Taking the Mask Off of Christianity

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Modern Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on Dec 25 because high priest Pontiff Maximus Constantine the worshipper of Apollo or Sol Invictus or a later pope decided to worship the birth of the Messiah on the birthday of the sun god.

Which ancient texts record that Constantine was a worshipper of Apollo or Sol Invictus? (NB: his coin types begin as those of the preceding emperors, but Sol Invictus disappears in his reign, never to reappear).

You say "Constantine... or a later Pope": which is it? Surely such accusations should at least be specific? It isn't Constantine, anyhow.

You state that one of these decided to worship this on the birthday of the sun god. But you may wish to know that a birthday for Sol Invictus is only recorded LATER than our record of the celebration of Christmas on this date. I happen to think that it is mostly likely so; but I merely point out that there is a problem with these sorts of utterances.

It is good to think for oneself, I agree.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

In the Bible the one named Devil and Satan is shown to be an angel who rebelled against God - the one who spoke through the serpent and seduced Eve into disobeying God's command.

Is that specifically stated in the Bible (please show me)? Or is that just your own Interpretation? Yes I know - making up your own Narrative is FUN, Right?!

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente

In the Bible the one named Devil and Satan is shown to be an angel who rebelled against God - the one who spoke through the serpent and seduced Eve into disobeying God's command.

Is that specifically stated in the Bible (please show me)? Or is that just your own Interpretation? Yes I know - making up your own Narrative is FUN, Right?!

I ordained and anointed you as the mighty angelic guardian. You had access to the holy mountain of God and walked among the stones of fire.
"You were blameless in all you did from the day you were created until the day evil was found in you. Your great wealth filled you with violence, and you sinned. So I banished you from the mountain of God. I expelled you, O mighty guardian, from your place among the stones of fire. Your heart was filled with pride because of all your beauty. You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth and exposed you to the curious gaze of kings. You defiled your sanctuaries with your many sins and your dishonest trade. So I brought fire from within you, and it consumed you. I let it burn you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching. All who knew you are appalled at your fate. You have come to a terrible end, and you are no more." Ezekial 28:14-19

Then there was war in heaven. Michael and the angels under his command fought the dragon and his angels. And the dragon lost the battle and was forced out of heaven. This great dragon--the ancient serpent called the Devil, or Satan, the one deceiving the whole world--was thrown down to the earth with all his angels.
Revelation 12:7-9

Now the serpent was the shrewdest of all the creatures the LORD God had made. "Really?" he asked the woman. "Did God really say you must not eat any of the fruit in the garden?"
"Of course we may eat it," the woman told him."It's only the fruit from the tree at the center of the garden that we are not allowed to eat. God says we must not eat it or even touch it, or we will die."
"You won't die!" the serpent hissed. 5"God knows that your eyes will be opened when you eat it. You will become just like God, knowing everything, both good and evil."
The woman was convinced. The fruit looked so fresh and delicious, and it would make her so wise! So she ate some of the fruit. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her. Then he ate it, too. At that moment, their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they strung fig leaves together around their hips to cover themselves. Genesis 3: 1-7

Then I saw an angel come down from heaven with the key to the bottomless pit and a heavy chain in his hand. He seized the dragon--that old serpent, the Devil, Satan--and bound him in chains for a thousand years. The angel threw him into the bottomless pit, which he then shut and locked so Satan could not deceive the nations anymore until the thousand years were finished. Afterward he would be released again for a little while. Revelations 20:1-3

So you see, it really is in the bible and a lot more as well. Hope this helps.

Peace,

SR

OK - I was still stuck on the Lucifer = Satan debate. Nowhere does it say that correct?!

"You won't die!" the serpent hissed. "God knows that your eyes will be opened when you eat it. You will become just like God, knowing everything, both good and evil."

And so it was. The Serpent must have been telling the Truth because here we are - Communicating on the Internet - Evolving - becoming more God-like.

[edit on 23-8-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Roger Pearse

You say "Constantine... or a later Pope": which is it? Surely such accusations should at least be specific? It isn't Constantine, anyhow.

I've seen it listed as Constantine and also a later pope. It's late and I don't feel like looking it up as to me it doesn't much matter. They are on the same team.

