Vampires, Christianity, and The Vatican

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
Protestant Christianity is heavily correlated to the massive progress of civilization. Catholicism is associated with stagnation.

That's a crock. I lived in Alabama for many 9 years. I saw the 'progress' of some of those supposedly 'progressively civilized' protestant churches of yours .... black people are all going to hell because they have the mark of cain on them ... snake handlers ... everyone is going to hell except those who go to our church ..... if you don't give god (really, the preacher) 10% of your money you are going to hell ... if you are a woman and wear pants you are going to hell ... if you are a woman and cut your hair you are going to hell ... if you are a black/white couple you are going to hell because god doesn't want the races to mix ... Noahs Ark actually existed ... there can't be life anywhere in the universe except here because the bible doesn't say there is any ... "if it isn't in the bible, then it isn't true" (germs aren't in the bible so I guess they are all our imagination) ... etc etc

There are PLENTY of things found in fundamentalist protestantism that are stagnation (or just plain stupidity). Not all of them believed these things, of course, but there were plenty.

Let's not get this thread muddled up with across the aisle bickering. We're here to talk about vampires. Protestantism is an entirely different horse. No blood rituals. You know, Martin Luther hammered in his complaints to the church door. Maybe in his off-time he was hammering in stakes into the chests of bishops and cardinals who's flock tended to mysteriously disappear.

Speaking of the Bishopric and Cardinals, does anyone get a really bad feeling about them? Especially the Cardinals. Blood red robes, secretive, and hidden from the public eye. If the cover ups that have gone on in the church are indicative of anything, it shows they can keep a secret. A very dark, bloody secret.

As foolish as this may sound...
I think Captain Pisces became a vampire after being pierced by the guard's spear (the spear of Phineas).
Didn't the blood and water come out of the spear? Pierced by the elixir of immortality?

a reply to: Grifter42

The voice of Malak Ha-Mayim echoes in the gardens of destinies;

“Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was, for you brought these judgments. For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink. It is what they deserve!” ESV Revelation 16:5-6

originally posted by: Grifter42
Two thousand years ago, a man died, and rose from the dead as a revenant. Now, as to the origins of this revenant, people will argue. People will bicker, and claim that this act of rising from the grave itself was some how holy.
If you look at it outside of the context of religion, however, it seems to fit the myth of the revenant. The undead.
The legend of the bloodsucking vampire.

You see, crucifying would not kill a vampire. Jesus was stabbed in the side with the spear of Longinus, but never in the heart. After Christ rises from the tomb, without witness, except for alleged angels, he only makes shadowy appearances. In my opinion, he fled the tomb in the night. Moving aside the boulder with the unnatural strength of the vampire. He then passed down the secret through the disciples. The first church being founded by Peter would go on to continue the traditions.

I believe that of the sects of Christianity, the true corrupt heart of this ancient lie is within the Vatican. Within this heart of darkness lies numerous secrets and eldritch horrors. Beings of perhaps centuries of age, debauched and savage. There are many tombs and catacombs for such to hide inside. The question remains as to whether the pope himself might be a vampire, but the man behind the pope who manipulates him is almost certainly one.

Viewed in a different light, Christianity appears as a death cult, centered around drinking the consecrated blood of an undead. In myth, drinking the blood of a vampire is enough to enslave mortals. Through ancient pact, this remains much the same effect. Modern religion has watered down the religion, but the catholic church is still ran by blood suckers. The rest of Christianity is just sort of cargo cult religion.

The truth will come out.

dont know that i would buy the book, but the premise is certainly original and inventive. jesus the vampire...forget the book, i want the movie. a television series about jesus the vampire and the coverup that led to modern day judaism. make pontius son or brother a vampire hunter, explaining some of the motivation to kill jesus without actually using traditional vampire hunting methods. or perhaps pontius son was the first professional vampire hunter and still figuring out how it works while trying to stop the vampire cult of jesus. could there be werewolves involved too? DEMONS! and jesus pretended he was doing works of god while actually waging war against the lycanthropes. hey, we got us a workable plot here. and market it as a fictional work, maybe even spark a new genre: historical religious fantasy.

grifter, you have no idea what you just started.

ETA you are serious about all this? you really think jesus of nazareth was a vampire?

ETA you are serious about all this? you really think jesus of nazareth was a vampire?

Or maybe you could ask, are you Sirius about all this?
www.goldeenogawa.com...

a reply to: Grifter42

If you look at Abraham and Melchizedek eating bread and drinking wine you could easily interpret it as a metaphor for flesh and blood and Melchi or MLCH could have been a priest of Molech called righteous.

