PDA

View Full Version : Crowley, End of the World, and Jack the Ripper


10-02-2005, 03:22 AM
Greetings to everyone. I am new to the boards. But I'm glad I found the site.

My name is Frater Nothing and I am the Magickal Heir of the Beast, sometimes known as the Homonculus or Moon Child.

I'm a Christian and highly interested in eschatology.

Just wanted to let everyone know about my site.

http://bookoflaw276.tripod.com

This might help to put current world events in perspective.

Some of the topics included are:

--Jack the Ripper aka Aleister Crowley
--The Solution of the Riddle of AL
--The Annhilation of the Mystery of Iniquity

As the Magickal Heir of the Beast I am now the sole potentate of Thelema, Illuminati, Witchcraft and Satanism. Jesus Christ is now destroying the influence of the Son of Perdition (Aleister Crowley). The end of all things is at hand.

Thanks. And I look forward to reading more from the site.

--Fra N. 0=1

Shannow
10-02-2005, 03:54 AM
Hey dude,
been wondering when you'd drop in.

igwt
10-03-2005, 09:43 PM
fra_nothing wrote:
Greetings to everyone. I am new to the boards. But I'm glad I found the site.

My name is Frater Nothing and I am the Magickal Heir of the Beast, sometimes known as the Homonculus or Moon Child.

I'm a Christian and highly interested in eschatology.

Just wanted to let everyone know about my site.

http://bookoflaw276.tripod.com

This might help to put current world events in perspective.

Some of the topics included are:

--Jack the Ripper aka Aleister Crowley
--The Solution of the Riddle of AL
--The Annhilation of the Mystery of Iniquity

As the Magickal Heir of the Beast I am now the sole potentate of Thelema, Illuminati, Witchcraft and Satanism. Jesus Christ is now destroying the influence of the Son of Perdition (Aleister Crowley). The end of all things is at hand.

Thanks. And I look forward to reading more from the site.

--Fra N. 0=1

Rosicrucian?

10-03-2005, 09:48 PM
Who, me?

10-04-2005, 01:28 AM
In a discussion of New World Order conspiracies, you will often hear about the Freemasons, Illuminati, Satanists, and even Wiccans.

But I have noticed something that does not cease to amaze me. In all of this discussion the subject of THELEMA hardly ever comes up.

Even in the wonderful lecture series, Build Yourself and Ark, provided on this site by the Catholic Priest, and in all of his discussion about Freemasonic and Illuminati conspiracies through the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, not ONE WORD about Aleister Crowley and Thelema.

I look at other conspiracy websites. It's the same thing; not a word about Thelema.

Does this seem to be a strange omission to anyone but myself? Especially seeing as how Aleister Crowley was the trailblaizer of 20th century occultism?

To know about Freemasonry, Theosophy, Satanism, Witchcraft, and Illuminati without a working knowledge of Thelema is to be almost totally bereft of a knowledge of what is happening today, and why it happened.

A discussion of Freemasonry, Satanism, and general occult conspiracies in the 20th century without a discussion of Crowley, is like talking about Christianity without a discussion of Jesus Christ.

The Old Bastard has hidden long enough in the shadows.

Shannow
10-04-2005, 01:38 AM
frater nothing,
I've seen reference to it a few times, not muych else.

Wander over to General and give us (well me) some background.

10-04-2005, 01:54 AM
I'll see what I can do, shannow.

10-04-2005, 02:17 AM
Shannow wrote:
frater nothing,
I've seen reference to it a few times, not muych else.

Wander over to General and give us (well me) some background.

You just made me realize something, shannow. It is astonishing to me.

I'm going to say something that might seem arrogant, but I believe is true.

I believe that I understand Aleister Crowley in a way that no one else ever has, or ever will.

I don't know why it is that the man who should be the one everyone sees, is the man that no one sees.

The man who is responsible for bringing in the most perfected form of Satanism that the world has ever seen is considered to be a 'small player'.

It disturbs me daily. It is intolerable. My brethren in Christ have not only missed the battle, they MISSED THE WHOLE WAR!

I'm rejected. I'm thrown out of my church. They look for their Beasts to come, and they never understood. They look for raptures that will not happen.

They see Illuminati, and Satan and everything and anything except the one who would finish all of it.

Crowley and I, we understand one another. I understand WHY he did what he did. I understand HOW he did what he did. We grew up the same way.

I understand everything that Aleister Crowley ever did or ever wrote. There's just one division bell...I made a different choice out of Love under Will. And that has made all the difference.

I'll try to put up some background information about Crowley. But I have doubts. This may sound arrogant again, but to understand Aleister Crowley requires a profound and inspired understanding of Scripture.

I don't know. Sometimes I think it may be too late. There's been too much damage. No one remebers the former days. The church forgot its calling, its power, its purpose.

But, God help me...if there is still that which I can accomplish, let it be done even now!

