The Prophecy

Find extracts from the Old testaments supposed prophecy on the messiah here

psalm121.ca...


Lets discount for a minute the fact that some of these quotes don't really predict the coming of Jesus but can be interpreted that way...the fact that an event was prophecised would also mean that the entire new testament account of Jesus could have been staged and acted out in accordence with the events that these prophecies are predicting will happen.

I remember reading something about "Mystery Plays" and how events were acted out and the play was a kind of cermony that symbolised Isis and Osiris or other such figures and it got me thinking.

If you know the facts of a prophecy and you have enough wealth and influence there is no reason why you couldn't concoct the events, stage the entire thing.

Maybe Jesus is the Chosen One in the repect that he was the one chosen by someone ( maybe he choose himself) to act of this role of the messiah and to live his life according to the prophecy.

He did sacrifice himself for the good of the people because his death and martyrdom created a figure everyone could get behind and agree with and it is much easier to rule and co-exist with people if they are all "singing from the same hymn sheet" so to speak.

Maybe Mary was forced to sacrifice her child in order to instigate this religious change or maybe she did it willingly and she played a major part in moulding Jesus into his messiah role.

Of course his death might also have been staged which would explain the ressurection story and then his hasty disapperance.


This seems more then plausable to me and for a strange reason very familar.

It's just a theory right now but I hope to research and find things to back it up.

Hopefully some of you will do the same.



[edit on 14-10-2005 by BobDylan]

I am posting this link on a review of the scorsese movie which resonated deeply for me when I saw it..This shows just how masochistic and truly feeling that He must have felt.
IOW, this movie makes more sense to me than any of the religiousstudies I have done for this lifetime..could be cause I love all Martin does.

PS: Should he return? I think he would be like this movies portrays him e.g. "I did not ask for this"

www.firstthings.com...

That still doesn't explain the miracles, nor does it explain the resurrection. The Apostles professed that Christ had returned, had eaten with them, and had allowed Thomas to poke his wounds (indicating He was flesh). Of the 11 remaining Apostles, 10 of them were killed because of this belief that Christ had risen. While people will die for a lie they believe to be true, people will not die for a lie they know to be false.

Yes, a historical Jesus, if such a figure even existed, would certainly have been familiar with Judaic messiah prophecies. If he were making a claim of King of the Jews as a descendent of David then it would have been politically wise to emulate the prophecies to as great an extent as possible.

I think you're confusing the term "Mystery Plays" with the initiatory rituals of Mystery Cults. Mystery or Miracle Plays were a popular dramatic form in 10th to 16th century Europe. There were literally thousands of Mystery Cults (Christianity being one of them) that engaged in ritual performances and initiation ceremonies in veneration of their particular deity/deities.

There is certainly the possibility that a historical Jesus' death and resurrection were in fact an aspect of an initiation, as would be the resurrection of Lazarus. This type of terminology is an aspect of many Mystery Cults, especially those venerating Sun/Son gods like Jesus.

It makes one wonder what all the "Paul is dead" theories after "Abbey Road" came out were really talking about...:

Thankyou for your replies

That still doesn't explain the miracles, nor does it explain the resurrection. The Apostles professed that Christ had returned, had eaten with them, and had allowed Thomas to poke his wounds (indicating He was flesh). Of the 11 remaining Apostles, 10 of them were killed because of this belief that Christ had risen. While people will die for a lie they believe to be true, people will not die for a lie they know to be false.

Well who is to say the Miracles, the ressurection and the wound poking occured the way it was portrayed in the bible.

The bible is a religious document written by Christians to glorify and promte Christinaity therefore it is sure to have a rather bias Christian slant to it.

If you are claiming Junglejake that the bible was written or influenced by the hand of God then you are making an audacious claim that is ignorant of history and based on nothing but blind faith.

People die for all kinds of reasons..you just have to look at suicide bombers to see that.

