4 replies to this topic

[simple simon]

Hello everyone,

I do not know if this prediction will prove to be hocus pocus or a real event, but according to some Catholic sources something significant will happen on Good Friday, and it will affect all of humanity globally.

What I do know is that despite coming from a mainstream religious website some of the information in the linked article will upset many people.

Therefore I am only supplying the link.

The Warning of Garabandal Explained

http://www.catholicp...dal-warning.htm

[captain]

simple simon, on Apr 6 2009, 01:14 PM, said:

Hello everyone,

I do not know if this prediction will prove to be hocus pocus or a real event, but according to some Catholic sources something significant will happen on Good Friday, and it will affect all of humanity globally.

What I do know is that despite coming from a mainstream religious website some of the information in the linked article will upset many people.

Therefore I am only supplying the link.

The Warning of Garabandal Explained

http://www.catholicp...dal-warning.htm

-Holy Fright huh Simon?
-PULL IN 'THE SHEEPLE' TIME AGAIN!!
More 'Church or Shepard propaganda' heh. I'll have one of each-whatever their selling-NOT.
Think I prefer 'George Carlin' on Religion. I'll put in the LINK below. Have fun all you Hive Programmed folks-Captain

Visit My Website

[skylark]

simple simon, on Apr 6 2009, 01:14 PM, said:

Hello everyone,

I do not know if this prediction will prove to be hocus pocus or a real event, but according to some Catholic sources something significant will happen on Good Friday, and it will affect all of humanity globally.

What I do know is that despite coming from a mainstream religious website some of the information in the linked article will upset many people.

Therefore I am only supplying the link.

The Warning of Garabandal Explained

http://www.catholicp...dal-warning.htm

*Sweeps’ NOTE:

…Below, is from my book. I’ll let this stand in for my answer to ‘The Warning of the Garabandal’ THING.

Central to most religions (in one or more forms) is the 'God in the sky or heaven'...the 'big daddy', the expected return of the God(s). and the re-establishment of 'paradise' conditions...solving all our problems on 'the return'. The lot of 'the priest class' , which had served the needs and instructions of the extra-terrestrial superior's, underwent dramatic changes following the departure of the Gods. Eventually, over centuries of abandonment and fading memories and purpose, perversions of the original intents and mission set in. Priests, religious leaders, and whole 'mutant' religions would charge themselves with new invented responsibilities and interpretations. Boldly, they would proclaim that they alone had been entrusted with a special knowledge and privilege...from which they derived authority...to be used to guide and set beliefs for the people. By the time we arrived at the' old testament' derivative religions, we were saddled with the quirks (and dangerous foibles) of a religious authority demanding obedience. Only through their intercession with God, their apprehension of His commandments, and their shepherding, could 'salvation' take place. Monopoly and power and abuse go together.

We also woke up to an entrenched and exclusive 'Patriarchy'...the men over the women thing...which would continue a demeaning, 'playing down' and subservience of women's position and roles...lasting to current times. God, after all, was a man...wasn't He? Isn't He? Religion became an institution (and thus political), whereby those in the 'in group' came to act as though religion existed to serve those who administered its' affairs. We should all be aware by now, all the problems that confounded 'calling' gave rise to....and promoted. Just off the top of our heads, the sheer total of wars, suffering, murders, homogenized belief systems, and warping, comes to mind. Talk about your 'crimes against humanity'! They have a lot of 'sins' on their plate. It's not a religious revival (certainly not an organized one) that is needed now, but a spiritual one. They would have us rendered utterly impotent to find our own paths toward the spirit and higher consciousness. They became the role models for putting down dissent and free thinking...which all of the other institutions soon incorporated and followed.



MONOTHEISM has created God. A personal male God 'out there', 'and WE will represent Him and tell YOU all about Him and how to stay on His good side'. Heavy 'mind MESSING'.

The Christian bedrock of Jesus as God takes on a whole new complexion when looked at through the even more mysterious and honest insights of the Gnostics, Aryans, Buddhists, Shamans, Mystics, those of 'Nature Spirit' philosophies, and others. The great historical figure that Christ represents is seen as a gross mis-representation, for we are all sons and daughters of 'God'...or more accurately...of 'Creativity' itself. If Jesus Christ was (is) truly 'The God'...we are all in trouble. Whether he was a great healer, magus, and/or political and religious rebel of his time, he would have been the first to agree. Christ was recorded, depending on what reference is chosen, as first rejecting any divinity and then accepting it. The context in which he finally accepted it was more probably one of ' Yes, we all are...and so am I'. According to certain scriptures, when asked by 'Peter' if he was the Messiah, Christ told his disciple to 'Be silent' about such references. He had basically, here, denied the implication and claim... and was possibly self-conscious about it all.

