murder by angel directive is not the same thing as "allowing bad things to happen". This is a direct act of murder by thug. So God wouldn't have killed them all (because presumably such a direct action of murder is bad) if they had only let the people go. God had to choose the lesser of two evils...
What kind of Creator God has to choose the lesser of two evils? Does that make ANY SENSE AT ALL?
Of course, the bible also says "if you run into logic that doesn't allow this book to make sense, take it on faith that the book is right and the logic is wrong".
Where else have we seen such statements?
In no way do I mean to demean the teachings of Christ. I am pointing out possible Luciferian influences in the Bible that creates the Dogma of the Religion. I am not in any way talking about Christ, nor his teachings.
Everyone who thinks the Bible somehow escaped Luciferian influence because the Bible says so when that book was written (final edit) by a self stated worshiper of the Sun God (aka Lucifer in some cultures) is deluding themselves, because that is what that same book told them to do.
Could you please provide some sources you've used to learn about the creation of Christianity? Genuinely curious.
That the main tenets of the Christian Religion as it is adhered to today has its origins long after the Death of Jesus is not disputed. I learned this in Sunday School many decades ago. There is nothing new here to a Christian. Everytime you say the Nicene Creed you restate the beliefs setup centuries after Christ. This explains the Bible's origins (as it is written today) and laid out one of the fundamental beliefs of the Christian Religion; the Triune God.
This determination of the tenets of the Religion also determined what books to include in the Bible. There are many books that are referenced in the Bible that were left out. Many have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The book of Enoch is particularly interesting (there are other translations), but there are many others. Not only are there many left out that were referenced in what was included, but there are many others that have been found that are from the same area/time period and were not self-referenced. I suggest an investigation. Many are worth a read.
The Nicene Convention (or rather, the First Ecumenical Council as it is called today) was brought together by Emporer Constantine to create a unifying belief system to control the Roman Empire and give motive to expand his domain. The Nicene convention took from Pagan customs, Egyptian customs, competing Christian ideologies and various other religions that existed in the huge Eastern and Western Roman Empire and married them into one Religion (called Christianity today) allowing for him to bring together the Eastern and Western Empires under a united Rome, his Rome.
This gives a breakdown of the origins of Christianity. I absolutely hate the authors beliefs; suggesting that Judaism is the obvious Truth. Note that they are a proponent of Judaism, not Zionism (or Satanism), the "other" Jewish religion that are apparently adhered to by the PTB. The Religious fuckery by the PTB knows no bounds once you start digging. The reason I am providing this link, despite my distaste for their obvious beliefs, is that they provide a good argument and a fair bit of useful evidence. Like all investigations, you have to learn to ignore the narrative and look at the evidence presented on its own merits. You then have to dig deeper to find corroboration. Even then, don't assume anything is truth. Each step is an attempt to get closer and closer to it. I suggest you don't ever allow yourself to assume you have found it. That only leads to the inability to see evidence to the contrary.
To determine if Constantine was a worshiper of the Sun God throw a stone. If you hit a Christian, they will say either "he was not" or "he converted on his deathbed." If you hit a non-Christian they will say he was a worshiper of Apollo/Mithra. This god is attributed to be Lucifer, Ba'al, or Horus in some cultures.
The Codex Theodosianus: On Religion is apparently the official document of the Law that became the Christian Church doctrine (or an English translation of it). It clearly lays out in law the allowed beliefs of the Roman Empire. This was to unify the empire and bring it under control. When everyone has one belief, they will listen to one leader. It doesn't really get any more simple than that. This rule became what was eventually Europe, which remained under one rule (the pope) for a millennia. The Roman Empire never really died. I'm not sure, but we might still be Roman citizens (legally speaking). I'm still digging on that.
Of course without an enemy to control emotions, you have less control. The good ole' Hegelian dialectic must be fed to maintain control. This I believe was the reason for the creation of the Muslim Religion. Two enemies created by opposing belief systems. Always looking at each other, allowing themselves to be subjugated by tyrannical rulers (in each case, the society took a step backwards under the religions, though they eventually moved forward again).
I will not be justifying that paragraph. I am laying out an idea. it has supporting evidence, but is outside of the scope of this, as it is on Christianity.
