Pre-existence, Reincarnation & Christianity

reply to post by SimonPeter


I have all the faith in the world in Jesus. I know he's who he said he was, and I don't doubt anything that he said. Key word "he" said.

I think the problem is that you put more faith a book than you do Jesus. Jesus didn't write the bible, men with agendas did. God is not a book, if you think so then you are an idol worshiper.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Well, if they were going to transform it into a zodiac solar cult, why did they have to remove any strains of belief in reincarnation, declaring it to be heresy? The removal of understanding of reincarnation and the pre existence of the soul serves to make the populace beholden to authorities in the Church for salvation. The whole "live once and go heaven or he(( depending how good you were in one lifetime is a ridiculous and preposterous idea put forth by people who either knew better or were ignorant of the truth.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
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.

It is not that I ignore anything that goes against the validity of what I believe, though you should be wise to recognize you practice the same, its that you are focusing on two characters and not on what their symbolism means in its entirety.

At the time wine was thought to weaken the barrier between the material world and the spirit world. Water was usually a symbolism for the consciousness and the world of spirit. So Jesus turning water to wine was symbolic of a spiritual wedding taking place. Baptism was rebirth in the spirit and was not a physical change but one of the spirit.

Yes rituals like baptism are found from Egypt to Christianity, but that is for the symbolic meaning that was understood by the peoples of the time. Also the decapitation of John the Baptist is symbolic of being cut off from influencing the material world as the pineal or cleansing of the consciousness takes place in the brain.

The vines which they represent are two different things. Bacchus was the material death and rebirth cycle of the world, while Jesus was preaching as the vine of the tree of life. Reincarnation was a part of the Roman/Greek/Egyptian belief systems. Jesus even said his kingdom is not of this world.

Bacchus was the only god which could bring souls out of the underworld and back to the material world, not Mt. Olympus (ye shall be as gods being a key difference here). This was in reference to him being Capricorn (Green Man) and being reborn come the summer solstice.

Galilee was a major hub of the region in Roman times, so it only makes sense that he would travel through there.
Galilee: Profile of the Region of Galilee - History, Geography, Religion
atheism.about.com...

As far as DaVinci goes, you do realize that his patron the Medici (evil Popes BTW) had the Hermeticum translated into their native tongue and began spreading the ideology of the mysteries back throughout the region. It is very difficult to consider them practitioners of Christianity when you delve into their activities, though it does explain their rise to power in the Vatican.

The paintings betray the pineal gland which is strongly associated with the cross (solar symbol) as hinting at the process of "illumination", hence the term Renaissance meaning "return of the light."

Jesus also has resemblances to Apollo in his healing of the sick and solar symbolism, yet he also bears resemblance to the constellation Pisces in feeding the people with fish. Is Jesus then also Apollo and Horus/Osiris as well as Pisces?

Essentially the symbol of Jesus transcended the imagery and teachings of the mystery schools at the time, which were the dominant religious/spiritual force in the world. His teachings were also contrary to those of the mysteries and focused on the spirit and eternally shedding the physical body rather than reincarnation.

He taught not to worship the movement of the stars (constellations/sun and moon) but rather the spirit which created them and set them in motion. It was a step beyond what was allowed by the mysteries at the time.

It takes a personal decision to believe that there was one system of worshiping the gods (stars and celestial bodies) which was overturned by the teachings of Jesus.

In this case it seems you and I would simply disagree on the Bible being modeled to make Jesus a Bacchus character. It doesn't fit with the teachings of Bacchus and as I said only the rituals and symbolic acts bear resemblance while the fruit of those acts does not.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Funny that you bring up Apollo, because there is a philosophical concept which connects Dionysus with Apollo. It's called Apollonian and Dionysian.

You're basically connecting the dots for me.

You keep on bringing up things that points toward just how much Rome changed the story of Jesus by inserting pagan symbolism. All these zodiac signs and pagan gods have to make you wonder right?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

Funny that you bring up Apollo, because there is a philosophical concept which connects Dionysus with Apollo. It's called Apollonian and Dionysian.

You're basically connecting the dots for me.

I connected the dots a long time ago and moved on to analyzing the picture, I am sure you will find it to be quite a ride.

Yes they both are associated with the same phenomenon. Apollo the Sun and Dionysus the constellation Capricorn are both associated with the winter solstice. The death and rebirth on the southern cross which takes place in the constellation Capricorn.

As well as the pineal gland located on the top of Dionysian staffs represents the goal of illumination while Apollo was another aspect of this as evidenced by the old problems posed by his cult.

IE doubling the volume of a cube, squaring the circle (vitruvian man . . .)

Enjoy.

EDIT
Notice the order out of chaos theme which is linked in your wiki to Apollo and then Bacchus. It was dealing with the seemingly chaotic nature of the world and the divine reason which directs it that can only be understood after being "reborn."

It sucks you in until you really begin to dig deeper and understand the intricacies, the devil is in the details as they say.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


And you don't find all these pagan gods and symbolisms being linked to Jesus suspect at all? Especially since a pagan empire is the one who legalized Christianity?

By the way, I connected the dots a while ago as well, I was only saying you are basically presenting my idea for me.

Like I said, Rome morphed Jesus into an amalgamation of pagan deities by inserting the fake miracles into his story. If it isn't clear to you by now, then you are completely and wilfully blind to it.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

And you don't find all these pagan gods and symbolisms being linked to Jesus suspect at all? Especially since a pagan empire is the one who legalized Christianity?

By the way, I connected the dots a while ago as well, I was only saying you are basically presenting my idea for me.

Like I said, Rome morphed Jesus into an amalgamation of pagan deities by inserting the fake miracles into his story. If it isn't clear to you by now, then you are completely and wilfully blind to it.

These pagan gods and symbols a come from the stars and movement of the celestial bodies which the Torah identifies placed in the heavens by God for the purpose of signs and omens. It comes down to building a religion of the movement of the stars in a material sense as gods as opposed to, lets say a clock of sorts. This is why in revelation God stretches the heavens out like a scroll (see Rosicrucians and their scroll) to show John what is to come.

If you think they are fake miracles that is up to you, they do however identify Jesus symbolically as transcending the gods of the mysteries. You can look into the Bible where God challenges an individual to command the movement of the constellations. Jesus performing the miracles associated with them was about him having power over them.

You have already convinced yourself Rome rewrote the Bible so I don't see any point in arguing this with you, I will let your own investigations direct you where they will.

EDIT
I doesn't matter whether some legal body approved of the Christians as their numbers were swelling while they were outlawed.

It was more like damage control to reunite the empire and increase his material power. Lets not forget that Constantine supposedly made a deathbed conversion while practicing solar worship his entire life.

Being in power means presenting a false self to the public and doing what thou wilt in private.

Originally posted by Oceanborn
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.

That's just another variation of the same concept. Χριστός

Etymology:
From χριστός (khristós, “the anointed one”).

Pronunciation:
(5th BC Attic): IPA: /kʰri͜istós/
(1st BC Egyptian): IPA: /kʰriːstós/
(4th AD Koine): IPA: /xristós/

As you can see, this "Christ" concept has been around hundreds of years before the advent of Jesus.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I don't want this to be continued so I'll only clear up something that you misunderstood.

I didn't say Christians weren't persecuted,they were. I was saying that if Constantine had also ill-intentions against Christianity then he would just finish the Christians off and be done with it instead of pulling something pretty much impossible and with no gain.

That's all.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


It symbolically means that Rome continued to do what they had always done, which is to take other cultures/ideas and morph them into their own.

Rome was famous for adopting other cultures' ideas and changing them to suit their needs. Why would it be any different for Jesus and Christianity? What makes you think a book was un-editable when it was in the hands of those who were more than capable of doing it?

Why is the earliest surviving copy of any gospel dated to the same time as Christianity being legalized by Rome? Why does Jesus share so many similarities with pagan gods when a pagan empire (who was famous for absorbing others ideas into their own) is the one who legalized said religion?

The answers to these questions should be clear, but when you are dealing with religious conditioning the obvious will never be obvious enough.

reply to post by Oceanborn


Why would Rome spend all those years killing off other cultures and transforming their ideas into their own before Christianity?

You're telling me that Rome all of a sudden decided to change their ways after killing so many Christians? What was the point of Rome killing all those Christians if they just decided to legalize it anyways?

It seems like they had less to gain when looking from your point of view compared to mine.

reply to post by windword


"Χριστός" comes from the word "χρισμός" (chrismos -> chrism).

From wikipedia:

Chrism (Greek word literally meaning "an anointing"), also called "myrrh" (myron), holy anointing oil, or "consecrated oil", is a consecrated oil used in the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion, Oriental Orthodox Church, and by Old Catholics, as well as some other traditions, including the Assyrian Church of the East, and Nordic-style Lutheran churches, in the administration of certain sacraments and ecclesiastical functions.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


For crying out loud,I'm trying to let this go but you can't just stop,can you?

They weren't killing off other cultures otherwise whom were they trying to keep peaceful and under control? Also,no people,no taxes,no money,no army.

You're telling me that Rome all of a sudden decided to change their ways after killing so many Christians? What was the point of Rome killing all those Christians if they just decided to legalize it anyways?

You're talking about Rome as it was a single,eternal entity. Rome was an empire...with emperors? Each one of them a different person?

It seems like they had less to gain when looking from your point of view compared to mine.

But you don't have a point of view. The only thing you've been doing this entire time is escaping logic as if it would take your soul.

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

reply to post by windword


It really makes no difference what you think in regards to where Lazarus' spirit was while his soul lay in the tomb.
Your being quite sure is not what the scriptures tell us. The scriptures tell us that Jesus was the first to resurrect and that precludes Lazarus. If Lazarus was in Abraham's Bosom he would have been judged as to be either in hell or paradise and if he was in paradise he then would have had to be resurrected and if he was resurrected then Col. 1:18 is bogus. Now who is right? You or Col. 1:18 ???.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Also concerning Lazarus. There are two accounts of two different Lazarus'. The one account in Luke tells of the beggar named Lazarus who was not a leper as you have stated.. He was full of sores but not Leprous. If he had been Leprous he would have been in a colony of Lepers and not allowed to mingle with the people. Luke 16 --

Then there was another Lazarus who was the brother of Mary who was a disciple of Jesus. This was the Lazarus who became sick and died and was restored to life after four days. (John 11) --

Yes resurrection (before Jesus died) was a concept of Jewish philosophy that the physical body (soul) was resurrected from the earth and reunited with the spirit and then stood in judgment before God. You are correct when you stated that this is Jewish doctrine and it still exists today as their doctrine. But this is not the doctrine of Jesus. Even though Jesus was a Jew, He brought the new covenant of a Kingdom of Heaven. The Jews knew nothing of this new doctrine and in fact knew nothing about how to get to heaven.

The rabbinic doctrine told them that after they resurrected that only the righteous Jews would then rule this earth from a renewed earthly Jerusalem. They would relive a long and glorious life and die as a disembodied spirit in the bundle of life forever. This is not Christianity and is not what Jesus taught.

Jesus' body was found to be missing from the tomb. That is all that we can say for certain from the scriptures.
All substances must return to their natural source. That is why the spirit returns to a different source than does the terrestrial body. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not the physicality of man. His body was pure as well as His spirit according to Christianity. He stood in no judgment as He is the judge. Jesus' resurrection is not as your or my resurrection. Jesus had life within Himself as the Father has life and He restored Himself. No other man or woman shall be able to do this.


There is no such thing as Pauline doctrine and you very well know it. The very least you could do is to quote an entire verse. My bible does not read such as you have partially typed here.

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

As you can understand the word condemnation only applies after a judgment. A judgment is not necessarily a condemnation but a condemnation is always after a judgment.

You are quite a twister of the scriptures. By the way I use the 1560 Geneva and 1611 KJV manuscripts.

reply to post by Oceanborn


How does an empire grow? By absorbing other cultures and turning them into their own. If Rome hadn't been killing other cultures then how did they spread so far for so long? They had to have overtaken other cities/states in order to spread don't you think? That's how empires work, they invade other people's land and conquer them and claim the land as their own.

Them attacking other, non-Roman people had nothing to do with keeping their own people happy. They were not killing their own until after they legalized Christianity with the pagan persecutions.

Who do you think picked those different emperors? Roman politicians who had their own best interests in mind. Sometimes, the throne seceded to the next person in the family line.

So now it's illogical to think Rome would continue to do what they had done for a thousand years? I think you're the one who is being illogical and ignorant by ignoring their history and ways prior to Jesus coming along.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


In one hand you're saying they were absorbing cultures and in the other hand you say they were "killing" them Make up your mind. Let me remind you that a few posts earlier in this thread you agreed with me about Romans mixing cultures and religions. That's definitely not "killing".

Who said keeping their "own" people happy? I'm talking about every single person under the empire's control. They were having people of several ethnicities and religions under a single empire,people weren't getting along just by themselves and that's were the whole mixing tactic gets in the picture.

Who do you think picked those different emperors? Roman politicians who had their own best interests in mind. Sometimes, the throne seceded to the next person in the family line.

Are you even trying to make a point? Any kind of point?

So now it's illogical to think Rome would continue to do what they had done for a thousand years? I think you're the one who is being illogical and ignorant by ignoring their history and ways prior to Jesus coming along.

But peace between Christians and the empire was already gone!! There wasn't anything to preserve by altering Christianity (which I repeat is impossible to begin with).


I'm wasting my time here,either you can't make sense or you don't want to. Either way I'm wasting my time.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I'm guessing that those who erased reincarnation from his teachings did know better, which is why they erased it. It's a whole lot easier to control people when you convince them they only have one shot, and as you said, it makes people dependent on the church and its leaders.

Originally posted by Oceanborn
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

In one hand you're saying they were absorbing cultures and in the other hand you say they were "killing" them Make up your mind. Let me remind you that a few posts earlier in this thread you agreed with me about Romans mixing cultures and religions. That's definitely not "killing".

Are you really this dense? How do you think they absorbed them? By killing their people and threatening those left over with death if they didn't convert to their side! What don't you understand about that?

They took their cultures and morphed their ways into their (Rome's) own. It's a very simple concept and historically accurate. Look it up yourself, it's called "cultural diffusion" and was one of the main ways in which Rome became so powerful.

Who said keeping their "own" people happy? I'm talking about every single person under the empire's control. They were having people of several ethnicities and religions under a single empire,people weren't getting along just by themselves and that's were the whole mixing tactic gets in the picture.

Ummmm... the people under the empire's control were their "own" people because they were under their control. You can't really be this dense can you?

And how do you think they had such a broad range of ethnicities within their empire? By going from town to town and killing that town's defenses and ordering the people to convert or die.

Are you even trying to make a point? Any kind of point?

Yes, I do have a point. What you're saying is like saying America isn't the same entity because we have a new president every 4-8 years. The ideology of the American government stays the same even if the "emperor" changes. Is America no longer America once we elect a new president?

But peace between Christians and the empire was already gone!! There wasn't anything to preserve by altering Christianity (which I repeat is impossible to begin with).

No duh, what's your point? Maybe Rome saw a perfect opportunity with Jesus to create a more efficient power structure? It's a lot easier to focus on one person than to teach about a whole pantheon of different gods all with different personality traits don't you think? Plus, the idea of salvation through Jesus was a perfect way to make people complacent. It's worked wonders so far don't you think?

And how is Christianity unchangeable? Do you believe Gnosticism is the same as Christianity? If not, then you disagree that it is unchangeable because Gnosticism was centered around Jesus' teachings just like Christianity. If Gnostics could change Jesus' message then why couldn't Rome?

I'm wasting my time here,either you can't make sense or you don't want to. Either way I'm wasting my time.

Same here.

Originally posted by Seede

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

reply to post by windword

 

The scriptures tell us that Jesus was the first to resurrect and that precludes Lazarus. If Lazarus was in Abraham's Bosom he would have been judged as to be either in hell or paradise and if he was in paradise he then would have had to be resurrected and if he was resurrected then Col. 1:18 is bogus. Now who is right? You or Col. 1:18 ???.

Jesus never said any such thing. So, how does the writer of Colossians know that?

Yes resurrection (before Jesus died) was a concept of Jewish philosophy that the physical body (soul) was resurrected from the earth and reunited with the spirit and then stood in judgment before God. You are correct when you stated that this is Jewish doctrine and it still exists today as their doctrine. But this is not the doctrine of Jesus. Even though Jesus was a Jew, He brought the new covenant of a Kingdom of Heaven. The Jews knew nothing of this new doctrine and in fact knew nothing about how to get to heaven.

Resurrection doctrine hasn't change. You're still preaching it here! Christians preach the doctrine of physical resurrection. It's my belief that they're confused, and that Jesus taught reincarnation, not physical resurrection.

Jesus' resurrection is not as your or my resurrection. Jesus had life within Himself as the Father has life and He restored Himself. No other man or woman shall be able to do this.

John 14:12-14
I tell you the truth. The person that believes in me will do the same things I have done. Yes! He will do even greater things than I have done.

There is no such thing as Pauline doctrine and you very well know it.

Pauline Christianity

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

As you can understand the word condemnation only applies after a judgment. A judgment is not necessarily a condemnation but a condemnation is always after a judgment.

You are quite a twister of the scriptures. By the way I use the 1560 Geneva and 1611 KJV manuscripts.
[/quote

I'm not twisting anything. John 5:24 New International Version (NIV) 24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.

Originally posted by colbe
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...

windword,

"It's my belief that they're confused, and that Jesus taught reincarnation, not physical resurrection.?

You said this...your personal opinion. Ww, personal opinion is worthless. It is what God Himself has revealed.

Jesus physically resurrected, there are the ultra violet science tested evidence in the Shroud and before that the word of the Apostles who went to the tomb. Thomas touched Our Lord.

Listen to the above homily. Jesus returned to life in His former but now glorified body, not another body or as completely different person.



love,

colbe