Pre-existence, Reincarnation & Christianity

reply to post by colbe


Did you notice the streams of blood coming from his head/feet/wrists on the shroud?

Blood doesn't flow when someone is dead as the shroud displays, so even if the shroud is real, the blood flow shown does not line up with the person being dead.

Plus, if I'm not mistaken, it was Jewish custom to clean bodies before they wrapped them in cloth, meaning it is still possible it is a forgery.

And again, if Jesus resurrected in a glorified body, why did he still have his crucifixion wounds and why did he eat? Also, where did his former body go? Did it just disappear?

Ironic that his former body was nowhere to be found and he came back with the same wounds don't you think?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Except if they wanted to make Jesus Apollo/Bacchus they would have included Jesus as a serpent (Apollo) or a womanizing drunkard as that was the symbolism associated with those two. They could have done so much more than create a figure which trampled on their own beliefs and condemned the source of their own beliefs.

Even further why would they choose to promote a religion which they considered below them (non citizens) seeing as the official 'pagans' had been in control of Rome for ages?

As has been stated before the Christian church did not come into existence with the appearance of the Bible, it had been around for hundreds of years and its leaders where called to help assemble the Bible. Leaders from around the known world were there, it was not done by mystery men in a dark alley.

The rituals had changed greatly after the conception of the Roman Catholic Church so that is the most likely place for an editing to occur. It was not until hundreds of years after the first Bible was assembled that Rome really started going crazy in changing days of worship as well as the 10 commandments.

Most of the editing that took place was from the original version and was corrected by several individuals who were burned for translating the Bible out of Latin and into the local tongues. This is well documented.

Like I said you believe that Rome invented/edited the Bible and all its scriptures of the New Testament, I disagree.

reply to post by Oceanborn


Χριστός dates back to 500BC, 500 years BEFORE the advent of Jesus. It's a Greek concept of an ethereal being, as I have linked and cited earlier. Jesus was a biblical figure that was a Jewish messianic icon.

At the time of Nero, there were many different "Χριστός cults," and Christianity in no way had a unified doctrine.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Apollo was never depicted as a serpent. He killed a serpent but he was never depicted as one, so I'm not sure where you got that idea from. Though I do believe Apollo killing Python is somewhat symbolic of what Jesus did with religion in his time here. As Jesus said: "all who came before me were thieves and liars", that includes Yahweh, who is the serpent that Jesus "killed" with his new message.

Do you expect them to make Jesus a carbon copy of Apollo/Dionysus? Why would they do that? It's called religious diffusion, where they keep some characteristics while implementing others into the character. They weren't going to make him a carbon copy because that would have been WAY too obvious.

Do you really think the leaders of the world back then were any different from the leaders today? Of course not, meaning they were liars and deceivers just like today's leaders are. Why would liars put the truth out there for everyone to have? The answer is that they wouldn't, and if you think so then you are naive.

So now you agree there was editing done to the bible? I thought you said there wasn't.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


As for no symbolism of the serpent being amicable with Apollo;
en.wikipedia.org...

Karl Kerenyi points out[8] that the older tales mentioned two dragons, who were perhaps intentionally conflated; the other was a female dragon (drakaina) named Delphyne in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, with whom dwelt a male serpent named Typhon: "The narrators seem to have confused the dragon of Delphi, Python, with Typhon or Typhoeus, the adversary of Zeus". The enemy dragoness "... actually became an Apollonian serpent, and Pythia, the priestess who gave oracles at Delphi, was named after him.

Many pictures show the serpent Python living in amity with Apollo and guarding the Omphalos, the sacred navel-stone and mid-point of the earth, which stood in Apollo's temple" (Kerenyi 1951:136).

I never said the Bible wasn't edited, I said I don't think the original teachings were edited in order to compile the Bible. It is a documented fact that Rome edited portions of the Bible after its conception.

Also the Bible allusions to Jesus as Apollo are further confounded in a passage from revelation involving the angel of the bottomless pit who hath the name Apollyon in the Greek tongue . . . .

Why would they include this passage?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


3NLIGHT, hi

I may have already shared with you, there are blood marks on the Shroud AND the face cloth, they match and are the same blood type. Type A.B. Our Lord is God, He could of resurrected without the signs of His suffering, the five wounds but He chose not too. Let us all remember forever.

Venerable Mary of Agreda received private revelation (approved by the Church), compiled in the the Mystical City of God. I love the style of messages, maybe, the type of speech in the 17th century.

From Book 6, Chapter 11, a description of Our Lord's glorified body. From the Chapter entitled The Resurrection.

Notice, the underlined...

+ + +

...In the same moment the most holy soul reunited with the body, giving it immortal life and glory. Instead of the winding-sheets and the ointments, in which it had been buried, it was clothed with the four gifts of glory, namely: with clearness, impassibility, agility and subtility (John 19, 40). These gifts overflowed from the immense glory of the soul of Christ into the sacred body. Although these gifts were due to it as a natural inheritance and participation from the instant of its conception, because from that very moment his soul was glorified and his whole humanity was united to the Divinity; yet they had been suspended in their effects upon the purest body, in order to permit it to remain passable and capable of meriting for us our own glory. In the Resurrection these gifts were justly called into activity in the proper degree corresponding to the glory of his soul and to his union with the Divinity. As the glory of the most holy soul of Christ our Savior is incomprehensible and ineffable to man, it is also impossible entirely to describe in our words or by our examples the glorious gifts of his deified body; for in comparison to its purity, crystal would be obscure. The light inherent and shining forth from his body so far exceeds that of the others, as the day does the night, or as many suns the light of one star; and all the beauty of creatures, if it were joined, would appear ugliness in comparison with his, nothing else being comparable to It in all creation.

The excellence of these gifts in the Resurrection were far beyond the glory of his Transfiguration or that manifested on other occasions of the kind men mentioned in this history. For on these occasions He received it transitorily and for special purposes, while now He received it in plenitude and forever. Through impassibility his body became invincible to all created power, since no power can ever move or change Him. By subtility the gross and earthly matter was so purified, that it could now penetrate other matter like a pure spirit. Accordingly He penetrated through the rocks of the sepulchre without removing or displacing them, as He had issued forth from the womb of his most blessed Mother. Agility so freed Him from the weight and slowness of matter, that it exceeded the agility of the immaterial angels, while He himself could move about more quickly than they, as shown in his apparitions to the Apostles and on other occasions. The sacred wounds, which had disfigured his body, now shone forth from his hands and feet and side so refulgent and brilliant, that they added a most entrancing beauty and charm. In all this glory and heavenly adornment the Savior now arose from the grave; and in the presence of the saints and Patriarchs He promised universal resurrection in their own flesh and body to all men, and that they moreover, as an effect of his own Resurrection, should be similarly glorified. ....

www.sacredheart.com...

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


The original teachings of Jesus weren't edited, but they were added to with the Last Supper Eucharist teaching in my opinion. Dionysus had a ritual where people ate bread and wine to honor him hundreds of years before Jesus.

What parts of the bible do you believe the Romans edited exactly? Could it have been the pagan miracles that are associated with Greco-Roman pagan deities? If you can't make the connection with the editing and the pagan miracles then you are choosing to ignore it.

reply to post by colbe


You didn't really address what I said. Where did Jesus' former body go? Wouldn't it be logical to assume that the body that went missing was the same body that Jesus returned in? I think it's awfully coincidental that his "glorified" body bared the same wounds as the body that went missing from the cave.

What exactly is the significance of the shroud/face cloth blood matching? Is it impossible for a forger to use the same blood on two separate pieces of his forgery? Were you trying to make a point? Because you failed to, sorry.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by colbe

 

You didn't really address what I said. Where did Jesus' former body go? Wouldn't it be logical to assume that the body that went missing was the same body that Jesus returned in? I think it's awfully coincidental that his "glorified" body bared the same wounds as the body that went missing from the cave.

What exactly is the significance of the shroud/face cloth blood matching? Is it impossible for a forger to use the same blood on two separate pieces of his forgery? Were you trying to make a point? Because you failed to, sorry.

Smiling, you sure haven't put your questions up in quote for all to read....

Yes I did answer. You start now with a brand new question. You ignore my comments and the description of Christ's resurrection. If you can't figure markings on two pieces of cloth match and so do the blood type, it is no use. The two recent scientific studies, one of them Italian, have no earthly answers.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

The original teachings of Jesus weren't edited, but they were added to with the Last Supper Eucharist teaching in my opinion. Dionysus had a ritual where people ate bread and wine to honor him hundreds of years before Jesus.

What parts of the bible do you believe the Romans edited exactly? Could it have been the pagan miracles that are associated with Greco-Roman pagan deities? If you can't make the connection with the editing and the pagan miracles then you are choosing to ignore it.

Funny, are you going to now ignore Apollo's serpent and the Revelation?

I believe that the editing has been corrected since it occurred and was a result of Rome's demands to keep the Bible in Latin. When it was exposed the following translations were returned to properly reflect the original composition.

I already addressed the 'pagan' miracles, are you forgetting this? It represented Jesus as being given command of the constellations. This is similar to Moses being told to nail a serpent to a tau to heal the sick from the locusts and serpents. Funny that Apollo is also associated with serpents and locusts except they were guardian/priestess (Delphi) and his curse on his enemies.

Dionysus/Bacchus held rites a few times a year and was not celebrated weekly, many other religions consume wine and eat bread as part of the ritual. It is not isolated to Jesus nor Dionysus/Bacchus.

Dionysian Mysteries
en.wikipedia.org...

The Dionysian Mysteries were a ritual of ancient Greece and Rome which used intoxicants and other trance-inducing techniques (like dance and music) to remove inhibitions and social constraints, liberating the individual to return to a natural state. It also provided some liberation for those marginalized by Greek society: women, slaves and foreigners.

In their final phase the Mysteries shifted their emphasis from a chthonic, underworld orientation to a transcendental, mystical one, with Dionysus changing his nature accordingly (similar to the change in the cult of Shiva)

. . .

Rites

The rites were based on a seasonal death-rebirth theme (common among agricultural cults) and spirit possession; the Osirian Mysteries paralleled the Dionysian, according to contemporary Greek and Egyptian observers. Spirit possession involved liberation from civilization's rules and constraints. It celebrated that which was outside civilized society and a return to the source of being—which would later assume mystical overtones. It also involved escape from the socialized personality and ego into an ecstatic, deified state or the primal herd (sometimes both). In this sense Dionysus was the beast-god within, or the unconscious mind of modern psychology.[3] Such activity has been interpreted as fertilizing, invigorating, cathartic, liberating and transformative, so it is not surprising that many devotees of Dionysus were those on the margins of society: women, slaves, outlaws and "foreigners" (non-citizens, in Greek democracy). All were equal in a cult that inverted their roles, similar to the Roman Saturnalia.

If you want to compare their religious rites it is beyond clear that their effects and practices differed greatly and only shared having a feast with wine.

Lets not forget that watered down wine was a staple among peoples of the time so just about every single meal involved wine.

It is a weak point to try and draw conclusions to.

If John the Baptist was Dionysus/Bacchus then why wasn't he getting everyone hammered and leading them in orgiastic rites?

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Could you clarify what your point with Revelations is? I'm not following what you're trying to say with it.

Didn't Rome change scripture from Greek to Latin, and hasn't it been changed to numerous other languages since? I don't see what your point is, other than the fact that you think Rome edited the bible, then at the command of themselves, they changed it back. What's your point? Because it doesn't really make sense.

Or it could represent the Romans adding them in after the fact. Did you forget that the earliest surviving copy of any gospel is dated to the 4th century, around the same time that Christianity was legalized by Rome? That's not a coincidence.

Funny that John the Baptist is also associated with locusts, seeing as the bible says he ate them along with wild honey, which is what dripped from Bacchus' thyrsus. Weird huh?

Doesn't Christianity hold a few rites per year as well? You know, Christmas, Easter, Advent, Valentine's Day, etc.? They're all Christian holidays, meaning one way or another, they are linked to Jesus.

Eucharist is symbolism with getting drunk, which is why they drink wine. Bacchus was the god of wine, so Christians drinking wine as "the blood of Christ" symbolizes their "intoxication".

All that is, has been and will be, forever, infinity. We are all infinite parts of infinity. If Goodness/God, is the whole, and only used in the Higher Frequency Love "real world", dimensions and layers of reality. Ie God is only Good. if Goodness is the whole soul, light, source, its extended in infinite fractals that are all infinite parts of infinity, as cells. But there is no higher, lower, bigger, smaller or measurement taken in infinity, and the cells are all infinite without end, forever, and their infinity is = to the infinity all around them, every other cell's infinity and the whole.

We have always existed in some form or other and will always exist and the point is to grow love and consciousness, clear up the imperfection and flow the whole of ourselves.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Christmas and Easter are not Christian holidays . . . they were instituted by Rome under the guise of bringing pagans into the faith during the old pagan celebrations to Saturnalia and Astarte . . . . They are not linked to Jesus as I already explained with Jesus' "easter" being held during passover which has never occurred and Jesus not dying during the winter solstice . . . I am starting to feel like a broken record repeating this to you over and over and over.

Rome did not authorize the translations and the translators were burned at the stake. Rome was beginning to preach a doctrine which made Mary someone to pray to for entry to heaven as the divine mother akin to Astarte . . . .

This doc should get you started on the basics of the history of the Bible;


John eating the locust you are confusing with actual locusts (bugs) as opposed to the beans eaten by the lower castes. The honey was the sap made from the seeds . . . it was associated with the cakes referenced by the word egkrides while the other word for locusts is akrides.

Eating locusts "akrides" was a delicacy for the upper class and does not fit with John's ascetic life. The change occurred around 400 ad.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Yes they are Christian holidays. It's called the "Roman" Catholic Church, and it is called "Christ"mas. You'd be hard pressed to convince most people that Christmas isn't a Christian holiday, along with Easter. They are Christian holidays, whether you want to admit it or not.

I find it funny that you think Rome instituted fake holidays yet couldn't insert fake miracles into the story.

No, the Greek word "akrides" is used to describe the locusts, which is the bug, not the seed. Check for yourself.

But I did look up the symbolism behind the locust tree, and it is "affection beyond the grave". If you read my thread on John and Bacchus, you will know I think John was the real Jesus. Could "affection beyond the grave" be a nod toward the resurrection?

Honey is honey and cannot be made without bees, and Bacchus' thyrsus dripped with honey. You can try to play the connection off, but it is still there. The word used for honey is "meli", which refers to bees honey. Either way, if Mark and Matthew were referring to tree sap, how are you so sure that Dionysus' honey wasn't also tree sap?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Honey was not just bee's honey . . . it included the sap of trees . . . I will concede that the entomology of the term is debatable and the insect is the most popular understanding in which case it would still not be plaguing him but sustaining him which doesn't fit with the plagues sent by Apollo.

So now Jesus is John the Baptist who is Bacchus?

I agree that John has some minor resemblances to the cultured Dionysian but he wasn't presenting women with a phallus and flagellating them nor was he making men participate in plays. The act of baptism was a common ritual across the world. There was no ecstatic release from rhythmic drumming and dancing and he was not associated with beasts.

John's thrysus did not drip with honey and Dionysus was not associated with locusts. So are you now trying to paint him as a follower of Dionysus rather than the god himself?

Your connections are growing more and more vague and disjointed. Honey, wine, bread, water . . . it must be!

I have read your thread, and thank you again for linking it, but I disagree. The whole theory is barely passable in mathematical language as a piece wise function with non continuity in the domain mean it cannot be derivated rationally.

EDIT
Your insistence on Roman Catholicism appears to be verging on it being the be-all end-all of Christianity because Rome legalized it, gathered its leaders from across the world to assemble the teachings, and has the most followers.

You also persist on the appeal to authority of the Roman church leaders being the truth of Biblical Christianity despite them changing the 10 commandments and on occasion declaring themselves God incarnate in that they could forgive sins which is clearly reserved for God in the scriptures.

There is ample evidence that the power structure in Rome was quickly and heavily influenced by the pagan priesthood once it had established it influence in Rome.

Personally I find it difficult to call people lawful when they consistently break their own laws.

As for Christmas Tertullian was writing around the 2nd century to NOT celebrate it as the date of Jesus' birth was unknown. It was not associated with Christians until around the 4th century.

Early Christians celebrated the Jewish holidays like passover.

Remember Christianity did not start when the Bible was complied nor when Rome legalized it.

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

Honey was not just bee's honey . . . it included the sap of trees . . . I will concede that the entomology of the term is debatable and the insect is the most popular understanding in which case it would still not be plaguing him but sustaining him which doesn't fit with the plagues sent by Apollo.

Think of Jesus as Apollo (light of the world/god of light) and John as Dionysus (woodland "creature" whose followers were "satyrs").

Jesus and John being the same person is the dichotomy of Apollo and Dionysus, except each share similarities with both. John with locusts (Apollo), Jesus with wine (Dionysus), and John with honey (Dionysus/Bacchus), Jesus with light of the world (Apollo). Rome turned one person into two, hence the dichotomy.

So now Jesus is John the Baptist who is Bacchus?

Basically, yes.

I agree that John has some minor resemblances to the cultured Dionysian but he wasn't presenting women with a phallus and flagellating them nor was he making men participate in plays. The act of baptism was a common ritual across the world. There was no ecstatic release from rhythmic drumming and dancing and he was not associated with beasts.

But the resemblances are still there nonetheless. They wouldn't have made him a carbon copy, that would have been too obvious. They only inserted bits and pieces of Dionysus into his character, as well as Jesus'.

John's thrysus did not drip with honey and Dionysus was not associated with locusts. So are you now trying to paint him as a follower of Dionysus rather than the god himself?

John has a connection with honey just as Dionysus/Bacchus did, and Apollo has a connection with locusts just like John.

Your connections are growing more and more vague and disjointed. Honey, wine, bread, water . . . it must be!

Sorry that you can't read between the lines. Since you choose not to, you are missing the meanings behind the connections. They aren't vague if you acknowledge them, which you are reluctant to do.

I have read your thread, and thank you again for linking it, but I disagree. The whole theory is barely passable in mathematical language as a piece wise function with non continuity in the domain mean it cannot be derivated rationally.

Yet you believe a guy rose from the dead and walked on water? How ironic.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


You are free to believe what you like, however you are not going to convince me that the Bible is a conspiracy to spread Apollo/Dionysus worship and then persecute said Apollo/Dionysus worship until extinction.

Ahh the old 'read between the lines bit', then why would the Bible condemn the very Apollonian character it had conspired to create?

Go ahead and mock the idea of Jesus resurrecting while you believe in reincarnation, they are equally outlandish to the mind of mankind.

Its clear this wont go any further with you. I will remain ignorant of what is 'between the lines' for all eternity even though there is only EMPTY SPACE (to be filled with whatever you like to make you feel better) between the lines.

EDIT
I wonder why manna from God in the old testament tasted like wafers made with honey?

Maybe God is Dionysus also?

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Well, if you refuse to see the clear similarities, then that is your choice, but they ARE there.

You even admit that resemblances are there, yet you refuse to acknowledge them? Come on.

The only reason Rome exterminated Apollonian myths is because they morphed it into something newer and more efficient. They do not care what is true or not, they only care what will control people the most.

People in power want more of it, which is why they lie to us and fabricate stories. If you don't think Romans couldn't have created such a complex and interwoven story, then you forget what the Greeks did with their mythology a thousand years earlier.

You don't give man's intellect and ability to deceive enough credit. Yes, there is empty space in my theory, but that doesn't mean it can't be filled later on. I see something there, and if you refuse to acknowledge that "something", that is your choice, but don't keep saying you see the resemblances then say that they don't mean anything.

I've already told you what's between the lines, and that is the fact that Rome altered the story by putting pagan themes into it. It's not that you can't see it, it's just that you refuse to.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Do you realize there is a difference between seeing vague similarities which are explained in the Torah and there actually being a conspiracy to create a false religion for control?

I offered explanations and you refuse to acknowledge them as well.

What happened in your past life experience? How did it go down?

Or is it 'secret' private knowledge only for your soul's ascension into higher vibrations where you gain super powers and can come back to Earth and perform miracles like walking on water?

I was visited by a close friend in a dream the night he died (I am in America he was in China and news didn't reach us until two days later) and remember what happened (which had nothing to do with reincarnation, believe me) as well many other experiences which run extremely counter to your theory.

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

reply to post by windword


@ windword

I had written --
" 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.

You had responded with
" Jesus never said any such thing. So, how does the writer of Colossians know that?"

That is a fair question and one that I do not really know the answer. That is why we are discussing nothing but theological differences here. You nor I actually know the entire truth. If we did then there would be no discussion. About all I can do is present you with another solution to this discussion. Let me take the book of Acts to show the same point. I used your very own bible that you said you used which was the New International Version and here is what your bible says.

NIV - Acts 26:23 - " that the Christ would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles." That is your very own bible that you said you used in your doctrine of Reincarnation.

Now I repeat - If Lazarus was in Sheol (Abraham's Bosom) he had to be have been judged and sentenced to paradise. You will never nor has any one ever resurrected from hell. So, if Lazarus was in paradise, he had to resurrect according to your understanding. If Lazarus did resurrect from Abraham;s Bosom then he resurrected before Jesus resurrected and that is not biblical scripture.

Almost all scholars agree that the author of Acts was Luke. Not that rotten ole Paul but Luke. So I chose a different man and used your very own bible and the theological answer is that Lazarus could not have been in Sheol and have resurrected. Nor was he reincarnated either. You can't simply bounce around from being dead back to life unless you have your reincarnation going for you and even if you have reincarnation why did Lazarus use the same ole body?

Your problem is now increased twofold. .