the lost wisdom | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

the lost wisdom

+1

I don't think that any religion worshiping an external God believes that the truth is within. That's for Buddhism, Taoism and hippies like myself. I think that there can be some answers in the external world about yourself though. You just have to pay attention.

I think that this was the intention of Jesus but christianity misunderstood it :)

Dan Brown is a new age spiritualist pretending to be a theologian and a bad one at that.

...and John who wrote Apocalyps was a lunatic in a cave ... and yet millions off people declare that his words are true (or going to be true)

a message should be judged by the message itself and not by who the messenger is
we all have brains and a heart to judge what is meaningful and what is not
 
I think that this was the intention of Jesus but christianity misunderstood it :)



...and John who wrote Apocalyps was a lunatic in a cave ... and yet millions off people declare that his words are true (or going to be true)

a message should be judged by the message itself and not by who the messenger is
we all have brains and a heart to judge what is meaningful and what is not

First off John wouldn't have lived in a cave, in fact he wasn't a lunatic either. Where did you even here that?

If Dan Brown thinks that the message of the Bible is that you are God, then he has never read the Bible.

If you Think Jesus preached about self-worship then you too haven't read the Bible.
 
First off John wouldn't have lived in a cave, in fact he wasn't a lunatic either. Where did you even here that?

If Dan Brown thinks that the message of the Bible is that you are God, then he has never read the Bible.

If you Think Jesus preached about self-worship then you too haven't read the Bible.

if you think I talked about self-worship then you haven't read my post
end off discussion
 
Last edited:
First off John wouldn't have lived in a cave, in fact he wasn't a lunatic either. Where did you even here that?

If Dan Brown thinks that the message of the Bible is that you are God, then he has never read the Bible.

If you Think Jesus preached about self-worship then you too haven't read the Bible.

[MENTION=1848]Barnabas[/MENTION], are you in any way, shape, or form, able to know the veracity of any of these three sentences you have written? And if the answer is yes, I ask, how did you come to such knowing?


wondering,
Ian
 
I apologize [MENTION=1591]Morgain[/MENTION] , I was way to aggressive. I'm sorry if I offended you.

Let me just say that I disagree with Dan Brown and that if you read any of the Gospel you'll find that he is wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Morgain
[MENTION=1848]Barnabas[/MENTION], are you in any way, shape, or form, able to know the veracity of any of these three sentences you have written? And if the answer is yes, I ask, how did you come to such knowing?


wondering,
Ian


If your talking about how I know if Dan brown is wrong or if how do I know if he or Morgain have ever read the Bible.

I know Brown is wrong because I've read the Bible.

The last part was wrong for me to say and I apologized for that.


Edit: John wasn't crazy, read any of his letter and it's easy to tell that he was of a sound mind. If your going to go around making claims that people are then you should bear the burden of proving it.

John was exiled to Patmos, Rome exiled people to Patmos to work in the mines there.
 
Last edited:
I was just trying to formulate how i would ask that myself

What ground can we be absolutely sure of?

The more i find out the more the ground falls away

yes indeed. There is nothing I'm absolutely sure of. All things I believe are always ready for adaptation

but having said that, there are things I read or hear that give me a feeling of 'coming home'/'completeness"/'yess this is it" deep inside of me. Those are the things I believe in the most and this is the method I use to judge whether something is inherent true or not.

barnabas said:
If your talking about how I know if Dan brown is wrong or if how do I know if he or Morgain have ever read the Bible.

I know Brown is wrong because I've read the Bible.

The last part was wrong for me to say and I apologized for that

everybody reads the bible (or any book) in a different way and sees different things or makes different conclusions
unless you have been told to read the bible in a certain way and then my question is "who is so elevated to know the true way and preach it to others"?
the book is written 2000 years ago and translated again and again and again, who can possibly know now what the true meaning of the words are?

only the God within ;-)
 
Last edited:
yes indeed. There is nothing I'm absolutely sure of. All things I believe are always ready for adaptation

but having said that, there are things I read or hear that give me a feeling of 'coming home'/'completeness"/'yess this is it" deep inside of me. Those are the things I believe in the most and this is the method I use to judge whether something is inherent true or not.

