rigorousintuition.ca

ShinShinKid wrote:Interesting discussion. On this point of my journey, I see Yeshua as an Essene. There is a great book about it. Anyways, about the OP...
Goro Adachi is on quite the riff lately about this stuff...

http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/

I agree that he was most likely an Essene. John the Baptist almost certainly was. It appears that the Essenes were heavily influenced by the Pythagoreans, as there are many parallels between the two groups. Of course these could have arisen independently among the Essenes, but direct influence is also possible.

Of the Essenes, Manly Palmer Hall says "The fact that so many artificers were listed among their number is responsible for the order's being considered as a progenitor of modern Freemasonry. The symbols of the Essenes include a number of builders' tools, and they were secretly engaged in the erection of a spiritual and philosophical temple to serve as a dwelling place for the living God."
The Secret Teachings of All Ages - Mystic Christianity
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta44.htm

Elaine Pagels wrote an excellent book called The Origin of Satan, in the aftermath of two great personal tragedies, the separate deaths of both her son and husband less than a year apart. It was a while ago that I read it, But IIRC the gist is that Satan changed dramatically from the earliest Hebraic interpretations of Satan as a malicious but faithful and necessary servant of God, to the late Christian interpretations of Satan as a "good" God's arch enemy. For example in Job, when God decides (at Satan's suggestion) to test Job, he does so through Satan, sending the angel to tempt him.

The Hebrew origin of the name Satan, which is S-T-N, meant adversary, or one who obstructs a path.

I was thinking of this book...

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/jae/index.htm

ShinShinKid wrote:I was thinking of this book...

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/jae/index.htm

Interesting, thanks. The text says this interesting tidbit:

"The disciples were specially cautioned against importunity in these words, "Go not from house to house." 2 Such commands would be incomprehensible if we were to believe that Jesus intended the disciples to enter indiscriminately any house. They were to "enquire" as to suitable houses, enter them, and if refused hospitality were to leave at once, with what we must regard as equivalent to maledictions. They were to "shake off the dust" of their feet in departing. This is the strongest expression of indignation that the Scripture affords, and would be inappropriate if applied to householders who simply refused to receive perfect strangers. It must, therefore, apply to those Essenes, who, for some reason, refused to receive their brethren. Such conduct would be blameworthy. Essenism was, in fact, a kind of freemasonry, and to be guilty of a neglect of the duties of brotherhood was the most flagitious of crimes. Inhospitality and want of kindness to those related by ties more sacred than the bonds of kindred must have been a most grievous offence, and this fact will enable us to understand the indignation of the apostle John against one who had refused to acknowledge his authority, or to receive some of the disciples."

Obviously, when he wrote this, he knew with whom it might resonate.
Notice he does not capitalize "freemasonry". Is it because he is referring to guilds and their natures, not Freemasonry itself?

Read on, read on!

JackRiddler wrote:Dave McGowan shows the downside of being the sharpest knife: you just can't stop stabbing.

.

He ascribes to Jesus what is almost certainly Paul's message, but overall I agree. Paul was the controlled asset that made Christianity a controlled opposition. Who else but Paul in the New Testament names names and locates places? 'I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gai'us; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Steph'anas'. Very appropriate for a secret, persecuted organization. And Paul himself, of course, was the result of a mixed union, and not with a lowly soldier, granting him Roman Citizenship at birth, that he used to the full. One is always amazed at the way he shows up in a city, causes a riot in which Roman troops intervene, arrest him, put him in jail for three weeks in the Governor's house, and then release him to repeat at his next stop.

Beeline has already provided links for the historical evaluation of Jesus. I think there probably was a Jesus, one of the many desert dwelling freedom fighters of his day, and who probably led a successful raid on Jerusalem, received with palms. The parts that ring true are the eviction of the money changers from the temple, the capture in Gethsemane and the execution. All convenient background for Paul's state sponsored work.

ShinShinKid wrote:Obviously, when he wrote this, he knew with whom it might resonate.
Notice he does not capitalize "freemasonry". Is it because he is referring to guilds and their natures, not Freemasonry itself?

Read on, read on!

Well the author is a she right? Which makes her mention of freemasonry even more interesting. She obviously knew something about it...

No, I think she was referring specifically to freemasonry, as the comparison is on the very specific grounds of how you should treat a brother. This was probably a characteristic of all the guild etc but at the time of her writing (turn of the twentieth century) the comparison to freemasonry would have resonated, as it was very popular at that time and the "brotherly" aspect was well known.

Just my guess

DrVolin wrote:

JackRiddler wrote:Dave McGowan shows the downside of being the sharpest knife: you just can't stop stabbing.

.

He ascribes to Jesus what is almost certainly Paul's message, but overall I agree. Paul was the controlled asset that made Christianity a controlled opposition. Who else but Paul in the New Testament names names and locates places? 'I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gai'us; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Steph'anas'. Very appropriate for a secret, persecuted organization. And Paul himself, of course, was the result of a mixed union, and not with a lowly soldier, granting him Roman Citizenship at birth, that he used to the full. One is always amazed at the way he shows up in a city, causes a riot in which Roman troops intervene, arrest him, put him in jail for three weeks in the Governor's house, and then release him to repeat at his next stop.

