Hello HEthens, what’s good? It’s time for another one of “those” threads. This one is about the bible, the word of god, Jesus, the antichrist, sin, heaven, hell, and the HUGE misconceptions about these things.
Disclaimer: First of all, I want to address any Christians who are easily offended or unwilling to read things that oppose their beliefs. This thread will bring you no happiness or positive thoughts, and neither will you to the thread. So it is best, for everyone concerned, if you simply leave now.
For the rest of you, I want to explain myself a bit. I’ve written a bit about this topic in the past, but that was just a warmup and I didn’t talk much about the real meaning, and that’s what this thread is about. The sources of what I’m about to talk about, you ask? Well they’re many, including but not limited to: The rejected books, the pyramid texts, the masonic bible, ancient fragments of the holy book, kabala and mushroom cult writings, and various modern day studies of the ancient holy books.
This is going to be a bit of a long read, but I promise you it will be worth it, as it concerns the answer to so many of the major questions a lot of you ask.
Now that’s been taken care of. Are you ready? Open for wisdom?
Brace thyself, for verily I will be dropping bombs.
First, I want to talk about the antichrist and the bible. Do you know what the modern name for the antichrist is? It’s -wait for it- Christianity. I’m not making this up, the word “antichrist” was coined by authentic christians referring to the religious fools who misinterpreted and altered the holy book.
When, and how did this happen? The event is known as the council of Nicaea, and according to historians it took place in 325 AD.
A group of men of power had a counsil, voting about what the bible was about and which books should be kept and which should be rejected. They did this for various reasons, some wanted to believe in a spirit that could forgive their crimes and mistakes, others wanted a way to control people, others simply wanted to state their opinion and interpretation.
The most well-known of these people was Caesar Constantine, the pagan emperor of Rome. He had lived a horrible life and felt like shit about it, but he had read (and misinterpreted) a book that made him feel like there was a higher power that could forgive his crimes (such as killing his mother and boiling his wife to death.) So they all had a vote on what the holy book should be like, and then they remade it, the result is the bible. The book that still to this day, almost 2000 years later, is still misleading people and has caused more wars and suffering than any other piece of literature. Not only because of these people, but also because of ignorant dumbfounded dipshits mistranslating and misinterpreting it throughout almost 2 millennia.
(The lesson to learn here: When you let a bunch of ignorant imbeciles and people with hidden agendas and people with opinions but no knowledge vote about major matters, shitty things happen.)
The real holy book, the one that is crammed full of actual and useful wisdom, is not the bible. This real holy book is what I’ll be talking about here. Now, explaining the whole thing would make a whole book, so I’ll just focus on what I consider the most important part:
The allegory of Jesus. Basically, the whole story of Jesus is a new, simplified version of most of the stuff in the old testament.
I’m sure you know the story fairly well, so I won’t have to tell it. I’ll just explain the meanings of the major key parts.
A short recap: [SPOILER ALERT haha] Mary and Joseph cross the Jordan and go to Bethlehem, where they have a son, “Jesus,” this son then grows up and travels to Golgotha where he is crucified and reunited with God. Along the path he is tested by the devil, gets 12 disciples, is baptised by John, and so on.
So what’s this story got to do with anything in real life, you might ask? The answer is revealed when you understand what the names and analogies actually mean.
Let’s begin with Joseph and Mary, who traveled south to Bethlehem. Who were they? Well, Mary means “ocean” or “water.” Joseph means “increase” or “repeat.” With these hints, the picture becomes a little more clear. Fluid and increase/repetition, but what does it mean?
Let’s take a look at the word Bethlehem. Beth + Lehem = Bethlehem, in hebrew it means “house of bread.” What about the Jordan? Well, Jordan means stream/river. And Golgotha? “Place of skull.”
See what I’m getting at? It’s referring to the body. Place of skull? The top end of the spine. House of bread? The belly. River Jordan? The stream of fluids from your brain down through your spine.
That’s right, we’re talking biology. The holy book is about biology (and physics, a bit of chemistry, a little astrology, and some philosophy/spiritualy,) NOT RELIGION. The name “holy book” means “hole book.” Because the people who compiled it considered the contents to be all there is to know. (A foolish assumption, but to this day there is no more complete source of knowledge concerning the mystery of life and, in partcular, health.)
Mind = fucked? Good. Let’s proceed.
So it’s about biology, and we’re looking for the stuff that Mary and Joseph refer to. We know that it’s got something to do with fluids, but that’s about it. Well, now we can start to dig.
They traveled from (or through) a place called Galilee. It is referred to as the area around a lake from which the Jordan flows. So we’re looking for an area around a lake (collection of fluid) at the beginning of the Jordan (spinal fluid/cord.) It’s obviously referring to the brain.
Mary was “impregnated by Father God.” She was a “virgin mother.” Likewise, Joseph (these days known as a carpenter, but the old writings weren’t that specific, they just said he was a builder/creator) was given directions by God. God, AKA Jehova, Elýon (and a whole bunch of other names) means “the most high.”
Something “above” passed these things down to this couple. Remember, we’re talking about the brain here. Where does this happen in the brain? Well, the “most high” in the brain is the cerebrum. Who are these couple below God? The answer is, the anterior and posterior glands of the Thalamus, the pineal (epiphysis) and the pituitary (hypophysis.)
What is the pineal gland? It’s a cone-shaped tiny reddish gland which contains a yellow, calcareous liquid. Its function includes relaying sensory signals to the cerebral cortex, and regulating consciousness, sleep and focus. This is where your melatonin is produced, and it is also a crucial part in the optic function. It is larger in males, and removing it from females lab animals leads to feminization. So it is, in a way, a masculine organ, often called the male spiritual organ by woo-woo people. Even more often FALSELY referred to as the third eye by these same people. Another thing these wackies often say is that “my pineal is calcified and won’t work, I gotta de-calcify it,” this is stupid because it’s supposed to be calcareous. (These crystals are the “salt” the bible mentions time and time again.) This gland IS the fabled ‘philosopher’s stone.’