People will sacrifice themsleves for the greater good to make a better world for their familes and loved ones and if that means you have to die to protect your cause then some are prepared to do that, be it a man made cause of a spiritual one


siriuslyone...The Last Temptation did pass through my mind after writing the original post and I thankyou for reminding me.

Cicada...thanks for the "mysery plays" ..."mystery cults" breakdown.

I never noticed the "Sun of God"..."Son of God" link although I new elements of Christanity are based on Sun worship and elements of Egyptian and pagan religions.

It just goes to sure that sometimes we are blind to even the most obvious of things.












[edit on 14-10-2005 by BobDylan]

[edit on 14-10-2005 by BobDylan]

IMO, the Sun -Son worship does not refer to Sol, but to the Sun of all humanity from where all souls emanate [the Guff]--Canis Major-Sirius A, which was/is well known by the Egyptians and the humble Dogon tribe..
Just another slant..



[edit on 14-10-2005 by siriuslyone]

Well, pretty hard to fake convincing so many people to write that many volumes on it honestly. In addition, he tells us that we can have a personal relationship with God which is true. God led me to the Bible, not the other way around.

As far as the sun-god argument, here's a more thorough discussion already in progress:
Discussion on whether Christianity sourced from Pagan Religions

I think it makes complete sense to me.

Great topic good pondering.

Originally posted by saint4God
Well, pretty hard to fake convincing so many people to write that many volumes on it honestly.

That's pretty interesting reasoning saint4God. So I suppose that gives validity to all the other deities worshipped and written about by large numbers of people. You polytheist, you.

Originally posted by saint4God
As far as the sun-god argument, here's a more thorough discussion already in progress:
Discussion on whether Christianity sourced from Pagan Religions

Thanks for posting this link, as it is a great thread that I enjoyed reading very much. You'll note how lopsided the logic is being applied in the original post's source material and you'll also see several vigorous and compelling arguments in support of the pagan-appropriation theory, especially by ZipDot. Frankly, the astronomical symbolism underlying all Indo-European theologies is overwhelmingly apparent and refusing to see or accept it is an attribute of blind faith.

Being a Blavatsy-Lucis student, I find her views of Yeshua to be in line with my thinking.




Here is a prediction from Blavatsky on the long run future. Perhaps it will bring some thought.

"All this points undeniably to the fact, that except a handful of
self-styled Christians who subsequently won the day, all the civilized portion of the Pagans who knew of Jesus honored him as a philosopher, an adept whom they placed on the same level with Pythagoras and Apollonius. Whence such a veneration on their part for a man, were he simply, as represented by the Synoptics, a poor, unknown Jewish carpenter from Nazareth? As an incarnated God there is no single record of him on this earth capable of withstanding the critical examination of science; as one of the
greatest reformers, an inveterate enemy of every theological dogmatism, a persecutor of bigotry, a teacher of one of the most sublime codes of ethics, Jesus is one of the grandest and most clearly-defined figures on the panorama of human history. His age may, with every day, be receding farther and farther back into the gloomy and hazy mists of the past; and his theology — based on human fancy and supported by untenable dogmas may, nay, must with every day lose more of its unmerited prestige; alone the grand figure of the philosopher and moral reformer instead of growing paler will become with every century more pronounced and more clearly defined. It will reign supreme and universal only on that day when the whole of humanity recognizes but one father — the UNKNOWN ONE above — and one brother — the whole of mankind below." (IUii150-1)

Perhaps the most inspiring quote in all this series is the next. It comes from BCW vol 8 p 401-2 and shows the Theosophical perspective on Jesus - placing him in a broader context. That section is headed with this note.

"This is an account written by Charles Johnston concerning his
conversation with H. P. B. when he met her for the first time in London, in the Spring of 1887, soon after her arrival from Ostende. Even though this text is not from H. P. B.’s own pen, it is published here as it contains a great many points of teaching, and bears obvious marks of authenticity.—Compiler."

Then the exact quote:

"At certain regular periods, they [the masters] try to give the world at large a right understanding of spiritual things. One of their number comes forth to teach the masses, and is handed down to tradition as the Founder of a religion. Krishna was such a Master; so was Zoroaster; so were Buddha and Shankara Acharya, the great sage of Southern India. So also was the Nazarene. He went forth against the counsel of the rest, to give to the masses before the time, moved by a great pity, and enthusiasm for humanity; he was warned that the time was unfavorable, but nevertheless he elected to go, and so was put to death at the instigation of the priests.”

“Have the adepts any secret records of his life?”

“They must have,” she answered; “for they have records of the lives of all Initiates. Once I was in a great cave-temple in the Himalaya mountains, with my Master,” and she looked at the picture of the splendid Rajput; “there were many statues of adepts there; pointing to one of them, he said: ‘This is he whom you call Jesus. We count him to be one of the greatest among us.’

Originally posted by siriuslyone

IMO, the Sun -Son worship does not refer to Sol, but to the Sun of all humanity from where all souls emanate [the Guff]--Canis Major-Sirius A, which was/is well known by the Egyptians and the humble Dogon tribe..
Just another slant..

And an interesting one at that. Sirius is a morning star and like the planet Venus associated with Isis, as the sum of Nature an obvious candidate for the source of all souls, and the model of the Christian Mary. Osiris was the constellation Orion, which Sirius is in close proximity to. As a morning star Sirius was used as a timekeeper, important in marking the annual flooding of the Nile. The mythological and astronomical (same thing) significance of Sirius is huge, too big really to get into here without straying too far off subject.

Hey, can ANYONE of you tell me the status of New York City in the year 4500 AD ???

I know of at least one man, but not personally, who appears to exhibit such remarkable skill:

Zechariah 12:3 - And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

Now, I'm going to do a similar thing (NOTE: not by skill, but by God whom you have all rejected). Ready:

WITHIN 10 DAYS, lower Manhattan, AND, Every inch of Damascus, will each become 'parking lots' for ashes, blood, and bones. Then the Messiah, whom you believe to be a fraud, will come. You mull that over for a week and a half, then AFTER it happens, explain how I KNEW IT, (or better yet, simply reconsider your position).

Behold...The quote mentions Jerusalem not New York.

You are using your own imagination to interpret and second guess what the original writer of that quote was attempting to say.

As for this bold statement

WITHIN 10 DAYS, lower Manhattan, AND, Every inch of Damascus, will each become 'parking lots' for ashes, blood, and bones. Then the Messiah, whom you believe to be a fraud, will come. You mull that over for a week and a half, then AFTER it happens, explain how I KNEW IT, (or better yet, simply reconsider your position).

Well...we shall see in Ten Days...if it doesn't happen you have proved yourself to be an idiot and if it does then I accept you had a vision or you were responsible or had knowledge of the events that took place.

Deal?

I thought so..

I appreciate all the comments but would like it if we didn't stray to far from the subject...nothing personal it's just that some threads are destroyed by certain people who wish to avoid the matters discussed and they acheive this by steering the conversation away from the topic.

It's a useful but easily exposed trick


[edit on 15-10-2005 by BobDylan]

Matthew 1

16.And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

17. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

You see this has always bothered me.

In order to fufill the Prophecy Jesus had to be from the Davidic Line and the man who the bible says is decended from David is Joseph.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I'd heard that Jesus was supposed to be the son of God and therefore he shared none of the blood that ran through Joesphs veins.

Now let us go back to the idea that the whole story was staged

In order to fufill the prophecy they would need a decedent of David, that man being Joseph.

Joseph was supposed to be a humble carpenter but if he was decended from david then surely he would have had some reverence and power in his community?

Matthew 1:18-21

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save his people from their sins."

So according to this Mary was pregant before she met Joseph and in effect we have a single mother carrying a child of unknown descent who is betrothed to marry a man who is decended from David.

Are we still talking about the humble carpenter and his virgin bride who live a simple life in Nazereth or doesn't this union have the air of two important familes arranging a marriage in order to fufill some kind of predetermined role?

