Kelly

Personally, I am not certain that there ever was a person named 'Jesus,' however I am reasonably sure there was a person named Y'shua of Galilee who was actually crucified for standing up for what he believed in. The name 'Jesus' is a rather manipulated Greek translation of 'Y'shua, but seems to translate 'Yah-Zeus' and appears to be merely a spin on the Greek belief that Jupiter-Zeus was the head God of the pantheon of gods.

This belief seems to be echoed by Paul, who called Jesus 'a priest after the order of Melchizedek;' a statement that is made by no one else in the New Testament.

To understand what it means to be a priest after the Order of the Melchizedek we must take the word "Melchizedek" apart. In Hebrew, "Malchi" means "My king is" and "Zedek" (also Sedek, Tsedeq, or Zadok) stands for the planet Jupiter; Jupiter being the Roman god of heaven who was Zeus to the Greeks, Ahura Mazda to the Persians and Dyaus Pitar to the Aryans, etc. The Romans and Greeks both identified Baalbek as the Temple of Jupiter-Zeus, and unfortunately Baalbek (the Biblical Shaphan or Beth-Shemesh) was dedicated to Y'shua's enemy, "Beelzebub, the prince of devils" who was one and the same as Ba'al.

Additionally, Paul stated in Hebrews 7:3 ...There is no record of Melchizedek's father or mother or of any of his ancestors; no record of his birth or of his death. He is like the Son of God; he remains a priest forever.

The Tell El – Armarna Tablets throw some considerable light upon this statement;

The Jerusalem letters of the southern correspondence present something of much importance which does not bear at all upon the problem of the Habiri. The frequently recurring title of the king of Jerusalem, "It was not my father, it was not my mother, who established me in this position" (Budge, History of Egypt, IV, 231-35), seems to throw light upon the strange description given of MELCHIZEDEK (which see), the king of Jerusalem in the days of Abraham. The meaning here clearly is that the crown was not hereditary, but went by appointment, the Pharaoh of Egypt having the appointing power. Thus the king as such had no ancestor and no descendant, thus furnishing the peculiar characteristics made use of to describe the character of the Messiah's priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews 7:3.

http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/is...i?number=T8649

According to the Egyptians, Baal-Jupiter-Zeus was none other than Seth-Set of the Egyptian pantheon. Regardless of any Egyptian belief that Ba'al-Seth was 'evil' for murdering Osiris-Yam, Seth was never ever removed from the Egyptian Pantheon. In fact, after Seth loses to Horus who inherits the kingdom of Osirus, Ra was quoted to state…

"Let Seth, the son of Nut, be given to me, so that he may live with me and be a son to me. And he shall speak out in the sky, and men shall be afraid of him." - Pritchard, James B., Editor, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Third Edition with Supplement, Princeton University Press, 1969 p. 17

There is also considerable historical speculation these days that Abraham was not necessarily 'tithing' to Melchizedek, but was simply paying a 'caravan tax;' something that was commonly charged in antiquity anytime a caravan or a war party returning with booty of any kind crossed the land belonging to a local king…

"Any good businessman could see that it was a place of great natural beauty, with rich, crop-producing soil. It was situated in a good trading position between Mesopotamia and Egypt and had the potential of making its inhabitants rich by collecting taxes from caravans that trudged along the great commercial route."

http://www.americancatholic.org/News...SFS/an0999.asp

Ultimately, Paul seemed to be placing 'Jesus' in the role of a priest-king of Canaan appointed by the Heliopolitan Priesthood and Pharaohs. Melchizedek apparently acted as some sort of political appointee or diplomatic mediator between Ra's priesthood in Egypt and Ba'al's priesthood in Canaan.

This may indeed have been the role of 'Jesus' or 'Yah-Zeus', but it very likely WAS NOT the role of the Galilean man named Y'shua who apparently really did get nailed to the cross. That being said, we may be reasonably certain that neither the Sadducees or the Pharisees would have ever called for the crucifixion of someone appointed to the position of High Priest of the Melchizedek order, particularly someone in that position from the glorified tribe of Judah. I can't think of a single time when anyone in the Jewish priesthood actually called for the death of anybody from the royal house of Judah. Frankly, to do so would have been considered a heresy and against Jewish Law.

However, the Jewish priesthood would have had absolutely no problem nailing a Galilean Benjaminite to the cross.

Thus, I personally question the believability of Paul's statements.

Kelly

Hmmmmmmm. I'm going to have to disagree. Paul may have indeed been blinded on the road to Damascus, and if he "heard a voice" claiming to be Jesus, perhaps he did. My point is that Paul's experience is far more in keeping with someone who is "channeling messages" than it is with the generally accepted notion of the Holy Ghost. Paul obviously associated Melchizedek with Jesus. However, the last time I googled 'Melchizedek, channeled messages' there were a whopping 85,500 pages listed!