What about the pituitary? It’s a protrusion from the hypothalamus, it’s larger than the pineal and contains a milky white mucus. it secretes nine hormones (including Prolactin, beta-endorphine and somatotropin.) It also regulates homeostasis. It is indeed the “mother” in the human body, nurturing and caring. It is the “female spiritual organ,” and is often falsely considered the “master gland” or “crown chakra.” (The actual crown chakra is the Claustrum, AKA God.)
There you have it, Mary and Joseph are the fluids produced in these glands refined from the secretions from the Claustrum. (By the way, Santa Claus is another metaphor for the claustrum, hence the name. “He’s giving great gifts to those who are good,” just like God.) The “milk and honey” of God refer to these same fluids, these same nicknames are used in the chinese tradition.
I mentioned the philosopher’s stone earlier, and those who know that story know that it’s one of the ingredients of the elixir of life. The other ingredient is pia mater, immaculate ether. Pia mater means pure mother. Yup, that’s right, Mary is this other ingredient. YOU HAVE THE INGREDIENTS for the elixir of life IN YOUR BODY. And that’s what the allegory of Jesus is all about, the production of this “elixir of life.” And I’m gonna explain to you how it’s done, I’M NOT JOKING THIS SHIT IS REAL.
These fluids travel down your body. In your solar plexus, Bethlehem, 1/10 of these fluids are kept and refined. This 1/10 is the seed, baby Jesus. The actual name of Jesus is Yashuah (Joshua) and means fish/bread/seed. When this seed is ready, it travels up again, to Golgotha, the base of the skull (Jade pillow in the eastern teachings.)
So what about the encounter with the devil? Who is the devil? He’s the ruler of Hell, we all know that. But what is hell? Hell is your lower body, everything below the solar plexus, everything above this is heaven. That’s why “the world belongs to Satan.” (Here’s another fun fact: Sacred stems from Sacrum, that bone connected to your pelvis, anything sacred by definition belongs to hell, talk about major misconception.)
The devil tempting Jesus is just an analogy for your primitive and decadent urges getting in the way of your higher practices. What does this mean? Basically, that your “monkey mind” will fight you if you’re not clever. What does Jesus say to the devil? “Get thee behind me, Satan.” That means, ignore the urges and rise above them.
What urges are we talking about here. Well the two main culprits are overeating and sexual decadence. Remember how I’ve said so many times that ejaculation drains your life? It’s true, and this is why, it wastes your “Chrism” (that’s where the word “jism” comes from) which feeds the the seed (Jesus.) You see, it is nourished from a gland called the Kardia (in males it’s located on the prostate,) in the east they call it the Kundalini. When you ejaculate, you drain this gland of its supply. That’s also why you’ll hear so many people say that women are better at spirituality, because they don’t waste their Kundalini as much. And it’s also why they generally live longer. When the egyptians talk about Osiris losing his power and his lantern when he gets his dick, this is what they mean. Also, one of the rejected books is called “The gospel of Eve” and it’s pretty much the same as the tantric teachings of the east, how to leverage sex to your advantage instead of to your ruin.
Then what about the 12 disciples? Every month (roughly 29 days, old zodiac based month system, not the modern one) a new seed is released. “But wait a minute, 1+12=13, this doesn’t add up” you say. Well, that’s what all the fuzz about Mary Magdalene is about. The last seed is “incomplete,” and the stupid men of the ancient day translated this to “woman.” Chauvinist much? So you know when they say she suffers and that “when she becomes like a man she will be saved”… they’re actually talking about when this partial seed becomes complete, ie when enough parts have collected to form a whole. This happens every fourth year, that’s the real origin of the “leap year” concept. This is why there’s so much talk in the old testament about saving your crops for three years and then rejoicing in the abundance.
The baptism of John? John baptized Jesus in the Jordan (spinal.) John means oil, it refers to a component of the spinal fluid/marrow. Jesus was baptized in it and became Christ.
Now to the crucifixion. What does it mean? Well, in Golgotha, at the base of the skull, in the Medulla Oblongata, there are two nerve crossings (where the Ida and Pingala nerves meat.) This is where Jesus is glorified by God, ceases being and reunites with the Father. All that stuff about torture and “why hast thou forsaken me” is nothing but bullshit that was made up later. In fact, this crucifixion releases the seed’s power. Think of two powerful rivers crossing, and the immense forces that result, or when you cross two live electric wires and it causes a huge explosion and sets things on fire. Those who have tried “raising the kundalini” probably know what I’m talking about, having felt this incredible painful energy burst at the base of the skull. That’s the crucifixion of Jesus.
Now, Jesus dying coming back for a while? That’s a metaphor for the results of this completion of a cycle of the “microcosmic orbit.” After the “death of Jesus” you don’t notice much, it seems like it’s gone, but after a few days it comes back and performs miraccles, then it goes away again after a few more days but the traces are still there. These miracles are incredible, the things that start happening in your mind and body are so sweet. Like, remember how Jesus cured the blind, well when a cycle is complete your pineal will literally heal your eyes. This is why old people say masturbation will make you blind (though they don’t really understand how they’re right.) He healed a cripple so he could walk, this will happen in your body too. Now do you understand how some people have such awesome lives and excel at everything?
Jesus says to his disciples “You shall all go on to do greater things.” What this means is that every seed will bring greater results. Every month, the effect will be even more glorious. Your third eye will open, your health will shoot through the roof, your injuries will heal, you will feel happier and stronger than ever. It’s the way life is meant to be lived, and it is FUCKING AWESOME.
This brings us to the concept of Sin. What is sin? Well, sin is simply the things which will sabotage this process and waste the seed. Remember the ten commandments and the capital vices? Having other gods beside God refers both to religion/worship and to getting too involved with other people’s lives/putting others first. Taking his name in vain is a similar concept. The sabbath day means rest, without proper rest you starve the seed. Honor thy father and thy mother means keep your pineal and pituitary healthy, and you will live a long life. Killing, stealing, bearing false witness, coveting your neighbour’s possessions, and committing adultery FUCK YOUR MIND UP. And an unhealthy mind means an unhealthy body in which the seed can’t survive. Also, adultery wastes your chrism.