We don't even really know what he looked like or much about him that has not been blurred, covered up, or re-written. Flavius Josephus (Circa 37-94 A.D. approx.) a renown Jewish historian cites 'a bunch' of chronological figures that were first thought to be as the Messiah' in Jewish historical accounts. Jesus was only one among them. Josephus's original account also describes each 'Messiah'. His unflattering physical description of Christ alone was wholly upsetting to his later icon Christian image; so much so that the Christians altered his original description. The Christian changes to historical texts were to make him tall, handsome, and with curly hair. Josephus, obviously a good researcher and historical observer, described Christ as having a 'hunched back' and a partially balding head. This image would 'knock sideways' some recent alien cults espousing that Christ was genetically modified and implanted in Mary. The aliens either got the hunchback gene wrong or these groups haven't done their homework. All this doesn't infer that alien genetic experiments didn't and/or are not going on...we have ample accounts, reliable witnesses, and speculations to the contrary.

Christ only spent about 3 years on the public stage. He commanded a lot of attention with two main themes. Although he never really measured up to being a prophet in the sense of making many prophecies, he prophesied that the 'end of the world was coming soon'. That was enough to galvanize many a crowd. The fact that he was wrong didn't deter his later followers. In fact, the end of the world theme and the idea that time could end was expressed first in the Hebrew book of Daniel in the 2nd Century B.C. It was then, with the bad times of subjugation by the Romans, that the Jews came up with the combining of political and religious ideas of time. The implied sense was that they could be delivered of their political oppressors by ending 'time' in a religious way. Religiously they could be delivered from their oppressors by having God come to rule over the Earth in their cause, by ending the world. It would become the forerunner of all the judgment day and apocalyptic ideation's. Christ merely announced that this 'ending' and 'judgment' was actually now upon them.

His other theme was the preaching of love, peace, and brotherhood. This was extremely radical for his time, and didn't stand him in good stead with the more militant Hebrew zealots who expected a marshal type of Messiah to lead them in ousting the Romans from their lands. Nothing much is actually known of his early life, although there is much speculation that he may have traveled with Joseph of Arimathea who was a rich merchant and trader. Joseph was also purportedly the uncle of, Mary, Christ's mother. Joseph may have taken the young Jesus with him on his travels and business ventures. Joseph and Jesus must have had a close bond. It was Joseph of Arimathea who would later offer one of his own tombs for the body of Jesus coming down from the cross.

It's possible that Christ could have visited many lands and cultures. Joseph of Arimathea was reported to have visited lands as far away as Glastonbury in Britain and the realms of Persia and India. These excursions to foreign and culturally diverse lands must have affected Christ and his philosophies of life. His adult return to his home land, and the beginning of his public life, could have been as a reverse culture shock. Ex-pats through the ages have found this to be true. It makes them hard to settle and to fit back into their society again. Where did Christ get the peace, love, and brotherhood bit in his travels?

A radical but influential Jewish sect, called the Messianists, claimed that Christ would return from death and lead them against the Romans...despite the fact that Christ only preached brotherhood. Titus, the son of the Roman Emperor, had other ideas. He would wipe out the Messianists along with other Jewish revolutionary factions, and would sack and burn the Jewish Temple. This left the biblical Paul, a Helenized Jew and early convert to Christianity, to bring forth his even stranger interpretation of the life of Christ. He was the one who preached that Christ was 'The Son Of God'. Since Paul's followers were spared the outright slaughter of the other revolutionary groups, they were able to 'carry on' and stamp their mark on the Christian movement.

Christianity, as we know it, almost totally sprang from Saint Paul's 'Greekifying' it and pushing it toward the West...and Rome. He would out flank the Syrian and Egyptian early Christian communities and leave their interpretations in the dust bin of history. All the major such characters as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were influenced by, traveled with, or found agreement with St. Paul's convictions on the appropriate 'story line'. It is easily recognized in even a simplistic, but historically correct, chronological synopsis form:

MARK- lived outside of the 'Holy Land', but was the earliest of the gospel writers on the life of Christ, writing about 20 or so years after the destruction of the 'Temple' in Jerusalem. He seized on stories and early tales of Christ's miracles based on oral traditions. At the time, miracle stories were prolific and attributed to many many 'men's' lives, in an era familiar faddish recognized style. Mark knew this and didn't concentrate too much on the 'miracle factor'.

His main theme was of the terrible (almost nightmarish) anguish of Christ's life. He
cites Christ as even abandoned by God as he hung on the cross. But, he interjected
hope in the way of mystery. It was Mark who told of finding Christ's tomb being empty. None of the other writers of the time, or the other coming gospel writers would accept this. In fact, even his original gospel would be re-worked and altered a few times. Still, he likened Jesus to the great (expected 'anointed one') 'Messianic' figure. His emphasis was on the future, when Christ would return. He wrote of Christ's 'parables' and his teachings which, to him, disguised the true nature of Christ. Who taught in parable style? The 'wise' teachers in the East did, but we won't go into that. Mark suggests that this enigmatic 'preaching' is significant to the enigmatic nature, again, of Christ and so unrevealing of his true nature. It is necessary to understand that Mark took the fall of the Jewish Temple as one of the signs that Jesus represented something in a different direction; away from the 'old' Hebrew teachings and 'divinely hopeful' of a new order of redemption from the persecutions of the past. Mark, substantially was a weaver of stories, and he wrote in Greek for those mainly outside of Aramaic speaking lands. He was a 'Paulist' champion. His 'life of Christ' would set the story example for both Matthew and Luke.

MATTHEW-was the only gospel writer who actually lived in the 'Holy Land' area, but in the upper area near Syria. He wrote about 45-55 years after the death of Christ. He tried to reconcile the early Jewish-Christian groups and the 'straight' Jewish tradition. He tried this in his attempt to actually trace the blood lines of Christ back to the important Jewish figure of 'Abraham'. Funny enough, all Middle-Eastern religions would claim 'Abraham' as their own. The Muslims, 500 years later, would measure themselves as beginning from this source. They would, however, call him 'Abrahim' and give a whole different twist that provided for him really being a Muslim. Matthew set out to provide proof that Jesus was definitely Hebrew, and so merited a melting of Judaism with Christianity. He also compared Christ's teachings to much of what is essentially in Jewish law itself. But, his early groups of Jewish-Christians were not being readily accepted. His writings then had to strike out against factions (like the 'Pharisees') of the Hebrew authority which opposed them. The contentions mounted between the two opposites, and the inexorable exclusion of the Christians from any Judaic consideration would follow. He would end his gospel not with the death of Christ, but with an exhortation (supposedly from Jesus) to spread the word and go out and preach. It was a need for Christian survival.

LUKE-was most likely a traveling companion of Paul. He wrote his gospel around 85 to 90 A.D. He was a scholarly writer, very comfortable in the Greek language, but also he tended to write in a romantic novelist style. His gospel was not his only work. He wrote 'charming' stories of the life of Christ, and used a lot of drama and symbolism in his 'story telling'. He made no pretense of his animosity to the strict Hebrew traditions (mostly based on the way they treated Paul when he visited Jerusalem -and his followers), and struck a clear division between Jews and 'gentiles'. His push was more toward a Greco-Roman Westward goal. He dwelt much on the theme of 'universal salvation' through Christ, and intimated that Christianity posed no threat to Rome...despite the fact that Paul had been executed by Emperor Nero in 67 A.D. His thrust was that Christianity was very much intone with Roman law and progress. All was forgiven. His Christ was cast as a learned, highly ethical, and educated, one. This Christ should be well able to be received in Rome. In fact, Luke's gospel ends with St. Paul going onto Rome, much as in the direction Luke would have Christianity and himself go after his disenchantment with anything Jewish. It was a portend. The 'Luke' Christ could, in his erudite portrayal, be seen as modeled on Luke's own literary and educated background. Why shouldn't Christ have a more universal-Roman appeal?

