Very Interesting Jordan Maxwell Interview

Greeting Orhty ,

I Have been out on a brief holiday for a few days . I noticed a drift in this thread .... It seems that Maxell and Icke are " conspiracy freaks " ! Is it possible that the truth has many faces ?
Well , I must admit that I don't buy 100 % of Maxwell's and Icke's explanations but I do believe that probably 80% of them are true .
Living in a situations with the spooks following us everywhere , makes me absolutely convinced that the rabbit hole is very deep indeed . Even in our case ,we, my wife and I , are convinced that not only the Australian state but the Catholic church has been caught up in the mess of a former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia's fake identity and membership of the Masons and Secret services . This is the logical conclusion that a person can arrive at following the spooks activities (psy-ops ) we have endured over the years .....

Thank-you starninja, Floyd, and enemyofNWO for your insights. I think that politics, religon, and theology are a mixture of truth, lies, good, and evil. These are very messy subjects. What I really object to in the world are the creepy, corrupt, destructive, and violent aspects.

I don’t think that it is that simple. People need to be alert and question everything.
Maxwell, oh, he is a poor chap. I remember how he was frustrated that people were stupid and they didn’t want to do their own research. How ironic it that since when people do own research they will see clearly lies he have tried to sell for over 40 years. I guess he wanted people to believe him.....without any questioning and doubt...... but didn’t know how to say it. People are not that stupid to believe him. It must be very frustrating for him as he even lost his wife because he chose doing research. Hehehe….she wasn’t that stupid.......

I tend to think that Jordan might've gotten a bit too close to Freemasonry and Blavatsky, and he doesn't always make proper word associations. Once again, he seems to be very good at pointing out obscure connections and problems, but he rarely offers convincing solutions. But I love listening to Jordan, and I have learned a lot from him. Whether he is right or wrong, I think a lot of us should deeply research the subjects he discusses. Being single probably makes researching a lot easier. Not many spouses would be patient and understanding enough to tolerate all of the problems connected with controversial and esoteric research. I think that a supernatural battle is part of the deal. It's not just an intellectual matter. I continue to like listening to Jordan Maxwell and Bill Cooper, but they don't make me happy. In fact, I keep exposing myself to material which is really quite negative and troubling. But I try to find solutions in the midst of the turmoil, and once in a while I actually succeed. Unfortunately, I think I make a lot of individuals and groups - human and otherwise - terrestrial an extraterrestrial - LIVID. Just imagine how mad they might be if I weren't a completely ignorant fool!!! I'd be downright dangerous!!! What would Raven say???

Floyd wrote:
I have to say you are exceedingly boring.

Generally speaking, I only find people who know what they are talking about when it comes to esotericism and the occult engaging thus ruling you out of the equation. Its important people like you are around though so it can be seen how the subject has been misinterpreted and attacked without someone having the slightest clue what its about.

Wouldnt you be happier on this forum?
http://www.christianforums.com/f370/

This was Oxys thread, so sorry for interupting Oxy. Please do continue.

Satan, my little pumpkin, is a Christian creation. Im afraid he doesnt exist as such.


The only thing you have exposed my dear is your own tedious and repetitive ill informed nonsense.



Good day to you.

Hehehe......we are finally on the same page. After reading your responses here, I have been ........ completely disenchanted. I thought that you were a person who could think with an open mind. But I have noticed reading your posts on the Horns of Moses and the Infiltration of New Age Movement that you could only repeat what you have learned or has been told. No critical or innovative thinking. I thought that you had just moments of mental blindness on Avalon tread when you were quite abusive. But unfortunately, it was not a case. We have definitely a different idea about sharp and questioning mind.


Secondly, you repeat like a broken record that I am Christinan. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? Because if your read and understood my post about Mithra, Vedic Mitra, and Jesus you woudn’t say that. I have also written about religion on Vedic spirituality tread and stated my strong opinion against any religion. Hey, it is very serious if you can’t understand that. Or perhaps, you make assumptions because I laugh at your god Lucifer or Satan.

Satan doesn’t exist

. Interesting. Let’s look again what your sweetheart Balvatsky said.

Excerpt from The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky — Vol. 2


VOL. 2, PAGE 233 HOLY SATAN.

The true esoteric view about “Satan,” the opinion held on this subject by the whole philosophic antiquity, is admirably brought out in an appendix, entitled “The Secret of Satan,” to the second edition of Dr. A. Kingsford’s “Perfect Way.” No better and clearer indication of the truth could be offered to the intelligent reader, and it is therefore quoted here at some length: —

“1. And on the seventh day (seventh creation of the Hindus),* there went forth from the presence of God a mighty Angel, full of wrath and consuming, and God gave him the dominion of the outermost sphere.†

2. “Eternity brought forth Time; the Boundless gave birth to Limit; Being descended into generation.”‡

4. “Among the Gods is none like unto him, into whose hands are committed the kingdoms, the power and the glory of the worlds:”

5. “Thrones and empires, the dynasties of kings,§ the fall of nations, the birth of churches, the triumph of Time.”

For, as is said in Hermes, “Satan is the door-keeper of the Temple of the King; he standeth in Solomon’s porch; he holdeth the key of the Sanctuary, that no man enter therein, save the Anointed having the arcanum of Hermes” (v. 20 and 21).

These suggestive and majestic verses had reference with the ancient Egyptians and other civilized peoples of antiquity to the creative and generative light of the Logos (Horus, Brahma, Ahura-Mazda, etc., etc., as primeval manifestations of the ever-unmanifested Principle, e.g., Ain-Soph, Parabrahm, or ZeruanaAkerne — Boundless Time — Kala)

VOL. 2, PAGE 234 THE SECRET DOCTRINE

33. “Satan is the minister of God, Lord of the seven mansions of Hades” . . . .
The seven or Saptaloka of the Earth with the Hindus; for Hades, or the Limbo of Illusion, of which theology makes a region bordering on Hell, is simply our globe, the Earth, and thus Satan is called —
33 “. . . . the angel of the manifest Worlds.”
It is “Satan who is the god of our planet and the only god,” and this without any allusive metaphor to its wickedness and depravity. For he is one with the Logos, “the first son, eldest of the gods,” in the order.

I guess, we both have exchanged polite thoughts what we think about ourselves….and we can let it go. This forum is big enough so that we can successfully avoid each other. We don’t want to get an ulcer, do we?

Luciferian........love and light.

Blavatsky is not my sweetheart but if you insist on talking nonsense I shall leave you to your own devices. Perhaps you are jealous!!

You wrote
But I have noticed reading your posts on the Horns of Moses and the Infiltration of New Age Movement that you could only repeat what you have learned or has been told. No critical or innovative thinking

I spent 5 years studying Religion, philosophy, New Religions Movements, and indian religious philosophy. One of my papers was on the history of The Theeosophical Society and its influence on the so called new age movement. I had the privalage of studying under some of the best academics available in London at the time on each of these subjects. I passed with honours thanks to my critical thinking despite your clueless assumptions that state otherwise. I would say the one void of critical thinking would be you with the flacid regurgatation of the usual incorrect propaganda.


I didnt say you were a christian but your certainly act like one and thought you may enjoy their company more than ours as you dont seem to like it very much.. I think you would make a nice little christian sheep.
You are just reprocessing judeo christian propaganda targeted at non anthropomormphic monotheistic religion. This has expanded over the last thirty years or so to include an attack on the New Religions that have appeared, most of then (but certainly not all) eminating from the east.

I have posted this article along with an explanation for you before but as you have difficulty reading things the first time around I will do it for you once more. It is an excellent article on satan by Blavatsky. It may help you to se that actually satan is not what we have been programmed by the Church to know and understand. In that sense. The satan does not exist.

The Churches tell the world that "man is born in sin," and John (1st Epist.iii., adds that "He that committeth sin is of the devil, for the devil sinneth from the beginning." Those who still believe in the rib-and-apple fable and in the rebellious angel "Satan," believe, as a matter of course, in a personal Devil – as a contrast in a dualistic religion – to a personal God. We, Theosophists of the Eastern school, believe in neither. Yet we go, perhaps, further still than the Biblical dead letter. For we say that while as extra-cosmic Entities there is neither god nor devil, that both exist, nevertheless. And we add that both dwell on earth in man, being, in truth, the very man himself, who is, as a physical being, the devil, the true vehicle of evil, and as a spiritual entity – god, or good. Hence, to say to mankind, "thou hast the devil," is to utter as metaphysical a truth as when saying to all its men, "Know ye not that god dwelleth in you?" Both statements are true. But, we are at the turning point of the great social cycle, and it is the former fact which has the upper hand at present. Yet, as – to paraphrase a Pauline text – "there be devils many . . . yet there is but one Satan," so while we have a great variety of devils constituting collectively mankind, of such grandiose Satanic characters as are painted by Milton, Byron and recently by Victor Hugo, there are few, if any. Hence, owing to such mediocrity, are the human ideals falling, to remain unreplaced; a prose-life as spiritually dead as the London November fog, and as alive with brutal materialism and vices, the seven capital sins forming but a portion of these, as that fog is with deadly microbes. Now we rarely find aspirations toward the eternal ideal in the human heart, but instead of it every thought tending toward the one central idea of our century, the great "I," self being for each the one mighty center around which the whole Universe is made to revolve and turn.

When the Emperor Julian – called the Apostate because, believing in the grand ideals of his forefathers, the Initiates, he would not accept the human anthropomorphic form thereof – saw for the last time his beloved gods appear to him, he wept. Alas, they were no longer the bright spiritual beings he had worshipped, but only the decrepit, pale and worn out shades of the gods he had so loved. Perchance they were the prophetic vision of the departing ideals of his age, as also of our own cycle. These "gods" are now regarded by the Church as demons and called so; while he who has preserved a poetical, lingering love for them, is forthwith branded as an Anti-Christ and a modern Satan.

Well, Satan is an elastic term, and no one has yet ever given even an approximately logical definition of the symbolical meaning of the name. The first to anthropomorphize it was John Milton; he is his true putative intellectual father, as it is widely conceded that the theological Satan of the Fall is the "mind-born Son" of the blind poet. Bereft of his theological and dogmatic attributes Satan is simply an adversary, – not necessarily an "arch fiend" or a "persecutor of men," but possibly also a foe of evil. He may thus become a Saviour of the oppressed, a champion of the weak and poor, crushed by the minor devils (men), the demons of avarice, selfishness and hypocrisy. Michelet calls him the "great Disinherited" and takes him to his heart. The giant Satan of poetical concept is, in reality, but the compound of all the dissatisfied and noble intellectuality of the age. But Victor Hugo was the first to intuitively grasp the occult truth. Satan, in his poem of that time, is a truly grandiose Entity, with enough human in him to bring it within the grasp of average intellects. To realize the Satans of Milton and of Byron is like trying to grasp a handful of the morning mist: there is nothing human in them. Milton's Satan wars with angels who are a sort of flying puppets, without spontaneity, pulled into the stage of being and of action by the invisible string of theological predestination; Hugo's Lucifer fights a fearful battle with his own terrible passions and again becomes an Archangel of Light, after the awfulest agonies ever conceived by mortal mind and recorded by human pen.

All other Satanic ideals pale before his splendour. The Mephisto of Goethe is a true devil of theology; the Ahriman of Byron's "Manfred" – a too supernatural character, and even Manfred has little akin to the human element, great as was the genius of his creator. All these images pale before Hugo's SATAN, who loves as strongly as he hates. Manfred and Cain are the incarnate Protests of downtrodden, wronged and persecuted individuality against the "World" and "Society" – those giant fiends and savage monsters of collective injustice. Manfred is the type of an indomitable will, proud, yielding to no influence earthly or divine, valuing his full absolute freedom of action above any personal feeling or social consideration, higher than Nature and all in it. But, with Manfred as with Cain, the Se]f, the "I" is ever foremost; and there is not a spark of the all-redeeming love in them, no more than of fear. Manfred will not submit even to the universal Spirit of Evil; alone, face to face with the dark opponent of Ahura-Mazda – Universal Light – Ahriman and his countless hosts of Darkness, he still holds his own. These types arouse in one intense wonder, awe-struck amazement by their all-defiant daring, but arouse no human feeling: they are too supernatural ideals. Byron never thought of vivifying his Archangel with that undying spark of love which forms – nay, must form the essence of the "First-Born" out of the homogeneous essence of eternal Harmony and Light, and is the element of forgiving reconciliation, even in its (according to our philosophy) last terrestrial offspring – Humanity. Discord is the concomitant of differentiation, and Satan being an evolution, must in that sense, be an adversary, a contrast, being a type of Chaotic matter. The loving essence cannot be extinguished but only perverted. Without this saving redemptive power, embodied in Satan, he simply appears the nonsensical failure of omnipotent and omniscient imbecility which the opponents of theological Christianity sneeringly and very justly make him: with it he becomes a thinkable Entity, the Asuras of the Puranic myths, the first breaths of Brahma, who, after fighting the gods and defeating them are finally themselves defeated and then hurled on to the earth where they incarnate in Humanity. Thus Satanic Humanity becomes comprehensible. After moving around his cycle of obstacles he may, with accumulated experiences, after all the throes of Humanity, emerge again into the light – as Eastern philosophy teaches.

If Hugo had lived to complete his poem, possibly with strengthened insight, he would have blended his Satanic concept with that of the Aryan races which makes all minor powers, good or evil, born at the beginning and dying at the close of each "Divine Age." As human nature is ever the same, and sociological, spiritual and intellectual evolution is a question of step by step, it is quite possible that instead of catching one half of the Satanic ideal as Hugo did, the next great poet may get it wholly: thus voicing for his generation the eternal idea of Cosmic equilibrium so nobly emphasized in the Aryan mythology. The first half of that ideal approaches sufficiently to the human ideal to make the moral tortures of Hugo's Satan entirely comprehensible to the Eastern Theosophist. What is the chief torment of this great Cosmic Anarchist? It is the moral agony caused by such a duality of nature – the tearing asunder of the Spirit of Evil and Opposition from the undying element of primeval love in the Archangel. That spark of divine love for Light and Harmony, that no HATE can wholly smother, causes him a torture far more unbearable than his Fall and exile for protest and Rebellion. This bright, heavenly spark, shining from Satan in the black darkness of his kingdom of moral night, makes him visible to the intuitive reader. It made Victor Hugo see him sobbing in superhuman despair, each mighty sob shaking the earth from pole to pole; sobs first of baffled rage that he cannot extirpate love for divine Goodness (God) from his nature; then changing into a wail of despair at being cut off from that divine love he so much yearns for. All this is intensely human. This abyss of despair is Satan's salvation. In his Fall, a feather drops from his white and once immaculate wing, is lighted up by a ray of divine radiance and forth with transformed into a bright Being, the Angel LIBERTY. Thus, she is Satan's daughter, the child jointly of God and the Fallen Archangel, the progeny of Good and Evil, of Light and Darkness, and God acknowledges this common and "sublime paternity" that unites them. It is Satan's daughter who saves him. At the acme of despair at feeling himself hated by LIGHT, Satan hears the divine words "No; I hate thee not." Saith the Voice, "An angel is between us, and her deeds go to thy credit. Man, bound by thee, by her is now delivered."

O Satan, tu peux dire á present: je vivrai!
Viens; l'Ange Liberté c'est ta fille et la mienne
Cette paternité sublime nous unit! . . .

The whole conception is an efflorescence of metaphysical ideality. This white lotus of thought springs now, as in former ages, from the rottenness of the world of matter, generating Protest and LIBERTY. It is springing in our very midst and under our very eyes, from the mire of modern civilization, fecund bed of contrasting virtues. In this foul soil sprouted the germs which ultimately developed into All-denying protestators, Atheists, Nihilists, and Anarchists, men of the Terror. Bad, violent, criminal some of them may be, yet no one of them could stand as the copy of Satan; but taking this heart-broken, hopeless, embittered portion of humanity in their collectivity, they are just Satan himself; for he is the ideal synthesis of all discordant forces and each separate human vice or passion is but an atom of his totality. In the very depths of the heart of this HUMAN Satanic totality burns the divine spark, all negations notwithstanding. It is called LOVE FOR HUMANITY, an ardent aspiration for a universal reign of Justice – hence a latent desire for light, harmony and goodness. Where do we find such a divine spark among the proud and the wealthy? In respectable Society and the correct orthodox, so-called religious portion of the public, one finds but a predominating feeling of selfishness and a desire for wealth at the expense of the weak and the destitute, hence as a parallel, indifference to injustice and evil. Before Satan, the incarnate PROTEST, repents and reunites with his fellow men in one common Brotherhood, all cause for protest must have disappeared from earth. And that can come to pass only when Greed, Bias, and Prejudice shall have disappeared before the elements of Altruism and Justice to all. Freedom, or Liberty, is but a vain word just now all over the civilized globe; freedom is but a cunning synonym for oppression of the people in the name of the people, and it exists for castes, never for units. To bring about the reign of Freedom as contemplated by Hugo's Satan, the "Angel Liberty" has to be born simultaneously and by common love and consent of the "higher" wealthy caste, and the "lower" classes – the poor; in other words, to become the progeny of "God" and "Satan," thereby reconciling the two.




I know you like copy and pasting so here is another one for you to enjoy that sheds more light on the subject.

[b]Is there any difference between Lucifer and Satan? Westerners generally would say they are one and the same. Especially those in fundamentalist Christian circles consider Lucifer an archangel who fell from grace and was thrown out of heaven because of "sinful pride." His "sin" was thinking he was equal to God and rebelling against Him. This rebellious angel is known as Satan, Lucifer, or the Devil, who tempts us to do evil. Supposedly, one of the most evil things Lucifer tempts us to do is to think that we are God. So those who believe in the essential divinity of all life are often accused of committing Satan's sin, and of being under the influence of Lucifer. Where do these ideas about Satan and Lucifer come from? Is there a biblical basis for them?

Lucifer means lightbringer, from the Latin lux "light" and ferre "to bear or bring." The word Lucifer is found in only one place in the Bible -- Isaiah 14:12 -- but only in the King James and related versions: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! . . ." The New Revised Standard Version translates the same passage as "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, Son of Dawn!" In other translations we find: "O shining star of the dawn!" (Moffatt) or "O morning-star, son of the dawn!" (Hebrew Bible). The King James Version is based on the Vulgate, the Latin translation of Jerome. Jerome translated the Hebrew helel (bright or brilliant one) as "lucifer," which was a reasonable Latin equivalent. And yet it is this lucifer, the bright one or lightbearer, that came to be understood by so many as the name for Satan, Lord of Darkness.

In Isaiah 14 the prophet is taunting the king of Babylon: "In the figurative language of the Hebrews, . . . a star, signifies an illustrious king or prince . . . The monarch here referred to, having surpassed all other kings in royal splendour, is compared to the harbinger of day, whose brilliancy surpasses that of the surrounding stars" (A Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, John Kitto ed., 3rd ed., J. B. Lippincott and Co, Philadelphia, 1866, 2:857-. There are those who claim that the real entity addressed in this passage is Satan, but there is no evidence for this. On the contrary, Isaiah (14:16) says: "Is this the man who made the earth tremble, . . . ?" and (14:18) "All the kings of the nations lie in glory, each in his own tomb; but you are cast out . . ." These seem clear references to a man, the king of a nation, not an archangel.

There is yet another reason why it makes no sense to read the Devil into Isaiah 14: the traditional role of Satan in the Old Testament. Satan comes from the Hebrew satan, which means "opponent" or "adversary." According to Strong's Concordance, this word appears in 1 Chronicles, Job, Psalms, and in Zechariah. In Psalms "satan" is used both in the plural (accusers) and in the indefinite sense (an accuser). In Chronicles and Zechariah its usage is ambiguous, while in Job "satan" as The Accuser appears only in the first two of its 42 chapters. It is important, however, to keep in mind that the texts of the Old Testament did not reach their "final" version until after the Babylonian exile. Before this exile there is no evidence in Hebrew scriptures of an Accuser as a force that opposes God, and even after the exile it is still doubtful. Though the story of Job is very old, its final version is dated after the exile, after the Hebrews came into contact with the dualist Zoroastrian religion with its god of good and its god of evil.

There is even division among Old Testament scholars as to whether evil should be associated with Satan at all. Some say that Satan was originally not considered evil but gradually became identified with his unpleasant functions. According to this approach, Satan is still God's servant. There is much in the Book of Job that tends to support this view. Satan appears only in the first two chapters and then disappears. Some believe the first two chapters were added much later, for in the last chapter we read: ". . . they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him" (42:11).

It appears that the Hebrews did not have a devil-like power opposed to God. Satan, or the Satan as he is often called, is an angel in the court of God with the function of an accuser (see Job 1:6). There are also indications that along with all that is "good," all that is "evil" comes from God, not Satan. In Isaiah 45:7 God says: "I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the Lord do all these things." Valentine's Jewish Encyclopedia confirms the idea that there is a radical difference between how Satan is conceived in the Old Testament and how he is conceived in the New Testament, and that his new role did not develop from his original role: there are no references "to rebellious angels in any pre-Christian book. . . . The figure of Satan in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament respectively emphasizes the difference in conception. There is no development, but basic difference. . . . It is only in Christian literature that the Persian idea of two opposing empires, with Satan as God's enemy, has persisted" (Valentine's Jewish Encyclopedia, A. M. Hyamson & A. M. Silberman eds., Shapiro, Valentine & Co, London, 1938, p. 36).

There is actually very little in the Old Testament to support the idea of Satan as a rebellious angel and the power opposing God. He is generally depicted as a heavenly attorney general (accuser) functioning under God, and this only strengthens the argument for not reading Satan into the passage about Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12. Isaiah is one of the older books in the Bible and is definitely pre-exile.

If there is no sound biblical basis for associating Lucifer with Satan, where then does the story come from that he is a rebellious angel and fell because of pride? The Christian Church made the interpretation that Isaiah 14:12 is connected with Luke 10:18: "He said to them, I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning." This unfounded, non-biblical connection of Lucifer with Satan has led to the popular misunderstanding that Lucifer is another name for the Devil (cf. "Lucifer," Harper's Bible Dictionary, Paul Achtemeier, gen. ed., Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1985).

As Lucifer is the morning star, daystar, or Venus, the absurdity of connecting him with the Devil is revealed in the three New Testament passages where morning star or daystar is mentioned:

So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. -- 2 Peter 1:19

. . . from my Father. To the one who conquers I will also give the morning star. -- Revelation 2:28

It is I, Jesus, who sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star. -- Revelation 2 2:16

All three references to the morning star point to Jesus or things Jesus says or gives. In the Vulgate the word "morning star" in 2 Peter is even translated as lucifer. In the other two references it is stella matutina.

It is puzzling that "lightning" should be used in relation to Satan in Luke 10:18, especially when one considers two other references to lightning in the New Testament: Matthew 24:27 and Luke 17:24. These two references connect lightning with the Son of Man or Jesus and his second coming, which is understandable when one studies ancient religious symbolism: "In Judeo-Christian thought lightning is a symbol of God's immediate presence . . . or of the last Judgment" ("Lightning," Dictionary of Symbolism, Hans Biedermann, Penguin Books, New York, 1992). Even when we put aside the question of what God's "opponent" should be called, the fact remains that the story of a rebellious angel who fell because of pride is not in the Bible at all. Some claim that the fallen Satan is present from the very beginning, even though his name does not appear in Genesis. Paul suggested that the serpent was Satan, the implication being that Satan tempted Adam. Yet most of the early Church Fathers believed that Satan fell after Adam. It took the Church over 200 years to establish that Satan's sin was pride, that he fell before the creation of man, and that he was the serpent that tempted Adam and Eve.

To find the story of the fall of Satan, we must go to sources other than the Bible. There was a great deal of literature produced roughly between 200 BC and 150 AD, including the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha. Some of these are apocalyptic -- they prophesy cataclysmic events and the end of the world. In this literature one can see the development of the idea of an evil spirit, but even in the apocalyptic literature the Devil does not become entirely evil in his origin and essence. Many of the books from this period reflect the misery of the Jewish people under the oppression of Syria and Rome. Their writings deal with visions of the end of the world, the world being in the power of the Devil, and the Messiah conquering the Devil and bringing a new era of justice. The Book of Enoch is seen by many as one of the earliest and most important accounts of the mishaps of the Heavenly Court (of angels). It also describes the rebellion of the angel Satanail, and his being hurled from heaven (2 Enoch, ch. 29, long MSS only). Some scholars take this to mean that the amalgamation of Satan and Lucifer goes back to the first century. A redating of 2 Enoch, however, puts it later than the third century, perhaps even in the seventh. For this reason others suggest that Origen (Exhort. 18) was probably the inventor of the identification of Lucifer with Satan (Satan: The Early Christian Tradition, Jeffrey Burton Russell, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1991, p. 130 & fn). The Life of Adam and Eve (Vita), a Jewish scripture that scholars date between 200 BC and 200 AD, relates that Satan tells Adam and Eve that his fall from heaven is the result of his refusal to worship Adam, the image of God. A similar account is also found in the Koran (S 2:34). These legends reflect a theme close to the primordial "pride" that led to the so-called fall of Satan.

Since the Old Testament does not connect pride or the Fall with Satan, the Devil, or the Adversary, the only scriptural "support" for this notion is the misinterpretation of the fall of Lucifer (the king of Babylon), and certain passages in the New Testament. But the New Testament does not give any clear information on the fall of Satan through pride either. One place where Lucifer is connected with pride is in Milton's Paradise Lost. He "applied the name to the demon of sinful pride" ("Lucifer," A Dictionary of Angels, Gustav Davidson, The Free Press, New York, 1967).

It appears that the whole story of Lucifer as Satan, the fallen rebellious angel, is based entirely on non-canonical sources: the so-called Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. There are also many pre-Christian myths and allegories that include stories about Lucifer, which is the Latin name for the Greek Eosphoros. In his Theogony Hesiod speaks of two divine beings, the brothers Eosphoros (the morning star) and Hesperos (the evening star). They are the children of Astraios (the starry heaven) and Eos (the dawn). The morning star, like the Virgin of the Sea, is one of the titles given to Divine Mother goddesses such as the Roman Venus, the Phoenician Astarte, the Jewish Ashtoreth, and the later Christian Holy Virgin. In the oldest Zoroastrian allegories, Mithra is supposed to have conquered the planet Venus. In the Christian tradition, Michael defeats Lucifer.

The planet Venus is the lightbringer, the first radiant beam that does away with the darkness of night. It is a symbol of the development of the divine light in man, for the first awakening of self-consciousness, for independent thinking and the real application of free will. It means the bringing of the light of compassionate understanding to the human mind. In this broader view the connection of the morning star with Jesus makes good sense, because compassion is the essence of Jesus' teaching. This teaching shows the greatest consensus throughout the New Testament: it is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 1 John, James, and 1 Peter. The best known reference is in Matthew (22:37-40):

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."



[/b]

Goodbye.

I think there exists a spectrum of souls in this solar system - from the very best to the very worst. What labels one wishes to utilize to describe the best of the best and the worst of the worst is irrelevant to me. I don't know how much of recorded history is truth or lies. I like to study history for clues regarding where we came from, who we are, what we are supposed to be doing presently, and where we might be going - but nothing is for certain. This mostly seems to be a monumental and utterly ridiculous most dangerous game. But we're all in the middle of it, so we might as well make the best of it...

Floyd wrote:

Blavatsky is not my sweetheart but if you insist on talking nonsense I shall leave you to your own devices. Perhaps you are jealous!!

You wrote
But I have noticed reading your posts on the Horns of Moses and the Infiltration of New Age Movement that you could only repeat what you have learned or has been told. No critical or innovative thinking

I spent 5 years studying Religion, philosophy, New Religions Movements, and indian religious philosophy. One of my papers was on the history of The Theeosophical Society and its influence on the so called new age movement. I had the privalage of studying under some of the best academics available in London at the time on each of these subjects. I passed with honours thanks to my critical thinking despite your clueless assumptions that state otherwise. I would say the one void of critical thinking would be you with the flacid regurgatation of the usual incorrect propaganda.


I didnt say you were a christian but your certainly act like one and thought you may enjoy their company more than ours as you dont seem to like it very much.. I think you would make a nice little christian sheep.
You are just reprocessing judeo christian propaganda targeted at non anthropomormphic monotheistic religion. This has expanded over the last thirty years or so to include an attack on the New Religions that have appeared, most of then (but certainly not all) eminating from the east.

I have posted this article along with an explanation for you before but as you have difficulty reading things the first time around I will do it for you once more. It is an excellent article on satan by Blavatsky. It may help you to se that actually satan is not what we have been programmed by the Church to know and understand. In that sense. The satan does not exist.

Well, you don’t even have a sense of humor. The reason that I said that Blavatsky is your sweetheart not because you fell in love with her, you would have to be blind or desperate, but you have promoted her teaching since last year. It is not my business what you believe. I agree that Balvatsky provided some important clues and more likely it was not her intention. For example, as she wrote that ‘Hermes, calling the serpent the most spiritual of all beings; Moses, initiated in the wisdom of Hermes, following suit in Genesis; the Gnostic's Serpent with the seven vowels over its head”
I will go to her writings to find more clues.

How can you make conclusions that I act as Christian is beyond my comprehension. I started the Hornes of Moses to expose judeo Christian dogma as well as Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, pagan , or Blavatsky and company. If you can’t see it, your cognitive abilities are impaired.

Secondly, that fact that you had studied religion and philosophy and passed with honors doesn’t mean that you developed critical thinking. You may say such a silly thing to those who have never studied at university. Universities have stopped teaching critical thinking long time ago and Alice Ann Bailey, an influential writer and theosophist , was involved in changing the educational system.
I was shocked when I read the research done a decade ago that 2/3 of Americans don’t have critical thinking at all. I am afraid that today the number may be a little bit higher. Finally, don’t forget that university teaches to master linear thinking not a holotropic one. I was laughing as David Icke said that when he prepared his presentation to Oxford students , he had to make baby steps.

I don’t have difficulty reading. LOL! I read your discussion on the Infiltration of New Age Movement tread and I lost my interest in having discussion with you about spirituality. I would rather have that kind of discussion with people who have sharp and questioning minds. Sorry, you don’t fit into that category.

But if you need to build your weak ego at my expense......be my guest. You are not going to achieve any results, anyway.

Can we finally let go?....... and end those silly discussions.

starninja wrote:
Can we finally let go?....... and end those silly discussions.

Well your side of it has certainly been silly. Universities are full of critical thinkers. I can see why you dont like them. Unsubstantiated rubbish to say they are not.
You are just simply talking rubbish.

You hang around peoples threads like a bad smell, flatulating blindly and wildly in the desperate hope you can pee on the parade and take over the karaoke for the rest of the night with your anti eastern rants. You are exceedingly transparent little ninja .
I would be delighted if you let go. Soon I would like to think. But you just cant can you?
Now, if you would excuse me I have some goats to sacrafice and a few nymphs to fornicate with.

Go easy on the goats and nymphs...

Floyd wrote:

Well your side of it has certainly been silly. Universities are full of critical thinkers. I can see why you dont like them. Unsubstantiated rubbish to say they are not.
You are just simply talking rubbish.

You hang around peoples threads like a bad smell, flatulating blindly and wildly in the desperate hope you can pee on the parade and take over the karaoke for the rest of the night with your anti eastern rants. You are exceedingly transparent little ninja .I would be delighted if you let go. Soon I would like to think. But you just cant can you?

Now, if you would excuse me I have some goats to sacrafice and a few nymphs to fornicate with.

Oh, Floyd, don’t make me cry. I love university. Or, I could better say in the past tense. I even got 2 degrees from two different fields. But again, you are too closed minded to research and read vast studies about the level of critical thinking. So many psychologists made studies about this subject and voiced their opinion loudly.

You hang around peoples threads like a bad smell

LOL!. I know that many men can’t handle women who can think for themselves and speak openly their minds. Definitely, "internet angels" have a hard time with that. Don’t forget that I haven’t started this discussion with you! You were the one! I was talking to Ortho but you need to show up everywhere I go.

You better chase some nymphs.......it is more productive for you than continuing disscusion. Hey, don't forget to take your music with you.

Just keeping you on your toes sweety pie.
On the contrary. It is you who shows up everytime somebody discusses something that goes against the grain of your world view, which usually happens to be anything to do with eastern philosophy and religion. It seems you are a little obsessed with it. Being obsessed with anything isnt good. You will miss out on a lot of wise and profound information in the process. Take a deep breath..let it go. Breathe in, breathe out. There you go.
Just follow your propaganda. You will be fine. It will take you to exactly where you need to be. In the middle of nowhere with your head stuck up your own arse.

You wrote:
ou better chase some nymphs.......it is more productive for you than continuing disscusion


That is very true, much more productive than continuing discussion with the likes of your self for example.



I think Mercurial summed you pretty well:

This (SN)is for You but I have a feeling It will only fall on deaf ears. It must be nice to have It that You're right and the rest of Us are below Your Intellect - Or so You would have those Who don't agree with You - Believe...

(^ Could be a diagnosis of being Delusional)

Y'know - You want to have discussions with others but yet You malign Them in the process...

You say You want to have open and honest discussion but when prompted with such - You repel It by saying that Its repeating what others have said. "Tell Me something new" You say, but then not all that is posted here is for You alone - Is It ?

I'd even say that most of the Membership - Now that They've seen Your Modus Operandi - Won't even wade into Your Posts due to this side of Your Persona being of prevalence Online.


Best wishes as always

]Floyd wrote:

You wrote:
ou better chase some nymphs.......it is more productive for you than continuing disscusion


That is very true, much more productive than continuing discussion with the likes of your self for example.



I think Mercurial summed you pretty well:

This (SN)is for You but I have a feeling It will only fall on deaf ears. It must be nice to have It that You're right and the rest of Us are below Your Intellect - Or so You would have those Who don't agree with You - Believe...

(^ Could be a diagnosis of being Delusional)

Y'know - You want to have discussions with others but yet You malign Them in the process...

You say You want to have open and honest discussion but when prompted with such - You repel It by saying that Its repeating what others have said. "Tell Me something new" You say, but then not all that is posted here is for You alone - Is It ?

I'd even say that most of the Membership - Now that They've seen Your Modus Operandi - Won't even wade into Your Posts due to this side of Your Persona being of prevalence Online.

Hey, nymphs were hiding in the bush? Too scared?.........I am so sorry to hear that. They should be delighted with your adoration and company.




You shouldn’t waste any second to respond to my posts. Do you think that I would take seriously what Merc said? What he thinks about me is none of my business. He was so defensive when I said that I couldn’t get rid of occultists who were clever but not smart. It is his problem and I haven’t changed my mind about occultists I met at David Icke’s forums.

Secondly, if he felt hurt about my opinion about occultists......he needs to do some work to build his sense of self....so that he will not react. Anyway, I don’t write my post for him or for you. If I respond to any tread, I speak my mind and share my resources.

Finally, you can’t be engaged in stimulating discussion but what you are doing here is trying to put me down. I don’t give a damn what you think about me. Can you get that? It only reflects who you are. You were so proud that you have finished university with honors.......was it university for Chinese emigrants?

That is very true, much more productive than continuing discussion with the likes of your self for example.

Can you keep your word?

stimulating discussion is something impossible to have with people like yourself who know it all already. Its odd, you attack people people for not thinking freely whilst you agressivley impose your own blinkered and superlative views on them at the same time.
There is something distinctly hypocritical about you.

you are unable to deabte anything in a calm and rational manner without attacking the views of others as inferior to your own.
You deserve all the criticism you receive frankly.
No run along like a good little ninja

I don't think we're going to be ready to ascend anytime soon...

Floyd wrote:
stimulating discussion is something impossible to have with people like yourself who know it all already. Its odd, you attack people people for not thinking freely whilst you agressivley impose your own blinkered and superlative views on them at the same time.
There is something distinctly hypocritical about you.

you are unable to deabte anything in a calm and rational manner without attacking the views of others as inferior to your own.
You deserve all the criticism you receive frankly.
No run along like a good little ninja

LOL! Talk about projection. But I bet you don’t have any clue what I am talking about. Hey, maybe you should read your posts here.....to refresh your memory......and to see how you could present your arguments......

Fell free to criticize. It is only what you can do. Oh, I am sorry I have forgotten...... that you can also repeat what you have learned but without own insights and critical thinking. Sorry to say, you are not even sarcastic but abusive. BTW, sarcasm is the lowest level of wit.

Hey, you may impress your friends…….but you can’t impress me. I am loosing respect I had for you.......with a speed of light.

No run along like a good little ninja

Hey, it reminds about a guy I met on David Icke's forum who wanted to be a friend. Well, I told him to f*ck yourself......in the spirit of love and light, of course.

orthodoxymoron wrote:I don't think we're going to be ready to ascend anytime soon...

Hey, it sounds that you are not happy about freedom in this forum that many members are proud of.

Ortho, do you still believe in Blavatsky’s ascension? Look at resources and names.

if internet angels could ascend......I would be happy to change my mind and believe it.

http://www.answers.com/topic/ascended-master
Ascended Masters are enlightened beings whom many in the esoteric field believe have evolved beyond the need to reincarnate on earth and now act from a higher plane of existence to assist humans in their movement towardenlightenment and guide the race in its destined evolution. The concept of ascended masters was popularly introduced by Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, cofounder of the Theosophical Society, and described in some detail in her most important book, The Secret Doctrine. Blavatsky taught that both individuals and the human race were engaged in an upward evolutionary process. At the same time, she pictured a hierarchy of Masters headed by a being known as the Solar Logos. Those masters at the lowest level of the hierarchy regularly interacted with humanity. The Masters El Morya and Koot Hoomi have had a special role in the formation and guidance of the society. One of the early members of the society, A. P. Sinnett, also received regular communications from the masters that became the basis of two important theosophical texts, Esoteric Buddhism and the Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett.
Together, the masters constituted the Great White Brotherhood. A number of the spiritual leaders from past history were pictured as members of the hierarchy. For example, the person known as Jesus, revered as the fountainheadof Christianity, is believed to hold the office of Maitreya in the hierarchy. The work of the masters was championed by Blavatsky's successor Annie Besant and her colleague Charles W. Leadbeater, whose works further elaborated upon the nature and work of the masters.
Blavatsky also introduced the idea of ascension as a goal for humans, a concept made central of "I AM" Religious Activity, an organization founded by Guy W. Ballard, who further developed theosophical concepts. Ballard taught that it was possible through following the disciplines of the movement, including vegetarianism, to so purify the self that the individual need not die but could ascend to the next level of conscious existence. Ballard's own untimelydeath necessitated some revision of that ideal, and the natural process of death was integrated into the understanding of the process of ascension. Ballard is now believed to have assumed a position as an ascended master, as has Mark Prophet, the founder of the Summit Lighthouse (now the Church Universal and Triumphant), a group similar to the "I AM."
allard regularly and publicly served as a messenger for a variety of Ascended Masters, especially Comte de St. Germain. At the same time, Alice A. Bailey claimed contact with a Master she generally called "The Tibetan," named Djwhal Khul. Both became models for a variety of people through the last half of the twentieth century who have claimed contact with and who have channeled messages from the masters. By the 1970s, over one hundred groups with roots in the Theosophical Society that either acknowledged the messages from the masters received by Blavatsky and/or were receiving new messages regularly from the masters were functioning in the English-speaking world. One group of channelers, beginning with George King, founder of the Aetherius Society, have claimed contact with extraterrestrial entities, who nevertheless have the same names as the members of the spiritual hierarchy originally described by Blavatsky. Flying saucer contactees, such as Dorothy Martin of the Association of Sananda and Sanat Kumara, described them as members of an outer space hierarchy.
During the 1970s, the practice of channeling messages from the Masters spread to a much larger audience as a result of the New Age Movement, a revitalization movement that spread through the Western theosophical groups and adopted channeling as one of its key activities. While New Age channelers received material from a variety of sources, many claimed to be in touch with the same ascended masters as Blavatsky, Bailey, and Ballard. Most notable among these is Benjamin Crème, who claimed not only to receive messages from the Master Maitreya, but that this particular entity had returned to human society and was walking among us. The emphasis upon ascended masters accompanied an emphasis upon individual ascension as the goal of the spiritual life. Ascension had been placed upon the agenda of the metaphysical community by Guy Ballard and the "I AM" Movement, but had not become a significant teaching until the New Age Movement began to wane in the 1990s.
The ascended masters have been likened to angelic beings in Christian folklore. Given the impersonal and transcendently remote deity of Western esoteric worldviews, the masters serve as a source of revelation and authority. They are seen as authoritative teachers of spiritual wisdom. They are highly revered for the knowledge they present, though as a rule they do not receive worship, a practice that does not have a prominent place in most esoteric groups. The masters have also been compared to the bodhisattvas of Mahayana Buddhist thought. They are compassionate beings dedicated to humanity and its uplift. Contemporary writers on ascended masters have nominated many of the spiritual exemplars of all religious traditions as having become ascended masters while also greatly expanding the number of ascended masters believed to be currently inter-acting with humanity.
Sources:
Ballard, Guy W. [as Godfre Ray King]. Unveiled Mysteries. Chicago: Saint Germain Press, 1934.
Besant, Annie. The Masters. Adyar, India: The Theosophist Office, 1912.
——. The White Lodge and Its Messengers. Adyar, India: Theosophical Publishing House, 1931.
Crème, Benjamin. The Reappearance of the Christ and the Masters of Wisdom. London: Tara Press, 1980.
Garver, Will I. Brother of the Third Degree. Halcyon, Calif.: Halcyon Temple Press, 1894, 1929.
Leadbeater, Charles W. The Masters and the Path. Adyar, India: Theosophical Publishing House, 1925.
Prophet, Elizabeth Clare. The Great White Brotherhood in the History and Religion of America. Los Angeles: Summit University Press, 1976.
Sinnett, A. P. Esoteric Buddhism. London: Trubner, 1883.
——. The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1924.

[quote="starninja"]
Fell free to criticize. It is only what you can do.

Yes being critical is good as you point out.

With regard to your last Post,
Ballard and Prophet are very dubious. The former was done for mail fraud and the latter lived a life of luxury whilst her followers handed over cash. I started a thread on her elsewhere
There is no direct societal connection between the I AM movements in the US and the TS however.

Beasant had her flaws but was an amazing woman helping to establish the liberty of woman and the basis for home rule in India.
As w e have discussed. Blavatsky had profound understanding of religioud tradition and shouldnt be dismissed lightly

Like any movement the TS had flaws but there is much to admire about it.

The I Am movement is a different kettle of fish

Floyd wrote:
Yes being critical is good as you point out.

Well, I always appreciate constructive criticism. Constructive criticism opens our minds to new horizons and possibilities. But constrictive criticism is done in respectful way as we focus on presenting different opinion or different information. I don’t take seriously criticism that is aimed at putting somebody down or simply abusing others.
Unfortunately, some people use personal attack as the only argument and I have noticed that it is your favorite weapon. I am just wondering if I were a male would you behave the same way? But I hope that we can respectfully stay away from each other as out energy doesn’t match and you wouldn't be tempted to misbehave.



I have noticed that you have added more information to your post after I wrote my post but I didn’t post it. You must have psychic abilities that may protect you somehow.

With regard to your last Post,
Ballard and Prophet are very dubious. The former was done for mail fraud and the latter lived a life of luxury whilst her followers handed over cash. I started a thread on her elsewhere
There is no direct societal connection between the I AM movements in the US and the TS however.

Beasant had her flaws but was an amazing woman helping to establish the liberty of woman and the basis for home rule in India.
As w e have discussed. Blavatsky had profound understanding of religioud tradition and shouldnt be dismissed lightly

Like any movement the TS had flaws but there is much to admire about it.

The I Am movement is a different kettle of fish

I agree about Ballard and Prophet. But you have forgotten about our darling Benjamin Crème. As I said earlier, I agree that Blavatsky provided some important clues. Her clues about Hermes were a gem and I will definitely look at her writing to find more leads. But I don’t trust her and her ascended masters at all, nevertheless, I am glad that she left her writings. I have a different opinion about Annie Besant but it is not important to talk about her.

starninja wrote:
Well, I always appreciate constructive criticism. Constructive criticism opens our minds to new horizons and possibilities. But constrictive criticism is done in respectful way .

Perhaps that is something you can start doing then yourself. Charity begins at home.

starninja wrote:
I have a different opinion about Annie Besant but it is not important to talk about her.

Not for you perhaps but then why mention her. All seems rather pointless.

Ive decided to to introduce you to my little friend the ignore button as Ive seen quite enough.
Goodbye.

Floyd wrote:

Ive decided to to introduce you to my little friend the ignore button as Ive seen quite enough.
Goodbye.

Hey, you have made my day. I didn't know that we have ignore button.
That's really good news.

This is for you with appreciation for putting me on ignore list.
With Luciferian ....love and light

I have a bias toward those who have exhaustively wrestled with theology, regardless of what conclusions they have arrived at. I have an even greater affinity toward those who have endlessly wrestled with politics and relgion, again regardless of what conclusions they have arrived at. I believe that politics and religion are two sides of the same coin, and that they should be studied side by side. Sometimes those who are contrarian to my views are the most instructive teachers. They make me angry, but they make me learn. Jordan Maxwell has made me angry, but I have learned a great deal. Sometimes I think I need to go back to my childhood view of the universe, but with the enlightenment obtained in the school of hard knocks. I graduated Magna Cum Laude from the School of Hard Knocks - over and over and over again. I'm sort of a Johnny Cum Lately when it comes to learning - and when it comes to - never mind...

This is an amazing interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVwKKsvtdag&feature=player_embedded All roads really do lead to Rome, and I continue to think that everything we discuss should be viewed from the Roman context. I continue to imagine myself as being a well-connected Renegade French Jesuit Organist. I continue to love the artistic aspects of Rome, but the history, theology, and politics are horrible, and I'm sure that most upper-level and well-informed Roman Catholics know this, but they have a Dragon by the Tail, and they are probably terrified of what might happen if they let go. As the general public finds out about all of this, things could get very, very nasty. I'm interested in this area of research, but it scares the hell out of me. I'm trying to be open and fair in all of this, and I'm trying to look at both the positive and negatives in all of this. All roads lead to Rome, but where did all of these roads originate?

My present working assumption is that the solar system probably contains thousands of unconventional craft, including asteroid and moon spacecraft, which might be friendly or unfriendly toward the human race. I get the feeling that this solar system is like the wild, wild west -- and that we might be facing a showdown at the ok corral. I certainly do not desire peace at any price, nor do I desire to end-up as space-dust. What would Anna Hayes say? I'd still like to hang-out on Phobos for a while, regardless of whether it is populated by friend or foe. But I would have to have a solid guarantee that I wouldn't be harmed or kidnapped. I still like the idea of a Theocratically-Implemented, Responsibility-Based, United States of the Solar System -- with the governmental personnel mostly located within the University of Solar System Studies and Governance campuses throughout the solar system. I've spoken of using a deconsecrated cathedral as the headquarters of a New Solar System, so just for the fun of it, today I'm thinking of either the Crystal Cathedral or St. Mary's Cathedral (or both!!) as being the headquarters, with the University of California system serving as the core of the University of Solar System Studies and Governance system. Again, this is just for the conceptual heck of it. This is a test. This is only a test. And yes, I realize that I am insane, but it's more fun that way! The UC system has solid ties to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and to the Los Alamos National Laboratory. I don't wish to reinvent the wheel. I just wish to have 10,000 PhD's with clipboards and safety-goggles, watching it rotate... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California