The more i think about it and more i read weird books, the more i realise that actually Easter does has a particular strong symbolic meaning, but rather a different meaning from what the Church tell the 'sheep'.
Ill keep this post short and i think ill take some time to write properly on this subject to do it justice but heres a summary of my main thoughts.
If you actually read the Bible from the perspective of a few different assumptions - i.e
1. The whole story was lifted from earlier texts -(for example Osiris rising from the dead in the Egyptian Book of the dead)
2. This doesn't negate the message thats being given here, it just means that there may have been more than one 'Christ' , and maybe even Jesus Christ didnt exist at all as an actual single man.
3. The whole meaning in all the cases of Christs death and resurrection was basically the idea that Christ was 'reborn' - but not in the literal sense - in the sense that he became one of the initiated. i.e. he was 'reborn' with the knowledge and wisdom of the Esoteric teachers. There are accounts that say actually it was Simon, a disciple, who was crucified, not Jesus.
Then the whole Bible actually reads in a different way. Assuming the parts of the Old Testament that your local preacher will totally ignore and wont answer your questions on (like most of Genesis, especially when you ask about the Nepheliim or the Watchers - check www.sitchin.com for more info ) or the book of Enoch which was not included in the Bible because it actually talks about things that are probably scary to normal serfs.
You can see then two things
1. The Bible was written in that way in order for the not so smart man to understand it and is choc full of meanings behind meanings.
2. It totally ignores whole swathes of the real knowledge and the major mysteries. Jesus Christ would be turning in his grave if he read what crap the guys who put together the Bible left out.
No wonder he pissed off to India.
Ok more on this subject later but i welcoem any thoughts or comments
Ill keep this post short and i think ill take some time to write properly on this subject to do it justice but heres a summary of my main thoughts.
If you actually read the Bible from the perspective of a few different assumptions - i.e
1. The whole story was lifted from earlier texts -(for example Osiris rising from the dead in the Egyptian Book of the dead)
2. This doesn't negate the message thats being given here, it just means that there may have been more than one 'Christ' , and maybe even Jesus Christ didnt exist at all as an actual single man.
3. The whole meaning in all the cases of Christs death and resurrection was basically the idea that Christ was 'reborn' - but not in the literal sense - in the sense that he became one of the initiated. i.e. he was 'reborn' with the knowledge and wisdom of the Esoteric teachers. There are accounts that say actually it was Simon, a disciple, who was crucified, not Jesus.
Then the whole Bible actually reads in a different way. Assuming the parts of the Old Testament that your local preacher will totally ignore and wont answer your questions on (like most of Genesis, especially when you ask about the Nepheliim or the Watchers - check www.sitchin.com for more info ) or the book of Enoch which was not included in the Bible because it actually talks about things that are probably scary to normal serfs.
You can see then two things
1. The Bible was written in that way in order for the not so smart man to understand it and is choc full of meanings behind meanings.
2. It totally ignores whole swathes of the real knowledge and the major mysteries. Jesus Christ would be turning in his grave if he read what crap the guys who put together the Bible left out.
No wonder he pissed off to India.
Ok more on this subject later but i welcoem any thoughts or comments
No comments:
Post a Comment