Shannow
10-04-2005, 02:28 AM
frater,
as a teenager, I was worrieed about the "wickedest man", and helter skelter etc etc.

I think I lost my fears with Ozzie and "Mr Crowley"...whole thing of Ozzie, biting heads off animals, and the whole show seemed laughable.

After that, Harry Price's Borley Rectory books were much scarier than any "demonic" heavy metal.

10-04-2005, 02:41 AM
Shannow wrote:
frater,
as a teenager, I was worrieed about the "wickedest man", and helter skelter etc etc.

I think I lost my fears with Ozzie and "Mr Crowley"...whole thing of Ozzie, biting heads off animals, and the whole show seemed laughable.

After that, Harry Price's Borley Rectory books were much scarier than any "demonic" heavy metal.

Well, no, shannow. You should know that there is no fear left in me for such things. No, we're far beyond all such concepts as 'fear'. I left that years ago.

What is astounding to me is that Christians do not recognize first of all how RIGHT Crowley was. This is horrible. Because to not understand how right Crowley was is to not understand the very elemental principles of Christ.

Without this, a person cannot possibly understand how WRONG Crowley was. There cannot be that requisite discernment needed.

To miss the significance of Aleister Crowley is to miss the significance of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is to miss the entire point of life and history and what this world has meant throughout all past ages and aeons of the universe.

It is to miss the liberation of the sons of light. It is to miss the significance of the final victory.

Don't people understand? I came so that I might prove to the world once and for all time that Aleister Crowley WAS THE ANTICHRIST!

He did not want this to the missed. He spent his entire life to attain this one goal. And he succeeded.

I came that in his victory he might be destroyed. For this was of his own will. I came to bring the End through the Spirit of the Mouth of Christ.

He comes with Clouds, and every eye shall see him, even those who pierced him. He comes with the angels of his power to meet out judgement on all the ungodly and those who obey not the gospel of Christ.

Crowley came to bring final damnation upon this corrupted world. This too was sent by God himself through the energy of the working of Satan.

Affraid of Crowley? No. We are far beyond all of that. I'll tell you someone who does hold my fear, though.

This is it. The END is nigh!

Saturnino
10-04-2005, 04:41 AM
Crowley was an idiot who liked to have it in his ass (true). And now he is dead, burning in hell. Yeah, what a genius. Follow Satan to discover you have to take it in the ass. I'll pass.

Some demons showed him some tricks, gave him some visions, told him to write some stupid books. So what ? So some people would think this is an exceptional thing. How little it takes to deceive people.

Of course he is not the antiChrist, at least the real one, prophesized in the Bible, who will be the head of a world government.

10-04-2005, 04:50 AM
Ok.

Just one question: Where does the Bible ever say that the Antichrist, the Son of Perdition, the Man of Iniquity, would be the head of a world government?

I think that you will find that this view is a pure invention that came out of the convoluted brain of one John Nelson Darby.

The Bible teaches the the Son of Perdition would the head of a RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT!!!

Secular government is meaningless. Anyone who knows anything about anything about anything knows this one thing: The only thing that moves and shakes this world is RELIGION, not secular government.

Only an atheistic idiot (who is a religionist) would say otherwise.

truebeliever
10-04-2005, 04:55 AM
Crowley was an idiot who liked to have it in his ass (true). And now he is dead, burning in hell. Yeah, what a genius. Follow Satan to discover you have to take it in the ass. I'll pass.

Some demons showed him some tricks, gave him some visions, told him to write some stupid books. So what ? So some people would think this is an exceptional thing. How little it takes to deceive people.

Of course he is not the antiChrist, at least the real one, prophesized in the Bible, who will be the head of a world government.

He is simply an example of what people do when they're bored. He had no power in this world so he tried to get some from another. In the end satanism etc...is simply a hobby for the eternally bored and pathetic. In fact i find them quite amusing.

They should all have a good cry and take up their cross and finally admit that they are no longer God after being incarnate into this world. Get over it possums.

In the end, Crowley and his followers are simply little people who could not bear to grow up and never did a days work in their life.

I consider them worthy of a great deal of pity and and perhaps a bottom paddling.

truebeliever
10-04-2005, 04:56 AM
The Bible teaches the the Son of Perdition would the head of a RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT!!!

Yeh, to be based in Israel. Where have you been?

10-04-2005, 04:59 AM
I can understand that.

Me...I consider them worthy of eternal damnation and destruction from the face of God and the glory of his Righteousness.

Personally, I'm ready to get on with the show.

TO HELL WITH THE INFIDELS!

It's time for this world to see something it has never seen:

Welcome to the Church Triumphant, O foolish Illuminist!

