Re: Sacrifical victims bodies found under Benjamin Franklins house
Gib Bogle
> Remains of "Ten Bodies Found Under Ben Franklin's Home" – Workmen
> have dug up the remains of ten bodies hidden beneath the former
> London home of Benjamin Franklin, the founding father of American
> Independence.
> The remains of four adults and six children were discovered
> during the 31.9 million restoration of Franklin's home at 36
> Craven Street, close to Trafalgar Square. Researchers believe
> that there could be more bodies buried beneath the basement
> kitchens.
> Initial estimates are that the bones are about 200 years old and
> were buried at the time Franklin was living in the house, which
> was his home from 1757 to 1762, and from 1764 to 1775. Most of
> the bones show signs of having been dissected, sawn or cut. One
> skull has been drilled with several holes. Paul Knapman, the
> Westminster coroner, said yesterday: "1 cannot totally discount
> the possibility of a crime. There is still a possibility that I
> may have to hold an inquest."
Franklin was a scientist. It's not impossible that he was conducting
medical research on cadavers (the way they do in med schools today).
Peter Metcalfe
bo...@ihug.too.much.spam.co.nz says...
> Scooter wrote:
> > Remains of "Ten Bodies Found Under Ben Franklin's Home" ? Workmen
From the next two paragraphs in the story (which dates from 1998)
The principal suspect in the mystery is William Hewson, like
Franklin a Fellow of the Royal Society, and the husband of Polly
Stevenson, the daughter of Franklin's landlady, Mary Stevenson.
In the early 1770s Dr Hewson was in partnership with William
Hunter, who, with his brother John, was one of the founders of
British surgery. Dr Hunter and Dr Hewson ran a school of anatomy
in Soho, but after an argument Dr Hewson left to live in
Franklin's house, where he is believed to have established a rival
school and lecture theatre. Dr Knapman added yesterday: "It is
most likely that these are anatomical specimens that Dr Hewson
disposed of in his own house, but we are still not certain about
the bones' exact age or origin."
http://www.infowars.com/articles/occult/hellfire.htm
--Peter Metcalfe
colp
Gib Bogle wrote:
> Scooter wrote:
I don't know of any modern med schools where the students bury the
cadavers underneath their own houses, or have associations with Masonic
or occult societies though.
cannon_fodder
> Remains of "Ten Bodies Found Under Ben Franklin's Home" - Workmen
> have dug up the remains of ten bodies hidden beneath the former
> London home of Benjamin Franklin, the founding father of American
> Independence.
> The remains of four adults and six children were discovered
> during the 31.9 million restoration of Franklin's home at 36
> Craven Street, close to Trafalgar Square. Researchers believe
> that there could be more bodies buried beneath the basement
> kitchens.
> Initial estimates are that the bones are about 200 years old and
> were buried at the time Franklin was living in the house, which
> was his home from 1757 to 1762, and from 1764 to 1775. Most of
> the bones show signs of having been dissected, sawn or cut. One
> skull has been drilled with several holes. Paul Knapman, the
> Westminster coroner, said yesterday: "1 cannot totally discount
> the possibility of a crime. There is still a possibility that I
> may have to hold an inquest."
Old news (apparently):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_franklin#Death_and_afterwards
In 1998, workmen restoring Franklin's London home (Benjamin Franklin
House) dug up the remains of six children and four adults hidden below
the home. The Times reported on February 11, 1998:
Initial estimates are that the bones are about 200 years old and were
buried at the time Franklin was living in the house, which was his home
from 1757 to 1762 and from 1764 to 1775. Most of the bones show signs
of having been dissected, sawn or cut. One skull has been drilled with
several holes. Paul Knapman, the Westminster Coroner, said yesterday:
"I cannot totally discount the possibility of a crime. There is still a
possibility that I may have to hold an inquest."
The Friends of Benjamin Franklin House (the organization responsible
for the restoration of Franklin's house at 36 Craven Street in London)
note that the bones were likely placed there by William Hewson, who
lived in the house for 2 years and who had built a small anatomy school
at the back of the house. They note that while Franklin likely knew
what Hewson was doing, he probably did not participate in any
dissections because he was much more of a physicist than a medical man.
[26]
Geopelia
"colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:1169461303.7...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Wasn't it considered wrong at that time to experiment on human remains?
Maybe that was why the bodies were buried after use.
Unless Franklin was a secret cannibal, but I don't believe that!
Geopelia
colp
Yes, dissection of human bodies was strictly prohibited in England
until the middle of the nineteenth century.
http://www.benjaminfranklinhouse.org/site/sections/news/pdf/Issue2.pdf
> Maybe that was why the bodies were buried after use.
> Unless Franklin was a secret cannibal, but I don't believe that!
A reasonable explanation is that William Hewson disected the cadavers
in the small anatomy school that he built at the back of Franklin's
house. Roosevelt, as a scientist, would probably have been sympathetic
to Hewsons endeavours.
I don't think anyone is suggesting ordinary cannibalism. The suggestion
the the human remains were from sacrifice is probably due to a theme in
conspiracy theory which associates ritual human sacrifice with the
occult and with English royalty and the American presidential elite.
Sue Bilstein
> Geopelia wrote:
> >
> > Wasn't it considered wrong at that time to experiment on human remains?
>
> Yes, dissection of human bodies was strictly prohibited in England
> until the middle of the nineteenth century.
>
> http://www.benjaminfranklinhouse.org/site/sections/news/pdf/Issue2.pdf
>
> > Maybe that was why the bodies were buried after use.
> > Unless Franklin was a secret cannibal, but I don't believe that!
>
> A reasonable explanation is that William Hewson disected the cadavers
> in the small anatomy school that he built at the back of Franklin's
> house. Roosevelt, as a scientist, would probably have been sympathetic
> to Hewsons endeavours.
**Roosevelt** ?
Chris Lim
> From the next two paragraphs in the story (which dates from 1998)
Thanks to Scooter for that late-breaking news.
colp
Sue Bilstein wrote:
> colp wrote:
> > Geopelia wrote:
> > >
> > > Wasn't it considered wrong at that time to experiment on human remains?
> >
> > Yes, dissection of human bodies was strictly prohibited in England
> > until the middle of the nineteenth century.
> >
> > http://www.benjaminfranklinhouse.org/site/sections/news/pdf/Issue2.pdf
> >
> > > Maybe that was why the bodies were buried after use.
> > > Unless Franklin was a secret cannibal, but I don't believe that!
> >
> > A reasonable explanation is that William Hewson disected the cadavers
> > in the small anatomy school that he built at the back of Franklin's
> > house. Roosevelt, as a scientist, would probably have been sympathetic
> > to Hewsons endeavours.
>
> **Roosevelt** ?
>
Sorry, my mistake. That should have been Franklin, not Roosevelt.
Geopelia
Human sacrifice hasn't been around officially in Britain since the Druids,
in Roman times. Then, the bodies would be around 2,000 years old, not 200.
Since when did English royalty sacrifice anyone? There has been a suggestion
that some royal person was Jack the Ripper, though.
And I don't think any American President was accused of it.
Geopelia
Pooh
"Chris Lim" <black...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169504054.4...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>> From the next two paragraphs in the story (which dates from 1998)
>
> Thanks to Scooter for that late-breaking news.
>
I'm trying to fathom the leap to 'sacrificial victims' from the post.
Pooh
colp
<snip>
> Since when did English royalty sacrifice anyone? There has been a suggestion
> that some royal person was Jack the Ripper, though.
The most notable alleged human sacrifice would be of Princess Diana of
Wales. She died in the early hours of August 31, 1997, 109 years after
the killing of Mary Ann Nicholls (the first victim of Jack the Ripper)
in the early hours of August 31, 1888. Some people claim that the place
where Princess Diana died was an ancient site at which sacrifices were
made to the goddess Diana. I've also read that August 13 and August 31
are significant dates in occult circles.
The argument that Jack the Ripper was associated with royalty is
supported by the theory that a royal carriage was used to carry out the
killings. Some of the wounds were jagged, as would possibly result from
the attacks being carried out in a carriage bumping over an uneven
street.
> And I don't think any American President was accused of it.
Bohemian Grove and the Skull and Bones society are good introduction to
the occult connections of the American elite. Testimony of involvement
in actual ritual abuse and sacrifice comes from Arizona Wilder, Cathy
O'Brien, and Cisco Wheeler.
Warwick
> The most notable alleged human sacrifice would be of Princess Diana of
> Wales. She died in the early hours of August 31, 1997, 109 years after
> the killing of Mary Ann Nicholls (the first victim of Jack the Ripper)
> in the early hours of August 31, 1888. Some people claim that the place
> where Princess Diana died was an ancient site at which sacrifices were
> made to the goddess Diana. I've also read that August 13 and August 31
> are significant dates in occult circles.
I have long suspected ritual sacrifice to an ancient goddess was the reason
for Princess Diana's death. It is also clear the operation was carried out
by an organization with unlimited resources, so undoubtedly a government
agency and we all know the British Secret Service head the list of likely
candidates. Intoxicating the driver on alcohol and barbiturates and then
convincing him to drive into a concrete pillar is one thing, but making it
happen on an ancient site where sacrifices were made to her Goddess
namesake is quite another. I should think the whole thing was timed to a
precise point on the lunar/solar cycles. Anybody looked into that yet?
--
cheers
colp
The lunar/solar aspect can be related to the religions involved, with
the European princess symbolising Christianity and Egyptian Dodi Al
Fayed symbolising Islam (Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, was Egyptian).
Christianity has a solar cult associated with it, namely the cult of
Sol Invictus, and Islam has a lunar cult. These aspects are symbolised
by the solar cross of Christianity and the crescent moon flag of Islam.
Sacrifice is the key difference between Christianity and Islam, The
central doctrine of Pauline Christianity is based on human sacrifice,
but Islam maintains that Yeshua (Jesus) did not die on the cross. There
are theological arguments that support the Islamic view.
Geopelia
Surely nobody is taking this sacrifice stuff seriously?
Geopelia
colp
Sacrifice has been part of human religious behaviour for a long time.
Religious differences have led to many wars, and war is a serious
matter.
Sue Bilstein
> This thread is getting really weird!
>
> Surely nobody is taking this sacrifice stuff seriously?
Only colp, but he takes it *really* seriously.
colp
Pehaps the reason that most people don't give this subject a lot of
thought is because it is hidden in plain sight. People can see the
tracks of the elephant, but the don't see the elephant itself even when
it is standing right in front of them.
The behaviour of ignoring something which is plainly visible can be
explained in terms of human physioloigy. The human brain is
structurally three separate brains, each with independant memories and
cognitive faculties. The innermost reptilian brain is concerned with
survival traits, centrally territorialism, social heirarchies, and
reproductive traits. The mammilian brain is focuses on social traits,
particularly emotions. The outermost brain is the neocortex, which
deals with abstract thought.
