L 0 K 1 on Nostr: It is also obvious that it's what you should be following, not the mangled bible. ...

It is also obvious that it's what you should be following, not the mangled bible.

Simon bar Giora is a historical person who was mixed in with the Jesus character in the books too. They made much use of this in Life of Brian, which was largely based on this person, who was well known by all the contemporary historians as a once loved, then hated Jewish revolutionary. The reason, also, why the Torah spews so much vitriol at him.

I haven't finished my first read through, but I strongly suspect that Enoch even has a vision that tells you the whole story of the last 2000 years, the 1000 years of Christianity, followed by 1000 years of satanism.

For me the most important thing is that the Angels, and their leader, were HUMANS, and the entire edifice of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are a form of cargo cult. I already saw pretty convincing arguments some time back that the majority of the Old Testament was related to a propaganda campaign to sell a war against Palestine.

It does not materially change anything. The "fictional" Jesus is based on one of the "Angels". For me, the sticking point came when I read Revelation 21, because the expression "Morning Star" means an archangel. As in, Gabriel, Uriel, Michael, the others, that I don't recall exactly. Gabriel was supposedly involved in the birth story, but since that's all in question to me, it is most likely false, since the birth and resurrection story are from Sun God mythology. Which is cult of kings stuff. And the Trinity, haha. Straight out of the story of Babylon.

The "Angels" who had the "War in Heaven" this war was about the exploitation of the more primitive humans, and the interbreeding with them that yielded extraordinarily tall and strong "giants". Yeah, like Goliath, even. It doesn't go as far back as the modern orthodoxy claims, but it goes further back than what people often believe, the 6000 years story. That actually clearly dates it as Sumerian/Phonecian, and is completely false as any kind of "literal" truth as is the belief of catholic and protestant christianity.

Anyhow, it's the most important book, because it is the oldest and it was censored by TPTB around 1700 years ago, so much so it only reappeared in the 19th century.

The best part though, is it makes the entire "Second Coming" thing a lot more concrete and meaningful to me, as also the "Bright and Morning Star"

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22&version=NIV

>16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

The reason why this verse bothers me is that "Morning Star" is also found in several places in the Old Testament as referring to archangels, and THE Morning star, definite article, is supposedly the same individual called "The Serpent" in Genesis.

Cannot Compute.

For me this is the most glaring inconsistency of the Catholic curated Bible.

Clearly "Lucifer" is not Jesus. And clearly also, the verse is not literal because how can an individual be both the great grand-daddy AND the latest offspring of the Jewish royalty???

Did you know that the English royalty (and by extension the entire european royalty) are also, supposedly "offspring of David"?

Yeah. hm. I'm not worshipping that, I don't care what you say.

And Revelation 22:8-9:

> 8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. 9 But he said to me, “Don’t do that! *I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets* and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!”

Is this not saying that a historically recorded MAN, is equal to an Angel? By the words of the Angel himself??? And this angel claims to have identity with Jesus.