Current Events > Yaweh, the biblical god of the Old Testament was actually a human hating demon

(+) Yeah! (+)

synth_real posted...

Every time you praise Jesus, you're really just worshipping the Sun.

neat

stay classy mods....letting this topic stay up.

kayoticdreamz posted...

stay classy mods....letting this topic stay up.

would be nice if they blasted every religious topic no matter what it was. it's all made up shit.

---

Zikten posted...

neat

The vast majority of Western theology is actually heavily based on astrology, but most people never learn anything about the topic beyond maybe reading their horoscope. There's probably lots of Eastern theology based on astrology too, but I don't know a lot about that topic. Whenever you read oddly specific numbers in the Bible, they always have some kind of deeper symbolic meaning, and it's often an astrological reference (12 is always the Zodiac, for example.)

Lucifer means "The Lightbringer" and his betrayal of Yehova and fall from the Heavens is actually about the planet Venus (The Morningstar, an important title of Lucifer) rising in the East in the morning until the light of dawn makes it fades out of the sky.

666 does not stand for Lucifer, it was actually a veiled Gematria reference to the Roman emperor Nero who deliberately set Rome on fire to blame the Christians for it in an ancient false flag attack. Outright calling the emperor the "Great Beast" would have been extremely dangerous at the time, so they had to obscure it.

Just wait until you study into demonology and discover that most of them are actual deities and spirits worshiped by "Pagan" religions that the Abrahamic religions made into monsters to persecute their followers.

---

Yeah I'm gonna need a source on that.

Jewish Rabbis in the last 2000 years were not afraid of astrology like someone who wants Harry Potter banned or something like that. They had different opinions on astrology (this is more so 2000 years ago than today). Some rejected it, some said it was valid but not to be practiced, others said practicing it was OK. Today it is basically universally rejected outside of Orthodox Judaism and even there it is largely rejected.

But the point is that they didn't ignore it and they knew about it. So why would they have differing opinions on astrology, and why would all of them believe that God is greater than astrology if the entire Bible is just derivative of astrology?
---

The Gospel of Judas basically says that God is a "luminous cloud of light" that created 12 lower Gods who ruled the chaos below heaven. They created Earth and a body to the first human, Adamas.
Adamas was first created as an image of God in heaven, but he was sent to his earthly body and became Adam.
As time went on, humans forgot about their spiritual origin and started to follow the evil lower Gods, which acts like God in the Older Testament.
The real God sent Jesus to Earth to remind humanity of their real past, and that you must connect with the light inside you to get to heaven.
Sadly it was only Judas that understood this message, and the 11 other disciples misunderstood it, twisted Jesus words to fit with their view of the world.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Yeah I'm gonna need a source on that.

Jewish Rabbis in the last 2000 years were not afraid of astrology like someone who wants Harry Potter banned or something like that. They had different opinions on astrology (this is more so ~1000-2000 years ago than today). Some rejected it, some said it was valid but not to be practiced, others said practicing it was OK. Today it is basically universally rejected outside of Orthodox Judaism and even there it is largely rejected.

But the point is that they didn't ignore it and they knew about it. So why would they have differing opinions on astrology, and why would all of them believe that God is greater than astrology if the entire Bible is just derivative of astrology?

Because they didn't invent those beliefs, the ancient Hebrews were actually a splinter Canaanite culture who elevated what was a lesser Canaanite god to the level of the One Above All in their beliefs and then managed to drive out the other Canaanites. They clearly weren't afraid of astrology because they based their fucking holy books on it, but much of those astrological beliefs were older than them. The original Zodiac (as far as we can tell) was actually invented by the ancient Sumerians, they didn't use the exact same constellations (though some of them are pretty similar) but they did come up with the idea of dividing the year up into 12 sections and naming each one after it's dominant constellation. Through cultural exchange, these ideas were spread out across the Middle East and Mediterranean where they became at least a partial basis for multiple other religions, such as the ancient Greek pantheon. As ancient Israel and Judea were historically occupied by a number of different nations with differing beliefs (the Egyptians, the Hellenistic Greeks, the Roman Empire, to name three big ones) they did end up absorbing at least a bit of those other cultures beliefs and practices into their own.

---

That's not a source.

Some dude on gamefaqs does not know secrets that classical religious scholars weren't aware of.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Yeah I'm gonna need a source on that.

Jewish Rabbis in the last 2000 years were not afraid of astrology like someone who wants Harry Potter banned or something like that. They had different opinions on astrology (this is more so ~1000-2000 years ago than today). Some rejected it, some said it was valid but not to be practiced, others said practicing it was OK. Today it is basically universally rejected outside of Orthodox Judaism and even there it is largely rejected.