For example, a picture of a monster is processed by the reptilian
brain, which promotes an avoidance response. The neocortex processes
the picture and says: "it's only a picture", but the response of the
reptilian brain remains. This cognitive dissociation is why symbols are
so effective in modifying people's behaviour. The response exists even
though it isn't acknowledged by the higher conciousness of the the
neocortex.
Brian Dooley
At that time in Britain it wasn't just wrong, it was absolutely
illegal.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Brian Dooley
Roosevelt?
>
>I don't think anyone is suggesting ordinary cannibalism. The suggestion
>the the human remains were from sacrifice is probably due to a theme in
>conspiracy theory which associates ritual human sacrifice with the
>occult and with English royalty and the American presidential elite.
--
Brian Dooley
Except recently.
colp
My mistake, I should have typed Franklin.
That what you get for thinking about two things at once when you're typing.
John Cawston
Hence the activities of people like Burke and Hare. Clandestine
dissection seems a reasonable explanation.
JC
Warwick
I am interested in the lexigrammatical analysis. The first I heard about
her dying with her lover named Dodi I was suspicious. Di and Dodi. All
those Ds! It was clearly an unnatural event.
--
cheers
Peter Metcalfe
> Brian Dooley wrote:
> > At that time in Britain it wasn't just wrong, it was absolutely
> > illegal.
> Hence the activities of people like Burke and Hare. Clandestine
> dissection seems a reasonable explanation.
FWIW while dissection was illegal, it was rarely
punished because the authorities understood that it was
in a good cause (Burke and Hare were hanged because
they skipped the grave-digging process and took the
victims fresh off the streets). Dissectors were
more at risk from retribution by the outraged
public.
--Peter Metcalfe
colp
<snip>
>
> I am interested in the lexigrammatical analysis. The first I heard about
> her dying with her lover named Dodi I was suspicious. Di and Dodi. All
> those Ds! It was clearly an unnatural event.
The main problem with such analysis is that it is very easy to end up
finding associations simply because you are looking for them, like Bible
codes. You can end up simply reinforcing you own preconceived ideas.
Another problem is that there are several different symbolic
dictionaries that can be used as a basis for interpretation. Unless you
are absolutely sure that your dictionary accurately represents reality
you risk introducing a bias in your interpretation.
Having said that, I'd interpet the D's as meaning seed or desolation,
with the positive association of reconciliation and the negative
association of religious war.
John Cawston
> In article <ep6d1s$mr5$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, rewa...@ihug.co.nz says...
>> Brian Dooley wrote:
>
>>> At that time in Britain it wasn't just wrong, it was absolutely
>>> illegal.
>
>> Hence the activities of people like Burke and Hare. Clandestine
>> dissection seems a reasonable explanation.
>
> FWIW while dissection was illegal, it was rarely
> punished because the authorities understood that it was
> in a good cause (Burke and Hare were hanged because
> they skipped the grave-digging process and took the
> victims fresh off the streets).
From memory only Burke was hanged with Hare turning States
evidence on him.
Dissectors were
> more at risk from retribution by the outraged
> public.
Heh. Several of their victims were prostitutes and were
recognised by the students dissecting them. Must have been a bit
unnerving dissecting them again after having used the pork scalpel.
JC
>
> --Peter Metcalfe
Sue Bilstein
wrote:
>Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>
> Dissectors were
>> more at risk from retribution by the outraged
>> public.
>
>Heh. Several of their victims were prostitutes and were
>recognised by the students dissecting them. Must have been a bit
>unnerving dissecting them again after having used the pork scalpel.
Urrgh!
Warwick
> Warwick wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> I am interested in the lexigrammatical analysis. The first I heard about
>> her dying with her lover named Dodi I was suspicious. Di and Dodi. All
>> those Ds! It was clearly an unnatural event.
>
> The main problem with such analysis is that it is very easy to end up
> finding associations simply because you are looking for them, like Bible
> codes. You can end up simply reinforcing you own preconceived ideas.
>
> Another problem is that there are several different symbolic
> dictionaries that can be used as a basis for interpretation. Unless you
> are absolutely sure that your dictionary accurately represents reality
> you risk introducing a bias in your interpretation.
>
Yes indeed. However we are very fortunate that there is only one consonant
and two vowels in the lexigram. This simplifies things enormously, and
allows many negative arguments based on symbolic dictionaries to be
rejected out of hand.
> Having said that, I'd interpet the D's as meaning seed or desolation,
> with the positive association of reconciliation and the negative
> association of religious war.
Yes the desolation and positive association of reconciliation seem obvious
interpretations but I did not see the negative association of religious
war. Was that inferred by the pair's different ethnicity?
--
cheers
Peter Metcalfe
> Peter Metcalfe wrote:
> > In article <ep6d1s$mr5$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, rewa...@ihug.co.nz says...
> >> Brian Dooley wrote:
> >
> >>> At that time in Britain it wasn't just wrong, it was absolutely
> >>> illegal.
> >
> >> Hence the activities of people like Burke and Hare. Clandestine
> >> dissection seems a reasonable explanation.
> >
> > FWIW while dissection was illegal, it was rarely
> > punished because the authorities understood that it was
> > in a good cause (Burke and Hare were hanged because
> > they skipped the grave-digging process and took the
> > victims fresh off the streets).
> From memory only Burke was hanged with Hare turning States
> evidence on him.
You're right. Looking it up I see that their female partners
narrowly escaped being lynched after being acquitted while
good doctor Knox was buried professionally by peer pressyre.
> > Dissectors were
> > more at risk from retribution by the outraged
> > public.
> Heh. Several of their victims were prostitutes and were
> recognised by the students dissecting them. Must have been a bit
> unnerving dissecting them again after having used the pork scalpel.
Wiki says the prostitute was Mary Patterson. Another (elderly)
prostitute by the name of Mary Haldane ended up the slab (along
with her daughter after she started asking questions). Wiki
states that her disappearance was recognized but not whether
her corpse was recognized. Lastly their second to last
victim was Daft Jamie who was a well-known simpleton and
recognized on the dissecting table. The good doctor Knox
denied that the corpse was that of Daft Jamie and to quash
further questions, dissected the face first(!)
--Peter Metcalfe
Gib Bogle
colp is really nutty, and so, apparently, is Warwick.
colp
On Jan 24, 6:18 pm, Warwick <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:03:02 +1300, colp wrote:
> > Warwick wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> >> I am interested in the lexigrammatical analysis. The first I heard about
> >> her dying with her lover named Dodi I was suspicious. Di and Dodi. All
> >> those Ds! It was clearly an unnatural event.
>
> > The main problem with such analysis is that it is very easy to end up
> > finding associations simply because you are looking for them, like Bible
> > codes. You can end up simply reinforcing you own preconceived ideas.
>
> > Another problem is that there are several different symbolic
> > dictionaries that can be used as a basis for interpretation. Unless you
> > are absolutely sure that your dictionary accurately represents reality
> > you risk introducing a bias in your interpretation.Yes indeed. However we are very fortunate that there is only one consonant
> and two vowels in the lexigram. This simplifies things enormously, and
> allows many negative arguments based on symbolic dictionaries to be
> rejected out of hand.
>
> > Having said that, I'd interpet the D's as meaning seed or desolation,
> > with the positive association of reconciliation and the negative
> > association of religious war.Yes the desolation and positive association of reconciliation seem obvious
> interpretations but I did not see the negative association of religious
> war. Was that inferred by the pair's different ethnicity?
Yes, that's right. The Repossi video is good evidence that the couple
were planning to marry, which strengthens the seed/ethnicity
association.
Sue Bilstein
At least one of them is engaging in a leisurely piss-take. Possibly
both of them.
Geopelia
>
> Warwick wrote:
>> On 22 Jan 2007 21:59:48 -0800, colp wrote:
>>
>> > The most notable alleged human sacrifice would be of Princess Diana of
>> > Wales. She died in the early hours of August 31, 1997, 109 years after
>> > the killing of Mary Ann Nicholls (the first victim of Jack the Ripper)
>> > in the early hours of August 31, 1888. Some people claim that the place
>> > where Princess Diana died was an ancient site at which sacrifices were
>> > made to the goddess Diana. I've also read that August 13 and August 31
>> > are significant dates in occult circles.
I've never heard that the goddess Diana (Artemis) wanted human sacrifices.
>> I have long suspected ritual sacrifice to an ancient goddess was the
>> reason
>> for Princess Diana's death. It is also clear the operation was carried
>> out
>> by an organization with unlimited resources, so undoubtedly a government
>> agency and we all know the British Secret Service head the list of likely
>> candidates. Intoxicating the driver on alcohol and barbiturates and then
>> convincing him to drive into a concrete pillar is one thing, but making
>> it
>> happen on an ancient site where sacrifices were made to her Goddess
>> namesake is quite another. I should think the whole thing was timed to a
>> precise point on the lunar/solar cycles. Anybody looked into that yet?
This must be the weirdest theory yet about her death. Why don't people just
accept that these sad accidents happen?
>
> The lunar/solar aspect can be related to the religions involved, with
> the European princess symbolising Christianity and Egyptian Dodi Al
> Fayed symbolising Islam (Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, was Egyptian).
> Christianity has a solar cult associated with it, namely the cult of
> Sol Invictus, and Islam has a lunar cult. These aspects are symbolised
> by the solar cross of Christianity and the crescent moon flag of Islam.
Sol Invictus was connected with the Roman worship of Mithra, and originally
came from Persia.
>
> Sacrifice is the key difference between Christianity and Islam, The
> central doctrine of Pauline Christianity is based on human sacrifice,
> but Islam maintains that Yeshua (Jesus) did not die on the cross. There
> are theological arguments that support the Islamic view.
>
> http://solder.ath.cd/pages/switched.html
Crucifixion was a very common way of executing criminals in Roman times,
(such as after the Spartacus rebellion), not a form of human sacrifice in
Roman eyes.
Christians have their own views of it, of course.
Warwick
Well look at the facts. First of all the date - August 31. Thirty-one is
thirteen backwards. You can't deny that. The accident occurred on an
ancient site used to make sacrifices to a Goddess of EXACTLY the same name.
And if all that were not enough there are all those D's in the lexigram of
their names. Half the letters! That was the clincher for me.
The fact Henri Paul was driving recklessly at speed while smashed out of
his tree is neither here nor there. There was nothing accidental about
this.
--
cheers :)
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> > Christianity has a solar cult associated with it, namely the cult of
> Sol Invictus was connected with the Roman worship ofMithra, and originally
> came from Persia.