For every martyr,
For every persecuted,
For Christ,
For the Father,
For his Eternal Spirit,
For his Church,
For men purchased by his own blood,

The Time has come!

psholtz
10-04-2005, 09:53 AM
Saturnino wrote:
Of course he is not the antiChrist, at least the real one, prophesized in the Bible, who will be the head of a world government.
It's not clear to me that the antiChrist is supposed to be a political leader.. in fact, it's not even clear to me that Revelations deals (politically, at any rate) w/ anything much beyond the Roman occupation of Palestine.

The Bible is not a history book.. it's certainly not a very good record of "past" history and this being the case I don't see why it's predictions (if there are any) of a "future" history should be any more accurate. Rather, it's a book of spiritual (and of Law) and Revelations in particular is a deep spiritual allegory.

Is there a particular verse you have in mind, concerning this antiChrist and a "world government?"

truebeliever
10-04-2005, 09:57 AM
Rather, it's a book of spiritual (and of Law) and Revelations in particular is a deep spiritual allegory.

Yeh, a nothing "but"?

Open your eyes man!

"Things" can exist on many levels...metaphor and fact. Revelations is a dream...or more accurately a nightmare that is unfolding before our very eyes.

That being said...all will be well.

Night, night.

psholtz
10-04-2005, 09:58 AM
fra_nothing:

I find your comments about Crowley very very interesting.. Would it be possible for you to actually prove (as you're saying) that Crowley was the antiChrist?

Also, what is the one thing you fear (as per your previous comment, a couple posts back)?

Saturnino
10-04-2005, 10:55 AM
Most of the characterization of antiChrist comes from Daniel and Revelations. Even a casual reading shows this. In daniel, AC's kingdom comes in sucession after other world kingdoms such as Persia, Greece, Rome, etc. In revelation, it says the leaders of the world will give up their power to AC.
He will be the leader of a ten kingdom confederacy that will rule ALL nations.

Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Rev 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

How can anyone read the verses above and think that the pathetic Crowley was the AC is beyond my mind.

You say the Bible is not a history book: It is not ? What do you call stories about a people with the names of kings, the exact dates ? If it is not historic, I don't what else is.

The IDEA of antiChrist comes from the Bible. Crowley is famous only as the pathetic opposer of the Bible. Without God to be opposed to, Satan would have nothing to say. I mean, if we don't take the Bible seriously and literally, why care about their enemies ? Just be a materialist, an atheist.

As I said before, a revelation from God that can't be understood as it is would be a waste of time, totally useless.

If the Bible is such a fantasy, why even engage in a discussion like this ? I really don't understand.

10-04-2005, 11:32 AM
My son and I were discussing the Book of Revelations the other day and came to the conclusion that many people do not connect this book to the past, present or future other than perhaps, the "Mark of the Beast."

However, when I was young, the Book of Revelations was believed to be the word of the future.

Because of my past teachings regarding the Book of Revelations, the Bible, the Kabballah, etc., it is difficult for me to pick up where I left off in their teachings because I rejected most of their beliefs and, therefore, blocked them out.

It seems to me that the Bible is a magnificient "fairy tale." This does not mean that I am an atheist.

It's not so much that I was instructed to always "remember to forget," but the terrority I revisit triggers unpleasant reactions which I shy away from at this point in my life.

Okay, on to another subject.

Sorry, for barging in here, but these threads are becomming many and I can't seem to locate the one on Kinsey.

However, I watched the movie recently about this man and he was quite a sicko!!

He and his wife were both virgins when they married. His father proclaimed that masturbation was evil and so too was semen. His father apparently had a problem with masturbation when young and wore containment to keep his "hands off."

So, Kinsey has an affair with his "male" assistant while married and his wife has an affair with him as well.

He cuts his penis with a needle to see what it feels like.

Anyway, enough of that. The movie was quite sickening and so, too, was the man.

As far as George Orwell, how did this man know what he did about the future?

psholtz
10-04-2005, 12:14 PM
BlueAngel wrote:
As far as George Orwell, how did this man know what he did about the future?
George Orwell was a fairly high ranking member of a number of socialist and Communist organizations in the UK.. the works he produced were not so much products of his imagination, as they were outlines, plans and documents that the Communists had for how to take over the world, set forth in the form of novels..

Ever heard of the Rockefeller-backed Trilateral Commission (the guys who put Jimmy Carter in office)? Oceania, Eurasia, Eastasia?? Starting to all make sense??

psholtz
10-04-2005, 12:21 PM
Saturnino wrote:
Most of the characterization of antiChrist comes from Daniel and Revelations. Even a casual reading shows this. In daniel, AC's kingdom comes in sucession after other world kingdoms such as Persia, Greece, Rome, etc. In revelation, it says the leaders of the world will give up their power to AC.
He will be the leader of a ten kingdom confederacy that will rule ALL nations.

Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Rev 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

How can anyone read the verses above and think that the pathetic Crowley was the AC is beyond my mind.

You say the Bible is not a history book: It is not ? What do you call stories about a people with the names of kings, the exact dates ? If it is not historic, I don't what else is.

