Is the "Sun" really the "Son" of God?? Video has me second guessing the bible

Originally posted by Sun Matrix

Originally posted by interestedalways
Oh well, you can't just explain everything by saying that Nimrod and company started this whole ball rolling, they surely were influenced by something or someone.

Uhhhh.........uhhhhhhhhh.........uuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh.......LUCIFER.

Lucifer, huh?

For him to be such a big player and all you would think he would be mentioned in the Bible a little bit more.

Originally posted by interestedalways

Lucifer, huh?

For him to be such a big player and all you would think he would be mentioned in the Bible a little bit more.

Actually, he's mentioned continually in the Bible. You might check the names Baal, Bel, Molech, devil, Satan, deceiver, serpent, dragon etc. etc. etc.



Mod edit: shortened unecessary quote of the entire preceeding post.

[edit on 2007/5/13 by Hellmutt]

If anyone has read the sumerian texts and/or Sitchin's work on the subject, then you know that Enki is the equivalent of the biblical Serpent in the Garden/Satan/Lucifer.

The "light bringer" is not the sun. It's not Venus. It's not Saturn. It's Enki, the sumerian "Lord Earth" (biblical "god of this world"), the Devil, Satan. He brought illumination in the form of teaching us "civilization," not in the form of ultraviolet and infra-red rays beamed to us from the sun, but in learning to be "civilized." (take note that this is the "Babylonian" system which started originally in Sumer with Enki, and as a result, you see the babylonian systems repeating the same thing throughout history - The Holy Roman Empire invades south america, "civilizes" the people and enslaves them to the Empire, for example. Same same same same same. The guys at the top in these organizations, are all working on the same page, most of them being bred into the system for just such a task).

According to the sumerian texts, Enki and the other "sons of Anu" (not suns of Anu), found uncivilized man, and thought to upgrade us for the purposes of civilization building. We were to be enslaved for the furtherance of their "empire." They did modify some of us to be leaders and kings (hybrids), either via intercourse, artificial insemination or via genetic manipulation AFTER birth.

This guy is just over simplifying everything and in so doing, erases thousands of years of history.

Originally posted by undo


This guy is just over simplifying everything and in so doing, erases thousands of years of history.

This guy is over simplifying things because his purpose is not to lead you to the truth, but to deceive.

He is part of the very system that he is pointing his finger at, all for the purpose of keeping people from seeing the Messiah.

Originally posted by Sun Matrix


This guy is over simplifying things because his purpose is not to lead you to the truth, but to deceive.

He is part of the very system that he is pointing his finger at, all for the purpose of keeping people from seeing the Messiah.

Yes, isn't it ironic? When you look back at the progression of it, how the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) highjacked christianity and made it into a sun worship religion with the Pope a deified Caesar, how they borrowed the symbols of the other sun worshipping cults so that 2 thousand years later, people would be able to point to the RCC as proof that christianity is a sun worship cult. Really, it's so diabolical

As far as the Roman Pontiff having his hands deep into the conspiracy pie of false fronts, fake premises and world domination, you should read this thread:

USA's National Technology Transfer Center
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Now tell me, if you can, do YOU trust them to tell you the truth about christianity? If you think they incorporated those sun symbols and pagan traditions for ecumenism, you're right. The reason is, world domination. They appear to be on target!

jesus was only an inlighted person not a god, i do belive that the sun is god i have a few bits to show about why. a sun temple shaped of a pyramid not only in eygpt. these temples were everywhere maybe a palce of worship to the sun.



india they have a sun temple



bosnia




eygpt


mexico

im sure theres more

jesus always looking at the sun why?






another when there alwauys a sun around his head



its theses little things which make u think, if people couldnt get to temples myabe the oblilsks where small gathering areas to worship the sun, funy that every oblisk stone is from eygprt and the biggest sun temple is in eygpt.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by Swissgarud]

Jesus is God. He is the Son of God, the Word made flesh that dwelt among us. Opening blind eyes, healing the sick, raising the dead and walking on water.

