I'm a reincarnation of Jesus Christ! ... are you?

In this post I will attempt to address some possibly problematic issues with the doctrine and dogma of the Christian religion that I can recognise solutions for. The desired result for anyone in reading this I intend is to introduce to their minds some new ideas that may run contrary to their old beliefs, however to do so in a gentle and questioning way only. I am not stating these ideas as FACTS nor BELIEFS. These are only observations and ideas I've had.

Did Jesus Preach Reincarnation?

There is no evidence within the canonised synoptic gospels in the Vulgate nor any subsequent editions of the New Testament of the Bible to support that he ever did. This is not because he never did though. It is because these teachings were edited out of his sayings and hidden as the secret morals to his parables by the original authors and later editors of the synoptic Gospels. However, the teachings of the Master excluded from the Synoptic Canon are included in the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal writings from the time, and there are many more of these than the merely three Synoptic gospels of the Vulgate Canon. In many of these there are some very odd key-word sayings, vividly descriptive apoclyptic visions and very different belief systems expressed than those traditional study of the NT prepare one to discover, let alone possibly accept as their own beliefs. A great deal of the Master's teachings in these writings deal specifically with reincarnation, and even more specifically, alike the teachings of the Buddha as well, how to escape it.

The metempsychosis of the soul
versus
the desposyni rex deus bloodline

The concept of "reincarnation" as it was introduced first into the west from the east by Pythagoras (~570-485BCE) around the lifetime of Buddha (~563-483BCE), was originally the basis for the Vedic caste system. It was believed from pre-historic times in India that one's deeds in their life determined the luck they would have in their next human life on earth. Metempsychosis, as Pythagoras described it, included atavistic de-evolutionary reincarnation as lesser forms of animal as well. At around the same time of Pythagoras, Buddha taught that one could evolve upward or devolve downward in a cycle of "Lokas" on an eternal wheel of Dharma. This doctrine was popularly accepted in the east, where it already had prior myths to support the notion of "metempsychosis." In the west, the idea of reincarnation at all, in any form, human or animal, was rejected. Catholicism replaced it instead with the concepts of an eternal heaven or hell awaiting us immediately after this life.

The essential premise of the "Rex Deus bloodline" theory is that the early Roman papacy chased the relatives and family of Jesus out of the Council of Nicea and exiled them into southern Europe. This is when the split began between the "Gnostics" and the "Catholics." The Cathars were the first sect accused of anti-Catholic practises and heretical beliefs, and their persecution began the Inquisition. The Cathars held that Christ had taught how to escape reincarnation.

Are we a dream in Krishna's mind?

The religion of Hare Krishna teaches that Krishna lives in the heart of the sun, is ever-dancing, but that his "universal form" is yet dormant within him, and he remains asleep most of the time to his full power. When Krishna awakens, he incarnates on earth as Buddha. This is why there have been 14 Dalai Lama also, because the Buddhists believe that the soul of the Buddha has been reincarnating here on earth in a new body each generation. The Hindu call an "ascended master" who returns to teach and lead others toward illumination, enlightenment and transcendence a "Boddhisattva." Thus, the Dalia Lama, as the reincarnation of the Buddha, is the chief governmental official in the oriental Buddhist system, because the entire society and government is seen as being made of reincarnations of monks who have studied under Buddha in one incarnation or another. Because he founded the government, his reincarnation leads it.

Just so, to the Essene community at Qumran on the middle-eastern Dead Sea at the time of Jesus' life, the leaders of the community were maternal-side bloodline descendents of the Hebrew kings or prophets whose names were also given them as titles. Thus, the descendent of Moses via King David was called the Levite King and the descendent of Aaron via the maternal lineage was called the Zadok Priest. When Jesus was born the son of a Zadokite father and a Levite mother, he was heralded as the first re-uniting of the bloodlines since they diverged originally, and his followers attempted to declare him the "Priest King" of Judea and Israel. He was seen as the first person to recombine the occidental bloodline-based concept, and the oriental discorporeal soul concept, of reincarnation. Some believed he was of the House of King David, while others believed he was the "second coming" of Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve and the first truly human being.

