Da Vinci Code – Is Any Of It Fact?

Opal

Premium Member
I must admit i am more interested in eye witness reports from Egeria who was a pilgrim to the place of birth of Jesus in approx. 384 AD, she witnessed a ceremony that was very old, being the ceremony of Jesus's birth on 6th Jan.
I'm not trying to say this is true after witness reports as these then turn into myths, however i have some evidence that the early Christian doctrine did think the birth of Jesus was 6th January:-


http://www.egeriaproject.net/about_egeria.aspx

http://www.agos.com.tr/en/article/6308/why-do-orthodox-armenians-celebrate-christmas-on-january-6

I am curious, for you, do you believe that Jesus, has to be an actual real person?

Having read that Solomon, David, Moses, and others as being not real people, but representatives of the ages. It feels right. To me.

I haven't watched your links. On my way.
 

Opal

Premium Member
I must admit i am more interested in eye witness reports from Egeria who was a pilgrim to the place of birth of Jesus in approx. 384 AD, she witnessed a ceremony that was very old, being the ceremony of Jesus's birth on 6th Jan.
I'm not trying to say this is true after witness reports as these then turn into myths, however i have some evidence that the early Christian doctrine did think the birth of Jesus was 6th January:-


http://www.egeriaproject.net/about_egeria.aspx

http://www.agos.com.tr/en/article/6308/why-do-orthodox-armenians-celebrate-christmas-on-january-6

I will read them later, I am going back to bed. I am now tired.:sleeping:
 

Monk

Premium Member
Please note what i show below are parans being accurate astronomy, projected measure on fixed stars isn't accurate to location.
In a lot of bible study done by Freemasons the quote that the "Blazing Star" is the Star of Bethlehem is often quoted.
This related to "The Three Wise Men arriving in Bethlehem.
This happened on 6th January we are lead to believe by epiphany.
A star alignment on this date will carry on for a few centuries, so the year isn't important, it would cover the period of Christ.
The ancient Jews did and still do use Sunset previous to date as the start of day, so we would be looking in Bethlehem at sunset on 5th January approx. two thousand years ago, as Sun Set, Sirius was rising, i could have followed the alignment from Persia:-
ei5bbe0115.png


Quote:-
"Star of Bethlehem: In the lectures credited to Dunckerley and adopted by the Grand Lodge, the Blazing Star was said to represent “the star which led the wise men to Bethlehem, proclaiming to mankind the nativity of the Son of God, and here conducting our spiritual progress to the Author of our redemption.”
So by what Freemasons write, we can establish that the "Star of Bethlehem" is the "Blazing Star" of lodges, which must be "Sirius", links below:-
www.masonic-lodge-of-education.com...
www.timeanddate.com...
 

Monk

Premium Member
Astronomy picture for thread section above is on private members download below. The Jewish start of the day was and is sunset previous to date, therefore we use sunset on 5th January 0004 BC, as Sirius was rising at location by astronomy and parans, projected fixed stars are inaccurate!


Being an Archaeoastronomer, i could have followed this alignment from Persia, but only if i knew DOB before i set out:-
picture 182 40% (2).png
 
Last edited:

Monk

Premium Member
I am curious, for you, do you believe that Jesus, has to be an actual real person?

Having read that Solomon, David, Moses, and others as being not real people, but representatives of the ages. It feels right. To me.

I haven't watched your links. On my way.


I'm not going to answer your question, it is hugely controversial, i'll pass on that one, perhaps JUP will answer, LOL!
 

petosiris

Banned
Peto, it's a very well-stated description of the Most High. Except for one thing, when it's translated into English--the pronouns "He", and "Him".

I see no reason why the Most High would encourage such a translation. It's not only grossly inaccurate, it smacks of idolatry.

God (which word is treated as a masculine noun) is an incorporeal Father.

The Most High chose to create, and he chose to reveal himself to creation as a he, in accordance with his perfect and unchanging nature.

