I'm not as autistic about biblical events as some people on this forum, so bear with me as I try to explain this idea, and fill in any gaps that it may have.We might refer to the Golden Bough by James Frazer as one reference for the root idea of this. Frazer speaks of a sacrificial king who holds absolute authority but also bears absolute responsibility. That means to him goes the riches and out of him flows the next king when his time is done. This king is sometimes killed in bad times as a means of uniting the people. He leads from the front in battle, making him the first to die (potentially). I think this more of a mythological character that is played out through ritual — through sacrifice and through rites of passage.Now, to refocus on Jesus and his context for existence: there was a formerly great "empire" of Scythians. Or if you don't like that term (and maybe it's not the absolute best), an empire of folk. There was a pre-classical feudal world with many kings, but traditionally one "king of kings". That is to say, there were many independent nations, but among them, a few nations had leaders which were respected by others. Plato speaks of the thalassocracy Atlantis that once held this title. The Pharaoh of Egypt seems to have once had this status. The king of Persia once held this title. Suppose that Jesus could have held this title. Why would it matter?Now, suppose that a large number of people are held prisoner in this system. The leaders in this system tell everyone else that their ancestors were the gods themselves, and that's why everyone must obey them. If Jesus was from a family that did this and he were to give up his inheritance, he is effectively freeing the people from the system, is he not?Lastly, I think it's important that the people that he freed identified themselves in him. Why? Because if you are not of the clan of Jesus or the broader group of clans that his clan ruled, then his sacrifice could not have been on your behalf.
>>41712842>through sacrifice and through rites of passage.Forgot to add: sometimes through ideological adoption. People live up to the archetype in history and become myth.
>>41712842>Lastly, I think it's important that the people that he freed identified themselves in him. Why? Because if you are not of the clan of Jesus or the broader group of clans that his clan ruled, then his sacrifice could not have been on your behalf.Continuing here because I hit character limit...Who did Jesus initially matter to? Where did Christians live?Armenia is noted to be the first Christian kingdom. Abgar V, the King of Osroene with his capital at Edessa, was the king. Some say he was actually a brother or uncle of Jesus. Some even say he was Jesus himself.That being said, the majority of Christians after this point in time were west of them. The people east of them retained Zoroastrianism longer or remained gnostic, then became Muslim or Jew later on. So, the majority of Europe became Christian, following a king who probably lived close to Armenia and had genetic affinity to the nobility of Armenia at the time. If both of these statements are true, then the basis of Christianity is a sort of Zionism to be quite blunt. Catholic Zionism and Jewish Zionism and this original Christian Zionism may all be overlapping but separate claims — or they may all be the same thing.The point is, Zion was placed by older texts as the center of the history of these people: the people who covered Europe, central Eurasia, and parts of the south and east of Eurasia. On the eastern front, this would have included Armenia contemporaneously and the Levant originally.I don't think the events of the New Testament took place in the Levant per se, but they would have related to it because the events of the Old Testament did. The events were transposed from maybe slightly different places (up north in Pontus or Anatolia?) because they closed the loop on the original story.
>>41712932I think the people of Europe already knew basics of the Old Testament because it was their story. I think Rome wanted to control Europe by controlling this story, so they used Jesus to do it, even though he was also real.Conversely, you have an opposite reaction in Persia, defining a form of gnosticism with respect to Jesus because it actually threatened their power. Those guys became Jews.In summary:Jesus was the Druid king that reestablished paganism. Every so often, ancient spiritual beliefs call for such a leader. The motif is meant to carry down to every single man, who each might live up to the alpha and the omega — the first to lead and the first to die.Rome rewrote the story and told Europeans to obey them instead.Persia just tried to keep the titles in their name.Jesus, Greater Scythia, and Druidry -> PaganismRomans -> CatholicismPersians -> Gnostic Judaism
Can confirm Jesus was god man, spent 7 years in Tibet as Issa, fucked bitches and the khan spread the sacred seed to lots of hoes. Now today our world is full of Chad Messiahs ready to die in the name of love
>>41713941
>>41714004
>>41714022
>>41714063
>>41714074Revelation 22:16
>>41714091
>>41714099Not even gonna go into the 3i atlas shit
>>41714108Alchemy is now rebranded as quantum mechanics btw. Enjoy learning about capital steez and the tel Dan stele, he died for everyone same as jesus
>>417141211 more phost for good measure