(cont.)

Was Christ God, and is God Dead?

When word of the crucifixion spread, it was quickly built up into the status of the myth we find today: the Jewish Sanhedrin under Caiphas had pressured the Roman governor to kill the incarnation of God on earth. But did Jesus claim to be God? How do we define the term "Messiah," or "Christ"? It literally only means one who is "annointed" (usually using an ancient, sacred oil made from crocadile fat) in a ritual to represent the salvation of man from the element of water. However Jesus never declared outright he was even the "Messiah" as the Hebrew semites of the era understood it. Rather, he cloaked his meaning in key-word morals to his sayings and parables.

He called himself the "Son of Man." Being the "son of mankind" implies his mind as being the expression in a single man of the entire collective capacity for awareness of all humanity. However, because one cannot kill a being that is purely discorporeal mentation, a spiritual expression of our collective consciousness as a species; and whether he died on the cross, or of old age - because Jesus DID die, this begs the question as to if he truly was the "Son of Man" as he preached it. Because earth and humanity were not blinked out of existence when the body of Jesus died on the cross, many to this day refuse to attribute to the man any superhuman, paranormal or even spiritual feats at all. Because when Jesus died the universe did not blink out of existence, those who maintain his church to this day claim Jesus was only the "Son of God," and that it is God who is universal, and thus depict Jesus, the "Son of Man," using specifically solar symbology.

The disincarnate souls of Good and Evil

Since the time of Jesus' crufixion, none have dared to step forward to claim themselves the "Son of Man" again. The modern Pope remains the direct, Apostolic link between someone alive now and the earliest Roman Emperors, while the Dalai Lama remains the leader of the Buddhist spiritual nation in absentia from Tibet. Many believe the Prophet Mohammed was the final man to have lived who had direct contact with an angel of the Universal God, and many also feel that those who are direct bloodline descendents from him should rule the governments under the religious empire created in his name. In my opinion, none of these individuals are any more or less important or meaningful, significant to history or important to humanity, than any other being alive now or ever. They are, as are all the rest of us as well, only ordinary people. However, the myths of the "Son of Man" as the bloodline and spiritual reincarnation combined in one body of the "Most High" remain commonly known, and, combined with calendrical eschatology induced tensions at this point in history, there is a movement that believe it is now the "End Times" and that the "Second Coming" of "the Son of the Most High" can appear as anyone from among us all, at any time. It might even be someone who does not know it themselves. Thus, the concept of the "Messiah" of 2,000 years ago has become equivalent to the concept of winning a sort of psychic-lottery today.

Are Christians reincarnations of Jesus?

It might seem that the majority of (if not all) people who call themselves "Christians" fail to live up to the moral code adhered to by Jesus that he taught to his Apostles. However, they remain the living representations of his religion in this day and age. As such, we must consider the idea that Christendom is populated entirely by the incarnations of spirits who were once merely thoughts in the mind of Christ. If they live according to the Golden Rule, they become more alike their Master's true wish for his followers, yet whether or not they do, they are only a statistical portion of the overall religion of Christianity today, and the whole of this overall religion can be viewed as the embodiment of the original dream of Jesus Christ. If more than half of all Christians have fallen from the path planed out for them by Christ, does this mean that Christ himself has failed, and that his religion has become corrupt? If the modern world-view of Christians has grown so different from the original mind-set of Jesus, does this represent the end of Christianity and the final death of the "Son of Man" as an embodiment of the "Most High"?

The King of Christendom and you.

These are not questions I can reach your conclusions about for you. If your knee-jerk reaction to reading this preceding line of reasoning is to find it all dubious pseudo-reasoning with no logical nor liturgical basis, that is a conclusion you are reaching which I would disagree with, and would hope I had not misled you to. The overall point of this writing is to introduce these ideas: that "if you are Christian now, are you not a reincarnation of an idea in the mind of Jesus?" and that "if you are a reincarnation of the soul of Christ, then why not believe in this about yourself?"

