It really depends on which Jewish religion you are talking about. As it turns out, there are quite a few. There is a fair bit of evidence that suggests the Torah ("The Law") was written specifically by the Jewish Priest class (an Aristocracy) to control the masses, not to mention get a tenth of everyone's income (an income tax), get their first born sons as temple slaves or sacrifices (or, later, a "child tax" that the wealthier could pay to not send their children into slavery/death), not to mention their best cuts of meat (Filet Mignon (or the mutton equivalent) for the Priests every day!).
The REAL Jewish religion, the one the select (Elect) Jewish Aristocracy follows (in secret) is something a fair bit different.
Both new and Old testament were still God breathed. holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit itbsays in Peter. Old testament was the practice of the levitical priesthood whose job along with all elders was to use the law as a foreshadowing of rhe coming of Christ. It was meant to help them recognize the savior when he arrived. Instead, they turned the doing of the law into false righteousness and the means by which to gain God's favor. By the works of the law shall no man be justified. In hebrews it tells us who the hall of famers were, GOD said they all died in BELIEVING having NOT received the promise while Still alive. Promise? What Promise, the one God gave in Genesis 3:15 regarding the coming messiah in answer to the fall of man. They were counted righteous for only one reason, they believed in the coming messiah. They will be raised in the resurrection of the just. Abraham and others.... good stuff
Thank you. I am well aware of the dogma. I spent thirty years studying it and arguing theology with other theologians. As it turns out, once you let go of:
both new and Old testament were still God breathed.
which is a self-referenced statement (not to mention internally contradicted), and start to look at all of the evidence from the ancient world, or even just look at the mistranslations and the books of canon left out of the bible, things start to look a fair bit different.
GOD said
Which God? The bible talks about numerous gods and, when you actually look at the original works (or as close as we can get), the bible clearly distinguishes between these gods as separate entities in several places. It claims El (a Canaanite deity) was the Creator, it claims YHWH is The Lord of Israel (specifically of Israel, not of anywhere else). It says explicitly that YHWH was the SON of El, etc.
These statements are taken directly from the Bible, but no one pays attention to these self-contradictions and probably a thousand others, because
both new and Old testament were still God breathed.
If they are "God breathed" (which God exactly?) then the discrepancies simply don't matter. We can ignore them. We can ignore all the other evidence (of which there is a metric fuckton) that the religion was created specifically to control the population (again, all you have to do is read the bible to see it plain as day). We can ignore the Jewish Priest Aristocracy's influence in the creation of The Church and later biblical translations. We can ignore everything, because no matter what the evidence suggests,
both new and Old testament were still God breathed,
and we're done. No more thinking required.
Instead of thinking, you should believe the people who told you what the truth is, AKA the people who wrote, translated, and assembled the bible. The last two tasks were accomplished specifically by the Council of Nicaea, and their later iterations, The council of Nicaea was originally organized by the Mithra worshiper, Emperor Constantine, who created the modern day version of "Christianity" (completely subverting it from the original) to unite the four different "Roman Empires" under one banner. This effort, started three full centuries after Jesus (imagine how different our world is from three hundred years ago to get an idea of how long this is) united Mithraism (some people call it "paganism," but it was specifically Mithraism), Judaism, and Christianity into One Religion. Why do we have so many "pagan" dates, celebrations, etc. in Christianity? This is why. Because that is the origin of today's "Christianity".
None of those statements is controversial, but people ignore them because:
both new and Old testament were still God breathed.
Most people (at least here) realize that it is a subset of modern day Jewish Aristocrats that run the world (not alone, but predominantly), and they have for a long time. These Jewish Aristocrats are the direct descendants of the exact same people who wrote the books of the OT. That's not really a controversial statement either, though many don't really think about it.
Why don't they think about it?
because:
both new and Old testament were still God breathed.
If you allow yourself, for just one second to think that maybe that's not the exact perfect Truth, and spend that one second looking at the rest of the evidence, the world, and indeed, the actual teachings of Jesus become very, very different.
We see fuckery everywhere, but so many think "There can't be any in the Bible itself," because:
both new and Old testament were still God breathed.
It was written by people. Think about who those people really were (the Jewish Aristocracy). So much opens up if you do that.
If you had written this post a few years ago, I would have agreed with you.
Today, I do not.
Of course back then, I never really researched the Bible, or even the historical and archeological records of that time. I only read people's opinions about it.