It is not like the Canaanites weren't doing human sacrifice so cannibalism seems a likelihood too. And Christianity is a cult that believes that an ancient human sacrifice is their ticket to heaven. Just because they are willing to abandon logic they are rewarded by a human sacrifice.

a reply to: Muffenstuff

It's interesting that it is to the God of Melchizedek Abraham sacrifices Isaac to. Moloch? According to the documentary hypothesis, the story about Isaac originally ended there, with Isaac being killed, but later editors added the part where Abraham replaced Isaac with a goat so the lad would live.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

There are some who say that Satan stopped Abraham and not an angel but I doubt that was ever in the scripture.

Christians need to reexamine the role of Satan because according to scripture he is not the enemy of Yahweh but hatchet man who tempts man but doesn't do anything without permission.

He even makes sure that "God's" plan succeeds when he enters Judas, who must have been having trouble with what his assigned mission was and essentially chickened out. Sits on the council of the Elohim (Gods).

If salvation is from the success of the crucifixion I think thanks are in order yet Christianity assigns all evil to Satan CONTRARY to the OT decree by Yahweh that he is good AND evil, responsible for and the cause of evil as well as good.

And the scriptures say nothing of a fall of Satan unless you deliberately misinterpret Isaiah and Ezekiel there is no hint of a beef between Yahweh and Satan.

Compared to Yahweh Satan is pretty tame and submissive (to Yah).

Yahweh confesses to having ordered the slaughter of the first born of the Hebrews on AT LEAST one occasion. Human sacrifice is not evil if Yahweh says to do it.

But not Moloch? Kind of a lowlife of a god is Yahweh.

a reply to: Muffenstuff

Depends on who you call Satan.

I prefer to call Yahweh Satan.

Or I prefer to think of Satan as the one third of Heavenly host who chose to leave Heaven, to rule Earth.

Perhaps you could say there is no "beef" and both parties are friends.

But I would say they have opposing bets on Genesis 1:28.

This is where I think vampires versus werewolves comes from.

The Heavenly host are wolves.

The current Earthly rulers are vampires.

And we have all probably heard the scriptures of Jesus bad mouthing wolves.

So which side is Jesus on?

Salvation from a sacrificial scapegoat. Whatever.

Reminds me of that dystopian movie, I Am Legend.

I think, if Jesus had been wise, he whould have accepted "Satan's temptation" after he apparently fasted 40 days and nights.

a reply to: InachMarbank

The scam is in thinking that a simple utterance of a belief in a myth is all God requires of us to gain entry to heaven.

If it sounds to good to be true...it ain't (true).

The Gnostics understood this and thought it absolutely ridiculous that such a simple lie could fool so many into abandoning logic and the quest for Wisdom.

Sounds like something an enemy who wants you to fail would teach.

And Yahweh is Satan, essentially. I agree with that. But it's the polytheism of Judaism that people don't realize that confuses many. Some of the Patriarchs were originally thought gods or godlike such as Shem and Abraham.

El Elyon was the Most High God and Father of all the Elohim. Baal his grandson, son of Dagon, is Yahweh.

Monotheistic apologetics and redaction of the original meaning of the scriptures has blurred everyone's vision.

a reply to: Muffenstuff

Abraham sacrificed his son Isaac to Molock. That's what the text says. Later someone added the stories about jacob and established a direct link between them. Abraham displays the modus of at least 30 different deities. Jahveh actually not being among them. only in the days of Moses were God named Jahveh.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

So if Abraham killed Isaac, according to Genesis chapter 22,
are these later verses full blown lies or deceptions?

"And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac."
~ Genesis 25:5

"Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people.
And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre."
~ Genesis 25:8-9

"And it came to pass after the death of Abraham, that God blessed his son Isaac; and Isaac dwelt by the well Lahai-roi"
~ Genesis 25:11

Or are you lying?

After a closer read, it does appear Abraham killed his only son, at the time, Isaac.

"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me."
~ Genesis 22:10-12

No verse then clearly says Abraham restrained from killing his son.

"And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"
~ Genesis 22:15-17

And these verses clearly say, "hast not withheld thy son, thine only son."

"So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba."
~ Genesis 22:19

And this verse does not say Abraham returned with Isaac.

But it does appear Abraham later begat another son named Isaac:

"And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh:
And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell:
But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac."
~ Genesis 25:2-4

"thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites"

These verses seem to reference a 2nd son Isaac born of the daughters of the Canaanites.