PEACE.
- Jon

Have you ever watched Zietgeist

I have a had two friends with the messiah complex. I try not to argue it because from my reduction of personality archetypes into pure consciousness; we are all essentially from one source of consciousness.

We inherit everything that comes with being said part except the memory. Why stop at Jesus; add everything that ever existed and will ever exist to the "I AM" clause.

For me, I like being the dreamer because I see dreams that create reality. It makes for a nice way to see reality.

You might be interested in this movie... www.zeitgeistmovie.com...
Kinda takes the blinders off...

reply to post by OpTiMuS_PrImE
reply to post by Nemithesis

Thanks for the recommendations to Zeitgeist. I have to admit when I first saw that movie I was pleased to see some truth about the precession of the sunrise through the zodiac signs being the basis for religions throughout human history. I've never seen Zeitgeist Addendum though. I hear it deals more with this topic also.

Here is a recommendation in the spirit of grateful reciprocity of what I consider to be a better documentary than Zeitgeist that covers many of the same concepts, although proposing different theories about them. Some of you ATS readers will probably already be familiar with this film, and have your own opinions on it. It's called "Empire of the City." It's in two parts on google video:

Empire of the City part 1:
video.google.com...

Empire of the City part 2:
video.google.com...

But let's do try to stay to the topic of the questions I pose in the second post please, and not shift this conversation too far over into the topics of the theories we've heard before now in videos, especially without at least saying in what way they relate. PEACE. - Jon

[edit on 7-2-2010 by benpadiah]

I've encountered very few professed "Christians" who even attempt to emulate Jesus or implement and live the core teachings of Jesus as Christ. Seriously, I can count the number of "true Christians" I've ever known — or known of — on the fingers of one hand.

That said, I can make the same observation of "true atheists," who seem incapable of living their lives without theistic saturation. This is not because these hapless atheists are immersed in a theistic society, but because they choose to dwell on theism against their stated lack of belief.

Rather than living their lives blissfully devoid of theism, such atheist seem hell-bent on conducting a vehement crusade against theism, which naturally entails at least a cursory study of scripture in order to buttress their invariably weak arguments. I call the majority of atheists "God-Haters"... Hating God is as much a religion as anything against which these "atheists" pretend to object.

Again, we see the human inclination to become that which we fervently practice; in the case of Christians and atheists, it seems odd that few Christians are as well-versed in the Bible as are many atheists — there's an argument in there somewhere that God-Haters are more religious than most Christians, although the atheist would no doubt loathe to even consider such a contention.

This would expose the atheist's consummate hypocrisy.

I only bring up atheism and God-hating because I was one such hypocritical and outspoken atheist myself for a couple of decades before returning to study the Bible in recent years.

As I mentioned, I've known only a handful of practicing, Christ-like Christians, and even fewer practicing, godless atheists. Rather than residing on opposite ends of the spiritually-evolved spectrum, the spineless "Christian" and the seething "atheist" seem more properly to coexist on about the same spiritual level, as both are poorly versed in theology and seem incapable of living their stated beliefs.

They're very much alike, actually and sadly.

I think the thing that repels the jersey-wearing Christians about — GASP — living their Faith is that they can't seem to reconcile the so-called Prince of Peace with his confrontational and angry style in the Gospels and His own refutation of the "bringer of peace" mythology.

As you know, Christ was adamant that He was not a bringer of peace.

Instead, Christ admonished his disciples that He was a bringer of a Sword with which he would, basically, cleave away the corruption and dogmatism of extant religion. He knew that this was a path fraught with physical opposition and the threat of dire consequence, and He told His Apostles that, if they had any sense, they'd better take up swords themselves for the battle that lay before them.

Many have misconstrued this as Christ's metaphorical appeal to take up spiritual arms and spiritual armor — but, of course, as no weapons or armor are required for spiritual ascension, you can be fairly certain that Christ wasn't speaking metaphorically.