But the point is that they didn't ignore it and they knew about it. So why would they have differing opinions on astrology, and why would all of them believe that God is greater than astrology if the entire Bible is just derivative of astrology?

Astrology is far, far, far older than Judaism. The thing about religious allegories is that they help make your religion palatable to another culture that has their own religion.

So if I want to convert you to Christianity, but you're a pagan astrologer, I say things like "Jesus is the sun, and these 12 houses are these people and did these things"

This practice essentially continued until at least as recent as the European colonies in America with the native American religions.

So the fact that you see the same fucking shit pop up in different religions all the time isn't a coincidence, it's the result of thousands of years of proselytizing.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

That's not a source.

Some dude on gamefaqs does not know secrets that classical religious scholars weren't aware of.

Whoop-dee-fuck, I didn't give you a source when we're talking about an imaginary sky-daddy.

---

The point is that specifically that historically, astrology is derivative of Jewish beliefs, not the other way around. Jesus was a rabbi who inspired a sect of believers that eventually became the powerful Catholic Church after Rome converted to Christianity, and from there Protestantism formed.

I believe I found the website you got your information from (http://solarmythology.com/bibleastrology.htm). which is based on a book, Stowe's Bible Astrology, by a 19th writer named Lyman E. Stowe. This is the only information I can find about him online: https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Stowe,_Lyman_E.

I think it's safe to say he's not a reliable source, and neither are you.

But I thought you were actually serious until you pulled the edgy atheist s***, so nevermind.
---

I have it on good authority that his name was actually Yeehaw
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

astrology is derivative of Jewish beliefs, not the other way around

Astrology ~3000 B.C.

Judaism ~600 B.C. (generous overestimate)

---

Jesus is Yahweh and there is mercy extended to you and me by Yahweh. This is promised in the Old Testament. What will you choose to do with it?

You have two choices.

---

kayoticdreamz posted...

stay classy mods....letting this topic stay up.

What's wrong with the topic?

---

Solar_Crimson posted...

What's wrong with the topic?

This. Pretty interesting discussion tbh

---

synth_real posted...

Whoop-dee-fuck, I didn't give you a source when we're talking about an imaginary sky-daddy.

it's incredible a theist would ask for a source for their make believe nonsense.

---

If you want a religion to spread and last a long time, it must adapt.
Pagans got a big party at the Winter solstice? Celebrate the birth of your own God some days later!
Want the Romans to convert to your religion even after they killed your God? Write the Gospels in such ways so bloodthirsty Romans tries to give him a second and third chance and put the blame on the Jews instead!

---

kayoticdreamz posted...

stay classy mods....letting this topic stay up.

I'm not really sure what about this thread would violate any rules. It hasn't led to any flaming or trolling, the discussion appears to be incredibly interesting.

---

synth_real posted...

666 does not stand for Lucifer, it was actually a veiled Gematria reference to the Roman emperor Nero who deliberately set Rome on fire to blame the Christians for it in an ancient false flag attack. Outright calling the emperor the "Great Beast" would have been extremely dangerous at the time, so they had to obscure it.

Wanted to chime in on this and mention something incredibly interesting. Papyrus 115, the oldest known ancient Greek scroll of Book of Revelation actually says that the number of the beast is 616. Not 666.

---

Crazyman93 posted...

That. Though you are coming close to Cathar doctrine. A heresy so reviled in its day, the commander at the gate said "kill them all and let God sort it out."

Here's author George RR Martin talking about the Cathars:

https://youtu.be/auxRX2RkWuA

---

Everyone knows that Catharism is the best heresy because having women available to be generals and counselors is just too useful to pass up
---