You may want to know that Sol Invictus has in fact no connection with
Persia, no connection with Persian Mitra, no connection with Roman
Mithras, and no connection with Christianity. All these ideas are
myths which float around the web, endlessly retailed in good faith (as
here, no doubt) but are not, in fact, true.
Sol Invictus was the late Roman state Sun cult, created by the Emperor
Aurelian in 274. Mitra was a Persian deity, not connected to the Roman
cult of Mithras which originates in Rome around 50 AD. The latter was
a mystery cult which never enjoyed official status.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Geopelia
<roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1169661381.0...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Thank you. That's interesting, I'll follow it up, as I only know what is
generally supposed.
Geopelia
colp
On Jan 24, 8:43 pm, Sue Bilstein <sue_bilst...@yahoop.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:16:55 +1300, Gib Bogle
>
> <b...@ihug.too.much.spam.co.nz> wrote:
> >Geopelia wrote:
> >> This thread is getting really weird!
>
> >> Surely nobody is taking this sacrifice stuff seriously?
>
> >> Geopelia
>
> >colp is really nutty, and so, apparently, is Warwick.At least one of them is engaging in a leisurely piss-take. Possibly
> both of them.
Saying that someone is nutty is can be a character smear or an
admission that you are unable to discuss the subject rationally.
It's a standard technique used by people who will not admit to the
possibility of a conspiracy in a government.
I'm not taking the piss, and I'm pretty sure that Warwick isn't either.
colp
> "colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
> news:1169536191.7...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Warwick wrote:
>>
>>>On 22 Jan 2007 21:59:48 -0800, colp wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The most notable alleged human sacrifice would be of Princess Diana of
>>>>Wales. She died in the early hours of August 31, 1997, 109 years after
>>>>the killing of Mary Ann Nicholls (the first victim of Jack the Ripper)
>>>>in the early hours of August 31, 1888. Some people claim that the place
>>>>where Princess Diana died was an ancient site at which sacrifices were
>>>>made to the goddess Diana. I've also read that August 13 and August 31
>>>>are significant dates in occult circles.
>
>
> I've never heard that the goddess Diana (Artemis) wanted human sacrifices.
People make sacrifices regardless.
But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not
sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Matthew 12:7
>
>
>>>I have long suspected ritual sacrifice to an ancient goddess was the
>>>reason
>>>for Princess Diana's death. It is also clear the operation was carried
>>>out
>>>by an organization with unlimited resources, so undoubtedly a government
>>>agency and we all know the British Secret Service head the list of likely
>>>candidates. Intoxicating the driver on alcohol and barbiturates and then
>>>convincing him to drive into a concrete pillar is one thing, but making
>>>it
>>>happen on an ancient site where sacrifices were made to her Goddess
>>>namesake is quite another. I should think the whole thing was timed to a
>>>precise point on the lunar/solar cycles. Anybody looked into that yet?
>
>
> This must be the weirdest theory yet about her death. Why don't people just
> accept that these sad accidents happen?
Because simple accidents do not have witnesses contradicting video
evidence, blood samples being swapped, and coroners quitting the job
half way through.
>
>>The lunar/solar aspect can be related to the religions involved, with
>>the European princess symbolising Christianity and Egyptian Dodi Al
>>Fayed symbolising Islam (Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, was Egyptian).
>>Christianity has a solar cult associated with it, namely the cult of
>>Sol Invictus, and Islam has a lunar cult. These aspects are symbolised
>>by the solar cross of Christianity and the crescent moon flag of Islam.
>
>
> Sol Invictus was connected with the Roman worship of Mithra, and originally
> came from Persia.
Christian imports from the cult are celebrating the Lord's day as Sunday
and Christmas as December 25.
>
>
>>Sacrifice is the key difference between Christianity and Islam, The
>>central doctrine of Pauline Christianity is based on human sacrifice,
>>but Islam maintains that Yeshua (Jesus) did not die on the cross. There
>>are theological arguments that support the Islamic view.
>>
>>http://solder.ath.cd/pages/switched.html
>
>
> Crucifixion was a very common way of executing criminals in Roman times,
> (such as after the Spartacus rebellion), not a form of human sacrifice in
> Roman eyes.
> Christians have their own views of it, of course.
Yes. The killing of a sacrificial animal in Judaism never involved torture.
colp
I very much doubt that he was smashed out of his tree. The Ritz hotel
security camera footage showed Henri Paul taking part in discussion and
showing no sign of drunkenness. Also it isn't possible for Henri Paul to
have had a carbon monoxide level of that of the blood sample, which was
more consistent with someone who had committed suicide by inhaling
exhaust fumes.
The French police supplied false evidence regarding the speed of the
crash. The police claimed that speedo was frozen at 196 km/h, but
Mercedes Benz speedos go back to zero after a crash.
colp
> On 24 Jan, 11:43, "Geopelia" <phildo...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>>Christianity has a solar cult associated with it, namely the cult of
>>>Sol Invictus, and Islam has a lunar cult. ...
>
>
>>Sol Invictus was connected with the Roman worship ofMithra, and originally
>>came from Persia.
>
>
> You may want to know that Sol Invictus has in fact no connection with
> Persia, no connection with Persian Mitra, no connection with Roman
> Mithras, and no connection with Christianity. All these ideas are
> myths which float around the web, endlessly retailed in good faith (as
> here, no doubt) but are not, in fact, true.
A connection between Sol Invictus and Christianity is Constantine. He
decreed the day of the sun to be the Roman day of rest, and he convoked
the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, which established a standard Christian
doctrine. The cult of Sol Invictus was not abolished as the official
Roman religion until 390 CE.
The solar cross remains a Christian icon to this day.
Sue Bilstein
> On Jan 24, 8:43 pm, Sue Bilstein <sue_bilst...@yahoop.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:16:55 +1300, Gib Bogle
>
> > <b...@ihug.too.much.spam.co.nz> wrote:
> > >Geopelia wrote:
> > >> This thread is getting really weird!
>
> > >> Surely nobody is taking this sacrifice stuff seriously?
>
> >At least one of them is engaging in a leisurely piss-take. Possibly
> > both of them.
> Saying that someone is nutty is can be a character smear or an
> admission that you are unable to discuss the subject rationally.
>
> It's a standard technique used by people who will not admit to the
> possibility of a conspiracy in a government.
>
> I'm not taking the piss, and I'm pretty sure that Warwick isn't either.
Make that one of them. Nice piss-take, Warwick.
<cleaned up two google-messes in this post>
Brian Dooley
Except, I neglected to say, executed criminals.
>
>Hence the activities of people like Burke and Hare. Clandestine
>dissection seems a reasonable explanation.
--
A _ L _ P
This has been the best and most splendidly extended piss-take in yonks. Warwick,
take a bow!
Go on, take an arrow too. Have a quiver on me! For this you deserve
the whole set.
A L P
colp
I've had a look at some of Warwick's other posts and it's clear that he
is smarter than he makes out to be in his posts in this thread.
So I think you are right about the piss take.
But piss take or not, it doesn't change the fact that there are major
indicators of conspiracy surrounding the claims that Henri Paul was
responsible for the crash: the false police report regarding the speedo,
and the blood sample which could not have been from Henri Paul.
The racism of the royal family was a motive to prevent the marriage of
Dodi and Diana, and Diana probably recognised this, saying that she
though that they might try to kill her.
The problem with the theory that Diana's death was not a simple accident
is the difficulty of explaining what would have caused Henri Paul to
crash into the thirteenth pillar. The picture in terms of religious
symbolism is very clear, yet the implications of this picture are
unacceptable to Pauline Christianity and the governments of
predominantly Christian countries.
It's a case of not seeing the elephant because seeing the elephant is a
matter of life and death.
colp
> "Chris Lim" <black...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169504054.4...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>>
>>>From the next two paragraphs in the story (which dates from 1998)
>>
>>Thanks to Scooter for that late-breaking news.
>>
>
>
> I'm trying to fathom the leap to 'sacrificial victims' from the post.
The leap is illustrated by the symbolism of the event. On August 31,
1997 the driver called Paul crashed into the thirteenth pillar. In
Christainity Paul was the thirteenth apostle, and the apostles were
called pillars. The numbers 13 and 31 are of course associated.
Paul of Tarsus promoted the doctrine of sacrifical atonement, which is
the central doctrine of Pauline Christianity. This doctrine is rejected
by Islam. Diana was from A Christian bakground and Dodi was from a
Muslim one. The Repossi video is good evidence that they intended to marry.
Geopelia
"colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:45b7...@clear.net.nz...
Their marriage might have helped with race and religious relations in
Britain. On the other hand, it might have led to rioting.
We will never know now.
13 and 31 are Prime numbers. What do you make of that?
Since when was Paul an apostle? He never even met Jesus except in a vision
(if you believe that).
I'll back the Sermon on the Mount against all Paul's epistles. Wouldn't you?
The epistles are of great interest though as what they originally were,
letters to Christians in various Mediterranean cities.
And as Paul was a Roman citizen, (though a colonial from Tarsus) it gives an
interesting slant on the Epistle to the Romans.
Geopelia
colp
> "colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:45b7...@clear.net.nz...
>
>>Pooh wrote:
>>
>>>"Chris Lim" <black...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1169504054.4...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>From the next two paragraphs in the story (which dates from 1998)
>>>>
>>>>Thanks to Scooter for that late-breaking news.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm trying to fathom the leap to 'sacrificial victims' from the post.
>>
>>The leap is illustrated by the symbolism of the event. On August 31,
>>1997 the driver called Paul crashed into the thirteenth pillar. In
>>Christainity Paul was the thirteenth apostle, and the apostles were
>>called pillars. The numbers 13 and 31 are of course associated.
>>
>>Paul of Tarsus promoted the doctrine of sacrifical atonement, which is
>>the central doctrine of Pauline Christianity. This doctrine is rejected
>>by Islam. Diana was from A Christian bakground and Dodi was from a
>>Muslim one. The Repossi video is good evidence that they intended to
>>marry.
>
>
> Their marriage might have helped with race and religious relations in
> Britain. On the other hand, it might have led to rioting.
> We will never know now.
Historically, a marriage was arranged when two kingdoms wanted to insure
a peace treaty, so I think that it would be safe to say that it would
have improved race relations in Britian.
>
> 13 and 31 are Prime numbers. What do you make of that?
Not much, to be honest. 13 has a reputation for being an unlucky number
which is quite justified IMO.
>
> Since when was Paul an apostle? He never even met Jesus except in a vision
> (if you believe that).
My use of the phrase "the thirtenth apostle" was a tongue in cheek
reference to his legitimacy, as there were only ever twelve apostles.
The accounts of Paul's so called conversion are contradictory, and he
identified himself as being a Pharisee after the event.
> I'll back the Sermon on the Mount against all Paul's epistles. Wouldn't you?
