• November 2011
  • Why Persian King Cyrus The Great was a "Christ" according to Isaiah, but Jesus was Never|Who Really was Jesus, and was he really a "Christ"|Forum|Forum: Apocalypse & Armageddon

    Lost password?
    Advanced Search
    Forum Scope


    Forum Options

    Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
    sp_Feed Topic RSSsp_TopicIcon
    Why Persian King Cyrus The Great was a "Christ" according to Isaiah, but Jesus was Never
    July 25, 2012
    12:34 pm
    North America mostly
    Forum Posts: 174
    Member Since:
    November 11, 2011
    sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

      This started out because someone made a "Luciferian" prediction about the "Occult"  timing of the date of a comic book movie opening and something "bad" happening.  Well, they got "lucky," if you want to call it that, with the Denver shootings.

      I think it's safe to say I could make a prediction that something "bad" will happen this coming date of Halloween and then just sit back and wait until a church van full of kids gets hit by a drunk driver going the wrong way on a Freeway (this bit of a bad event has happened before) and then say "There's my proof."  And if nothing happens I'll just lay low and then make a "bad happening" prediction for New Year's Eve.  And like Jean Dixon, sooner or later I'll get lucky–or just tell people I really did predict something, enough times, so that they start repeating among themselves that I did predict it.
      But mainly once in awhile I like to remind people that "Lucifer" was killed in 538BCE by the Persian Messiah Cyrus The Great.  So that whenever someone starts talking about things "Luciferian" we remember they are seeking attention for themselves, or playing the "Esoteric" or "Occult" card to pick people's pockets as the Charlatan(s) they are.
      By the way, both the words "esoteric" and "occult" only mean things "hidden" like a magicians slight-of-hand and do not necessarily mean "supernatural knowledge."  The encyclopedia of history and science was once "Occulted" by a ban from the Catholic Church.  Books had to be "hidden" or get burned by Priests at the familiar Fahrenheit 451 degrees.
      "Lucifer" is a Latin Vulgate Bible translation nickname given, 900 years after the fact, to the co-regent (king) of Babylon, Belshazzar.  It was Lucifer/Belshazzar who saw the "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin" Biblical writing on the wall that we still refer to as a metaphor for imminent doom.
      "Lucifer" is killed in 538BCE by the Persian "Messiah (in Isaiah 45:1 the english "anointed" in the Hebrew idiom is "Messiah," simply a title of office of high-priests and kings)" Cyrus The Great.
      "Lucifer" is only mentioned one time in the whole of the Old Testament, and then today only in Latinesque versions in Isaiah 14:12 "How you are fallen from heaven (i.e. "the sky"), O Morning Star, son of the Dawn!" 
      Most Bible versions instead of Lucifer use the above "Morning Star," meaning the planet Venus as seen brightly in the morning sky, which the Babylon co-regent Belshazzar used as his self-exalted nickname.  So the imagery in Isaiah 14:12 is a metaphor for a "fallen king" as if the so-called "Morning Star (which is really the planet Venus)" had fallen from the sky, the heavens (small h).  This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Old Testament character of "Satan" from the book of Job, or any story about "fallen angels." 
      By backing up to the beginning of Isaiah 14 we see these words are nothing but a "taunt" over the deceased co-regent of Babylon: Isaiah 14:4 "…you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: …"  Only a king, only a deceased man, 900 years before his nickname "Light Bringer" is translated into Latin as "Lucifer." 
      And this is why most Bible translations today use "Morning Star" instead of "Lucifer" to get away from misunderstandings about this only being the king of Babylon.
      There is no story of "Lucifer and fallen angels" in the Old Testament.  That story comes from later writings outside the Bible, even though it gets repeated over and over again by Preachers and people "as if" it is in the Bible.
      I actually suggest people read the Bible for themselves, because most of what you think you know about the Bible is something that has been told to you as if it is a "fact."  No Adult with ANY reading comprehension skills whatsoever can actually read the Bible (as literature) and still attend a Church which is taking your money to push a supernatural, non-spiritual, agenda.  
      It's actually Churches that ask people to worship the supernatural.  It is Preachers who have blinded far too many of the modern Twenty-first Century Civilization for their own Gain.  Where is Jesus in stopping the Priestly child molestations, how well has prayer in Catholic schools solved this moral problem?  "Up is down and sideways is straight ahead."–Cord
      You cannot teach Spirituality with Lies!  And right now there are people trying to take over the laws of your country claiming their Biblical "facts" give them the right to tell you and yours what you can and cannot do like a subtle modern inquisition.
      Let's take a look at a couple of other "Preacher Lies."
      Isaiah 45:1  "Thus says the Lord to His Messiah, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and ungird the loins of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed:…"  This is Jewish Prophet Isaiah speaking about a Persian (not Jewish) king Cyrus The Great as the "Lord's Messiah."  And there is a very good reason why Isaiah is calling Cyrus this.  In the Greek idiom, that would make Cyrus the Lord's "Christ," as it would ALL english-on-purpose-mistranslated "anointed" characters, kings and high-priests (i.e. Saul, Samuel, David etc…), in the Old Testament.  They were all Officially "anointed" into Office.  They were ALL Official "Messiahs" and "Christs," hundreds of them.
      New Testament Jesus, however, was never Officially "anointed" into any Office as an Official king or high-priest, so Jesus was never an Authentic or a Historical "Christ," "Anointed one," or "Messiah."  Only "called" this title by his own little Cult who didn't even write up his supernatural story, as we know it, until decades after his death.
      This is why in both Matthew 1:1 and in Luke 3:23 these New Testament authors fabricate their fictional genealogies (family trees) for Jesus' adopted father "Joseph" to prove that Joseph's blood-line is of the Anointed Kingly line of David.  And if it is not bad enough that both Matthew's and Luke's genealogies totally disagree with each other, proving from the very first page of the New Testament in Mathew 1:1 that the Bible is not the "infallible word of God," but that it is a fabricated and embellished story from the very first sentences as neither genealogy in Matthew or Luke agree with the genealogies as given in the Old Testament non-Christian Jewish scriptures.
      And it only takes about 15 minutes to write out a list of both of these genealogies in Matthew and Luke side-by-side in 2 parallel columns to see this for yourself where anybody can NEVER tell you otherwise.  I like to show my list to Jehovah's Witnesses when they knock on my door–makes them go away scratching their heads.  And if the authors of Matthew and Luke are lying about Jesus' Dad's family tree(s) what else are they lying about?
      But if Jesus was immaculately conceived by a virgin birth, he wouldn't be of his adopted father Joseph's blood-line anyway, which makes Matthew's and Luke's genealogy embellishments all the more ridiculous.
      And just so when somebody brings this up (and somebody always does bring this up if you give them a little rope) one New Testament genealogy is NOT just for Joseph and the other New Testament genealogy just for Mary.  Preachers always try to lie or apologize their way out of every contradiction in the Bible.   Matthew only mentions 1:16 "…and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ."  Both New Testament genealogies are very specifically trying to establish the blood-line legitimacy for Joseph only.  And you Preachers asking your congregations for money…, you can't teach or base Spirituality on fallible Lies!
      Worse yet for Preachers, a careful reading of the first paragraph of Luke1:1 shows that Luke is telling you his Gospel is NOT an Eyewitness Account, but he is only writing a hearsay story from some time in the past (and one of many already in circulation he tells us) in the form of a "compiled narrative" so that it reads orderly for his friend who has already heard some previous rumors, Theophilus: Luke1:1 "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning all things of which you have been informed." 
      So Luke is not an eyewitness account to the life of Jesus although it is the most quoted Gospel as authentic by fundamentalists.
      Jesus may have been "called Christ," but Saul, Samuel and David (and Cyrus) were all authentic "Christs," "Messiahs" and "Anointed Ones."  The ONLY reason there are all these english mis-translation "anointed ones" in the Old Testament is because ALL the various Christian translators did this on purpose because they could not have you thinking that there were ever any other "Christs" or "Messiahs" running around as Biblical characters other than their one supernatural New Testament character, Jesus.
      Old Testament "Messiahs" or "Christs" were not meant to be supernatural "saviors."  In the New Testament Matthew 1:21 "…she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."  "Jesus" is New Testament Greek idiom for the Hebrew name "Joshua (thus the Aramaic "Yeshua" which some people seem to think they get brownie points with God by saying Yeshua instead of Jesus–as if God is that petty over the sound of a name)."  It is the Hebrew name "Joshua" which actually means "savior (Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, Jericho, Jericho…remember)."  Thus the New Testament character had to be called Joshua/Jesus/"savior," a New Testament "Joshua" to allegorically be a "savior" to this New Testament Cult, since obviously nobody had been a literal God chosen successful "savior" for Jerusalem once the Jews rebelled against the Romans and were crushed, killed and dispersed which was about the time the earliest Gospels were being written down about 66 - 70CE.  The End Of The World as they knew It.
      Ironically, the Old Testament Joshua whom you've been "told" conquered the entire "Holy Land" for the Jews, also never conquered Jerusalem: Joshua 15:63 "But the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the people of Judah could not drive out; so the Jebusites dwell with the people of Judah at Jerusalem to this day."  So Jerusalem is actually the older Old Testament city of Jebus, which was founded by the semitic Hyksos Dynasty of Egypt (1800BCE) whom were run out of Lower Egypt in an exodus by the Egyptian people in 1560BCE at the same time as the Thera/Santorini volcanic explosion would have been causing a turmoil of a series of natural disaster "plagues" in Egypt blamed on their semitic Hyksos host rulers not being in favor with the gods.
      To me what is ironic is that it is modern Preachers that give "manipulation power" to the words Luciferian, Satanic and The Devil that are then used by others to manipulate more deluded people.  The Goats leading the sheeple, and they all fall over the paradigm cliffs.
      So next time somebody tells you "Christ says…" interrupt them and say "Excuse me, do you mean The Anointed One says…" or "Do you mean Jesus Messiah says…,"  because they barely realize that the terms are interchangeable and think their term "Christ" means "God's Superhero."  You mean "Christ" isn't Jesus' last name! 
      But remember, their bipedal hominid baby Jesus born of another bipedal hominid virgin is also their anthropomorphic idolatrous fetish "God" paradigm busily in charge of this whole Infinitely huge Universe of which the Earth is but a speck of dust, and they've been known to turn the other cheek, but then burn heretics at the stake. 
      They do not want their Jesus/Joshua to just turn out to be only some Jewish Parable teaching Philosopher who thought all people were the Sons of God (and the Daughters of God) and deserve a level playing field in the Game of Life.
      And for all you Joshuas out there who over the years have asked me how could Mexican mothers dare name their sons after your Savior, Jesus; Et tu, Brute!
    Forum Timezone: America/New_York
    Most Users Ever Online: 169
    Currently Online:
    Guest(s) 1
    Currently Browsing this Page:
    1 Guest(s)
    Member Stats:
    Guest Posters: 3
    Members: 12
    Moderators: 0
    Admins: 2
    Forum Stats:
    Groups: 15
    Forums: 104
    Topics: 151
    Posts: 287
    Newest Members: