Was Jesus a Mason, an Illuminati?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-11-2016, 01:24 PM
RE: Was Jesus a Mason, an Illuminati?
(21-10-2016 11:03 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Yes. He also brought down the WTC with controlled demolitions and steals your socks from the drier.

So that's where my socks keep going to...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2016, 02:04 PM (This post was last modified: 17-11-2016 03:11 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Was Jesus a Mason, an Illuminati?
(17-11-2016 12:31 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  You haven't understood anything I said.

Yes I did. It's all crap.

Quote:You agree that all gods are the "divine" in man, as Feuerbach suggests.

I never said that. Stop lying. What hallucinogenic drugs drugs are you on today ?

Quote:You say that Josephus has been "debunked", but as far as I can make out from your past posts, you seem to be saying that the idea of a vassel nation of Jews migrating out of the Levant into Egypt has been debunked, but Josephus would not and does not describe the "Jews" in those terms. He says they were invaders who were disliked because of their barbarity.

There is no evidence they were invaders. We know they had settlements, and we know the dates of them. Josephus did not know anything about them, or their dates, or even how they could be dated. He accepted the (debunked) Biblical (OT) timelines and notions.

Quote:You seem, if I am right, to want to use a present day view of what Jews are to debunk a work, the Old Testament, which is plainly a typological work of mixed fiction and handed down national legend.

False. It's debunked entirely by archaeology and known historical fact, as well as literary criticism and scholarship, all of which you lack entirely ANY knowledge of, at all.

Quote:I have never said Abraham was a real character and, in fact, I have said that I consider him to have been fictional. Having said that, I think it is nonsense to suggest that the accepted view of a whole people, that they originate from a particular place, which comes from an oral tradition is not evidence of that fact simply because we don't have written works to document that. Josephus wrote this 2000 years ago and it was the considered view of his day and of everyone up until now, that this is correct.

The archaeology proves his trip from Ur was not possible. What you think of as "nonsense" is irrelevant as you have absolutely no education is this area., and basically this is a rehash of the ad populum fallacy. Yourpremise was BASED on the idea that he made a journey. It was not possible. You never watched ANY of the documentation provided to you, (as you area a lazy ass who would rather make up shit, than actually study something). "Old" does not mean true, and he was writing about things they claimed happened thousands of years before, which he had no information about.

Quote:That is what typo logical writing is about. It's not intended to be historically accurate. Those works were written in the 1400's. I see no reason why this same style of writing was any different 1400 years earlier. The preoccupation with historical accuracy has no place in examining works like the NT and OT. They are not about history any more than the Illiad is about history.

You wouldn't see any reason. That's what ignorance of the subject at hand does. Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of ancient Near Eastern literature, as well as debunking your own bullshit. First you reference Josephus as support for your nonsense, and now you're repudiating your own argument. You are not in possession of your faculties.

Quote: The preoccupation with historical accuracy has no place in examining works like the NT and OT

And yet that's exactly what you are doing. You're not exactly in a position here to be making any sort of statements about anything. You have no expertise in this area or these texts. Stop pretending to lecture us about things you know nothing, and pretending you're an expert in anything. You've proven over and over you're not.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
18-11-2016, 08:25 AM
RE: Was Jesus a Mason, an Illuminati?
(17-11-2016 02:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-11-2016 12:31 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  You haven't understood anything I said.

Yes I did. It's all crap.


Quote:You agree that all gods are the "divine" in man, as Feuerbach suggests.

I never said that. Stop lying. What hallucinogenic drugs drugs are you on today ?

Quote:You say that Josephus has been "debunked", but as far as I can make out from your past posts, you seem to be saying that the idea of a vassel nation of Jews migrating out of the Levant into Egypt has been debunked, but Josephus would not and does not describe the "Jews" in those terms. He says they were invaders who were disliked because of their barbarity.

There is no evidence they were invaders. We know they had settlements, and we know the dates of them. Josephus did not know anything about them, or their dates, or even how they could be dated. He accepted the (debunked) Biblical (OT) timelines and notions.