Lust overstimulates the body, distracts the mind, makes you constantly unsatisfied, and leads to waste of sexual essence. Gluttony drains the body’s energy, dulls the mind and dumps a bunch of shit in your body. Greed makes you constantly unsatisfied, and mean-natured, this disturbs your nervous system. Sloth (laziness and irresponsibility) weakens your body and mind and makes you dependent, this too hurts your nervous system. Wrath overstimulates body and mind and releases toxic hormones and neurotransmitters into your blood, the recovery from which takes a long time. Envy follows the same principle as greed (and to some degree lust and wrath.) Hubris/bigotry is considered the worst of all deadly sins (not pride, there’s nothing wrong with pride) it makes you mean-natured, disconnected from people, and constantly unsatisfied, and makes your mind stagnate. Each one of these things will kill the seed, without exception.
Now do you see the importance of positive thinking, meditation, taking action, eating healthy, and being a good person? Now do you see why I’ve been stressing all these things so much since I joined this site?
The process has been going on since you were 12. How many of these seeds have you wasted? Such a shame, but no sweat. If you’re still alive and not on your deathbed, there is still time. After the first couple of seeds you will regenerate just the same. That’s why some of those tibetan monks seem to age in reverse for a while after beginning this “new way of life.”
Seriously, 1 month is all it takes to get this started and see for yourself. I challenge you, HEthens. Make this your 1 month challenge, and I promise you, I guarantee you, that you will see glorious results.
Now, discuss. Anything about the topic, any questions, any more analogies you’ve found, and so on. And your opinions and thoughts about it all.
@danfontaine, Hey Dan. The idea of tantric is to get to know yourself and your partner better and to build on the energetic make-up of that relationship. We get aroused without masterbation and you can also have an orgasm without masterbation. Masterbation is really a constant search of something, a search of lust and yes, glutney. You are doing it to yourself and it seems selfish and a lot of the time can be used to cover up loneliness which does not sound fun.
When we explore ourselves, that is different. I’ve gotten into deep meditations and I’ve orgasmed once or twice but when I meditate I am in the most beautiful place I can imagine, my energy is restored, rested, and relaxed. I work with both feminine and masculin energies to enhance my meditation sessiOn, I take a moment of silence to listen to the divine and I thank the Universe. It is when your intentiOn is pure to explore that is blissful. And through Yoga, tantric, and meditation will help do that as well as yourself.
Masterbation is just dirty and I’d feel guilty and almost would feel violated because I wouldnt be in a comfortable place and I wouldn’t be who I am wholly
@manimal, What I think I’m still missing form this equation is the following:
Why is it that these people were so adept at analyzing and understanding aspects of biology that we have, only recently, began to peg. It seems like there is a vast lack of technology preventing a lot of the claims you’ve made from being legitimized by people from such a long time ago.
How were they able to pinpoint and analyze these intricate interactions without the tools we currently have.
I fully submit to having a very limited understanding of historical civilizations, but I am skeptical at this point in time.
@danfontain It IS simple, everything real is simple, everything good is simple.
Meditating to become “pure of mind” is great but not needed. Actual purity is not required, just less contamination. And the natural state is pretty much pure, this impure state was created throughout your life. Meditation is the best way back.
Nutrition isn’t THAT important. The main things to avoid are things that lower your ph too much (the “seed” is an oil, acidity ruins it, so does alcohol and a lot of other drugs,) things that fuck with your hormones (soy, rapeseed and cottonseed products especially, they’re the shittiest “food” in the world,) and things that mess with your blood (same as previous, processed milk, large grain intake.) Just avoid serious poison and you’ll be fine. Remember, a lot of “enlightened” people have suceeded while fasting or living on really weird diets. Also, make sure to get plenty of water.
Nor do you need to exercise aggressively or do a lot of productive stuff either, unless you’re positively obsessed with those things (like I am. If you have these obsessions and don’t get those “needs” met, you’ll be in a bad place mentally.) BUT they sure help a lot, as long as you don’t overdo it with the exercising (don’t starve the “seed.”)
Tantric sex is in no way needed, it’s just a way to cultivate your physical “energies” which can help quite a bit with this stuff. But it isn’t needed. Masturbation has no place in practices like these, it’s extremely counterproductive in just about every way.
Breathing exercises help a lot. “The holy ghost” actually means breath. I know people who got away with a lot of shit (such as over-straining and smoking) just because of their amazing breathing, still reaping the benefits of this process. They were martial artists though (ninpo/ninjutsu,) doing amazing breathing exercises (with an avarage breath rate of 5 breaths per minute and incredible utilization of oxygen.) Seriously, breath is life. If you want to improve your health, brainpower, physical strength, or just about anything, start with your breathing. Breath is life. Yoga helps keep your blood (and other stuff) flowing nicely, so it’s a good thing to practice and will help with this process, it isn’t needed, but it does help and speed up your journey toward results. Tibetan rites are a form of yoga I guess, same principle follows here, and same principle as with tantra too.
@randiriplinger Hmm, the pineal, third eye energy? That’s only one of the “energies” needed for the third eye, which is way more complex than a gland. The third eye brings more than wisdom, it brings alertness, attention and focus, as well as more thought power and mental strength. It heightens your senses and inward awareness alike. That’s the power of the REAL third eye. But the third eye can’t operate without the power source, the “holy mother,” and none of them can operate without the constant power feed from the claustrum (God.)
All this spirit stuff, that’s more about interpretation and belief than actual reality. If you want to believe in spirits, fine, if you don’t, fine, it doesn’t really make a difference. That’s another problem, people think that believing in spirits is needed for peace or whatever, this is just another delusion like the concept of “the gospel.” The same notion that drove crusades and jihads.
This spirit stuff is all in your mind, created flows in your mindscape. Well, that perspective is, I’m not denying the truth behind it. But that’s the whole thing, this spirit stuff is just ONE WAY OF SEEING IT, it doesn’t really mean anything but the truth behind it does. This truth is the same whether you’re a nihilist, a cynic, a new age hippie or a shaman. Not understanding this, is missing the point. Concentrating on the finger and ignoring the moon.
The stuff we explore when we meditate is our own creation, the stuff that we’ve filled our “inner cosmos” with. Spiritis or no spirits, higher forces or no higher forces, dreamy shit or stale environments, it’s all just our own created mind projections. Even if we identify with parts of this, thinking they are us, and see others as exterior forces or gods or whatever, it’s all the same. Made up mental images. The mind has taken over from birth, and it will never let go until you’re dead, the mind and the ego are always there, you can’t get rid of them and there is no point in doing so, wanting to get rid of these is per definition insane. The mind is awesome, you are your mind.
Also, tantra is actually about cultivating those energies. Not just “knowing” them or such. It’s about turning sex into a way to generate energy, how to feel super-charged after a good fuck rather than exhausted. How to both control your drives and surrender to them, and most importantly, how to relax into your natural sexual role. Anything less than this is not authentic tantra. I agree about the rest though.
I appreciate your contribution to the thread.
@lytning91 That sure is a good question, and I don’t have the answer… yet.
However, it’s safe to assume that observation and logical conclusions through trial and error over many many years would lead to fairly accurate assumptions. On top of that, these people were more in tune with and attentive toward, their own bodies, which really tells you a lot about itself if you pay attention. Especially when you get this so called “third eye” stuff handled.
Also, back then there weren’t many rules on what you could and could not do to a dead body. Not to a live person either, since those civilizations were not like the police states of today. Look at how many symbols there are for these kinds of things, such as that egyptian eye symbol which represents a network of brain glands, or the “scarab” which is really a stylized brain. There are lots of evidence from way before those times of skulls that had been cracked open, often in a way that seemed to precise too be the result of a feral brawl.
Humans are incredibly curious, especially about our own bodies. It’s fair to assume that humanity has always been like this. Then it is only logical that they would examine the body as closely as they could. And even if they were correct about a lot of stuff, by chance or not, the precise details have no basis in reality afaic. However, concentrating on that is missing the point.
The stuff about technology is not a really fair assumption. Think about how much stuff has been created that historians and archaeologists can’t wrap their heads around. Such as the pyramids, the sphinx, all those huge-ass temples, and so on. No tools capable of this have been excavated, yet those creations stand there nonetheless.
And think about the social structure of the ancient times. The weak and dumb were considered lesser creatures and taken as slaves. It is safe to assume then that a very curious ancient scientist type would use these slaves as lab rats. A lot can be learned by simply observing the body, and observing the effects of removing certain parts.
That’s how most major progress in neurology is made. They study the effects of removing or crippling or enlarging certain parts of the brain and/or nervous system. Or doing other weird things to these “nodes” such as sending electrical impulses. It’s quite basic stuff really, when you look at it that way. The rest, all that fancy stuff, is about details or treatment development.
And again, discovering the basics of concepts like the one this topic’s about was easier back then, because people weren’t as fucked up. You could just look at some people who “got it” and a some that didn’t, compare their actions and lifestyles and you would come up with the solutions. However, these details are mind-boggling, and I have no idea how they did it.
But then again, they figured out the “movement” patterns of the stars in the sky, that the world was round, they built those mindblowing structures (funny thing, to this day we can’t create cement as strong as that used in ancient egypt and greek,) created languages and built connections to other parts of the world. Prior to this, various tribes across the globe came up with these “stories” about how the universe works, which all say the same things when you look at them like allegories/analogies.
Don’t underestimate the human potential
@manimal, You are a very knowledgeable and wise person when it comes to your mind and energy. I agree with a lot of what you are saying and I do understand but when thing I have learned is that no matter how intelligent we are or the similiar views that we may have. We are going to have a different thought process, different answers to the questions, and different truths. All in all, like you have said “We are our minds” so it would be difficult to answer another’s question maybe even not possible because it is something we all have to discover for ourselves. I really do not mean to come off harsh and I appreciate your input so much because I am learning but I am still sticking to the wholesome beliefs that I have for myself because it is important to be grouded in that form.
I believe in spirits, yes, but I do not think that you have to believe in them to be on a spiritual journey or to reach enlightenment. I could see spirits and beautiful things since I was very young so it is very much second nature to me and I value the spirits that I do get guidence from, like I am grateful to everything in the physical. I also believe so much in the breath of life and it being what this whole journey is about, but it is also a difficult journey until we figure that out. We have all had different experiences and yes, some come into unison but the thought and heart of someone could be different than yours. I know you are just trying to share your opinion and I may seem very annoying but I’m looking at all sides and sticking to my belief because if I don’t I will loose flow and become spacy and unprotected.
To me this is really just simple as being in the essence and breath of life as well as reflecting from myself what I would like to see and feel in others. What you are saying about the Pineal Gland is completely true and I love the way you express yourself but I felt like I was over analyzed because of the way I express my views whether you agreed with them or not, just felt a little defeated and intimidating to a point where I kind of felt stupid at first read( an insecurity that I need to work on for me) but than I realized that I’m not and have a different and oddly creative way of exploring on my spiritual path.
PS. I can be very stubborn and I don’t mean to be but when I feel strongly about something I want to share it
Sorry, but the only way my mind is “fucked” is in how you are so confident in all that stuff about it being about biology. I’m sorry but I disagree almost entirely. Obviously this is just my opinion, but I think you actually have something in common with Christians, and that is you misinterpret the Bible. How so? You both make up meanings for things through your biased opinions (not calling names, everyone is biased in some way). I don’t think that the place for bread means the belly or whatever. I think that the Bible should be read in a literal sense. This is why Christians are so very wrong about it all. They try and make all this bullshit meaning out of it. Angels didn’t ride down to the Earth on chariots because there’s no such thing as angels and there’s no such thing as flying chariots. BUT of course ancient peoples didn’t know what to call it when they saw flying machines descending from the heavens.
@randiriplinger First of all, I do NOT find you intimidating and I am in NO way trying to intimidate or defeat you. This “stubbornness” you speak of is something we both possess, and I don’t see how it’s anything but a positive trait. You speak your mind with conviction, that’s awesome. That’s what I do as well, a lot of people would get pissed off at that kind of shit but that’s their problem, they’re just egomaniacal. This is the default, free way to speak, don’t excuse yourself about it. Be proud of it.
@theknottedpiper You are wrong. This isn’t about opinion or whatever, this is about the actual contents of the damn book. I’m not here to discuss opinions, that’s lame and a complete waste of time in my opinion.
As I said, it isn’t about the damn bible, but the actual holy book, of which the bible is a shitty parody. I am interpreting it literally, as are the people who follow the advice of the book, and so are the world’s leading bible researchers. This is the literal interpretation of the holy book. The bible is a shitty misinterpratation of said holy book, and that’s all it will ever be.
I am not making up meanings, the stuff I present here is what you get from reading the book without making up any meanings. IE, the actual meaning intended by the author.
Open your mind.
@manimal, you say that it is actual meanings but at the same time you were using metaphor type analogies. So that’s not a literal meaning, it is your or someone else’s interpretation of what a literal meaning of the text would be.
@theknottedpiper Did you even READ the OP? Pay some attention to what’s being said, instead of being so ignorant.
The “metaphor” aspect comes into play when telling this shit to people who only know the modern bible. Which is, again, ignorance. Then I gotta use other words, and cross-reference them, so people will know what the hell I’m talking about.
@manimal, Speaking of legitimizing your statements, do you mind posting some of your more accessible references please?
@manimal, Are you starting a religion yourself? Seems to be causing anxiety with questioning how relaxing other people meditation is and putting pressure on people not doing it exactly right. And telling people exactly how to live they´re life. I never could seem to like authority much, and this is no exception.
I liked this post. Very interesting information and makes a lot of sense, although I got lost at the anatomy terminology and just started to see myself as a watermelon, red on the inside with seeds. Anyway, I am pretty sure that Leonardo da Vinci had something similar in mind about the human body, as well as many different thinkers, gurus, medicine-men. The truth is you can’t really give that information to the terminally ill or emotionally unstable, it’s mainly a writing with notes. “Your body is a temple.” Everyone has one, the mind controls everything. The details are going to be always arguable, I consider this inner strength to be a very well developed and regularly practiced/trained intuition. I cannot call it potential either, it’s more of a will to learn how to learn, human potential has its limits. Wasn’t much mind-fucked, rather than mind-blown by some of the analogies, mostly because some of them crossed my mind, I keep thinking these crazy thoughts.
I read just some of the comments here, I have no desire to go deeper than that. A lot of the things are already obvious or should be about being healthy, I liked it because it emphasizes on the basics of human nature.
One has to investigate the principle in one thing or one event exhaustively . . . Things and the self are governed by the same principle. If you understand one, you understand the other, for the truth within and the truth without are identical.
-Er Cheng Yishu, 11th century
I haven’t read the discussion yet, but what I got from the original post is that Biblical names represent the anatomy of the body and I shouldn’t touch myself. Me not being sexually active, My question is, what about the whole “if you don’t use it, you lose it?”
@theknottedpiper, Manimal is very ignorant if you look at it in that regard – the reason there is many who hate on him.
He’s right though. Like, he’s totally fucking right about everything. It’s fucked up. He is pure and his anger is righteous.
See you are still pedalling shit manimal.
I read about 50 words or something and came across immediately a huge error and couldn’t go any further.
“The term “antichrist” appears five times in 1 John and 2 John of the New Testament—once in plural form and four times in the singular. The Apostle Paul’s Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, in particular the 2nd chapter, summarizes the nature, work, coming, and revelation of the “Man of Sin”—a passage often regarded as referring to same person as the antichrist of 1 and 2 John.”
Created in order to villify opponents at the council of niccea? The word for that is heretic. Gnostic and others but not antichrist, that has a clear and referenced theological meaning so please don’t try and distort it.
Also the idea that the bible that was created at Nicaea is not the same as the original? BS.
Yes yes we can obviously see you are a fan of that most virulent proponent of shit that is Dan Brown. But why oh why would you spread it here? And please don’t expect even though it depressingly happened for people to lap it up.
Teabing cleared his throat and declared, “The Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven.”
“I beg your pardon?”
“The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. …. “More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion–Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John among them …. “Who chose which gospels to include?” Sophie asked.
“Aha!” Teabing burst in with enthusiasm. “The fundamental irony of Christianity! The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great.” …. “The twist is this,” Teabing said, talking faster now. “Because Constantine upgraded Jesus’ status almost four centuries after Jesus’ death, thousands of documents already existed chronicling His life as a mortal man. To rewrite the history books, Constantine knew he would need a bold stroke. From this sprang the most profound moment in Christian history.” Teabing paused, eyeing Sophie. “Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned.”
(Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code, pp. 231-234)
The idea is that there was either (a) an “original Bible” that the Council of Nicea “edited” to “take out” works like the Gnostic gospels or (b) the Bible was created wholesale by some kind of “vote” at the Council of Nicea for political or other nefarious purposes. The upshot, according to either version of the myth, is the Bible we have today is the result of some kind of tampering/political shenanigans at this Council in the early Fourth Century.
This is total garbage.
The fact is that the Council of Nicea did not establish the canon of the Bible and did not even discuss the question of which works were to be regarded as scriptural. I’ll get to how this myth arose in a moment, but first let’s look at how the canon of the Bible was established.
**Warning*** – This next part is long and requires brain cells to read and understand. Sorry, but that’s just how real history – as opposed to simplistic nonsense – actually is. Morons should turn back now.
(But for those with ADD, I’ll put a summary at the end )
The Formation of the New Testament
The long process by which Christianity settled on the canon of the New Testament – the books which were included in the Bible and regarded as definitive, authoritative and divinely inspired – began long before the time of Constantine the Great and continued for some time after he died. Contrary to the myth, Constantine and the Council of Nicea was not involved in this process in any way whatsoever.
The earliest Christian communities of the First Century relied entirely on the memories of Jesus’ first followers. As these people died, an oral tradition of stories and sayings of Jesus developed and began to be written down in books. The four gospels which are now found in the modern Bible – the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – were amongst these earliest collections of accounts of Jesus’ life and teaching. Other early writings also circulated amongst these early communities, including the letters or ‘Epistles’ of Paul to various early churches, letters by Peter and James and letters attributed to them but probably written by other people. Some accounts of the earliest followers, like the ‘Acts of the Apostles’, also came to be used as sources of information, inspiration and authority by these earliest communities.
But, at this stage, there was no definitive list or ‘canon’ of these writings. Any given isolated Christian community may well have known of some of them but not others. They may also have had copies of a few of them, but have only heard of others (since copies of any books were expensive and precious). And they may also have used a variety of other writings, many of which did not find their way into the Bible. There was no single, central ‘Church’ which dictated these things – each community operated in either relative isolation or intermittent communication with other communities and there were no standardised texts or a set list of which texts were authoritative and which were not at this very early stage of the Christian faith.
But the idea of such a definitive list was not totally foreign to early Christianity. Its parent religion, Judaism, had already wrestled with the problem of a large number of texts all being claimed to be ‘scriptural’ and inspired by God. Judaism generally agreed on the heart of its canon: the Torah, also called the ‘Pentateuch’, or ‘five scrolls’ because it was made up of the first five books of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Judaism later developed a wider canon called the ‘Tanakh’: twenty-four books, including the five books of the Torah and adding the books of the prophets, the Psalms and the historical books that can be found in the Old Testament of Christian Bibles today.
Long before Christians began to go through a similar process of determining which texts were ‘Scripture’ and which were not, it is clear that they already regarded some Christian texts as being on par with those of the Jewish books of the Torah and the Tanakh. The Second Letter of Peter was probably not written by Peter at all and was most likely written in his name by someone around 120 AD; about 60 years or so after Peter died. But its author refers to certain ‘false teachers’ who misinterpret ‘the letters of Paul’ he says, ‘just as they do with the rest of the Scriptures’ (2 Peter 3:16). So, as early as the beginning of the Second Century, the letters of Paul were being regarded as ‘Scripture’, or divinely inspired and authoritative works on the same level as the books of the Jewish Bible.
As the Second Century progressed there was more incentive for early Christianity to define precisely which Christian texts were ‘scriptural’ and which were not. In the Second Century a wide variety of new and different forms of Christianity began to develop. The various Gnostic sects were one prominent example, but it seems that it was the Marcionites which gave the impetus for the first formulation of a Christian canon of Scripture.
Marcion was born around 100 AD in the city of Sinope on the southern coast of the Black Sea. After a falling out with his father, the local bishop, he travelled to Rome in around 139 AD. There he began to develop his own Christian theology; one which was quite different to that of his father and of the Christian community in Rome. Marcion was struck by the strong distinction made by Paul between the Law of the Jews and the gospel of Christ. For Marcion, this distinction was absolute: the coming of Jesus made the whole of the Jewish Law and Jewish Scriptures redundant and the ‘God’ of the Jews was actually quite different to the God preached by Jesus. For Marcion, the Jewish God was evil, vengeful, violent and judgemental, while the God of Jesus was quite the opposite. Marcion decided that there were actually two Gods – the evil one who had misled the Jews and the good one revealed by Jesus.
This understanding led Marcion to put together a canon of Christian Scripture – the first of its kind – which excluded all of the Jewish Scriptures which make up the Old Testament and which included ten of the Epistles of Paul and only one of the gospels: the Gospel of Luke.
Marcion tried to get his radical reassessment of Christianity and his canon accepted by calling a council of the Christian community in Rome. Far from accepting his teachings, the council excommunicated him and he left Rome in disgust, returning to Asia Minor. There he met with far more success, and Marcionite churches sprang up which embraced his idea of two Gods and used his canon of eleven scriptural works. Alarmed at his success, other Christian leaders began to preach and write vigorously against Marcion’s ideas and it seems that his canon of eleven works inspired anti-Marcionite Christians to begin to define which texts were and were not Scriptural.
By around 180 AD the influence of Marcion, the growth of the various Gnostic sects and the circulation of radical new ‘gospels’ began to be recognised as a genuine threat to those Christians who considered these groups fringe sects and heretical. It is around this time that we find Irenaeus declaring that there are only four gospels which derive from Jesus’ earliest followers and which are Scriptural. These are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John: the ones found in the Christian Bible today. Irenaeus makes it clear that these four had always been regarded as the earliest and most authoritative and were therefore the ones to be trusted as true accounts of Jesus’ life, works and teachings. Interestingly, after two centuries of sceptical analysis, the overwhelming majority of historians, scholars and textual experts (Christian or otherwise) actually agree with Irenaeus and the consensus is that these four gospels definitely are the earliest of the accounts of Jesus’ life.
Not long after Irenaeus’ defence of the four canonical gospels we get our first evidence of a defined list of which texts are scriptural. A manuscript called the Muratorian Canon dates to sometime in the late Second Century AD and was discovered in a library in Milan in the Eighteenth Century. It details that the canonical four gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – along with most of the other books found in the modern New Testament, as well as a couple which are not (the Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter) are ‘scriptural’ and authorative. It also gives some approval to other, more recent works like The Shepherd of Hermas, but says they should not be read in church as scripture.
The Muratorian Canon document accepts twenty-three of the twenty-seven works which now make up the New Testament in the Bible. It also explicitly rejects several books on the grounds that they are recent and written by fringe, heretical groups and it specifically singles out works by the Gnostic leader Valentius and by Marcion and his followers.
It seems that the challenge posed by Marcion and other dissident groups caused the early Christians to determine which books were scriptural and which were not. And it also seems that recent works, whether they were ‘heretical’ (like the Gnostic gospels) or not (like The Shepherd of Hermas), did not have the status of works from the earliest years of Christianity. It was only these earliest works which were considered authoritative.
t is clear that the process of deciding which texts were canonical and which were not was already well under way over a century before the Emperor Constantine was even born. It also continued for a long time after he died. Constantine’s contemporary, the Christian historian Eusebius, set out to ‘summarise the writings of the New Testament’ in his Church History; a work written towards the end of Constantine’s reign. He lists the works which are generally ‘acknowledged’ (Church History, 3.25.1), including the four canonical gospels, Acts, the Epistles of Paul, 1 John, 1 Peter and the Apocalypse of John/’Revelation’ (though he says this is still disputed by some). He gives other texts which he says are ‘still disputed’; including James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John. He gives other books which are probably ‘spurious’ and then lists others which are definitely considered heretical, including the Gospels of Peter, Thomas and Matthias and the Acts of Andrew and John.
So not only did the process of deciding the canon begin long before Constantine, there was still debate within the Church about the canon in his time.
And it continued. In 367 Athanasius wrote his 39th Festal Letter in which he laid out the current twenty-seven books of the New Testament – the first time this canon had been definitively stated by any churchman. A synod convened in Rome by Pope Damasus in 382 AD also considered the question of the canon and, with the help of the great scholar Jerome, settled on the same twenty-seven books set out by Athanasius. At this stage there was still no central authority which could compel church communities in any way (despite Dan Brown’s frequent anachronistic references to a central ‘Vatican’), but councils and synods in Hippo and Carthage in north Africa and later ones in Gaul also settled on the same canon.
Despite the myth that the canon was determined by Constantine in 325 AD, there was actually no definitive statement by the Catholic Church as to the make-up of the New Testament until the Council of Trent in 1546: a full 1209 years after Constantine died. The full development of the canon took several centuries, but the basics of which gospels were to be included was settled by 200 AD at least.
The canon was not even discussed at Nicea and was not set at that Council
The idea of what books were to be included in the New Testament was actually reached by a process of discussion and consensus over 200 years, not at one council or meeting.
The general shape of the canon was established by 200 AD, with only a little debate about some of the minor works from then on.
The four gospels were established as the most early and definitive works very early in this process.
Politics and “power” played no role in the process. At the time this subject was being debated Christianity was a small, marginalised, illegal and often persecuted faith. The idea that the books of the Bible were chosen for any political reasons is complete nonsense.
The Origin of the Myth
So how did this idea that the Bible was created at the Council of Nicea get started?
It seems the myth can be traced back to Voltaire, who popularised a ridiculous story that the canon was determined by placing all the competing books on an altar the the Council and then keeping the ones that didn’t fall off:
Il est rapporté dans le supplément du concile de Nicée que les Pères étaient fort embarrassés pour savoir quels étaient les livres cryphes ou apocryphes de l’Ancien et du Nouveau Testament, les mirent tous pêle-mêle sur un autel; et les livres à rejeter tombèrent par terre. C’est dommage que cette belle recette soit perdue de nos jours.
(It is reported in the supplement to the Council of Nicaea that the fathers were quite embarrassed by the apocryphal books of the Old and New Testament, put all pell-mell on an altar, and the books that fell to the ground were rejected. It is a pity that this beautiful recipe is lost today.)
(Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1767)
Voltaire never let the truth get in the way of a kick at the Church, and this silly story of how the Bible was selected was the kind of thing he found amusing. It’s likely he didn’t actually believe it, but it seems to be where the myth began. But where did Voltaire get the story?
It seems he found it in a book he published in 1765 – La Religion chretienne analysée (‘Christianity Analyzed) by César Chesneau Dumarsais. Dumarsais, in turn, found it in Sanctissima concilia (1671-1672, Paris, vol II, pp 84-85) by Pierre Labbe, which in turn cites the Sixteenth Century scholar Baronius. And when we track down Baronius’ source for this story we find it’s a pseudo-historical account of early Church councils from AD 887 called Vetus Synodicon. It states in its summary of the Council of Nicea:
The canonical and apocryphal books it distinguished in the following manner: in the house of God the books were placed down by the holy altar; then the council asked the Lord in prayer that the inspired works be found on top and–as in fact happened–the spurious on the bottom.
(Vetus Synodicon, 35)
So this miracle story – recorded a whole 562 years after the Council – seems to be the ultimate source of the myth. Thanks to Voltaire and constant repetition over the last 240 years, this obviously fictitious story has taken on the mantle of “fact”.
As ever, real history is much more complicated and requires much more hard work and brain power than silly myths, which is why myths are so prevalent and real history is understood by so few. If you’ve read this far, give yourself a pat on the back and give me some rep for writing all this.
Dungan, David L. Constantine’s Bible: Politics And the Making of the New Testament, (Fortress Press: 2006)
Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, (Oxford University Press: 2003)
Ehrman, Bart D. Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code, (Oxford University Press: 2004)
Fredriksen, Paula From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Christ, (Yale Nota Bene: 2000)
Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance, (Oxford University Press: 1997)
McDonald, Lee Martin and Sanders, James A. , The Canon Debate (Hendrickson Publishers; 2002)
Pearse, Roger, “The Council of Nicaea and the Bible” (kudos to Roger for finally pinning down the origin of the myth)
Rubenstein, Richard E. When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome, (Harvest Books: 2000)
Courtesy of Thiundareiksgunthigg the most legendary bullshit destroyer going and happily abused as much as possibly by yours truly. I will continue to promugulate and emulate his legendary bullshit destroying skills as much as I can.
@manimal, thank-you foemailed ting my opinion as I respect yours as well as thank-You for seeing my conviction and not saying that it is my ego getting the best of me. I am very proud for have the freedom to speak as well as grateful. We are both passionate in our belief and thought which is probably why I got too wrapped up into it and took what you have said an entirely different way that was intended. I apologize it took me awhile to be back on and reply to you but when I sent that reply I was not in a very good place that day and when I look at it now, I have no idea why I felt defeated but we all have our downs and have to go with it. thank you for your knowledge
@lytning91 The bible, any good neurology book, and just about any old chinese book about “energy” or whatever you wanna call it. Or you could go straight to the source, reading the pyramid texts and/or the rejected books. Is that so hard to figure out? Also, fuck spoonfeeding. If you want to know something, you gather the info, frankly nobody else has any reason to give a fuck about what you know and what you don’t know. It’s your responsibility, not mine or anybody else’s.
@fluxface Starting a religion? Telling people how to live? Not at all. However, I am telling what WORKS. What GETS THE FUCKING RESULTS. That’s all there’s to it. You no likey, you no takey. But then you lose the opportunities and the results. I get the results and I share the quick and effective paths there, purely offering great value and solutions, I really -honestly- couldn’t care less about the rest.
@chemicalspike I only read like 2 lines and there was nothing but error, so I stopped reading.
Read the pre-Nicaea scripture, and the word antichrist is nowhere in there. Heretic is the opposite, it’s the word used by the religious freaks to label their opponents. Don’t be daft.
Pre nicene sourced mentions and references to the antichrist from contemperaries:
Polycarp (ca. 69 – ca. 155) warned the Philippians that everyone that preached false doctrine was an antichrist.