Let's talk a bit about the Babylonian exile. Basically, the Neo-Babylonians were massive jerks, and in order to control conquered territories, they deported large segments of the population(likely primarily elites or anyone that might be expected to stir things up) and settled them around Babylon, so they could keep a close eye on them.
Fortunately for everyone who wasn't a Babylonian, Neo-Babylon was short-lived and was conquered by Persia, led by Cyrus the Great. Cyrus was much less of a jerk, and when he discovered all these exiled peoples crowded around Babylon, he struck on a great idea: he escorted them home, and then he set about rebuilding all the temples the Babylonians had burned and looted. If the Old Testament is anything to go by, the strategy was a PR coup that supplied Cyrus with a number of happy vassals(Cyrus, IIRC, is the only foreign king that is mentioned in a positive way).
Of course, the people who had been left behind had probably been doing just fine without the exiles, and may have been annoyed. In Judea, this manifested in the fact that the left-behind and the exiles had slightly different rituals. The exiles alleged that, in their absence, the left-behinds had forgotten the proper ways, while the left-behinds charged that the exiles had allowed their rituals to be corrupted by Babylonian religious practices.
They handled this like humans normally handled minor disagreements; that is, very poorly.
The left-behinds who refused to yield, in the end, formed their own community and came to be known as Samaritans(due to their claim of descent from the tribes that lived around Samaria, or the modern day West Bank), and all good, self-respecting orthodox Jews hated them(the feeling was mutual).

I bring it up because knowing who the Samaritans were really changes the context of one of Jesus' most famous parables: that of the good Samaritan. They still exist today, even.

sounds like the Samaritans are the real Jews if you ask me. not sure how a bunch of people who lived abroad for centuries came to believe they were the real ones. I'll take the ones who never left the homeland

Zikten posted...

sounds like the Samaritans are the real Jews if you ask me. not sure how a bunch of people who lived abroad for centuries came to believe they were the real ones. I'll take the ones who never left the homeland

Good thing no one is asking you, because that sort of take is fallacious at its very foundation. A people's identity does not disappear just because they've been exiled from their homeland.
---

Paragon21XX posted...

Good thing no one is asking you, because that sort of take is fallacious at its very foundation. A people's identity does not disappear just because they've been exiled from their homeland.

yes but it does make them arrogant if they think they are the "real" ones and try to claim the people who stayed behind are somehow fake

Stop playing MegaTen / Persona TC.

---

Paragon21XX posted...

Good thing no one is asking you, because that sort of take is fallacious at its very foundation. A people's identity does not disappear just because they've been exiled from their homeland.

They were also gone no more than a few decades: Neo-Babylon/Chadaea survived for less than a century between overthrowing the Assyrians and being conquered by Cyrus the Great.
It was the last Mesopotamian empire.

Edit: Like, literally, Nebuchadnezzar II reigned for 43 years, and he's the Babylonian King mentioned by the Bible. He died in 562 BCE, and Cyrus conquered the city in 549 BCE, just 13 years later. Assuming the conquest of Judea and the deportation occurred towards the beginning of his reign, that gives us an exile of around 50 years at max.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Astrology ~3000 B.C.

Judaism ~600 B.C. (generous overestimate)

So?

If it is true that the Torah is divinely inspired, and especially if the events of the Torah are literally true (which I don't believe they are), why would it matter that people associated meaning to astronomical events before that? And that applies to every religion. Every religion is also slightly different, some more than others, so it's your prerogative what you want to believe.

To respond to the claim that Jesus was based on Mithras, the reality is scholarly sources disagree with that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism_in_comparison_with_other_belief_systems#Mithraism_and_Christianity

A Christian saying Jesus is God vs. a Muslim saying Jesus is just a prophet is a matter of faith. If you want to disprove major religions (calling the story of Jesus fake would essentially totally disprove two religions, Christianity and Islam, in which over half of the world believes in), you really do need actual scholarly sources and evidence.

I agree that ancient religions must have influenced each other. Some religions are more obviously influenced than others (for example, Christianity and Islam). And another example of a religion being influenced by society is Christmas being based on Saturnalia. But it's nonsense to imply that all the religions of today are derivative of the horoscopes that you read in the newspaper, which is essentially what you're doing.

I think it's fair to say that (almost) all religions are based on some universal truths and grow from there. The two most famous dead religions, Egyptian mythology and Greek Mythology (and Roman mythology from that), didn't have a name because they were never unified. It makes perfect sense that the ancient religions that are still around today are the ones that were most unified back then. And what would cause unification more than actual belief? Or you could look at the many scholars throughout the centuries who were religious. This obviously doesn't prove what they believed is true, but people like Maimonides, Newton, and Einstein were clearly not stupid. Therefore, edgy atheists' utter dismissal of religion is in fact stupid.

So again, it's up to you what you want to believe or not believe. But if you want to just dismiss the major religions of today as fake (rather than disagree with them as a matter of faith), you need actual evidence. And that is really a rhetorical statement because if those religions were able to be disproved, they would have been already.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

The point is that specifically that historically, astrology is derivative of Jewish beliefs

Maybe you should study a little astrology and come back to me

Damn_Underscore posted...

I believe I found the website you got your information from (http://solarmythology.com/bibleastrology.htm). which is based on a book, Stowe's Bible Astrology, by a 19th writer named Lyman E. Stowe. This is the only information I can find about him online: https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Stowe,_Lyman_E.

I actually haven't read that specific article, though to be honest it's similar to others I have read.

Damn_Underscore posted...

But I thought you were actually serious until you pulled the edgy atheist s***, so nevermind.

I am not an atheist, absolutely not. My new belief system I've been studying the past year is pretty edgy occult shit though, not gonna lie.

---

Zikten posted...

yes but it does make them arrogant if they think they are the "real" ones and try to claim the people who stayed behind are somehow fake

Are you even aware of Jewish history? After the Jews were exiled from Israel by the Romans, they moved all over the old world (and also there were still a large community of Jews dispersed from Israel after the Babylonian exile). This is a good map:

https://i.imgur.com/eNzrVfj.png

It's not like every single Jew left Israel, but the ones that stayed doesn't make them any more "real". They are all connected by genealogy and beliefs/customs.
---

Paragon21XX posted...

There is no real gospel of Judas. It's just fanfiction written 100s of years later, and someone discovered it later on and thought it was real. Hell, this applies to all of the gnostic gospels.

All the Bible is fanfiction written by humans to trick other humans into believing in sky fairies.

---

YellowSUV posted...

Paragon21XX posted...

There is no real gospel of Judas. It's just fanfiction written 100s of years later, and someone discovered it later on and thought it was real. Hell, this applies to all of the gnostic gospels.

All the Bible is fanfiction written by humans to trick other humans into believing in sky fairies.

https://youtu.be/S-H_cvcyKoY
---

Paragon21XX posted...

https://youtu.be/S-H_cvcyKoY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFr74zI1LBM

---

iPhone_7 posted...

Interesting concept. The (actually) bad deity won and tricked everyone into thinking the (actually) good deity was the bad one.

This whole topic: Gnosticism without knowing it.

---

CommunismFTW posted...

This whole topic: Gnosticism without knowing it.

I knew it and am doing my duty to turn people away from the parasite Yaldabaoth

---

I don't understand how people can read the Old and New Testament and proclaim God to be the same character in each of them.

---

synth_real posted...

I knew it and am doing my duty to turn people away from the parasite Yaldabaoth

I mean. Gnosis isn't going to be achieved on a video game message board topic which started -- and consistently has been -- about shitposting.

---

CommunismFTW posted...

I mean. Gnosis isn't going to be achieved on a video game message board topic which started -- and consistently has been -- about shitposting.

This place might be full of shit, but shit also makes a good fertilizer

---

IMO the good thing about Gnosticism is that it basically tells people to think for themselves and form a personal spiritual relationship with God. But the bad thing about Gnosticism is that it ignores historical context.

The books of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) are in fact split into three sections: the Torah (law), the Nevi'im (prophets), and the Ketuvim (writings). The character of God isn't the same in any of them. God in Genesis is different from the God in Isaiah who is different from the God in Job. And in fact, basically all of the books of the Hebrew Bible are presented as either legends or poems. You can see that pretty clearly just from reading them.

The New Testament, on the other hand (with the exception of Revelation) just reads differently from the Hebrew Bible. The real influence the Hebrew Bible had on Jewish society back then was that they would have followed the laws of the Torah (including the oral Torah), which is a major part of Jesus' preaching. I guess what I mean by "reads differently" is that it talks more about modern (at the time) society rather than legendary people and events, and it is not poetry. And Jesus would be especially appealing to Gnostic ideology because he was a religious reformer of his time.

So in that sense comparing the God of the Old Testament to the God of the New Testament doesn't really make sense.
---

Also the OT was written in Aramaic (and probably some older languages) and the NT was written mostly in Greek. So I wonder if there is a linguistic reason for some of the differences.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

So?

So the nonsense you posted earlier is equivalent to saying Journey to the West is derivative of Dragonball Z.

---

There's zero point in responding to you. You literally responded to zero of the points I made just so you could make a stupid gotcha joke.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

There's zero point in responding to you. You literally responded to zero of the points I made just so you could make a stupid gotcha joke.

There's no reason to address the rest of your points if they all hinge on ancient astrology being somehow derivative of a religion that came thousands of years later. Your definitions are wrong so your proof is wrong.

When you start a proof with "let 1 = 2" your conclusion and any step you take along the way is meaningless.

