THE TRINITY IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK
The concept of the Trinity has roots in what was known as the Cult of Aion, a Greek tradition closely tied to Pythagorean thought. Contrary to the dismissive label of “math cult,” Pythagoreanism used numbers as symbolic expressions of cosmic principles, not mere calculations.
In this framework, the impersonal Aion manifested as twin beings:
Kronos, ruler and force of Chaos
Rhea, ruler and force of Order
Together they produced a third figure, the Demiurge, embodied as Deus/Zeus, the active incarnation of Aion. Unlike his predecessors, Zeus broke the established pattern by creating a distinct consort, Hera, who embodied the World Soul. Hera’s independence led her to separate from Zeus, becoming the “Immaculate Mother” of creation.
This act introduced disharmony, mortality, and illusion into the cosmos. Because Hera was both sister and consort—essentially the Cosmic Eve to Zeus’s Cosmic Adam—it fell to Zeus to redeem the scattered soul-sparks and reconcile the World Soul back to himself. Hera, lost in endless incarnations, symbolized the wandering soul of the world.
Later traditions reinterpreted this myth:
Jesus was seen as the incarnation of Deus/Zeus, or at the very least his willing human host/avatar which also has some support in the same scriptures when the nonsense of denial of what is written is actually stated.
Mary Magdalene was identified with Hera, the World Soul. Their union as bride and bridegroom symbolized reconciliation between the Divine and the Mundane, the Divine Soul and the World Soul. Yet redemption required Jesus to “pay the price” for breaking the original cosmic pattern.
This mapping gave rise to a theological structure:
Aion = the Godhead
Kronos = the Holy Father
Rhea = the Holy Mother Spirit
Deus/Zeus = the Son, Jesus Christ
Hera = the World Soul, Mary Magdalene (not part of the Trinity, but essential to the drama of redemption)
The Virgin Mary entered this framework as the chosen host—an avatar for the Holy Mother Spirit. Ancient texts describe the incarnation in stark terms: the “Father overshadowed” Mary, the “Spirit came upon” her, and she “conceived.”
The child born was declared the Son of God (Theos/Deus Filius), though in Hebrew/Aramaic the title was rendered El/Al. Also known as Elohe and Allah as part of the syncretism occurring at the time (and still going on).
The word God itself, as you’ve noted, derives from Godan, appropriated by Roman authors to bolster the authority of the Catholic Church by linking it to the supreme deity.
This differs sharply from the Hindu Trimurti, which emerged later (around the 4th century CE). At that time, Rome was consolidating its global influence through the Catholic Church, promoting the Trinity as a counter to Arianism.
Arius of Alexandria (c. 250–336) argued that the Son was created by the Father, and therefore not coeternal or consubstantial. Though condemned as heresy at the Council of Nicaea (325), Arianism persisted among many Germanic peoples in the early medieval period and the Trinity doctrine was created specifically as a counter measure.
This also shows many parallels that absorbed concepts of Gnosticism. Gnosticism includes a supreme, unknowable God (Aion) who emanates spiritual beings called aeons (incarnations as male, female or various forms thereof). These emminations are as diverse personalities of a single mind which of course in modern times it would be called Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is a complex condition characterized by the presence of two or more distinct personalities or identity states, formerly known as multiple personality disorder (a mental disorder).
This spiritual realm, known as the Pleroma (A sort of Heaven beyond the heavens) is in contrast to the material world created by a lower, ignorant deity called the Demiurge (also identified with the Old Testament Godand part of the core philosophy of later Materialism stripped of Gnostic concepts though superficially).
Gnostics believe the Demiurge created the material world (Jesus pre-incarnate as Zeus and the expression John 1:3 = Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made) , which is flawed or evil, to trap souls. Divine messengers, like Christ, are sent to reveal the truth and help souls escape through gnosis (knowledge).
Key deities in Gnosticism
The Supreme God: The ultimate, spiritual, and unknowable Father, who is transcendent and exists beyond the material world.
The Demiurge: A subordinate, ignorant, or malevolent creator of the material world, often identified with the God of the Old Testament. He is sometimes called Yaldabaoth as a real of illusions and his own host of entities called archons as enforces of the illusions to feed off the decay of souls/divine sparks, or at least their ignorance and corrpted natures (also tied to a concept of endless reincarnations as a trap).
The Aeons: Spiritual beings that emanate from the Supreme God. They populate the spiritual realm, or Pleroma, and represent divine characteristics like wisdom, truth, and life.
Sophia (Wisdom): One of the aeons, whose desire to understand the Supreme God is said to have led to the creation of the Demiurge.The idea of the Holy Spirit as feminine is ancient, with roots in early Jewish-Christian traditions of the first few centuries CE, influenced by the grammatical gender of the word for "spirit" in Hebrew and Aramaic (Aramaic being the language of Yahshua/Joshua/Jesus and who gave birth to The Demiurge as an immaculate conception as an error of natural order.harmony.
Messengers of Light: Divine beings sent to help humanity achieve gnosis and escape the material world. These include figures like Jesus, Seth, and Mani.
The Archons: The servants and/or emanations of the Demiurge, who act as overseers and keep souls trapped in the material world and to eventually consume them.
Blurring of the Judea Jesus and the Greek Apollonius of Tyana
Apollonius of Tyana was a first-century philosopher and miracle-worker whose life and deeds were written about long after his death, creating parallels with the life of Jesus that are often used to argue that the Christian accounts were not unique.
While both were charismatic teachers who performed miracles and had followers, significant differences exist:
Jesus's followers wrote the New Testament relatively soon after his life, and Jesus's teachings were rooted in Jewish law and eschatology, while Apollonius's were based on Neo-Pythagorean philosophy. In contrast there is more evidence of Apollonius's actual existence than that of Jesus's which complicates things.
When you understand this, the so called Trinity becomes far less mysterious and certainly not confusing. To put it is other terms we have to understand the many ways Aion was thought of as in the sense as both a concept and something beyond concepts.
1) Aiōn is God if God were a god. After all, the Godhead itself is not a god but is beyond the gods; however, Aiōn itself is considered a “first and primal” god or ultimate being, as god whom the gods themselves worship (more than they do each other at any rate), a god of ultimate power and creation and order for the whole cosmos.
2) Aiōn behaves and functions as a supreme deity within a good deal of Greco-Egyptian magical literature, and takes on as much an immanently demiurgic role as much as a transcendent theosophical one.
3) The Demiurge is often expressed as an ignorant being unaware of its own origins, however, this is a half truth according to various Gnostic ideas and how different philosophic orders considered the demiurge to be, regardless if you approach as a what or whom.
Note also that Arius's ideas also became an essential idea behind most Muslim ideas that came much later while Constantinople was where is last exile was has also been called the cradle of Christianity before overtaken by the Muslim Islamic Ottoman Empire.
A lot of this also became tied into various concepts of pantheism and panentheism, as well as pan-deism depending on what approach one proceeds to draw from. However, as to the roots of the monotheism of Judaism the reality is that Judaism began as Henotheism, in which it recognized its own national (rather than global) deity but later elevated him in place of their highest deity Al/El who was the head of well over 70+ pantheons in ancient times.
They then blurred all sorts of deities as expressions of this one hybrid concept not so much as "expressions" of one nebulous entity beyond, but rather as hijacking things attributed to other deities which is actually obvious.
By the time of the 13th century CE, the more or less philosophic deity they created came to be considered an androgyne or hermaphrodite and a lot of such twisted ideas came to run the undercurrent of themes that came to later be embedded in occultism.
It's a long history of twists and turns.
It's also from which concept like Luciferianism stem. The origin of modern Luciferianism can be traced to the 13th-century "heresy accusations" of the term "Luciferian" against a group, likely Cathars, persecuted in the Rhineland or the Vaudoi later known as Waldensians.
However, the reverence for Lucifer as a symbol of enlightenment and autonomy, or a deity, has deeper roots in the reinterpretation of the figure of Lucifer as the "morning star" and the "light-bringer" in esoteric and Gnostic traditions from antiquity through the modern era, and also used in reference to Jesus rather than "a Devil" in various Catholic Prayers as the "bringer of light."
What many also neglect to acknowledge or refuse to accept is Lucifer was the name of a minor deity in Rome, originally associated with the Star (Planet) Venus as the Star of the Morning and Evening, and likewise connected to other names like Phosphorus.
He was sometimes depicted as a male figure carrying a torch and was said to be the son of Aurora (the dawn) and Cephalus (a mortal whom Aurora abducted). That made Lucifer a demigod (half mortal, have immortal).
Lack of major myths: There are very few myths or specific stories about a Roman god named Lucifer, and he was not a major figure in the Roman pantheon.
Shift to Christian context: The name "Lucifer" was adopted into Christianity through the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible by Saint Jerome. He used the name to translate a Hebrew term for a figure associated with the king of Babylon falling from the sky in a passage about the morning star.