The IDEA of antiChrist comes from the Bible. Crowley is famous only as the pathetic opposer of the Bible. Without God to be opposed to, Satan would have nothing to say. I mean, if we don't take the Bible seriously and literally, why care about their enemies ? Just be a materialist, an atheist.

As I said before, a revelation from God that can't be understood as it is would be a waste of time, totally useless.

If the Bible is such a fantasy, why even engage in a discussion like this ? I really don't understand.
The Bible is a work of historical fiction. It's based loosely on historical facts, but there's much interpolation and fabrication woven into the OT so as to set forth a very specific political agenda.

Shakespeare might be a good analogy. Like the Bible, Shakespeare's works belie a great and deep understanding of the human spirit, sin and ultimate redemption. And, like the Bible, many of Shakespeare's works are "historical" in nature.. but would a person reading Shakespeare 3,000 years from now be able to discern that King Richard III was a "real" King of England but that King Lear was merely fiction? Moreover, would you trust Shakespeare's account of King Richard III to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth concerning the reign of this monarch (or any monarch of whom Shakespeare writes?)

The histories contained in the Bible are of a similar character. Some are based on genuine historical personalities, others are almost complete fabrications.. but in all cases, a very specific political agenda is being set forth, and as such, much of the "historical" information documented in the Bible should not be trusted as an objective record of what actually happened in those days and places (I have in mind esp the OT here..)

Finn
10-04-2005, 01:16 PM
Aleister Crowley was bored and rich homosexual with too much time, money and libido.

And the devils then... he was a junkie, too.

Stranger
10-04-2005, 02:10 PM
psholtz wrote:
The Bible is a work of historical fiction. It's based loosely on historical facts, but there's much interpolation and fabrication woven into the OT so as to set forth a very specific political agenda

What??????????????????????????
From an academic and archeological standpoint, that is false.

No other ancient litature that stands up to reliability and validity tests more than the Bible. If you can make that wild claim about the Old Testement, then you must feel that all ancient text are bogus because no other ancient text has the academic reliability the Bible does. So throw out Plato, throw out Socrates, all of them, you see, they have fewer copies of ancient manuscripts and they do not stand up nearly well to literary scrutiny.

Do you have any evidence to support your opinion? I am not talking speculative but hard evidence. I thought the debunkers gave up years ago, as more and more archeological evidence made them red faced. What is your source? I find this area interesting, thanks.

10-04-2005, 02:24 PM
psholtz wrote:

BlueAngel wrote:
As far as George Orwell, how did this man know what he did about the future?
George Orwell was a fairly high ranking member of a number of socialist and Communist organizations in the UK.. the works he produced were not so much products of his imagination, as they were outlines, plans and documents that the Communists had for how to take over the world, set forth in the form of novels..

Ever heard of the Rockefeller-backed Trilateral Commission (the guys who put Jimmy Carter in office)? Oceania, Eurasia, Eastasia?? Starting to all make sense??

Yes, I've heard of both Rockefeller and the Trilateral Commission. Seems that commission keeps knocking on my door!! One day, I'm going to open up and let them in. Been knocking for years!!!

I understand that Orwell's work were not the products of imagination, but why publish so much of the TRUTH?

I might be thick-headed, but as far as communism, fascism, I consider them basically the same type of political systems to a certain degree. Both require dictatorships.

So, they stole their technology, their plans, what else?

10-04-2005, 02:32 PM
psholtz wrote:
The Bible is a work of historical fiction. It's based loosely on historical facts, but there's much interpolation and fabrication woven into the OT so as to set forth a very specific political agenda

I'd have to agree to a certain degree with psholtz' comment as I wrote earlier in this thread that I believe the BIBLE to be a magnificient "fairy tale" concocted by a bunch of Satanists; perhaps.

Just as with all that they do, it, too, has a little fact mixed with a whole lot of fiction.

And, as psholtz wrote, it serves a very specific political agenda.

I think somewhere around here NOMAD posted a comment about JESUS that was quite funny and enlightening at the same time.

psholtz
10-04-2005, 03:57 PM
Stranger wrote:
psholtz wrote:
The Bible is a work of historical fiction. It's based loosely on historical facts, but there's much interpolation and fabrication woven into the OT so as to set forth a very specific political agenda

What??????????????????????????
From an academic and archeological standpoint, that is false.

No other ancient litature that stands up to reliability and validity tests more than the Bible. If you can make that wild claim about the Old Testement, then you must feel that all ancient text are bogus because no other ancient text has the academic reliability the Bible does. So throw out Plato, throw out Socrates, all of them, you see, they have fewer copies of ancient manuscripts and they do not stand up nearly well to literary scrutiny.

Do you have any evidence to support your opinion? I am not talking speculative but hard evidence. I thought the debunkers gave up years ago, as more and more archeological evidence made them red faced. What is your source? I find this area interesting, thanks.
This is precisely the type of fanatacism that has all but destroyed Western culture, and this is precisely the attitude/response the NWO wants the public to exhibit whenever someone speaks the Truth..