Maybe you are implying (inaccurately and by earthly wisdom) that the Absolute must be a frozen statue rather a living God, whose creation is not a deception or an illusion, and who exercises providence over all things.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
Hi LeoMoon,

I agree, I see Dan Brown as fiction.

Do you see Sophia as a representative of an age?

I have read, that both she and Lilith were equal to God.

I was unaware that there is a Shroud to be considered as a Shroud of Mary. Interesting. Do you think of the Shroud of Turin as being a shroud of Jesus? or Jacques de Molay?

I am on my computer now, not my phone, the links weren't working I will try again.

The Supreme Being is supremely wise, but before all ages with the beginning of conceivable time he created, and begot, and established the only-begotten God, who is feminine and subordinate with respect to God (Prov. 8), but surely masculine with respect to man who is subordinate to him, as the woman is feminine and subordinate to man (1 Cor. 11:3). This wisdom or logos built itself a house upon seven pillars, which are the seven spirits of God, and through him (as a master worker and mediator between God and creation) were created all things under the command of the one God, and sanctified by the aforementioned Holy Spirit.

Lilith is a myth. Jesus Christ doesn't have any equal, and there is only one greater (infinitely) being than him - his Father the Almighty (John 14:28).

She was his right hand man!

I am confused. Was she the right hand man of a person who never existed? Now you are saying that it is a fiction.
 
Last edited:

leomoon

Well-known member
Hi LeoMoon,

I agree, I see Dan Brown as fiction.

Do you see Sophia as a representative of an age?

I have read, that both she and Lilith were equal to God.

I was unaware that there is a Shroud to be considered as a Shroud of Mary. Interesting. Do you think of the Shroud of Turin as being a shroud of Jesus? or Jacques de Molay?

I am on my computer now, not my phone, the links weren't working I will try again.


#2 - ref: Sophia - I would see as a psychological representation that is ongoing for all time. Yet back then, thousands of years ago, "that symboll" of a female animus to a male anima was given a name which humans might better be able to adapt to as a concept. Always humans want human concepts to better grasp anything. Perhaps that is why the UFOs often give us this species as well, i.e. to grasp anything.

Equal to God? In a word, YES. More along the lines of God is not a human being male more an energy as in the end, we too are. Vibration.


3) I'll get back to you on the Shroud of Mary as I don't have an opinion now.



:whistling:
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I'm not going to answer your question, it is hugely controversial,

i'll pass on that one, perhaps JUP will answer, LOL!
Hi Monk - moderation in all things :smile:
.
We
as a human race
have become reliant
on the information we are told being true and accurate.
But
what if we had been mislead
what if the real truth's were being hidden from us?
The discovery of an ancient codex
has been read :smile:
and in regards our ancient past
'it now puts the record straight'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y2LHK7fDtw
 

petosiris

Banned
Because, it is much more believable than the misinterpretations that I was taught to believe.

That is why I find myself here on an astrological forum rather than a Christian one. Because I believe the ancient writings were meant to be read astrologically, not as you believe them to be.

Again, Petosiris, I do believe in every persons right to believe in their own chosen way. I believe in free choice, in most things. Please keep in mind that the commandments do say murder is a crime. I agree with the commandments, they are a good set of rules to use, and a much easier thing to follow, than what the legal system of today has become.

I understand your faith is strong, so is mine, just not in the same thing.

I do not wish to convince you, I wish to discuss, with like minded individuals the concepts of the Bible and the other ancient writings as something more than what you see them as.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but my opinion is that you are discussing them as saying something less than what they are obviously saying, and I am pointing out their real meaning. Since the claims of the sacred scriptures are nothing less than world-shaking, and since they clearly speak of the condemnation of the wicked angels, the adversary labours to deny their authenticity or tries to change their meaning by allegorizing them to the point of absurdity. In the latter he achieves the same thing, since you yourself denied the existence of historical figures whose existence is more certain than the existence of the Sun.
 