He was talking about a very real Earthly battle, one that has seen untold billions of people struck down over the millennia as revolutions in thought confront tradition and dogmatism. It's an ongoing battle of ideas and ideals.

Anyway, few "Christians" I've known are prepared to emulate the confrontational and even belligerent figure of Jesus the Christ. Today, they are fearful of acquiring the fanatical label — this fear of rocking the boat could be rightly called a triumph of Satan, as Satan thrives on entropy and intellectual stagnation.

— Doc Velocity


PS: That's a great avatar photo, benpadiah.





[edit on 2/7/2010 by Doc Velocity]

Thanks for posting that DV. All observations I can confirm from my own experience. In other words, I agree that your point of view is true.

But I wanted to specifically draw attention to one point you made, which I find particularly agreeable.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Satan thrives on entropy and intellectual stagnation.

Hear here! I have long held that Satan is a God of the Death of all that can be Good in Life and, as such, awaits in the future devouring all our time toward him. The human "struggle" is to survive, adapt and evolve in spite of the universal proclivity towards disintegration and decay. Thus, we are "negentropic" good, Living beings relative to the "entropic" flow of the evil force of Time. Much appreciate your post. PEACE!
- Jon

Not worth saying this, but we are all "Jesus Christ".

The difference between you and i, and everyone else is none.

It may look it, but that would be called looking at the small picture.

Sadly, Jesus showed us the way, instead people followed him, not his way.

That was well written and useful discourse on it's own, very good! To the topic at hand, it does make sense from that line of thought that some of Jesus' modern day followers would be reincarnations of his (or in his) spirit. In that sense, they are creations of his thought, a sort of cause and effect from his coming into the world. And there you get into the chicken and the egg. Because a true Christian may or may not be born into it, a lot seems to suggest that you can take the Lord into your heart at any moment in your life.

It actually is an act of devotion, and I suppose a true Christian of this sort would be a person who lives with that sense. (I haven't always looked at it that way, because I think that is limiting, but I'll just go with the throught). The idea that the Lord is in their heart, and they would affirm it through prayer, awareness of the heart, imagery of some kind etc. "Walking in the spirit" so to speak. Very much like "Being in the Now" only with a Christian slant, with Jesus as the mantra or focus, pure devotion.. in imagery of peace and love, beauty perhaps.

It is also interesting, I didn't not know Krishna is supposed to incarnate as a Buddha. It would make sense for him to incarnate as a Hindu Guru, or anything at all wouldn't it? Compare the Dhammapada to the Gita, what does Krishna say in human form (Buddha), and what does he say as God (Krishna)? And there does become a purpose it seems for the two perspectives to be known and ultimately taught.

I would love to check out some Christian writings from old times, but it's so hard to know and the teachings have been muddied because for some reason in the culture of Christianity everyone in charge seems to want to change the story. That is Christ like in a way, as he always was a reformer, and agrees with his spirit more than it doesn't, but I think it would have been nice if we could be sure of the original teachings. If we had those it would clear it all up, we could compare it to what we have now as the Bible. It would be just as useful as comparing the Dhammapada to the Gita. The spirit of Christ does live on, but I am afraid that the Christians in charge have used that as more an excuse to change the Bible how they see fit, instead of staying true to the purpose and meaning behind the inclusion that Christ offers in his teachings, in a relationship with Him.

Originally posted by gandhi
Not worth saying this, but we are all "Jesus Christ".

The difference between you and i, and everyone else is none.

It may look it, but that would be called looking at the small picture.

Sadly, Jesus showed us the way, instead people followed him, not his way.

Exactly this.

I may add that we all are fragments of the same soul. The web of life is made of a single thread.

"Don't do to others what you don't want others do to you". That's the only thing you should remember from Jesus.

So we are all Jesus, we are all men, we are all gods.


But it is so nice to have this little ego :-) This is why we came here in the first place.



Just for some fun, a quote from the famous philosopher M. Jackson (bless his soul) :



There comes a time
When we head a certain call
When the world must come together as one
There are people dying
And it's time to lend a hand to life
The greatest gift of all

We can't go on
Pretneding day by day
That someone, somewhere will soon make a change
We are all a part of
God's great big family
And the truth, you know love is all we need

[Chorus]
We are the world
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So let's start giving
There's a choice we're making
We're saving our own lives
It's true we'll make a better day
Just you and me

Send them your heart
So they'll know that someone cares
And their lives will be stronger and free
As God has shown us by turning stone to bread
So we all must lend a helping hand

[Chorus]
We are the world
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So let's start giving
There's a choice we're making
We're saving our own lives
It's true we'll make a better day
Just you and me

When you're down and out
There seems no hope at all
But if you just believe
There's no way we can fall
Well, well, well, well, let us realize
That a change will only come
When we stand together as one

[Chorus]
We are the world
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So let's start giving
There's a choice we're making
We're saving our own lives
It's true we'll make a better day
Just you and me


Peace and Love and Laugh

[edit on 8-2-2010 by SpaceGoatsFarts]

No, I'm a descendant.

There are thousands of us. We get together every year at a secret location and have a big family reunion party. It's pretty cheap; quite a few of us have inherited great--many-times-over-grandad's talents with water and bread and fish and stuff, so the catering bill is pretty low. The kids can be a bit of a problem sometimes, grossing each other out by turning the Fanta to blood or the cocktail sausages into human fingers, but we still have a blast.

Of course, there's a bit of sniping between the Children of the Magdalen, who tend to see themselves as the 'official' lot, and some of the other bloodlines, but it's nothing like as bad as that Brown feller made it out to be. If someone dies in a family quarrel, we just resurrect him.

double post.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by SpaceGoatsFarts]

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming

For me, I like being the dreamer because I see dreams that create reality. It makes for a nice way to see reality.

You do not only "see" dreams that create reality. You make them real because of you willpower and actions.

Dreams are quantic images of the past and the future. They become a reality only with your intervention.

Be more than the dreamer. Make your dreams a reality (I know you are already trying, keep it that way). But remember, be careful what you wish.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
That said, I can make the same observation of "true atheists," who seem incapable of living their lives without theistic saturation. This is not because these hapless atheists are immersed in a theistic society, but because they choose to dwell on theism against their stated lack of belief.

Rather than living their lives blissfully devoid of theism, such atheist seem hell-bent on conducting a vehement crusade against theism, which naturally entails at least a cursory study of scripture in order to buttress their invariably weak arguments. I call the majority of atheists "God-Haters"... Hating God is as much a religion as anything against which these "atheists" pretend to object.

Again, we see the human inclination to become that which we fervently practice; in the case of Christians and atheists, it seems odd that few Christians are as well-versed in the Bible as are many atheists — there's an argument in there somewhere that God-Haters are more religious than most Christians, although the atheist would no doubt loathe to even consider such a contention.

This would expose the atheist's consummate hypocrisy.

I only bring up atheism and God-hating because I was one such hypocritical and outspoken atheist myself for a couple of decades before returning to study the Bible in recent years.

As I mentioned, I've known only a handful of practicing, Christ-like Christians, and even fewer practicing, godless atheists. Rather than residing on opposite ends of the spiritually-evolved spectrum, the spineless "Christian" and the seething "atheist" seem more properly to coexist on about the same spiritual level, as both are poorly versed in theology and seem incapable of living their stated beliefs.

They're very much alike, actually and sadly.





[edit on 2/7/2010 by Doc Velocity]

This is nonsense, atheists are subject to what you call a theistic society, Religion dominates the societies we live in. The 10 commandments are still viewed as the guiding principles. Atheists, do not have a choice in the matter.

We have to live with the influences of religious dogma on our lives, and if we want to challenge that we are seen as Christian Bashers. You could never have an openly Atheist President of America for example. Even though The United States was built upon secular values.

We have to listen to the pope and other religious leaders talk about our societies, yet atheist voices are marginalised. I mean we can probaly count the number of well known Atheists on one hand.

