Luciferians like Loyola

[Anonymous]

Dude, are you kidding me?  You seriously think that the Catholic Church evolved from sun-worship?  I won't go into the fact that you think Saint Ignatius of Loyola and the Society of Jesus are conspirators, because that is ridick as well.  Come on, man...

[Anonymous]

The words are his.

There is no doubt that Christianity and most religions are derived from Heliopolitanism and sun (or son) worship. I have all proof necessary including their own words and the artifacts from archaeology.

So DUDE - - start to read and work on getting a better learning attitude too.

[Blackstream]

quote:Originally posted by runlola




hmmm for a minute there I thought you where talking about me dude

Luciferians like Loyola


well, I really don't like this guy if he is responsible for me
going through catechism & confirmation.

LOL!  That was the first thing that occured to me too.

[exothen]

Robert,

quote:There is no doubt that Christianity and most religions are derived from Heliopolitanism and sun (or son) worship. I have all proof necessary including their own words and the artifacts from archaeology.

And just what proof do you have for Christianity's derivation from sun worship?

[Anonymous]

The words of Ignatius Loyola above are the words of an initiate describing the experience of the ritual of Heliopolitanism. But I have thousands of other statements from them and their Saints; and you can look to the Father of Biblical Archaeology to see that the Bible is a Phoenician Literary Legacy. I have hundreds of well referenced scholarly presentations from many accepted scholars - do you know where Christ studied or do you believe that he never had to - just as most Christians do? Would you like a list of books and authors? Perhaps a Biblio from one of my books? Or you could read my book Diverse Druids and actually start some research of your own.

Start at John 10: 34.

[Moonburn33]

or how about how modern christianity and the concept of satan is based on the intermingling of zoroastrianism and messianic judeaism in rome.  or how the ten commandments were ripped off of earlier writings by egyptians.  

so what.  we know that every religion is a hodgepodge of religions that came before it.  you're presenting the information in a sensationalist way... wahoo.

and lucifer is not satan.

[Moonburn33]

and the druids worshipped a lot of things.  so what if they worshipped the sun.  they had a completely different symbolism and archetypal layout.  i'm tired of people citing the druids as being one of the few of the elite the bearers of secret occult knowledge.  here's a hint for you, just so you don't get sidetracked:  secret occult knowledge has to do with a person's own level of development, not conspiracies.  you need a mind capable of comprehending it.

[Anonymous]

Dear M

I did not say Lucifer is Satan. And I have the facts on the Druids more than you or any actual scholar - you will see a review by OBOD soon that gives me some credit even if they will be threatened by my assertion that there are no Druids today.

As to you quoting the law of the Magi and talking about what even the Britannica acknowledges about Zoroastrian roots of Christianity - that is fluff bunny stuff. Who are the Zoroastrians and from whence comes their knowledge?

Just so you know - top Rosicrucians have regarded me as an alchemist.

Do you know what a Baird (my last name) is?

[Anonymous]

A nutjob?

Start giving proof that we should stop believing Church's historical evidence and start believing yours.  And if these rose-cross people regard you as an alchemist, why don't you use your philosopher's stone and make some gold to sell?  Then you won't have to write books to make money and you can keep the secrets hidden.  A secret is not a secret if someone spills the beans.

[exothen]

So far, there is just a lot of hot air blowing around in here. Where is evidence for any of this from primary source material?

quote: do you know where Christ studied or do you believe that he never had to - just as most Christians do?

If Christ studied, it would have been around Galilee or Jerusalem. But he may not have, being the son of a carpenter.

quote:Or you could read my book Diverse Druids and actually start some research of your own

So I am to believe it's true because you say it's true? I have seen nothing in your posts to make me believe what you say is true.

