Pre-existence, Reincarnation & Christianity

reply to post by Oceanborn


They started what because it wasn't working with Christians? I've lost track of what this "it" you're talking about is.

Why didn't they do what with pagans? Persecute them? They persecuted Christians AND pagans, I've already pointed that out. If you're talking about mixing religions, they also did that to pagans as well. They incorporated PAGAN themes into Jesus' (Christian) story. They mixed paganism with Christianity.

Here's how it worked: they killed most of the Christians who had Jesus' true message in the Christian persecutions. Once they killed enough of the true Christians, they then altered the story by inserting pagan themes like the miracles, virgin birth, and resurrection. Once they altered it, they legalized it, and once they legalized it, they persecuted the pagans who refused to convert.

Again, what makes you think Rome didn't morph paganism with Christianity when you agree that that was their M.O. throughout history? The pagan themes are there, most notably the similarities between Bacchus and Jesus.

Also, what makes you think killing and torturing citizens made them happy?

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

Umm your druid pagans held the green man often as the highest deity which was just another form of Capricorn in that he died during winter and was reborn through the gates of Cancer during summer . . .

It is essentially the same type of solar worship which the Sol Invictus cult was involved in seeing as Constantine came from the northern provinces of the roman empire.

As pointed out earlier your theory falls apart upon actual inspection of the facts.

Why would one zodiac solar cult wipe out another with the excuse that they were a zodiac solar cult?

You just want to label all Christians as roman catholic empire unenlightened murderers of the false faith . . .

You are obviously not understanding what I'm trying to say and are coming off as very dense.

Christianity wasn't a "zodiac solar cult" until Rome changed it into one. Rome was the one who turned it into pseudo-paganism, so it wasn't one "zodiac solar cult" exterminating another "zodiac solar cult", it was paganism exterminating a new movement then twisting it into a "zodiac solar cult".

Did you follow that?

Here is a short sermon from audio sancto on Reincarnation. It is 11 minutes long. The priest at the start mentioned Our Lord returned in His glorified body, not another body, another life. And Father shares Reincarnation denies the permanency of our free will choices. You gotta return until you get it right?

Naaahhh.

www.audiosancto.org...

reply to post by colbe


If his body was glorified then why did he still have his crucifixion wounds?

I'm pretty sure the wounds weren't needed for his disciples to know it was him, they would have recognized him for who he was.

Why are you so against people having more than one chance? Isn't that more loving than a one-and-done type of scenario? Would you ban your kid from riding a bike because he didn't get it right his first try?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Even more important, why was he hungry and asked for meat. They fed him broiled fish and honey. Did he uses the "facilities" too? I would imagine so. Lazareth, I would presume, also ate after his resurrection.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

Who's the one who taught that Jesus died for our sins and that believing said story was the way to salvation? A Roman named Paul. You're confusing what Paul taught with what Jesus taught, they did not have the same message.

You do realize that the Gnostics used symbolism to convey their message right? The "reptilian" idea could just be symbolism for the darker side of mankind, the side that tends to lie and deceive. The snake in the garden was supposedly a reptile who deceived, so maybe they applied that same concept to the "Archons" in order to get their point across? Not everything everyone says needs to be taken literally.

Yes, my Dionysus/Jesus theory still applies because I believe Rome morphed Jesus into Dionysus with the miracles and resurrection.

Okay I see where your confusion on the Dionysus being Jesus is coming from. You are using the Roman rituals of Saturnalia (Christmas) as being an actual Christian holiday along with Easter. Saturnalia is the death and rebirth of the (material) Sun god during the winter solstice which actually is not the time of Jesus' birth, death, or rebirth. Easter was the old holiday for Astarte and Tammuz. As I have said many times before the Romans used Christianity as a front but continued to practice their 'enlightenment' religions.

FYI Easter is supposed to take place during the passover, however Rome has NEVER celebrated it on that day which is indicative of complete dysfunction or consciously avoiding doing so.

As for the Gnostics they did indeed have a light and dark side of humanity, however they never used serpent symbolism to represent the dark side. The serpents were and entirely different spiritual species which held mankind in contempt.

So your Gnostic idea is way off, but I understand where you are coming from in regards to Jesus being worshiped as Dionysus by Romans comes from.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


No, Romans didn't worship Jesus because he shared similarities with Dionysus naturally.

This is where the disconnect is taking place, you can't/refuse to see how Rome altered the story of Jesus' life in order to turn him into Bacchus/Dionysus in order to induce "bakkheia" on his followers.

Jesus didn't perform miracles, he was morphed by Rome into a pseudo-Bacchus. Bacchus was part of Roman mythology long before Jesus ever showed up. Either you are being very dense or you are trolling.

I never even mentioned holidays, so that came out of left field somewhere. Though you did reinforce the fact that Rome had a huge influence on the Christianity we see today, including the life story of Jesus.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Could you please link to your thread about Bacchus and Jesus.

As I understand it Bacchus preached about 'enlightenment' through hedonism. He was also the product of a divine rape and was persecuted by his step mother.

Jesus on the other hand did not preach hedonism, in fact it was nearly the complete opposite of that in not living for the flesh. His birth was not the result of rape and had no step mother.

The only similarities come from Bacchus' connection to Saturnalia through Capricorn and the solar rebirth.

All other connections come through the rituals of the Roman church.

As far as bakkheia is concerned, I don't think you understand what that is. Could you please provide several examples of this?

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Sure.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The thing is, you're only looking at the differences and ignoring the similarities. They don't have to be EXACTLY alike in every single way in order for them to be connected.

God impregnating Mary could be considered rape by some.

You're forgetting that Bacchus also rose from the dead just like Jesus and both have rituals of eating bread and wine to honor them. Bacchus was the god of wine and Jesus turned water into wine. Both also had a mortal mother and god as a father.

But I'm guessing you'll choose to ignore the similarities and only focus on the differences.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Dionysus is said to have established a city named Beit She'an (Scythopolis). It is located in Galilee (where Jesus lived for most of his life) and is near the Jordan River (where John baptized Jesus).

There are WAY too many connections between the two to ignore.

Text I agree. The God of Jesus wasn't the same God that ordered the Hebrews to do all that killing, raping and looting.

reply to post by windword


Tell us more of these two Gods. I would love to hear just how you come to that (fact). Where do you suggest we cut the bible in half beings that the NT commingles the OT throughout? Jesus went to the Jerusalem temple and taught of the God of Moses who was that same butcher that you say did all that killing and raping and looting.

Text Lazareth, I would presume, also ate after his resurrection.

reply to post by windword


Lazarus was not resurrected according to some scholars. Lazarus was restored. Jesus was the first man to be resurrected from the dead according to Col 1:18 -- In other words Lazarus had not been judged and had not entered Abraham's Bosom. Had he been judged he would have to have been in paradise in order to be resurrected.and at this time resurrection was not offered to mankind. Resurrection was offered only after the death of Jesus.

The mystery of where Lazarus' spirit was while he was entombed is not really known. Most Christian scholars believe that he was in the bosom of Christ Jesus as Jesus declared that He is the resurrection. The scriptures declare that God gave His Son Jesus life within him as the Father has life.

In order to have resurrection your terrestrial substance must be changed to the celestial (spirit) substance. Lazarus did not have a substance change but the terrestrial body was restored with his spirit. According to Christianity doctrine you must be judged and the sentence carried out in order to be dead. Once you are dead there is no recourse except resurrection.

reply to post by Seede


The discussion of subjects of early Christianity, pre-existence and reincarnation wouldn't be complete without including the Gnostic texts. To understand more of their esoteric teachings of the demiurge god, many call Satan, you need to read the texts.

The Apocryphon of John (The Secret Book of John - The Secret Revelation of John)

The Hypostasis of the Archons (The Reality of the Rulers)

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

Dionysus is said to have established a city named Beit She'an (Scythopolis). It is located in Galilee (where Jesus lived for most of his life) and is near the Jordan River (where John baptized Jesus).

There are WAY too many connections between the two to ignore.

edit on 3-7-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

I agree there are some generalizations which can make things seem as though they could be the same, however as I said earlier that upon inspection it does not hold up.

However as the constellation Capricorn (aka Pan) it is important to note that most all mythologies associated with that constellation recognize or associate it with a hill or mound rising out of the water. This is where the imagery for the constellation was established.

I think we will just have to disagree as I consider the connections you make as valid but too vague in their comparisons to the story of Jesus when most of the other mystery schools have a greater amount of similarities.

reply to post by windword


What you've posted is talking about "χρηστός" -> "virtuous",not "Χριστός" -> "Christ". I see the reason for the confusion though.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Off course you've lost track,you're going in great lengths,disregarding common sense and logic,just to keep on supporting your beliefs.

First of all,Roman didn't just "alter" things. they didn't have a magic wand or something. Other than that,you're saying that they killed most of the Christians and then,instead of finishing what they started,they stopped and altered the religion,something they couldn't do to begin with. They were asking at first and later demanding from Christians to pay homage etc,that's how it always went. It's just that with the other religions it was easy to find common ground and get people to roll with it.
So,instead of finishing them off you believe they just stopped and did those things to legalise Christianity...each post of yours is more absurd than the previous one!

So-
About the pagan connections: They're valid because...you made them.

The Romans killed Christians just to stop and get into all this trouble to legalise Christianity...

If those things aren't enough,you finally gave something to the conversation (although I'm not sure if I should call it like that) by saying there are similarities between Bacchus and Jesus....and in a later reply of yours to FriedBabelBroccoli you said "But I'm guessing you'll choose to ignore the similarities and only focus on the differences. " although he mentioned similarities (similarities that I personally don't see btw) and then mentioned the differences...which is something normal. Should we disregard the differences for your sake?

You know,enough is enough,you want to see things that way and that's your right but you can't expect me to toss my brain in the garbage bin and follow you.
Believe what you want and say what you want,personally I'm done with participating in the twilight zone,it got too silly.

Text Who's the one who taught that Jesus died for our sins and that believing said story was the way to salvation? A Roman named Paul. You're confusing what Paul taught with what Jesus taught, they did not have the same message.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Paul who was formally known as Saul of Tarsus was not a Roman by blood. He was a Jew and some believe he was a Sanhedrin member while having the authority to bring Christians before the courts. Actually he was from the tribe of Benjamin and a Pharisee. After his conversion he was noted as being a Christian and renounced his Judaic ties.

It was common practice to purchase Roman citizenship in that era (if you had the money) and Saul was born of parents who had purchased their Roman citizenship before Saul was born. Saul automatically enjoyed both Roman and Jewish citizenship through this method of being a son of a Roman citizen. But Saul was first and foremost a Jew by blood and faith. Before his death he renounced his citizenship to the Roman Empire.

Could you give me any sources that Paul had a different doctrine then Jesus as you claim?

Originally posted by Seede

Text Lazareth, I would presume, also ate after his resurrection.

reply to post by windword

 

Lazarus was not resurrected according to some scholars. Lazarus was restored. Jesus was the first man to be resurrected from the dead according to Col 1:18 -- In other words Lazarus had not been judged and had not entered Abraham's Bosom. Had he been judged he would have to have been in paradise in order to be resurrected.and at this time resurrection was not offered to mankind. Resurrection was offered only after the death of Jesus.

The mystery of where Lazarus' spirit was while he was entombed is not really known. Most Christian scholars believe that he was in the bosom of Christ Jesus as Jesus declared that He is the resurrection. The scriptures declare that God gave His Son Jesus life within him as the Father has life.

I think that we can be pretty certain that when Lazareth died, his soul was taken to be with Abraham, according to the story.

Then when Jesus came, he found that he (Lazareth) had lain in the grave four days already

Lazareth was a leper. We know that lepers were relegated to sit and beg for food and scraps outside the city gates.

20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

In order to have resurrection your terrestrial substance must be changed to the celestial (spirit) substance. Lazarus did not have a substance change but the terrestrial body was restored with his spirit.

In Jewish tradition, resurrection is a physical resurrection of the natural body.

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Jesus' resurrection was of the physical body. Empty tomb?

According to Christianity doctrine you must be judged and the sentence carried out in order to be dead. Once you are dead there is no recourse except resurrection.

That is Pauline doctrine. That's not what Jesus said.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life.

reply to post by Oceanborn


You assume that Christianity couldn't have been changed. That's where you're stuck at.

I think you're the one who thinks Christianity has a "magic wand" that allows its doctrine to not be changed.

If you don't think Christianity could have been changed, then what do you say about Gnosticism? Did it not "change" Christianity and its teachings while still calling Jesus god? Why don't you think that Rome could have done the same thing?

You don't think they would have wasted their time killing Christians, yet they did "waste" their time killing them with the persecutions.

You are blind to it. You've already tossed your brain in a garbage bin apparently.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


So the connections are valid but vague? That goes to show that you will ignore the validity of anything that goes against what you believe.

The connections aren't vague at all, they are pretty specific. Resurrection, Eucharist, mortal mother/god as father, wine, both descended to the underworld, etc.

Da Vinci even made a painting of John the Baptist which was later turned into Bacchus. After Jesus learned of John's death, he returned to Galilee, where Dionysus' city Beit She'an is located.

The connections are there as you admitted, you just choose to ignore them by calling them "vague", even though they're not vague at all, but very clear.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
If you think the Gospel of Christ was significantly changed from what Jesus gave us then you have no faith in Christ Jesus . The Lord God brought us the Gospel of Life and of course Satan would like to change it or water it down . But what power would the Holy Spirit have if it allowed the Gospel to of Christ Jesus to simply go way so to speak . The watering down I am speaking of is the constant analyzing and re interpreting of what is written rather than analyzing what your heart has to say about the Gospel .After all that is what matters .