I understand

I don't know enough about Dan Brown to comment on his work, but I do think it is good that people are looking behind the surface perceptions that have been built by architects of deceit who have spun us a web of lies so thick that it is one hell of a job trying to extract ourselves from it!
 
yes indeed. There is nothing I'm absolutely sure of. All things I believe are always ready for adaptation

but having said that, there are things I read or hear that give me a feeling of 'coming home'/'completeness"/'yess this is it" deep inside of me. Those are the things I believe in the most and this is the method I use to judge whether something is inherent true or not.



everybody reads the bible (or any book) in a different way and sees different things or makes different conclusions
unless you have been told to read the bible in a certain way and then my question is "who is so elevated to know the true way and preach it to others"?
the book is written 2000 years ago and translated again and again and again, who can possibly know now what the true meaning of the words are?

only the God within ;-)

You can, It's really not that hard. If I right down that the sky is blue today or that on 3/15/2011 there was a full moon, it's fairly easy for someone twenty or two hundrend or two thousand years from now to understand what I meant. That the Sky is Blue and the moon was full.

Your problem lies in that your trying to take your own meaning out of the Bible. You want it to mean what you think it does and not what the writer intended it to be.

If your going to ask how do I know what the writer intended it to mean well thats simple. Seeing as most of the writers flat out told you. Like John wrote

"I have written these things that you may read them and believe"

or when Jesus explained many of his parables to his disciples or maybe by looking at the context of the letter.

I'm not saying that there isn't any confusing or mysterious stuff in the Bible. I am saying that it's pretty straight forward for the most part.

When Jesus says make disciples of every nation and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. You can't really take away to many meanings from that. Not without questionable logic.
 
I find it interesting how it is believed that a perfectly loving god would want to be worshiped.

When the idea of worship, Love and the divine become intertwined, it creates interesting perspectives indeed, doesn't it?

Worship isn't desirable to Love. I'd really like to explain why, but if this isn't already obvious to you, please read my "Love?" thread. At least I hope you will have an idea of why it is obvious to me. Worship is sought by takers. The purest Love can be completely tacit and it doesn't require or even remotely desire something in return (e.g. acknowledgement).


Agapooka
 
You can, It's really not that hard. If I right down that the sky is blue today or that on 3/15/2011 there was a full moon, it's fairly easy for someone twenty or two hundrend or two thousand years from now to understand what I meant. That the Sky is Blue and the moon was full.

Your problem lies in that your trying to take your own meaning out of the Bible. You want it to mean what you think it does and not what the writer intended it to be.

If your going to ask how do I know what the writer intended it to mean well thats simple. Seeing as most of the writers flat out told you. Like John wrote

"I have written these things that you may read them and believe"

or when Jesus explained many of his parables to his disciples or maybe by looking at the context of the letter.

I'm not saying that there isn't any confusing or mysterious stuff in the Bible. I am saying that it's pretty straight forward for the most part.

When Jesus says make disciples of every nation and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. You can't really take away to many meanings from that. Not without questionable logic.

what is straight forward is that there is no use in arguing with people who has a fixed mind on the topic
 
I find it interesting how it is believed that a perfectly loving god would want to be worshiped.

When the idea of worship, Love and the divine become intertwined, it creates interesting perspectives indeed, doesn't it?

Worship isn't desirable to Love. I'd really like to explain why, but if this isn't already obvious to you, please read my "Love?" thread. At least I hope you will have an idea of why it is obvious to me. Worship is sought by takers. The purest Love can be completely tacit and it doesn't require or even remotely desire something in return (e.g. acknowledgement).


Agapooka

I used to have a problem with worship, it bugged me alot. The Idea that God wants us to fall down face in the dirt at his feat bothered me. Or that God wants us to nothing but sing songs about how awesome he is and shout how cool it is to be his.

It seems so narcissistic right?


But I have to disagree with you about one thing, Love does crave acknowledgement, it yearns for return. Unrequited love is the most painful thing I can possibly imagine. It hurt more then any physical wound.

Edit:

I've read your thread, I still disagree. The Idea that love has no selfish connotations is impossible. Using the lose definition of selfish that you wanting something is selfish then the word is no longer a negative but a neutral.

what is straight forward is that there is no use in arguing with people who has a fixed mind on the topic

No more fixed then yours.
 
Last edited:
We don't know that various biblical texts haven't been designed deceitfully or subverted

Christendom couldn't even agree on various principles such as the nature of Christ so they met a number of times at synods, for example at Nicea. Some argued that Jesus was made up of two natures: human and divine. Of those some believed that these natures were like water and wine: they mixed together to make a whole. Others argued they were like water and oil and seperate. Arians argued that he was just a man.