petosiris

Banned
I must admit i am more interested in eye witness reports from Egeria who was a pilgrim to the place of birth of Jesus in approx. 384 AD, she witnessed a ceremony that was very old, being the ceremony of Jesus's birth on 6th Jan.
I'm not trying to say this is true after witness reports as these then turn into myths, however i have some evidence that the early Christian doctrine did think the birth of Jesus was 6th January:-


http://www.egeriaproject.net/about_egeria.aspx

http://www.agos.com.tr/en/article/6308/why-do-orthodox-armenians-celebrate-christmas-on-january-6

''Very old ceremony'' and ''early Christian doctrine'' in the late 4th century? Is the 17th century contemporary of the 21st century? Why would you put your trust in such a modern and untrustworthy source?
 

petosiris

Banned
I am curious, for you, do you believe that Jesus, has to be an actual real person?

Having read that Solomon, David, Moses, and others as being not real people, but representatives of the ages. It feels right. To me.

I haven't watched your links. On my way.

These fictional persons are representative of your vain plot against the God of Israel, his Son Jesus Christ and the revealed word of God concerning the kingdom, and the judgement and the resurrection.
 

leomoon

Well-known member
Thanks for the Hagia Sophia links, it is a fabulous place. It is nice to see all religious relics preserved. They all deserve the respect with which they were built.


In my rather brief (over 10 years) trips overseas, mostly along the Mediterranean, although occasionally, over the Pacific to Mexico way -

I've seen lots of things that have opened my eyes and fueled my understanding of history better.


Certainly, the Ottomon rule for its overwhelming lands, is one we can examine. In Israel for example, the first thing everyone sees in Jerusalem, because its so huge and so beautiful, the architecture of the Wall.



https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jerusalem-architecture-in-the-late-ottoman-period

Arab Building in Jerusalem

Natural Arab construction was characterized by the fact that it blended harmoniously into the landscape, by its arches and domes and different finishes of stone. Leaving fertile valleys for agricultural development, houses were generally built on the slopes and the hilltops. Certain dictates of Muslim law determine some features: windows were placed in a way that occupants (especially women) cannot be seen by neighbors, and a wall common to two buildings is the property of the owner of the house which stands on higher ground.
http://www.theottomans.org/english/art_culture/arc_turkey.asp


When the Ottoman Turks defected the Mameluke forces in 1517, Palestine came under the rule of a new empire that was to dominate the entire Near East for the next 400 years. At the outset, particularly during the reign of Sultan Suleiman, known in Arabic as "the Law maker," but better known as Suleiman the Magnificent, Jerusalem flourished. Walls and gates, which had lain in ruins since the Ayyubid period, were rebuilt.
http://www.theottomans.org/english/art_culture/arc_turkey.asp


The Wall and the Damascus Gate
4.gif
The Wall and the Damascus The wall that encloses the present-day Old City of Jerusalem was built in the sixteenth century by the Ottoman ruler Suleiman the Magnificent. Originally it had seven gates; an eighth, aptly named New Gate, was added in the late nineteenth century in the wall's northwest sector.
The largest and most splendid of the portals is Damascus Gate. Located on the wall's northern side, it is adjacent to ruins attesting that this has been the site of the city's main entrance since ancient times. The gate's defenses include slits for firing at attackers, thick doors, and an opening






The most heartsick I had in 10 years as for culture, was to see first hand the damage done by the new Christians who went to Egypt. They would chisel the faces of what THEY themselves considered to be heretical gods i.e. the various myths of Egyptians and even faces of their Pharoahs. Thank god their hatred didn't manage to For many decades, the Romans and the Greeks under the Ptolemys "enhanced" the Temples, even adding on to them so that we have the original Egyptian ancient temples, (many built on top of other ruins of further back in time we don't even record)....and then The Greeks so admired them, they "blended" into the society rather then tried to overcome the society they now lived in through newer Phaorahnic rule (Cleopatra, her ancestors and descendents and the like who were Ptolemies)



I'm thinking specifically of the Temple of Isis, on a small island by itself; the Temple of Dendera (the so-called Zodiac Temple) - even the huge complex of Karnak (we might remember the late comedian Johnny Carson use to play up Karnak :devil:....


These are just a few, then there is the Crocodile Temple and the slanted temple of



dedicated to the goddess Hathor but was never finished. The temple at one time was hidden by sand but was cleared during the 1800s. It also sits among other monuments but most of those are from the Greco-Roman Period. Unlike other typical Egyptian temples, this temple was a Greco-Roman Temple. This meant that much of the temple had influences by Greece and Rome. It now sits on the edge of the desert and has managed to stay intact. In fact, this temple is probably one of the best preserved temples in Egypt.
The construction of the temple can be mainly attributed to one of the Ptolemaic kings. It’s believed this temple was rebuilt over an existing temple that dated back to the Middle Kingdom. It was then continually modified under the Ptolemaic kings, and finally completed during the Roman times.
An example of roman influences would be the sunken relief carvings of Cleopatra VII. They date back to the Ptolemaic Period. On the western side of the temple and on the south wall, Cleopatra VII and her son Caesarion can be seen. There Cleopatra VII stands in customary Egyptian rankings with her co-regent by her side (Caesarion). Though the temple had lots of influences from the Romans, its architecture was Egyptian. For example, the pylon had slanted walls and corners that were curved. The outward-curing cavetto, a bracket around the walls, was done in classic design. It also had two birth houses, a Coptic Basilica, sanitarium, a sacred lake, and a temple to Isis.
I'll post some of the damage done by early Christians to another's culture next - It saddens me to know this and SEEING it especially - that I'm almost glad I didn't opt to go to that side trip to Syria, after knowing what ISIS did to the gorgeous site - of Aleppo. I could have gone there when it Turkey, but opted not to as it was an "extension tour" for 4 days. :( Now it shall never be again on earth available to anyone


Those are the two bad memories, Aleppo & seeing the damage done in Egypt.
In all fairness, the Egyptian Pharoah after Akhenatun, (who moved the capitol to the middle of the country, i.e. Thebes during his reign), also created a new religion for his people, that of the "Sun God" i.e. the 1st fully understood monotheistic god.

Because of this after his death the next Pharoah tried to obliterate all things dedicated to him but of course there were too many throughout the country.
Same with Hatshepsut, the woman Pharaoh who wore the beard afterwards.



BUT the difference is, its not one culture saying "my religion and culture" is superior to yours and to prove it, while a guest in YOUR land, I'll carve it up and try & destroy it.
Thats rather "sick" imo.:sick:


Remember, the Taliban did this too to the huge Buddha Statute on the side of the mountain, when they first gained our attention all those years ago.



Such hatred as this, saddens me greatly and should for everyone, imo.:sad:


The videotaped destruction of Buddha in 2001 by Taliban :
(need to fast forward to see the dynamiting of this ancient relic)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=JI4ozg4iEEw&feature=emb_logo


The videotaped destruction of Palmyra (Syria) Temples by Isis in 2015:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzkxM4VWv5o


ISIS extremists - Christian extremists, all Extremists create havoc and destruction in the world. - As do I'm sure in every culture's religions where extremists thrive.


Using jackhammers, etc: destroying as much of ancient Mesoptomia art as possible -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmrPxy-K7W4
 

petosiris

Banned
#2 - ref: Sophia - I would see as a psychological representation that is ongoing for all time. Yet back then, thousands of years ago, "that symboll" of a female animus to a male anima was given a name which humans might better be able to adapt to as a concept. Always humans want human concepts to better grasp anything. Perhaps that is why the UFOs often give us this species as well, i.e. to grasp anything.

Equal to God? In a word, YES. More along the lines of God is not a human being male more an energy as in the end, we too are. Vibration.


3) I'll get back to you on the Shroud of Mary as I don't have an opinion now.



:whistling:

This is not the biblical understanding of the Wisdom and the Word of God. He is not equal, but created (though not created like the other creatures) and subordinate and ministering to the one God. And while the begotten Wisdom is sometimes referred to as a she by the Holy Spirit in the holy tongue (mystically she is feminine with respect to the Most High), the Word is referred to as a he by the same Spirit in the same tongue (mystically he is masculine and a Son and a God with respect to all creation).