[Moonburn33]

1. zoroastrians came from persia. the concept of the struggle between good and evil started back in the old traditions as the conflict in mankind's heart.  later traditions described the conflict as arising from an external source (Angra Mainyu).  these later traditions went on to influence a number of cults in rome, including christianity. this was actually the first monotheistic religion (dating before the  brief sun worship of egypt)(read "from the ashes of angels" or the classic "what the great religions believe")

2. in defense of you, robert, i will say that anyone who knows about the philosopher's stone and tries to use it to convert lead (or is it silver, i can't remember) into gold for money will lose the ability to do so.  i have no doubt about your credentials.

3. i'd like to see your sources on the druids. (just curious)
4.  i actually know someone with the last name of baird, so it doesn't always have druidic connotations.

[Anonymous]

Yes. there is lots of 'primary source material' in my books (many books). Look at the thread called The Star People and you will see a Table of Contents which has quotes from some authorities in many fields of science.

A Baird may not know hwat a Baird is - but this Baird does.

[Jarthur]

The idea that Loyola was a Luciferian certainly is interesting.  

I think it's relevant that during the reign of Constantine in the mid 4th century, there was unrest and constant threat of all out war in the Roman empire between followers of Mithraism and Christianity.

After having a vision that merged the the sun with the cross, the emperor Constantine decided that Mithraism, by far the most popular religion, would be absorbed into Christianity.. Amongst many other compromises , though,  the day of worship for the new amalgamate became Sunday (the holy day for Mithraism which was, of course, a Sun worshipping religion) instead of Saturday (the Jewish Sabbath).

Catholicism has a suprising number of similarities to the Sun worship religion.

"Long before the advent of Jesus, Mithra was said to have been born of a virgin mother, in a cave, at the time of Christmas, and died on a cross at Easter. Baptism was practised, and the sign of the cross was made on the foreheads of all newly-baptised converts. Mithra was considered to be the saviour of the world, conferring on his followers an eternal life in Heaven, and, similar to the story of Jesus, he died to save all others, provided that they were his followers " http://members.aol.com/MercStG/ChriMithPage1.html

In the early 1600's the conflict of ideology between Rosicrucians and the Jesuits came to a head with the 30 years war in western Europe. The nature of this conflict is well documented and presented by the historian Frances Yates in the book "The Rosicrucian Enlightenment".

The army of Christ founded by Loyola saved from certain death an institution that had been ensconced for many centuries as the mediator between man and God in the west.  The light and life recognized is the external light and the external, ritualized, religious life. That's the nature of an exoteric religion and it was, I think, the basis of the natural conflict with the esoteric order.

I think that the role of the Lucifer spirits is similar to the myth of Prometheus who stole fire from the gods and gave it to humanity. These mythical bringers of light are responsible for our minds and free will and therefore the ability to interact with the world as we do.

Personally I think it's entirely plausible that Loyola and his Jesuits are in fact Luciferians. The interesting thing is that so are Rosicrucians.

[Anonymous]