Beeline has already provided links for the historical evaluation of Jesus. I think there probably was a Jesus, one of the many desert dwelling freedom fighters of his day, and who probably led a successful raid on Jerusalem, received with palms. The parts that ring true are the eviction of the money changers from the temple, the capture in Gethsemane and the execution. All convenient background for Paul's state sponsored work.

What would have been the Romans' rationale to use Paul as a state-sponsored asset? To smoke the christians out into the open?

Julian the Apostate wrote:

ShinShinKid wrote:Obviously, when he wrote this, he knew with whom it might resonate.
Notice he does not capitalize "freemasonry". Is it because he is referring to guilds and their natures, not Freemasonry itself?

Read on, read on!

Well the author is a she right? Which makes her mention of freemasonry even more interesting. She obviously knew something about it...

No, I think she was referring specifically to freemasonry, as the comparison is on the very specific grounds of how you should treat a brother. This was probably a characteristic of all the guild etc but at the time of her writing (turn of the twentieth century) the comparison to freemasonry would have resonated, as it was very popular at that time and the "brotherly" aspect was well known.

Just my guess

Looking at the link again, you were correct the author is a he. My mistake

DrVolin wrote:

JackRiddler wrote:Dave McGowan shows the downside of being the sharpest knife: you just can't stop stabbing.

.

He ascribes to Jesus what is almost certainly Paul's message, but overall I agree. Paul was the controlled asset that made Christianity a controlled opposition. Who else but Paul in the New Testament names names and locates places? 'I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gai'us; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Steph'anas'. Very appropriate for a secret, persecuted organization. And Paul himself, of course, was the result of a mixed union, and not with a lowly soldier, granting him Roman Citizenship at birth, that he used to the full. One is always amazed at the way he shows up in a city, causes a riot in which Roman troops intervene, arrest him, put him in jail for three weeks in the Governor's house, and then release him to repeat at his next stop.

Beeline has already provided links for the historical evaluation of Jesus. I think there probably was a Jesus, one of the many desert dwelling freedom fighters of his day, and who probably led a successful raid on Jerusalem, received with palms. The parts that ring true are the eviction of the money changers from the temple, the capture in Gethsemane and the execution. All convenient background for Paul's state sponsored work.

Paul : Jesus :: Jesse Jackson : MLK?
Paul as a Darby-style infiltrator and informant?

I love this thread as much as I loathe Paul.

DrVolin wrote:

JackRiddler wrote:Dave McGowan shows the downside of being the sharpest knife: you just can't stop stabbing.

.

He ascribes to Jesus what is almost certainly Paul's message, but overall I agree. Paul was the controlled asset that made Christianity a controlled opposition. Who else but Paul in the New Testament names names and locates places?

SNIP

Beeline has already provided links for the historical evaluation of Jesus. I think there probably was a Jesus, one of the many desert dwelling freedom fighters of his day, and who probably led a successful raid on Jerusalem, received with palms. The parts that ring true are the eviction of the money changers from the temple, the capture in Gethsemane and the execution. All convenient background for Paul's state sponsored work.

The thread didn't consider Paul properly until now and I think you have it right. The conversion of Christianity first into a state-controlled religion and then into the state religion outright begins with him. And unlike aspects of the Jesus story, I do believe his historicity is established, though someone may now come in to refute that.

Julian the Apostate wrote:What would have been the Romans' rationale to use Paul as a state-sponsored asset? To smoke the christians out into the open?

Yes and no. Smoking out the real troublemakers is good, from the perspective of the authorities. But if wiping out the Christians entails unacceptable costs, then taking over the show and bending it towards state goals is better than nothing. Eventually, culminating with Constantine, Christianity is fashioned into an ideal religion for the slave majority. This need not be (and no way was!) planned from the start, but would have been an expectable response to the rise of the Christian movement as a challenge to the Roman state.

(After that the barbarians and then the Arabs really complicated things.)

.

The spread of Islam is a whole different story, and I think was essentially a tax revolt against the levies caused by Justinian's little western adventures.

Right about on cue...

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/165802#.UTSoijdpurC

8bitagent wrote:God. Satan. Christ. It's all #occult to me, which I aint down with. We are our own higher powers, kindness/warmth/good reigns. Fuck Arabhamic faith, fuck the occult, fuck false idols.

I think youve probably said the best part of what I think and was subsequently trying to articulate through the image. Understanding the constructs of control are so important. Satan indeed. Wanna see Satan in binary, which as a code comprises just about every element of our existence? Look at the dark bits in the pic for satan by most definitions. Then understand that this is a natural part of the universal construct, which includes each and every one of us. This is readily understood by far more learned folks than me. Including those who exploit all this understanding for their own ends.

Sure, talk about Satan, and all the rest of that interpretaitional stuff if you like. It would be great if we could to look extremely closely at those who introduced the idea. If youre truly on the case however, you would probably quickly come to understand how those elites who understand most of this better than the rest of us ( IMHO), have used such knowledge for their own personal benefit on the physical plane. They couldnt get away with it if they werent as occulty savvy as they are.

We are spirits in a material world. We are a construct of the yin and yan image. We are part of infinite consciousness.

As an aside I reckon we'd be kinda bored as a species, with consciousness, in our earthly school, with too much of either "good" or "bad".

My dog in this fight is based on my own personal belief that this world currently has too much unneccesary suffering for my liking.