You state that one of these decided to worship this on the birthday of the sun god. But you may wish to know that a birthday for Sol Invictus is only recorded LATER than our record of the celebration of Christmas on this date. I happen to think that it is mostly likely so; but I merely point out that there is a problem with these sorts of utterances.

Can you provide proof of this. I would like to see this.

Thanks

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
OK - I was still stuck on the Lucifer = Satan debate. Nowhere does it say that correct?!

Sorry, I forgot to add this to the last post:

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north"-- Isaiah 14:12-13

"You won't die!" the serpent hissed. "God knows that your eyes will be opened when you eat it. You will become just like God, knowing everything, both good and evil."

And so it was. The Serpent must have been telling the Truth because here we are - Communicating on the Internet - Evolving - becoming more God-like.

[edit on 23-8-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Originally posted by Ersatz


I would have said that what creation experiences is what God adds to his knowledge base.
The points you make are very interesting...

One other aspect to bear in mind about Hell, Satan and Lucifer: when Yahweh was still a Sky/Thunder God like Zeus, Thor,Haddad he was slowly replacing an earlier cult and an earlier goddess Sheol ( means: womb, hell); she was banished to the underworld and this is why to this day we somehow believe that Hell is a big cavern underground and it is also why God has no jurisdiction in hell.

but if all things come from God, there is no experience that isn't already in his database, is there.

of course, the purpose of creation might be to serve as a training ground for the little child Gods, for them to learn all they can about creation, in preparation for the time when they wll take the helm and create worlds themselves....

that's the fun thing about religion and philosophy, no one can say for sure what the right answers are so we are free to explore all the posibilities.

[edit on 24-8-2006 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by Sun Matrix

You say "Constantine... or a later Pope": which is it? Surely such accusations should at least be specific? It isn't Constantine, anyhow.

I've seen it listed as Constantine and also a later pope. It's late and I don't feel like looking it up as to me it doesn't much matter. They are on the same team.

Well... it's best to be accurate, surely?

You state that one of these decided to worship this on the birthday of the sun god. But you may wish to know that a birthday for Sol Invictus is only recorded LATER than our record of the celebration of Christmas on this date. I happen to think that it is mostly likely so; but I merely point out that there is a problem with these sorts of utterances.

Can you provide proof of this. I would like to see this.

I never feel obliged to prove things to people: let the ignorant be ignorant, I feel (no personal reflection intended here, but don't you get fed up with weenes demanding 'prove this'?). But I am very keen to pass on information.

I cannot give you the contents of a great deal of reading in the primary literature. What I can tell you, tho, is that the first recorded statement of a festival on the 25th December of the Natalis of Sol Invictus is in the Chronography of 354. I have started to place this online, so you can see it for yourself at

www.tertullian.org...

You can get some idea of what I have been looking at from

www.tertullian.org...

I have been in contact with Drs Salzman and Hijmans on this subject, and the absence is very interesting. However... when I looked in A. DEGRASSI, Inscriptiones Italiae, vol. 13: Fasti et elogia, fasc. 2: Fasti Anni Numani et Iuliani (Rome, 1963), I looked at all the calendars to see what there was for 25 Dec. but I couldn't help noticing that no calendars were actually available from between about 100 AD and the Chronography of 354. So (I think, ignorantly) this silence may not be very significant.

There are LATER references to a solar feast on this date; Julian the Apostate records one in that period, Thomas of Edessa in the 6th century does. The scholiast on Dionysius bar Salibi says that Christmas was instituted on that date to replace a solar feast; but Dionysius bar Salibi lived in the 13th century, and the scholiast later, so his evidence isn't very conclusive.

I have started to collect ancient statements about Sol Invictus (incomplete):

www.tertullian.org...

But it seems entirely possible that the official festival on 25 Dec. was a retaliation by the pagan revival of the mid-4th century, rather than an ancient feast. Sol Invictus was, after all, a foundation in 274 by Aurelian, not necessarily at all the same as the old worship of Sol.

That said, my own opinion (contra Hijmans) is that the 25 Dec. *was* instituted as a festival by Aurelian or one of the following emperors. I think this because I can't see how Constantine or his successors up to 354 AD would create one, all of them being Christians; and that the festival is not ancient is shown by the unusual number of chariot races on that date -- XXX rather than the standard XXIV found for older major festivals in the calendar. But I have to acknowledge that this is only my opinion; actual evidence is lacking.