The image of Mary and Joseph as poor peasents begging for a hotel room on Christmas eve doesn't quite wash does it and I am certain I have read articles that suspect that Mary and Joseph were in fact from wealthy powerful families but that image was changed in order to make Jesus one of the people and not a figure higher up in the class heirachy.

You know the more I think about it the more I smell a set up but i will continue to read and research.





[edit on 15-10-2005 by BobDylan]

[edit on 15-10-2005 by BobDylan]

[edit on 15-10-2005 by BobDylan]

[edit on 15-10-2005 by BobDylan]

Becomes a Virgin
Justin set about infusing his Christianity with aspects of the rival cult. Despite the opposition of ‘established’ Christians, Justin insistently embellished the skimpy biblical Mary story with the idea that Mary had delivered a ‘Virgin Birth’. This belief, so he himself admitted, was based solely on ‘predictions set forth by the blessed prophets’, in other words, upon the notorious mistranslation of Isaiah 7.14 (in which ‘virgin’ was substituted for ‘young woman’; see: Lying for God – Virgin Birth Fraud) to be found in the Septuagint. In the context in which upstart Christianity was competing with a far more ancient faith, it is no surprise that the Christ followers eventually settled on a ‘Virgin Birth’. The ‘miraculous’ arrival provided a useful rebuttal to early critics of the Christians, who were suggesting that if the Jesus figure had ever existed, he had a rather dubious parentage.

The next major contribution to the Mary legend came in the mid-second century, with the so-called ‘Protevangelium of James’, a document so clearly fictitious that it has been rejected even by the Catholic church since the Renaissance.

Nonetheless, this pious nonsense underpins much of current belief regarding the Blessed Virgin, providing such information as the names of Mary’s parents and grandparents, a story of her prodigious childhood ("left at the Temple from the age of three" – an event without precedent in Jewish custom!); her early commitment to chastity (why – did she know what was coming?); daily chats with angels; and a ‘safe’ marriage at puberty to the elderly widower Joseph. With this embellished ‘history’, Mary began her ascendancy as a mediator, more approachable than Christ because of her ‘humbling’ femininity. Artistic representations of her began to proliferate, uncannily like the prototype they were based upon – Artemis, the goddess with more than a thousand years of marketing success behind her!

A century later the ‘Gospel of the Nativity of Mary’ (well, we can never have enough gospels, can we?) added background detail. This story of Mary’s birth to ancient parents Anne and Joachim was a simple re-write of Samuel’s birth to Hannah and Elkanah already to be found in 1 Samuel. But now we learn of such delights as Mary’s grandmother’s seven marriages. Six husbands were dispatched by the Lord for feeling lust while having sex. Thankfully the seventh was inert during the sinful act, or we would not have had Anne, Mary, Jesus and the whole nine yards!

jesusneverexsisted.com

Originally posted by Cicada
That's pretty interesting reasoning saint4God. So I suppose that gives validity to all the other deities worshipped and written about by large numbers of people. You polytheist, you.

Ironically enough, this was already discussed many times in the "Conspiracy in Religions" forum by myself and others over the last year and a half at lease but since we're on a new thread, I guess it's only fair to be new myself.

I went out seeking whatever existed beyond the human realm. After a pretty vile enounter, I found God. He led me to the Bible, not the other way around. I don't expect anyone to read a book and be convinced there's a God. If they do, then they had a boatload more faith then I did at the time of my questioning. That's why quoting scripture to someone who does not believe is next to useless. No-one I know wants a history book they feel uncertain of, rather they want a personal relationship with God. I'm here to testify that that is exactly what it promised in the Book and is granted (whether one reads the Book or not) to those who are looking for it. Just don't be surprised after finding God if he points back to the Book again.

Also, I'd be careful slapping labels on people. The problem with labelling is when you're wrong, then people tend not to listen to you anymore. I've got enough labels I've stuck on myself *points to the left side username and descriptors*. Feel free to pick on any of those. That's why I put them there - to clarify any misconceptions about them and provide a service to those seeking a resource.