I agree. Paul, as a Pharisee, represented much of the negative aspects
of religion, particularly secular authority.
>
> The epistles are of great interest though as what they originally were,
> letters to Christians in various Mediterranean cities.
> And as Paul was a Roman citizen, (though a colonial from Tarsus) it gives an
> interesting slant on the Epistle to the Romans.
Citizenship in itself represents the secular authority of an empire or a
republic. Thus it is Paul's doctrines which make Christainity acceptable
to western governments. This is part of the reason that France assisted
Britian in the coverup of the circumstances surrounding the car crash -
the religious and political issues go to the heart of western democracy.
TarlaStar
TarlaStar
God almighty...It was car accident and she died.
TarlaStar
Who cares? Honestly? Who the fuck cares? She wasn't important enough to
garner a conspiracy to kill her.
Warwick
Glad you enjoyed it Agnes:). It was fun to write. I am still a bit
surprised at how desensitised to absurdity the usenet audience has become.
I was worried Geopelia thought I was on the up and up, so I am also glad
the ruse is up.
--
cheers.
colp
People who want to know why the truth is covered up.
> She wasn't important enough to
> garner a conspiracy to kill her.
The evidence of conspiracy is:
The French police reported that the speedo was stuck at over 190 kph,
but retracted their claim after it was pointed out the Mercedes Benz
speedometers go to zero after a crash.
No pictures from the cameras which should have caught images of the car
were recorded - the electricity which powered the cameras was cut off
minutes before the crash.
Professor Dominique Lecomte partially embalmed the body before a full
autopsy had been completed.
The level of carbon monoxide in the sample said to be from Henri Paul
was consistent with someone who had committed suicide by inhaling car
exhaust.
Rees Jones was between the frontal impact area and Diana and he survived
the crash. Paparazzi photographs developed by French investigators
showed Diana with her eyes open, apparently conscious and unhurt after
the crash.
colp
<snip>
> God almighty...It was car accident and she died.
The car crash was not the cause of her death.
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > On 24 Jan, 11:43, "Geopelia" <phildo...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >>>Christianity has a solar cult associated with it, namely the cult of
> >>>Sol Invictus, and Islam has a lunar cult. ...
>
> >>Sol Invictus was connected with the Roman worship ofMithra, and originally
> >>came from Persia.
>
> > You may want to know that Sol Invictus has in fact no connection with
> > Persia, no connection with Persian Mitra, no connection with Roman
> > Mithras, and no connection with Christianity. All these ideas are
> > myths which float around the web, endlessly retailed in good faith (as
> > here, no doubt) but are not, in fact, true.
> A connection between Sol Invictus and Christianity is Constantine.
Since Christianity predates both, it's not easy to see how.
> He decreed the day of the sun to be the Roman day of rest,
Indeed. But not because of his enthusiasm for Sol Invictus, but
because it was the Christian Sunday!
> and he convoked the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, which established a standard Christian
> doctrine.
Well I don't see how this relates to Sol Invictus.
Just a point of detail: Constantine did not summon the council; he was
persuaded to pay the bills for a council that was already assembling,
and the venue was switched to Nicaea so he could attend. The idea that
Nicaea 'established standard Christian doctrine', as if such a thing
did not exist before, is anti-historical. (Too much Da Vinci Code, I
fear!) It settled arguments about the date of Easter and the
homoousion.
> The cult of Sol Invictus was not abolished as the official
> Roman religion until 390 CE.
The cult of Sol Invictus was not the official Roman religion. That was
paganism. It was a state cult, which was part of paganism. Again the
connection of all this with Christianity is not clear to me.
> The solar cross remains a Christian icon to this day.
Since I have never heard of such a thing, I suspect smoke and mirrors.
colp
> On 24 Jan, 22:27, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
>>roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>On 24 Jan, 11:43, "Geopelia" <phildo...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Christianity has a solar cult associated with it, namely the cult of
>>>>>Sol Invictus, and Islam has a lunar cult. ...
>>
>>>>Sol Invictus was connected with the Roman worship ofMithra, and originally
>>>>came from Persia.
>>
>>>You may want to know that Sol Invictus has in fact no connection with
>>>Persia, no connection with Persian Mitra, no connection with Roman
>>>Mithras, and no connection with Christianity. All these ideas are
>>>myths which float around the web, endlessly retailed in good faith (as
>>>here, no doubt) but are not, in fact, true.
>>
>>A connection between Sol Invictus and Christianity is Constantine.
>
>
> Since Christianity predates both, it's not easy to see how.
Christianity and the solar cult don't have the same origin.
Constantine was an authority figure who promoted Christianity and Sol
Invictus at the same time.
>
>
>>He decreed the day of the sun to be the Roman day of rest,
>
>
> Indeed. But not because of his enthusiasm for Sol Invictus, but
> because it was the Christian Sunday!
You appear to be arguing that Christianity was the driving force for the
the adoption of the day of the sun as the day of rest, which would seem
to contradict your assertion that Sol Invictus has no connection to
Christianity.
>
>
>>and he convoked the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, which established a standard Christian
>>doctrine.
>
>
> Well I don't see how this relates to Sol Invictus.
The connection is that Christian doctrine was determined in an
environment where the cult of Sol Invictus was part of the authoritative
belief system.
>
> Just a point of detail: Constantine did not summon the council; he was
> persuaded to pay the bills for a council that was already assembling,
> and the venue was switched to Nicaea so he could attend. The idea that
> Nicaea 'established standard Christian doctrine', as if such a thing
> did not exist before, is anti-historical. (Too much Da Vinci Code, I
> fear!) It settled arguments about the date of Easter and the
> homoousion.
>
>
>>The cult of Sol Invictus was not abolished as the official
>>Roman religion until 390 CE.
>
>
> The cult of Sol Invictus was not the official Roman religion. That was
> paganism. It was a state cult, which was part of paganism. Again the
> connection of all this with Christianity is not clear to me.
Another indication of the influence of the cult on Christianity is
religious language.
According to Dictionary of Mythology Folklore and Symbols, the following
is stated about the word HOLY: In practically all languages, the word
"holy" has been derived from the divinely honored sun. According to
Encyclopedia of Religions, HOLI is the Great Hindu spring festival, held
in honour of Krishna, as the spring sun-god. Strong's Concordance refers
to "heile" (the sun's rays). This form is almost identical to the German
and Dutch equivalent of the English "holy." The German and Dutch word is
heilig, which is derived from Heil, the name of a Saxon idol.
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/www.innvista.com/scriptures/compare/heathen5.htm
Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language has
these three definitions under "glory," as follows: (1) in religious
symbolism, the complete representation of an emanation of light from the
person of a sanctified being, consisting of the aureole and the nimbus;
(2) the quality of being radiant; as the glory of the sun; (3) any ring
of light; a halo. Neither the Hebrew words kabod and kabad nor the Greek
words doxa and dokeo carry these meanings.
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/www.innvista.com/scriptures/compare/heathen7.htm
>
>
>>The solar cross remains a Christian icon to this day.
>
>
> Since I have never heard of such a thing, I suspect smoke and mirrors.
Here's a picture of one:
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/images/arch/DowntownChurches/Central%20Christian%20Cross.jpg
It's also called a sun cross.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_cross
It's part of the Celtic cross.
http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefssolarcross.htm
Geopelia
"Warwick" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:mezlz281bl2a$.w6h5tv8kjkzx$.dlg@40tude.net...
So it was all a joke! Are you "Colp" as well as Warwick?
Not to worry, I enjoyed adding my little bits to it.
Geopelia
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Warwick
> So it was all a joke! Are you "Colp" as well as Warwick?
> Not to worry, I enjoyed adding my little bits to it.
No I am not colp as well. I wouldn't take the piss out of myself, it would
feel like cheating at solitaire.
Like you I am confident Princess Diana was the victim of a tragic car
accident. I was trying to point out that the idea of arranging the accident
to facilitate her murder is bizzare. It would be an extraordinarily
difficult exercise, fraught with risks of going wrong. That is without
arranging for the driver to be christened Paul, the pillar being the
thirteenth and the crash site coinciding with an ancient site where
sacrifices were made to a goddess of the same name.
--
cheers
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > On 24 Jan, 22:27, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> >>roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> >>>On 24 Jan, 11:43, "Geopelia" <phildo...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >>>>>Christianity has a solar cult associated with it, namely the cult of
> >>>>>Sol Invictus, and Islam has a lunar cult. ...
>
> >>>>Sol Invictus was connected with the Roman worship ofMithra, and originally
> >>>>came from Persia.
>
> >>>You may want to know that Sol Invictus has in fact no connection with
> >>>Persia, no connection with Persian Mitra, no connection with Roman
> >>>Mithras, and no connection with Christianity. All these ideas are
> >>>myths which float around the web, endlessly retailed in good faith (as
> >>>here, no doubt) but are not, in fact, true.
>
> >>A connection between Sol Invictus and Christianity is Constantine.
>
> > Since Christianity predates both, it's not easy to see how.
>
> Christianity and the solar cult don't have the same origin.
>
> Constantine was an authority figure who promoted Christianity and Sol
> Invictus at the same time.
In what way did he promote Sol Invictus?
> >>He decreed the day of the sun to be the Roman day of rest,
>
> > Indeed. But not because of his enthusiasm for Sol Invictus, but
> > because it was the Christian Sunday!
> You appear to be arguing that Christianity was the driving force for the
> the adoption of the day of the sun as the day of rest, which would seem
> to contradict your assertion that Sol Invictus has no connection to
> Christianity.
I'm not sure how you get into this muddle. Christians celebrate Sunday
as the sabbath. They did so from earliest times, in the first century.
Sol Invictus was not invented until 274. Any promotion of
Christianity involves Sunday.
> >>and he convoked the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, which established a
> >>standard Christian doctrine.
>
> > Well I don't see how this relates to Sol Invictus.
>
> The connection is that Christian doctrine was determined in an
> environment where the cult of Sol Invictus was part of the authoritative
> belief system.
No, Christians rejected paganism as they had always done. Quite why
holding a council to discuss the date of Easter and the homoousion
involves Sol Invictus you do not explain.
> > Just a point of detail: Constantine did not summon the council; he was
> > persuaded to pay the bills for a council that was already assembling,
> > and the venue was switched to Nicaea so he could attend. The idea that
> > Nicaea 'established standard Christian doctrine', as if such a thing
> > did not exist before, is anti-historical. (Too much Da Vinci Code, I
> > fear!) It settled arguments about the date of Easter and the
> > homoousion.
>
> >>The cult of Sol Invictus was not abolished as the official
> >>Roman religion until 390 CE.