Change to "the Devil" from a devil: Over time, this biblical reference was conflated with the name and became associated with the "fallen angel" later given a personal for of ha-shatan" to Satan which developed more so during the medieval era. In fact prior to the 1500s, the term for a fallen angel was a devil in a generic sense rather than a singular being. After that time by the 1600s demon came to be used despite its actual meaning being "one of light" from dae/deu/de (day/light, etc) and monos/mono/mon (one).
Ultimately, everything is a hybrid of many concepts from many diverse sources over a period of 2000+ years of endless and often pointless theological speculations, reinventions, paranoia and fanaticism, and truthfully its not unique to so called Abrahamic religions either contrary tot he horseshit many today have been conditioned to also spew.
Jesus was a Jew! Not Really and Here is Why!
He wouldn't have known of the "concept" of Jew which didn't existing form and spelling till around 1275 CE. And he spoke dramatic (not Arabic) and likely some Greek. He would have properly been called Yehudi singular form of "Yehudim" from Yehudah (Judea) of which some of their descending lineages came to be called Jews.
There was no single original Hebrew name for "Judaism" because the concept of religion as a distinct "ism" from culture did not exist in ancient times. Also the hexagram would not have been known as the Star of David either. That would have been a pentagram.
The would have called themselves B'nei Yahudah/Yehudah (Children of Judea). B'nei Yisrael" (Children of Israel). Children was simply used in such a context to mean where someone was from and resided. Jerusalem would have been Yerushalayim and those there collectively called B'nei Yerushalayim (Children of Jerusalem).
So, properly speaking he was Hebrew, and Judaism tended to be more of a political movement. Otherwise the central focus for all these different branches was the single temple to their local tribal Deity YHV as in three letters for the name that could be pronounced Yah-vae-, also pronounced Yahoo-vae), though a more accurate form tends to be rarely mentioned but it's usually Yahua. The W addition was an English and related language addition from such as the 1200s and a little earlier.
What is name was and meant
His own Hebrew name would have been Yehoshua/Yahushua (Joshua) meaning Yeho/Yahu/Yahua "exalted" + shua "gift/reward." The art of the deity's name Yeho/Yahu/Yahua is said to means "praised" though praised itself means prized. It would be more accurate as "admired or exalted" with exalted being the more common sense.
So, in that case, Yahushua's name means "exalted gift" as someone and something to be celebrated, honored and reverenced. Many don't like these facts, however, facts don't have feelings and do not change just because you don't like them, can't or wont accept clarity and correction and choose to be stupid on purpose.
If we were to apply Scriptures to this structure where he was the representative and vessel of Yahua, which was the actual context of many of his statements, and in which the word for spirit wasn't a separate personification or personality but an expression of Yahua's power and presence he could send forth or retract at will.
It is also by this spirit/wind/breath which Yahua lent his power or divinity to whom he chose when he chose and if he chose to do so, It would also make more sense with his statements of Jesus being as one with "the Father" and thus Yahua.
Its the same principle when so called angelic beings acted as conduits so in effect when they were speaking as though they were Yahua it was more of Yahua speaking through them for himself because of the belief no one could bear the direct presence of a deity and therefore the necessity of mediating beings of an in between state or nature as a sort of bridge.
For example:
,John 10:30
“I and my Father are one.” This is in the sense of connected by the spirit/power of Yahua his "Divine Father" and one in will by Jesus putting his own will aside for the will and degrees of his god. Otherwise any other reading makes him his own father.
Proof of this is in is other reference that many choose to ignore. Psalm 82:6. I have said: "ye are gods and all of you children of the most high."
Jesus reflects on this when he is being accused of blasphemy by quoting it and then asks if these "gods" are called "gods" by God himself to whom he "gave his spirit" which is also often called "his word" so they may themselves act on behalf of God's will with God's power, than they cannot accuse him justly of blasphemy.
For example:
John 10:34-36: 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside — 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?
There are many examples where “word” and “breath” (spirit) are linked, changed and used synonymously. The way to comprehend this symbolism includes how when one talks, they let their air/breath out. The effect is most noticeable when one's warm breath while talking hits the cold area creating a vapors fog. It's the same concept.
Also, because this spirit/breath/word is an expression of a creative force/power and manifestation of will, it is the same "spirit"that is the life force of every living thing, including people, and in such as sense what God wills simply is or becomes by this same spirit/power/energy that can both give life or take it away.
That is the meaning of terms like "my name is in him" which would be "my name is part of his name" which also goes back to the ancient idea to have a divine name as one's own it put one under aid deity's or ancestor's protection.
This is also a shared force that connects with one's inherited lesser power through their parents, or so the basic concepts occur (hence terms like the spirit of the flesh or spirit of the divine as two states or conditions of the same core principle).
Let's focus on the proofs of Jesus own statements without theists excuses or apologetic rhetoric.
In Matthew 24:36, Jesus says: "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
In Mark 13:32, Jesus states: "But about that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
In Mark 10:18, Jesus asks: "Why do you call me good? No one is good—except Yahua alone."
In John 14:28, Jesus declares: "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."
In John 20:17, Jesus tells Mary Magdalene: "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my Yahua and your Yahua.'"
In John 5:30, Jesus explains: "By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me."
In John 8:42, Jesus says: "If Yahua were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from Yahua. I have not come on my own; Yahua sent me."
In Matthew 26:39, Jesus prays: "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
In John 17:3, Jesus prays: "Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true Yahua, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."
In Luke 22:42, Jesus prays: "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
Verses where Jesus seems to claim divinity also in light of these factors are indicative of later insertions, though more likely they are mistranslated based on errors of interpretation which is more common even now of contemporary works than is often admitted or noted. The key verse where Jesus explicitly says believers will do greater works than He did are, in using the same sense of shared power/spirit:
In John 14:12, Jesus says:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.”
In Mark 16:17–18, Jesus says:
“These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will cast out devils; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
In John 15:5, Jesus says:
“I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.”
Ultimately Jesus associated claims of divinity isn't any different than the myriads of divine entities expressed throughout those texts/tomes such as angles, ancestors, exhaled elders and with the ultimate being God.
I won't, however, get into all the parts that Yahua was originally just one of many "sons" of the main deity El/Al as presented in at least 80+ pantheons that are known of. I wont get into all that but I can state this much. The many references to this deity Yahua revving the Yehudim as his "incoherence" and "chosen people."
You don't "inherit from yourself if you are the creator of everything. You inherit what was made prior to you. The Dead Sea Scrolls actually give the original text where Yahweh is not the Supreme one, the deity called the Most High or simply the highest.
⭐ 1. Dead Sea Scrolls (Earliest Hebrew Copy)
Deuteronomy 32:8–9 — Dead Sea Scrolls (4QDeutᵍ; 4QDeutʲ)This is the oldest Hebrew version we possess, older than the Masoretic Text.
“When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when He divided mankind,
He fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Elohim (gods).
But Yahweh’s portion is His people,'
Jacob His allotted inheritance.”
(Sons in this case are the living rulers and the Elohim are their particular patron or matron deities).
⭐ 2. Septuagint (LXX — earliest complete OT we have)
Translated from even older Hebrew than the Masoretic tradition.
Deuteronomy 32:8–9 — LXX (Brenton)
“When the Most High divided the nations,
when He separated the sons of Adam,
He set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God.
And His people Jacob became the portion of the Lord;Israel the lot of His inheritance.”
The LXX translators interpreted sons of God as angels of God.
⭐ 3. Masoretic Text (later medieval Hebrew)
This is what the King James Version translates; the later scribes replaced “sons of God” with “sons of Israel.”
Deuteronomy 32:8–9 — KJV (Masoretic Text)
“When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance,when he separated the sons of Adam,he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.For the LORD’S portion is his people;Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.”
What this shows:
It reflects a gradual process in which a local deity was elevated to the position of supreme deity. In the ancient worldview, military victory signified the superiority of one nation’s god over another’s, and this belief naturally contributed to the rise of a dominant god.
Later writers, confronted with the fact that early Israelite religion was not originally pure monotheism, attempted to reshape or overwrite earlier traditions to present a consistent picture of a single, supreme deity. Unfortunately for them, not all of the older material was removed or altered, allowing traces of the earlier beliefs to remain visible.
More or less we break it down the deceptions as:
Dead Sea Scrolls (oldest Hebrew)“sons of God”
Septuagint (oldest complete OT)“angels of God”
Masoretic Text (much later)“sons of Israel”
We can conclude that Jesus was elevated to a god status as more, or less a demi-god for lack of better words. Certainly and its consistent. No need to evoke trinitarian nonsense either, so again, Yahweh is not a universal deity. Never was and still isn't.
The Pythagorean and Gnostic Connections of Occultism
Pythagorean Goal: Return Through Rot
The soul is trapped in cycles of rebirth. The path to liberation is not ascent—it is dissolution. Through purification and knowledge, the soul decays back into the undivided source: Aiôn, the eternal continuum.