"RELATION TO CHRISTIANITY

A similarity between Mithra and Christ struck even early observers, such as Justin, Tertullian, and other Fathers, and in recent times has been urged to prove that Christianity is but an adaptation of Mithraism, or at most the outcome of the same religious ideas and aspirations (e.g. Robertson, "Pagan Christs", 1903). Against this erroneous and unscientific procedure, which is not endorsed by the greatest living authority on Mithraism, the following considerations must be brought forward. (1) Our knowledge regarding Mithraism is very imperfect; some 600 brief inscriptions, mostly dedicatory, some 300 often fragmentary, exiguous, almost identical monuments, a few casual references in the Fathers or Acts of the Martyrs, and a brief polemic against Mithraism which the Armenian Eznig about 450 probably copied from Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428) who lived when Mithraism was almost a thing of the past-these are our only sources, unless we include the Avesta in which Mithra is indeed mentioned, but which cannot be an authority for Roman Mithraism with which Christianity is compared. Our knowledge is mostly ingenious guess-work; of the real inner working of Mithraism and the sense in which it was understood by those who professed it at the advent of Christianity, we know nothing. (2) Some apparent similarities exist; but in a number of details it is quite probable that Mithraism was the borrower from Christianity. Tertullian about 200 could say: "hesterni sumus et omnia vestra implevimus" ("we are but of yesterday, yet your whole world is full of us"). It is not unnatural to suppose that a religion which filled the whole world, should have been copied at least in some details by another religion which was quite popular during the third century. Moreover the resemblances pointed out are superficial and external. Similarity in words and names is nothing; it is the sense that matters. During these centuries Christianity was coining its own technical terms, and naturally took names, terms, and expressions current in that day; and so did Mithraism. But under identical terms each system thought its own thoughts. Mithra is called a mediator; and so is Christ; but Mithra originally only in a cosmogonic or astronomical sense; Christ, being God and man, is by nature the Mediator between God and man. And so in similar instances. Mithraism had a Eucharist, but the idea of a sacred banquet is as old as the human race and existed at all ages and amongst all peoples. Mithra saved the world by sacrificing a bull; Christ by sacrificing Himself. It is hardly possible to conceive a more radical difference than that between Mithra taurochonos and Christ crucified. Christ was born of a Virgin; there is nothing to prove that the same was believed of Mithra born from the rock. Christ was born in a cave; and Mithraists worshipped in a cave, but Mithra was born under a tree near a river. Much as been made of the presence of adoring shepherds; but their existence on sculptures has not been proven, and considering that man had not yet appeared, it is an anachronism to suppose their presence. (3) Christ was an historical personage, recently born in a well known town of Judea, and crucified under a Roman governor, whose name figured in the ordinary official lists. Mithra was an abstraction, a personification not even of the sun but of the diffused daylight; his incarnation, if such it may be called, was supposed to have happened before the creation of the human race, before all history. The small Mithraic congregations were like masonic lodges for a few and for men only and even those mostly of one class, the military; a religion that excludes the half of the human race bears no comparison to the religion of Christ. Mithraism was all comprehensive and tolerant of every other cult, the Pater Patrum himself was an adept in a number of other religions; Christianity was essential exclusive, condemning every other religion in the world, alone and unique in its majesty."

[Jarthur]

Unfortunately for the Catholic Encyclopedia, the evidence we have today of Christianity's usurpation of the symbolism of ancient Sun based religions is so overwhelming that I'm surprised there's even an argument about this.

The major holiday in Christianity is Christmas. The 25th of December is the day the Sun begins it's journey back towards the tropic of Cancer. It reaches the tropic of Capricorn on the 21st of December, the winter solstice, and remains relatively immobile until the 25th when it begins the journey North.  The Sun was therefore considered to be born on that day.

Much more interesting though, is Easter.  That holiday is always the first Sunday after the full moon that occurs after the 21st of March, the spring Equinox.

The Sun on the 21st is directly over the equator.  On the day of the full moon, the moon is directly opposite the sun on the other side of the Earth forming the horizontal arm of the cross.  The Earth's axis forms the vertical pillar.  Thus the sun is said to be crucified, ie: it is involved in the phenomenal world; because Easter is after this has occured, the sun has, at that time, been resurected out of hell.

All this symbolism has existed and been known since time immemorial.  

Edit: by the way, in no way do these facts weaken Christianity.  On the contrary, it is a major strength in my view.

[Anonymous]

The Catholic Encyclopedia has more to say on the subject:

"ORIGIN OF DATE

The Gospels. Concerning the date of Christ's birth the Gospels give no help; upon their data contradictory arguments are based. The census would have been impossible in winter: a whole population could not then be put in motion. Again, in winter it must have been; then only field labour was suspended. But Rome was not thus considerate. Authorities moreover differ as to whether shepherds could or would keep flocks exposed during the nights of the rainy season.

Zachary's temple service. Arguments based on Zachary's temple ministry are unreliable, though the calculations of antiquity (see above) have been revived in yet more complicated form, e.g. by Friedlieb (Leben J. Christi des Erlösers, Münster, 1887, p. 312). The twenty-four classes of Jewish priests, it is urged, served each a week in the Temple; Zachary was in the eighth class, Abia. The Temple was destroyed 9 Ab, A.D. 70; late rabbinical tradition says that class 1, Jojarib, was then serving. From these untrustworthy data, assuming that Christ was born A.U.C. 749, and that never in seventy turbulent years the weekly succession failed, it is calculated that the eighth class was serving 2-9 October, A.U.C. 748, whence Christ's conception falls in March, and birth presumably in December. Kellner (op. cit., pp. 106, 107) shows how hopeless is the calculation of Zachary's week from any point before or after it.