---

That's not what I said though. At all. You (or synth, I forget who) basically said that the Abrahamic religions are just stolen from astrology and therefore just as valid (if not less valid) than astrology. "Astrology" being a vague term BTW.

I said no, that's not true.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

That's not what I said though. At all. You (or synth, I forget who) basically said that the Abrahamic religions are just stolen from astrology and therefore just as valid (if not less valid) than astrology. "Astrology" not being specific BTW.

I said no, that's not true.

That wasn't me who said that. I said you'll find similar themes across multiple religions because the easiest way to convert someone who doesn't believe in Christianity to Christianity if they believe in astrology is to find ways to equate Christianity with Astrology so that people don't feel out of their comfort zone as they don't feel like they're hearing new beliefs but rather different interpretations of the beliefs they already have.

Judaism and Christianity absolutely stole shit from Astrology in order to assist with their spread. Judaism itself functionally being an early offshoot of Zoroastrianism mixed with the religion of the Levites.

This wasn't the only time something like this happened. The Kaaba was already around a long time before Muhammad was. He incorporated it into Islam to assist with converting the locals to Islam because they revered it. But hey, if my God sent the stone then you should also revere my God.

Fuck all knows what traditional Arabic religion used to be like anymore at this point.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

That's not what I said though. At all. You (or synth, I forget who) basically said that the Abrahamic religions are just stolen from astrology and therefore just as valid (if not less valid) than astrology. "Astrology" being a vague term BTW.

I said no, that's not true.

Your ability to argue here looks real bad when you can't even look back through a few posts to make sure you're addressing the right person.

With my little ad hominem attack on you aside, based upon is not the same as stolen, and if you really wanna go down that path then almost every religion that came out of the Middle East was stolen from the Sumerians and the Egyptians, Buddhism was stolen from the Hindus, Japanese Shinto was stolen from the Chinese, and everything was stolen from the prehistoric animistic shamans. The reality is, the only one that was really stolen was the story of Christ from the Mithras mystery cults (they're the exact same story and anybody who says otherwise is in denial,) which themselves had a whole lot of Egyptian Osiris in them. From the study I've done on astrology (which has a whole lot more to it than the bullshit horoscopes in your newspaper) I think there's something about it that has an influence on us that we can't explain, so the astrological basis in all of these religions might be the one piece of genuine universal truth in all of them (and I mean universal in more than one sense, just making that one explicit to make sure you get it)

---

When I said that I was really talking to you more than him because you made more posts than he did, but he was the one talking so I sort of combined your arguments into one.

Now I just want to restate my argument. You two are invalidating the major religions of today (I'll just focus on Abrahamic religions) because according to you, they "stole from astrology." Of course this statement alone is incredibly vague and really has no meaning. It could mean that ancient people saw similar universal truths in the world, and some attributed them to a god or gods while others attributed it to the stars. Or it could just as easily mean that religion is as reliable as the horoscopes you read in the newspaper. If you meant the former, then I have no problem at all with what you're saying. I do believe the universe is more than what is observable, but I also don't believe that any religious book is literally true. However, if you mean the latter, then I do take issue with what you're saying. Because as I've said, no matter what the true origin of any religion is, various learned people have taken their own understanding of the universe and expanded that religion well beyond whatever its origin was. That is what's important, what makes religions objectively not fake, and what makes religion good for the world in my opinion.

BTW Synth, your claim that Jesus is just a copy of Mithras is wrong. I already linked you a source above, here's another linkthat itself links various sources: http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=Mithras_and_Jesus
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

because according to you, they "stole from astrology."

synth_real posted...

based upon is not the same as stolen

Just to help out your reading comprehension skills a bit there

Damn_Underscore posted...

It could mean that ancient people saw similar universal truths in the world, and some attributed them to a god or gods while others attributed it to the stars. Or it could just as easily mean that religion is as reliable as the horoscopes you read in the newspaper. If you meant the former, then I have no problem at all with what you're saying. I do believe the universe is more than what is observable, but I also don't believe that any religious book is literally true. However, if you mean the latter, then I do take issue with what you're saying.

I'm kinda saying a bit of both. Even the shit that I believe in isn't exactly reliable, though the traditional teaching is that it's a function of how reliable I am and how much I put into it, ultimately there's nothing completely reliable for anybody, not even yourself.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

f*** all knows what traditional Arabic religion used to be like anymore at this point.

Animist polytheism with hundreds upon hundreds of gods. A trio of goddesses were especially revered, and Allah was included in the pantheon but more as a king god or something akin to that, not the all-encompassing lord of all worlds, one-God that we see today.

---