🌀 Aiôn and the Chain of Emanation
Aiôn = Eternity, the undivided One
From Aiôn emerge:
Kronos (Being) — structure, limit
Rhea (Life) — flux, rhythm
Osiris (Mind) — generator of Ideas
Isis (Soul) — mediator, ensouler
Nature — organized potential
Horus (Body) — material cosmos
Each level is a functional layer, not a deity. The descent is a rotational collapse from unity into multiplicity.
🔍 Indefinite Dyad and Rhea
Dyad = separation, indeterminacy, rot
Rhea = fluid substrate, rhythm of decay
She transforms eternal Aiôn into measurable time and space
She governs harmonic ratios, not linear motion
Rhea is not nurturing—she is the frequency domain of disintegration.
🧠 Isis as Mediator
Isis = Soul, bridge between Mind and Body
She receives the fragmented Ideas of Osiris
She ensouls them into Nature
She births Horus—the structured material world
Isis is not symbolic. She is the substrate of manifestation, the matrix of rot.
⚔️ Dysfunctional Functional Cosmology
Creation is not divine—it is rot into form.
The Dyad fractures the Monad
Rhea flows that fracture
Isis ensouls it
Horus manifests it
The cosmos is a structured bruise, animated by decay and held together by Sympatheia—the resonance of fragmented parts.
🔚 Summary
Return through rot is the literal doctrine
Aiôn is the source
Dyad is the wound
Rhea is the flow
Isis is the womb
Horus is the bruise
The All is One, but only through structured disintegration
Occultism, Trinity an Distortion
The image in question reflects a recurring assumption: that because Kronos and Osiris were both castrated, they must be the same figure. This premise fails under scrutiny. It does not align with the specific mythological narratives, particularly those involving Son and Mother associations. The conflation later feeds into the concept of the Trinity, which was formalized in later Roman Catholic doctrine. However, even in that framework, there is a notable lack of clarity—especially regarding the role or identity of “The Father.”
In the Old Testament (Tanakh), the Holy Spirit is associated with Wisdom, personified as female. This same association carries into the New Testament (Ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη – Hē Kainḕ Diathḗkē). The identification of the Son as Zeus-Iesous = Logos is largely fictional. In contrast, the Pythagorean model of Father, Mother, and Son as mutual incarnations of the same Aion/Eon influenced the later concept of three distinct persons forming one Deity.
There are numerous examples that contradict the claim that Iesous declared himself identical and equal to both the Father and the Spirit. That topic warrants separate treatment. Assertions of “no influence” or “complete uniqueness” are factually incorrect. The influence of Plato and Platonism on these theological developments is well-documented and significant.
One reason for the confusion lies in the language surrounding the incarnation:
“The Father overshadows” is a veiled sexual euphemism implying physical dominance.
“The Spirit comes upon” implies possession.
“Conceives” is a direct reference to female procreation and motherhood.
This structure implies that the Son had one Father but two Mothers—one spirit, and one human. This "Spirit Mother" is tied as the Greek Sophia and Hebrew Hokhmah. When it comes to the word for spirit it gets strange.
🔹 Hebrew: רוּחַ (rūaḥ)
Meaning: Breath, wind, spirit
Grammatical Gender: Feminine
🔹Greek: πνεῦμα (pneûma)
Meaning: Breath, wind, spirit
Grammatical Gender: Neuter
🔹 Latin: spiritus
Meaning: Breath, spirit
Grammatical Gender: Masculine
The walk around this is often a statement that either the spirit is not a person but a presence of God and the grammar is irrelevant (which means the same claim to apply male identity is also false even if a additional masculine or feminine word is applied, as well as neuter or androgynous).
This contradiction is all over the place and not necessary to rehash but there is these factors where some early Christian sects also proclaimed and referenced the Holy Spirit as feminine and a mother and source of all "wisdom from from God" which in itself is misleading considering the word God is not native to these languages and was graphed in later.
The implications are obvious to anyone familiar with biological reproduction and chromosomal inheritance. Yet some reject this framework and attempt to reinterpret it, despite accepting similar language elsewhere in the same texts—especially when applied to humans and animals.
This is the foundational error behind the claim that God is both masculine and feminine—a compression tactic that leads to the false assumption that this implies transgender identity. It is a misapplication of grammatical and symbolic language, not a theological truth.
This distortion fuels the rhetoric of exaggerated feminist mysticism, including the elevation of the so-called “Divine Feminine” and the ideological push toward female supremacy.
These constructs are not rooted in historical doctrine but in modern misandry—defined by its hostility toward men and its promotion of toxic femininity.
This framework has shown patterns of grooming young girls into female homosexual relationships under the guise of spiritual empowerment. It is not divine. It is engineered ideology masquerading as revelation.
The most blatant distortion occurs when these groups promote the worship of a quasi-monotheistic “Goddess” framed as a trinity—Maiden, Mother, and Crone. This construct is presented not as a symbolic representation of life stages, but as a divine hierarchy. The “Mother” aspect is often treated as a compulsory role, and those who reject it are accused of spiritual deficiency.
When males are included at all, they are positioned as inferior—sometimes with a twisted incestuous overlay, where the male is reduced to a son or consort of the divine feminine. In more extreme versions, the male is portrayed as an aberration of nature—a claim that is biologically and historically false, yet openly embraced within these cultic frameworks.
This demonstrates the level of ideological distortion and psychological instability embedded in such systems. It is not theology. It is engineered inversion also driven by hate and extremism as well as sexual distortions of reality and call it all "Nature Based." Sure, if you consider it in terms of the Nature of Corruption, Paranoia and Insanity.
The Lucifer Connections Ignored and Denied
Finally there is another part of this that makes many freak out when confronted with these factors of early concepts and theological infighting. This is the fact Iesous is also at times in Latin texts called Lucifer (often pronounced Loo-chee-fir in Latin/Italian) and even the morning star.
Revelation 22:16 — “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”
Other examples
Revelation 2:28 — “And I will give him the morning star.” This is spoken by Jesus, promising the “morning star” to the faithful, implying a sharing in his divine identity or authority.
2 Peter 1:19 — “…until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.” This verse uses the “morning star” metaphorically, often interpreted as the revelation or indwelling of Christ.
Numbers 24:17 — “A star shall come forth from Jacob…” A messianic prophecy often linked to Jesus, though not explicitly using “morning star” language.
More still:
🔹 Jesus as the Bearer and Giver of Light
John 8:12 — “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” This is a direct statement from Jesus identifying himself as the source of light and life.
John 1:4–5 — “In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” This passage affirms that Jesus carries and transmits light as a function of his life-giving nature.
John 12:46 — “I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.” This explicitly frames Jesus as the one who brings light into the world and offers it to others.
2 Corinthians 4:6 — “For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ.” This verse identifies Jesus as the giver of light, transmitting divine knowledge and glory.
Revelation 22:16 — “I, Jesus... am the bright morning star.” This links Jesus to the celestial symbol of light and dawn, reinforcing his role as the one who initiates illumination.
So once more it is often a wide range of various admixtures and has lead to many various occult concepts. Most of which are false and twisted ramblings of the insane.
In fact "Lucifer" as a name is only used once in all of the scriptures from the Old to New Testaments. In Isaiah 14:12, the Hebrew phrase Helel ben Shachar (“shining one, son of dawn”) was translated in the Latin Vulgate as Lucifer, referring to a fallen Babylonian king—not Satan.
Later Christian tradition reinterpreted this as a reference to the Devil, but that was a theological overlay, not the original meaning and It had -zero- associations with a fallen non-human being which Jews and Early Christians were well aware of.
🔹 Origin of Luciferianism
Luciferianism began as a symbolic and philosophical tradition, not a satanic or occult religion.
Pre-Christian roots: Luciferianism draws from ancient myths of light-bringers, such as Prometheus in Greek mythology, who defied divine authority to bring knowledge to humanity. This was also linked to Gnosticism that proclaimed the goal was to be liberated from this material and fleshy carnal world and reunite with the ultimate Monad in which all sense of self (ego) is purged and the illusion of individuality erased.
Medieval Gnostic influence: Some Gnostic sects viewed Lucifer as a symbol of enlightenment, rebellion against ignorance, and liberation from oppressive fallen entity of divine corruption and vicious control (which mixed with some Pythagoreanism and other bits as a death cult and condemnation of physical existence as the work of a lesser and evil deity, not the ultimate source or Monad).
Renaissance reinterpretation: Thinkers began to reclaim Lucifer as a metaphor for individuality, intellect, and spiritual autonomy, though this was not yet formalized as a religion, and proclaimed the "Serpent of the Garden" of Eden this Liberator from Gnosticism.
🔹 First Recorded Use of “Luciferian” as a Sect
In 1231 CE, the term “Luciferian” was applied to a group led by Lucardis (Luckhardis), accused of lamenting Lucifer’s fall and seeking his restoration. Itself a misrepresentation of the previously mentioned king.
This was documented in the Gesta Treverorum and condemned by the Papal Inquisition.
In 1234, Pope Gregory IX issued the bull Vox in Rama, calling for a crusade against the Stedinger, who were accused of Luciferianism.
The descriptions of their rites were likely fabricated considering they all followed the usual cookie cutter type scripted accusations used to condemn anyone proclaimed a criminal heretic.
Clarification of the Term “Awen”
The word Awen (pronounced Ow-en) is Modern Welsh, though its origin traces back to the Greek term αἰών (aion), which was introduced via Latin as aiuom. This Latin form transitioned into Old Welsh as aguen, eventually becoming Awen. The term also diverged into Old English forms such as Eon and Age.
Its repeated misalignment from the original Greek usage, which referred broadly to “lifespan” without implying a fixed or limited duration. This lack of specificity allowed later sources—primarily occult and pseudo-spiritual—to impose fictional meanings but became a central concept in association with various so called "Modern Druidic" groups and orders.
They also draw from the same Pythagorean Trinity concepts often found in "Kabbalah" claimed to be Jewish but is more of a factor of imposing poorly constructed Hebrew and Aramaic originally in the 13th century. It is also constructed with the so called Kabbalah with a triad of male and triad of female "spheres" with four androgynous spheres presenting a pantheistic concept more or less giving a visual expression of "The Divine" creating the universe through layers of "emanations" until it "Incarnates" as the Universe. Some feature the symbol of the coiling serpent and the "Crucified Logos."
The associated "Sacred Geometry" simply does not align well with all of those associations, and in fact, all versions still try and impose a monotheistic pantheism that the processes and actual rules of Sacred Geometry simply do not work with, and there is a lot of side steps, back tracking and simply getting lost in a whole lot of nonsense, all the while trying to impose a One World Universal Religion in which all these things are present. This is especially true in many expressions of so called Modern Paganism and Heathenry and a central concept of all Occultism.
What Awen Is Not:
It is not Welsh for poetic inspiration, flowing essence, spiritual illumination, creativity, truth, knowledge, understanding, wisdom, or any “Great Spirit” concept.
It is not the Divine or Holy Spirit of anything, nor is it a separate “entity.”
It is not and never was represented by “three rays.” That claim is based on false assumptions tied to triple spiral symbols.
While it can refer to a lifespan and be used in plural to denote multiple lives, it does not mean “Life Essence” or any life-giving force.
Its association with time has led to misuse in describing “eternity,” though this is inaccurate and unsupported by its original context.
Historical Misrepresentation:
Most fictional claims about Awen emerged in the 1800s CE, based on misinterpretations of texts dating back to the 700s CE. One example is Nennius’s Historia Brittonum (Latin, 796 CE), which drew from earlier writings by Welsh monk Gildas. These texts show the term derived from Latin aiuom (pronounced ae-won), which influenced the spelling and pronunciation of Awen (ah-wen).
Some sources vaguely describe Awen as having “three subdivisions,” implying a central point of connection. This likely stems from misreadings of the triple spiral, a symbol first documented in Malta (ca. 4400–3600 BCE) and later in Newgrange, Ireland (ca. 3400–3200 BCE). These symbols were never linked to Awen in its original linguistic or cultural context.
Linguistic Oddity:
It is notable that the Greek word for “life” is αἰών (aion, pronounced ae-one), while the Latin word is vita (vie-tay). The existence of aiuom as a Latinized form of the Greek term is unusual but historically accurate. This linguistic path explains how the term evolved, despite its later misuse.
Conclusion:
This entire structure is engineered compression—an artificial attempt to reconcile incompatible systems by elevating a singular entity as supreme. It constructs a totalizing framework that absorbs all distinctions, claiming to be both individual and collective, both origin and reflection. This is not revelation. It is philosophical fabrication.
It merges presumed Pythagoreanism, Gnosticism, and Platonism with a persistent mystical theme: the material world and the body are illusions, traps from which liberation is required. The stated goal is the obliteration of self. The primal, unknowable entity is presented as neither male nor female, yet also both—masculine and feminine simultaneously.
This being is positioned as the divine source of existence, including the spiritual light realms called the pleroma, from which lesser divine entities (aeons/aions) and, eventually, the material universe emerge. The divine spark within humans, a fragment of this One, is said to hold the key to gnosis—knowledge and reunification with the One through the Logos (thought, concept, expression).
