Thread 41286233

Pagan gods were NOT angels, angels were GODS perse.

Angel is a job, 'messenger' in greek ("angelos").
The species were angels belong is Gods, since they are 'beings of light' ("dieus").

The difference between them and THE God is
>THE God is the Creator
>THE God is the only one to be worshipped for being the Creator

It's crazy that all the "pagan vs christian" drama is because people are too stupid to learn etymology ("étymon" = 'true sense or sense of a truth'; "logia" = 'denoting 'the study or logic of').

>>41286233 (OP)
Nuh uh

>>41286233 (OP)
Based and truthpill

based

>>41286233 (OP)
God is the ego. You're supposed to overcome it and replace it with your own individuality.

>>41286419
Good analogy, but my point was about etymology, I'm just tired of this e-drama between poly. vs monotheists.

>the most high divides the nations and gives them to the sons of god
>one of them is jewish god who is given israel
>2000 years later
>achyually they were all demons and you have to worship the jewish one

>>41286454
I'm tired of theist drama.

God is the false self, making it both self AND false.

>>41286233 (OP)
I see the point you are making but angels are not gods and this seems to be mostly semantics. You could argue that humans are all gods in some metaphorical sense because we are made in the image of God but this isn't exactly true.

>>41286875
>god, being of light (at least, for proto-IE peoples) with powers (tech) to change the reality
>but angels are not gods
So, what are angels? What species do they belong to?

>>41286517
Based and atheos-pilled.
Same here, anon.

>>41286920
They don't have a species, as they are spiritual intelligences and essences created by God, but there are various types of angels depending on their purpose. Any reality changing they do is with permission from Him.

>>41286233 (OP)
>pagan vs christian" drama is because people are too stupid to
realize that no one really cares what camp you belong to and that one's journey to the Gods is yours only

>>41286517
How'd you arrive to that conclusion? Are you saying the Self is eternal and uncreated, omnipotent and entirely self-existent?

>>41286233 (OP)
Angels are magic mushrooms. People thought they fell at night as meteorites and they look like stones when they are first visible. They only grow at night.
Lucifer is the amnita muscaria aka Lord of the flies. The other "angels" are other types of magic mushrooms.
Jesus founded the church on a "stone".
Nematodes frequent mushrooms too. That's what's up with the "serpent" in the garden of Eden. "Eve" is infected with a nematode and it convinces her to eat the "fruit of knowledge of good and evil".
Eve represents the planet/Goddess Venus. If you read how Solomon describes people tripping on amnita muscaria picrel you'll have a completely different view of Christianity and religion in general.
But I'm a name fag larping on /x/ so you shouldn't take this post as true in anyway. Only official dogma is true. Kek.
Fuck worms.

So in picrel you have symbolism of Aphrodite Bachus Adonis ect. Can't recall if that's the moon or planet Venus. Dying and rising god and his consort representation.
Oh and "the holy Grail" is a blooming amnita muscaria.

>>41287212
>>41287212
Ta da. The holy Grail. Androgynous as fuck in terms of what it's used for becoming androgynous.
Also notice it's pale "flesh" and red "head". The north American version has a yellow "head". What ethnicity resembles those descriptions?
Albinism is caused by inbreeding. That's how the "white race" came into being. It's a strange world.
Luckily I'm just shitposting.

>>41286233 (OP)
>>41286266
>>41286922
>>41287022
Also, checked. Praise kek.

>>41286922
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY

>>41287030
The false self is the ego. "God" (in a monotheistic sense) is the ego.

>but but but the universe is big and powerful
Ya, but the monotheistic/gnostic metaphysics is based on the mind projecting outward. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if the idea didn't first make sense psychologically, before we pretended the universe has a psychological condition.

>gnostic
Since I mentioned this, I'll clarify. The gnosis has to do in part with Luciferianism (God = ego, Lucifer = the creative spark in your head) and part to do with other stuff. The main thing to know is that they use the same characters as monotheism but have different conclusions.

>>41286479
Therefore, Jove chose Italia (Etruria, Roma).
Yahweh / Israel won while Jove / Roma lost?

>>41287170
>>41287212
>>41287239
Why do you post the same bs in every thread you post in? Give it up faggot.

>>41286233 (OP)
>babby's first neoplatonism
>"learn etymology"
>can't even decline deus
learn theology btw. angels/gods don't have species

Yes, that's very true. Did you know Plato's Daemon is actually not evil? It's where we get "Demon" from today. Isn't it unfortunate the meaning has been turned on its head?
For some clarity, it's important to understand what we're saying versus what we're not saying:
What we're saying is that Deities have been purposefully distorted. Jung's works regarding Archetypes is supremely helpful for this and personally I like to mention the Buddhist pantheon here frequently as well. If we combine the Jungian Archetype with the Buddhist Pantheism, I think we better capture what the Greek to Christian transition was really going for and where Catholicism/Mithraism flipped the script on all of us.
What we're not saying is that angels are demons and all of your favorite stuff is satanic and evil and you need to change your clothes because you might have gotten some of the evil sprinkled on you just discussing this. All of this nonsense, petulant reversion to "demons" every time someone mentions something even slightly out of your worldview does not warrant autistic shrieking about "demons"

>>41288007
>Did you know Plato's Daemon is actually not evil?
I assume you mean Socrates' daimon. The Greek word means a subsistent soul, hence the Peripatetic term "eudaimonia" or literally "good-souled-ness." The Latin daemon had the same meaning but acquired a technical definition in theology on the grounds that a daimon in the state of grace should rather be called a saint. So daemon came to refer specifically to disembodied souls not in the state of grace, i.e., the souls of poor sinners condemned to hell.
OP is right that it pays to learn etymology but is otherwise a faggot, and so are you

>>41288051
Socrates was obviously a character invented to tell a story. It seems clear Plato was the author. Likewise, "Jesus" was not a real person either. There was a guy he was based on and we can get into that if you want too, but does it really not strike you as odd that their stories are so similar? Upon further study, you just might see what I see, that there's a clear pattern here.
Like "Socrates", "Jesus" was murdered for profaning Mysteries, to be succinct.
>the definition changed over time
That's right, Latins later appropriated the word - entirely unsurprisingly considering Neoplatonism flourished through the time period in question. It's funny you exploit vagaries of theologians to insist that daemon maintained "evil stuff" through muh technicalities, but I'm afraid all of western metaphysics is predicated upon Platonian Metaphysics (because they're synonymous). I don't really give a shit what the Romans said and I care even less about your appeals to muh sinners and muh hellish condemnations. Your Latin scourge neutered a proper understanding and it doesn't matter how hard you try to fatigue all of us with your faggy Academic words like an annoying nigger.
Your appeals to "demon means evil stuff" are moot. Carry on.

>>41288051
>>41288110
Also "eudaimonia" explains my point, you retard. You just added "eu", which gives us "good". So your whole argument is bunk and you're a brainlet.

>>41288110
>>41288126
Not really worth a response. You obviously haven't read the Apology or the Gospels if you're making a gratis assertion that either Socrates or Jesus were murdered for profaning the Mysteries. I don't know how you justify the apparent contradiction with the textual evidence that Socrates was charged with corrupting the youth and Jesus with insurrection, but I don't particularly care either.
The only person for whom Latin theology seems to have neutered a proper understanding of what the word demon really means is you. The distinction between "demon" (ancient Greek) and "demon" (theology) is easy to understand and the older sense is not an example of hidden knowledge. Which usage predominates in your reading depends on whether your "further study" is in the field of classics or religion. All your rant amounts to is "Christianity bad," which is just your opinion. To me it doesn't matter how someone uses a term as long as it is clear what concept is intended. But why actually does it trigger you if someone uses the word demon to denote an evil spirit? What is the nature of your attachment to this word? I don't really care, but it is worth pointing out that the attachment is there.

>>41288242
>I don't know how you justify the apparent contradiction with the textual evidence that Socrates was charged with corrupting the youth and Jesus with insurrection
You don't imagine it's funny that Socrates' defense was "I'm crazy guys. I talk to spirits and stuff. I just wander around town and people listen to me and, since I'm near the academy, the young people are often who are interactive. I'm not seeking them out to 'corrupt' them."? Oh and this nonsense about Jesus being a real person is retarded. You think a guy walked on fucking water, had no father and "came back from the dead"? It's a story, you retard. You study Linguistics, so you know what this means and the importance of differences of verbiage in separate instances as we describe.
>Latins were great. They didn't destroy Metaphysics, guys.
Yes they did. They contributed to this bullshit Duality ruse where we call everything we don't understand Evil - exactly as you described.
>Ancient Greek versus Theological "Demon"
I'm saying your version is bunk and the one that makes sense (because we have to add additional words, prefixes, etc. to their full expression to delineate between "good demons" and "bad demons" exactly as you demonstrated) is the initial one, where Demon meant Messenger from the Gods (to take some liberties).
>>41288242
>Which usage predominates in your reading depends on whether your "further study" is in the field of classics or religion.
"Religion" is a morality system for the goyim, the useless eaters, the cattle, the normalfags. Call it Theology or Religion or whatever else you want, it's a bullshit ruse. Anyone who studies this can tell with certainty. None of you idiots are actually doing anything spiritual.
>Christianity bad
You're an idiot.
I think "Jesus" was "King Arthur" and that his family escaped after the guy was almost assassinated on several occasions. He belonged to a (multiple, really) powerful bloodline(s), just like his wife.
Now keep reading.

>>41288290
>You don't imagine it's funny that Socrates' defense was "I'm crazy guys
But it was the opposite of that. It wasn't considered "crazy" to "talk to spirits and stuff" in ancient Athens.
>You think a guy walked on fucking water, had no father and "came back from the dead"?
Many recorded instances of these feats, the vast majority of them done by ostensibly polytheist miracle workers such as Apollonius and Iamblichus. Parthenogenesis is especially attributed to the Hindu avatars and, according to some accounts, even Plato himself.
>But in those cases the father was an incubus!
Ibn al-Arabi also says that the father of Jesus was Gabriel.
>contributed to this bullshit Duality ruse
Your brain on historiography. "Contributed" is a weasel word: do you mean that it caused "this bullshit Duality ruse" or that it did not cause it? How? You cannot destroy metaphysics even if you try, though. Different doctrines are proposed to individuals of different levels of spiritual maturity, and the more outward-facing and dualistic doctrines admit of a deeper sense for those with the capacity to understand it. The simple fact that the way it is formulated poses an obstacle to you would indicate that you have not understood, or at least, you care too much what other people think.
>I'm saying your version is bunk and the one that makes sense
They both make sense in an appropriate context.
>"Religion" is a morality system for the goyim
Interesting choice of words there, rabbi. Anyway, so what if it is? Any spiritual aspirant has to be comfortable with the fact that he is dealing with realities that are none of anyone else's business.
>None of you idiots are actually doing anything spiritual.
Sorry for not belonging to your One True Church of Esoterick Knowledge, I guess.
>I think "Jesus" was "King Arthur"
The Boar and the Bear are not unrelated, but, you know, keep reading and stuff.

>>41288391
>But it was the opposite of that. It wasn't considered "crazy" to "talk to spirits and stuff" in ancient Athens.
That's why I'm so insistent about the proper reception of the term, yes. Nowadays, no one understands that and we all call muh spirits "evil" like idiots.
>Many recorded instances of these feats
Right, just like a "virgin birth". But this doesn't prove what you want it to prove, it instead reveals the underlying link between the stories. Instead, this actually means it was retold. Was Jesus Apollonius, for example, or was Apollonius Jesus? Keep in mind Apollonius is just the realized form of Apollo (but we don't need to get into those details now, to expand on the idea).
>Gabriel was Jesus' dad.
I've heard this before and although I do enjoy this sort of musing, it doesn't exactly mean what you think it means. Was Gabriel a corporeal being? That's a whole different discussion, right? Either way, this is just a red herring at best.
>muh weasel word
It's not clear who (to me anyway) who exactly should be blamed for the Mithraic-Catholic coverup of what Christianity before the Romans got involved. Did they cause it, do you think? They certainly contributed to it. I maintain my statement.
>you don't get it or you're soft and gay or something
The reason for the ardent defense of proper framing is because this dichotomized reduction of non-physical beings is going to undo all of you. As you pointed out, people different parts of the path can comprehend different parts. As such, a more refined understanding will help you realize "demons" are not evil and this frame of reference is unhelpful. The example I use is proper framing via Platonian Metaphysics.
>both make sense
No, the "theological definition" is an apathetic reduction, where now "demons" can only be evil and no longer helpful.
>you're jewish
Read my posts, you stupid nigger.
>you think you know better or something
Yes, that's correct.
Buddy, you're clearly a theologist (nigger).

>>41288517
>That's why I'm so insistent about the proper reception of the term, yes. Nowadays, no one understands that and we all call muh spirits "evil" like idiots.
Literally who? I don't know a single person who has read Plato and thinks that Socrates' demon was evil; because a person of average intelligence can understand context.
>Right, just like a "virgin birth". But this doesn't prove what you want it to prove, it instead reveals the underlying link between the stories.
Good, since that is what I want it to prove. But part of the underlying link is how all these stories were received according to the literal sense, from eye witnesses. In many instances the traditional accounts are emphatic that they are no mere allegories. I am not going to tell you whether to believe them, but my concern here is to preserve the original and accepted understanding, or at least openly declare the changes you wish to make to it.
>Keep in mind Apollonius is just the realized form of Apollo
If anything, Apollo is the realized form of Apollonius.
>I've heard this before and although I do enjoy this sort of musing, it doesn't exactly mean what you think it means.
What do I think it means? Al-Arabi is rather clear on the question whether Gabriel is a corporeal being: in the sense of "annamaya," he is not. His manifestation is imaginal, and the seed of Gabriel means the primordial waters. These are precise technical terms for him, the exact meaning of which is inaccessible without direct experience; imaginal differs qualitatively from "imaginary" and the primordial waters are as it were the "screen" on which the illusion of a separately existing world is "projected." Actually this is a fully Chalcedonian Christology coming from al-Arabi, but it is not explained from a theological or religious point of view, and so the exoteric Muslims and Christians are bound to quarrel about it. So much for "theologism," you dumb Jew.

>>41288615
>I don't know a single person who has read Plato and thinks that Socrates' demon was evil
It's clear you're not reading my posts and are retarded or something.
I'm not saying Plato's/Socrates' Demon was "evil". I'm not saying it was "good" either. I'm saying it was absent further connotation. That's why "eudaimonia" requires the "eu" in front of it, which means "good", as you pointed out in detail.
>I want it to prove that
But it suggests that Apollonius, Iambichus, "Jesus", Issa, Caesarion and anyone else you want to throw around aren't actually who you think they are; they're metaphorical characters that speak to a guy who once lived. Different people have told the same story about the guy for a long time, but we keep using different names when we retell it.
>eye witnesses
This is meaningless. You've already demonstrated you're not so dumb as to say, "eye witnesses said they saw it thousands of years ago, so I devote my life to this now", so what gives?
>If anything, Apollo is the realized form of Apollonius.
So you do understand.
>Gabriel was his dad... which means no one was his dad still lol
Gabriel is a Psychopomp. Gabriel being his father means he sent him to die, you brainlet. I don't disagree with you, but such a claim down't mean he's come here to "save us from our sins" or whatever the retarded academicfags say these days. These are the Mithraic-Catholic talking points. The real story is not about how "not-real-guy" sent his son to muh die for muh sins. The story is about a guy from a powerful bloodline that was constantly chased around for centuries after he and all his friends were long gone.
>theologian bloat about stupid shit no one cares about
You're creating a fanciful base to build this mountainous illusion upon. All of your pretty words mean nothing to me. I don't care what your Church fathers have prattled on about these last few millennia.
>jew
Oh and it seems like you don't understand what "I think Jesus is King Arthur" means.

>pagan "gods" described as having physical places of death and birth
>immaterial automatons maintaining divine order.

This only works with the most surface level popculture understanding of both concepts

>>41286233 (OP)
>THE God
Doesn't exist.
Every god is a tulpa*.
Same for angels and demons.
Angels are messengers for either Saturn or Mercury. Today they use the Saturn dimensional hypertrain system, but in the past they used chariots for transportation (flapping wings can be tiresome).
Anything outside this paradigm is fake and gay, and a tool to control the npc cattle. The universe remains uncreated.

*if you stop reading here you are a armchair platonic scholar and not worth my attention

>>41288786
>>pagan "gods" described as having physical places of death and birth
They were once men who were superior thought leaders or otherwise were capable of efforts so large we speak of them in myths thousands of years later. Additionally, "God" at one time meant the same as King. Monarchy or Nobility is still poorly understood by the modern world, despite what you're told.
We really need to better understand Consciousness to really understand this situation though, as you keenly alluded to next.
>Immaterial automatons maintaining divine order
Obviously this too is flawed. The better understanding, I've come to accept, is that They are non-corporeal entities (like you or me) who can only enter these bodies like we do in the ways we do. If an entity wishes to materialize here, they need to use a vessel (again, just like you and I do). The question then means how many entities are there and how many bodies. Do some have more than one entities? Do some have none?
That's what you need to answer to better climb this mountain. Until you can do that, this will all just be nonsense to you.

>>41288817
I enjoy this quite a bit. My only criticism is there is a "Creator" or ultimate consciousness and all of us together are sharing a piece of it as it experiences itself simultaneously through each of us all at the same time.
Otherwise, yes, all "deities" are tulpas/egregores. Most/all of them are linked to genetic bodies or "Bloodlines" and thus not all are necessarily accessible by any particular person (though it gets murky). Angels, "demons", djinn, devas, demi-gods and all varying instances are likewise tulpas/egregores. This is why Jung is so important to understand - framing them as Archetypes helps you better understand the process and how to properly understand them. They're not some distant relative that doesn't write you back who you beg for things on your knees before you go to bed every night. Interacting with them that way is abhorrent behavior and inherently aspiritual. Instead, you learn to honor, extol or imitate them.

>>41288910
>They are non-corporeal entities (like you or me) who can only enter these bodies like we do in the ways we do. If an entity wishes to materialize here, they need to use a vessel (again, just like you and I do).
If we accept time isn't linear, if the Ancestors are Divinities, if Jungian Egregoric Archetypes are the real model and if "aliens" are really interdimensional beings, then I think ancient texts can confer a proper understanding of this subject, where liminal spaces house not just You and I, but both of us, together, from both the Future and the Past, at the same time.
This, anons, is the genetic access to the Higher Self and it's why learning about this and being able to conceptualize it is the same as "gazing at the Divine itself"; how can someone juxtapose their consciousness in a way that frames themselves as in the past, future and present all simultaneously while understanding that to mean "God" and "Me" at the same time while maintaining "sanity"?
So are "aliens", "demons", deities, spirits or fucking elves really just us in the present/past (outside of this time horizon) trying to nudge ourselves via muh Higher Self (which is the genetic-ancestral divine connection to various versions of Self)?
This is a lot of raw musing. I don't exactly mean for it to be coherent, but I think it can be.

>>41288988
For what it's worth, I meant to include picrel.

>>41288988
>>41289003
Then there's this.

Damn. Am I on to something here, or is this just the mania, lads?

>>41288668
>It's clear you're not reading my posts and are retarded or something.
I guess I could say the same thing, but I'm bored enough to bother a little more. The position that Socrates' demon was evil is something that you have imputed to others, not something that you say for yourself. But can you provide any evidence that other people actually believe this? I don't know a single example.
>This is meaningless.
No, it's not part of the story by accident. Shall I explain the inner meaning? A miracle is essentially a break in the sense of continuity that gives us the impression that we are waking beings in a physical world. Traditional miracle worker accounts do not disclose the interior state of the thaumaturge because, as a matter of fact, they are not aware of their own power, which is only apparent, being subject to something fundamentally unreal. This is expressed theologically in the idea that during his earthly life the humanity of Jesus enjoyed the beatific vision. But I only bring that up to annoy you with it.
This business about a "powerful bloodline" is an innovative and fanciful theory, but I have already put "powers" in their proper perspective, so I will dispense with a direct response.

>>41289038
>The position that Socrates' demon was evil is something that you have imputed to others, not something that you say for yourself
We were not discussing this. I never made that claim. I said that "daemon" or "daimon" is without connotation. They actually specified and said "good daemon" and "bad daemon", like you pointed out.
>provide evidence people believe this
You just explained it. It was the first reply you made to me.
>it's not meaningless
I think it's boring pilpul designed to fatigue understanding and I'm not going to bother reading any more of your retarded drivel you read from some book somewhere.
Look, I like books. I encourage you to read them. But to pretend all books are worth reading is retarded and you should be able to understand, if you're at all able to keep up with me, why I would possibly assert that the entire genre of "Theology" is a waste of anyone's time. You've already brought it up before, mocking me for not buying into the goyslop brainrot bullshit they feed people at le Church™ like a fucking goyim.

THE God, in christian lore, recognizes these pagan gods as 'lesser' gods so whats with the fagtards arguing with this

>>41289065
>We were not discussing this.
Hilariously dishonest. Cf. >>41288517
>Nowadays, no one understands that and we all call muh spirits "evil" like idiots.
>It was the first reply you made to me.
My first reply was to explain the distinction in question and its history. Virtually everyone makes this distinction with ease, even you, but you so happen to have a strong and peculiar preference about it. It is still a judgment that you have made on the order of philosophy or theology, though. You make a good example of the very genre that you say you reject. As an aside,
>boring pilpul
The way you use this term, it is nothing more than a semantic stop sign, the kind that betrays illiteracy. You do not know what pilpul actually is. No need to mystify it: pilpul simply means casuistry.
While we're at it, one doesn't say "a goyim." It's "a goy." Goyim is the plural.
You evidently want me to stop reading certain books and start reading others. But it's clear that this is because the books you want me to stop reading are books that you haven't read yourself. If you feel that this costs you important leverage in a debate (lol), then why not read them with a view to refuting them? You can't give a detailed critique as it is because you don't know the material. However, and I make this point with emphasis, books in general are no means to wisdom. It is not just one or another genre of writing that is fundamentally defective. To a man born blind, a discussion about optics would appear precisely as meaningless drivel. That is your position, although you do not realize it.

>>41289159
I see you're getting lost in the conversation, so maybe that's sort of fair. I suppose we're losing each other a bit here.
I disagree with the people calling them evil. Plenty of people call them evil. I'd prefer they didn't, especially given the history and literature which vehemently disagrees with them.
>everyone makes this distinction with ease, even you
No, I specifically challenged it from the beginning and your post explicitly proved my point, giving us a firm etymological example which explains precisely what I pointed to: that the Platonian "Daemon" is absent further connotations of "good" or "bad". This is the reason "eu" is necessary to build a contrast between "good demons" and just average "demons" that aren't necessarily one or another.
>it means sophistry
Yes, that's right. You're just saying a bunch of words that mean nothing. It's just a bunch of slop some retard came up with a few hundred years ago, some retard I have no respect for and will never consider giving much attention to. Why would I stop my car, backtrack hundreds of miles, only to hear what I figured out a while ago? I don't need them or their dumb ass books and I can demonstrate it. By all means, gorge yourself. I won't stop you. But if you come here and copy and paste a bunch of retarded drivel from your favorite theologian, you're probably going to have someone grow annoyed with you, who has done the legwork themselves, and formed a parallel opinion. I guess that's me today.
>you don't know the material
That's right. I don't know your bullshit theological house of cards fan fiction. Yes. You've got that absolutely correct. I don't want anything to do with your ruse.

>>41289236
>I disagree with the people calling them evil. Plenty of people call them evil. I'd prefer they didn't, especially given the history and literature which vehemently disagrees with them.
We are going in circles here.
>the Platonian "Daemon" is absent further connotations of "good" or "bad". This is the reason "eu" is necessary to build a contrast between "good demons" and just average "demons" that aren't necessarily one or another.
I will address this though. The Platonic (not "Platonian"!) daimon is good. It occupies an intermediate state between the human and the divine that can only be good. In the Platonic sense, if one speaks of an "evil demon" it is to indicate that the demon is somehow defective qua demon, in much the same way that an "evil man" is only a defective man, an ignorant man. The term eudaimonia is defined in the Nicomachean Ethics if you are interested. Although it takes the root daimon, Aristotle is referring to the human soul in a state of union with a living body, only considered in abstraction from that body.
>>it means sophistry
It means casuistry. That is a legal category. Change my words as you will and continue to glory in your willful ignorance, I suppose. I'm not here for it.

Angels are creatures. Created by god and given the choice to serve him. They are not the same category as God nor do they ever even want to be worshiped. They want you to worship God, and they only encourage you to do that, not just in terms of worshiping for "being the creator" but for all things.

>>41289106
The bible refers to other gods in terms of things that other people worship, that's not a validation of their reality or power. The bible repeatedly says that these gods are not real and have no power.
>Gideon defaces an altar to ba'al "a local 'god'", as commanded by the angel of the lord, and when the community seeks to punish him for it his father says that if ba'al is real then he can deal his own punishments. Nothing happens to Gideon and this is a testament to the non-existence of ba'al as a god.
>Bible repeatedly refers to these gods people worship as nothing but material constructions
>2 Kings 19:17-18 - "Of a truth, Lord, the kings of Assyria have destroyed the nations and their lands, And have cast their gods into the fire: for they were no gods, but the work of men's hands, wood and stone: therefore they have destroyed them."
>Jeremiah 10:2–5 – “Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.”

>>41286233 (OP)
Could just say "learn latin".
Its base for basically every important word

>>41289358
Respondit eis Jesus: Nonne scriptum est in lege vestra, Quia ego dixi: Dii estis? Si illos dixit deos, ad quos sermo Dei factus est, et non potest solvi Scriptura: quem Pater sanctificavit, et misit in mundum vos dicitis: Quia blasphemas, quia dixi: Filius Dei sum?

>>41289453
Jews are mad at jesus for calling himself the son of God, he quotes a verse of a psalm that refers to leaders granted divine authority to rule as gods. In the very next verse of this psalm it says "But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." strictly drawing the distinction between them and God himself. Jesus was correcting them on semantics for getting angry at calling something else a god or son of god, making it clear that the bible referred to things other than the Father as gods. I myself did not make the semantic argument that you can't call these things gods, I said that even where the bible does, they are still in a separate category than God himself. So your quote is not a challenge to anything I said.

A question for the christian /pol/tards on this thread.
What is the purpose of you imposing your religion on others? Do you feel better by bullying other people with your religious views? Are you aware the catholic church added 1000 years to history and hence appeal to historic authority has no real weight in the upper realms? Are you aware the universe is uncreated and Satan is the only real force for you to deal with?

>INB4 muh jew
I side with the joo for the sole purpose of destroying Chad and Stacy homes.

>assertion assertion assertion
>What's your argument against all of these assertions I've made?

>>41286233 (OP)
That is just Right Christcuckery's opinion. Accepting the Right Christcuck ignoramus's opinion is optional, and I, for one, don't believe it. They also fervently believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old because some ignorant godsdamned Bishop added up all the Antediluvian Patriarchs' ages, so that's an unsupported claim as well. Believing Crap by Faith usually is no defense against believing utter Crap!

>>41289530
Christ is not saying there that he is some creature metaphorically called a god, he is claiming to be THE God, the Jews know this, and Christ knows that they know this. If he quotes the 81st Psalm for the purpose that you say he does, then he is deliberately missing the point. It is not therefore a semantic argument about what can be called a god or a son of god, in fact the Holy Ghost through the Psalmist is not referring to a merely nominal divinity either, but real and effective sanctification and deification, in agreement with St. John's Gospel: dedit eis potestatem filio Dei fieri, his qui credunt in nomine ejus: qui non ex sanguinibus, neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex Deo nati sunt. He is pointing out that by denying the Incarnation, the Jews are denying the law and the prophets. The angels and saints are true partakers of the one divinity. It would remain to explain why pagan idols should not enjoy the same status, but this is worked out, e.g., in De Civitate Dei, VIII-X, and has almost everything to do with the type of rite and action considered pleasing to the deity, as well as whether the honor given to that deity constitutes dulia or latria.

>>41289572
The absolute hypocrisy of this. Clearly it is neither all Christians nor only Christians who like to impose their religion on others. A good answer that is simple and gets straight to the point: how else would someone like you feel any sense of self-worth or power over your own destiny, if not for a body of opinions that tell you such and such? The Christians who do this are no different, and the internet is where all such personalities naturally come together. The Christians and "satanists" or whatever, let's say "adversarial anti-Christians," who behave this way really depend on each other. From the standpoint of a Christian hypocrite, of course, the greater the degree of sanctimony, the more powerful and intoxicating the self-delusion.

>>41287170
>I'm a name fag
Oh good, I nearly took you seriously

>>41289327
>The Platonic (not "Platonian"!) daimon is good.
What? Why are you trying to correct my grammar? Are you just not aware of this word? You've read the literature, right? How could we be having this conversation if you don't know the adjective exists? Is there some nuanced, important distance I never bothered to learn about? I could potentially believe that, but this feels like a flagrant, desperate distraction.
>Plato's daemon is good
>modern demon is bad
This is retarded and you have to know that's not true. It was first without deeper connotation.
>can only be good
I agree with this and I too think, as Plato posited, that it "can only be good", but I have to stress they specified between "good demons" and "bad demons". You even specifically mentioned this. Why are you making this so hard on yourself?
>if one speaks of an "evil demon" it is to indicate that the demon is somehow defective qua demon
Spoke. We're doing grammar now, so it's important to get it right. Today, as we've agreed, people wrongly attribute evil to "demons". I don't care about your dumb ass this is the reason explanation. I'm not looking for a pedantic zoom here, I'm doing a quick overview and passing over why we made certain distinctions for elucidation of a more coherent, ancient view. We're now circling pedantic blows because you can't get over an initial vanilla version of Daemon, which is certifiably how the literature depicts the idea (again, as you demonstrated).
How do I know this (firmly)? It's because I can draw parallels, such as with Celtic Mysticism, where the Fae are liminal creatures and not necessarily "evil" nor "good". In fact, this is further distinguished in the Scottish Lore, where we have Seelie and Unseelie courts. This is a strong parallel for reasons that are abundantly obvious if you're familiar with both the Platonic (happy?) and Celtic systems.
>i-it means something else
It means you're a huge faggot, actually. Go be a faggot somewhere else.

>>41289572
>I side with the joo for the sole purpose of destroying Chad and Stacy homes.
I don't even know what the fuck that means, lady.
>Are you aware the universe is uncreated and Satan is the only real force for you to deal with?
You just sound retarded, like the normalfags that think they're spiritual because they sit in a church, who you callously mock (don't get me wrong, I do it too).
>appeal to historic authority has no real weight in the upper realms?
We just demonstrated that your "upper" (future) and "lower" (past) realms aren't separate things and these liminal interactions we all observe, experience or otherwise remember are our vantage points waning through said "timeline"? It's extremely important just like it was then. Roman propaganda, as you've pointed out, has been a tremendous detriment to our society and for a variety of reasons. It's not just about reframing "spiritual messengers" as "evil" like lazy retards. It's not just about misunderstanding metaphysical concepts on purpose so you can maintain authority over the same lazy retards. It's not even about being spiritual despite what they want you to think. It's about maintaining control over you. They do this by manufacturing ignorance. They wouldn't want you to be much smarter because then you'd dissent to their system and that's not good for their pocketbooks.
And just because someone talks about jews doesn't mean they're from /pol/. I was around when we were frankposting. Did you know /x/ has a soccer team? Do you remember Worlds 3D?

>>41289927
>Why are you trying to correct my grammar?
No one says Platonian, it's an affectation.
>This is retarded
>But I agree with it
Ok.
>People wrongly attribute evil to "demons"
>But as Celtic Mysticism [sic] shows, both "good" and "evil" can be attributed to demons/Fae
You have contradicted yourself, but I can help. The creature considered in itself is good. This is always the case for the Platonists. The demon is of a superior nature to the human, so also considered in relation to men, the demon is good. But the demon's actions are ambiguous and can be deemed "good" or "evil" in relation to human actions; we are basically talking about "lucky" or "unlucky" influences on the one hand, and the intrinsic moral value of demonic actions on the other, where the demons are held to be in via. This is precisely the point where Augustine's treatment of Platonism turns from agreement to criticism, by the way, not that you know anything about it, but I am informing you here and now that this, precisely Civ. Dei VIII, is the origin of the disagreement, and it hinges entirely upon the wholly unfounded belief, common in Augustine's own time, that the demons (Platonic) seem to be capricious because they are actually unhappy. Hellenistic polytheists were the first to impute evil motives to demons, not the Church Fathers, who only responded to that opinion according to their own tradition.
It bears mentioning as well that according to Plato himself, the Platonic point of view is very ancient. It does not originate with Plato's exoteric writings but, through Pythagoras, Eastern doctrines. As a point of metaphysics, quite obviously the deeper connotations alone can claim true antiquity. All history is a descent into darkness and decadence.

>>41288290
>I think "Jesus" was "King Arthur" and that his family escaped after the guy was almost assassinated on several occasions. He belonged to a (multiple, really) powerful bloodline(s), just like his wife.
What was the real conflict? You're saying the myth is about a guy being killed for profaning the mysteries. Was the real guy also a revolutionary?

>>41286233 (OP)
“Meek” is my favorite example
Linguistics is fascinating

>>41290088
>ugh stop saying that
No, you faggot. I'll say what I want to say.
>circling again
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying I too agree with the notion that they're not "evil" and you cannot have an "evil" conduit to the divine. That's lazy and retarded and I'm not into that. The ancients certainly did make "good" and "bad" references to "demons", however.
The problem we're having is I'm inserting my opinions sometimes to level with you as that seems to be upsetting you. Then we shift back over to objectivity again, like speaking about what the ancients did or didn't say. In that case, there's no room for dispute. I've read enough to understand that they said "good demon" and "bad demon", just like you explained.
>you contradicted yourself
I don't think I've contradicted myself at all. I think it's abundantly clear we're regularly not understanding the conversation the both of us are having (mostly you, I'd suggest) and I think that's an easier explanation than me having contradicted myself. I think my posts have been largely coherent and the parallel I used between Platonian/Platonic Metaphysics and Celtic Mysticism is firmly apt.
>Augustine disagreed with Plato this one time
Look, the point you're trying to make at this point is lost on me. Yes, yes, you too have read some of the ancient texts. That's great. I don't even think we disagree at this point since you keep elucidating the point I've been making (and have never not been making) this entire time.
My posts never disagreed with your masturbation, by the way. I'm not even sure how we got to this point, where you just keep offering more detailed explanations of exactly the thing I initially claimed, and where I keep pointing out that I firmly agree there's no way for what's "above the human experience" to be "evil".
You really are just bored, I guess.

>>41290203
Yeah. He tried to help a lot of you. He uncovered some aspects about reality that aren't easy to ascertain and tried to communicate them. I guess it started off as him saying, "look dude if you just drink this wine you'll see what I mean" and the views were frankly mixed.
Ultimately, he fled the area after people found out where he came from (royalty, not outer space, you faggots) and kept trying to kill him. I'm sure you can imagine whoever "Herod" was meant to represent wasn't pleased with an incumbent challenger to his throne hanging around growing a following.
We know "Jesus" was very given to this routine/ritual because it both survives through Mithraism/Catholicism today (Eucharist a la Transubstantiation) in its rituals and its art, as depicted underneath the Vatican, where Twelve men surround a Thirteenth, who himself bears a chalice.
But what they won't tell you much about is the Psychomop, Aureliua Prima, who guides them all on their journey to "speak with ancestors" (hint: see >>41288988 - not just some joke) and what they're really doing.
Later on, he and his family fled the area. Depending on who you're willing to trust, the guy himself either fled East while his family travelled West or he became an Emperor of sorts in France/Spain for a time and had a family (at least two daughters, it seems).
Glastonbury Tor
muh Holy Grail

>>41290088
>Hellenistic polytheists were the first to impute evil motives to demons, not the Church Fathers
Right, so the issue is the Romans perpetuated the retarded sentiments Plutarch espoused. Got it. Thanks for helping my complaints better materialize, I guess. I suppose I had the right idea, but not the proper target exactly.
See, sometimes you're helpful, academicfag. Maybe this is why we let you stick around.

>>41290310
>Look, the point you're trying to make at this point is lost on me.
I didn't say that Augustine disagreed with Plato, so if that is what you read, then it's not surprising that you missed the point. My actual point is that between them there is no disagreement whatsoever. The two of them were drawing from one and the same noetic wellspring, therefore no disagreement is possible. Augustine's criticisms are directed against a deviation that more or less considers psychic entities wrongly as though they were corporeal. Now said deviation is exactly
>we all call muh spirits "evil" like idiots
There are two ways to correct it. The first is to restore the physical word "demon" to its original dignity. This is difficult given the tangle of semantic accretions in the common parlance. The other is to introduce a distinction that preserves the central idea at the cost of the word. Here the idea is far more valuable than the shape or sound associated with it, so it is an easy decision.

You entered this discussion asking rhetorically whether it wasn't unfortunate that the meaning of "demon" has been turned on its head and laid the blame for this on the Catholic Church and the Mithraic Mysteries. After opening with an explanation of the history of the terminology, which apparently annoyed you greatly, I am returning to this point to show in another way what is actually involved. As I stated already, fundamentally my interest is in preserving the original sense of the terminology in context against a gross oversimplification.
>My posts never disagreed with your masturbation
Lol. Lmao, even.

>>41290543
>I didn't say they disagreed.
Boy, that's strange:
>>41290088
>This is precisely the point where Augustine's treatment of Platonism turns from agreement to criticism
If something changes from agreement to basically anything else, at a binary, it's disagreement. What else can "not agreement" be? This is why we have a word for it and it's "disagreement".
So they disagreed, you pedant.
Damn I thought I was the pedant.
>The first is to restore the physical word "demon" to its original dignity.
How did we ever enter a disagreement in the first place? This is what I've repeated in more and fewer words to you several times so far.
>You entered this discussion asking rhetorically whether it wasn't unfortunate that the meaning of "demon" has been turned on its head and laid the blame for this on the Catholic Church and the Mithraic Mysteries.
Yes, and you reminded me of Plutarch's musings about "evil demons", which to your credit means someone else technically did it first. The situation at hand currently is regardless a direct precipitation of Roman propaganda. The hunting of oracles (Pagans) in the ancient world was predicated upon this notion based on my research.
>After opening with an explanation of the history of the terminology, which apparently annoyed you greatly
What annoyed me was you said, "well the theologians changed the definition of the word", which is accurate. But you saying isn't what annoys me, it's the thing happening in the first place.
>undamentally my interest is in preserving the original sense of the terminology in context against a gross oversimplification.
Boy that's interesting. It's almost like this is exactly what I said in one of the first posts I made in the thread: >>41288290
>the one (definition) that makes the most sense... is the initial one
Then you started calling me a jew every post, evidently not bothering to read anything I said, like when I repeated the sentiment here >>41288668, stating I don't care about the revisions.

Shit, >>41288007 pretty clearly lays out what we've been saying here and >>41288110 is definitely still accurate 40 posts later, where I claimed that Romans ruined the definition, like we've agreed.
How did this even happen in the first place? I clearly laid out how it's stupid to suggest "demons" are evil and normalfags are lazy (like >>41288290) and that I agree with Plato's ideas. Then, as I repeated several times, insisting ancients commonly called them "good" and "bad" demons, we've demonstrated how "good demons" was in use by plenty of people, explicitly plato, and "bad demons" was in use by specific people like Plutarch.
It wasn't until the Romans ruined everything with their Mithraism-Catholicism bullshit that "demon" just became squarely evil (even if it was Plutarch's fault initially). That's my big complaint here and it should be anyone else's who genuinely understands the conversation - that "Demons" or "Daemons" aren't evil and that the same lacking designation shouldn't be flippantly tossed around at any other similar dispositions.
I'd strongly prefer us frame them as neutral at the very least. Regardless, this idea that conduits to the divine could potentiate "evil" is simply ludicrous and normalfags should feel ashamed of themselves.

>>41290592
Plato and Platonism are two different things. Augustine never disagrees with Plato. He does disagree with certain interpretations of Platonism.
>How did we ever enter a disagreement in the first place? This is what I've repeated in more and fewer words to you several times so far.
I pointed out in >>41288242 that this attachment to the word itself is strange and that the change in meaning is not a common obstacle to readers. Your reply seemingly changed from "yes it is" to "I never said that" in the course of the discussion, which, fine, okay, I misunderstood apparently, you never said it and I guess we now agree. But in that case, it seems logical that you would further agree that the history of the term is not so unfortunate after all. At worst it is neutral.
I have done some wrong here, I just realized and will freely admit. Perhaps what we ought to lament is the loss of simplicity, clarity, and depth of understanding, which was present before the terminology evolved and the sophisticated distinctions of theology emerged. I will lament that with you.

>>41289813
Yeah that's what usually keeps people from reading the posts but apparently not you. Dumbass.

>>41286233 (OP)
Christians are so fucking retarded.

You do know the etymology of "demon," correct? It originally referred to lesser spirits who, in Neoplatonism, served as messengers of the gods.

Jews and Christians opted to translate the Hebraic concept of the "Shedim" (chaos wilderness spirits) into "Demon" because it was a Greek mythological analogue.

Nowhere in any Canaanite mythology are there "messengers" of an unknown aniconic god. The Bible was borrowing from Neoplatonism and Zoroastrianism, as Zoroastrianism has an analogous concept of lesser spirits serving the high god, "The Lord of Wisdom." Artifacts and scripts found in Elephantine Egypt show that even the Jews analogized Yahweh to Ahura Mazda.

Evidently, it's actually an accidental subversion of Neoplatonism where now, what served as messengers of the gods, are now personified as Chthonic wilderness spirits (or fallen angels).

Also, etymologically, the word "demon" is related to the very word you describe as "dieus." It means "light."

You're just a faggot who has to spread his bad faith Jewish disinfo. Go pray to Yahweh and his angels and leave us the fuck alone instead of gatekeeping traditions you aren't a part of.

>>41290694
>I pointed out in >>41288242 that this attachment to the word itself is strange and that the change in meaning is not a common obstacle to readers.
I said it's important to have an at least neutral definition because dichotomizing everything in apathy, particularly rendering "demons" evil (when this is blatantly incorrect depending on the foundational works of today's Metaphysics), will lead to boring fixations, misunderstandings and misappropriations. Like we've discussed before, humans have historically called capricious those who merely defended themselves, for example. This misunderstanding continually robs us of a more refined view which disrupts the relationships between involved parties. If everyone thinks you're evil, how do you communicate with them without them trying to kill you? What happens to normalfags when a "daemon" gives them a hand if they think all of them are muh ebil?
So we firmly disagree.
>restore "demon" to its original dignity
That's the whole entire point of my very first post, you dolt. How could >>41288007 not be clear about that?
>Did you know Plato's Daemon is actually not evil?
Like what the fuck, dude? It's the first damn post I made. It's extremely clear.
>it seems logical that you would further agree that the history of the term is not so unfortunate after all. At worst it is neutral.
They started killing people who would interface with people on behalf of said Daemons. How the hell is that "neutral", let alone fortunate? If you know anything about this subject, you know that spiraled out into this hellscape we all deal with today.
>lament the loss of simplicity, clarity and depth of understanding
I know I'm not an Academic or Theologian and I'm firmly disrespectful toward them, but I'd never disagree with this.
>sophisticated distinctions of theology emerged
I'd rather just call them retards and go back to everyone blasting off so they realize it's okay to die. Maybe then they'll stop having orgies with our kids.

>>41294358
>will lead to boring fixations
Such as yours?
>If everyone thinks you're evil, how do you communicate with them without them trying to kill you?
Skill issue...? But even I have managed to figure this one out despite being massively retarded compared to a good neighbor.
>That's the whole entire point of my very first post, you dolt
I explained why it didn't and can't work, while the second option did.
>They started killing people who would interface with people on behalf of said Daemons. How the hell is that "neutral", let alone fortunate?
Are you aware of how that kind of mediation works in practice and how weird the situation had become by that point? Those intermediaries were degenerate scumbags, as every priestly class eventually becomes, least of all because they were imputing evil motives to the spirits *and then acting accordingly.*
>Maybe then they'll stop having orgies with our kids.
Case in point.

>>41294541
>your fixation is boring
Weirdly though, you didn't just admit you agreed with me, you even said all of this >>41290694. Not only that, you said before you were bored and have ever since stuck around.
>I explained why it didn't and can't work, while the second option did.
And that's where our problem arose.
>why it didn't and can't
I take it at this point you're either massively confused or weren't ever doing anything other than attempting to annoy me.
>Those intermediaries were degenerate scumbags, as every priestly class eventually becomes, least of all because they were imputing evil motives to the spirits *and then acting accordingly.*
You really are just an idiot after all.
>Case in point.
It's evident you don't understand the issue. They killed the Oracles, retard. All they can do is pretend, at best, to have some sort of access to Divinity like those they LARP as.

I don't know what your deal is, but I firmly disagree the Romans made anything better. If they did anything, they made it worse. We agree Plato's ideas were foundational. We agree Plutarch said daemons were "evil" and that was dumb. We apparently don't agree that there's a point in trying to help people understand the proper definitions (muh words have meaning) and I'm not butthurt about it or anything. Loads of people agree with you, I guess.
Regardless, it's clear to me you're an idiot and haven't been understanding any of the material you've read (or, let's face it, been using ChatGPT to fill in the gaps), which explains the historical process in question. If you did, you'd understand why framing intermediaries or those which communicate through them as evil is dramatically problematic. Sure, we can all assume someone at one point took advantage of the situation, but to insist that the Oracles were all greedy perverts is fucking ludicrous and you should feel ashamed for such a ridiculous assertion. None of you retards can le communicate with God, but all you do is mock those that can.

>>41294727
The Oracles fell silent, simple as. Everything that has a beginning has an end.
As for the Christian priesthood: there was never anything like a pretense to the oracular divinity. Your appeal here can only be to ignorance, you have already stated that you chose not to find out what that priesthood is in the first place. Religion is one thing and the Mysteries another. These two things are only conflated by dull minds, and so they are very often conflated now, close to the end. A priest should not be greedy or a pervert for hopefully obvious reasons, but what do these shortcomings have to do with the function of an Oracle? In other words, what qualities do you think would make an Oracle a degenerate scumbag? The answer is only ignorance. The Mysteries were popularized and peddled by the ignorant to the ignorant. In a word, they had been profaned on an unprecedented level, and their initiates paid the divinely ordained penalty for that. It was bound to happen sooner or later simply because it's part of the cosmic cycle. Your nostalgia for them stands in violation of that universal law.

>>41295292
Why don't you respond to my post here?
>>41294002

>Muh priesthood and muh prophecies are different than mysteries and oracles

You do know the Latin "Sacramentum" or "Sacrament" is how the Greek "mysterion" is translated from the Greek to the Latin Vulgate, correct?

Mysteries and Sacraments are literally the same thing.

But even then, tomato tomato. You can call your mysteries "sacraments," your magic "miracles," and your oracles "prophecies," but at the end of the day, you believe in supernatural rituals, magical transformations of objects, and information obtained from supernatural sources of future events.

You believing that a bread wafer can transform supernaturally into Christ's literal body and blood is more crazy than being able to predict the future through Tarot Card drawings.

>>41295292
>A priest should not be greedy or a pervert for hopefully obvious reasons, but what do these shortcomings have to do with the function of an Oracle? In other words, what qualities do you think would make an Oracle a degenerate scumbag? The answer is only ignorance.

You do know that this violates basic Catholic theology regarding how priesthood and sacraments work via the laws of ex opere operato?

The Priest's moral quality has nothing to do with how the Sacraments are conferred. This was explicitly condemned as a heresy (called Donatism) under Saint Augustine of Hippo's Council of Carthage, whose decrees appear in Denzinger - Catholic canons approved by the Vatican as infallible.

>Muh European priests were evil until Catholic priests came along
Well, it sure is funny how much of Catholicism and Christianity is indebted to Plato and Aristotle then.

>>41295292
Also, what about the Cybillian Oracles? Christian oracles mentioned by name in the Requiem Latin Mass?

>>41295292
>The Oracles fell silent
Or perhaps, just fucking maybe, you forgot how to Hear.
>you're dumb and stuff
We wouldn't still be having this conversation if you took that claim I made seriously. It was a lament of "Religion", le priests, not the other books I've obviously read (which you wouldn't be talking to me still if I hadn't).
>Religion is one thing and the Mysteries another.
How could you read any of my posts and think I'd disagree with this? How could you even frame any of my posts as asserting something apart from this? My whole entire thing is "Religion" and I've repeated it practically every post I made.
>A priest should not be greedy or a pervert for hopefully obvious reasons, but what do these shortcomings have to do with the function of an Oracle?
This is exactly what my original point is. You faggots have conflated everything. Now, apparently you don't even know what the Oracles were, what they were for or why they ever considered aiding you. How fucking grim.
>muh Mysteries were ignorance and stuff
Go away, swine.
>>41295337
I'm glad not everyone is a retarded wannabe boomer-sucking faggot. Maybe they Alter-Boyed him. Maybe it's just his Alter.
>Mysteries and Sacraments are literally the same thing.
This guy gets it.
>mentions Transubstantiation
Did you know the invocation of Blood - particularly its consumption - was remarkably similar to the threads woven by later parties which claim to have "esoteric knowledge of the Bloodline of Christ"?
Just who were the real Vampires, anon?
For what it's worth, Catholicism really did shelter the truer Mysteries in its crystalline form unlike any other. The problem isn't that Catholicism (it's Mithraism) is absent the Mystery - the problem is that Catholics are absent the reception of said Musterion.
Tell me, anon, do you understand yet what Mark's Chapter 4 (see Verses 11-12 particularly) was really about? You claim to understand the Musterion, so what do the verses mean? We're doing Linguistics, right?

>>41286233 (OP)
>implying there is only one singular source of creation
There are multiple and competing, that's why shits so retarded.

>>41295661
Tell me if I'm on to something:

The "mysteries" are basically a set of knowledge and practices regarding individualism. The dialectic about this knowledge is essentially as old as time. I read a book one time about hunter gatherers on the southern tip of South America who lived separately from the women and hid the knowledge of how to build the fire that was kept in their camp. Of course, we're talking about literal fire here in the primitive sense, but every other sort of knowledge since then was at one point on the cutting edge, and thus it was enough to make one an "individual", as in a person with high agency or power over other people. Knowledge is power.

Some people think this knowledge should be kept secret so that they can manipulate people and rule with it.
Some people think this knowledge should be spread as freely and widely as possible.
Some people think this knowledge unfortunately leads to ruin when it becomes to widespread, because people who lack the responsibility for individuality are still capable of achieving it.
Some people think you cannot create an institution that will fairly judge when someone is or isn't ready.

There's a lot of nuance to the subject.

>>41286419
Another gnostic who missed the messenger

>>41295369
>Well, it sure is funny how much of Catholicism and Christianity is indebted to Plato and Aristotle then.
So Mithraism broke off from their Essenic-Gnostic cousins. You're looking for Martian references, muh slaying bulls, levels of initiation (seven particularly; hence the Seven Sacraments) and Dionysian Rebirth. I'm not saying the Gnostic elements do not continue to carry aspects of the overarching Mystery which Catholicism-Mithraism borrows from, but there is a bit of a divergence. You know how Mormons don't get into the whole "he died for our sins" thing? That's because they draw from a similar trough to the Gnostics, which is why they invoke the Beehive. Unlike the Mithraism-Catholicism crowd, the Gnostic side was obsessed with who he became, who he interacted with, his family and the atrophy of Barbelo's perpetuation through Sophia being ameliorated by the Union of the Bridegroom and Sophia. Unwoven, the Mystery points to his marriage (see Cana's Wedding) with Mary the Magdalene (The Tower).
Plato's works were heavily influenced by the likes of Pythagoras and as such the Gnostic elements (see his story about the Dying Soldier) pervaded his works and those he influenced, like Aristotle. Both the Early Catholics and Proto-Christians were heavily influenced by such works. It isn't at all odd that both sides would gather similar ideas which carried to modern times.
The issues the guy has seem to be similar to most or all other normalfags - they're unexposed to many other sources which deeply undermine their worldview. The notion that Catholicism-Mithraism improved what the Greeks already had is absurd. No, not because there's a steep divergence, but because they're intimately connected. But what was the aftermath of their reception? Total erasure. They burned libraries, erased whole cultures (along with their writings) and raped/pillaged anything left. Then they dared to claim what they stole, pretending to wear their clothes and perform their duties.

>>41295700
>regarding Individualism
Let's try this instead:
Mysteries are purposefully non-defined - that's the "Mystery". This is why you sit on an obscure image board talking with people you've never met about something none of us can describe. The idea is to maintain its suspension (which you'll understand to be the fairy dust behind "Magic" - suspension of whatever... you know, quantum field theory) to fertilize further abstraction of the concept. This both entices expanded meaning of the definition to include future participation or adaptation and catalyzes the metamorphosis of initiates as they undergo the process of discovering Self via said process of Ego-Death (see entheogen use a la Kykeon or Soma or Ayahuasca) and the subsequent reconstitution of Self.
But let me be extremely clear: the reason they say very clearly "Know Thyself" is because "Self" is all there is here. If you don't know that going in, you'll know it going out. In other words, "Self" is all there is to know (at least while you're here and like this).

>>41286233 (OP)
Yes yes, and demon/δαεμον in Ancient Greek/PIE used to be an honorific meaning essentially “lord” or “great spirit”. The pieces are all there for any significantly logical and discerning person to assemble.

God is Zeus, Dionysus played Christ (and Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler, Elvis, etc), all the Gods of Olympus and thereabouts did and still do exist, and have some level of interest in what we’re up to.

I used to think they’d help me, but I must persist unless I am turned away from it by some God. The only logical conclusion is to find them in our world, and establish direct P2G contact or communication. Whatever presence they have on earth is likely one of the greatest and most powerful secrets in human history.

>>41295769
>But let me be extremely clear: the reason they say very clearly "Know Thyself" is because "Self" is all there is here. If you don't know that going in, you'll know it going out. In other words, "Self" is all there is to know (at least while you're here and like this).
How can you say this after you just said the whole mystery is to not define it? How can you say the self is all there is to know "here"? You mean in the context of mysteries? On earth? In life?

>>41295700
>>41295769
The mysteries were the semiotic predecessor of analytic philosophy. A way to describe ideas that defied proper language their ability to describe and transmit information. Instead using a math of symbols to initiate someone into concepts directly from the mind of God. Wittgenstein is the Athenaze.

>>41295661
The devil throws sprinkles of truth in order to test you, you will fall into delusion if you accept his suggestions full sail. You are supposed to challenge yourself and question everything he throws at you.

With that said, there is a lot of truth to the idea that Christianity is just a Jewish knockoff of the Dionysian cults. Greco-Romans were projecting their own Greek mythology into foreign mythologies; they did the same with Greco-Egyptian mythology and Zoroastrian mystery cults (both Serapis or Osiris and Zurvan were identified with Dionysus).

Once you are familiar with the Dionysian sources and how the Greco-Roman interacted with foreign religions, it's very hard to be persuaded that Christianity is that much different.

The blood of Christ comes from the Dionysian and Medean cults; it was said that Medean concocted a potion from the blood of Prometheus which poured out and formed a flower. Dionysus also had several miracles of turning water into wine, even riding on fish across water. Dionysus was sometimes identified with Prometheus, and Dionysus was part man and part God; he was the son of Zeus and the virgin priestess of Zeus Semele, although his birth was through physical intercourse. Dionysus in the Bacchae disguised himself as a man and claimed to be a god incarnate, and upset the moral political authority in Thebes to the point of them wanting to stone him.

Further, the Dionysian cult was connected to the Mithraic cult and Harpocratic cult, both solar deities; the Mithraic cult was seen as synonymous with the Imperial cult.

Much of Christ's imagery is also Caesarian, although sort of parodying it; Augustus Caesar was born with the Star of the East shining over him. It was said that at Augustus's funeral pyre, the gods took him up to Olympus. you can see the analogues to Jesus.

With that being said, Ammon Hillman is a crackpot, and his drug and sex claims are absolute lunacy.

>>41295720
>Cana's Wedding and Mary Magdalene
I think these elements weren't intended to be a part of Christianity in the Gospel texts themselves; rather, they are a consequence of Christian iconography painting over Roman infrastructure and operations.

It's very obvious to me that much of the imagery and ideas of Mary Magdalene come as a consequence of her imagery replacing the cult of Isis, who had such enormous popularity that she's the main goddess in the only surviving Roman novel and is mentioned in Ovid's Metamorphoses. Obviously, she's the redhead fertility mother goddess (she was blurred with both Persephone and Aphrodite).

The idea of the Wedding of Cannae, or the Marriage of Christ and his Church, was borrowed from the idea of the Alchemical Wedding - the inner spiritual union of the male and female of the self. Obviously, this is an idea that still perpetuates itself, most famously through Satanism with the Baphomet imagery (which came as a consequence of Christianity demonizing that same concept, and Lucifer being perpetually associated with heresy and occultism due to figures like Giordano Bruno).

>Plato was influenced by Pythagoras
I highly recommend studying the life of Hypatia of Alexandria. You'll be exposed to the fact that Hellenistic cults weren't as dogmatic and rigid as Christianity was; many were fine studying Orphism, Pythagoreanism, Neoplatonism, and Hermeticism, many expressing the same truth but from different perspectives / paradigms.

>Unexposed to sources that undermine the worldview
It's not the normalfags, it's the fucking Church. The biggest issue is not even the lack of information, it's the way education and sources are intentionally structured by Christians in order to prevent people from making connections that should be obvious. It really makes you want to rip your hair out.

(1/2)

>>41295720
I'll give an example: think about how many times you've heard Christfags say "There is a scholarly consensus Jesus existed, Richard Carrier is a crackpot." Could you imagine how much of a gross dirty black heart you have to have to be the guy who looked at academic sources and decided to structure the conversation this way?

It's so bad faith it's infuriating. Who cares if Jesus existed or not? The Gospels ARE MYTHOLOGICAL. They never happened. There may be consensus that a real historical Jesus existed, but there's no way that his life matches the Gospel. There are so many reasons why we know the Gospel stories are fake, but the biggest reason we know is because the New Testament narratives are, for the most part, taken from the Old Testament. Some are very bad, like Judas Iscariot - did you know that Judas (Greek for Judah) is the one who sells Joseph for 20 shekels of silver in Genesis? Isn't it weird that Barabbas is literally Aramaic for "son of the father," and in some versions he is called "Jesus Barabbas," almost as if the Ecce Homo was a symbolic reference to the Scapegoat ritual, where the pure one is sacrificed to Yahweh while the unclean one is released to the wilderness to Satan.

There are Christians who know this shit but intentionally lie to the masses to keep them mentally in prison.

Did you know that the English alphabet is a Semitic script and was synonymous with the Hebrew alphabet at one point? The Hebrew alphabet at one point was the same alphabet as the Phoenician alphabet, Canaanite traders - yes, the ones who worshipped the false gods in the Old Testament. You can see how it morphed into the Etruscan alphabet (still written right to left) and then from that to the Latin alphabet.

Why don't people know this? Because Christian linguists gatekeep this shit, because the idea that pagan Canaanites brought civilization undermines the claims that the Jews did that.

An actual good christianity thread. Today OP wasn't a faggot

>>41287490
stupid nogger lucifer doesn't even exit because it's an error on translation. literally kys with your retarded ideology

>>41295337
>Mysteries and Sacraments are literally the same thing.
Yes.
>You do know that this violates basic Catholic theology regarding how priesthood and sacraments work via the laws of ex opere operato?
No. I guess the reasons why a priest should not be greedy or a pervert are not so obvious to you. It's not because his sacraments would be invalid, idiot, it's because he also has a teaching function. Also "laws of ex opere operato" lol

>>41295661
>How could you read any of my posts and think I'd disagree with this?
Why would I propose a premise in an argument with the expectation that you would disagree with it? Do you not understand how dialectic works?
>Go away, swine.
Another interesting choice of words in this context. I'll take it.
>the problem is that Catholics are absent the reception of said Musterion.
For whom is this a problem? For you? Why?

>>41296212
Anon can say that because: what is the Self?

>>41299238
Experientially, it's a local maxima in your mind that has control of your inner world. This can change with time.
Anatomically, the ego at least might be best associated with the prefrontal cortex because it's the assumptions that you filter all sensory input and subconscious response with. Reducing the control that this has on your mind is what opens you up to more sensory input and more of the things going on inside your mind.
Physically, the self is just the whole body. There doesn't need to be a single point inside because the body itself is the single point that divides you from the outside world.

I wasn't really sure what the anon was referring to, but it seemed to imply the idea that the whole universe is the self, or something. Which from a "mystery" perspective, makes total sense. He's just inverting outside and inner reality. The inner reality is that you are connected to everything else, even though they experientially feel somewhat separate. The "you are everything in the universe" idea makes sense there, but it stops making sense once you step back and look outside your body, because everyone else is their own being too, and we aren't the same. I find the idea that "all minds are psychically linked to each other" both creepy and wrong. Creepy because it seems like a method of social control, and wrong because I've studied the potentiality of psi phenomena like the 100th monkey effect and don't believe it's real (even though the experiential mind can say otherwise).

>>41299325
Partly true, but any verbal answer you can give would be inadequate.

>>41299503
I think what the real argument boils down to is whether we can organize society based on external truth, or whether we HAVE to believe that inner subjectivity has to be the lens with which we try to organize the outer world.

I definitely believe that outer truth is the ONLY way we can truly organize, but where I tend to agree with the other anon is that many people are psychically unable to even accept the truths required to look at the world this way. Meaning, if we expected everyone to just be rational and start from the basis of external truth, we'd risk having a bunch of psychologically damaged/stunted people who are overconfident about their state of mind and lack of cognitive bias. In other words, is cognitive bias unavoidable to the extent that we have to build a system where we lean into it and simply act virtuously with it, or the truly virtuous act the rebellion against such bias, which is the rational mentality that allows us to rise above the ego and out of our bodies.

I think the deciding factors are things like how much you can filter people for their involvement in such a society. Can you limit advancement based on a minimum level of intelligence and psychological wellness? Giving anyone or any institution power to do that would be troubling. I'll give you that.

Let's say given this landscape, the "safer" revolution is from the ground up, from subjective to objective, carrying all of our biases with us and then overcoming them. We do that, and what then? We'd have to dissolve everything once the revolution is complete, so that we can then get closer to objective truth. If we don't shed the cognitive biases, any victory would be too fragile to really be meaningful in my opinion. Thus, the revolution has to be slower, as we can then build the proper foundations so that it can be complete and lasting when it succeeds.

>>41299583
First the guy who wants to revive the ancient Mysteries and now this. Is everyone on here so obsessed with reforming society? Didn't the question have to do with the Self? Where do these Others get involved?

>>41299620
My observation is that most people want to change the world, so you can either let all of that happen to you with your head in the sand, or you can at least observe what is happening and how you would adapt your knowledge of the world to this process.

>>41299638
All people want to be happy, and most people think that happiness comes from objects in the world. Therefore they think that by changing the world they will find happiness. But that world of many changing things is nothing but suffering. It is all impermanent, and whatever enjoyment can be had from it will certainly come to an end. What doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul?

>>41299713
I want more than material gain in this world, but I don't think I can get that from other people who are in that pursuit. Consequently, I mostly self-isolate except when I feel free enough or strong enough to expose myself to people who pursue it. I don't know if these people can really be changed as a group. Individually, yes. Collectively, I only know that it would be very hard to change them in the present.

>>41299748
It's not your job to fix them. Gnothi seauton

>>41296212
I segmented the both of them on purpose, anon. "Know Thyself" is one of the fruits of the Initiate's journey. "The Mystery" is the whole process, you could say (but also a lot more).
It's a Variable if you like Programming. It's extensively dynamic and that's on purpose. Think about all we could use "Mystery" for in the future.
>>41296510
>Christianity is just a Jewish knockoff of the Dionysian cults.
That might be possible of "Judaism" came before Christianity did. Alas, it did not. At best, it had a couple hundred years, but there's immense reason to believe the Christian timeline is off, so that makes the Ptolemy situation(s) awfully inconvenient to muh "Ancient Judaism". Hell, I don't even need to touch on biological anomalies or Linguistic elements, like explaining the impossibility of language translation in that direction (from Koine Greek iirc).
>Greco-Egyptian Mythology and Zoroastrian Mystery Cults
Zurvanism really builds your foundation here, based on what I've seen and, yes, it certainly centers around Ser(Apis).
>it's very hard to be persuaded that Christianity is that much different.
Great, but you're not fully there. It's not just "not different" - it's an evident continuation of the Mystery Schools.
>Dionysian and Medean Cults
His name was Jason. Medea is extremely important to his story. You know of her Venoms, correct? You understand the intimacies of the Mysteries surrounding the Huntress, The Tower and the synthesis of Artemisian and Marian Mysteries, correct?
>riding on fish across water
Remember Oannes' stories, anon? You know who Ea-Enki is, right?
Remember the "walking on water"?
Remember "fisher of men"?
Remember the fish and bread printer magic he performed?
You know about Astrology, surely. Well what can you tell us about Pisces and the Piscean Age?
>The Blood of Christ
Comes from Macedonia, actually.
>Mithraism, Harpocrates, Imperial Cult
Mars was the Patron deity of Rome. Mithraism was Rome (and still is) - Catholicism.

>>41300607
I've heard this stuff for a long time, and it's finally clicking. Let's be more specific now.

The Koine bible was written for Greeks in Greece, for Greeks who colonized Judea (and had to integrate local custom), or something else? Are we literally talking about Greek myth or some adaption of it?

>>41296510
>Much of Christ's imagery is also Caesarian
Curious considering he was Caesarion then, right?
>Ammon Hillman is a crackpot
That's right. And that's sort of the whole point. You know of Plato's (but also obviously not just Plato's) Theia Mania, right, anon? Ammon does have it. The issue is he's also a retard. Just because you experience Divine Mania doesn't mean you can put it to good use, right?
He does a lot of good though. His excursions into Galen's world is notoriously fascination and I concur. But he also doesn't get the "Jesus" stuff fully correct and on that we surely agree.
>>41296579
>I think these elements weren't intended to be a part of Christianity in the Gospel texts themselves; rather, they are a consequence of Christian iconography painting over Roman infrastructure and operations.
That's keen of you. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the 4 Gospels, right? Well we can do lot with the Primordial 4, like the 4 Seasons, 4 Spokes (see Stellar Orbits), 4 Directions and 4 Modes of Man (Infant, Teen, Adult, Geriatric) among many more.
>replacing the cult of Isis
Oh and many more, fren. Semiramis, Artemis and plenty more.
>Alchemical Wedding
Surely, but we can't be so simple as to assume they didn't have children. Their copulation was just as important as their marriage.
>Satanism
I'll just ignore this for now I guess.
>Baphomet
Very recent. Last few centuries. Not at all what you think it is. See Saklas, the Holy Fool, a Divine Syzygy.
>Hellenistic cults weren't as dogmatic and rigid as Christianity was
I'm way ahead of you, anon, as per usual.
Unforunately, your proceeding list is rarely Pre-Platonic. Orpheus, sure. Pythagoras, sure, as I've stated. But the other two... nope.
>not normalfags, it's the fucking Chruch
They're the same things.
>Who cares if Jesus existed or not?
His ancestors, I guess.
>Semitic
Entirely defunct. Sorry.
You're looking for the Nexus of Proto-Europeans, which undermine "Ancient Hebrews" to their core.

>>41299101
>Why would I propose a premise in an argument with the expectation that you would disagree with it? Do you not understand how dialectic works?
Because you're an annoying faggot and exist in this thread only to swing around your circumcised dick.
>For whom is this a problem? For you? Why?
It's clear your only role here is to disrupt our conversation. You're not welcome here.
>>41299503
>any verbal answer you can give would be inadequate.
Which is precisely while the Musterion-Mystery will be forever veiled. It's not because we shouldn't peak behind the veil, it's because human eyes do not perceive beyond it. Thus, "We" are not Humanity nor Humans - the vessels which we currently occupy.

>>41300645
Jews in the 1st century AD were so Hellenized by that point that they were speaking and praying in Greek all the time. Septuagint was made 3rd century BC

>>41286233 (OP)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9492
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9066

The Jews transformed pagan gods into jew patriarchs and angels.

Angels = Elohim = gods

>>41300607
Was "David" Alexander the Great, or was Alexander himself fulfilling a memory of a David, perhaps when he defeated Persia? The Persian king would then be Goliath.

I know there's also this idea that David comes from a local god in Syria who is their Adonis, but it definitely seems like Alexander the Great is also portrayed as an Adonis-like guy. Adonis and Apollo seem like different faces of the same person, and Apollo was the primary Greek god, according to several philosopher-historians.

>>41287563
Nope, It's even more interesting
https://churchunity.net/home/my-name-is-in-him/yahweh-jupiter-of-the-hosts-18th-century-a-d/

>>41296200
>God is Zeus, Dionysus played Christ (and Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler, Elvis, etc), all the Gods of Olympus and thereabouts did and still do exist, and have some level of interest in what we’re up to.
Yep
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bach_family

>>41300664
>Because you're an annoying faggot and exist in this thread only to swing around your circumcised dick.
No u.
>It's clear your only role here is to disrupt our conversation. You're not welcome here.
I'll ask again: for whom is this conversation being disrupted? Who is it that should decide who is welcome and who is unwelcome here?
>but muh mysterion
This is it, buddy. This is the heart of the matter. Who are you?

>>41300645
>The Koine bible was written for Greeks in Greece, for Greeks who colonized Judea (and had to integrate local custom), or something else?
Preservation via scribe script. You know how Ptolemy issued all those translations? Some of those scribes used a shorthand of sorts, which came from a Phoenician-Grecian-Celtic script that is now defunct and hard to pinpoint. The likes of Hillman and his peers seem to indicate that we're by no means dealing with "Ancient Hebrew" here. Firstly, it had maybe a couple hundred years prior to exist and we can take care of that with ease if necessary, but the bigger problem is the directional translation problems. You simply cannot condense that informational density from Greek to Hebrew and in translation with less unique characters. It's not how Linguistics works. It's like a mechanic putting your tires on upside down and never expecting you to correct the obvious mistake. Anyone who drives a car knows it's wrong - it takes zero experts to figure out this is impossible.
>Are we literally talking about Greek myth or some adaptation of it?
Both, anon. Would it surprise you the Greeks didn't invent their myths either? Surely it wouldn't by this point.
>>41300678
>Was "David" Alexander the Great, or was Alexander himself fulfilling a memory of a David, perhaps when he defeated Persia?
I can no longer help here, I don't think. I can tell you Alexander, Arthur and "Jesus" all held the same damn Sword and cut the same Knot. Too bad no one else ever figured out how to use it though. Right?...
>Adonis and Apollo
We could do a lot more, from Horus-Harpocrates to Attis to Lugh to Quetzalcoatl to Re-Horus (maybe even a little Khepra) and I could go on for a while so I'll stop.
>Apollo was the primary Greek God
Apollo existed prior to Greece.
>>41300722
You're unwelcome here.
I'll never tell them. But one of you will eventually. I can promise you that.

>>41300678
>Alexander the Great
Alexander the Great's mother, Olympias, was an ardent participant in orgies honoring Sabazius. This gave rise to the legend that Zeus himself, in the form of a serpent, had intercourse with Olympias, and that Alexander was the fruit of this relationship. There was even a story that King Philip lost an eye for spying through a keyhole as the deity, in the form of a serpent, reclined with his wife.

The fusion of Sabazius with other Eastern deities—Syrian, Persian, and even the Jewish Sabaoth—belongs to the first centuries of Christianity, although the beginnings of this fusion date back to the second century BCE: in 139 CE, Jews were expelled from Rome for proselytizing among Roman citizens, pursuant to a law condemning to exile those who spread the worship of Jupiter-Sabazius. Blavatsky also identified Dionysus-Sabazius and Jehovah-Sabaoth

>>41300727
>You're unwelcome here.
I guess you give up then. Another humiliating defeat for the counter-initiation.

>>41296200
>>41300719
They insist most of you are not ready to better understand this, but the reality is there is a pervading genetic egregore that coincides with what I guess people like the Theosophists would call Root Races. I'm personally not a fan. I don't know how to parse the genetics of the differences between what they say and what the geneticists are doing and frankly I don't care to. What I can explain is that Jung had the right idea. His suggestions about "races having egregores" is correct. The "European" or "Caucasian" or "Aryan" (again, I have to dispute some or probably all designations, but that's a whole other thread) Egregore is what all of you fags keep calling "Zeus" sometimes, "Jehovah/Yahweh" sometimes, Re sometimes, Dagda sometimes, Odin sometimes and so on. But the naming convention is entirely unimportant as it catalyzes via your Spells (speech) in a dynamic manner, sort of like an automatic translation device which we're starting to use in more international scenes today. Yes, the segmented consciousnesses which comprise all of our current audience, but also the deities which we embody or vitalize through our egrogoric accumulation.
In other words, Serapis or Dionysus or Zagreus or whatever is all of you, all at the same time (including me, I guess), remembering himself constantly through self-resurrection and "Father" is the source or a "Higher Self" (as described >>41288786 >>41288910 >>41288988).
As such, Father and Son are both One. A "Trinity" forms in the extrapolation of this dynamic via the Feminine/Spirit/Barbelo/etc. This, anons, is your Alchemy. This is why Horus is also Osiris and "Jesus" is also "God" the Father or Tammuz is Nimrod. But keep in mind he's also his Source-Mother (a la Isis, Mary/Spirit/Sophia/Barbelo/Semiramis).
>>41300728
>This gave rise to the legend that Zeus himself, in the form of a serpent
That's all you need to know. The code is present, burnt into the story, unable to be missed.
Serpent, Dragon.

>>41300728
>Dionysus-Sabazius
>venom
>mushrooms
The most powerful cult is the one with the strongest drugs, right?
The cult with the strongest drugs is the cult of empire, with the react of merchants from Phoenicia to India.
>Sabazios is a deity originating in Asia Minor.
Phoenician/Trojan/Hittite homeland. Phrygian caps. Possibly the Assyrians if you go back far enough. Possibly the Egyptians, or at least the Hyksos.

>>41300943
>react
reach

>>41300943
>The most powerful cult is the one with the strongest drugs, right?
See, it's imperative to know what produces the drugs. Further elucidation would really help people understand the differences between said "cults" and their "power".
>Phrygian Caps
Why do you think Gnomes are always depicted wearing one?
>drugs
>Phoenicia
Why do you think "Jesus" was adorned so commonly with a Purple Sash, anon? Any guesses?

>>41286233 (OP)
>Learn etymology
agreed
its mind blowing how illiterate people are these days

>>41301061
Just wait until you read the thread.

>>41300943
>>41301000
To be clear, how ancient is this god Sabazios that we're talking about?

>in 139 CE, Jews were expelled from Rome for proselytizing among Roman citizens, pursuant to a law condemning to exile those who spread the worship of Jupiter-Sabazius
This begs the question: why? Why did they outlaw these mysteries, and who pushed for it?

>Why do you think "Jesus" was adorned so commonly with a Purple Sash, anon? Any guesses?
Romans adopted Phoenician colors. So, either it implies Phoenician or Roman nobility, or maybe those things are the same. It definitely seems like Rome _became_ Phoenician by the time Rome was becoming an empire.

>>41300821
To contrast with this, who would Saturn be? Zeus vs Saturn is the main conflict as I understand it.

>>41300727
>You know how Ptolemy issued all those translations? Some of those scribes used a shorthand of sorts, which came from a Phoenician-Grecian-Celtic script that is now defunct and hard to pinpoint.
Wait, you're saying "Phoenicians" are really equivalent to Greeks. Maybe not the literal same, but brothers or cousins in the grand scheme. The script we discovered that is called Phoenician is just a shorthand that Mediterranean peoples used.

>>41300727
>Ancient Hebrew
Unless we mean Ancient Iberians?

>>41300727
>Both, anon. Would it surprise you the Greeks didn't invent their myths either? Surely it wouldn't by this point.
Myths are not invented ever. Language and myth come into being together.

>>41301631
Yes.

>>41301126
>To be clear, how ancient is this god Sabazios that we're talking about?
Now that's the question. Too bad I don't have any coherent answer.
>Why did they outlaw these mysteries and who pushed for it?
Which time?
>Romans and Phoenicians
The Romans really like to LARP as other people.
>Phoenician
You mentioned Hillman yourself, right? Surely you know what "Scythian Purple" means.
Would "Jesus" have been so fond of said Scythian Purple had he not been... I dunno... Scythian?
Hey, what does "Shakya" mean, again?
>>41301160
>Zeus vs Saturn
You're not understanding it still. What did we just say?
Father is Son and Son is Father. Time is not Linear. You are your Dad and your Dad is you. It's basic genetics. Do you really think that person that you fucking created isn't also you? Because you're wrong if you think that.
Guess what - so is everyone else.
>Who is Saturn?
Saturn is the Ialdaboath, Keeper of Time (Malkuth). Frazier frames him foundationally if you're interested. But he's also much more - the Architect, Ptah-Osiris. You currently reside within his domain, again, Malkuth. What you're currently doing is finding ways to turn your Leaden Malkuth into Golden Kether (hint: Da'at is a huge help and I suggest it, but good luck).
>>41301206
>Greeks and Phoenicians are cousins
Yup.
Danaan, eh? Danu(be), Dan, etc.
>Phoenician is just a shorthand that Mediterranean peoples used.
And now you know who those "Sea Peoples" are.
>>41301631
That's right. Myth is metaphor and Language is only really a ton of metaphors jumbled together and loosely sorted.
>>41301657
There's a good chance "English" is a lot older than we're told, it seems the Gaelic language isn't what we're told it is (see Nimrod/Nemrod and the Irish Babel stories) and Language itself is far more esoteric than certain people want us to acknowledge.
But why.
The question is, "Why?"
Well remember how we mentioned Ptah earlier?

>>41287753
Because religion revolves around drugs, becoming God through drugs and nematodes. The nematodes like infecting humans because they experience the world through their hosts. This is why humans have been conditioned to worship the serpent/snake/dragon. The worm becomes much more when infecting a human with the chakra system engaged/awake.
So it's not about human ascension regarding religion it's for the worm. That's the horrible and frightening truth.

>>41302034
You've got two factions one obedient to Saturn and the other to Jupiter. The Jupiter's are rebelling against Saturn. Their primary way of doing this is being drugged up berserker warriors that topple tyrannical govts. That's what the cult of Dionysus/sabazius is. Lucifer rebelling against Satan. Seems contradictory but thats the correct way to look at it. The Jesuits claim that they're summoning Lucifer/antichrist. It's interesting when you type in sabazein into the gematria.

>>41302011
>You mentioned Hillman yourself, right?
Oh, you mean that purple.
>"Scythian Purple"
Some undefined psychedelic compound. Maybe snake venom.

>>41302011
>>Zeus vs Saturn
>You're not understanding it still. What did we just say?
You mentioned the racial egregore, so I was trying to think of an egregore that is different from Zeus. It sounds like you're saying Saturn and Zeus are more like categories than specific egregores. So, multiple races could each have their own Zeus or Saturn, which might imply different traits for them?

If you ask me, I think Saturn = ego, Zeus = ego death bringer.

>>41302011
>There's a good chance "English" is a lot older than we're told
Why do you say this? English comes from West Germanic. Are you saying that whole branch has something undiscovered/unknown?

>Well remember how we mentioned Ptah earlier?
The craftsman... What about him?

>Hey, what does "Shakya" mean, again?
Why, who called Jesus this term?

>>41286233 (OP)
only Hermes was an "Angel" in the sense christcucks think of them.
ALL divine things are "gods", but abrahamics try to just lump them all together into one entity, like its some dictatorship up there or something, and a democracy down here and we can voote to choose our gods up there. its retarded.

and imo its not fixable. even back then there was a spiritual ceiling, only so many abstractions could be conceived of before normies/jews began to insert themselves, completely oblivious to what its about, who sought to mar the practice and exploit it for their own greed. and when they tried to actually learn, they found themselves way less capable than those before them and drove themselves insane in the process of trying to reconcile the gods irl with exploiting them to their own benefit and reaffirm their own chosenness. gee, i wonder why. with 2000 years of this being completely neglected, youve seen spiritual devolvement, so people trying today would probably be even less capable than people back then. and i doubt gayI will be able to bail them out. theyre more likely to reproduce the process themselves before ever figuring out its the process above.

its a systems/world building formula, necessary for any 'creator' to tackle: how to create the preconditions necessary to bring about one's own creation. and the answer is, it cant be done individually. there must always be a second aspect, minimum. but beyond that initial problem there a near infinite number of other prerequisites, which require solving. perfecting. so 'gods' early on were on these concepts. they had little backstories and names to try to help people conceptualize their having been incorporated and addressed previously. then you see it just goes off the rails, everything devolves, rape babies, abortion survivor baby demiurges. they lose the plot.

>>41286233 (OP)
Angels = thoughtforms
Demons = obsessions

>>41286233 (OP)
Shut up retard.

I have killed angels since time in memoriam.
They are not gods, they are sentient tools of a supposed grand creator.

Shhhhhhhhhhhh

>>41302649
>Some undefined psychedelic compound. Maybe snake venom.
Surely you don't think it's limited to such a thing. What's the follow up question, anon? Any chance they're related?
>>41302835
>It sounds like you're saying Saturn and Zeus are more like categories than specific egregores
We're sort of figuring this out together, in a way.
As explained before, it's a dynamic channel carved out on the spot to build that link when necessary. It's "Zeus" when it needs to be, just like it's "Jesus" other times.
You know who Rumplestiltskin is, right? Remember the whole "he who knows his name, has his power", bit? That's an exaggeration, it's more like having the Name grants access (so the more authentic crowds seem to indicate) or at least offers a means to otherwise make use of it. Since clearly none of us has access to the real names anymore, it's kind of like trying to send messages to Christian Bale by addressing Batman.
The catch is there are other (limited) access vectors. I guess this is me suggesting you trying to name them is at least currently a waste of your time. Let's just stick to the characters they played as throughout your different mythologies.
>If you ask me, I think Saturn = ego, Zeus = ego death bringer.
To your credit, there is some symbolism that echoes this sentiment, like with the Buddhist Vajra (it's not just Buddhist, to be fair). But this is a bit complicated and I don't mean to run off on an other tangent.
>>41302845
>Why, who called Jesus this term?
No, that's what they called The Buddha, silly. They called "Jesus" Saka.
But wait... that's only a two letter difference and, curiously, the other letters are otherwise arranged properly. Surely this isn't a Linguistic anomaly. There's no reason to continue musing, sadly.
>Are you saying that whole branch has something undiscovered/unknown?
Sure, or maybe more like "erased".
Remember the Irish babel reference from before?
>What about him?
Well, what's his story, anon? What's the theme, again?

>>41303248
They were rather animistic in their views back then. From these ideas emerged personified beings, not forces or cosmic/earthly elements/phenomena with which humans affiliated themselves in an effort to realize their power - as realized Men. We actually drew these forces down into men of renown (which we later regarded as Gods) by setting the standards for them; what they could manage, change or overcome. Over time, the animistic ideas of divine, cosmic forces faded and our "Gods" became, instead of the forces of nature that exist in a capacity we couldn't comprehend, let alone contend, "Men" (or at least pseudo-Men) that we could otherwise attempt to comprehend and possible contend. After a while, "God" became those we channeled our Will through, where we amassed atomized communities of people under the direct will of God-Kings. These people were selected for very specific reasons, reasons that are today lost on virtually everyone. Their dispositions were governed by their Genetics. Through said Ancestral links, they acquired the ability and knowledge to further guide humanity as our link(s) to Divinity faded.
Although we humanized God(s), we also killed Him(Them). Or, we attempted to anyway. Too bad the idiots never understood what God was or how to really access Divine. If they did, they'd stop trying to kill everyone who showed up to throw them a bone.
>>41288988 >>41289003

I appreciate the convo, anon.

>>41303975
>Surely you don't think it's limited to such a thing. What's the follow up question, anon? Any chance they're related?

I'm definitely familiar with murex shells used to produce the purple dye that was in the cloth that Phoenicians sold. They actually got it from Minoans who produced it far earlier, but their island was destroyed by a volcanic eruption (termed the Minoan eruption 1600 BC, ironically when people think the Exodus happened, which has some evidence in the Tempest Stele).

I've listened to Ammon some, but I've not heard him say where the purple element actually comes from or why it would be a necessary component of the entheogen. He talks about how they use the human body to filter poisons to produce pure drugs. These are extracted from semen, urine, breast milk, and probably other bodily fluids I'm not accounting for.

I don't think they would use purple here just as "branding" or food coloring. It must be an active ingredient. Murex is a predatory snail, and the dye comes from its mucus. So, I'm guessing it's poison too?

>You know who Rumplestiltskin is, right? Remember the whole "he who knows his name, has his power", bit? That's an exaggeration, it's more like having the Name grants access (so the more authentic crowds seem to indicate) or at least offers a means to otherwise make use of it. Since clearly none of us has access to the real names anymore, it's kind of like trying to send messages to Christian Bale by addressing Batman.

Maybe the name isn't really that difficult to come by (or that special if you take it as a given), but hiding the name and hiding the meaning of the name is quite powerful.

>>41286233 (OP)
Deus comes from Zeus. Zeus from Zio. Zio from IAO. IAO also derives YHWH.

>>41286233 (OP)
Im sorry but according to who?

The dudes who wrote the book in 1000s?

Who the fuck is god to you guys :']

>Phoenicians
>Minoans

Forgot to clarify... we're far enough here to just say these are basically the same people. In fact, if there's an "inner elite" in Canaan/Phoenicia from around 1600 BC and on, it might actually make the most sense to say they are Minoan. And if we believe Atlantis was a real thing, then Minoans seem like the truest inheritors of their legacy.

>>41303975
>No, that's what they called The Buddha, silly. They called "Jesus" Saka.
>But wait... that's only a two letter difference and, curiously, the other letters are otherwise arranged properly. Surely this isn't a Linguistic anomaly. There's no reason to continue musing, sadly.

Saka = Indra, son of Dyauspitr.

The thing with "Jesus going to India" — people say this in third hand accounts, but the only significant figure that is definitely recorded as having gone to India was Apollonius of Tyana. Now, maybe that biography was fraudulent and meant to capture the popularity of someone else, but I'm throwing that out there.

"Apollonius" also seems like an obvious potential title. Apollo is just the main guy (for Greeks), so they could have given this to whoever they thought was the main guy in real life.

Tyana is Cappadocia, which is Phoenician/Phrygian/Ionian homeland. Close to Macedonia and that origin of proto-Christianity, right?

Makes me wonder if Alexander the Great ever had a title like Apollonius.

>Irish babel

I know of a lot of claims. Supposedly, very ancient Egyptian lines moved to the British Isles. Great Pyramid = original Babel. Scota -> Scotland. Tribe of Dan -> Tuatha de Danaan.

Egypt in very ancient times seems to be transparently just an aspect of the Minoan empire. Plato says as much about how the Greeks and Egyptians were both at war with the same people, and he says Greeks and Egyptians in those times were related too.

Now, Ireland _specifically_? Well, Ireland held off longer, whereas England was invaded more and earlier.

>>41303975
>Ptah
>craftsman
>what's his story/theme

Creates the world through speech.
Craftsmen in general are usually executors of the will of the supreme. They are like "second in command", although in their domain, they are also supreme because the even higher god doesn't meddle in their affairs.
The sky father is a craftsman because of the story of building a chariot and lassoing the stars and bringing them to earth, creating humans. This would connect him to Orion/Aryan, because Orion the Hunter is the same constellation, and "Aryan" is just another spelling for this I think. Aryans are thus the sons of Orion, or sons of the sky father. (There's actually a more complex story here, where I think the skyfather created Orion the Hunter to protect his people, but I'm going to butcher it without looking it up.)
"The craft" is always alchemy, which is always the merging of inner and outer reality. Putting mind into matter.
This makes him the god of consciousness, so I think we have enough to link him to Enki now. The Sumerians seem to have viewed Enki as more rebellious than the Egyptians viewed Ptah as. Not sure why. Maybe it's similar to how Abrahamics view Lucifer as bad. The Sumerians aren't all the way there, but they're insinuating Enki wasn't as transparently good as some other cultures saw him. This would indicate that the Sumerian elite were trying to control the story. It would be interesting to compare this to Minoan/Phoenician myth if possible, to see if they also had this bias.

>>41302011
>That's right. Myth is metaphor and Language is only really a ton of metaphors jumbled together and loosely sorted.
You are mentally ill and your concept of language cannot account for itself and reduces all expression to equivocal nonsense.
>it's all metaphors!
metaphors for what?
>n-nice try, but it's metaphors all the way down
A myth is what everyone has always believed. You have no myths because you don't believe anything. Or the one thing you do believe is prima facie nonsense.
You are only here to pleasure yourself to your own word salad.

>>41300607
>I segmented the both of them on purpose, anon. "Know Thyself" is one of the fruits of the Initiate's journey. "The Mystery" is the whole process, you could say (but also a lot more).

What about people who influence society towards specific meanings of it? Suppose we are not defining it so much as we are defining things it is not, and I am specifically saying it is not exclusively this one thing, which is essentially the "mind created matter" metaphysics.

Do we just need more more more? More mystery if the current version isn't right? Don't argue with people, just have them go back to the well?

You might say this isn't the role of the mysteries themselves, but we at least need leadership that isn't caught up in the bullshit.

As I'm writing this, I want to delete the entire comment because I think I understand now. There is something fundamental, like a force, which emerges in various forms (particularly powerful drugs but not exclusively them) which is anti-authority, anti-logic. I want to add logic to authority, but authority is logic. All reform comes through revolution, not being "right". And if you want revolution, the mysteries are where you have to start. You shouldn't stay there forever though. If you do, you can't blame the mysteries for not doing something that they aren't.

>Pagan gods were NOT angels

wrong.
theya re the watchers of old.
read the book of the watchers young man.

-angel justice.

>>41286233 (OP)
What is that hand? It looks very bug-like

>>41286233 (OP)
Preach it, been bitching about this for awhile.

>>41286419
who's your favorite person?

>>41312895
I don't need one. The idea of "favorite" would only serve me in a limited context.

>>41301000
What is Gobleki Tepe to you? Is that the first (or one of the first) Atlantean colony in the eastern Med? We have astrological god-kings demanding sacrifice, probably human AND colonial resource extraction like a tax.

The Atlanteans may have come from Solutrean culture who built megalithic monuments in the paleolithic, or they may have traveled north from Eurasia in a period when "north" wasn't even north because the pole was in a different location. Maybe this would mean the northern Eurasian landmass was warmer or colder, but either way, the geography allowed people to get to North America far earlier than the later Siberian Bering Strait migrators.

We have the copper mines in michigan, if nothing else, to at least point to heavy Phoenician connection to North America.

Bump, it works.

Learn the rules before you break them, filter said rules through principle. The greatest nuggets of truth occur in the Midrash of conversation.