But the 1st son Isaac was born from Sarah:

"And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac."
~ Genesis 21:3

But Sarah (formerly called Sarai) was not a Canaanite, was she?
Abraham (formerly called Abram) moved to Canaan with Sarah.

"And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came."
~ Genesis 12:5

So, it appears Abraham failed his test.

What kind of man would kill his only son just because God told him to?

Surely not the kind of man who should fulfill Genesis 1:28.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Problems with the logic of current text suggest an alternative explanation. Genesis 16:16 states Abraham was eighty-six years old when Ishmael was born, Genesis 21:5 states Abraham was one hundred years old when Isaac was born. Yet Genesis 22:2 states "Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

Its possible that the Genesis 22:2 originally quoted "first born son" (being Ishmael) who incidentally had twelve sons that might have been the true fathers of the original twelve tribes.

When the Torah was rediscovered in 600BC (2 Kings 22:8), or more likely reappeared from behind closed doors, it could have been modified to successfully complete a deuteronomic reform of the land by elevating the people (then isaacs lineage in Torah) to Gods special people. The ego of humans being such, it would have been swallowed hook, line and sinker.

Hopefully we will get answers to these questions soon

“When you hear that the Russians have captured the city of Crimea, you should know that the times of the Messiah have started, that his steps are being heard. And when you hear that the Russians have reached the city of Constantinople, you should put on your Shabbat (Sabbath) clothes and don’t take them off, because it means that the Messiah is about to come any minute.”

18th century Jewish sage Vilna Gaon
link

a reply to: InachMarbank
a reply to: glend

There is rather a consensus among theologists and the establishment that the documentary hypothesis posed by one Friedman is the real deal. I'll try and show you what it's all about.

From analysing the text of the Torah, Friedman established a handful different sources reflecting the different stages of Judaism and different schools and traditions. The Torah is a composite story put together by a handful different sources over a period of several centuries. In this section Genesis 22, he identifies three main sources: Elohist, Jahvist and an insert Redactor RJE:

E = Elohist
RJE = Redactor of J & E
J = Jahvist

Exodus 22
1After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” 2He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” 3So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac. And he cut the wood for the burnt offering and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. 4On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place from afar. 5Then Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; I and the boy will go over there and worship and come again to you.” 6And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son. And he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they went both of them together. 7And Isaac said to his father Abraham, “My father!” And he said, “Here I am, my son.” He said, “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” 8Abraham said, “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they went both of them together.

9When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built the altar there and laid the wood in order and bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son. 11But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” 12He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” 13And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14So Abraham called the name of that place, “The LORD will provide”; as it is said to this day, “On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided.”

15And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven 16and said, “By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, 18and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.” 19So Abraham returned to his young men, and they arose and went together to Beersheba. And Abraham lived at Beersheba.

20Now after these things it was told to Abraham, “Behold, Milcah also has borne children to your brother Nahor: 21Uz his firstborn, Buz his brother, Kemuel the father of Aram, 22Chesed, Hazo, Pildash, Jidlaph, and Bethuel.” 23(Bethuel fathered Rebekah.) These eight Milcah bore to Nahor, Abraham’s brother. 24Moreover, his concubine, whose name was Reumah, bore Tebah, Gaham, Tahash, and Maacah.

Look into Richard Elliot Friedman and his books written about this Documentary Hypothesis, I can highly recommend his book containing his translation of the Torah with all these sources marked up in the text-- The Bible with Sources Revealed / A New Look into the Five Books of Moses. An eyeopener of sorts.

a reply to: glend

I am almost certain that the Torah came from the Chaldeans of Babylonia, if I had to guess who redacted it I would guess Ezra the scribe.

But Noah is a ripoff of the Gilgamesh epic's Utanapishtim, Eden is also a Babylonian and Chaldean tale and the story of Moses is a composite of Sargon (and others, Akhenaten perhaps) and Ezra is the "real" Moses and it shows in his name Ezra where Isra-el originally gets his name.

A king named David possibly existed but not Solomon or basically anyone in the Torah, and no glorious Kingdom of Israel ever existed.

a reply to: glend

Ohhhh I get it now!

Isaac was the first vampire!

I don't know about Jesus being a vampire but if he did rise from the dead then he's immortal with power's.

The Vatican is a strange place with I'm sure many secrets, ether it's all a bunch of crap or they truly have ancient secrets about humanity.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

thanks Utnapisjtim, Interesting yes but couldn't the inaccuracy of oral transmission tasked by different people remembering different portions also account for the discrepancies over the years. You'd think that if the Torah was authored between 500-950 BC there'd be a red flag, like the mentioning of Jerusalem, giving a definite timeline.