In this day and age , we no longer want your Biblical dogmas influencing our societies.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by woodwardjnr]

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
This is nonsense, atheists are subject to what you call a theistic society, Religion dominates the societies we live in.

No religion "dominates" you, that's balderdash. You're a prisoner of your own mind.

— Doc Velocity

your right it doesn't dominate me but has done the society we live in. Think about it, most kids in western society will have studied the bible at some point, not through choice, but because it is part of most educational syllabus.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I've encountered very few professed "Christians" who even attempt to emulate Jesus or implement and live the core teachings of Jesus as Christ. Seriously, I can count the number of "true Christians" I've ever known — or known of — on the fingers of one hand.

That said, I can make the same observation of "true atheists," who seem incapable of living their lives without theistic saturation. This is not because these hapless atheists are immersed in a theistic society, but because they choose to dwell on theism against their stated lack of belief.

Rather than living their lives blissfully devoid of theism, such atheist seem hell-bent on conducting a vehement crusade against theism, which naturally entails at least a cursory study of scripture in order to buttress their invariably weak arguments. I call the majority of atheists "God-Haters"... Hating God is as much a religion as anything against which these "atheists" pretend to object.

Again, we see the human inclination to become that which we fervently practice; in the case of Christians and atheists, it seems odd that few Christians are as well-versed in the Bible as are many atheists — there's an argument in there somewhere that God-Haters are more religious than most Christians, although the atheist would no doubt loathe to even consider such a contention.

This would expose the atheist's consummate hypocrisy.

I only bring up atheism and God-hating because I was one such hypocritical and outspoken atheist myself for a couple of decades before returning to study the Bible in recent years.

As I mentioned, I've known only a handful of practicing, Christ-like Christians, and even fewer practicing, godless atheists. Rather than residing on opposite ends of the spiritually-evolved spectrum, the spineless "Christian" and the seething "atheist" seem more properly to coexist on about the same spiritual level, as both are poorly versed in theology and seem incapable of living their stated beliefs.

They're very much alike, actually and sadly.

I think the thing that repels the jersey-wearing Christians about — GASP — living their Faith is that they can't seem to reconcile the so-called Prince of Peace with his confrontational and angry style in the Gospels and His own refutation of the "bringer of peace" mythology.

As you know, Christ was adamant that He was not a bringer of peace.

Instead, Christ admonished his disciples that He was a bringer of a Sword with which he would, basically, cleave away the corruption and dogmatism of extant religion. He knew that this was a path fraught with physical opposition and the threat of dire consequence, and He told His Apostles that, if they had any sense, they'd better take up swords themselves for the battle that lay before them.

Many have misconstrued this as Christ's metaphorical appeal to take up spiritual arms and spiritual armor — but, of course, as no weapons or armor are required for spiritual ascension, you can be fairly certain that Christ wasn't speaking metaphorically.

He was talking about a very real Earthly battle, one that has seen untold billions of people struck down over the millennia as revolutions in thought confront tradition and dogmatism. It's an ongoing battle of ideas and ideals.

Anyway, few "Christians" I've known are prepared to emulate the confrontational and even belligerent figure of Jesus the Christ. Today, they are fearful of acquiring the fanatical label — this fear of rocking the boat could be rightly called a triumph of Satan, as Satan thrives on entropy and intellectual stagnation.

— Doc Velocity


PS: That's a great avatar photo, benpadiah.





[edit on 2/7/2010 by Doc Velocity]

A part of me fears this post of yours Doc.

This post makes me feel this is an attempt to stop me from making my progress in patience.

If you've known anything about me... it is that I am a very aggressive person.

But why is it then that I feel that maybe I should calm it down?

Maybe I'm too aggressive... or maybe my aggressiveness is too much a part of anger instead of truth sometimes.

Be careful how you word things. It is correct that we should not be so pathetic, but we should be careful to entice people to become completely impatient.

I know it was not your intent... but people will find any excuse for their actions. Of course... I guess that would happen anyway.

All is vanity. yet again.

You are a dangerous person!

Edit : And I find myself seeking the favor of a man.

Discount everything I said.