>
> > The cult of Sol Invictus was not the official Roman religion. That was
> > paganism. It was a state cult, which was part of paganism. Again the
> > connection of all this with Christianity is not clear to me.
>
> Another indication of the influence of the cult on Christianity is
> religious language.
I think that anything can be proved to be influenced by anything with
this sort of argument, tho. It's just too vague.
> According to Dictionary of Mythology Folklore and Symbols, the following
> is stated about the word HOLY: In practically all languages, the word
> "holy" has been derived from the divinely honored sun.
<smile> I'm afraid that I wouldn't place any weight on this idea at
all. If ever I saw playing games with words, this is it.
Also, since the sun cult had a very minor place in Greek and Roman
pagan religion it is most unlikely that this can be so for Greek or
Latin.
> >>The solar cross remains a Christian icon to this day.
>
> > Since I have never heard of such a thing, I suspect smoke and mirrors.
>
> Here's a picture ofd one...
As I said, we need to see evidence of adoption because of connection,
not assertions.
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> Thank you. That's interesting, I'll follow it up, as I only know what is
> generally supposed.
Glad to help. Most of what we read online about Mithras and Sol
Invictus is rubbish. Believe nothing that doesn't have an explicit
reference to an ancient text.
colp
> On 25 Jan, 09:56, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
>>roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>On 24 Jan, 22:27, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>>
>>>>roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>>>On 24 Jan, 11:43, "Geopelia" <phildo...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>Christianity has a solar cult associated with it, namely the cult of
>>>>>>>Sol Invictus, and Islam has a lunar cult. ...
>>
>>>>>>Sol Invictus was connected with the Roman worship ofMithra, and originally
>>>>>>came from Persia.
>>
>>>>>You may want to know that Sol Invictus has in fact no connection with
>>>>>Persia, no connection with Persian Mitra, no connection with Roman
>>>>>Mithras, and no connection with Christianity. All these ideas are
>>>>>myths which float around the web, endlessly retailed in good faith (as
>>>>>here, no doubt) but are not, in fact, true.
>>
>>>>A connection between Sol Invictus and Christianity is Constantine.
>>
>>>Since Christianity predates both, it's not easy to see how.
>>
>>Christianity and the solar cult don't have the same origin.
>>
>>Constantine was an authority figure who promoted Christianity and Sol
>>Invictus at the same time.
>
>
> In what way did he promote Sol Invictus?
By continuing to have a reference to it on Roman currency.
>
>
>>>>He decreed the day of the sun to be the Roman day of rest,
>>
>>>Indeed. But not because of his enthusiasm for Sol Invictus, but
>>>because it was the Christian Sunday!
>>
>>You appear to be arguing that Christianity was the driving force for the
>>the adoption of the day of the sun as the day of rest, which would seem
>>to contradict your assertion that Sol Invictus has no connection to
>>Christianity.
>
>
> I'm not sure how you get into this muddle.
What muddle?
> Christians celebrate Sunday
> as the sabbath.
False. The sabbath has always been from Friday night to Saturday night.
Christianity celebrates Sunday as the Lord's day, not the sabbath.
> They did so from earliest times, in the first century.
Proof please.
Christianity still celebrated the sabbath in the fifth century, as well
as Sunday.
http://www.biblehistory.com/The%20Origin%20of%20Sunday%20Worship.html
> Sol Invictus was not invented until 274.
Aurelien dedicated the temple in 274. Sun worship was in existence well
before this date, in particular as worship of El Gabal, Mithras, and Sol.
> Any promotion of
> Christianity involves Sunday.
Which shows the connection between Christianity and sun worship.
>
>
>>>>and he convoked the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, which established a
>>>>standard Christian doctrine.
>>
>>>Well I don't see how this relates to Sol Invictus.
>>
>>The connection is that Christian doctrine was determined in an
>>environment where the cult of Sol Invictus was part of the authoritative
>>belief system.
>
>
> No, Christians rejected paganism as they had always done. Quite why
> holding a council to discuss the date of Easter and the homoousion
> involves Sol Invictus you do not explain.
Straw man. The discussions held at the council do not affect the belief
systems of the 'authorities' at that time. Pauline Christianity included
the doctrine of obedience to authority, which implies respect of the
beliefs of the authorities.
>
>
>>>Just a point of detail: Constantine did not summon the council; he was
>>>persuaded to pay the bills for a council that was already assembling,
>>>and the venue was switched to Nicaea so he could attend. The idea that
>>>Nicaea 'established standard Christian doctrine', as if such a thing
>>>did not exist before, is anti-historical. (Too much Da Vinci Code, I
>>>fear!) It settled arguments about the date of Easter and the
>>>homoousion.
>>
>>>>The cult of Sol Invictus was not abolished as the official
>>>>Roman religion until 390 CE.
>>
>>>The cult of Sol Invictus was not the official Roman religion. That was
>>>paganism. It was a state cult, which was part of paganism. Again the
>>>connection of all this with Christianity is not clear to me.
>>
>>Another indication of the influence of the cult on Christianity is
>>religious language.
>
>
> I think that anything can be proved to be influenced by anything with
> this sort of argument, tho. It's just too vague.
It remains that the word qodesh (which means set apart, and is used to
describe deity) has been translated with a word used predominantly to
honour the sun.
>
>
>>According to Dictionary of Mythology Folklore and Symbols, the following
>>is stated about the word HOLY: In practically all languages, the word
>>"holy" has been derived from the divinely honored sun.
>
>
> <smile> I'm afraid that I wouldn't place any weight on this idea at
> all. If ever I saw playing games with words, this is it.
It's no game. The word holy is derived from sun worship.
>
> Also, since the sun cult had a very minor place in Greek and Roman
> pagan religion it is most unlikely that this can be so for Greek or
> Latin.
Making reference to the cult on your currency and wearing a solar crown
do not indicate that the cult held a "very minor place" in Roman culture.
The Roman gens Aurelia was associated with the cult of Sol. After his
victories in the East, the emperor Aurelian introduced an official cult
of Sol Invictus, making the sun-god the premier divinity of the empire,
and wearing his radiated crown himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_invictus
>
>
>>>>The solar cross remains a Christian icon to this day.
>>
>>>Since I have never heard of such a thing, I suspect smoke and mirrors.
>>
>>Here's a picture ofd one...
>
>
> As I said, we need to see evidence of adoption because of connection,
> not assertions.
Assertions are necessary to show evidence.
The connections are the Christian celebration of Sunday, and the use of
a word which honours the sun as a description of deity.
colp
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 23:58:53 +1300, Geopelia wrote:
>
>
>>So it was all a joke! Are you "Colp" as well as Warwick?
>>Not to worry, I enjoyed adding my little bits to it.
>
>
> No I am not colp as well. I wouldn't take the piss out of myself, it would
> feel like cheating at solitaire.
>
> Like you I am confident Princess Diana was the victim of a tragic car
> accident.
An "accident" in which the power was cut to the cameras which would have
recorded the passing car before it crashed.
> I was trying to point out that the idea of arranging the accident
> to facilitate her murder is bizzare.
The world is not limited to the mundane.
> It would be an extraordinarily
> difficult exercise, fraught with risks of going wrong.
A risky exercise, but not impossible. All you need for a crash in a
tunnel is to cut the electricity to the tunnel lights and then flash a
bright light from a passing motorcycle. The driver interprets this as a
dangerous explosion and instinctively jerks the wheel away from the
light. You would have to be sure that the driver would react as desired,
so some "training" would be in order. It wouldn't be that difficult when
you start throwing money at someone.
> That is without
> arranging for the driver to be christened Paul, the pillar being the
> thirteenth and the crash site coinciding with an ancient site where
> sacrifices were made to a goddess of the same name.
The coincidences weren't necessarily part of the conspiracy to kill
Diana. They do, however, indicate the significance of the event.
Geopelia
<roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1169729604.0...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Thank you.
Geopelia
Warwick
All you need for a crash in a tunnel is a small driver error. Like bridges,
tunnels are unforgiving. There is nowhere to go. No amount of training is
going to make a professional driver steer into a concrete wall at eighty
mph. It would require brainwashing/hypnotism and even then be so unreliable
that the suggestion would be dismissed out of hand in the operations room
of any agency. The plan also seems to call for some level of control over
the other traffic in the vicinity, which is difficult. There is no evidence
that anybody attempted to do that.
On the other hand it is possible the driver made a mistake. He was being
chased. He was not in his usual car. He was driving at speed. He was
intoxicated. It looks as if the merc failed to take a bend at speed,
clipped a pillar and crashed into a wall.
Obviously we have different opinions on the comparative likelihoods of
these two events. imho the difference between the two chances is so wide
that I find the conspiracy suggestion absurd. The fact that a vocal
minority support it does not reduce the absurdity of the idea. Various
investigative agencies have looked into the event and have determined there
was no conspiracy.
As far as conspiracy theories and their credibilities go, raising issues
about the apostles, sacrifices to ancient goddesses and mystic symbolism
does more harm than good. It shifts the conspiracy theory from the absurd
and into the looney bin.
--
cheers
BrentC
wrote:
>Remains of "Ten Bodies Found Under Ben Franklin's Home" – Workmen
>have dug up the remains of ten bodies hidden beneath the former
>London home of Benjamin Franklin, the founding father of American
>Independence.
So he was first a mass murderer then a traitor and then a terroist -
whose susprised?
*********************
BrentC
colp
Your opinion. Small is a relative term.
> Like bridges,
> tunnels are unforgiving. There is nowhere to go.
In general there are several options. You can go straight ahead, into
another lane, glance off the side, or crash into an obstruction head on.
You can even hit the brakes if you feel so inclined.
> No amount of training is
> going to make a professional driver steer into a concrete wall at eighty
> mph.
Documented government research into mind control dates from the 1950s
with MK-ULTRA. Project Monarch officially began in the 60's, and
included self destruct or suicide programming. Information about project
Monarch comes primarily from witnesses like Cathy O'Brien, Sisco
Wheeler, and Annie McKenna.
> It would require brainwashing/hypnotism and even then be so unreliable
> that the suggestion would be dismissed out of hand in the operations room
> of any agency.
Spent a bit of time with the agencies, have you?
> The plan also seems to call for some level of control over
> the other traffic in the vicinity, which is difficult.
Straw man. The plan I described did not require such control. All that
was necessary for the theoretical plan was for the crash to be an
ostensible reason for an ambulance to turn up which was part of the
operation.
> There is no evidence
> that anybody attempted to do that.
>
> On the other hand it is possible the driver made a mistake. He was being
> chased. He was not in his usual car. He was driving at speed.
The wreckage of the car certainly shows that he was travelling at some
speed. However the French police report about the speedo being stuck at
over 192 km/h was false, as Mercedes Benz speedos go to zero after a crash.
> He was
> intoxicated.