''Indeed all the virtues have women’s designations, but powers and activities of truly perfect men. For that which comes after God, even if it were the most venerable of all other things, holds second place, and was called feminine in contrast to the Creator of the universe, who is masculine, and in accordance with its resemblance to everything else. For the feminine always falls short and is inferior to the masculine, which has priority. Let us then pay no attention to the discrepancy in the terms, and say that the daughter of God, Wisdom, is both masculine and the father, inseminating and engendering in souls a desire to learn discipline, knowledge, practical insight, notable and laudable actions (Fug. 50-52). - Philo the Jew https://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/''

This word is not an abscission or emanation from the Father, but a second fire kindled from the first fire by an act of will, since the Father has always had his own Wisdom and Word and Power, which are not the same as the derived and inferior attributes of the Son. For the creation wouldn't endure the unmediated hands of the Father.
 

leomoon

Well-known member
I'm not going to answer your question, it is hugely controversial, i'll pass on that one, perhaps JUP will answer, LOL!


I'll give my opinion to Opal, that is "yes" he was real, flesh & blood like you and me and everything that presupposes. He is a part of history, written about even by the official historian of the next decades after his death Josephus.



Here is an excellent description of what is more then likely the authentic "version" of Josephus account in "The History of the Jews" for he worked on this for the Romans.



https://www.quora.com/Did-Josephus-write-about-Jesus


Recommend to scroll down a few paragraphs to start here however:

The more likely original reading was probably closer to this:
About this time there lived Jesus, who won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. And when Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease, and the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
The second reference to Jesus in Josephus is actually concerned with the death of Jesus’ brother James, who was arguably more historically significant in the first century than was Jesus himself. The passage is found in Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, just a few pages away from the first reference to Jesus:
(etc)
This passage is almost universally accepted by scholars as an authentic reference to Jesus of Nazareth and his brother James.
For me however, I give a great deal of credit to the psychic of the last century, Edgar Cayce for the background of Jesus and wrote quite a bit over the years about it. Therefore, although I've studied less about these folks, I also think they were indeed "real" (Moses, David & Solomon)

REF JESUS the CHRIST in written history:

I believe there are existing a few other authentic references of Jesus of Nazareth, the Galilean from that place and time. One of them is a book I have - currently for sale on Amazon - translated and published by William Schuyler from the Greek & Latin (Roman) in 1908 .. "Under Pontius Pilate" which was penned in the years, 28-29 A.D. Mr. Cayce had the question in a reading whether or not it was authentic writings and he said yes, based on accuracy as they knew it to be then regarding Jesus and others.



IF I weren't my current age, but younger to enjoy more years I'd not sell it. :( ...I am rather attached that way to a few things this being one of them.
It's been "out of stock" for a long time now, - but mine I'm currently marking "used" although its really like new:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1410107655/ref=tmm_pap_new_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=new


From the Publisher:
A part of the correspondence between Caius Claudius Proculus in Judea and Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus at Athens, in the years 28 and 29 A.D., translated and edited by William Schuyler, and originally published in 1906. In his attempt to turn into English the following letters of Caius Claudius Proculus and his friend, which are as full of Latin colloquialisms as the famous correspondence of the great Cicero, the translator has not only found it necessary to render the Latin tu by you, but also to avail himself of numerous English colloquialisms of the present day in order to preserve as much as possible the easy-going, modern spirit of the original. For the educated Romans of the first century of our era were in many ways as "modern" as, if not more modern than, the Americans of the twentieth. Likewise, as the sayings of the Nazarene that are given by Caius Claudius are quoted from memory in Latin, and naturally differ in some unimportant points from the Greek texts of the Gospels, the translator has thought it best for the sake of unity to turn them from the Latin into modern English rather than to quote the corresponding passages from the beautiful tho antiquated "Authorized Version" of the English Bible
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
Josephus wasn't a contemporary of Jesus, but of James, that is why he wrote more about the latter. Obviously James wasn't nearly historically significant, though he was the leader of the circumcised assembly, and also died at the hand of the Ninevetes for preaching the prophecy of Jonah.

