Jump to content

The cult of Baal , the map , the ancient original death cult above them all, the first one


Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:


oh!  Moloch may be the same god as Milcom, Adad-Milki, or an epithet for Baal. So its sort of under the same roof as Baal death cult too then? Because Moloch appears to be a horned being also. Hence my confusion.
237px-Moloch_the_god.gif      

image.jpeg.552fdff0a2efd3350284fedc5d85569f.jpeg

That is Bohemian Grove massive depiction of an owl.

Yes, so Baal is the Bull and Moloch/Molech is the owl. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TheConsultant said:

oh!  Moloch may be the same god as Milcom, Adad-Milki, or an epithet for Baal. So its sort of under the same roof as Baal death cult too then? Because Moloch appears to be a horned being also. Hence my confusion.

 

Just about to post about Moloch. Yes, the Canaanite's didn't just worship Baal, there are others.

 

From Wiki (see its great for some things)

 

Moloch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moloch (/ˈmoʊlɒk/; Biblical Hebrew: מֹלֶךְ Mōleḵ or הַמֹּלֶךְ‎ hamMōleḵ;[a] Ancient Greek: Μόλοχ, Latin: Moloch; also Molech or Molek) is a name or a term which appears in the Hebrew Bible several times, primarily in the book of Leviticus. The Bible strongly condemns practices which are associated with Moloch, practices which appear to have included child sacrifice.[1]

 

Traditionally, Moloch has been understood as referring to a Canaanite god.[2] However, since 1935, scholars have debated whether or not the term refers to a type of sacrifice on the basis of a similar term, also spelled mlk, which means "sacrifice" in the Punic language.[3] This second position has grown increasingly popular, but it remains contested.[4] Among proponents of this second position, controversy continues as to whether the sacrifices were offered to Yahweh or another deity, and whether they were a native Israelite religious custom or a Phoenician import.[5]

 

Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

whoa, wait a second, child sacrifices offered to Yahweh! isn't that another name used for Jesus? or much like most things in this world its inverted.

 

Yes, names, whats in a name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the name Astarte?

 

Recognize her. She's another Canaanite god.

 

From Hislops's - The Two Babylons

 

Chapter III 
Section II 
Easter
Then look at Easter. What means the term Easter itself? It is not a Christian name. It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven, whose name, as pronounced by the people Nineveh, was evidently identical with that now in common use in this country. That name, as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments, is Ishtar. The worship of Bel and Astarte was very early introduced into Britain, along with the Druids, "the priests of 
the groves."

 

So, Easter is Astare worship, associated with Fertility and Easter is when the Earth regenerates back into life. Astarte is a Canaanite god - so yes, Christians celebrating Easter are celebrating the Ancient Pagan religions of Canaanites and Phoenicians.

 

Do you see it yet? - its everywhere and its not the Jews. When they created Christianity, they just changed the names. 

Edited by pi3141
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, pi3141 said:

What about the name Astarte?

 

Recognize her. She's another Canaanite god.

 

From Hislops's - The Two Babylons

 

Chapter III 
Section II 
Easter
Then look at Easter. What means the term Easter itself? It is not a Christian name. It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven, whose name, as pronounced by the people Nineveh, was evidently identical with that now in common use in this country. That name, as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments, is Ishtar. The worship of Bel and Astarte was very early introduced into Britain, along with the Druids, "the priests of 
the groves."

 

So, Easter is Astare worship, associated with Fertility and Easter is when the Earth regenerates back into life. Astarte is a Canaanite god - so yes, Christians celebrating Easter are celebrating the Ancient Pagan religions of Canaanites and Phoenicians.

 

Do you see it yet? - its everywhere and its not the Jews. When they created Christianity, they just changed the names. 

Do Christmas next...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Morpheus said:

Yes, so Baal is the Bull and Moloch/Molech is the owl. 

 

It was Thomas Sheridan who made me question whether Molech, an alleged deity allegedly associated with child sacrifice, is in fact an owl. Sheridan states that this is not correct and that Molech is in fact a man with a bull's head. Although a mainstream source, Wikipedia does not suggest on its page about Molech that it was an owl deity but rather that it was a "bull-headed idol".

 

Aside from the so-called representation of Molech at Bohemian Grove as an owl as perpetuated by Alex Jones, I have been unable to find any further reliable sources claiming this to be the case. In fact the owl at Bohemian Grove could instead represent Minerva, goddess of wisdom and the arts.

 

It is becoming more widely believed that "Molech" referred to the experience of the sacrifice itself rather than a deity and that these offerings could have been made to Yahweh or another idol.