Which God? The bible talks about numerous gods
Elohim is the plural form of El. Although it does use the plural form, as well, the actions of God are always in the singular form. Never "they created this," but rather "they decided this" and "He created it." And that is in Genesis 1.
I don't know if it was a mistranslation or like the "royal we" or talking about His buddies, the angels, or whatever. I wasn't there, and have never found any clear-cut answers.
But if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.
We do not.
Jewish Priest Aristocracy's influence in the creation of The Church and later biblical translations
I agree that early jews played a role in purposely mistranslating the Bible in many areas.
The council of Nicaea was originally organized by the Mithra worshiper, Emperor Constantine, who created the modern day version of "Christianity" (completely subverting it from the original)
Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament. It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people, who came up with their own similar stories.
Also, Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.
This effort, started three full centuries after Jesus (imagine how different our world is from three hundred years ago to get an idea of how long this is) united Mithraism (some people call it "paganism," but it was specifically Mithraism), Judaism, and Christianity into One Religion.
The product of the Council was the early Roman Catholic Church, with all of its power in the lives of the people. We can agree that this was a primary motivation.
However, those are not the people who wrote the books. They decided which books would get the stamp of approval ("canon law") and which would not, but none of those books were originally written in Latin.
Why do we have so many "pagan" dates, celebrations, etc. in Christianity? This is why. Because that is the origin of today's "Christianity".
Agreed.
These Jewish Aristocrats are the direct descendants of the exact same people who wrote the books of the OT. That's not really a controversial statement either, though many don't really think about it.
You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.
The early "jews" HATED the Old Testament as much as the New Testament.
Today, the Talmud teaches that Jesus is living in Hell and burning in excrement.
It teaches that Christianity must be destroyed, and that any non-jew can be treated as not human.
The "jews" of 3,000 years ago hated the books of Moses as much as they do today.
If they actually wrote the originals, there would have been no need to infiltrate and subvert it over the centuries.
Look at all the "anti-semitism" bullshit warnings today. If the jews had not lied about the Holocaust in such a dumb way that people could figure out it was a lie, they would not have to run for cover by passing laws outlawing the questioning of it.
If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.
Why did Martin Luther protest the Roman Catholic Church in the 1500's? Why did he write such anti-jew literature once he had read the original texts of the Bible?
Because he realized that the jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.
After all, through all those centuries, the non-jews never had the internet (or even, the printing press).
ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.
the actions of God are always in the singular form
ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.
The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. That religion later became an effort to promote YHWH into El, usurping his throne, to become first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "one of the sons of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El" became (after Babylon) "There is no other god but YHWH who is also sometimes called El."
I think after Babylon their henotheistic system wasn't good enough. Influences from Zoroastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a different, more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the fourth or fifth century BC.
If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.
if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.
We do not
On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or "earlier" AKA earliest Hebrew versions, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember mostly where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.
Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.
Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).
It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people
It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.
who came up with their own similar stories.
Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).
Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.
It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.
However, those are not the people who wrote the books
There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.
You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.
Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.
My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they were already there. They went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy) long before the story that talks about their "choosing Judaism". But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region that were there before these "new" Judeans (or perhaps Israelites/Samaritans) arrived were originally from Israel (somewhere from the area we call "Israel" today), i.e. they were the “Magogians,” AKA the “lost tribe of Israel” who had set up shop in that region a thousand years (or so) before these "new" Jews came. I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)
I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), controlled by the Scythian Aristocracy, and who that Aristocracy was and is today (the group we call the "Aryan Race" was, I'm fairly certain, the Scythian Aristocracy, or "Royal Scythians"). You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.
If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.
The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) represents in any way "what's really going on" is, I think, naïve. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.
he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.
Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.
There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.
As for the "god breathed" verse. It can obviously be read in a different way than how it's frequently cited by modern Christians. They see a verse that says "all scripture is God-breathed" and since they have a book they consider scripture, the circular logic kicks in and tells them that entire book fits the description. They never seem to stop and think that if something is NOT "God-breathed" (i.e., TRUE) that no matter what book it happens to be printed in it, by Peter's definition, that is NOT scripture. So you take something that's "god-breathed" and you alter it to change the meaning. Clearly it's no longer "god-breathed" but rather, is an interpolation of either ignorant or evil men.
"But if we can't trust every word the Bible says then how can we trust anything it says???"
They always retort. Simple. Truth RESONATES within you. To know what is and is not true is up to you. You must seek God in prayer, and learn to hear his voice, then all truth shall be made known unto you. Putting your faith in a book to never lead you astray is lazy and foolhardy. Does the book not speak of a living God who speaks with his children? Does it not say anyone who calls upon him in faith, doubting nothing, shall receive the truth directly from him? So why aren't you one of those? Why haven't you put to test the reality of the one thing that stands out as the most consistent theme throughout the entire book--that God speaks to man?
And as for the strawman argument they love to make that states, "So you don't think God had the power to keep His word pure throughout the ages???" give me a break. I think God has the power to do anything, but He gave his children agency and he clearly allows them to do with that what they please. What if, when someone told you about the existence of the Cabal someone replied to you "So you don't think God had the power to keep the world free of such an evil influence???"
Just because God is all-powerful and CAN do anything, doesn't automatically mean he WILL do something. Clearly the faith and obedience of his children plays a massive role in how God chooses to operate among them. But alas, too many eschew the responsibility of seeking direct revelation from God, and have made the Bible their God, and Jesus their idol, as the Children of Israel so frequently did with a variety of people and things throughout their history.
Well I've got about 40 years under my belt myself. The integrity of the Word is man's basic spiritual problem. Did God really say that? I'll argue there is teachable/learnable method to rightly divide the word, when I ran into those contradictions you speak of i would apply those methods to understand why the apparent contradiction. It was usually in my own understanding, when I came to understand administrations, to whom it was written, verse. Context and used before the Bible fits like a hand in a glove. I hope yku haven't given up on it. When. I gave up on religion(man made crap) i finally found Christianity. The way of Fathern with His children. God Bless.
When. I gave up on religion(man made crap) i finally found Christianity.
I have no problem with "Christianity," if by Christianity you mean the teachings of Jesus. What I have a problem with is believing that the Source of All Things is speaking through a book written by people who were murderers, liars, cheaters, stealers, rapists, eugenicists, slavers, child abusers, child rapists, child murderers, child eaters, genocidal maniacs, master illusionists, and overall world dominating psychopaths who believe they are the most important race/culture/society/gene line to ever exist, and the only one that really matters. THAT is who wrote the bible. They wrote it specifically to control society. The evidence is obvious, both internally and in the larger scope of the archeological and genetic evidence.
I don't have any problem with the teachings of Jesus. On the contrary, I find them to be quite insightful and enlightening. I have a problem with believing the bible, and more importantly (and relevantly), the bible we have today is some sort of guide to that teaching, rather than a purposeful obfuscation of it.
Getting people to see how the bible (as we understand the term) performs that task of obfuscation is near impossible. The entire world has been brainwashed to believe the opposite. "Everything in this book comes directly from God and is thus the Ultimate Truth. Oh ya, and it's also complete. All the other books, Jesus' quotes, and any writings you may find in a cave somewhere that were previously canon are decidedly not God's word." Take just that one line, add millennia of brainwashing to get people to believe it, throw in the occasional "this is how you're supposed to interpret this," and "this is the proper context to understand why it is totally reasonable for "God" to demand that his "chosen people" murdered/raped/enslaved/wiped out innocent people," etc., and you can do anything to an entire society. The cognitive dissonance and confusion that comes with an honest reading of the bible, when you add in "this is God's True Words" helps enforce the brainwashing when the brain tries to rectify it. In fact, this technique of first creating cognitive dissonance and then guiding the brain's "making sense of it" is an essential part of brainwashing, and it is replete in the bible as presented.
This creation of a perfect brainwashing tool to control society is exactly what happened. With regards to the NT, they took out the most important bits, and obfuscated the truth contained in what remained. The deeper truth of the teachings of Jesus supports an appreciation of our connection to Source, a true self empowerment, and an appreciation for what anarchy really means (AKA no ruler). Of COURSE his message had to be purposefully confused. The stuff they left in is only that which helps the ruling power to control society, congruent with the original work of fuckery we call the "Old Testament."
I suggest the Source of All Things had as little to do with the construction of that book, or any of it's original source material as It did in say, the writing of Hamlet. Like the bible, that story has some very interesting lessons and some solid historical underpinnings. Yet no one says that one is "the voice of God." Maybe Shakespeare should have included that line as well. Who knows where we would be if he had. Of course he would have needed to construct the authoritative infrastructure to ensure it took, and I suppose that might have been problematic, since that role was already fulfilled and entrenched by the Holy Roman Empire.