In any case the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles contain plenty of verifiable historical information of the early churches (made of mostly Jews) belief in this supposed fictional figure, whose existence and miracles (maybe with the exception of the resurrection) were never denied by their adversaries - the Pharisees who attributed them to demons, and the Sadducees who denied the existence of spirits and resurrection.

And even the writings of the heretics suppose that he existed and done all things in appearance (they mean soulishly not bodily, but they at least allowed him reality compared to the insane blasphemies of Opal).
 
Last edited:

leomoon

Well-known member
Josephus wasn't a contemporary of Jesus, but of James, that is why he wrote more about the latter. Obviously James wasn't nearly historically significant, though he was the leader of the circumcised assembly, and also died at the hand of the Ninevetes for preaching the prophecy of Jonah.

In any case the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles contains plenty of verifiable historical information of the early churches belief in this supposed fictional figure, whose existence and miracles (maybe with the exception of the resurrection) were never denied by their adversaries - the Jews.

And even the writings of the heretics suppose that he existed and done all things in appearance (they mean soulishly not bodily, but they at least allowed him reality compared to the blasphemies of Opal).


According to people who are independent scholars, (outside of religious orthodoxy such as Christianity also has), - they say JAMES not Jesus (there were tons of Jesus around a very common name btw), Jeshua actually - but JAMES was the more well known among the Jewish people. That is why so much more was written about James by the Jewish historian writing for the Romans about their "history" of which he shared the culture and his own history.


I would dare suggest, that even John (the Baptist) was more well known then Jesus was until Jesus made his public entrance 3 years before he died. Certainly the sons of the late Herod, were all well acquainted with John who the Jews respected , (not so much acquainted with Jesus)
 

david starling

Well-known member
God (which word is treated as a masculine noun) is an incorporeal Father.

The Most High chose to create, and he chose to reveal himself to creation as a he, in accordance with his perfect and unchanging nature.

Maybe you are implying (inaccurately and by earthly wisdom) that the Absolute must be a frozen statue rather a living God, whose creation is not a deception or an illusion, and who exercises providence over all things.

You're Hellenizing the Hebrew religion. Makes it more entertaining, actually. :biggrin:
 

petosiris

Banned
I would dare suggest, that even John (the Baptist) was more well known then Jesus was until Jesus made his public entrance 3 years before he died. Certainly the sons of the late Herod, were all well acquainted with John who the Jews respected , (not so much acquainted with Jesus)

This is admitted and described in the Gospels in many places. John prophesied that Jesus must become greater, while he becomes less, for he is above all. Herod thought that John was raised from the dead when he heard of the miracles of Jesus.

According to people who are independent scholars, (outside of religious orthodoxy such as Christianity also has), - they say JAMES not Jesus (there were tons of Jesus around a very common name btw), Jeshua actually - but JAMES was the more well known among the Jewish people. That is why so much more was written about James by the Jewish historian writing for the Romans about their "history" of which he shared the culture and his own history.

With regard to the names, the actual name of Jesus is Yeshua, and that of James is Ya'akov. Both Jesus and James were common names among the Jews at the time, and there multiple people recorded with those names in the New Testament alone. I don't know why any reasonable person would claim that James was more influential in the Church than the name he preached, but ok. Combined the church has done greater miracles than the Christ, in accordance with his words and the promises of the Holy Spirit.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
You're Hellenizing the Hebrew religion. Makes it more entertaining, actually. :biggrin:

How exactly am I doing this?

What you are doing is Indianizing the Hebrew religion, for the idol-worshippers of this religion claim that there is a god above the God of Israel, the Father Almighty, and they say that he is a god and idol among their gods and idols under the Supreme Brahman, who is absolutely cold and detached from creation and exercises no providence. And the Epicureans claimed the same thing about God among the Greeks, and after them the heretics. Do I need to explain why the omnipotent being can choose to have a personal relationship with his creation without becoming any sort of a plurality of natures or attributes (for all his attributes and actions are identical with him and inseparable from him)?
 
Last edited:
Top