Concerning Plato and Socrates, I'm not sure either of them ever wrote on the subject of history (Atlantis aside). You may be confusing them w/ the Greek historian Herodotus, or perhaps Hesiod, and yet here is precisely where we can start our story, since never of these two eminent Greek historians ever makes mention of a might Solomonic kingdom having once ruled Levant from "mighty" Jerusalem..

If you feel the OT is soo scientifically reliable, perhaps you'd like to cite a few references as to where and what it's so reliable about. In the meantime, I'll cite a few references where the Bible is clearly in the error:

* The Universe was not created 6,000 years ago
* The Universe was not created in 6 years
* The entire human race did not descend from 2 "perfect" humans, Adam and Eve
* The human race is older than 6,000 years
* There was a Great Flood, but more people than just Noah survived it, at it was more like in 10,500 BC (rather than 3,000 BC as the Bible places it)
* Noah didn't bring "two of every species" onto his ark w/ him, and in all liklihood he probably never built an ark in the first place
* The Egyptians have no record of ever having kept 2,000,000 Hebrews as slaves, much less do they have any record of all these slaves leaving Egypt all at once (and remember, when talking about ancient Eygpt, you're talking about the people who built the pyramids, did brain surgery and knew that Sirius has a white dwarf orbiting it.. at least their great temples - the Pryamids - are still standing after 5,000 some-odd years, more than you can say about the Jewish temple in Jerusalem that keeps getting knocked down)
* There is no archaeological record of there ever having been an exodus from Egypt
* The "Law of Moses" - as its called - is decidedly Babylonian, and is probably a bad plagarism from the Code of Hammubari.. it's definately not Egyptian in character and an Egyptian prince (Moses) in all liklihood probably could not have produced it
* Animal slaughter and sacrifice (<- the favorite pastime of the OT Jews) is another decidedly Babylonian practice, and again something that the Hebrews could not have learned in Egypt
* Moses did not part the Red Sea
* Moses did not make water come out of a rock in the desert
* 2,000,000 people did not wander around aimlessly in the desert for 40 years
* Donkeys don't talk and issue prophecies (even if they belong to prophet named Balaam)
* Moses did not write Torah, more esp Deuteronomy, since the first verse of that book places the author on the West Bank of the Jordan (where Moses - allegedly - never set foot), and the final verses detail Moses funeral and the fact that "since the time of Moses, there hasn't been anyone nearly as cool" - implying a great passage of time between the time of Moses and the writing of Deuteronomy
* Joshua did not command the Sun to stop moving
* Joshua did not capture Jericho by blasting a trumpet 7 times
* In all liklihood, Joshua never existed or set foot in the Levant, since there's no archealogical record of a great "Hebrew invasion" into Canaan at that time frame
* There's no record of King David or King Solomon ever having existed
* There's no record of the (alleged) "First" temple (of Solomon) ever having existed.. in all liklihood, what passes as the "Second" Temple (of Christian times) was probably the "First" Temple..

I could keep going, but I'm starting to get bored and I think you're beginning to see the picture. So I'll tell you what the solution to the puzzle is: Judaism did not exist until 500 BC when it was invented by the Persian King Cyrus and a few Bablyonian Magi (w/ names like Ezra and Nehemiah), who took a modified form of Zoroastrianism into Judah (this modified form of Zoroastrianism eventually coming to be known after the land it was practiced in, Judah: Judaism) and they tried to convert the goat-herding shephards they found there in Jerusalem to follow their religion so as to set up a political "buffer zone" against Egypt (the other great political power in that region at that time).

Like Shakespeare, the authors of the OT (much of which was written no earlier than 500 BC, and rest of which is based on Babylonian legends brought w/ the Magi out of Babylon) were students of the human character, and their great is suffused w/ a great sense of the spiritual.. but underneath it all, it's all subsumsed w/ a great political agenda, esp anti-Egyptian propaganda .. i.e., these Babylonian Magi like Ezra and Nehemiah tried hard to convince the goat herding Canaanites that their ancestors were cruelly oppressed by the Egyptians, but that "Moses" (i.e., the Zoroastrian "Mazda") delivered them, and that their god (YHVH) was so power he could command the Sun to stop moving via his servant Joshua (the Egyptians worshipped the Sun, remember).

Ultimately, the OT seems to me to be little more than an ancient form of Scientology that's somehow persisted to the modern day. Much like modern Scientologists, those who practice the religion of the OT are very money oriented, they have a political agenda (take over Palestine, in this case), and the OT scriptures in and of themselves do not - to my mind - describe a "saving" religion... but that's just my opinion..

psholtz
10-04-2005, 04:07 PM
Stranger wrote:
psholtz wrote:
The Bible is a work of historical fiction. It's based loosely on historical facts, but there's much interpolation and fabrication woven into the OT so as to set forth a very specific political agenda

What??????????????????????????
From an academic and archeological standpoint, that is false.