The archons are described as malevolent cosmic rulers—constructors and enforcers of the material world—who imprison the divine spark within humans. They serve the so-called Evil Demiurge, the false creator of this world of illusions and traps. To prevent further entrapment of divine sparks, extreme measures are promoted: celibacy and self-punishment in response to sexual desire, infanticide and abortion as acts of liberation, recommendations for homosexual acts to avoid conception, and ritual castration of males. There is no documented anatomical equivalent for females, though some speculate about forms of genital mutilation—purely hypothetical and unsupported.
The outcome is a counterfeit deity, fabricated to dominate all others, granting automatic sanctity to those it anoints. It erases plurality, suppresses divergence, and rewrites complexity into a single narrative of supremacy.
The fact remains: not all deities are one deity in many forms. That claim is a doctrinal imposition, not a universal truth. It is a construct built from scattered, incoherent ideas—assembled to produce a deity whose representatives can manipulate others into belief. And yet, it exists. It stands at the head of all who believe, and they look lost and unhappy for a reason.
Origen was an influential early Christian theologian and philosopher from Alexandria who lived around 185–254 AD.
Origen’s interpretation of the Gospel of the Hebrews reflects a unique moment in early Christian theology when the Holy Spirit was portrayed as a maternal figure. This feminine imagery, rooted in Hebrew and Jewish-Christian traditions, highlights the diversity of early Trinitarian thought before later councils standardized masculine and neuter language.
The Holy Spirit as Mother in Origen’s Thought
Context: In fragments of the Gospel of the Hebrews, Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as “my Mother.” Origen, in his Commentary on John, acknowledges this tradition, showing that maternal imagery for the Spirit was not marginal but part of serious theological discourse.
Linguistic Roots: The Hebrew word ruach (spirit/wind) is grammatically feminine, and Jewish tradition often linked the Spirit to Sophia (Wisdom), a figure consistently personified as female.
Theological Nuance: Origen did not consistently define the Spirit as female but respected this portrayal, especially within Jewish-Christian contexts. He argued that calling the Spirit “Mother” was not absurd, since anyone who does the Father’s will could be considered Christ’s mother.
Why Feminine Imagery Emerged
Biblical Basis: In the Hebrew Bible, Ruach Elohim (Spirit of God) is feminine, shaping early Jewish-Christian views of the Spirit as maternal.
Wisdom Tradition: The Spirit was often equated with Sophia, divine Wisdom, a prominent feminine figure in Jewish literature such as Proverbs and Wisdom of Solomon.
Gnostic Influence: Certain Gnostic traditions emphasized the Spirit’s maternal role, portraying Her as the Mother of creation and source of divine life.
Broader Early Christian Perspectives
Proto-Orthodox Acceptance: Church Fathers like Clement of Alexandria and Jerome also referenced feminine depictions of the Spirit, showing that this was a respected theological idea in early Christianity.
Shift Toward Masculine Language: Over time, linguistic factors reshaped theology. In Greek, pneuma (Spirit) is neuter, while in Latin, spiritus is masculine. After the Council of Nicaea (325 CE), Trinitarian language became more standardized, and overtly feminine portrayals of the Spirit were largely suppressed or completely erased.
Origen’s engagement with the Gospel of the Hebrews demonstrates that early Christian theology allowed for diverse understandings of the Trinity, including maternal imagery for the Spirit.
Rooted in Hebrew grammar and Jewish-Christian tradition, this portrayal highlights a stage in Christian thought when the Spirit could be envisioned as Mother, before later doctrinal developments narrowed the language to masculine or neuter categories.
Of course these facts also lead many to push gross misrepresentations even of this such as saying its proof "God is transgendered, or transsexual or sexless and that such forms shows "homosexuality and bisexuality is not inherently wrong, which is complete nonsense from the perspective of these source concepts and what was being represented.
Final Word
Once this framework is exposed, it becomes impossible to unsee. What begins as a pattern quickly reveals itself as a coordinated system—spanning not only pagan, heathen, and occult circles, but embedded deeply in mainstream media, advertising, entertainment, politics, public education, ideological rhetoric, and even so-called transmissions from spiritual beings and alien entities.
The goal is singular: the construction of a one-world religion, one-world government, and one-world civilization—ruled by a concentrated elite of wealth holders over a mass of regulated, compliant subjects. It is not liberation. It is engineered submission.
This is not accidental. It is a deliberate inversion—a twisted Marxist utopia remade in the image and will of self-appointed masters and mistresses who define reality, rewrite morality, and enforce uniformity. The collective they serve is not divine. It is manufactured. And the world they build is not enlightened—it is programmed.