[edit on 2/8/2010 by TarzanBeta]

Originally posted by Novise
some of Jesus' modern day followers would be reincarnations of his (or in his) spirit. In that sense, they are creations of his thought, a sort of cause and effect from his coming into the world.

Thank you for taking the time to see the idea from the point of view I had hoped to be presenting it in. I'm glad you comprehend the concept! I tend to believe in two operant forces within the mind of Jesus on the cross, which have, in the subsequent aeon, split to become the line of the direct bloodline descendents of Jesus, who preserve the tradition of intra-family reincarnation, and who would teach the Gnostic doctrine of reincarnation if they were properly allowed to; and on the other side, the elected position of the Catholic Popes, who have proven to be cut-throat in acquiring and expanding Papal power, and who are sworn to preach that believing in reincarnation is a mortal sin. These polar extremes of "good" and "evil" are, even today, only being imagined in the mind of Christ on the cross. I believe we are living in a dying man's vision for the future. But we can also choose to pull this wool from over our eyes, and step outside the myths and the doctrines, and simply live a life free from ever caring about such unimportant crap at all. If he'd been given the choice not to die on the cross, then WWJD?

Originally posted by Novise
comparing the Dhammapada to the Gita.

Well, you can compare the Dhammapada to the Book of Thomas, and then compare the Baghavadgita to the Dead Sea Scrolls. That could prove a useful comparison on multiple levels. The Dhammapada is short, concise, and direct from the source. The Book of Thomas is a short collection of only sayings known to be attributeable to Jesus. The Baghavadgita is a longer epic poem, expanding on themes from the Mahabbaratta and the Rig Veda. Just so the complete Dead Sea scrolls combine the Essene Hebrew and pre-Christian Gnostic doctrines into a single set of rules for study. The relationship of Thomas to the Essene community at Qumran remains speculative, however there is epigraphic evidence to purport that he was Jesus' own twin-brother, James the Just. If this is the case, then the Gospel of Thomas can be seen as a key to unlocking the mysterious meanings remaining today in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Likewise, comparing the wisdom of Buddha in the brief poems of the Dhammapada to the elder religious tradition of the post-Vedic Hindu is not a difficult stretch of the imagination to make.

In point of fact, Shiva manifests as Krishna, a Christos Priest-King, only at certain, incredibly difficult to calculate, periods of time. Between the end of the Kali Yuga (usually calculated as ~1600AD) and the beginning of the next dvipa of Brahma, sometime around 2000 - 2012 AD, there is supposedly a human alive from each generation to continue the roles of priest and king, even though the line of the prophets seems to have ended. One of these is good while the other one is evil. They are discorporeal mental ghosts that can enter the minds of humans, posses and control them. Some call them the "djinn," others call them the "Ascended Masters."

PEACE.
- Jon

Originally posted by SpaceGoatsFarts
You do not only "see" dreams that create reality. You make them real because of you willpower and actions.

No, I've seen dreams totally create reality from scratch even. A case in point was when I was 17 and in a fully lucid dream which was being created, "thought of in that state"; one day later came true and I lived that dream as it was created in the original lucid state during a dream when my body was asleep; into a fully actualized moment in this physical reality.

Ergo; I have seen dreams create this reality from "scratch", with less effort then it takes to breath. That would not be the last time I'd experience it; but the first time that it would change me for ever.

Originally posted by SpaceGoatsFarts
Dreams are quantic images of the past and the future. They become a reality only with your intervention.

I look at them as reality generating thoughts which are sorted out and actualized into specific reality themes of which we are focused. There is nothing that can exist without being thought of (dreamed) by this reality creating process of organized thought by consciousness.

Originally posted by SpaceGoatsFarts
Be more than the dreamer. Make your dreams a reality (I know you are already trying, keep it that way). But remember, be careful what you wish.

That's what I have been trying to say; I have literally had my sleeping dreams come true one day later. I have even changed those dreams and the changes have happened here.

So correct on; careful what you wish for.

Fun times.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by YouAreDreaming]