This presents a really nice exploration of the history of the Trinity. His paper with sources can be found here. It concludes that the origin of the Trinity as a foundation Christian doctrine wasn't stated explicitly until the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 A.D., three and a half centuries after the reported death of Jesus. It also suggests that the Disciples of Jesus did not adhere to Jesus as God in the sense of the trinity, but rather in the sense of all of us as God. (What I mean by that requires far more explanation, and I can't do this concept justice in this brief response.)
This looks at the idea of the Trinity having its origins going back many thousands of years all across the world, It does not talk about the exact same Trinity as the foundational tenet of Christianity, but rather a triune idea of God (the father in Christianity), God the Word (Jesus aka The Messiah in Christianity), and God Sophia (wisdom aka The Holy Spirit in Christianity). In this historical reference, and if one takes out the Nicene doctrine and rereads Jesus' teachings, one finds the Trinity more as the trinity (lower case), and that God is one God. God's word is all of us and God's wisdom is also all of us. Part of the whole, but not the same. Not the same level.
This is in no small part the same as the teachings of Buddha, but not just Buddha, but its essence can be found in every religion going back millennia. It wasn't until the second Nicene convention that that changed. It changed again 50 years after Muhammad when the Quran was written. I assert these Religions were created not by their original teachers, but long after they died (half a century in the case of Muhammad and three and a half centuries in the case of Christianity). When you really dig in, and take out the "official doctrines" that are included in the books on the topic that were not written by the teachers, but long after their death went substantially against the original teachings from Jesus and Muhammad.
This entire playlist is particularly interesting. I do not agree with many of this persons conclusions, I think he is missing some pieces in his exposure. He tells a fun story (narrative overlay), but the reason I am putting it here is because he presents a ton of evidence, and connections between those pieces of evidence that when you dig deeper have a lot of corroboration. Like one of the links above, it suggests connections between the ancient world's religions and the modern (post Nicene convention) Christianity. By ancient, I mean really ancient. It suggests that there was an advanced, world wide civilization for thousands of years that ended 12,000 years ago. The evidence is very compelling. I highly recommend watching the whole thing and digging in to the parts that seem interesting.
I suggest there is much more to human history than just the past 10,000 years of it for which we have a story, almost all of the official version is based on just a few pieces of evidence, and leaves out more evidence than it includes. Who is writing the history books? More importantly, who is publishing them (i.e. the final editors)?
Lets look at just the Bible itself. I'm just going to expose one discrepancy that shows a fundamental issue with a major Christian tenet, but there are many others. I like this one because its so easy to see.
The bible as known today was a work of dogma created at the convention. A change of phrase here, a word there, can make all the difference in the world. It doesn't take much to completely alter meaning.
It's also very important to realize (which most do, but don't fully grasp) that the entire concept of "the law" part of the bible (Torah) is in large part the Jewish bible. Within it are stories of things like God demanding, or desiring first born son blood sacrifices, etc..
"Oh, but that's just the way the world was then." Really? So God wanted first born son sacrifices just like Molloch?
Look at the original Passover event. The Torah (old Testament) version of the "Creator God" apparently wanted all first born Egyptian sons to die so badly, he sent his angels to kill them all. "Oh, but that was only a last resort because they wouldn't let 'God's chosen people' go" (think about who those people were, one chosen race above all humanity in the entire world). Please note that murder by angel directive is not the same thing as "allowing bad things to happen". This is a direct act of murder by thug. So God wouldn't have killed them all (because presumably such a direct action of murder is bad) if they had only let the people go. God had to choose the lesser of two evils...
What kind of Creator God has to choose the lesser of two evils? Does that make ANY SENSE AT ALL?
Of course, the bible also says "if you run into logic that doesn't allow this book to make sense, take it on faith that the book is right and the logic is wrong".
Where else have we seen such statements?
In no way do I mean to demean the teachings of Christ. I am pointing out possible Luciferian influences in the Bible that creates the Dogma of the Religion. I am not in any way talking about Christ, nor his teachings.
Everyone who thinks the Bible somehow escaped Luciferian influence because the Bible says so when that book was written (final edit) by a self stated worshiper of the Sun God (aka Lucifer in some cultures) is deluding themselves, because that is what that same book told them to do.