No other ancient litature that stands up to reliability and validity tests more than the Bible. If you can make that wild claim about the Old Testement, then you must feel that all ancient text are bogus because no other ancient text has the academic reliability the Bible does. So throw out Plato, throw out Socrates, all of them, you see, they have fewer copies of ancient manuscripts and they do not stand up nearly well to literary scrutiny.

Do you have any evidence to support your opinion? I am not talking speculative but hard evidence. I thought the debunkers gave up years ago, as more and more archeological evidence made them red faced. What is your source? I find this area interesting, thanks.
There are also a bunch of really interesting historical anachronisms in the Torah, which betray the fact that it had a much later date of composition than is widely assumed.

For instance, if I told you that Cain called up his brother Abel on his cell phone, and told him to meet him in a park, where Cain proceeded to bash Abel's brains out, you would know - FOR A SCIENTIFIC FACT - that I could not have written that statement any earlier than about 1980, since cell phones did NOT EVEN EXIST prior to that date. Nobody had any concept of what a "cell phone" was before, or how it might work, or what it might look like, etc..

The Torah is full of such anachronisms, little slipups that might have seemed quite innocent to the authors of the document, but which - w/ the benefit of hindsight and history and archaeology - prove to us that the document is not "unerring Word of God".. One such incident is in Genesis 4 (just after the Cain and Abel mixup) where the Torah describes a man named "Tubal Cain" who is skilled at ironworking and metalworking.

OK, great. So Tubal Cain knows how to work w/ iron. The problem is, iron (i.e., the Iron Age) was not in existence in the Near East before about 1200 BC (or so) at the very earliest.. IT DID NOT EVEN EXIST as a technological tool/invention before that date. Thus at the very, very earliest, you're talking about the time frame in which Moses allegedly lived, not in the time frame in which Tubal Cain and Adam and the patriarchs (which would be about 4000/3000 BC or so, I suppose). And, like I said before, in all liklihood, you're probably really dealing w/ a document that did not come into full being until more like 500 BC (based on other anachronisms, analysis, etc)

If you seek the Word of God, look for it in the works of Creation that could not have been authored by the hand of man. Any book, no matter how "holy" it's regarded as being, simply is not meet this standard, as its quite obviously written by the very falliable "hand of man"..

10-04-2005, 05:28 PM
Parted the sea; walked on water; healed the sick; came back to life and on and on and on!!!

And, after all this time, not one single similar piece of "magic."

No one else walking on water, parting the sea, healing the sick with the touch of his hand and rising from the dead.

No one!!

Just chaos, confusion, sick, suffering and on and on and on.

Why would JESUS or GOD sit back and allow the Illuminati to destroy the world???

Because they don't like us? Because they think we brought this on ourselves? Because we are evil? Because we are not perfect?

Why?

They can't fight the Devil/Satanism?

Why not?

Jesus walked on water, parted the Red Sea, healed the sick with one touch of his hand.

So, where is he?

Hello, JEEESUZZZ!!!!

Come in!!!

We are all waiting for you to save us!!!

10-04-2005, 05:32 PM
Read II Thess.

That's an Epistle of Paul

That's in the Bible - the New Testament part.

10-04-2005, 05:35 PM
I don't read the Bible. GOD told me it was a CROCK and I trust him!!

10-04-2005, 05:37 PM
BlueAngel wrote:
I don't read the Bible. GOD told me it was a CROCK and I trust him!!

Oh, well...

you won't understand the answer to your question then.

Tut, tut.

10-04-2005, 05:44 PM
fra_nothing wrote:

BlueAngel wrote:
I don't read the Bible. GOD told me it was a CROCK and I trust him!!

Oh, well...

you won't understand the answer to your question then.

Tut, tut.

I don't know that I had a question, but anyway, the answers to LIFE are not all contained in the Bible.

sablefish
10-04-2005, 06:59 PM
There ain't no Antichrist, all this is crap.. all there are is secret societies dedicated to greed to benefit themselves.. Religion is an illusion created to justify murder, and war.

Belief in the faith of humanity is another thing...I don't think a "God" is nessary. I think the "God" of truth is in all of us.. and that is what we believe in... In our heart of hearts we know what is right and wrong.. No matter what religion or faith we claim to be our own.

10-04-2005, 07:18 PM
Thus the wheat and chaff are separated.

What Christ is working through the Spirit of His Mouth at this time is the work of final separation.

And when the smoke clears, the sheep and goats will be manifest to everyone.

There is one thing that is certain: Everyone will choose.

And what does Christ Ruler of All Heaven and Earth say about the suject?

"I would that ye were either hot or cold..."

"He who is not with me is against me"

"He who wills to do the Will of the Father shall know of the teaching..."