Looking at who did write/construct our modern day version of the bible (where it really came from) and its encompassing infrastructure is, I suggest, the best place to begin to unpack the social manipulation.
Having said that, I have yet to have much success with that no matter how I present the evidence. I can't even get anyone to look at it who isn't already on that path to discovery.
It really depends on which Jewish religion you are talking about. As it turns out, there are quite a few. There is a fair bit of evidence that suggests the Torah ("The Law") was written specifically by the Jewish Priest class (an Aristocracy) to control the masses, not to mention get a tenth of everyone's income (an income tax), get their first born sons as temple slaves or sacrifices (or, later, a "child tax" that the wealthier could pay to not send their children into slavery/death), not to mention their best cuts of meat (Filet Mignon (or the mutton equivalent) for the Priests every day!).
The REAL Jewish religion, the one the select (Elect) Jewish Aristocracy follows (in secret) is something a fair bit different.
Both new and Old testament were still God breathed. holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit itbsays in Peter. Old testament was the practice of the levitical priesthood whose job along with all elders was to use the law as a foreshadowing of rhe coming of Christ. It was meant to help them recognize the savior when he arrived. Instead, they turned the doing of the law into false righteousness and the means by which to gain God's favor. By the works of the law shall no man be justified. In hebrews it tells us who the hall of famers were, GOD said they all died in BELIEVING having NOT received the promise while Still alive. Promise? What Promise, the one God gave in Genesis 3:15 regarding the coming messiah in answer to the fall of man. They were counted righteous for only one reason, they believed in the coming messiah. They will be raised in the resurrection of the just. Abraham and others.... good stuff
Thank you. I am well aware of the dogma. I spent thirty years studying it and arguing theology with other theologians. As it turns out, once you let go of:
which is a self-referenced statement (not to mention internally contradicted), and start to look at all of the evidence from the ancient world, or even just look at the mistranslations and the books of canon left out of the bible, things start to look a fair bit different.
Which God? The bible talks about numerous gods and, when you actually look at the original works (or as close as we can get), the bible clearly distinguishes between these gods as separate entities in several places. It claims El (a Canaanite deity) was the Creator, it claims YHWH is The Lord of Israel (specifically of Israel, not of anywhere else). It says explicitly that YHWH was the SON of El, etc.
These statements are taken directly from the Bible, but no one pays attention to these self-contradictions and probably a thousand others, because
If they are "God breathed" (which God exactly?) then the discrepancies simply don't matter. We can ignore them. We can ignore all the other evidence (of which there is a metric fuckton) that the religion was created specifically to control the population (again, all you have to do is read the bible to see it plain as day). We can ignore the Jewish Priest Aristocracy's influence in the creation of The Church and later biblical translations. We can ignore everything, because no matter what the evidence suggests,
and we're done. No more thinking required.
Instead of thinking, you should believe the people who told you what the truth is, AKA the people who wrote, translated, and assembled the bible. The last two tasks were accomplished specifically by the Council of Nicaea, and their later iterations, The council of Nicaea was originally organized by the Mithra worshiper, Emperor Constantine, who created the modern day version of "Christianity" (completely subverting it from the original) to unite the four different "Roman Empires" under one banner. This effort, started three full centuries after Jesus (imagine how different our world is from three hundred years ago to get an idea of how long this is) united Mithraism (some people call it "paganism," but it was specifically Mithraism), Judaism, and Christianity into One Religion. Why do we have so many "pagan" dates, celebrations, etc. in Christianity? This is why. Because that is the origin of today's "Christianity".
None of those statements is controversial, but people ignore them because:
Most people (at least here) realize that it is a subset of modern day Jewish Aristocrats that run the world (not alone, but predominantly), and they have for a long time. These Jewish Aristocrats are the direct descendants of the exact same people who wrote the books of the OT. That's not really a controversial statement either, though many don't really think about it.
Why don't they think about it?
because:
If you allow yourself, for just one second to think that maybe that's not the exact perfect Truth, and spend that one second looking at the rest of the evidence, the world, and indeed, the actual teachings of Jesus become very, very different.
We see fuckery everywhere, but so many think "There can't be any in the Bible itself," because:
It was written by people. Think about who those people really were (the Jewish Aristocracy). So much opens up if you do that.
So much...
Hey, Slyver.
If you had written this post a few years ago, I would have agreed with you.
Today, I do not.
Of course back then, I never really researched the Bible, or even the historical and archeological records of that time. I only read people's opinions about it.
Elohim is the plural form of El. Although it does use the plural form, as well, the actions of God are always in the singular form. Never "they created this," but rather "they decided this" and "He created it." And that is in Genesis 1.
I don't know if it was a mistranslation or like the "royal we" or talking about His buddies, the angels, or whatever. I wasn't there, and have never found any clear-cut answers.
But if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.
We do not.
I agree that early jews played a role in purposely mistranslating the Bible in many areas.
Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament. It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people, who came up with their own similar stories.
Also, Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.
The product of the Council was the early Roman Catholic Church, with all of its power in the lives of the people. We can agree that this was a primary motivation.
However, those are not the people who wrote the books. They decided which books would get the stamp of approval ("canon law") and which would not, but none of those books were originally written in Latin.
Agreed.
You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.
The early "jews" HATED the Old Testament as much as the New Testament.
Today, the Talmud teaches that Jesus is living in Hell and burning in excrement.
It teaches that Christianity must be destroyed, and that any non-jew can be treated as not human.
The "jews" of 3,000 years ago hated the books of Moses as much as they do today.
If they actually wrote the originals, there would have been no need to infiltrate and subvert it over the centuries.
Look at all the "anti-semitism" bullshit warnings today. If the jews had not lied about the Holocaust in such a dumb way that people could figure out it was a lie, they would not have to run for cover by passing laws outlawing the questioning of it.
If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.
Why did Martin Luther protest the Roman Catholic Church in the 1500's? Why did he write such anti-jew literature once he had read the original texts of the Bible?
Because he realized that the jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.
After all, through all those centuries, the non-jews never had the internet (or even, the printing press).
ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.
ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.
The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. That religion later became an effort to promote YHWH into El, usurping his throne, to become first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "one of the sons of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El" became (after Babylon) "There is no other god but YHWH who is also sometimes called El."
I think after Babylon their henotheistic system wasn't good enough. Influences from Zoroastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a different, more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the fourth or fifth century BC.
If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.
On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or "earlier" AKA earliest Hebrew versions, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember mostly where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.
Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).
It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.
Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).
It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.
There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.
Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.
My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they were already there. They went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy) long before the story that talks about their "choosing Judaism". But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region that were there before these "new" Judeans (or perhaps Israelites/Samaritans) arrived were originally from Israel (somewhere from the area we call "Israel" today), i.e. they were the “Magogians,” AKA the “lost tribe of Israel” who had set up shop in that region a thousand years (or so) before these "new" Jews came. I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)
I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), controlled by the Scythian Aristocracy, and who that Aristocracy was and is today (the group we call the "Aryan Race" was, I'm fairly certain, the Scythian Aristocracy, or "Royal Scythians"). You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.
The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) represents in any way "what's really going on" is, I think, naïve. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.
Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.
There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.
As for the "god breathed" verse. It can obviously be read in a different way than how it's frequently cited by modern Christians. They see a verse that says "all scripture is God-breathed" and since they have a book they consider scripture, the circular logic kicks in and tells them that entire book fits the description. They never seem to stop and think that if something is NOT "God-breathed" (i.e., TRUE) that no matter what book it happens to be printed in it, by Peter's definition, that is NOT scripture. So you take something that's "god-breathed" and you alter it to change the meaning. Clearly it's no longer "god-breathed" but rather, is an interpolation of either ignorant or evil men.
"But if we can't trust every word the Bible says then how can we trust anything it says???"
They always retort. Simple. Truth RESONATES within you. To know what is and is not true is up to you. You must seek God in prayer, and learn to hear his voice, then all truth shall be made known unto you. Putting your faith in a book to never lead you astray is lazy and foolhardy. Does the book not speak of a living God who speaks with his children? Does it not say anyone who calls upon him in faith, doubting nothing, shall receive the truth directly from him? So why aren't you one of those? Why haven't you put to test the reality of the one thing that stands out as the most consistent theme throughout the entire book--that God speaks to man?
And as for the strawman argument they love to make that states, "So you don't think God had the power to keep His word pure throughout the ages???" give me a break. I think God has the power to do anything, but He gave his children agency and he clearly allows them to do with that what they please. What if, when someone told you about the existence of the Cabal someone replied to you "So you don't think God had the power to keep the world free of such an evil influence???"
Just because God is all-powerful and CAN do anything, doesn't automatically mean he WILL do something. Clearly the faith and obedience of his children plays a massive role in how God chooses to operate among them. But alas, too many eschew the responsibility of seeking direct revelation from God, and have made the Bible their God, and Jesus their idol, as the Children of Israel so frequently did with a variety of people and things throughout their history.
But again, don't tell them that.
I suggest attempting to show that is an essential step towards any actual Great Awakening.
The GA isn't just for the people we call "sheep," but for "the flock" as well.
Well I've got about 40 years under my belt myself. The integrity of the Word is man's basic spiritual problem. Did God really say that? I'll argue there is teachable/learnable method to rightly divide the word, when I ran into those contradictions you speak of i would apply those methods to understand why the apparent contradiction. It was usually in my own understanding, when I came to understand administrations, to whom it was written, verse. Context and used before the Bible fits like a hand in a glove. I hope yku haven't given up on it. When. I gave up on religion(man made crap) i finally found Christianity. The way of Fathern with His children. God Bless.
I have no problem with "Christianity," if by Christianity you mean the teachings of Jesus. What I have a problem with is believing that the Source of All Things is speaking through a book written by people who were murderers, liars, cheaters, stealers, rapists, eugenicists, slavers, child abusers, child rapists, child murderers, child eaters, genocidal maniacs, master illusionists, and overall world dominating psychopaths who believe they are the most important race/culture/society/gene line to ever exist, and the only one that really matters. THAT is who wrote the bible. They wrote it specifically to control society. The evidence is obvious, both internally and in the larger scope of the archeological and genetic evidence.
I don't have any problem with the teachings of Jesus. On the contrary, I find them to be quite insightful and enlightening. I have a problem with believing the bible, and more importantly (and relevantly), the bible we have today is some sort of guide to that teaching, rather than a purposeful obfuscation of it.
Getting people to see how the bible (as we understand the term) performs that task of obfuscation is near impossible. The entire world has been brainwashed to believe the opposite. "Everything in this book comes directly from God and is thus the Ultimate Truth. Oh ya, and it's also complete. All the other books, Jesus' quotes, and any writings you may find in a cave somewhere that were previously canon are decidedly not God's word." Take just that one line, add millennia of brainwashing to get people to believe it, throw in the occasional "this is how you're supposed to interpret this," and "this is the proper context to understand why it is totally reasonable for "God" to demand that his "chosen people" murdered/raped/enslaved/wiped out innocent people," etc., and you can do anything to an entire society. The cognitive dissonance and confusion that comes with an honest reading of the bible, when you add in "this is God's True Words" helps enforce the brainwashing when the brain tries to rectify it. In fact, this technique of first creating cognitive dissonance and then guiding the brain's "making sense of it" is an essential part of brainwashing, and it is replete in the bible as presented.
This creation of a perfect brainwashing tool to control society is exactly what happened. With regards to the NT, they took out the most important bits, and obfuscated the truth contained in what remained. The deeper truth of the teachings of Jesus supports an appreciation of our connection to Source, a true self empowerment, and an appreciation for what anarchy really means (AKA no ruler). Of COURSE his message had to be purposefully confused. The stuff they left in is only that which helps the ruling power to control society, congruent with the original work of fuckery we call the "Old Testament."
I suggest the Source of All Things had as little to do with the construction of that book, or any of it's original source material as It did in say, the writing of Hamlet. Like the bible, that story has some very interesting lessons and some solid historical underpinnings. Yet no one says that one is "the voice of God." Maybe Shakespeare should have included that line as well. Who knows where we would be if he had. Of course he would have needed to construct the authoritative infrastructure to ensure it took, and I suppose that might have been problematic, since that role was already fulfilled and entrenched by the Holy Roman Empire.
Looking at who did write/construct our modern day version of the bible (where it really came from) and its encompassing infrastructure is, I suggest, the best place to begin to unpack the social manipulation.
Having said that, I have yet to have much success with that no matter how I present the evidence. I can't even get anyone to look at it who isn't already on that path to discovery.
I'll keep trying.
95% of Judaism is Phariseic..... The less than 5% are highly discriminated against.