Originally posted by saint4God
Thanks for posting this link, as it is a great thread that I enjoyed reading very much.

Thanks! I found it pretty interesting myself

Originally posted by saint4God
You'll note how lopsided the logic is being applied in the original post's source material and you'll also see several vigorous and compelling arguments in support of the pagan-appropriation theory, especially by ZipDot. Frankly, the astronomical symbolism underlying all Indo-European theologies is overwhelmingly apparent and refusing to see or accept it is an attribute of blind faith.

I'm not a 'blind faith' type of person. In fact, even when I was given proof, I still had doubts. I needed verification. And reverification. Fortunately God has been patient in working with me and though I slowed myself down a lot because of it, I think I'm back up to speed to where He wants me to be. So then, you'll have to excuse me if I don't accept European theologies immediately just because it's in print.

I didn't post the link to sway anyone over to what I think, rather to point out that our thread here is at the beginning, whereas the other thread was already in-progress or addressed many of the same things. I work in projects and quality, so I guess it's the side of me that wants to see consistency and efficiency. *shrug*

Hope y'all are having a great weekend!

Sorry S4G, you just bring out the devil in me.

Originally posted by saint4God
I went out seeking whatever existed beyond the human realm. After a pretty vile enounter, I found God. He led me to the Bible, not the other way around. I don't expect anyone to read a book and be convinced there's a God. If they do, then they had a boatload more faith then I did at the time of my questioning. That's why quoting scripture to someone who does not believe is next to useless. No-one I know wants a history book they feel uncertain of, rather they want a personal relationship with God. I'm here to testify that that is exactly what it promised in the Book and is granted (whether one reads the Book or not) to those who are looking for it. Just don't be surprised after finding God if he points back to the Book again.

Also, I'd be careful slapping labels on people. The problem with labelling is when you're wrong, then people tend not to listen to you anymore. I've got enough labels I've stuck on myself *points to the left side username and descriptors*. Feel free to pick on any of those. That's why I put them there - to clarify any misconceptions about them and provide a service to those seeking a resource.

Nice dodge. I'm not attacking your faith S4G. If you have a real experience of Christ then more power to you. I think an individual's personal reality is their business and a subject that only they are capable of measuring (leaving out the dangerous aspects of individuals suffering from mental illness). What I was taking umbrage with was the contention of the validity of Christianity based upon its popularity, which is really spurious reasoning and a subject that you didn't readdress.

What I always wonder about is why individuals of faith are so bent on defending church dogma that they're uninterested in learning and comprehending the reality of their faith. If God is infinite then how can anything contradict that? How can the nature of infinite God be contained with in a single collection of texts? How can any knowledge we discover about the nature of reality be anything but an additional aspect of an infinite God? Really, Eastern and other polytheistic systems have it all over Judeo-Christian-Islamic faiths when it comes to truly comprehending infinity. If you can embrace Christ, then why not also embrace Buddha, Brahma, Isis, et al, learn how they relate to one another, and of their basis in physical reality? Would this not be at least a step closer to understanding God's infinite nature?

What labels have I slapped on you? I'm only reacting to your own words.

Originally posted by saint4God
I'm not a 'blind faith' type of person. In fact, even when I was given proof, I still had doubts. I needed verification. And reverification. Fortunately God has been patient in working with me and though I slowed myself down a lot because of it, I think I'm back up to speed to where He wants me to be. So then, you'll have to excuse me if I don't accept European theologies immediately just because it's in print.

So your religion is based on first hand experience rather than faith? Wouldn't that make you a Gnostic? What sect of Christianity do you worship under?

Originally posted by Cicada
Sorry S4G, you just bring out the devil in me.

Well, if the devil stays out of you then I'm glad I could help. If it's an expression meaning that I've made you angry, I apologize for that and was not my intention.

Originally posted by Cicada
Nice dodge.