Analogy to Old Testament festivals. It seems impossible, on analogy of the relation of Passover and Pentecost to Easter and Whitsuntide, to connect the Nativity with the feast of Tabernacles, as did, e.g., Lightfoot (Horæ Hebr, et Talm., II, 32), arguing from Old Testament prophecy, e.g. Zacharias 14:16 sqq,; combining, too, the fact of Christ's death in Nisan with Daniel's prophecy of a three and one-half years' ministry (9:27), he puts the birth in Tisri, i.e. September. As undesirable is it to connect 25 December with the Eastern (December) feast of Dedication (Jos. Ant. Jud., XII, vii, 6).

Natalis Invicti. The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date. For the history of the solar cult, its position in the Roman Empire, and syncretism with Mithraism, see Cumont's epoch-making "Textes et Monuments" etc., I, ii, 4, 6, p. 355. Mommsen (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 12, p. 338) has collected the evidence for the feast, which reached its climax of popularity under Aurelian in 274. Filippo del Torre in 1700 first saw its importance; it is marked, as has been said, without addition in Philocalus' Calendar. It would be impossible here even to outline the history of solar symbolism and language as applied to God, the Messiah, and Christ in Jewish or Chrisian canonical, patristic, or devotional works. Hymns and Christmas offices abound in instances; the texts are well arranged by Cumont (op. cit., addit. Note C, p. 355).

The earliest rapprochement of the births of Christ and the sun is in Cypr., "De pasch. Comp.", xix, "O quam præclare providentia ut illo die quo natus est Sol . . . nasceretur Christus." - "O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born . . . Christ should be born." - In the fourth century, Chrysostom, "del Solst. Et Æquin." (II, p. 118, ed. 1588), says: "Sed et dominus noster nascitur mense decembris . . . VIII Kal. Ian. . . . Sed et Invicti Natalem appelant. Quis utique tam invictus nisi dominus noster? . . . Vel quod dicant Solis esse natalem, ipse est Sol iustitiæ." - "But Our Lord, too, is born in the month of December . . . the eight before the calends of January [25 December] . . ., But they call it the 'Birthday of the Unconquered'. Who indeed is so unconquered as Our Lord . . .? Or, if they say that it is the birthday of the Sun, He is the Sun of Justice." Already Tertullian (Apol., 16; cf. Ad. Nat., I, 13; Orig. c. Cels., VIII, 67, etc) had to assert that Sol was not the Christians' God; Augustine (Tract xxxiv, in Joan. In P. L., XXXV, 1652) denounces the heretical indentification of Christ with Sol. Pope Leo I (Serm. xxxvii in nat. dom., VII, 4; xxii, II, 6 in P. L., LIV, 218 and 198) bitterly reproves solar survivals -- Christians, on the very doorstep of the Apostles' basilica, turn to adore the rising sun. Sun-worship has bequeathed features to modern popular worship in Armenia, where Chistians had once temporarily and externally conformed to the cult of the material sun (Cumont, op. cit., p. 356).

But even should a deliberate and legitimate "baptism" of a pagan feast be seen here no more than the transference of the date need be supposed. The "mountain-birth" of Mithra and Christ's in the "grotto" have nothing in common: Mithra's adoring shepherds (Cumont, op. cit., I, ii, 4, p. 304 sqq.) are rather borrowed from Christian sources than vice versa.

Other theories of pagan origin. The origin of Christmas should not be sought in the Saturnalia (1-23 December) nor even in the midnight holy birth at Eleusis (see J.E. Harrison, Prolegom., p. 549) with its probable connection through Phrygia with the Naasene heretics, or even with the Alexandrian ceremony quoted above; nor yet in rites analogous to the midwinter cult at Delphi of the cradled Dionysus, with his revocation from the sea to a new birth (Harrison, op. cit., 402 sqq.).