Anyway the point is that HUMANS got together and decided on the official line of how they were going to package christianity for the masses....so all these claims of certainty revolving around the bible and around the figure of Jesus are built on what evidence?

I don't know how much of this Dan Brown has covered but i know he has written stuff on the Knights Templars and on Rosslyn Chapel

My country (Scotland) is run by Freemasons. There are more lodges in Scotland than in the rest of the world. Lodge 0 is here (Kilwinning). One of the masonic rites is the 'Scottish Rite'.

There does also seem to be clear links with the Knights Templar. For example one of the prominant Norman families is the Sinclairs (or St Clairs). Here's a list of the grand masters of the grand lodge of Scotland.The first grand master, as you can see, is a Sinclair:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Masters_of_the_Grand_Lodge_of_Scotland

The sinclair chapel (Rosslyn) contains templar carvings and pagan imagery, such as the archetypal figure of renewal, the green man:
3865433397_49f89e7060.jpg


One version of history says that Hugues De Payens (one of the founding knights of the Templars) was married to Catherine St.Clair.

When the Templars were persecuted by the Catholic Church the only places in Christendom they could flee to was Scotland and Portugal.

Scotland was being ruled by Robert the Bruce who had been excommunicated by the Catholic Church for stabbing to death a rival for the crown (Comyn) in a church, on holy ground so Scotland was outwith the influence of the catholic church. The Templars helped the Bruce defeat the English at Bannockburn and were rewarded with lands around Scotland. One giveaway that Templars owned a place is the place names. Names you will find in Scotland a lot include the words: 'Rose', 'Temple', 'Mount'

The Templars had their headquarters on the Temple Mount on Jerusalem and their preceptory in Scotland was called 'Temple'

The rose has spiritual significance because the gnostic path (the Templars were influenced by gnosticism and Kabbalah) is the rose cross path (Rosicrucians/rose-croix/rose cross)

The rose (jesus) represents man or the microcosm pinned to the cross, representing the cosmos or the macrocosm.

These words are also found in the family names of elite Norman families such as the Roseberry's who were a prominant family in Scotland. One of them married a Rothschild daughter and then became the Prime Minister of Britain. These words are also in the street names in Edinburgh and towns, houses and villages like: Montrose (Mount-Rose), Mount Stuart, Rosewell....you see it everywhere once you are looking for it

The gnostics believe that we all have a divine spark within us and that it is possible for us to experience the divine in this life (the sufis also believed this and the Temlplars came into contact with their ideas whilst in the Holyland as well. The holyland was sitting at a crossroads on the trade routes between the east (as far as China and India) and the west (as possibly as far as America...see the 'Westford Knight' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westford_knight and bit about America below). Spiritual ideas were flowing along these trade routes from China and India and all these ideas were flowing into the middle east.

There is an idea that those in the occult world knew about the Americas before Colombus went there. The red cross on the sails of his ships is the cross of the Templars. The Sinclairs (Earls of Orkney and of viking lineage) possibly voyaged to the Americas. The vikings it is now accepted (since remains of a viking settlement were found in the 1960's) went to the americas before Columbus did. There is of course the legend of Atlantis a land destroyed in a cataclysmic deluge, whose survivors possibly settled in egypt as it is written on the walls of a temple there. The Egyptians told Solon about Atlantis...at least that's Plato's version of the story. They would have been a sea faring people with links to the Americas and scientists have now found tabacco and cocaine in Egyptian mummies...plants only found in the Americas (here's a programme on it: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-mystery-of-the-cocaine-mummies)

Thor Heyerdahl famously proved it was possible to cross the pacific ocean on a reed boat (the kon-tiki). By the time the Americas had been officially 'discovered' by Columbus the Rosicrucian Francis Bacon wrote a piece called 'the new Atlantis' outlining the plan to create a new world in the Americas....a blueprint for the secret societies, who then in time ousted the British thrown and took control of the US. Many of those that drew up the declaration of independance were freemasons.

151141George-Washington-1732-99-as-a-Freemason-Posters.jpg


washington_toga.jpg


he's pointing to the heavens and the ground....the macrocosm and the microcosm.

Washington monument, which is a solar phalic symbol...the water represents the female aspect:

washington_monument.jpg




That was a bit of a random detour but back to the gnostics. the idea that we all have a divine spark within us is highly heretical to the Catholic church which wants to externalise god. They do this so that they can place themselves between the people and god and call themselves the intercessionaries between us and god, which of course gives them power. Also they get everyone from every catholic community to tell them all their dirty secrets (confessing sins) so that they hold power over people. This trick is also used in initiations of secret societies such as the skull and bones society in Yale University.

Here is the Catholic churches own phallic symbol in the middle of the vatican in a solar wheel:
piazza-sanpietro-big.jpg



And the sun in the basilica ceiling:

rome_st_peter_2.jpg


Jesus represents solar consciousness and the sun that rises everyday and is a continuation of the sun god helios.

Once the Templars were in Scotland they took over the powerful stone mason guild and created Freemasonry. From there it expanded out into the world. After the 'union of the crowns' in 1707 which unified Scotland and England there was within a very short space of time grand lodges opening in the capital cities: London (1717), Edinburgh (1736) and Dublin (1725).

It appears that Freemasonry is in the lowest degrees a continuance of the mystery schools. These existed around the mediteranean: Isis mystery school in egypt, Mithras school in persia, Elusis in Greece. These schools had initiaition ceremonies where people were given something, told something and shown something. A christian, catholic priest tried to ridicule the ceremony by saying that what the heirophants (who lead the initiations) did was hold up a grain of wheat (do i mean wheat? Some crop anyway).....but this is slightly hipocritical when you think of what the catholic mass involves....which is holding up a piece of bread (made from wheat) and wine (made from grapes). Both these things are the fruit of the sun. You are not consuming Jesus, you are consuming the produce of the sun.

Here's a video of a talk for the Theosophical society by a freemason which talks about the origins of freemasonry. Obviously he is limited in what he can say and certainly doesn't mention that the upper degrees of freemasonry are about Qabalah and sex magic:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1913913188318395102#

Anyway, i've rambled on a bit.....

I do however think it's a good idea to question everything...including what i have said....for all i know i might be wrong in some elements. I have no definitive answers just lots of pieces of a giant puzzle i'm trying to piece together

In summary there are many ideas about the divine residing within us. Christianity grew out of this melting pot of ideas in the middle east & roman empire like: Pythagoreanism, platonism, kabbalah, buddhism, hinduism, sufism etc)

Christianity is arrogant if it sees itself in isolation...it can't even make up it's own mind what it is, from early on it was divided and is to this day full of schisms! Many in the greek speaking world thought that Islam was just a heretical from of christianity when it came onto the scene...the two do not exist in isolation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Morgain
We don't know that various biblical texts haven't been designed deceitfully or subverted

Christendom couldn't even agree on various principles such as the nature of Christ so they met a number of times at synods, for example at Nicea. Some argued that Jesus was made up of two natures: human and divine. Of those some believed that these natures were like water and wine: they mixed together to make a whole. Others argued they were like water and oil and seperate. Arians argued that he was just a man.

Anyway the point is that HUMANS got together and decided on the official line of how they were going to package christianity for the masses....so all these claims of certainty revolving around the bible and around the figure of Jesus are built on what evidence?

I don't know how much of this Dan Brown has covered but i know he has written stuff on the Knights Templars and on Rosslyn Chapel

My country (Scotland) is run by Freemasons. There are more lodges in Scotland than in the rest of the world. Lodge 0 is here (Kilwinning). One of the masonic rites is the 'Scottish Rite'.

There does also seem to be clear links with the Knights Templar. For example one of the prominant Norman families is the Sinclairs (or St Clairs). Here's a list of the grand masters of the grand lodge of Scotland.The first grand master, as you can see, is a Sinclair:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Masters_of_the_Grand_Lodge_of_Scotland

The sinclair chapel (Rosslyn) contains templar carvings and pagan imagery, such as the archetypal figure of renewal, the green man:
3865433397_49f89e7060.jpg


One version of history says that Hugues De Payens (one of the founding knights of the Templars) was married to Catherine St.Clair.

When the Templars were persecuted by the Catholic Church the only places in Christendom they could flee to was Scotland and Portugal.

Scotland was being ruled by Robert the Bruce who had been excommunicated by the Catholic Church for stabbing to death a rival for the crown (Comyn) in a church, on holy ground so Scotland was outwith the influence of the catholic church. The Templars helped the Bruce defeat the English at Bannockburn and were rewarded with lands around Scotland. One giveaway that Templars owned a place is the place names. Names you will find in Scotland a lot include the words: 'Rose', 'Temple', 'Mount'

The Templars had their headquarters on the Temple Mount on Jerusalem and their preceptory in Scotland was called 'Temple'

The rose has spiritual significance because the gnostic path (the Templars were influenced by gnosticism and Kabbalah) is the rose cross path (Rosicrucians/rose-croix/rose cross)

The rose (jesus) represents man or the microcosm pinned to the cross, representing the cosmos or the macrocosm.

These words are also found in the family names of elite Norman families such as the Roseberry's who were a prominant family in Scotland. One of them married a Rothschild daughter and then became the Prime Minister of Britain. These words are also in the street names in Edinburgh and towns, houses and villages like: Montrose (Mount-Rose), Mount Stuart, Rosewell....you see it everywhere once you are looking for it

The gnostics believe that we all have a divine spark within us and that it is possible for us to experience the divine in this life (the sufis also believed this and the Temlplars came into contact with their ideas whilst in the Holyland as well. The holyland was sitting at a crossroads on the trade routes between the east (as far as China and India) and the west (as possibly as far as America...see the 'Westford Knight' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westford_knight and bit about America below). Spiritual ideas were flowing along these trade routes from China and India and all these ideas were flowing into the middle east.

There is an idea that those in the occult world knew about the Americas before Colombus went there. The red cross on the sails of his ships is the cross of the Templars. The Sinclairs (Earls of Orkney and of viking lineage) possibly voyaged to the Americas. The vikings it is now accepted (since remains of a viking settlement were found in the 1960's) went to the americas before Columbus did. There is of course the legend of Atlantis a land destroyed in a cataclysmic deluge, whose survivors possibly settled in egypt as it is written on the walls of a temple there. The Egyptians told Solon about Atlantis...at least that's Plato's version of the story. They would have been a sea faring people with links to the Americas and scientists have now found tabacco and cocaine in Egyptian mummies...plants only found in the Americas (here's a programme on it: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-mystery-of-the-cocaine-mummies)

Thor Heyerdahl famously proved it was possible to cross the pacific ocean on a reed boat (the kon-tiki). By the time the Americas had been officially 'discovered' by Columbus the Rosicrucian Francis Bacon wrote a piece called 'the new Atlantis' outlining the plan to create a new world in the Americas....a blueprint for the secret societies, who then in time ousted the British thrown and took control of the US. Many of those that drew up the declaration of independance were freemasons.

151141George-Washington-1732-99-as-a-Freemason-Posters.jpg


washington_toga.jpg


he's pointing to the heavens and the ground....the macrocosm and the microcosm.

Washington monument, which is a solar phalic symbol...the water represents the female aspect:

washington_monument.jpg




That was a bit of a random detour but back to the gnostics. the idea that we all have a divine spark within us is highly heretical to the Catholic church which wants to externalise god. They do this so that they can place themselves between the people and god and call themselves the intercessionaries between us and god, which of course gives them power. Also they get everyone from every catholic community to tell them all their dirty secrets (confessing sins) so that they hold power over people. This trick is also used in initiations of secret societies such as the skull and bones society in Yale University.

Here is the Catholic churches own phallic symbol in the middle of the vatican in a solar wheel:
piazza-sanpietro-big.jpg



And the sun in the basilica ceiling:

rome_st_peter_2.jpg


Jesus represents solar consciousness and the sun that rises everyday and is a continuation of the sun god helios.

Once the Templars were in Scotland they took over the powerful stone mason guild and created Freemasonry. From there it expanded out into the world. After the 'union of the crowns' in 1707 which unified Scotland and England there was within a very short space of time grand lodges opening in the capital cities: London (1717), Edinburgh (1736) and Dublin (1725).

It appears that Freemasonry is in the lowest degrees a continuance of the mystery schools. These existed around the mediteranean: Isis mystery school in egypt, Mithras school in persia, Elusis in Greece. These schools had initiaition ceremonies where people were given something, told something and shown something. A christian, catholic priest tried to ridicule the ceremony by saying that what the heirophants (who lead the initiations) did was hold up a grain of wheat (do i mean wheat? Some crop anyway).....but this is slightly hipocritical when you think of what the catholic mass involves....which is holding up a piece of bread (made from wheat) and wine (made from grapes). Both these things are the fruit of the sun. You are not consuming Jesus, you are consuming the produce of the sun.

Here's a video of a talk for the Theosophical society by a freemason which talks about the origins of freemasonry. Obviously he is limited in what he can say and certainly doesn't mention that the upper degrees of freemasonry are about Qabalah and sex magic:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1913913188318395102#

Anyway, i've rambled on a bit.....