Dodge? I probably misunderstood the question then. Can you re-phrase and be direct? I have 'missed the point' at times.

Originally posted by Cicada
(leaving out the dangerous aspects of individuals suffering from mental illness).

Ah, the 'your crazy' argument. This one can only be resolved on my part by continuing to talk. By demonstrating stability, reasoning, and understanding, hopefully this claim can be put to rest.

Originally posted by Cicada
What I always wonder about is why individuals of faith are so bent on defending church dogma that they're uninterested in learning and comprehending the reality of their faith.

I don't know either. I admire and respect those who can trust good leadership, but I'm not one of them. I guess that's what brings me here. I'm a skeptic so I feel like part of the family.

Originally posted by Cicada
If God is infinite then how can anything contradict that?

Nothing can. In fact, one thing I've learned is God is consistent. That is not to say he's completely unchanging though. I can prove where God did one thing at one point, then promised never to do it again. Whether to teach us a lesson or had a change of heart, I do not know.

Originally posted by Cicada
How can the nature of infinite God be contained with in a single collection of texts?

It cannot. In fact, I will contend that a book cannot make you believe. Furthermore, it did not make me believe. I had to find God, who then led me to the Book. I'm sure there are those who can read the Book, then want to find God, then do. To that I give great esteem.

Originally posted by Cicada
How can any knowledge we discover about the nature of reality be anything but an additional aspect of an infinite God?

I hear ya. I took up studying science to find out more about God. It was a fascinating time, though found out university research was a very cut-throat industry, so I chose to work at a business that cared more about people than proving how 'smart' they are by how much money they make. I'm sure a lot of universities are different, but this is how the one I went to was. By all means, study study study! One can learn a lot about God's universe that way.

Originally posted by Cicada
Really, Eastern and other polytheistic systems have it all over Judeo-Christian-Islamic faiths when it comes to truly comprehending infinity. If you can embrace Christ, then why not also embrace Buddha, Brahma, Isis, et al, learn how they relate to one another, and of their basis in physical reality?

Because Buddha, Brahma, Isis, et al left me hanging when I invite them to the party.

Originally posted by Cicada
Would this not be at least a step closer to understanding God's infinite nature?

I've read about them. Again though, not very helpful.

Originally posted by Cicada
What labels have I slapped on you? I'm only reacting to your own words.

Polythiest. I don't recall even the suggestion that I am.

Originally posted by Cicada
So your religion is based on first hand experience rather than faith?

Both. Experience led to faith. For some people it's the other way around.

Originally posted by Cicada
Wouldn't that make you a Gnostic?

Those who carry that term disagree with me and I them on almost all fundamental points.

Originally posted by Cicada
What sect of Christianity do you worship under?

I've been to a good number of churches but am not a member of any sect that I'm aware of. The closest I'd say is Protestant, though have no conflict with Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, and related denominations that are worth noting.

Thank for the questions. It's not a typical day when someone asks about me and what I believe .

US seeks action against Damascus

Originally posted by Behold
WITHIN 10 DAYS, lower Manhattan, AND, Every inch of Damascus, will each become 'parking lots...

Hmm... ok, still four days to go. But, considering all the *background noise* swirling around the Bush administration these days, is it time for a big unexpected distraction [like nuking Syria] to increase W's signal-to-noise ratio?

Just scattershooting, you know...

Originally posted by Behold
WITHIN 10 DAYS, lower Manhattan, AND, Every inch of Damascus, will each become 'parking lots' for ashes, blood, and bones.

Hm...no, that's no good for me. I've got tickets to Spamalot on December 10th and have been been waiting to see it since February.


Go Tim Curry!

*checks calendar* how about 06/06/06? That'd please the numerology buffs around here much more than some random day in October. Only trouble is... Matthew 24:36. Well, if you cut that out then I guess it makes sense. Oh wait, gotta cut out Revelations 3:3.... and oh yeah, cut out....

[edit on 24-10-2005 by saint4God]