Some of these reported channeled messages were coming from beings claiming to be disembodied spirits, others from extraterrestrials, and a whole boatload of them were claiming to be from 'The Great White Brotherhood of Shambhala" but anyway you look at it 'Melchizedek' is absolutely about the biggest name on the channeled message circuit.

So maybe there really was a Paul, and maybe he was 'blinded' by Melchizedek, but that isn't to say that Melchizedek has anything to do with the Lamb of God or any Galilean guy who got nailed to the cross...

Yep, that's what he claimed. However Paul began as a Melchizedek Pharisee, and apparently remained one all through his lifetime, regardless of any claimed conversion. There is, in my opinion, very good reason to believe that immediately after the Galilean Y'shua was nailed to the cross, many, many people who knew him personally or by sight were murdered. So I see no reason at all that would stop me from speculating that as soon as the rebel Y'shua was killed and a good many of his followers murdered, that the priesthood didn't put in their own substitute man and billed him as 'the resurrected christ.'

Both the Saducees and the Pharisees were fairly tricky dudes.

spamandham

What do you find convincing about that?

aa5874

But, did you read the Acts? Paul did not only hear Jesus, he was blinded and when he received his sight again scales fell from his eyes. Paul's conversion is beyond a dream, or hallucinations, the author claimed he was actually healed when a witness of his blindess prayed for him.

But, then you may be right, the entire NT may have been based on hallucinations.


And I think there is no known author for Hebrews. I think it was the author of Hebrews who made references to Melchizedek.

Kelly

Well, I find it extremely believable that a Galilean man by birth would march into Jerusalem accompanied by his followers and get in the face of the priesthood. In the first place, most Galileans were Benjaminites, and Jerusalem was supposed to be their allotted territory, but it was basically usurped by the Tribe of Judah after the Israelites returned from their Babylonian exile. Hence, the Benjaminites got aced out of the land that had been allotted to them in the Book of Joshua.

I should think that if Y'shua was a Galilean Benjaminite, that would have immediately gotten the attention of the priesthood.

Secondly, the Bible clearly states that kingship was taken away from the Tribe of Judah in the following verses.

“For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and did not wholly follow the LORD, as David his father had done. Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. And likewise did he for all his strange wives which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he kept not that which the Lord commanded. Wherefore the Lord said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statuses, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee and will give it to thy servant. Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father’s sake; but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have chosen.” (I Kings 11: 5-13)

“But I will take the kingdom out of his son’s hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes. And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a light always before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there.” (I Kings 11: 35-36)

Therefore, I think there is ample reason to suspect that any genealogy supposedly tracing Y'shua to the tribe of Judah through Joseph is probably a farce, particularly since traditionally Jews don't trace their inheritance through the male; they trace it through the maternal lines, and still do to this day. It seems to me curious indeed to find that the only two New Testament books containing a genealogy tracing Jesus to the Tribe of Judah just happens to be contained in the Books of Luke and Matthew, and both authors were clearly convinced that Y'shua's mother had 'known no man.'

And thirdly, as I have stated before, the priesthood would have NEVER called for the death of a man who could actually prove he was a descendant of the Royal House of David. It simply wasn't done. Had any priest called for the crucifixion of a man that could prove his birth to the Royal family, he would have likely been stoned to death by a crowd of furious people from the Tribe of Judah who were living rather grand lives in Jerusalem. You must remember, it was the Tribe of Judah that had all the money, and that's why the priesthood continued to pander to them, even though they were surely aware of the fact that Kingship had clearly been removed from the Tribe of Judah at the end of Solomon's reign.

Kelly

Oh, please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say the entire New Testament was based on hallucinations; you did.

Besides, I don't necessarily believe that people who channel messages are 'hallucinating.' I think it is far more likely that the people who regularly experience this phenomenon are either spiritually or genetically predisposed to the Vedic concepts which are certainly a part of the Hebrew inheritance. One must not forget that Abraham was originally from Ur in Sumer, and we can trace the Sumerian people back to Anu, head of the Anunnaki tribes. In the Rig Veda, Anu was one of the five sons of Yayati and one of the individuals who lost the War of Sudas. The Rig Veda tells us that 6,666 members of the Anu clan were slain, and the remainder were driven out of India on the grounds that the were "fallen" and some Vedic scholars (David Frawley comes to mind) even claims they were practitioners of black magic.

What happened to Paul may have been very real for there is much to suggest that many Israelites, Mesopotamians, Egyptians and Canaanites (etc.) regularly accepted what appears to be 'channeled communications' from unseen spirits and they appear to have believed they were messages from God, or 'the gods' as the case may be.

I've read lots and lots of supposedly channeled messages in the attempt to figure out what is driving them. Oddly enough, the same general theme, and often the same general phrases are repeated time and time again, regardless of who is channeling the message or where they live, or even what age or time they live in. It's weird.