 

Further still, John Allegro in his 'The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross' (already mentioned in this thread by @pi3141) has an entirely different interpretation of Molech. He proposed that the Leviticus 18:21-23 prohibition to Molech did not concern children but a man's seed / spermatozoa and within the context of regulating with whom a man could have sexual relations and where not to waste his seed. Philologically, Allegro relates the term Moloch back to Greek Mukes (mushrooms).

 

For those not familiar with Allegro's work, he postulates that the common source of various belief systems - including the patriarchal legends and Christianity itself - lies in an ancient fertility religion most likely arising in the Sumerian region. Allegro also proposed, coincidentally to some of what has already been mentioned in this thread, that Yahweh and Baal were one and the same phallic deity.

 

Quote

We must abandon then any over-simplification of the religious picture presented by the Old Testament: it is not the story of one people’s revolt against the heinous fertility worship of the land to which their desert god had led them. Despite the dramatic episode of Elijah on Mount Carmel, the theme is not Yahweh versus Baal. Yahweh was Baal, as he was Zeus and Jupiter. The names, as we have seen, sound a common note of sexual import. In any case, the old idea that the religion of Yahwism centred upon a glorification of the desert “purity” as against the orgiastic fertility practices of the sown land had never quite as much textual support as some of its propounders liked to think. (Page 192)

 

According to Allegro, this ancient fertility cult, starting out with crude fertility imagery "which saw a mighty penis in the sky ejaculating spermatozoa every time it rained" (page 191), paid particular reverence to sacred fungi as intoxicating whilst representing the phallic entry into the virgin volva and displaying characteristics of both sexes. The characteristics of the sacred fungi meant that "the remote phallic deity in the heavens could now be apprehended by the believer in possession of the secrets of the drug plants and fungi" (page 191).

 

In time this fertility cult, whilst at times driven underground, developed into a more sophisticated mystery religion with mushroom worship "an essential part of the oldest Hebrew heritage" (page 192) and Christianity "only a latter day manifestation of a religious movement that had been in existence for thousands of years" (page 194) with its texts and sacred names subjected to pseudo-translation.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

Do Christmas next...

 

Again from Hislop - 

 

How, then, did the Romish Church fix on December the 25th as Christmas-day? Why, thus: Long before the fourth century, and long before the Christian era itself, a festival was celebrated among the heathen, at that precise time of the year, in honour of the birth of the son of the Babylonian queen of heaven; and it may fairly be presumed that, in order to conciliate the heathen, and to swell the number of the nominal adherents of Christianity, the same festival was adopted by the Roman Church, giving it only the name of Christ. This tendency on the part of Christians to meet Paganism half-way was very early developed; and we find Tertullian, even in his day, about the year 230, bitterly lamenting the inconsistency of the disciples of Christ in this respect, and contrasting it with the strict fidelity of the Pagans to their own superstition. "By us," says he, "who are strangers to Sabbaths, and new moons, and festivals, once acceptable to God, the Saturnalia, the feasts of January, the Brumalia, and Matronalia, are now 
frequented; gifts are carried to and fro, new year's day presents are made with din, and sports and banquets are celebrated with uproar; oh, how much more faithful are the heathen to their religion, who take special care to adopt no solemnity from the Christians." Upright men strive to stem the tide, but in spite of all their efforts, the apostacy went on, till the Church, with the exception of a small remnant, was submerged under Pagan superstition. That Christmas was originally a Pagan festival, is beyond all 
doubt. The time of the year, and the ceremonies with which it is still celebrated, prove its origin. In Egypt, the son of Isis, the Egyptian title for the queen of heaven, was born at this very time, "about the time of the winter solstice." The very name by which Christmas is popularly known among ourselves--Yule-day --proves at once its Pagan and Babylonian origin. "Yule" is the Chaldee name for an "infant" or "little child"; * and as the 25th of December was called by our Pagan Anglo-Saxon ancestors, "Yuleday," or the "Child's day," and the night that preceded it, "Mother-night," long before they came in contact with Christianity, that sufficiently proves its real character. 


* From Eol, an "infant." In Scotland, at least in the Lowlands, the Yule-cakes are also 
called Nur-cakes. Now in Chaldee Nour signifies "birth." Therefore, Nur-cakes are 
"birth-cakes." The Scandinavian goddesses, called "norns," who appointed children their 
destinies at their birth, evidently derived their name from the cognate Chaldee word 
"Nor," a child.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TheConsultant said:

 

image.jpeg.552fdff0a2efd3350284fedc5d85569f.jpeg

That is Bohemian Grove massive depiction of an owl.