There is no proof. The blood sample had levels of carbon monoxide which
were not consistent with the official explanation. Video of him at the
Ritz showed him engaging in conversation with no signs of intoxication.
> It looks as if the merc failed to take a bend at speed,
> clipped a pillar and crashed into a wall.
Have you seen a photo of the car? It did't clip the pillar, it ran into
it head on.
>
> Obviously we have different opinions on the comparative likelihoods of
> these two events. imho the difference between the two chances is so wide
> that I find the conspiracy suggestion absurd.
Our opinions are of no importance. What matters are the facts.
> The fact that a vocal
> minority support it does not reduce the absurdity of the idea.
There is nothing absurd about the idea of royalty killing one one of
their own. Anne Boleyn (Mother of Elizabeth I) and Catherine Howard were
killed by Henry VIII.
> Various
> investigative agencies have looked into the event and have determined there
> was no conspiracy.
Do you really think that a government agency would report that there was
a government conspiracy if one existed?
Do you know of any investigative agency that has explained the level of
carbon monoxide in the blood sample or the reason why there were no
pictures from the cameras near the crash site?
> As far as conspiracy theories and their credibilities go, raising issues
> about the apostles, sacrifices to ancient goddesses and mystic symbolism
> does more harm than good. It shifts the conspiracy theory from the absurd
> and into the looney bin.
If the discussion was simply about the cause of death of Diana this
would be a valid point. However, it began with the issue of human
sacrifice amongst the elites, and symbolism forms a significant part of
the body of evidence regarding this issue.
colp
While current reports about the American presidency might give this
impression, there isn't much evidence to suggest that Franklin was
involved in these activities.
Warwick
I guess you don't have a lot of driving experience. When you lose control
of a car in a corner it is generally because of understeer. The 'drive
straight ahead option' does not exist. The only path other than the one you
are on is more understeer. Applying the brakes makes the understeer problem
worse, so braking is not an option either. A good driver will actually
accelerate the vehicle, go a little wider and possibly apply opposite lock
steering. I am confining my description to motor in the front driving
wheels at the back cars, like Mercedez Benzs. Sometimes the road denies the
driver this option of regaining control. Examples of where the road does
this are bridges and tunnels, where the verges are narrow and fringed with
unforgiving objects eg concrete/steel walls and pillars.
The speedo in any car that has crashed may not return to zero if the
gauge's glass has been smashed. But that does not matter since Benz smash
up so many of their own cars deliberately that they can estimate the speed
of the crash from the damage sustained to the car with sufficient accuracy.
As I understand it this estimate is 80 mph, about 130kph I guess. A lot
less than the 196 kph that may or may not have been the place the needle
stuck at.
Traffic presents a huge problem to the supposed agency that constructed
this event. It impacts on the cars speed and line in corner. And both are
crucial to the plan. It would have to be planned for.
As for my experience with the 'agencies', it is extensive. My capacity as
international master spy prevent me from saying more sorry :) It is better
to use common sense.
I did see many photos of the car, but those that had the benefit of
forensically examining the scene said it clipped the column and hit the
wall. At least that was how CNN reported it. I accept that the conclusion
of a forensic examiner carries much more weight than the lay opinions of
people like me and you looking at photographs.
Documented research from the 1950's into mind control blah blah blah.....
You forgot to mention that the documents reveal the science to be
hopelessly unreliable and the reason further research was abandoned.
I agree facts matter more than opinions, but they need to be relevant. If
you can't understand why - "Some people claim that the place
where Princess Diana died was an ancient site at which sacrifices were
made to the goddess Diana." - is a completely irrelevant fact then I think
this is a very good place to stop this ridiculous debate.
--
cheers
colp
<snip>
> The speedo in any car that has crashed may not return to zero if the
> gauge's glass has been smashed. But that does not matter since Benz smash
> up so many of their own cars deliberately that they can estimate the speed
> of the crash from the damage sustained to the car with sufficient accuracy.
> As I understand it this estimate is 80 mph, about 130kph I guess. A lot
> less than the 196 kph that may or may not have been the place the needle
> stuck at.
The point is the the French police lied about the speed of the car.
>
> Traffic presents a huge problem to the supposed agency that constructed
> this event. It impacts on the cars speed and line in corner. And both are
> crucial to the plan. It would have to be planned for.
Yes. There is still the issue of the white Fiat Uno which was reported
by an off duty police officer to have slowed near the entrance of the
tunnel.
>
> As for my experience with the 'agencies', it is extensive. My capacity as
> international master spy prevent me from saying more sorry :) It is better
> to use common sense.
Just because it's common sense does not mean that it is true.
>
> I did see many photos of the car, but those that had the benefit of
> forensically examining the scene said it clipped the column and hit the
> wall.
That explanation is not consistent with the 90 degree impression left in
the front of the car.
> At least that was how CNN reported it. I accept that the conclusion
> of a forensic examiner carries much more weight than the lay opinions of
> people like me and you looking at photographs.
Those conclusions only carry weight when they are consistent with the
observable evidence.
>
> Documented research from the 1950's into mind control blah blah blah.....
> You forgot to mention that the documents reveal the science to be
> hopelessly unreliable and the reason further research was abandoned.
You forgot to mention that several witnesses say that they were involved
with it after it was supposedly abandoned.
>
> I agree facts matter more than opinions, but they need to be relevant. If
> you can't understand why - "Some people claim that the place
> where Princess Diana died was an ancient site at which sacrifices were
> made to the goddess Diana." - is a completely irrelevant fact then I think
> this is a very good place to stop this ridiculous debate.
So you're waving the loony flag and not touching the unanswered
questions. What a suprise.
Geopelia
"colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:45b94768$1...@clear.net.nz...
> Warwick wrote:
(snip)
> There is nothing absurd about the idea of royalty killing one one of
> their own. Anne Boleyn (Mother of Elizabeth I) and Catherine Howard were
> killed by Henry VIII.
>
Weren't both those ladies accused of adultery? That, by a Queen, was
treason.
(I think there was some rumour of witchcraft with Anne Boleyn, but they
certainly weren't "sacrifices").
It was simply politics, and scheming by courtiers. Anne may not even have
been guilty. Henry wanted a son, and she had not provided one.
Catherine Howard may have been guilty, but by then Henry was an old man (by
the standards of the time) and probably jealous.
Who else? Richard III, alleged to have killed the Princes in the Tower, his
nephews? That may not be true. Were they sacrificed?
It is rather surprising the number of eldest sons who died before they could
become king, even near our own time.
Even a daughter, Princess Caroline, who would have been Queen instead of
Victoria, if she had lived.
But none of them were "sacrificed".
Geopelia
Warwick
> So you're waving the loony flag and not touching the unanswered
> questions. What a suprise.
I think I managed to answer most of them. You turned around on the traffic
front because of one of them. You have simply deleted the driving
argument, so I take it I turned you round on that one as well. Your other
assertions that I have ignored are too vague for sensible argument.
Counter arguments in your most recent post are weak.
-Some witnesses claimed to remain employed in mind control research. Well
ooooh eeeer. The unreliable nature of the science remains despite them.
-There is no inconsistency beteen the forensic reports and damage to the
vehicle despite your '90 degree' assertion, and CNN getting it wrong is no
indication of foul play anyway.
-You have changed your story on the French's claim about speed. At first
you say they lied about the position of the needle, now you say they lied
about the speed of the car. I doubt either claim is true, but confident the
matter is not important. As I say, the damage sustained to the car is
evidence enough of the speed it was travelling.
The most interesting comment is - "Just because it's common sense does not
mean that it is true." - because it is clear you have extrapolated that to
a ludicrous extreme "It is not common sense and therefore must be true".
--
cheers
colp
> "colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:45b94768$1...@clear.net.nz...
>
>>Warwick wrote:
>
>
> (snip)
>
>>There is nothing absurd about the idea of royalty killing one one of
>>their own. Anne Boleyn (Mother of Elizabeth I) and Catherine Howard were
>>killed by Henry VIII.
>>
>
>
> Weren't both those ladies accused of adultery? That, by a Queen, was
> treason.
I don't know that they committed adultery. However the pattern of a
husband killing his wife (or ex-wife) fits Diana's claim that Charles
was intending to have her killed.
> (I think there was some rumour of witchcraft with Anne Boleyn, but they
> certainly weren't "sacrifices").
Her hand was deformed to some degree, and some have claimed that it was
a sixth finger. There doesn't seem to be any sacrificial aspect to the
killings.
>
> It was simply politics, and scheming by courtiers. Anne may not even have
> been guilty. Henry wanted a son, and she had not provided one.
> Catherine Howard may have been guilty, but by then Henry was an old man (by
> the standards of the time) and probably jealous.
One could say that taking steps to ensure that the future heir to the
throne does not have a Muslim stepfather is "simply politics".
>
> Who else? Richard III, alleged to have killed the Princes in the Tower, his
> nephews? That may not be true. Were they sacrificed?
I wouldn't expect so. But without evidence it is only speculation.
>
> It is rather surprising the number of eldest sons who died before they could
> become king, even near our own time.
> Even a daughter, Princess Caroline, who would have been Queen instead of
> Victoria, if she had lived.
> But none of them were "sacrificed".
If they were, they would hardly advertise the fact, now would they?
colp
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:57:39 +1300, colp wrote:
>
>
>>So you're waving the loony flag and not touching the unanswered
>>questions. What a suprise.
>
>
> I think I managed to answer most of them.
Here are two that you didn't answer:
Do you really think that a government agency would report that there was
a government conspiracy if one existed?
Do you know of any investigative agency that has explained the level of
carbon monoxide in the blood sample or the reason why there were no
pictures from the cameras near the crash site?
> You turned around on the traffic front because of one of them.
pardon?
> You have simply deleted the driving
> argument, so I take it I turned you round on that one as well.
Saying that cars loose control because of understeer isn't an argument.
If you want to discuss the dymanics of the crash in a conspiracy free
environment, then I think you had better be able do explain why it was
reported that a colleague of Jean-Paul Andanson claimed that he
committed suicide by burning himself to death in his white Fiat Uno in
order to save his marriage.
> Your other
> assertions that I have ignored are too vague for sensible argument.
In other words you were unable to rebut them.
>
> Counter arguments in your most recent post are weak.
Your opinion. Weak is a subjective term.
> -Some witnesses claimed to remain employed in mind control research.
... after it was officially discontinued.
> Well
> ooooh eeeer. The unreliable nature of the science remains despite them.
Mind control isn't a science.
>
> -There is no inconsistency beteen the forensic reports and damage to the
> vehicle despite your '90 degree' assertion, and CNN getting it wrong is no
> indication of foul play anyway.
The inconsistency is that flat walls do not cause 90 degree indentations
to cars that collide with them.