Quote:You seem, if I am right, to want to use a present day view of what Jews are to debunk a work, the Old Testament, which is plainly a typological work of mixed fiction and handed down national legend.

False. It's debunked entirely by archaeology and known historical fact, as well as literary criticism and scholarship, all of which you lack entirely ANY knowledge of, at all.

Quote:I have never said Abraham was a real character and, in fact, I have said that I consider him to have been fictional. Having said that, I think it is nonsense to suggest that the accepted view of a whole people, that they originate from a particular place, which comes from an oral tradition is not evidence of that fact simply because we don't have written works to document that. Josephus wrote this 2000 years ago and it was the considered view of his day and of everyone up until now, that this is correct.

The archaeology proves his trip from Ur was not possible. What you think of as "nonsense" is irrelevant as you have absolutely no education is this area., and basically this is a rehash of the ad populum fallacy. Yourpremise was BASED on the idea that he made a journey. It was not possible. You never watched ANY of the documentation provided to you, (as you area a lazy ass who would rather make up shit, than actually study something). "Old" does not mean true, and he was writing about things they claimed happened thousands of years before, which he had no information about.

Quote:That is what typo logical writing is about. It's not intended to be historically accurate. Those works were written in the 1400's. I see no reason why this same style of writing was any different 1400 years earlier. The preoccupation with historical accuracy has no place in examining works like the NT and OT. They are not about history any more than the Illiad is about history.

You wouldn't see any reason. That's what ignorance of the subject at hand does. Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of ancient Near Eastern literature, as well as debunking your own bullshit. First you reference Josephus as support for your nonsense, and now you're repudiating your own argument. You are not in possession of your faculties.

Quote: The preoccupation with historical accuracy has no place in examining works like the NT and OT

And yet that's exactly what you are doing. You're not exactly in a position here to be making any sort of statements about anything. You have no expertise in this area or these texts. Stop pretending to lecture us about things you know nothing, and pretending you're an expert in anything. You've proven over and over you're not.


Here is a description of Feuerbach's ideas from Wiki:

"God is nothing else than human: he is, so to speak, the outward projection of a human's inward nature. This projection is dubbed as a chimera by Feuerbach, that God and the idea of a higher being is dependent upon the aspect of benevolence. Feuerbach states that, “a God who is not benevolent, not just, not wise, is no God,” and continues to say that qualities are not suddenly denoted as divine because of their godly association. The qualities themselves are divine therefore making God divine, indicating that humans are capable of understanding and applying meanings of divinity to religion and not that religion makes a human divine.

Bucky, you are being dishonest. You constantly criticise me on the grounds that I claim the history contained in the OT is true. I have never said that nor do I believe it to be true.

Are you saying that the orthodox Jewish view that they are descended from Abraham and they are the chosen people is wrong? Do you agree with Sam Harris in his views on Israel?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2016, 01:57 PM
RE: Was Jesus a Mason, an Illuminati?
(18-11-2016 08:25 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(17-11-2016 02:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Yes I did. It's all crap.



I never said that. Stop lying. What hallucinogenic drugs drugs are you on today ?


There is no evidence they were invaders. We know they had settlements, and we know the dates of them. Josephus did not know anything about them, or their dates, or even how they could be dated. He accepted the (debunked) Biblical (OT) timelines and notions.


False. It's debunked entirely by archaeology and known historical fact, as well as literary criticism and scholarship, all of which you lack entirely ANY knowledge of, at all.


The archaeology proves his trip from Ur was not possible. What you think of as "nonsense" is irrelevant as you have absolutely no education is this area., and basically this is a rehash of the ad populum fallacy. Yourpremise was BASED on the idea that he made a journey. It was not possible. You never watched ANY of the documentation provided to you, (as you area a lazy ass who would rather make up shit, than actually study something). "Old" does not mean true, and he was writing about things they claimed happened thousands of years before, which he had no information about.