 

its called the 'cremation of care' ceremony

 

Care is the sacred feminine aspect whilst action is the sacred masculine. The 'father' is thought, the mother is your emotions and the son is the action you then take in accordance with how you think and feel about things; that's the trinity.

 

Your thoughts, feelings and actions should ideally be aligned. The elites however are doing a ritual there to remove the 'care' aspect of that process so that their thoughts and actions are unshackled from compassion and empathy and care.

 

They are going to simply carry out their will in accordance with their ego desires and compassion/care be damned

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

if you try to play the 'scholarly' card you should expect some push back because the entire academic scene is compromised

 

I agree but we have to hold on to some parts of reality. 2+2 does equal 4, my teacher taught me that and I have found it to be true.

 

E=MC2 helps us model many things, build bombs, but it may not be exactly right - in fact I am sure it is not, but I cannot prove it. I can just pick holes in its premise's and theory. Still, we can use it until we find better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

Do Christmas next...

 

Santa was a Shaman

 

The origins of Santa can be traced back to the Siberian and European North, where the practices of the native shamanism have uncanny resemblances to the traditions of Christmas. In particular, the Amanita muscaria is a significant connection between the two. Within groups of scholars who study these cultures, there is little debate that the Arctic shamans gave out mushrooms on the Winter Solstice. These medicine men would pick the Amanita in summer, hanging them to dry on the evergreen trees growing above them. The mushrooms may also be taken inside to dry by the fireplace, begging for comparison to stockings and a Christmas tree littered with red & white parcels. The drying of the mushrooms was one way to remove the toxins found in Amanita muscaria, while increasing the potency of psychedelic compounds. Come late December, on the Winter Solstice, the shaman would gather up the dried Amanitas and make use of the mushroom’s psychoactive effects to commune with the spiritual world and bring gifts of healing to the families, as they set intentions for the new year. If the hut’s doorways were covered in snow, the shaman would enter through an opening in the ceiling.

 

Link - https://rainbo.com/blogs/blog/santa-was-a-shaman

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:

For those not familiar with Allegro's work, he postulates that the common source of various belief systems - including the patriarchal legends and Christianity itself - lies in an ancient fertility religion most likely arising in the Sumerian region. Allegro also proposed, coincidentally to some of what has already been mentioned in this thread, that Yahweh and Baal were one and the same phallic deity.

 

Its more that the sun itself is seen as phallic or rather that it is the tip of the penis of the macrocosmic man

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pi3141 said:

Then look at Easter. What means the term Easter itself? It is not a Christian name. It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven, whose name, as pronounced by the people Nineveh, was evidently identical with that now in common use in this country. That name, as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments, is Ishtar. The worship of Bel and Astarte was very early introduced into Britain, along with the Druids, "the priests of 

the groves."

 

So, Easter is Astare worship, associated with Fertility and Easter is when the Earth regenerates back into life. Astarte is a Canaanite god - so yes, Christians celebrating Easter are celebrating the Ancient Pagan religions of Canaanites and Phoenicians.

 

Do you see it yet? - its everywhere and its not the Jews. When they created Christianity, they just changed the names. 

 

and the germanic goddess ostara......yes the goddess has many names so what?

 

what really matters though is YOUR relationship with the goddess. Are YOU cultivating CARE? What are the things you care about and are paying your attention to because those are the things that will then shape your reality

 

And are your actions guided by compassion and empathy and Care?

 

It doesn't really matter what name you give her. The question is whether or not you are engaging with her

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

i never said anything about the church

 

Not on this thread no but you have said - 

 

So the church did play a civilising role in northern europe. Its not all black and white. Christianity also played a major role in boosting literacy across europe.

 

And - 

 

yes your perception of matters is skewed by your hatred for christianity

 

if you were more objective you would look at the world as less black and white and you'd see that the church has had many civilising effects and that instead of trying to demonise european civilisation you would be able to see that european christendom delivered rights and freedoms and opportunities to women far earlier than elsewhere and that as i said the beguines enjoyed many freedoms and protections even in the medieval times

 

On this thread - Link - 

 

 

 

So you know, that gives me the impression that you think the church was a civilizing influence and therefore that it is a good influence or a force for good.

 

I hope you can see my reasoning.

 

Perhaps you can clarify - is the church, Christianity good or bad? 

 

Then I'll know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, pi3141 said:

Not on this thread no but you have said - 

 

So the church did play a civilising role in northern europe. Its not all black and white. Christianity also played a major role in boosting literacy across europe.

 

And - 

 

yes your perception of matters is skewed by your hatred for christianity

 

if you were more objective you would look at the world as less black and white and you'd see that the church has had many civilising effects and that instead of trying to demonise european civilisation you would be able to see that european christendom delivered rights and freedoms and opportunities to women far earlier than elsewhere and that as i said the beguines enjoyed many freedoms and protections even in the medieval time

 

you have taken that out of context because you have not quoted the part about how the church at the lateran council ruled that women could choose their own marriage partners

 

objectively therefore that is a tick that you have to give the church

 

the next point is about LITERACY and not the church per se but rather the fact the explosion of literacy across europe was largely down to people wanting to learn to read the bible

 

these are objective facts that you have to give credit for

 

another one i suggest credit should be given for is the role of christian morals and thoughts in the outlawing of slavery

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

44 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

The trap that some people fall into is that they grasp that there is a symbolic dimension to religions and learn about the astro-theological aspects of it and then they become incredibly disillusioned and may even feel anger that they were cheated by it all and they then think the entire thing is just an empty mechanistic story about the sun and the stars and they may even then turn angrily on their religion

 

But that is only one veil. There is a deeper significance to it all which is to see that it is alluding to the development of the Self. on one level Jesus can be equated to the sun, yes and certainly christmas is set at the time the sun goes down to the lowest point on its journey south before being reborn to bring longer warmer days again but he also represents the Self that must be enthroned in the Holy city of jerusalem which is to say in the temple of your mind

 

Those like the rev taylor locked only in a mechanistic conception of these things are trapped in left brain imbalance

 

Yes there is more to it - the Solar symbology is just one aspect to it. There are many other layers of knowledge, I know some of them, perhaps not all of them, the Bible is an astounding piece of work.

 

You haven't read my thread. You don't know me, your making assumptions and they are wrong. So, carry on Mac.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

is the ramblings of a moron. That will be understood across the world at some stage. Its accurate up to a point and then falls flat on its face.

 

It falls flat on its face at the premise. So they have to invoke 'Special Relativity' to get round it then we use 'Relativity' nano seconds after the Big Bang to explain it. I had one clown trying to tell me with Quantum Mechanics they can tell what happened before the Big Bang. Lol. I set him straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To understand the elites Baal worship (which is also echoed in the behaviour of the medical fraternity who are pushing the whole covid agenda and the midazolam/morphine medical murder) you just need to understand that they are locked in the 'left brain' which is to say that under the 'randomness' principle in this diagram. The trap those dark occultists fall into is that they identify ego-consciousness with the Self and as a result they fall into moral reletavism which in turn leads to eugencism and the behaviour we are seeing from bill gates and his ilk

 

e9d9b9eb7126ac6cd9a82c3475f7a320--cognit

 

 

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

1 hour ago, Macnamara said:

To understand the elites Baal worship (which is also echoed in the behaviour of the medical fraternity who are pushing the whole covid agenda and the midazolam/morphine medical murder) you just need to understand that they are locked in the 'left brain' which is to say that under the 'randomness' principle in this diagram. The trap those dark occultists fall into is that they identify ego-consciousness with the Self and as a result they fall into moral reletavism which in turn leads to eugencism and the behaviour we are seeing from bill gates and his ilk

 

e9d9b9eb7126ac6cd9a82c3475f7a320--cognit

 

Cheers for this Mac, I find the whole debate between free will & determinism heavy going and this illustrates some of the difficulties I have with the topic.

 
For example, putting free will into the random side suggests that what I think of as my free thinking and decision-making faculty is nothing more than random noise and therefore not capable of creating knowledge. Pure randomness doesn't really sound like free will at all. On the subject of moral relativism all I can add is that at least relativism can be demonstrated, whereas I've never yet seen a convincing proof of moral absolutism. Maybe that's my lack of education somewhere, I dunno.  

 
On the determinist side, saying that free will doesn't exist sounds contrarian because we need freedom of thought to discriminate between truth and falsehood; if our thoughts are determined, we can't really investigate anything because the whole process is pre-determined and we won't 'know' if it's true or not. So there's no point making any truth claims (but we can't stop ourselves from making them either!).  Also, if free will doesn't exist then how come it's claimed that God has the will to control things? We're in the same difficulty as claiming that God is the creator: but if so who creates God? 
   
I'm not trying to debate this difficult topic in detail here, which would derail the topic again. But the link with Baal worship is a new angle to me. You're suggesting a synthesis between the two sides which is interesting, as I've never felt happy with a simple dilemma of free will vs determinism - neither is satisfactory yet it's hard to articulate a good alternative. 

Edited by Campion
  • Like 1
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...