(Information about the date of Christmas can be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia article online -- it references all the scanty sources we have, which is the only part of the article interesting to us).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

But it seems entirely possible that the official festival on 25 Dec. was a retaliation by the pagan revival of the mid-4th century, rather than an ancient feast. Sol Invictus was, after all, a foundation in 274 by Aurelian, not necessarily at all the same as the old worship of Sol.

Just a different twist to the same old story from Babylon.

That said, my own opinion (contra Hijmans) is that the 25 Dec. *was* instituted as a festival by Aurelian or one of the following emperors. I think this because I can't see how Constantine or his successors up to 354 AD would create one, all of them being Christians;

I look at the fruit of Constantines tree and see no Christian. I see a worshipper of Baal. Or Sol or Apollo etc. etc.

(Information about the date of Christmas can be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia article online -- it references all the scanty sources we have, which is the only part of the article interesting to us).

Fox guarding the hen house. Wolf in sheep clothes.


Thanks Roger.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north"-- Isaiah 14:12-13

Yes but *NOWHERE* there does it equate Lucifer with Satan.

"Lucifer" in this case of Isaiah was a TRANSLATION Anomaly - the Hebrew "Helel" was Translated into Latin as "Luciferum" (in the Vulgate) & into English from there as "Lucifer" (in many English Bibles). "Helel" (Morning Star/Lightbearer) in this case was a pointer to the Planet Venus. That was used as a Reference to a Babylonian King in Isaiah. The Babylonians held the Israelites as captive Slaves at one point in History - so they had cause to hate them & label them (and their King) as the enemies of God in their own Scriptures (i.e. Isaiah). This has been gone over before many times on ATS (like I said you can even Google it if you want). No "Fallen Angel" here!

Maybe you are thinking of the fallen angels in the "Book of Enoch"?

[edit on 25-8-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north"-- Isaiah 14:12-13

Yes but *NOWHERE* there does it equate Lucifer with Satan.

Well, not directly, no, but the inferrence is plain, nonetheless; Lucifer has been accepted for millenia, by both Jews and Chrisitians as being the name that Satan held as God's chief Archangel, before his fall, the name Satan being assigned to him after that event. However, since your original question concerned the assertion that the Devil and Satan were identical names for the same being who deceived Adam & Eve into sin, I don't see how that particular distinction is important. Assuming that your position is correct concerning the name Lucifer, how does that change anything regarding the validity of the scriptures in general or Christianity in particular. I guess I just don't see your point.

Maybe you are thinking of the fallen angels in the "Book of Enoch"?

No, I am not. See my original scripture quotes in Ezekial and Revelations; whether or not you assign the name, "Lucifer", to him the devil or Satan was indeed originally an angel who led a revolt against God and was ejected from heaven and is now the chief accuser and enemy of God's people.

[edit on 25-8-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Well, not directly, no, but the inferrence is plain, nonetheless;

Like I said before (and THIS is my point) you are making up your own Narrative & Mythology!

Lucifer has been accepted for millenia, by... Jews... as being the name that Satan held as God's chief Archangel, before his fall, the name Satan being assigned to him after that event.

Oh Yeah - then PROVE it! Like I said before - "Lucifer" is not even a Hebrew Word or Name! The Judaic Scriptures are in the Hebrew language! What we have here is simply a matter of
"Christian Interpretation" and not all would say that it is a correct one at that!

[edit on 25-8-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente

Oh Yeah - then PROVE it! Like I said before - "Lucifer" is not even a Hebrew Word or Name! The Judaic Scriptures are in the Hebrew language! What we have here is simply a matter of
"Christian Interpretation" and not all would say that it is a correct one at that!

You were the one who brought up the whole Lucifer thing, not me. I was answering your post in regard to the identity of Satan & the Devil as being the entity responsible for the temptation and sin of Adam & Eve. This a point that I made in my last post, which you so conveniently ignore.

Yes, the original books of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew and Aramaic. They were translated into Latin by Jerome in the late 4th and early 5th centuries AD and are known as the Latin Vulgate; it is at this point that what was originally "Light Bringer" and "Daystar"in the Hebrew was translated into "Lucifer" which is latin for "light bringer".

Here is what the original passage in Isaiah translates to directly from Hebrew to English: "How have you fallen from heaven, O light-bringer and daystar, son of the morning! How you have been cut down to the ground, you who weakened and laid low the nations [O blasphemous, satanic king of Babylon!]" Amplified Bible.

I would be interested, though, in how you interpret that passage yourself; and if you can show me any Jewish scholar of the Torah who does not equate the person spoken of in this passage as the Archangel who led a third of the angelic host in rebellion against God.

I would be interested, though, in how you interpret that passage yourself;

I already told you (also it is right there in Isaiah if you read it in its entirety) - it was a condemnation of the King of Babylon at a time when the Babylonians held the Israelites Captive! How can you equate a King with a Fallen Angel?

Is anyone out there a Rabbi - can we get a confirmation here please?

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente

I would be interested, though, in how you interpret that passage yourself;

I already told you (also it is right there in Isaiah if you read it in its entirety) - it was a condemnation of the King of Babylon at a time when the Babylonians held the Israelites Captive! How can you equate a King with a Fallen Angel?

This would be difficult, given that Isaiah's ministry only extended from around the year 739 BC to around 697 BC and the babylonian exile and captivity did not begin until 605 BC; so, unless you are willing to stipulate that Isaiah was making a prophetic utterance, your argument is wanting, at least logically.

Is anyone out there a Rabbi - can we get a confirmation here please?

Yes, I second your request.

babylonian exile and captivity did not begin until 605 BC

OK the Exile & Captivity began in 605 B.C. - but when did the WAR begin?

Or do you believe that the Israelites accepted Captivity & Enslavement without a fight? Maybe because it was so pleasant under the Egyptians/Kemetans last time around (that was Sarcasm BTW )?

Nebuchudnezzars's first assault on Jeruasalem occurred in 605 BC, this was the beginning of the Babylonian war on Israel. Nebuchudnezzar burned Jerusalem and destroyed the temple in 586 BC. Prior to Nebuchudnezar, Babylon was under Assyrian rule under Sennacharib, however, the hebrews/israelites of that time were not held captive enmasse; that did not occur until Nebuchudnezzar sacked the city in 605 BC and subsequently in 597 and 586 BC, but large numbers of captives were not carried off until 597 BC when Nebuchudnezzar came back to Jerusalem to punish Johoiakim for his revolt and carried off 10,000.

given that Isaiah's ministry only extended from around the year 739 BC to around 697 BC.

Can you prove this - any kind of Verification?

Perhaps there was a GAP between Isaiah's Ministry & when the "Biblical Isaiah" Scripture was actually written! That was certainly the case when it came to Jesus' Ministry (i.e. the Gospels in that case). Any comment on this possibility?

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente

given that Isaiah's ministry only extended from around the year 739 BC to around 697 BC.

Can you prove this - any kind of Verification?[/QUOTE]

While most of my reference materials are in book form I did find a link that pretty much backs up what I have stated. You can find it here: en.wikipedia.org...

Perhaps there was a GAP between Isaiah's Ministry & when the "Biblical Isaiah" Scripture was actually written! That was certainly the case when it came to Jesus' Ministry (i.e. the Gospels in that case). Any comment on this possibility?

Can you prove this? ANY kind of verification?

Originally posted by Stormrider

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente

I would be interested, though, in how you interpret that passage yourself;

I already told you (also it is right there in Isaiah if you read it in its entirety) - it was a condemnation of the King of Babylon at a time when the Babylonians held the Israelites Captive! How can you equate a King with a Fallen Angel?

This would be difficult, given that Isaiah's ministry only extended from around the year 739 BC to around 697 BC and the babylonian exile and captivity did not begin until 605 BC; so, unless you are willing to stipulate that Isaiah was making a prophetic utterance, your argument is wanting, at least logically.

Is anyone out there a Rabbi - can we get a confirmation here please?

Yes, I second your request.

I'm not a Rabbi, but maybe I can assist. The verse in question is referring to Lucifer the Day Star who is also Satan. The Babylonian king in question is not Nebuchudnezzar it is Nimrod, who is Baal, who is the sun, who is the Day Star.

In reality he is the false day star, the false morning star and the false Christ or Antichist.