You wouldn't see any reason. That's what ignorance of the subject at hand does. Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of ancient Near Eastern literature, as well as debunking your own bullshit. First you reference Josephus as support for your nonsense, and now you're repudiating your own argument. You are not in possession of your faculties.


And yet that's exactly what you are doing. You're not exactly in a position here to be making any sort of statements about anything. You have no expertise in this area or these texts. Stop pretending to lecture us about things you know nothing, and pretending you're an expert in anything. You've proven over and over you're not.


Here is a description of Feuerbach's ideas from Wiki:

"God is nothing else than human: he is, so to speak, the outward projection of a human's inward nature. This projection is dubbed as a chimera by Feuerbach, that God and the idea of a higher being is dependent upon the aspect of benevolence. Feuerbach states that, “a God who is not benevolent, not just, not wise, is no God,” and continues to say that qualities are not suddenly denoted as divine because of their godly association. The qualities themselves are divine therefore making God divine, indicating that humans are capable of understanding and applying meanings of divinity to religion and not that religion makes a human divine.

Bucky, you are being dishonest. You constantly criticise me on the grounds that I claim the history contained in the OT is true. I have never said that nor do I believe it to be true.

Are you saying that the orthodox Jewish view that they are descended from Abraham and they are the chosen people is wrong? Do you agree with Sam Harris in his views on Israel?

Feuerbach created his own definition of what he thought the concept of a god is. It's nothing more than his own definition, for himself. It doesn't apply to anyone else, or any other culture, in the absence of study and evidence. It does NOT apply to the Hebrew concept of what was "divine" in the ancient world FOR SURE, (and we know the "heavenly host" for Hebrews was composed of ALL KINDS of "divine beings" who were not even gods), and his definition may not even apply today. You, in your ignorance, are like a bull in a china shop. You get NONE of the subtleties, thus are free to make up your imaginary connections.

The Jews invented their national history when they combined their various traditions into what we see today as the Bible. They say they are descended from an Abraham. There is no evidence they are. They chose to call themselves the "chosen people", (but in fact it was they that chose their deity).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2016, 11:59 AM
RE: Was Jesus a Mason, an Illuminati?
It is still a human invention.

I actually have no idea who the biblical Jews were or how they are connected with the writing of the Old Testament. I never gave it any thought until I read Koestler's book.

I read somewhere that the word Jew is used only once in the OT. The OT reads as a story of a feudal dynasty originating in Ur of the Chaldees and these people have a history too and they spoke Aramaic.

I am no fan of organized Christianity with its belief in miracles etc but I now see that the mystical aspects of it aren't part of Christianity since they come from an older religion to which Jesus appealed or preached, trying to convert them. I don't know your background but I was raised in a Methodist family and we never discussed religion or spoke about Jesus or God, ever. The English, like my parents, are simply not religious at all and no one in my extended family has ever talked about religion. It is just not done so I find North American Evangelism very irritating.

I don't, therefore, mention certain new theories about Jesus or the Khazar origin of the Jews in any way other than to throw more confusion into what I find to be a pot full of crap and see what rises to the top. I have no interest in any national origin legends because I know my family were peasant farmers in Devon going back to before the Norman Conquest. No member of my family or with my surname has ever held a hereditary title and my surname is also Greek, Scottish, Muslim, Jewish, Indian, and etc etc.

It is just a name someone gave to a Norman when the Doomsday Book was compiled. We, therefore, have no illusions about who we are or that we come from somewhere special and we are fine with that as are most people of our ilk.

I just travel through life marvelling at how seriously people take this stuff and I find the idea that the Jews might have been Indo-Europeans (Aryans) and that Jesus was a redhead after all, frankly, hilarious. I find the whole Horus notion at once plausible and highly amusing and the thought that the New Testament was a Roman secularist ruse on an unsuspecting world to be enormously funny.

I take none of this seriously as there are more important things in the world now like a crackpot sitting next to the launch buttons of the American nuclear arsenal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2016, 12:31 PM (This post was last modified: 29-11-2016 12:39 PM by Deltabravo.)
RE: Was Jesus a Mason, an Illuminati?
(18-11-2016 01:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(18-11-2016 08:25 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Here is a description of Feuerbach's ideas from Wiki:

"God is nothing else than human: he is, so to speak, the outward projection of a human's inward nature. This projection is dubbed as a chimera by Feuerbach, that God and the idea of a higher being is dependent upon the aspect of benevolence. Feuerbach states that, “a God who is not benevolent, not just, not wise, is no God,” and continues to say that qualities are not suddenly denoted as divine because of their godly association. The qualities themselves are divine therefore making God divine, indicating that humans are capable of understanding and applying meanings of divinity to religion and not that religion makes a human divine.

Bucky, you are being dishonest. You constantly criticise me on the grounds that I claim the history contained in the OT is true. I have never said that nor do I believe it to be true.

Are you saying that the orthodox Jewish view that they are descended from Abraham and they are the chosen people is wrong? Do you agree with Sam Harris in his views on Israel?

Feuerbach created his own definition of what he thought the concept of a god is. It's nothing more than his own definition, for himself. It doesn't apply to anyone else, or any other culture, in the absence of study and evidence. It does NOT apply to the Hebrew concept of what was "divine" in the ancient world FOR SURE, (and we know the "heavenly host" for Hebrews was composed of ALL KINDS of "divine beings" who were not even gods), and his definition may not even apply today. You, in your ignorance, are like a bull in a china shop. You get NONE of the subtleties, thus are free to make up your imaginary connections.

The Jews invented their national history when they combined their various traditions into what we see today as the Bible. They say they are descended from an Abraham. There is no evidence they are. They chose to call themselves the "chosen people", (but in fact it was they that chose their deity).

I have no idea what you are on about.

Feuerbach put forward a view that gods are a manifestation of what people see as "divine" in themselves. One could have many gods representing many aspects of what one sees as divine in oneself. One could also make up a God who represented some "good" in nature but that is also a representation of a human view of what is good.

You then say that the Jewish God is made by them. That is what Feuerbach says so you are making the same argument as he is.

You miss the subtlety, not me.

Different people at different times have different conceptions of what is good in human life. People who hunted would have seen male prowess as of greater value than being a kind person because survival depended on hunting and defending against invaders.

The simple point I am making is that by looking at the type of God a people worship you can discover who those people were.

It is a serious point for me. In Christianity we are told Jesus came up against the Jews. But we are also told that he preached to the Gentiles. The Gentiles are all over the place in the bible. But who are they? And if there was no Old Testament, who are the Jews in the New Testament?

The God of the New Testament is the Logos. This is not the God of the Old Testament. It's a Hellenistic concept. But Jesus is Syrian and speaks Aramaic. He is preaching around Syria which was part of the Assyrian empire which was the successor of the Sumerians. These people worshipped Hayek or Khaldi who was a male warrior figure. The miracles performed my Jesus, allegedly, relate to Horus, who walked on water, was the son of god, raised Osiris (Lazarus) from the dead. Jesus is preaching either to Assyrians who worshipped Hayek or followers of the cult of Horus who came from Egypt. according to Josephus, they are the same people and your analysis says the same as these people never left Syria.

The point is that the New Testament uses the vehicle of an Assyrian prince with features of the son of THEIR god to convert them to a new, reason based religion which is intended to supplant a more violent religion of a violent people. They had a violent God because they saw that quality as divine whereas the Romans wanted to pacify them and because the Romans, in the late Republic, had, in educated society, abandoned both god worship and Stoicism in favour of Epicureansim. It was the Claudians who brought back Emperor worship but that came to an end with the death if Nero so there was both a political vacuum and a religious/cultural vacuum which is eventually filled by Christianity. It is a rationalist morality embedded in a story about a god-man out of Assyria. It suited a purpose which is why it is written up in Greek, because it is a Roman contrivance written in Alexandria and not by Aramaic followers of a Jesus figure in the early first century of whom there us no evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: