Black Spirituality Religion : Was Jesus Christ a Sacrifice? If So, to whom?

Peace!

Hopefully this is in the right place. I have a question that anyone can feel free to give an answer to.

Was Jesus a sacrifice?

And to whom was he sacrificed to?

Blackbird

Greetings Blackbird,

Just wanted to add an alternative perpective to the melting pot of opinions! Not everyone reacts favourably to this theory, but I offer it to you because I know you are open minded enough not to dismiss it as outlandish and far fetched. This theory is discussed in greater detail in this book (which is how I first came to learn about it); The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross: A Study of the Nature and Origins of Christianity within the Fertility Cults of the Ancient Near East (Hardcover)

e7ac828fd7a0a00253f91110._AA240_.L.jpg


In brief: (The bold text is to highlight the area under discussion i.e. His sacrifice)

"The Bible talks about sacred “Manna” that the Israelites ate in the desert. Many clues are given as to just what Manna is. The Bible says Manna was a small round edible object that appeared on the ground after dew had fallen. If the Manna was left out in the Sun too long it would breed worms and stink. Exodus 16:14 reads, “And when the dew that lay was gone up, behold, upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small round thing, as small as the hoar frost on the ground.” Exodus 16:20 continues, “…some of them left of it till the morning, and it bred worms, and stank.” The small, round, edible objects which when left in the Sun rot, breed worms, and stink are none other than mushrooms.


“Manna was thought of as being produced miraculously (IE: birth without seed). This is a perfect botanical description of a mushroom. Birth without seed (miraculous) is due to spores being microscopic and not visible to the naked eye. Jesus describes the Mannas in detail in the book of John. In this story Jesus attempts to make clear; of manna, there are two different ones/kinds. He describes the manna that he is giving the disciples (last supper) as the Manna that bestows immortality. His statement, unless you have eaten his flesh/body (Soma/Manna), and drink of his blood (Soma Juice), you have no life in you, takes on a whole new meaning in light of this discovery. The Manna is directly associated with the fruit of the Tree of Life in the 2nd chapter of the book of Revelation. It is the reward for those who overcome (the lies of the world). The ‘Fruit of the Tree’, the ‘Hidden Manna’ and the ‘Small White Stone’ are spoken of separately, but in the same context. All of these are symbols for the Amanita muscaria.” -James Arthur, “Mushrooms and Mankind” (16-17)

John 6:31-41 reads, “Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said unto them, verily verily I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my father giveth you the true bread from heaven … Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life … The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread that came down from heaven.”

Priests and pastors vehemently deny that “the true bread, the bread from heaven” is a mushroom, but have a difficult time explaining it as literal bread. Bread is not a small, round thing found dew-covered in the wilderness. Nor does it contain any of the mystical properties bestowed upon it. This is undeniably a reference to the magic mushroom.

“The concept of the literal ingestion of the body of God is highly downplayed by religious scholars of today. The body (soma) being a fleshy Mushroom is much more palatable than trying to stomach cannibalism or the transformation of ordinary substances. Many questions should be asked about this cosmopolitan idea of the ‘Sacramental Substance’. Unfortunately, the religious experts shun the notion, insisting that the entire idea is nothing more than symbolic. A symbol points at something else, not usually at another symbology. The Catholic church, in the early 1100's, decided to have the final word on this subject by establishing (under Emperor/Pope Innocent III) the ‘Doctrine of Trans-Substantiation’. This is whereby, the Priests, by their assumed holy power, claim to be able to say some magical words, and turn ordinary bread into the literal ‘Body of God’. This event is one of the biggest evil deceptions of all time, is an undermining of the basic esoteric aspects of the religion, and is, arguably, the most horrible and damning event to ever happen to Christendom, and as such the entire human race. Jesus clearly describes the Manna that he calls his body in the book of John. Repeatedly describing the ‘Thing/Manna’ as a substance hidden from the world, but revealed to his disciples. Understanding the last supper story becomes as simplistic as it gets, if you know how to decipher the event. Adamantly; Jesus says, ‘Take and eat, This is my Body.’” -James Arthur, “Mushrooms and Mankind” (18)

John 6:53-6 reads, “Then Jesus said unto them, Verily verily I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.”

Jesus says this is my body, this is my blood, and lest ye drink/eat of this you have no life in you! These are strong words, thus it is important to realize that the substances Jesus referred to are not communion wafers and grape wine. The amanita had long before Christianity been known as “the flesh of the gods” and “the blood of the gods” and this is what is meant.

“This is saying pretty clearly that the eating and drinking is physical. My body is flesh indeed, and my blood is drink indeed, and the added statement that when you eat, it is inside of you leaves little room for debate that this is a substance, not a phantom symbol alone. For those who choose to debate this I ask that they show me their substance because according to Jesus' words unless you eat and drink of ‘It’ you have no life in you. By the way, do I really need to mention that this is not some strange reference to Cannibalism? I sure hope not, if you still think this, read on. Somewhere, some of this must convince you that he is not saying to take a bite out of his arm, or any other piece of his actual anatomy … In my opinion, the magical act of ‘Trans-Substantiation’ has no merit. The statement that Jesus makes ‘Unless you eat and drink you have no life in you’ would seem to condemn the replacement of whatever the real thing is with a placebo (substitute).” -James Arthur, “Mushrooms and Mankind” (29-30)

Shiva the Hindu god is a hermaphrodite with one testicle, a penis, vagina, and one breast. This is another personification of the mushroom just like Mithra. The first stage of the mushroom is considered male as it looks like a penis. Then the stem pushes the ball/uterus/breast up out of the egg. As the arms of the mushroom cap open to the sides, it’s as though the female aspect opens from the male “rib.”

msuhros.gif


Jesus, like Krishna, Dionysus, and the other mushroom gods, stands with legs together, wears a crown of thorns, and a sash on his waist while being crucified. His legs together with arms outstretched on the cross make the same “T” shape as the mushroom during its optimum Round Table stage. The sash worn by Jesus is the ruffle found halfway up the stem of all amanitas, and Jesus’ thorny crown is the thorny mushroom top. The reason Jesus is crucified and tells us to eat his body is that the mushroom must die for us to eat it.

“The fact that the mushrooms must be dried before consumption is another euphemism of the god needing to die, or sacrifice himself, to save mankind through atonement (at-one-ment) … It can be argued that if you trace all of the gods back through time it may be possible to find the original. This original resides in the myths of the gods themselves, as those aspects that remain the same. ‘Take and eat, this is my body’ is the central theme. All of the ancient god myths contain some sort of a sacramental food, and anthropomorphically this food becomes, at some point, a personification of the god itself.” -James Arthur, “Mushrooms and Mankind” (12 & 53)

Jesus dies for your sins. Sin was originally an archery term meaning “to miss the mark.” The mushroom dies so you may eat it, and the introspective experiences it brings washes away your sins. You understand how you’ve “missed the mark” in life. This is the original meaning, but the Church has perverted this idea into a guilt mechanism, scaring people with hell and trapping them to “repent” in confession booths.

While on the cross, Jesus is stabbed in the rib and his blood comes out and is collected in the Holy Grail. This idea of a “side wounded savior” was a common theme among pre-Christian gods. The Vatican and Templars have promoted the idea that the Shroud of Turin, the Spear of Longinus/Destiny, and the Holy Grail are actual artifacts, but in fact they are all occult symbolism from ancient mushroom mythologies.

YoJesusOfTheMushrooms.jpg


Proverbs 5:15 reads “drink water from your own cistern, drink water from your own well.” John 7:37-8 says, “Jesus stood and cried saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He shall believeth on me as the scripture hath said, out of his body shall flow rivers of living water.” Jesus is said to have turned water into wine and speaks of drinking water from him and from your own well/cistern. What does all this mean?

“The active ingredients of the amanita mushrooms are not metabolized by the body, and so they remain active in the urine. In fact, it is safer to drink the urine of one who has consumed the mushrooms than to eat the mushrooms directly, as many of the toxic compounds are processed and eliminated on the first pass through the body. It was common practice among ancient people to recycle the potent effects of the mushroom by drinking each other's urine. The amanita's ingredients can remain potent even after six passes through the human body. Some scholars argue that this is the origin of the phrase ‘to get pissed,’ as this urine-drinking activity preceded alcohol by thousands of years. Often the urine of tripped-out reindeer would be consumed for its psychedelic effects. This effect goes the other way too, as reindeer also enjoy the urine of a human, especially one who has consumed the mushrooms. In fact, reindeer will seek out human urine to drink, and some [Siberian] tribesmen carry sealskin containers of their own collected piss, which they use to attract stray reindeer back into the herd.” -Dana Larsen, “The Psychedelic Secrets of Santa Claus” Cannabis Culture, Marijuana Magazine, Dec 18th, 2003

Is this why you often see stone water fountains with little boys urinating into upturned levels looking like mushrooms?

ChartresEustaceMushroom.jpg


Jesus is often depicted holding up a white flag with a red cross on it, the symbol of the Knights Templar/Masons. Do the red and white flag of Jesus and clothing of the Knights Templar refer to the amanita muscaria?

Source:http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/

Peace,
Amazon1979
 
In the Spirit of Sankofa!

My brotha and here is where a lot of Christians jump off of a topic like this and its not because they don't desire to know the truth but because its not conducive to what would sound good for them. With this being said let us look further.

This is how I see it from a physical perspective:

1.) I don't see this as Christians do but I suggest that it means: he sacrificed his freedom (to live without the responsibilities) but offered his life as a sacrifice in the sense to become an activist for the people. This is no different from Malcolm X.

2.) He was not about peace as many suggest, but a warrior that taught his bruthas and sistas not to fight each other (turn the cheek). In the case of his enemies he was like you better sell your s**t and buy a strap which is the attitude of Huey Newton. The scriptures read:

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Jesus was like strap it up because you should rather be caught with then without. Some see this as a contradiction because in the same chapter he said:

Luke 22:50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. 51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

This wasn't a contradiction, this was to say that you guys have been through enough. You will not win this war because we are out numbered and so he fictitiously picked up the mans ear without washing it and welded it back to his face.

Matthew 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

First point, Jesus acknowledges the fact that his peeps or should I say 'Secret Service' walked around strapped so he had to tell them to put their heat away. He also said, if you live by the sword playa ... you will die by the sword.

In modern terms or hood terms ... you smoke them they will retaliate and smoke you. In military terms ... you will live where you fight as to say the occupation in Iraq.

Now we are to the point of the sacrifice:

Jesus was a-ok with having to sacrifice his time as a revolutionist but he did not want to die for it. He did not want to sacrifice his life meaning to die for the people but as all revolutionist ... he ended up losing his life like Malcolm. Isn't it crazy how there is nothing new under the sun? What were doing now has already been done.

Jesus was sweating like a hooker in church ... or a straight man in a prison party. I mean he was said to be sweating blood.

Luke 22:44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

They like to say, "sweating blood" ... I like to say sweating bullets; Tomato's Tomato's ... does it make a difference?

The whole concept here is that Jesus was like Markus Garvey in a sense that he was trying to gather the Israelites up and to bring them back to the Mother land. He like Malcolm say that we need to be separate from the enslavers by any means necessary. The whole concept of Jesus dying for our sins has a lot to do with the Romans who were killing machines.

They were like, this man is willing to die for the freedom of his people; wow! And so it began that Jesus died for the sins of the people.

Now here is the biggest lie amongst all lies. Jesus did not die for the sins of the world but as a revolutionist he did in a fight to free his people. This is why he instructed his 'Secret Service' to not speak to the gentiles (Gentiles come from the word 'Goy/Goyim' which is the name of the Europeans who conquered the Sag.gi (Black-headed ones) of Ur of Sumer. For this reason Abraham left Ur of Chaldees/Sumer) or the Samaratians who were impostors (II Kings chapter 17 (modern day Palestinians)).

He told his secret service to seek out the Israelites who were spread around the world in that day (Diaspora - does that remind you of anyone?) and to spread the news that the King or the one who was trying to be the king to the Israelites were here.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations ...,

Matthew 28:19 was not speaking to white euros but to Africans i.e. Egyptians who were spread across the world. This same act happened again and again to the Egyptian, a parody of the African American experience.

The Israelites were a sect of Egyptians/Sumerians meaning they were migrants from Black Sumeria who lived in Kemet for hundreds if not thousands of years. Sumeria was strictly Ethiopians who were ran out by white euros called the Gutians biblically called Gentiles/Goyim.

What does Jesus mean to African Americans meaning South America/North American - British (which I like to call America) and those of the Caribbeans? He meant the same thing as Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X, Huey Newton and he was not trying to live with white euros like Martin Luther King which is why I haven't brought up his name. Don't be fooled by old MLK he wasn't ours, but he was our people; a revolutionist who have fought for his people to come to their senses and become one once again.

We are the people that the scriptures spoke about which is why a lot of Hebrew Israelites (negative or positive) say African Americans are the Israelites (I say Egyptians).

Many would like to say that America is trying to duplicate the Egyptians so the Israelites take Deuteronomy chapter 28 to be talking about them, especially the last verse which talks about go back into Egypt by way of ships. Modern Egypt/America (nothing close to being alike) is slavery which is mirrored by the biblical fictitious story of the Israelites being enslaved to the Egyptians. They force the point that the you didn't need to take a ship from Israel back to Egypt because the sons of Jacob/Israel walked into Egypt and didn't sail so they assume it was talking about a different time which is our time and a different place which is America. I have to be honest ... I will say they are extremely convincing in the sense of Deuteronomy 28 ...

Never the less, if Jesus was here today in America he would be mistaken for an African American and he would have been hung, beat by police, facing inequality, unemployment, Ghettos and hood chicks (lol ... Joking about the hood chicks) like Mary his mother and Mary Mag ...

Yes ... Mary didn't have a baby out of the sky ... she was a hood chick that euros lied about. She wasn't married to Joseph so they said she had this miraculous birth. If my people believe this they are more gullible then a child who believes in a fat white man falling down a chimney.

Jesus was the man ... physically if he was a real historical figure ... but he wasn't ... he was Heru as in the representation of a Hero/Heru.

Peace and Blessings.




ru2religious,

Understanding your new interests, it will not be necessary for you to respond. Actually, this post is for the archives, and for the record.

From a physical perspective, what you have outlined is permissible. However, from a spiritual perspective, what you have submitted is morass.

For instance, taking a closer look at Luke 22:38 reveals how, and to what extent you deliberately took Luke 22: 36 completely out of context. Many are accepting what you write as law, and are being seriously misled. In verse 38, there is this: And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Yet, you have implied this: “Jesus was like strap it up because you should rather be caught with then without. Some see this as a contradiction because in the same chapter he said:"; and also this: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”

Again, it is not necessary for you to reply, I understand you have acquired new priorities.

 
ru2religious,

Understanding your new interests, it will not be necessary for you to respond. Actually, this post is for the archives, and for the record.

From a physical perspective, what you have outlined is permissible. However, from a spiritual perspective, what you have submitted is morass.

For instance, taking a closer look at Luke 22:38 reveals how, and to what extent you deliberately took Luke 22: 36 completely out of context. Many are accepting what you write as law, and are being seriously misled. In verse 38, there is this: And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Yet, you have implied this: “Jesus was like strap it up because you should rather be caught with then without. Some see this as a contradiction because in the same chapter he said:"; and also this: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”

Again, it is not necessary for you to reply, I understand you have acquired new priorities.


What's up my brutha ...

First thing that I would like to say is ... I knew that this was bound to happen which is why I was waiting patiently for it. The very essence of Christianity is being tested and the person to which Christianity is based on is in question. Nevertheless, it is imperative that I address one thing that you said:

"For instance, taking a closer look at Luke 22:38 reveals how, and to what extent you deliberately took Luke 22: 36 completely out of context. Many are accepting what you write as law, and are being seriously misled."

First let us address the scriptures:

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Luke 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
Luke 22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

You have to show me where I misled anyone ... and please show me who is taking my words as law?

Verse 38 you said, I deliberately took 36 out of context ... in actuality it goes right along with the point that I was making which is:

Jesus knew that his disciples were strapped or let us not use modern terminologies. Jesus knew his disciples wore weapons which could end ones life. He acknowledges this in 38 as well when they said, "here are two swords" and he in turn said, "IT IS ENOUGH".

From turn the other check to 2 swords "ITS IS ENOUGH", people would think it is a contradiction but I showed that there wasn't a contradiction which should have helped Christians in there fight against the inadequacies of the scriptures. Once again I was point out that he was like show brotherly love and not fight against each other.

The prominent point of the whole post was to show that he was a revolutionist and we've had many come after him following the same patterns such as Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, Huey Newton, etc ... From this perspective many Christians cannot tolerate such an ideal. I know that you are a Christian which I thought you would take this offensive and I wasn't directly or inadvertently attacking you but just dropping an opinion using modern phraseology.

This leads me back to your charge. As stated many times over, I'm simply offering another perspective to how we've been taught and what we've been forced to believe. That is it ... I'm not here to convert nor am I here to persuade and in all actuality once again ... I really came here to learn more about our black divinity such as Vodu, Light & Dark beings, and whatever else is pertaining to us specifically, but I will take time out for such charges.

For all the Christians out there that is offended by my post ... I'm not apologizing for telling it the way that I see it but I do apologize if you feel that my wording was a little over the top. If what I wrote has helped you to see from a different perspective then that is a good thing to be open enough to see it as is in my opinion.

This is not written in stone ... but I suggest that researching it for yourself will shed light. Mr. Clyde Coger, what I wrote was not misleading nor is if a deliberate attempt to alter ones opinion .. it was my perspective and how I see it. If others agree then that they may have thought the same thing or it could have been an eye opener.

Peace and Blessing
 
In the Spirit of Sankofa!

What's up my brutha ...

First thing that I would like to say is ... I knew that this was bound to happen which is why I was waiting patiently for it. The very essence of Christianity is being tested and the person to which Christianity is based on is in question. Nevertheless, it is imperative that I address one thing that you said:

"For instance, taking a closer look at Luke 22:38 reveals how, and to what extent you deliberately took Luke 22: 36 completely out of context. Many are accepting what you write as law, and are being seriously misled."

First let us address the scriptures:

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Luke 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
Luke 22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

You have to show me where I misled anyone ... and please show me who is taking my words as law?

Verse 38 you said, I deliberately took 36 out of context ... in actuality it goes right along with the point that I was making which is:

Jesus knew that his disciples were strapped or let us not use modern terminologies. Jesus knew his disciples wore weapons which could end ones life. He acknowledges this in 38 as well when they said, "here are two swords" and he in turn said, "IT IS ENOUGH".

From turn the other check to 2 swords "ITS IS ENOUGH", people would think it is a contradiction but I showed that there wasn't a contradiction which should have helped Christians in there fight against the inadequacies of the scriptures. Once again I was point out that he was like show brotherly love and not fight against each other.

The prominent point of the whole post was to show that he was a revolutionist and we've had many come after him following the same patterns such as Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, Huey Newton, etc ... From this perspective many Christians cannot tolerate such an ideal. I know that you are a Christian which I thought you would take this offensive and I wasn't directly or inadvertently attacking you but just dropping an opinion using modern phraseology.

This leads me back to your charge. As stated many times over, I'm simply offering another perspective to how we've been taught and what we've been forced to believe. That is it ... I'm not here to convert nor am I here to persuade and in all actuality once again ... I really came here to learn more about our black divinity such as Vodu, Light & Dark beings, and whatever else is pertaining to us specifically, but I will take time out for such charges.

For all the Christians out there that is offended by my post ... I'm not apologizing for telling it the way that I see it but I do apologize if you feel that my wording was a little over the top. If what I wrote has helped you to see from a different perspective then that is a good thing to be open enough to see it as is in my opinion.

This is not written in stone ... but I suggest that researching it for yourself will shed light. Mr. Clyde Coger, what I wrote was not misleading nor is if a deliberate attempt to alter ones opinion .. it was my perspective and how I see it. If others agree then that they may have thought the same thing or it could have been an eye opener.

Peace and Blessing




Peace ru2religious,

A Christian I am, but an uninformed Christian, I am not! There is no argument from me on the contradiction, none what so ever. I know that the man was a radical, in fact extremely radical. So, please don't place me in the regular category. Anyone reading your words will walk-away thinking that it is okay to "strap," that is my point.

You are well established, and well liked, and well read by many. All these things carry an awesome responsibility to be accurate. Two swords being enough was clearly left out in your message, do you agree?
 
Peace ru2religious,

A Christian I am, but an uninformed Christian, I am not! There is no argument from me on the contradiction, none what so ever. I know that the man was a radical, in fact extremely radical. So, please don't place me in the regular category. Anyone reading your words will walk-away thinking that it is okay to "strap," that is my point.

You are well established, and well liked, and well read by many. All these things carry an awesome responsibility to be accurate. Two swords being enough was clearly left out in your message, do you agree?

Wow ... I didn't even think about it like that which definitely mean I have to use more caution when I speak, especially when using modern terminologies.

It wasn't intentional that I left out the two swords ... but your attention to details is awesome to say the least. ... what I do agree with is that I should have used that scripture as well ... and thus it would have actually made a difference in how it was received by some but I didn't really give that scripture much thought.

Peace and Blessings
 

Latest profile posts

Destee wrote on Cindy's profile.
YAAAAAAAAAAY @Cindy ... :love:
Destee wrote on frankster's profile.
:wave:
Back
Top