JOHN-wrote his gospel around 100 to 105 A.D. Many of his points conflicted with the other 3 gospels, and his style was absolutely different. He changed the dates of both the
'last supper' and Christ's death. He embellished Christ's teachings in great symbolism, and was the one to identify him as 'the lamb of God'. John was influenced, as are most writers, by what was happening during his era. The Jews had again revolted against Roman occupation. The rebel leaders reverted to, and called upon, the apocalyptic expunging of Man (and of course the Roman enemy) and the setting up of a new 'Kingdom on Earth' for the faithful. It was after all a rebellion being fought in and around the 'millennium' years, giving it rather an added meaning for thinking in terms of endings and new beginnings. There was great devastation in the 'home land', adding to the climate for total release that only a Godlike intervention and redemption could bring. The new Jewish rebel leader (BARUCH) was regarded by many as 'The Messiah'. This made it impossible for the Christians to join in the revolt. They already had their own Messiah. John's book of 'Revelations', couched in all the ancient religious symbolism of judgment and the 'ending of time', was an appeal and encouragement for Christians to hold steady during this time of great tumult and testing. He wrote in greatly graphic 'spiritual' terms, which were well known central themes of apocalyptic vision.

I had researched and written a long paper entitled 'A Background Of Western Religion, Up To And Including The Council Of Constance 1414-1418', while a student at The State University Of Education At Buffalo-New York. Out of interest, and in keeping with the typical machinations of the Roman Church, this was the Counsel which finally solved the dilemma of the 'Schism'...where 3 different Popes each claimed the title at the same time. Basically all three were ousted and 1 of them executed, in favor of an agreed compromise candidate-Pope Martin the 5th. During intervening years I've kept an interest in adding to and researching more of this history. It's been quite a drama of the unfolding of church political intrigue. The vast majority of people are kept unfamiliar and ignorant of most of this background, and the attendant slaughter of all opposing personalities and views.

These 4 'Gospels' (even the word is Greek...for 'book'), which were to be the basis of the 'New Testament', were ostensibly concerned with the nature and life of Christ. They were also the political and social reflections by each of their authors, in their attempts to deal with the climate and influences of the times. By the time Christianity was flourishing in the West and starting to change all of history, very little of who Christ was (or what he actually did) remained in Christendom.

Creeping misconceptions and 'borrowings' were rife and perpetuated. Baptism wasn't a 'Christian coming in' newly devised thing you know. Well, most Christians don't know. Baptism was, oddly enough for the vast fully accepting lay Christian majority, an old Jewish sect practice. John the Baptist was a radical first type of 'apocalyptic' prophesying aesthetic. He roamed about in the desert discoursing and preaching about the soon coming 'doom, doom, doom'. I've always conjured up his image as satirically similar to the character of Mansard G. Krebs in the old American comedy series 'Dobbie Gillis'. Maynard was a wispy 'goateed' teenage pre-hippie 'bohemian', who stoically ran around with the 'doom, doom, doom' outlook on life as Dobbie's sidekick. Then again, I'm essentially happily warped, preferring to see satire in most things and situations.

Christian theologians have shirked badly with reddened faces over the fact that Christ was most probably a follower' of John the Baptist, and so was baptized by him. He later took up John's 'passed' mission torch of apocalyptic vision, although in a moderated more subtle ethical/spiritual mode. It does though demonstrate Christ's allegiance to and influence by John.

Christ was born as Joshua (or Joshua) Ben Joseph…son of Joseph. Joshua was a common enough name in his days. The 'Christ' name was added much later, when he was identified as having the 'Christos' type of manner and appeal. His name was never Jesus Christ. Don't 'Josh' me! There has always been the big controversy over where he was actually born. It was Luke who told the strange story of him being born in Bethlehem, because Herod had decreed that all Jews had to travel to their ancestral home place for the Roman census. This has no founding in fact. In fact it would have been a bureaucratic, logistical, and administrative headache for any such undertaking. Imagine uprooting all the Jewish families and setting them on the road as refugees...nightmarish. The only reason for this Luke contrivance, was to ensure that Christ be regarded as being connected or descended from 'The House Of David'. The 'Son Of God' naming in Christ's time was a designation given to Hebrew 'Kings', and had no metaphysical meaning. Things are bent to reflect changing agendas. In the words of 'Millennium', the popular TV series, 'This is who we are'.

Christianity is, no doubt, a personality cult. The prime figure in any personality cult turns out to be perfect and 'God like'. The whole thrust and significance of Christ's real preaching regarding peace, love, and brotherhood would take second stage to the fact that he was 'God'. The Paulist Christians would conveniently overlook and change many of the details and purposes of Christ's life. It would become trendy in later Christianity to follow this example. One of the things they would overlook was the fact that Jesus had a brother. His brother's name was John, and it is well recorded and documented by Jewish historians of Christ's era. The latest finding, on researching the life and times of Christ, is that he may have had 4 younger brothers and some sisters.