I do however think it's a good idea to question everything...including what i have said....for all i know i might be wrong in some elements. I have no definitive answers just lots of pieces of a giant puzzle i'm trying to piece together

In summary there are many ideas about the divine residing within us. Christianity grew out of this melting pot of ideas in the middle east & roman empire like: Pythagoreanism, platonism, kabbalah, buddhism, hinduism, sufism etc)

Christianity is arrogant if it sees itself in isolation...it can't even make up it's own mind what it is, from early on it was divided and is to this day full of schisms! Many in the greek speaking world thought that Islam was just a heretical from of christianity when it came onto the scene...the two do not exist in isolation.

tl;dr


edit:

skimmed it, most of it's conspiracy and arguments that have been disproved a hundred times over.


Christianity is not a sun worship religion, and can only be thought as so by reading your own thoughts into the Bible instead of trying
to figure out what the authors wrote.

Communion has nothing to do with the sun, it dates back to the Jews blessing their food and breaking bread before meals. And believe it or not, there was a Church before the Catholic Church.

Seeing as almost every convert in the early days of Christianity were jewish and the Jesus preached predominantly to Jews and was in fact himself a Jew that Christianity have more ties to Judaism. Along side of that Johns writing were noted as writing directly against the Gnosticism of his day which was working it's way into church theology(it is why he wrote the gospel of John and why it is different then the other Gospels).

If your wondering if you can trust the manuscripts we have now, don't or at least do your own research into them. We have more copies of biblical letters from before the catholic church was founded and before the fall of the Roman empire. The actual letters would have been written even earlier.

They do not deviate from one another in any large degree, the gospels you open up and read today look the same as those from 1000 years ago and the same as the ones even older then that.
 
Last edited:
We don't know that various biblical texts haven't been designed deceitfully or subverted

Christendom couldn't even agree on various principles such as the nature of Christ so they met a number of times at synods, for example at Nicea. Some argued that Jesus was made up of two natures: human and divine. Of those some believed that these natures were like water and wine: they mixed together to make a whole. Others argued they were like water and oil and seperate. Arians argued that he was just a man.

Anyway the point is that HUMANS got together and decided on the official line of how they were going to package christianity for the masses....so all these claims of certainty revolving around the bible and around the figure of Jesus are built on what evidence?

I don't know how much of this Dan Brown has covered but i know he has written stuff on the Knights Templars and on Rosslyn Chapel

My country (Scotland) is run by Freemasons. There are more lodges in Scotland than in the rest of the world. Lodge 0 is here (Kilwinning). One of the masonic rites is the 'Scottish Rite'.

There does also seem to be clear links with the Knights Templar. For example one of the prominant Norman families is the Sinclairs (or St Clairs). Here's a list of the grand masters of the grand lodge of Scotland.The first grand master, as you can see, is a Sinclair:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Masters_of_the_Grand_Lodge_of_Scotland

The sinclair chapel (Rosslyn) contains templar carvings and pagan imagery, such as the archetypal figure of renewal, the green man:
3865433397_49f89e7060.jpg


One version of history says that Hugues De Payens (one of the founding knights of the Templars) was married to Catherine St.Clair.

When the Templars were persecuted by the Catholic Church the only places in Christendom they could flee to was Scotland and Portugal.

Scotland was being ruled by Robert the Bruce who had been excommunicated by the Catholic Church for stabbing to death a rival for the crown (Comyn) in a church, on holy ground so Scotland was outwith the influence of the catholic church. The Templars helped the Bruce defeat the English at Bannockburn and were rewarded with lands around Scotland. One giveaway that Templars owned a place is the place names. Names you will find in Scotland a lot include the words: 'Rose', 'Temple', 'Mount'

The Templars had their headquarters on the Temple Mount on Jerusalem and their preceptory in Scotland was called 'Temple'

The rose has spiritual significance because the gnostic path (the Templars were influenced by gnosticism and Kabbalah) is the rose cross path (Rosicrucians/rose-croix/rose cross)

The rose (jesus) represents man or the microcosm pinned to the cross, representing the cosmos or the macrocosm.