Irenaeus (2nd century AD – c. 202) held that Rome, the fourth prophetic kingdom, would end in a tenfold partition. The ten divisions of the empire are the “ten horns” of Daniel 7 and the “ten horns” in Revelation 17. A “little horn,” which is to supplant three of Rome’s ten divisions, is also the still future “eighth” in Revelation.
He identified the Antichrist with Paul’s Man of Sin, Daniel’s Little Horn, and John’s Beast of Revelation 13. He sought to apply other expressions to Antichrist, such as “the abomination of desolation,” mentioned by Christ (Matt. 24:15) and the “king of a most fierce countenance,” in Gabriel’s explanation of the Little Horn of Daniel 8.
Under the notion that the Antichrist, as a single individual, might be of Jewish origin, he fancies that the mention of “Dan,” in Jeremiah 8:16, and the omission of that name from those tribes listed in Revelation 7, might indicate Antichrist’s tribe. He also speculated that it was “very probable” the Antichrist might be called Lateinos, which is Greek for “Latin Man”.
Tertullian (ca.160 – ca.220 AD) held that the Roman Empire was the restraining force written about by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:7-8. The fall of Rome and the disintegration of the ten provinces of the Roman Empire into ten kingdoms were to make way for the Antichrist.
‘For that day shall not come, unless indeed there first come a falling away,’ he [Paul] means indeed of this present empire, ‘and that man of sin be revealed,’ that is to say, Antichrist, ‘the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or religion; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, affirming that he is God. Remember ye not, that when I was with you, I used to tell you these things? And now ye know what detaineth, that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way.’ What obstacles is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into the ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)? And then shall be revealed the wicked one, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish.'
Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-c. 236) held that the Antichrist would come from the tribe of Dan and would rebuild the Jewish temple in order to reign from it. He identified the Antichrist with the Beast out of the Earth from the book of Revelation.
By the beast, then, coming up out of the earth, he means the kingdom of Antichrist; and by the two horns he means him and the false prophet after him. And in speaking of “the horns being like a lamb,” he means that he will make himself like the Son of God, and set himself forward as king. And the terms, “he spake like a dragon,” mean that he is a deceiver, and not truthful.
Origen (185–254) refuted Celsus’s view of the Antichrist. Origen utilized Scriptural citations from Daniel, Paul, and the Gospels. He argued:
Where is the absurdity, then, in holding that there exist among men, so to speak, two extremes– the one of virtue, and the other of its opposite; so that the perfection of virtue dwells in the man who realizes the ideal given in Jesus, from whom there flowed to the human race so great a conversion, and healing, and amelioration, while the opposite extreme is in the man who embodies the notion of him that is named Antichrist?… one of these extremes, and the best of the two, should be styled the Son of God, on account of His pre-eminence; and the other, who is diametrically opposite, be termed the son of the wicked demon, and of Satan, and of the devil. And, in the next place, since evil is specially characterized by its diffusion, and attains its greatest height when it simulates the appearance of the good, for that reason are signs, and marvels, and lying miracles found to accompany evil, through the cooperation of its father the devil.
Forget the philosophy behind this. While its a good starting point, the actual experience of this stuff is where the belief comes from. @manimal, Really is on to something here. I had been meaning to post about this as well, but I wouldn’t have done as good of a job.
The truth is You can circulate various kinds of energy through what is called the microcosmic orbit and begin to experience the reality of this holy book for yourself. This is not just imagination or visualization or convincing yourself that spmething is happening, you can actually feel it circulating and corsing through the routes in the body, and the results it produces are beyond what modern science deems possible. it’s not magic or mystical, it’s completely scientific and one day will probably be proved through scientific means. For now all you can do is experience for yourself, and if you need a doctor or scientist to tell you that something is possible you are only limiting yourself
Here I’ll explain some of the names in the holy book and what they mean. Let’s begin with some of the places.
Nazareth: This one is simple, it meas sprout. It refers to the birth or birthplace, as in “Jesus of Nazareth.” This is the beginning of the circuit.
Genezareth: Looking at the word, you see that it has the same beginning as genesis and generation, and they have the same origin. Genezareth refers to the same place in your head as Galilee, which I explained earlier. Genezareth means roughly “lake/garden of the prince.” This is where “Jesus walked on the water” and while it is explained later in the book, it still refers to the beginning of the circuit (remember, it’s not a story.) Genezareth is a semi-lunar ganglion where the spine and brain meet, which the “seed” travels over.
Cana: “Place of reeds.” What’s the most reed-like part of your body? The lungs, Cana refers to your lungs. That’s why it’s the land of the holy ghost, because the holy ghost is breath.
Capaernaum: Kfar Nahum, “Place of comfort/consolation.” In the modern bible, this is the home of the apostles Simeon Petrus, Andreas, Jakob (James,) Johannes (John,) and Matisyahu (Matthew) as well as Yashuah (Jesus.) This is where Yashuah performed a couple of miracles, healing a wounded warrior and a cripple among others. Then, this is the part of the circuit where the benefits show. So, where is it? Well, the name means place of comfort, which could mean home, and several of the apostles (“seeds”) gather here, and “miracles” take place. It’s the completion of the orbit. The part about “Ye shall be brought down to Hades” refers to the circuit beginning once more, the seed travelling downward.
Jericho: The name means “place of scent.” According to tradition, Jericho was completely walled in. The part of your brain that perceives scent is the Cerebellum, and it’s also completely walled in by the cerebrum.
The apostles: Petrus means rock, mineral or petroleum. Petrus is sometimes called Cephas which also means rock or mineral. Andreas means masculine, brave, valour, he’s the brother of Simeon (Petrus.) He’s also known in Greek as Protokletos the first-called, and referred to as a “first bishop.” Jakob (follower) and Johannes (glory of God) are sons of Zebedayah (endowment of God) and Salome (peace.) Matiyahu means divine, or sulfur. Nathanael means “gift of God.” Thomas means twin, he’s the doubter but also the one to preach abroad. James/Jakob “the lesser” is the son of Alfaeus (meaning whitish/pearly.) Judas means “celebrated,” Thaddeus means “courage/heart” and Iscariot means “farmer.” Simon cananeous (the zealot) means “listener.”
These names all attempt to describe the traits of each of the monthly “seeds.” Each month’s “seed” is slightly different, has its own characteristics.