The world does not have to wait for the Great White Throne judgement. The Time of Justice has already begun and works even as we speak.

Saturnino
10-05-2005, 07:24 AM
The comment of the guy below blaming Jesus for not rescuing him is typical of people in this age: they want God to help them even if they never gave Him one second of trust, even if they refuse to acknowledge for a minute His sovereignty. No, those people won't bow down to their Creator, but they dare to blame God for not helping them. Sounds very teenager-ish behavior to me.

After this refusal to see the obvious, that God exists and that He really gave us revelation, they desperately look for all kinds of false proofs that the Bible is a tale, that God is an invention, etc. They have their minds made up before they search, so they will pick anything that helps their self deception, even Icke.

The funny thing is that the conviction that God exists and the Bible is true is so strong in the hearts of humans, that their rebellion against it, the way they circle the same issue over and over, their urge to disprove the Bible, just shows the struggle they have inside.

How can a ridiculous, badly written book such as the Da Vinci code be the best selling book in the world ? Why not a book about anything else BUT Jesus ? Because it helps to calm down this inner conflict most people have when deny Christ.

When God lets life give a prick on the balloon of their pride, eventually they will face the reality that they need God and that they'd better seek for Him with humbleness. Some come to God by love, some by pain.

It is those who don't struggle anymore, those who are not bothered anymore with the Bible issue that may be beyond redemption. psholtz may become a Christian one of these days.

truebeliever
10-05-2005, 07:35 AM
I second this motion. I third this motion. I fourth this motion...adinfunatim...

White Bread Jobs, Homes, Culture, Food and above all "Belief".

Only those who suffer and have bourne their cross know this. You either "know it" or you dont.

In the end my movement towards Christ comes from faith, something deep in the gut...you cant argue it or prove it.

I dont run around trying to disprove Buddhism. Why do "Buddhists" laugh at Christians? Because their is no effort in Buddhism etc...you are perfect and "just fine". That is why the Eastern religions do so well in the West. They dont demand much from fat, lazy Westerners. Just watch Oprah, have another Jenny Craig pretzel, everythings fine, dont get angry...

The comment of the guy below blaming Jesus for not rescuing him is typical of people in this age: they want God to help them even if they never gave Him one second of trust, even if they refuse to acknowledge for a minute His sovereignty. No, those people won't bow down to their Creator, but they dare to blame God for not helping them. Sounds very teenager-ish behavior to me.

After this refusal to see the obvious, that God exists and that He really gave us revelation, they desperately look for all kinds of false proofs that the Bible is a tale, that God is an invention, etc. They have their minds made up before they search, so they will pick anything that helps their self deception, even Icke.

The funny thing is that the conviction that God exists and the Bible is true is so strong in the hearts of humans, that their rebellion against it, the way they circle the same issue over and over, their urge to disprove the Bible, just shows the struggle they have inside.

When God lets life give a prick on the balloon of their pride, eventually they will face the reality that they need God and that they'd better seek for Him with humbleness. Some come to God by love, some by pain.

It is those who don't struggle anymore, those who are not bothered anymore with the Bible issue that may be beyond redemption. psholtz may become a Christian one of these days.

Stranger
10-05-2005, 09:22 AM
Hey there psholtz,

Sorry I did not respond to your post yet, you know that life thing keeps getting in the way :-)
Thanks for the info, it is apparent you put a lot of time into your response. What I was looking for however, was evidence, not personal theory. For example, you stated that there is no archeological evidence for King David. That statement is completely false!

1993, the discovery by excavator Avraham Biran of a stone slab (and two additional fragments of same) at the ancient Tel Dan near Mt. Hermon contains an extra-biblical reference to David. The specific words are "Beth David," or, "House of David." This is a formulaic term frequently used, not just by Israel, but by all peoples throughout the Levant to describe a particular dynasty--their own, or other States (political entities). The inscription was found, in situ, in secondary use, that is, reused and inserted into the outer wall of a gate that was destroyed in the eighth century B.C. by the Assyrians. Paleographically, experts date it to the ninth century B.C. (From inplainesite)

The Smithsonian Department of Anthropology has this to say about the Bible.
“Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. But what does the Department of Anthropology know anyway? (yes I am being sarcastic)

What worries me psholtz, is this has really nothing to do with evidence, but “this is the way it is and don’t bother me with the facts”. It is not about finding the truth, but about being right. Your theory about where and how the bible came about is more difficult to swallow than what you say the Bible actually claims. It’s like you refuse to believe in walking elephants, but then you make the argument for the existence of flying elephants.

Now, the statement “there is no archeological evidence for David” has been proven incorrect. That is just one point you attempted to make, I will respond to others if you like (just did not want to bore everybody else by talking about each one)

Look forward to your response psholtz, I find this topic fascinating. Over the years, Harvard Law School has done mock trials about accuracy and reliability of biblical scripts, each time coming out victorious, interesting reading.

psholtz
10-05-2005, 02:29 PM
Stranger wrote:
The Smithsonian Department of Anthropology has this to say about the Bible.
“Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. But what does the Department of Anthropology know anyway? (yes I am being sarcastic)
Yes, I'm glad you are being sarcastic, b/c there are few sources of information more biased on this subject that the Smithsonian Institute.. Remember, the Establishment in the US is very pro-Zionist, and Zionism depends - in huge part - on perpetuating the myth that there was an Israeli monarchy in the Levant during the Iron Age (1200BC-500BC), for.. if there never was any such monarchy, then truly what are the Jewish claims on that land? Just about nil..


Now, the statement “there is no archeological evidence for David” has been proven incorrect. That is just one point you attempted to make, I will respond to others if you like (just did not want to bore everybody else by talking about each one)
Perhaps I should clarify my statement that there is no evidence of a King David.. perhaps there are a couple vague inscriptions to be found in Judea about a "King David" who ruled in the Canaanites in roughly the correct time period. What there is no record of is of a "Mosaic/Jewish King David" ruling the Levant during this time.

In other words, there is no evidence that this King David followed and practiced the religion of Moses. In fact, there's no evidence of much of any king in Israel or Judea following the religion of Moses prior to 500BC, precisely b/c that religion had not yet been imported from Persia (compliments of Emperor Cyrus) to serve as a political buffer against Egypt.

Even the Bible bears witness to this. Per the Scriptures, the only two kings in the entire Israeli Monarchy who actually followed the religion of Moses were David and Solomon (and Solomon quite poorly, at that) .. ALL the other kings were pagan worshippers of Molech, Ashtoreth, Dagon, Chemosh, etc.. Yes, it wouldn't be surprising to see one or two bad apples in a line of kings, but .... when EVERY SINGLE Israeli king is a pagan who (using the language of the OT) "turns his back on YHVH", etc, then ... you have more than a coincidence, imho.. You have someone (in the OT) trying to reconstruct and rewrite the history of a particular people (the Canaanites in this case).

Look forward to your response psholtz, I find this topic fascinating. Over the years, Harvard Law School has done mock trials about accuracy and reliability of biblical scripts, each time coming out victorious, interesting reading.
Again, Harvard Law School is hardly unbiased..

Stranger
10-05-2005, 03:38 PM
I appreciate talking with you, I might disagree with you, but at least there is thought in your response. Look forward to “discussing” with you in the future.

P.S. the Bible Rules
8-)

igwt
10-05-2005, 04:18 PM
It is generally know that as for the locations of kingdoms etc the bible is very accurate, and I have seen documentaries demonstrating the historical aspect.

However, some have said that there has been a deliberate cover-up/alteration/fiction that has been woven into the sacred books to keep people guessing. Does anyone agree with the following quote:

Insider
User ID: 1587
9/27/2005
11:06 am EDT Re: I am a member of an Elite Family who you despise...ask me a question

What interests me is this: if someone takes the time and trouble to follow up the leads and clues left in numerous books and legends, and sorts out the wheat from the chaff, what then? If that person puts into practice what they have learnt, do they come closer to the truth that the bloodlines evidently have access to?

------------------------------------------------

Yes.
Again, the bloodline is only important for ruling over people, it is not about having a special power that makes one more aware, although the knowledge is being passed on so therefore it appears like that.

But this knowledge is not hidden, the Truth cannot be hidden, It wants to be known by you, inviting you every moment of your life.
That is the reason why It through the ruling powers is being provided to you accompanied with perversions, corrupt additions. to confuse and make you accept the latter.
There is not 1 written book which contains the Truth and nothing but the Truth.

Pick It out and live accordingly to It, incorporate It into every aspect of your life....that is the hardest part for people for you have to float above this physical/material world while being in the body that dictates the opposite.

Muhammed was like Jesus, Mozes, Abraham, Buddha, a human who was lead to believe he was a knower, or like mentioned earlier "master of the game".
It is very easy to make humans believe they are enlightened and know the truth...and then thinking it is their task to wake up others.
He was used and his legacy is still being used to divide people, just like the other religions/ideologies/"philosophies".
2 of his closest assistants were servants of the bloodlines, 1 of his wives was too (bloodline servants were also assistants of Jesus, Buddha, Mozes, name them all).
After his death it was made sure by these 3 that his followers would be divided which was the main thing Muhammed was told to be against.
So Muslims who believe in seperate streams of Islam are actually rebelling against their own "prophet"....and that would be pretty much all Muslims.
The kuran has a core of truth but it is floating in a sea of perversions, together with the other "holy" books.
It was written by 4 individuals from 3 "countries" 1 being western, 2 middle-eastern.

I can tell you who the 4 individuals were who wrote the Hebrew old testament and the exact date, if it suited me.
Same about your new testament which was gathered by 6 people from 2 different areas.