These words are also found in the family names of elite Norman families such as the Roseberry's who were a prominant family in Scotland. One of them married a Rothschild daughter and then became the Prime Minister of Britain. These words are also in the street names in Edinburgh and towns, houses and villages like: Montrose (Mount-Rose), Mount Stuart, Rosewell....you see it everywhere once you are looking for it

The gnostics believe that we all have a divine spark within us and that it is possible for us to experience the divine in this life (the sufis also believed this and the Temlplars came into contact with their ideas whilst in the Holyland as well. The holyland was sitting at a crossroads on the trade routes between the east (as far as China and India) and the west (as possibly as far as America...see the 'Westford Knight' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westford_knight and bit about America below). Spiritual ideas were flowing along these trade routes from China and India and all these ideas were flowing into the middle east.

There is an idea that those in the occult world knew about the Americas before Colombus went there. The red cross on the sails of his ships is the cross of the Templars. The Sinclairs (Earls of Orkney and of viking lineage) possibly voyaged to the Americas. The vikings it is now accepted (since remains of a viking settlement were found in the 1960's) went to the americas before Columbus did. There is of course the legend of Atlantis a land destroyed in a cataclysmic deluge, whose survivors possibly settled in egypt as it is written on the walls of a temple there. The Egyptians told Solon about Atlantis...at least that's Plato's version of the story. They would have been a sea faring people with links to the Americas and scientists have now found tabacco and cocaine in Egyptian mummies...plants only found in the Americas (here's a programme on it: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-mystery-of-the-cocaine-mummies)

Thor Heyerdahl famously proved it was possible to cross the pacific ocean on a reed boat (the kon-tiki). By the time the Americas had been officially 'discovered' by Columbus the Rosicrucian Francis Bacon wrote a piece called 'the new Atlantis' outlining the plan to create a new world in the Americas....a blueprint for the secret societies, who then in time ousted the British thrown and took control of the US. Many of those that drew up the declaration of independance were freemasons.

151141George-Washington-1732-99-as-a-Freemason-Posters.jpg


washington_toga.jpg


he's pointing to the heavens and the ground....the macrocosm and the microcosm.

Washington monument, which is a solar phalic symbol...the water represents the female aspect:

washington_monument.jpg




That was a bit of a random detour but back to the gnostics. the idea that we all have a divine spark within us is highly heretical to the Catholic church which wants to externalise god. They do this so that they can place themselves between the people and god and call themselves the intercessionaries between us and god, which of course gives them power. Also they get everyone from every catholic community to tell them all their dirty secrets (confessing sins) so that they hold power over people. This trick is also used in initiations of secret societies such as the skull and bones society in Yale University.

Here is the Catholic churches own phallic symbol in the middle of the vatican in a solar wheel:
piazza-sanpietro-big.jpg



And the sun in the basilica ceiling:

rome_st_peter_2.jpg


Jesus represents solar consciousness and the sun that rises everyday and is a continuation of the sun god helios.

Once the Templars were in Scotland they took over the powerful stone mason guild and created Freemasonry. From there it expanded out into the world. After the 'union of the crowns' in 1707 which unified Scotland and England there was within a very short space of time grand lodges opening in the capital cities: London (1717), Edinburgh (1736) and Dublin (1725).

It appears that Freemasonry is in the lowest degrees a continuance of the mystery schools. These existed around the mediteranean: Isis mystery school in egypt, Mithras school in persia, Elusis in Greece. These schools had initiaition ceremonies where people were given something, told something and shown something. A christian, catholic priest tried to ridicule the ceremony by saying that what the heirophants (who lead the initiations) did was hold up a grain of wheat (do i mean wheat? Some crop anyway).....but this is slightly hipocritical when you think of what the catholic mass involves....which is holding up a piece of bread (made from wheat) and wine (made from grapes). Both these things are the fruit of the sun. You are not consuming Jesus, you are consuming the produce of the sun.

Here's a video of a talk for the Theosophical society by a freemason which talks about the origins of freemasonry. Obviously he is limited in what he can say and certainly doesn't mention that the upper degrees of freemasonry are about Qabalah and sex magic:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1913913188318395102#

Anyway, i've rambled on a bit.....

I do however think it's a good idea to question everything...including what i have said....for all i know i might be wrong in some elements. I have no definitive answers just lots of pieces of a giant puzzle i'm trying to piece together

In summary there are many ideas about the divine residing within us. Christianity grew out of this melting pot of ideas in the middle east & roman empire like: Pythagoreanism, platonism, kabbalah, buddhism, hinduism, sufism etc)

Christianity is arrogant if it sees itself in isolation...it can't even make up it's own mind what it is, from early on it was divided and is to this day full of schisms! Many in the greek speaking world thought that Islam was just a heretical from of christianity when it came onto the scene...the two do not exist in isolation.