He has a sun around his head because the Romans couldn't kill the Christian movement so they took it over. The Roman were worshippers of the sun.........who is Lucifer the false bringer of light.....who is Satan descuised as an angel of light.

The Egyptian obelisk comes from Babylon and said to be a ray of the sun that impregnated Semiramis the queen of Babylon......also know as the queen of heaven. The sun is Baal the sun god. Nimrod at his death became Baal.

The sun is the place of hell's first round. The second round is outter darkness (outterspace).

Originally posted by Mabus
The sun is the place of hell's first round. The second round is outter darkness (outterspace).

i dont understand what hell's first round means. what are you talking about?

Originally posted by Funkydung

Originally posted by Mabus
The sun is the place of hell's first round. The second round is outter darkness (outterspace).

i dont understand what hell's first round means. what are you talking about?

Like round one and round two of a boxing fight.

Keep in mind the sun dies out. So then the 2nd round takes effect on the hellbound.

[edit on 10-6-2007 by Mabus]

Just wondering if this link has been thrown around the religion board yet?

video.google.com...

If not, some of you may find it pretty interesting.

Originally posted by GeniusSage
Just wondering if this link has been thrown around the religion board yet?

video.google.com...

If not, some of you may find it pretty interesting.

You ready for some schoolin' son? Oh, isn't that funny? I called you "son." I really didn't mean you were anyone's "son." I really meant you were the "sun." The fact that you aren't the "sun" has nothing to do with it, honest.

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by GeniusSage
Just wondering if this link has been thrown around the religion board yet?

video.google.com...

If not, some of you may find it pretty interesting.

You ready for some schoolin' son? Oh, isn't that funny? I called you "son." I really didn't mean you were anyone's "son." I really meant you were the "sun." The fact that you aren't the "sun" has nothing to do with it, honest.

Come on! We're all old enough to realise that's not the only point the video's making.

Originally posted by GeniusSage

Come on! We're all old enough to realise that's not the only point the video's making.

Alrighty.

He lists no texts whatsoever to support his position on Horus' life mirroring that of Christ's life. We are expected to take his word for it.

The idea that Christ was born on December 25th is completely connocted by the Catholic Church. Nowhere in the bible does it say Christ was born on December 25th. In fact, based on the Hebrew calendar, the date was more than likely in September. : /

READ it for yourself. The Catholic Church pulled that one out of their collective "let's rule the world" concepts by melding pagan teachings with christianity.

The Sabbath is not Sunday, a Mithra example he proposed. That was also a Catholic attempt to integrate paganism into christianity. Sabbat was Saturday. Or more precisely, from dusk on Friday to dusk on Saturday.

All this video is proving is that the Catholic Church changed the times and the seasons and tried to incorporate pagan tradition into christian tradition in order to acclimate the people for their leadership.



[edit on 15-6-2007 by undo]

The theory of Jesus as a personification of the Sun, and his story as an elaborate allegory for the Sun's journey through the sky over a year is an attractive idea that has been written about by many an author.

The idea that the words 'Son' and 'Sun' are similar and this is the basis of the theory is incorrect, and I agree with what Byrd said early on in the thread with regards to looking at the language the original text was written in, and it's original intended audience and the time within which it originates.

May I recommend a book that touches on this very subject:


Link: The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?

It covers the similarity between the Jesus myth in the New Testament, and other dying God-Men from the same time period, and basically puts forth the idea that the Jesus myth was a creation of proto-Gnostic Christians/Jews, who were aclimatised enough in the Greco-Roman world to appreciate the philosophies of the Mystery schools, and wished to create their own version of the 'Inner Mysteries' for a Jewish audience - thus the Jesus story was a result of religious syncretism.

Unfortunately, the texts of these Gnostics, who were perfectly aware that the Jesus myth had an outter and inner meaning, were hijacked by 'Christian Literalists' who took these Gnostic writings as historical fact, and in selecting and editing their original writings, obscured or ignored the original Gnostic/allegorial, philosophical or 'mystic' meanings of their writings.

It's a good read, and one I found much less damning of Christianity as a whole than books with a similar idea of the Jesus myth as a solar allegory.





