Jump to content

David Icke & Jesus


facere arbitrium
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 4/2/2021 at 5:01 AM, shabbirss said:

David Icke is a "son" of the Creator, as much as we are all "sons" and "daughters" of the Creator. - symbolically

 

David Icke is also a "sun" of the Creator in terms of the amount of knowledge-energy that he has channeled and is currently channeling.

- bringing Light into the equation


nowhere in that interview does he claim to be "jesus" / the messiah though

Sun God is Ra (Apollyon Satan) 

 

Jesus is EL Elyon. The source of all consciousness. 

 

David Icke is the witness on the left hand. 

David Icke is Elias (Elijah) 

Matthew 17:11 And G1161 Jesus G2424 answered G611 and said G2036 unto them, G846 Elias G2243 truly G3303 shall first G4412 come, G2064 and G2532 restore G600 all things. G3956

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2020 at 10:15 PM, facere arbitrium said:

Does anyone know why David went from believing he was Jesus to not believing in Jesus and Christianity or if there's anything to listen to where he describes that transition of thought in his experience?

I know some people find that stage in his life a little wacky or funny if they're viewing it superficially, but I reckon that's likely a really common experience for people going through spiritual development.

 

Indeed, I think that's a fair query. It's clear the Icke was enrolled in some kind of spiritual programme....... 

 

I don't want to bad-mouth Icke but I don't trust some of the people he used to associate with and maybe still does to this day.

 

I think Icke is alright, and has played with a straight bat, but people like Jordan Maxwell, who is clearly a Freemason and Theosophist had led Icke astray.

 

Just an opinion.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2021 at 2:29 PM, Grumpy Grapes said:

But what is David saying yes to? Yes, that the press were writing about him, or yes, that he's the son of god? 

I thought we were all sons annd daughters of God. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2021 at 9:29 AM, Grumpy Grapes said:

But what is David saying yes to? Yes, that the press were writing about him, or yes, that he's the son of god? 

 

 

Yes. Yes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I can only recommend to read the Nag Hammadi writings, which again give a much more modern picture of the whole. Finally, these writings were not so distorted by the church. The Nag Hammadi texts show a completely different picture of Jesus Christ. Also in relation to women and Mary Magdalene. Any religion that treats women as inferior is not balanced and therefore wrong.
And then you notice the falsifications in the official Bible edition. This is represented in the Nag Hammadi writings quite differently, Mary Magdalene is even Jesus his favorite disciple. And when the male disciples complain about it, and want to exclude her, Jesus explains quite well that they are wrong with their false women thinking.

Besides, Jesus mainly explains only how to get out of this false copy (matrix), and this requires a lot of courage and independent thinking.
The texts are not so easy to understand, you have to work yourself into it. Nothing for times briefly graze, that is a way and he is not so easy. And it is a lonely story, because you can only go through it alone, not with a group.

I am also of the opinion that much in the Nag Hammadi writings indicates that Jesus Christ is an extraterrestrial, and that there are many more ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nag Hammadi gospels are unfortunately, not reliable.

 

They are considered apocryphal for good reason, and were written in the 2nd Century AD and do not demonstrate any first hand knowledge of Jesus or the apostles.

 

I've been through them with an open mind, but these books are full of Gnostic nonsense about the Monad and emanation and a God called  Yaltabaoth who has a lion's head and a snake's body, it's just too silly, and hardly anything about Jesus.

 

The things Jesus is reported to have said in the Apocryphon of John for instance bear no resemblance to anything said in the other Gospels and this ought to alert us to their invention.

 

The gnostic text I do accept as a genuine account of the words of Jesus is the Gospel of Thomas.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Truthspoon said:

and do not demonstrate any first hand knowledge of Jesus or the apostles

 

For my information .... What do you accept as First Hand knowledge regarding Jesus? And if this is via a 'time limit' or a 'particular informant' .... How do you determine the validity of such?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ink said:

 

For my information .... What do you accept as First Hand knowledge regarding Jesus? And if this is via a 'time limit' or a 'particular informant' .... How do you determine the validity of such?

 

One applies the same standards one does to any historical text. It's about corroboration, do disparate texts generally cross reference and match up to each other to provide a consistent vision. Are there names, places referred to in the text that can be objectively shown to have existed. And are the texts consistent with events which transpired after the fact, and indeed before, so do they present a consistent historical framework.  I personally find the Nag Hammadi gospels (with the exception of the Gospel of Thomas) do not meet these criteria. 

 

Many of the fraudulent gospels such as the infamous gospel of Barnabas, can be demonstrated to have been an invention of the middle ages by Islamic writers due to many errors and anachronism in the text such as the storage of wine in oak casks which when at the time wine was stored in skins or clay vessel. Just a for instance.  

 

 

Edited by Truthspoon
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Truthspoon said:

It's about corroboration

 

Maybe .... but that is mainly via bias of the inhabitants of the time .... which is totally described by those who allow/hold the actual information.

 

In 2000 years, sars-cov-2 will be written as "A terrible plague visited upon all of human kind which killed 100's of millions, if not billions!" .... and (if any people exist then) that will be the consensus of opinion derived by corroboration via the cross referencing of available texts!

 

A bit like .... People currently stating that masks are 'fine' and the enforced wearing of same is of no concern!

My view of those people .... is that they may reside in a country which would NOT allow any departure from the 'rules' and so have formed a bias in their mind, which overrides any actual research (published papers or just common sense) in order not to disrupt the life style which they currently have!

 

If the current 'path' is not changed .... then 'history' in the future will be the same as 'history' of the past .... there is no way to corroborate any of it and so it is nothing more than "What serves the thoughts you hold!"

 

But that is only a simplistic view of mine and holds no ground, now or in 2K years!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will be two categories of texts available. Those of the 'establishment', in the past this was the Romans, and those of the truth community, the historical equivalent would be Christian texts, the rebels. 

 

I think the truth always comes out, albeit long after the fact. So now for instance we know that Nero ordered the burning of Rome and blamed it on Christians, just as, two thousand years or so from now, assuming humanity still exists, it will be a historical fact who really perpetrated 9-11. 

 

I think the truth is just too difficult to bury for too long.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Truthspoon said:

I think the truth is just too difficult to bury for too long.

 

In the past maybe .... but in the future .... there will be only one 'truth' or else! (unless the current path can be changed)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Truthspoon said:

There will be two categories of texts available. Those of the 'establishment', in the past this was the Romans, and those of the truth community, the historical equivalent would be Christian texts, the rebels. 

 

I think the truth always comes out, albeit long after the fact. So now for instance we know that Nero ordered the burning of Rome and blamed it on Christians, just as, two thousand years or so from now, assuming humanity still exists, it will be a historical fact who really perpetrated 9-11. 

 

I think the truth is just too difficult to bury for too long.

 

 

 

 

 

And according to Edgar Casey it wont be long before the truth outs, his texts say all the information man needs is under the spinx waiting to be discovered

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...