It's almost like their minds are picking up on some sort of subliminal mind manipulation; something that has been in place and operating for ages and ages. For instance, in antiquity, people 'heard the voice of God (or the gods as the case may be) particularly when they were in the vicinity of a standing stone or temple. There is a whole lot about the channeled message that speaks of some sort of mind manipulation that is produced by a technology.

You must remember that the Anu clan originated in ancient India; home of the Vimana (UFOs), things that sound like nuclear bombs, and a number of very high-tech sounding devices. For all we know the ancients also employed some sort of ELF or micro-wave form of mind control, and people who had a specific kind of genetic inheritance, or had perhaps inherited a gene that made them susceptible to it, could be easily influenced by some sort of subliminal message machine. Think of the breastplate of Aaron, for instance. That was apparently a mobile device that allowed a priesthood that was required to be of a specific DNA family to hear 'messages from God' in their minds. Very curious indeed.

Or think, for instance, of the Great Pyramid. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone, even in modern times, who has spent a considerable amount of time within the monument who didn't claim he went through some sort of 'spiritual initiation' while in it's interior. Perhaps the ancient temples, pyramids, ziggurats and standing stones all emitted some sort of energy wave that transmitted 'channeled messages' that the rather technologically naïve citizens of the Middle East regularly interpreted as a 'message from God.' Damascus was, in fact, just such a site.

Maybe Paul wasn't hallucinating. Maybe Paul had simply inherited a genetic code that was particularly sensitive to some sort of ELF mind control…

The ancient Vedic texts certainly suggest the Anunnaki clan of India would have certainly been capable of that sort of technology.

Kelly

Wow. I absolutely believe the virgin birth stories are NOT a fabrication, although I doubt that I think of them in the same way that the vast majority of Christians do. IF you actually followed the line of Abraham and the Biblical patriarchs, you will find that generally, the women who actually bore important figures seemed unable to get pregnant or bear children, and usually conceived in some extraordinary and mysterious way in their old age. The same type of testimony is extraordinarily common throughout the Mesopotamian and Canaanite texts as well; older women who can't bear children who suddenly become pregnant after some sort of extraordinary experience; generally an experience that involved meeting a so-called 'angel of the Lord.'

Being raised on a farm, I can guarantee you that 'virgin birth' is not a 'fabrication'. Our cows constantly gave birth to new calves, even though those heifers had never even seen a bull, much less been bred by one. Our cows were all artificially inseminated and frankly, many of the biblical tales, as well as the Canaanite and Mesopotamian tales, certainly suggest that 'the angels' had some sort of continuous breeding program going on involving some form of artificial insemination.

If you go back to any number of Mesopotamian 'Creation of Man' texts, you will find that a fellow named Enki-Ea-Nudimmud (whose symbol or totem was the serpent) had a breeding program going on that essentially attempted to 'enslave' human beings to various Anunnaki gods. That program had quite apparently been going on since the old Garden of Eden days, and it's a program that was begun soon after the Vedic Aryan Anunnaki 'gods' invaded the Middle East, killed the local leader at Eridu and took it over, as is clearly stated in the Babylonian Creation Text; the Enuma Elish.

So the Virgin Birth tales that are associated with the Messiah may indeed be true, for if so, the precedent for such events is clearly obvious in many, many ancient texts. Regardless of your apparent beliefs, those stories are too consistent to be a mere 'fabrication.' Similar virgin birth stories are really very typical in ancient texts.

That the Anunnaki god system was big on this whole 'virgin birth' thing is pretty obvious. The whole puzzle with Y'shua is which God system was responsible for artificially inseminating his mother? If it was the Anunnaki who did it, Y'shua very likely would have preached a line that pleased the priesthood, rather than infuriated them.

The reported virgin birth of Y'shua however, at least to my way of thinking, only makes sense if we place it within its historical context. If the Anunnaki god system was responsible for his birth, then Y'shua would have been only one more resurrecting sun god deity in a long line of dying and resurrecting sun god deities. He would have simply be one more 'Ho hum… What's new' sort of deity preaching the same old line the sun god system was famous for.

However, the difference with Y'shua was that he did NOT preach or teach the standard sun god material. In fact, John the Divine clearly states that the Lamb of God cannot be associated with the sun god system, simply because in the Book of Revelations, John the Divine used the numeral '666' to describe the antichrist system. That number was well-known throughout the Near and Middle East 2000 years ago, for that number represented the sum total of all the numerals in the famous 'magic square of the sun.'
http://www.jesus8880.com/gematria/666.htm

So John, at least, is clearly stating the Y'shua was not still another resurrecting sun god figure. John was clearly stating that the sun god system or 'solar dynasty family' represents the antichrist system.

And that means that whoever Y'shua was, if the stories of his virgin birth are true, then his mother was artificially inseminated by a God system that was trying to undo the genetic manipulations Enki-Ea and the Anunnaki were known for in their attempt to enslave humankind to the Anunnaki god system ever since things went to hell in a handbasket in the Garden of Eden.

Kelly

(Pssst Spin…The Elamites WERE the Persians! :wave

Denying the virgin birth seems, on the surface at least, quite the intelligent thing to do. On the other hand, one must realistically ask themselves what or how God is supposed to deal with the fact that the Pagan Anunnaki gods very obviously had had a breeding program in place for years, and that breeding program appeared to have had as its goal, 'breeding' human beings to automatically accept Baal, Ra, Nanner Sin, or any number of other pagan gods. Y'shua's father may have had no choice but to resort to a virgin birth method himself to beget his 'only begotten son' simply because the human bloodlines and DNA had been so terribly manipulated by the Anunnaki for so long, people had lost the ability to tell the difference between the real Holy Ghost, and the counterfeit "Melchizedek thought adjustor," which is known and testified of in the Urantia Book. I promise you, the world over, Melchizedek holds the position of the High Priest of the Anunnaki sun god system. His seat of authority is Shambhala.

Had Y'shua been the creation of the Anunnaki god system, he would have lost in his battle against Satan. The name 'Satan' by the way, was very likely a Hebrew translation of the Egyptian phrase 'SA.ATEN.' 'Sa' meant 'son of' in Egyptian, in much the same way that 'ben' means 'son of' in Hebrew. And 'Aten' was a direct reference to the Egyptian sun god, Ra, attempting to pass himself off as 'the one god' and the Father of all creation. The Egyptians say that Ra's father was Ptah, also known as "Ptah Tanen" or Ta Tanen. He is thought to have been one and the same as the entity called "Enki" in Sumer and "Ea' in the Babylonian texts. In all cases Enki-Ea-Ptah Tanen was symbolized by the serpent i.e. one and the same as the serpent in the Garden of Eden. According to the back of my Concordance, 'Tannin' was also the Hebrew word for "serpent."

Had Y'shua's been born and bred via the Anunnaki 'virgin birth' breeding program, we'd have heard from a man preaching Atenism, and Y'shua didn't do that.

And you must also understand why I do not place Y'shua as being from the Tribe of Judah. The 'lion tribe' represented the Vedic caste system of kingship which was taught to the nation of Israel during their 400 year sojourn in Egypt. In Egypt the Lion tribe represented the "Re Harakhty' and was symbolized by the man-headed lion god; the sphinx. The Lion King was the symbol used by the Horace kings and Pharaohs. The Greeks called the Horus kings by the name of 'Apollo.'

Paul, unfortunately, compares Jesus to Apollo in the Book of Corinthians. Over and over, Y'shua said 'You must be born of spirit and water' and when Paul told people that it was 'Apollos who waters,' (Cor. 3: 6) he is actually comparing Jesus to the Horus kings, all declared 'sons of the sun god' who represents 666, i.e. the antichrist. John repeats this truth again in Rev. 9:11 when he declares that it is "Apollyon" who is the 'angel of the bottomless pit."

This is why attempting to trace Y'shua to the Lion Tribe of Judah through his stepfather Joseph is not appropriate but, is in fact, a deception. God very openly divorced himself from declaring that all Messiah kings were to be from the Tribe of Judah in I Kings 11: 5-13. John declared this same theme again in Rev. 5: 4-10 when the true Christ, the Lamb of God, removes the Book from the Lion of Judah who sits on the throne.

Even Moses declares the same thing when he declared…“The scepter (or, rod) shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler’s staff (or, decree) from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.” (Gen 49:10)

Shiloh 'came' when David erected the Tabernacle in the town by that name. By the laws of the prophets, King David was the last man from the tribe of Judah that God was prepared to declare his Messiah. The moment Solomon took kingship, God renounced Judah's claim. And you can't blame God one whit since Solomon declared his allegiance to Ashtorath. The priesthood, unfortunately, seems to have ignored this curious little twist in the Bible…

By the Law of the Prophets, the man who died on the cross to save us from sin simply could not have been from the Tribe of Judah.

Besides, by Joseph's testimony in both the Book of Luke and the Book of Matthew, he had had no sexual relationship with Mary and was not responsible for her pregnancy, therefore trying to trace Y'shua to the tribe of Judah through Joseph seems rather like a frantic lost cause perpetuated by a curiously deceptive priesthood.

Oh those scribes and Pharisees… It sure looks like they attempted to muck with things, huh?

spin

(Pssst, the Persians were an invading population which took control of Elamite lands and a subjugated people.)


spin

Toto

No, no, no, this is not obvious.

I don't think you are on the same wavelength, if not the same planet, as this board.