>
> -You have changed your story on the French's claim about speed. At first
> you say they lied about the position of the needle, now you say they lied
> about the speed of the car.
One is inferred from the other.
> I doubt either claim is true, but confident the
> matter is not important.
It was initially suggested that the speedometer of the Mercedes had
stuck at 192 kilometres per hour; further enquiries with the
manufacturers revealed that in a collision the speedometer reverts to
zero. The Mercedes is still available for inspection as it is stored in
containers outside Paris.
Source - 8 July 2003 Lewis Silkin Letter to Coroner, Mr Michael Burgess
on behalf of Mohamed Al Fayed - Page 9
http://cryptome.org/diana-death.htm
> As I say, the damage sustained to the car is
> evidence enough of the speed it was travelling.
You think a difference of 70 km/h in a crash is not important?
>
> The most interesting comment is - "Just because it's common sense does not
> mean that it is true." - because it is clear you have extrapolated that to
> a ludicrous extreme "It is not common sense and therefore must be true".
An extrapolation is not an inverse. It's no suprise that you believe the
official report when you can't even cope with logical inference.
Warwick
> Saying that cars loose control because of understeer isn't an argument.
It is when you have claimed the driver had options like 'going straight
ahead' and 'braking'. I guessed your claims showed ignorance, you have
never been in a car that has failed to keep it's line in a high speed
cornering manouevre.
You have no business criticising *anybodies* logic while you claim this
event is imbued with mystic symbolism, or while you infer 'the negative
association of religious war' from the lexigram :)
I have had enough bud, but I will leave you with a final thought-
if you add 'died' to the lexigram, i.e. Dodi Di died, half the letters are
still Ds!
--
cheers
colp
> On , , Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:45:50 +1300, Re: Sacrifical victims
> bodies found under Benjamin Franklins house, colp
> <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
>
>>Geopelia wrote:
>
>
>>>(I think there was some rumour of witchcraft with Anne Boleyn, but they
>>>certainly weren't "sacrifices").
>>
>>Her hand was deformed to some degree, and some have claimed that it was
>>a sixth finger.
>
>
> same as all the other fingers and you didn't notice it until it
> was pointed out.
>
There's a reference to giants (also called Rephaim) having six fingers
in 2nd Samuel 21:20.
colp
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:16:25 +1300, colp wrote:
>
>
>>Saying that cars loose control because of understeer isn't an argument.
>
>
> It is when you have claimed the driver had options like 'going straight
> ahead' and 'braking'. I guessed your claims showed ignorance, you have
> never been in a car that has failed to keep it's line in a high speed
> cornering manouevre.
The context of my post was about tunnels and bridges, not cornering.
>
> You have no business criticising *anybodies* logic while you claim this
> event is imbued with mystic symbolism, or while you infer 'the negative
> association of religious war' from the lexigram :)
Your acceptance of those claims is a credibility issue. If you can't
work out facts based using logic then you're not in much of a position
to test questionable claims.
>
> I have had enough bud, but I will leave you with a final thought-
> if you add 'died' to the lexigram, i.e. Dodi Di died, half the letters are
> still Ds!
Here's a clue about the 13 & 31 symbolism that was initially discussed
on this thread as related to the time that our posts were made this
afternoon.
C 13:13
W 13:51
C 14:57
W 15:31
C 16:16
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > On 25 Jan, 09:56, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> >>roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> >>>On 24 Jan, 22:27, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> >>>>roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> >>>>>On 24 Jan, 11:43, "Geopelia" <phildo...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>Christianity has a solar cult associated with it, namely the cult of
> >>>>>>>Sol Invictus, and Islam has a lunar cult. ...
>
> >>>>>>Sol Invictus was connected with the Roman worship ofMithra, and originally
> >>>>>>came from Persia.
>
> >>>>>You may want to know that Sol Invictus has in fact no connection with
> >>>>>Persia, no connection with Persian Mitra, no connection with Roman
> >>>>>Mithras, and no connection with Christianity. All these ideas are
> >>>>>myths which float around the web, endlessly retailed in good faith (as
> >>>>>here, no doubt) but are not, in fact, true.
>
> >>>>A connection between Sol Invictus and Christianity is Constantine.
>
> >>>Since Christianity predates both, it's not easy to see how.
>
> >>Christianity and the solar cult don't have the same origin.
>
> >>Constantine was an authority figure who promoted Christianity and Sol
> >>Invictus at the same time.
>
> > In what way did he promote Sol Invictus?
> By continuing to have a reference to it on Roman currency.
I don't see how this is promoting it. He simply didn't remove it
instantly as soon as he became emperor. And why should he? He wasn't
changing Roman society overnight; couldn't have done, however keen he
was on Christianity. Coin types are conservative. It disappears part
way through his reign, never to reappear. It takes 50 years for
paganism to be abolished.
> >>>>He decreed the day of the sun to be the Roman day of rest,
>
> >>>Indeed. But not because of his enthusiasm for Sol Invictus, but
> >>>because it was the Christian Sunday!
>
> >>You appear to be arguing that Christianity was the driving force for the
> >>the adoption of the day of the sun as the day of rest, which would seem
> >>to contradict your assertion that Sol Invictus has no connection to
> >>Christianity.
>
> > I'm not sure how you get into this muddle.
>
>What muddle?
What muddle what?
> > Christians celebrate Sunday
> > as the sabbath.
> False. The sabbath has always been from Friday night to Saturday night.
> Christianity celebrates Sunday as the Lord's day, not the sabbath.
(etc)
Please don't chop logic on a side-issue.
> > Sol Invictus was not invented until 274.
> Aurelien dedicated the temple in 274.
> Sun worship was in existence well before this date, in particular as worship
> of El Gabal, Mithras, and Sol.
Sol Invictus does not exist before this date. The existence of other
unofficial sun cults in the empire is neither here nor there, unless
you're changing your story.
> > Any promotion of Christianity involves Sunday.
>
> Which shows the connection between Christianity and sun worship.
Reiteration noted.
Non sequitur noted.
No it doesn't.
> >>>>and he convoked the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, which established a
> >>>>standard Christian doctrine.
>
> >>>Well I don't see how this relates to Sol Invictus.
>
> >>The connection is that Christian doctrine was determined in an
> >>environment where the cult of Sol Invictus was part of the authoritative
> >>belief system.
>
> > No, Christians rejected paganism as they had always done. Quite why
> > holding a council to discuss the date of Easter and the homoousion
> > involves Sol Invictus you do not explain.
> Straw man. The discussions held at the council do not affect the belief
> systems of the 'authorities' at that time. Pauline Christianity included
> the doctrine of obedience to authority, which implies respect of the
> beliefs of the authorities.
The evidence of the 5,000 pages of the ante-Nicene Fathers is
otherwise.
But if your statements are merely based on what you suppose is
'implied', the discussion is over. To get any of us to accept your
statements, you need to produce facts.
> >>>Just a point of detail: Constantine did not summon the council; he was
> >>>persuaded to pay the bills for a council that was already assembling,
> >>>and the venue was switched to Nicaea so he could attend. The idea that
> >>>Nicaea 'established standard Christian doctrine', as if such a thing
> >>>did not exist before, is anti-historical. (Too much Da Vinci Code, I
> >>>fear!) It settled arguments about the date of Easter and the
> >>>homoousion.
>
> >>>>The cult of Sol Invictus was not abolished as the official
> >>>>Roman religion until 390 CE.
>
> >>>The cult of Sol Invictus was not the official Roman religion. That was
> >>>paganism. It was a state cult, which was part of paganism. Again the
> >>>connection of all this with Christianity is not clear to me.
>
> >>Another indication of the influence of the cult on Christianity is
> >>religious language.
>
> > I think that anything can be proved to be influenced by anything with
> > this sort of argument, tho. It's just too vague.
> It remains that the word qodesh (which means set apart, and is used to
> describe deity) has been translated with a word used predominantly to
> honour the sun.
We seem to have yet further unevidenced assertions here, again of no
importance or relevance, even if true.
> >>According to Dictionary of Mythology Folklore and Symbols, the following
> >>is stated about the word HOLY: In practically all languages, the word
> >>"holy" has been derived from the divinely honored sun.
>
> > <smile> I'm afraid that I wouldn't place any weight on this idea at
> > all. If ever I saw playing games with words, this is it.
>
> It's no game. The word holy is derived from sun worship.
Reiteration noted. Still nonsense, tho.
> > Also, since the sun cult had a very minor place in Greek and Roman
> > pagan religion it is most unlikely that this can be so for Greek or
> > Latin.
>
> Making reference to the cult on your currency and wearing a solar crown
> do not indicate that the cult held a "very minor place" in Roman culture.
You really don't know ANYTHING about Roman solar cults, do you?
The Latin language was not formed in the 3rd century.
> The Roman gens Aurelia was associated with the cult of Sol. After his
> victories in the East, the emperor Aurelian introduced an official cult
> of Sol Invictus, making the sun-god the premier divinity of the empire,
> and wearing his radiated crown himself.
Trueish.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_invictus
You treat Wikipedia as an authority? Do you know how it is compiled,
and by whom?
> >>>>The solar cross remains a Christian icon to this day.
>
> >>>Since I have never heard of such a thing, I suspect smoke and mirrors.
>
> >>Here's a picture ofd one...
>
> > As I said, we need to see evidence of adoption because of connection,
> > not assertions.
>
> Assertions are necessary to show evidence.
Ignorance relies on assertion.
> The connections are the Christian celebration of Sunday, and the use of
> a word which honours the sun as a description of deity
Reiteration noted.
But since you have failed to demonstrate any connection, there seems no
more to say.
colp
> On , , Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:27:31 +1300, Re: Sacrifical victims
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_cross
The symbol itself can describe germination.
colp
>
> But if your statements are merely based on what you suppose is
> 'implied', the discussion is over. To get any of us to accept your
> statements, you need to produce facts.
>
>>It remains that the word qodesh (which means set apart, and is used to
>>describe deity) has been translated with a word used predominantly to
>>honour the sun.
>
From Strongs concordance: 06918 qodowsh
1) sacred, holy, Holy One, saint, set apart
From Strongs concordance: 06942 qodesh
1) apartness, holiness, sacredness, separateness
a) apartness, sacredness, holiness
1) of God
2) of places
3) of things
b) set-apartness, separateness
And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet,
for the place whereon thou standest [is] holy (qodesh) ground.
Exodus 3:5
For I [am] the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be
your God: ye shall therefore be holy (qodesh), for I [am] holy (qodowsh).