The astronomical theory. Duchesne (Les origines du culte chrétien, Paris, 1902, 262 sqq.) advances the "astronomical" theory that, given 25 March as Christ's death-day [historically impossible, but a tradition old as Tertullian (Adv. Jud., ], the popular instinct, demanding an exact number of years in a Divine life, would place His conception on the same date, His birth 25 December. This theory is best supported by the fact that certain Montanists (Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., VII, 18) kept Easter on 6 April; both 25 December and 6 January are thus simultaneously explained. The reckoning, moreover, is wholly in keeping with the arguments based on number and astronomy and "convenience", then so popular. Unfortunately, there is no contemporary evidence for the celebration in the fourth century of Christ's conception on 25 March.

Conclusion. The present writer in inclined to think that, be the origin of the feast in East or West, and though the abundance of analogous midwinter festivals may indefinitely have helped the choice of the December date, the same instinct which set Natalis Invicti at the winter solstice will have sufficed, apart from deliberate adaptation or curious calculation, to set the Christian feast there too."

[Anonymous]

Surely there's symbolism in the sun being like the Son who is the second person of the Trinity.  Even the words are pronounced the same in English!  But, as stated above, worship of the material sun, the star Sol is not Christian at all.  Indeed, Christianity is the next step from moving away from animistic paganism into the Truth.  Jesus Christ is more than a ball of gas that gives the world life, He is God, who gives the universe being.

[Moonburn33]

if you wanted to split hairs, the priest's account of Jesus (the vision he had) COULD be construed as just him having some sort of overwhelming divine light emanating from him.  as for him (jesus) being described as an orb.. any alternate thoughts?

[Anonymous]

THe alternate thought is that Mr. Baird is misquoting St. Ignatius or someone else.  In order to make something ridiculous sound true, you have to make up and/or construe facts.

[Moonburn33]

just as a thought, current thought at the vatican was that the perfect manifestation of matter would be a sphere.  perhaps the priest was embellishing his vision with the philosophy of the time.

[Anonymous]

YES!!!

Have you read Windswept House by Malachi Martin?

[Anonymous]

Dear Antonius

Those are the words of Loyola - sorry to say this but it is you who is selling alternatives and pablum.

As to the observation that ROsicrucians are also Luciferians like Albert Pike and the Masons - this too is true. And the Hegelian Dialectic of 'playing both ends against the middle' did not just arrive upon the scene with the writings of Hegel. The issue is - who plays these ends against the 'poor huddled and ignorant' masses.

[Moonburn33]

to get to the heart of MY concern with this thread.  so what if the catholic church has been influenced by heliopolitanism?  As a rule, i consider myself pagan and do not see the danger in this.  what exactly was the point that you were trying to make with this information?  was it purely scholarly or...?

[Anonymous]

Ok, so if St. Ignatius actually said that, please show me where you got it, so I can look it up and then tell you that you're right.

[Anonymous]

Dear Moonbeam

All religions have been used to manage people for at least 5000 years. James Joyce refers to this as a 'nightmare'. Today the Luciferians run the world. As a person this should concern you - as a pagan you have a better insight hopefully, now that you know the game was always the same.

Dear Antonius

I suppose I could check the references in my books  - but why would I? I already know I am right and you already see many people have good research on the same point. If you were to check the Cistercian/Hibernians, Basilian Fathers (Basilidae back to Hecateus and before) and other arms of this 'octopus' you would see Ignatius was just another dupe in a larger and more complex scenario. I posted another author's link who says he will be working with me soon under the thread the Star People. Lots of people are starting to clue in to a far larger historical fact than simple conspiracy theory. Jim Marrs was one of the first to recognize the merit of my research and you can see his comment to that effect at my publisher's web site. The fact of Ignoatius' participation in this is a minor point.