Some links on the subject:
Solar Mythology and the Jesus Story
Jesus Never Existed
The Jesus Myth
Jesus Christ & Comparative Mythology
Life-death-rebirth deities
Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?
Osiris-Dionysus
Historicity of Jesus

Some of my other posts on ATS on this subject:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Velvet

Would you please take the time to review the difference between the traditions and the actually writing in the texts? There's a big difference. All you're doing is claiming catholic tradition is in the biblical texts, and for the most part, it isn't.

Jesus was not born on December 25th.
The Sabbath is not Sunday.
Horus was not born to a Virgin. Isis was the wife of Osiris who was alive before he died, ya know?!! She was not a virgin. Somebody in more modern times, tried to squeak that outta the texts, but that's not what the texts say.

Let me clarify this so it becomes abundantly clear what I'm saying:

The argument is that the Jesus story in the bible was written by the Roman Catholic Church, who then proceeded to ignore the christian and judaic traditions, dates, festivals, holy days, and at least half the teachings of Christ, in favor of the Pope's latest prognistications.

Then, the argument is that the similarity between the dates the Pope gives (which are almost entirely pagan) for honoring the days of Christ's life are proof that christianity is a copy cat religion. All the while ignoring the fact that none of it is in the bible to begin with! Rather than change the text, they simply locked it up and refused to let anyone that wasn't under the Pope's influence, read it. When Luther found it, it was chained the wall in the basement of a cathedral and written in a language no one but the priests could understand anyway!

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by GeniusSage

Come on! We're all old enough to realise that's not the only point the video's making.

Alrighty.

He lists no texts whatsoever to support his position on Horus' life mirroring that of Christ's life. We are expected to take his word for it.

The idea that Christ was born on December 25th is completely connocted by the Catholic Church. Nowhere in the bible does it say Christ was born on December 25th. In fact, based on the Hebrew calendar, the date was more than likely in September. : /

READ it for yourself. The Catholic Church pulled that one out of their collective "let's rule the world" concepts by melding pagan teachings with christianity.

The Sabbath is not Sunday, a Mithra example he proposed. That was also a Catholic attempt to integrate paganism into christianity. Sabbat was Saturday. Or more precisely, from dusk on Friday to dusk on Saturday.

All this video is proving is that the Catholic Church changed the times and the seasons and tried to incorporate pagan tradition into christian tradition in order to acclimate the people for their leadership.



[edit on 15-6-2007 by undo]

A MUCH better post! I was linked to this vid earlier today and I think I've found a new area of interest.

GeniusSage,

You do realize, don't you, that catholicism started its life as an attempt by the pagan Roman government, not to lose their hold over the people? They usurped christianity. The leaders were converted pagans who weren't necessarily converted in the biblical sense, but rather just concocted a way to incorporate the pagan and christian ideas into each other by modifying the social aspects, making the texts off limits to anyone who wasn't under the RCC's guidance and who were therefore "unqualified" to read them or incapable of reading them, whichever came first. After absorbing a group or nation of people into the religion, they'd make them sit through Mass read in a language most didn't understand and wouldn't let them see the actual texts, anyway. So who would be the wiser?

Then they took the pagan god statues and simply renamed them into biblical figures, lending even moreso to the concept that christianity was pagan. Of course, that ain't in the bible. Luther, when he realized what the texts actually said, began to question everything. ( He started most famously, with questioning Indulgences. )

For example, idol worship was considered taboo in biblical christianity. There simply was no reason for it. Praying to angels? Unheard of in the judeo-christian biblical teachings, but not unheard of in pagan or catholic traditions/teachings. They changed pretty much every aspect of christianity so as to incorporate the other peoples they encountered. In other words, they were very ecumenical but only in their own favor, and at the expense of life and limb, if necessary.

Today, this has had the effect of allowing people to accuse christianity of being a pagan copycat. Even though these accusers know the biblical texts don't support most of what the Popes taught or changed or did, they still insist it is christian teaching. It's amazing to me that the two concepts have been so carefully melded together. In fact, it's mind-boggling.