On the other hand, orthodox Hebrews claim that their scriptures and traditions say that before their Messiah can appear (the orthodoxy still expects 'HIM'...not a 'HER') all Jews will have to be gathered in Israel...or at least the land that was Palestine in the old days. Fat chance. Maybe free passage and tours could be arranged.

But, as fate or the 'possibility of all possibilities' had provided for, a remarkable find occurred in 1945 in Egypt. Previously unknown 'Gnostic' writings, and other gospels, were found in a jar. They have been dated to the 3rd and 5th centuries B.C., and are copies of translations made by the Coptic Christian sect of the originals. These 49 very different writings would become known as the 'Nag Hammadi Papyri'.

Their significance lies in the fact that they are representative of a Gnostic influence and thought in the early Christian communities, that was supposed to have been thoroughly and viciously eradicated by early 'Roman' authority. They range from the re-interpretation of 'Genesis' to whole different views on the life and times of Jesus. There are whole original and unseen 'gospels' in the treatises ascribed to a Phillip and even Mary Magdalene. And there is a Thomas gospel which deals with certain discourses and sayings of Jesus, provocative of alternate interpretations of his life and message. While the 'Paulist' groups wended around towards Greece and finally Rome to establish authority and primacy for their Christian interpretation, other early Christian groups went into Egypt and across Northern Africa. The Gnostic thought holds Christ to be 'Man', dispelling the notion of him being or claiming to be God. This find establishes absolutely the nature of Gnostic views on Christian history, and establishes it as more of a Christian-Jewish outlook instead of Greek character.

The expunging of Gnostic thought and influence in the early Christian church, ousted the prime example of Christ as a highly placed teacher...for the way people should live with each other. Preaching love and tolerance, peace and brotherhood, wasn't enough to form a 'church' around. He had to be, not just a great spiritual soul but the actual embodiment of 'The God'. The most 'ridiculous' slant of all that would be 'laid upon him' would be that he came to die for Mankind's sins. The Gnostics gathered from his teachings and example, that all people could attain an independent spiritual growth by a direct 'seeking' of their own individual paths to 'God'.

This really 'pissed off' those wanting to form a church religion around Christ and impose a need for intermediaries to reach 'God'. People couldn't be allowed to wander around 'on their own toot' trying to find the path, could they? How the hell could they all be controlled that way? It was out of the question. Besides 'orthodox' Christian men such as Ianaus in the 2nd Century, had already ruled out going on to Rome itself with a bunch of free thinkers. These Christians were intent on building a 'church religion' in the authority mode of Roman example. Even in this early period the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were enshrined as the stories to go by...despite their contradictions and 'selfish' purposes in support of their own era needs. Very funny how just these gospels would become the later basis for 'the authoritative word of God'. They supported the idea of establishing 'church' authority.

In every religion or sect at the level where the flock or layity is contacted, gross distortions are perpetrated. There is, always to be found, contamination and corruption of content. Power will always guard 'its' truth'. Within the rooted hierarchies of organized religion of any persuasion, there is totalitarianism. With any luck now, they will be seen for what they are and they'll have lost it. Before the 'Internet' and 'The Worldwide Web' all information and knowledge accorded or made accessible to the general public or laymen was guarded and censored. Such was the source of authority, control, tribute, and belief fostering.



…OR…I should recommend the following Forum LINK below, if you all want a basis to start from. Thanks/’Sweeps’

Visit My Website

[simple simon]

Thanks Sweeps.

re: the 'big daddy from the sky', did you hear about what happened during WW2 and actually helps show one way in which such could happen?

re: the article to which I linked, well, as obviously the event did not happen yesterday so the author has changed it and is now suggesting 2010! Ho hum.

Simon

[skylark]

simple simon, on Apr 11 2009, 04:31 PM, said:

Thanks Sweeps.

re: the 'big daddy from the sky', did you hear about what happened during WW2 and actually helps show one way in which such could happen?

re: the article to which I linked, well, as obviously the event did not happen yesterday so the author has changed it and is now suggesting 2010! Ho hum.

Simon

*Late night Simon,
...Maybe explain/tell us about the WW2 happening, and why it might mean 'Someting'?
Look at the LINKS on your other today Topic. Left a message. Have a good one...and thanks, as usual/'S'