I have a LOT to say on these subjects but unfortunately I am at work and cannot do so here. But I wanted to say that I've read this thread and am fascinated.

I've read Dan Brown's books. I've read a lot of other articles and seen documentaries on the topics covered in the posts. I'll come back when I have the time to collect my thoughts and contribute.
 
The Gnostics did not believe that we all have a divine spark within us. (That's the Quakers). The Gnostics believed that most humans where Hylics or Somatics, who were completely devoid of any divine or spiritual substance and incapable of grasping gnosis or attaining salvation. Above them were the psychics, who were made of the same sort of spiritual substance as the creator god, and above them the pneumatics (what gnostics tended to consider themselves) made of a higher spiritual substance from the pleroma and fully capable of being reunited with the godhead. To the gnostics salvation was the escape the physical realm, so they had an obsession with death and a hatred for the notion of the resurrection. Most of Christs's disciples were considered mere Somatics, who were completely incapable of understanding his true message and were kept around by the salvific Aeon just because he enjoyed mocking their ignorance. (The canonical Christ never laughs, while the Gnostic Christ laughs frequently and maliciously.) Often Judas Iscariot was considered the one disciple capable of attaining gnosis, and his death is seen as a reward rather than punishment.
 
Also, I don't think it's "lost knowledge" that we find truth within. That's a very romantic and humanistic idea that I've shared for a while. No big revelations there but I still do appreciate this thread though.
 
The Gnostics did not believe that we all have a divine spark within us. (That's the Quakers). The Gnostics believed that most humans where Hylics or Somatics, who were completely devoid of any divine or spiritual substance and incapable of grasping gnosis or attaining salvation. Above them were the psychics, who were made of the same sort of spiritual substance as the creator god, and above them the pneumatics (what gnostics tended to consider themselves) made of a higher spiritual substance from the pleroma and fully capable of being reunited with the godhead. To the gnostics salvation was the escape the physical realm, so they had an obsession with death and a hatred for the notion of the resurrection. Most of Christs's disciples were considered mere Somatics, who were completely incapable of understanding his true message and were kept around by the salvific Aeon just because he enjoyed mocking their ignorance. (The canonical Christ never laughs, while the Gnostic Christ laughs frequently and maliciously.) Often Judas Iscariot was considered the one disciple capable of attaining gnosis, and his death is seen as a reward rather than punishment.

I'm aware of all this. What i am saying in my post is that there are many different ideas. THERE ARE DIFFERENT FORMS OF GNOSTICISM

There isn't much agreement at all.

However the power elites throughout the ages have held certain knowledge passed down and that includes the Catholic church
 
tl;dr


edit:

skimmed it, most of it's conspiracy and arguments that have been disproved a hundred times over.


Christianity is not a sun worship religion, and can only be thought as so by reading your own thoughts into the Bible instead of trying
to figure out what the authors wrote.

Communion has nothing to do with the sun, it dates back to the Jews blessing their food and breaking bread before meals. And believe it or not, there was a Church before the Catholic Church.

Seeing as almost every convert in the early days of Christianity were jewish and the Jesus preached predominantly to Jews and was in fact himself a Jew that Christianity have more ties to Judaism. Along side of that Johns writing were noted as writing directly against the Gnosticism of his day which was working it's way into church theology(it is why he wrote the gospel of John and why it is different then the other Gospels).

If your wondering if you can trust the manuscripts we have now, don't or at least do your own research into them. We have more copies of biblical letters from before the catholic church was founded and before the fall of the Roman empire. The actual letters would have been written even earlier.

They do not deviate from one another in any large degree, the gospels you open up and read today look the same as those from 1000 years ago and the same as the ones even older then that.

You haven't dissproved anything.....you can't make it untrue by saying it is untrue and you can't just wish it away

I am talking about knowledge passed down from before the Catholic Church. The jews were exiled to Babylon and were influenced by Babylonian ideas

The point i am making is that the middle east was a melting pot of ideas and beliefs and christianity grew out of that

As for trusting manuscripts. History books always have a bias and you should be as cautious with religious manuscripts as with history books.

The dead sea scrolls have been found which are adding new understanding and more will be found yet.

Different branches of the church have different beliefs eg The Syriac, The Coptics, Orthodox, Catholic etc