Leviticus 11:45
I'll repost this since you've snipped the context:
According to Dictionary of Mythology Folklore and Symbols, the following
is stated about the word HOLY: In practically all languages, the word
"holy" has been derived from the divinely honored sun. According to
Encyclopedia of Religions, HOLI is the Great Hindu spring festival, held
in honour of Krishna, as the spring sun-god. Strong's Concordance refers
to "heile" (the sun's rays). This form is almost identical to the German
and Dutch equivalent of the English "holy." The German and Dutch word is
heilig, which is derived from Heil, the name of a Saxon idol.
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/www.innvista.com/scriptures/compare/heathen5.htm
>
> We seem to have yet further unevidenced assertions here, again of no
> importance or relevance, even if true.
>
You don't think equivocation by translation is important or relevant?
>
> Ignorance relies on assertion.
Your assertion shows your ignorance.
Geopelia
"Scooter" <sco...@way.high.wow> wrote in message
news:fv3jr21d2rpo7frbt...@4ax.com...
> On , , Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:45:50 +1300, Re: Sacrifical victims
>
>>> (I think there was some rumour of witchcraft with Anne Boleyn, but they
>>> certainly weren't "sacrifices").
>>
>>Her hand was deformed to some degree, and some have claimed that it was
>>a sixth finger.
>
> same as all the other fingers and you didn't notice it until it
> was pointed out.
>
Polydactyly is common in cats, but rare in humans.
Was the boy with six fingers a good cricket bowler?
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
Roger Pearse
On 26 Jan, 09:32, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
> roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > On 25 Jan, 19:06, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> > But if your statements are merely based on what you suppose is
> > 'implied', the discussion is over. To get any of us to accept your
> > statements, you need to produce facts.
>
> >>It remains that the word qodesh ...
(snip)
Geopelia
"colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:45b9c22f$1...@clear.net.nz...
Something similar can sometimes appear in the sky. The sun may have
"sundogs" around it, and there can be a ring or arcs.
Three suns appeared in the sky at Mortimer's Cross before a battle. (Edward
IV).
The arms of the cross may perhaps be imaginary, if the viewer expects to see
them.
It is due to atmospheric conditions, ice crystals in cirrus clouds.
It is sometimes thought that this may have been the vision of Ezekiel.
Geopelia
Geopelia
Very impressive.
Geopelia
TarlaStar
> TarlaStar wrote:
>
>>colp wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Pooh wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Chris Lim" <black...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1169504054.4...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>From the next two paragraphs in the story (which dates from 1998)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks to Scooter for that late-breaking news.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm trying to fathom the leap to 'sacrificial victims' from the post.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The leap is illustrated by the symbolism of the event. On August 31,
>>>1997 the driver called Paul crashed into the thirteenth pillar. In
>>>Christainity Paul was the thirteenth apostle, and the apostles were
>>>called pillars. The numbers 13 and 31 are of course associated.
>>>
>>>Paul of Tarsus promoted the doctrine of sacrifical atonement, which is
>>>the central doctrine of Pauline Christianity. This doctrine is rejected
>>>by Islam. Diana was from A Christian bakground and Dodi was from a
>>>Muslim one. The Repossi video is good evidence that they intended to
>>>marry.
>>
>>
>>Who cares? Honestly? Who the fuck cares?
>
>
> People who want to know why the truth is covered up.
What difference does it make? First, you have no right to demand truth
from anyone who has no influence on your life. Second, you have the
truth but refuse to accept it. What you want, is a conspiracy. You're
just not happy 'cause you're not getting one.
>
>
>>She wasn't important enough to
>>garner a conspiracy to kill her.
>
>
> The evidence of conspiracy is:
>
> The French police reported that the speedo was stuck at over 190 kph,
> but retracted their claim after it was pointed out the Mercedes Benz
> speedometers go to zero after a crash.
>
> No pictures from the cameras which should have caught images of the car
> were recorded - the electricity which powered the cameras was cut off
> minutes before the crash.
>
> Professor Dominique Lecomte partially embalmed the body before a full
> autopsy had been completed.
>
> The level of carbon monoxide in the sample said to be from Henri Paul
> was consistent with someone who had committed suicide by inhaling car
> exhaust.
>
> Rees Jones was between the frontal impact area and Diana and he survived
> the crash. Paparazzi photographs developed by French investigators
> showed Diana with her eyes open, apparently conscious and unhurt after
> the crash.
Have you seen them? If you haven't, they don't exist. If they existed,
SOMEONE would have published them. You're barking up a non-existent
tree. Just take the piss and go home.
TarlaStar
> TarlaStar wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>God almighty...It was car accident and she died.
>
>
> The car crash was not the cause of her death.
No, that would be the organ failure after the damage the car crash
caused. Duh.
TarlaStar
> The coincidences weren't necessarily part of the conspiracy to kill
> Diana. They do, however, indicate the significance of the event.
How? How does coincidence indicate significance?
TarlaStar
> Geopelia wrote:
>
>>"colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:45b94768$1...@clear.net.nz...
>>
>>
>>>Warwick wrote:
>>
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>
>>>There is nothing absurd about the idea of royalty killing one one of
>>>their own. Anne Boleyn (Mother of Elizabeth I) and Catherine Howard were
>>>killed by Henry VIII.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Weren't both those ladies accused of adultery? That, by a Queen, was
>>treason.
>
>
> I don't know that they committed adultery. However the pattern of a
> husband killing his wife (or ex-wife) fits Diana's claim that Charles
> was intending to have her killed.
Diana was a little bit paranoid. Charles didn't have to kill her. What
evidence, other than heresay, is there to support this claim? None.
>
>
>>(I think there was some rumour of witchcraft with Anne Boleyn, but they
>>certainly weren't "sacrifices").
>
>
> Her hand was deformed to some degree, and some have claimed that it was
> a sixth finger. There doesn't seem to be any sacrificial aspect to the
> killings.
Citation, please. I've never read anything that said that Anne was
deformed, and I've read quite a bit about her.
>> It was simply politics, and scheming by courtiers. Anne may not even have
>>been guilty. Henry wanted a son, and she had not provided one.
>>Catherine Howard may have been guilty, but by then Henry was an old man (by
>>the standards of the time) and probably jealous.
He was spoiled and fickle.
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> I sawMithrasslaying the bull in the British Museum, about 60 years ago.
> Very impressive.
I have a photograph from a museum in Rome at the bottom of this page:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras
There is a Mithraeum accessible under the church of St. Clemente in
Rome. The church is built on the ruins of the church destroyed by the
Normans in the 11th century, but these have been excavated and now form
a cellar under the church, 20 feet down. Under the 4th century church
you go down yet another level, into a villa of the Roman period. Some
of the stucco ceilings are still intact. You go through a doorway and
find yourself in a narrow Roman street, 40 feet down. Across the road
from the villa is a Mithraeum, also excavated.
The church is in the keeping of Irish monks. The villa may have been
that of Flavius Clemens, a wealthy first century Roman with a possible
Christian connection, which would explain the site of the church.
colp
> colp wrote:
>
>> TarlaStar wrote:
>>
>>> colp wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Pooh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Chris Lim" <black...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1169504054.4...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From the next two paragraphs in the story (which dates from 1998)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks to Scooter for that late-breaking news.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm trying to fathom the leap to 'sacrificial victims' from the post.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The leap is illustrated by the symbolism of the event. On August 31,
>>>> 1997 the driver called Paul crashed into the thirteenth pillar. In
>>>> Christainity Paul was the thirteenth apostle, and the apostles were
>>>> called pillars. The numbers 13 and 31 are of course associated.
>>>>
>>>> Paul of Tarsus promoted the doctrine of sacrifical atonement, which is
>>>> the central doctrine of Pauline Christianity. This doctrine is rejected
>>>> by Islam. Diana was from A Christian bakground and Dodi was from a
>>>> Muslim one. The Repossi video is good evidence that they intended to
>>>> marry.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Who cares? Honestly? Who the fuck cares?
>>
>>
>>
>> People who want to know why the truth is covered up.
>
>
> What difference does it make?
The difference between life and death.
> First, you have no right to demand truth
> from anyone who has no influence on your life.
Where did I demand the truth from anyone?
> Second, you have the
> truth but refuse to accept it.
What truth, specifically?
> What you want, is a conspiracy.
No, what I want is for people to become aware that one exists.
> You're just not happy 'cause you're not getting one.
Wrong.
> Have you seen them? If you haven't, they don't exist.
According to your logic the Dimona nuclear facility in Israel does not
exist because I don't have photos of it.
> If they existed, SOMEONE would have published them.
You are assume that there isn't anyone who would want to stop them being
published, like the people who stole Computer disks used for
transmitting photographs from Lionel Cherruault's house on September 1st.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2000/steinberg_diana_2727.html
> You're barking up a non-existent tree.
No I'm not.
> Just take the piss and go home.
Warwick gave up. You may as well, too.
colp
The extraordinarily slow ambulance journey has been well documented.
It took at least 38 minutes for the paramedics to get Diana into the
ambulance. Although the city streets were quiet, it took at least
another 45 minutes for the ambulance to carry Diana from the crash site
to the Pitie Salpetriere Hospital only 3.7 miles away. That's walking speed.
colp
It's called synchronicity.
Geopelia
"TarlaStar" <ta...@inspire.nz.nt> wrote in message
news:45ba583d$1...@clear.net.nz...
> colp wrote:
>> Geopelia wrote:
>>
>>>"colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
>>>news:45b94768$1...@clear.net.nz...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Warwick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is nothing absurd about the idea of royalty killing one one of
>>>>their own. Anne Boleyn (Mother of Elizabeth I) and Catherine Howard were
>>>>killed by Henry VIII.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Weren't both those ladies accused of adultery? That, by a Queen, was
>>>treason.
>>
>>
>> I don't know that they committed adultery. However the pattern of a
>> husband killing his wife (or ex-wife) fits Diana's claim that Charles
>> was intending to have her killed.
>
> Diana was a little bit paranoid. Charles didn't have to kill her. What
> evidence, other than heresay, is there to support this claim? None.
>>
>>
>>>(I think there was some rumour of witchcraft with Anne Boleyn, but they
>>>certainly weren't "sacrifices").
>>
>>
>> Her hand was deformed to some degree, and some have claimed that it was
>> a sixth finger. There doesn't seem to be any sacrificial aspect to the
>> killings.
>
> Citation, please. I've never read anything that said that Anne was
> deformed, and I've read quite a bit about her.
There seems to be plenty on Google about her hand.
>
>
>>> It was simply politics, and scheming by courtiers. Anne may not even
>>> have been guilty. Henry wanted a son, and she had not provided one.
>>>Catherine Howard may have been guilty, but by then Henry was an old man
>>>(by the standards of the time) and probably jealous.
>
> He was spoiled and fickle.
He was the King, and in those days the King's wish was law.
But was it just sex, or the need to provide himself with a male heir?