It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesus Was a Reincarnated Spiritual Being

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ForgottenByGod
I hear you; I AM WAITING for God *even though the evidence of ITS being surrounds us*. We as its expression ARE IT. STILL: I would like to have a personal visit (a pat on the head).

edit on 4-6-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ForgottenByGod

Thanks for your reply



Joshua is an angel. This vision wasn't of a courtroom. Zechariah had a vision of lucifers rebellion.


Was Joshua Lucifer? Why did "The Angel of the LORD" take away his sins?



It doesn't matter if you believe me. Someday I will die and in that same hour, i'll return to Hell for my sins.


Why do think that you have to go to Hell? Do you think it's a duty or do you not believe in redemption and/or the forgiveness of sin, like how "The Angel of the LORD" bestowed on Joshua, The High Priest?



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: windword


There is strong evidence that the biblical character of Jesus the Son of Joseph, also know as Jesus the Nazarene and who notoriously was bestowed with the title of "Christ" after his death and upon rumors of his resurrection, was a prophesied reincarnated soul, promised a "Messiahship" or "Christhood" in the Old Testament.

There is also strong evidence (theological of course) that Jesus was not the son of Joseph. If Mary was already with child and knew no man then Joseph could not be the father of Jesus. In Hebrews 4:14 you posted that Paul said that Jesus was the Son of God. Then how is he the son of Joseph?



Did Paul just pull this idea of "Jesus" being a High Priest from his nether regions, or is their a precedent for his claim of "Jesus" being a High Priest and NOT God? Turns out there is precedence for his claim.


Jesus, becoming the high priest, is understood as the scepter being passed from the from the representatives of the law and prophets to the Christ.

Mark 9:2-9
(2) And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. (3) And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them. (4) And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus. (5) And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. (6) For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid. (7) And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. (8) And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves. (9) And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.

You also wrote-- "for his claim of "Jesus" being a High Priest and NOT God?" -- is an inference of untruth. Jesus nor any recorded Apostle or disciple of Jesus has ever claimed that He professed to be God. misleading to say the least.

Note that Yahusha (Joshua the high priest) and Yahusha (Jesus) are exactly the same names. So what is the inference? Millions of people have the same names as each other. That is a silly inference to say the least.

You wrote in verse 8 that it was God who would take away the sins in one day and in your summery you then say that Yahusha (Joshua the high priest) will take away the sins in one day.

Your entire premise is greatly flawed.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede




There is also strong evidence (theological of course) that Jesus was not the son of Joseph.


Theologically, of course.



If Mary was already with child and knew no man then Joseph could not be the father of Jesus. In Hebrews 4:14 you posted that Paul said that Jesus was the Son of God. Then how is he the son of Joseph?


We are ALL "sons and daughters" of the The Most High, are we not?



esus, becoming the high priest, is understood as the scepter being passed from the from the representatives of the law and prophets to the Christ.



Are you suggesting that the spirit of Moses and Elijah passed the "High Priest" torch to Jesus through your citation of Mark 9? Moses was not a High Priest, Aaron was. So, that premise falls apart.



You also wrote-- "for his claim of "Jesus" being a High Priest and NOT God?" -- is an inference of untruth. Jesus nor any recorded Apostle or disciple of Jesus has ever claimed that He professed to be God. misleading to say the least.


Thank you. Can you tell me why Christians, then, claim Jesus is God?



Note that Yahusha (Joshua the high priest) and Yahusha (Jesus) are exactly the same names. So what is the inference? Millions of people have the same names as each other. That is a silly inference to say the least.


Yep. That's right. There was already a celestial High Priest named Jesus in Jewish tradition, that many Hellenized Jews believed to be the celestial Holy Spirit; "Christ". While, it was believed, that The Angel of LORD, was actually the LOGOS, the WORD of God. The legend of Jesus of Nazareth, turned onto the LOGOS by John and the celestial High Priest by Paul.



You wrote in verse 8 that it was God who would take away the sins in one day and in your summery you then say that Yahusha (Joshua the high priest) will take away the sins in one day.


No, you misunderstand. According to scripture, it's "The Angel of the LORD" that takes away the sins due to the obedience of Joshus (Jesus). It's Christians who make the claim that Jesus the High Priest takes away sins.



Your entire premise is greatly flawed.


Christianity's premise is greatly flawed.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: windword


A star for your thoughts, however, Zachariah 6 makes it clear that Joseph, the son of Jozadak, is THE BRANCH. Besides, we already know that John the Baptist was Elijah.

No windword. You can't get away with that. John the baptist was not reincarnated nor was he Elijah.

Eth Cepher -- Latest Hebrew to English --
Besorah Yahuchanon or Gospel of John 1:19-23
(19) And this is the record of Yahuchanon, when the Yahudiym sent priests and Leviyiym from Yerushalayim to ask him, Who are you? (20) And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not Hamashiach. (21) And they asked him, what then? Are you Eliyahu? And he said, I am not. Are you that prophet? And he answered No. (22) Then said they unto him, Who are you? That we may give an answer to them that sent us. What say you of yourself? (23) He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the Way of Yahuah, as said the prophet Yesha’yahu


KJV bible John 1:19-23
(19) And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? (20) And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. (21) And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. (22) Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? (23) He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

You could not be further from the truth. This dispels your claim that reincarnation was practiced and the John was at one time Elijah. Nothing but false disinformation and teachings.,



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede




No windword. You can't get away with that. John the baptist was not reincarnated nor was he Elijah.



Matthew 11
14"And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come.…


You can't get much clearer than that, but I guess you're NOT willing to accept it.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

pretty much comes down to "who do you believe"

John said no.... Jesus said YES




posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Yep, I guess.

But the thing is, even if I believed these scriptures to be historically accurate, and John the Baptist was really asked if he was the reincarnation of Elijah, that exchange alone backs my assertion that the Jews had a tradition that included reincarnation. It doesn't matter if John believed himself to be "The One" who was prophecised to come, it's the fact that they considered it possible that he was, that's what counts.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: windword



We are ALL "sons and daughters" of the The Most High, are we not?

No we are not all sons and daughters of God unless we are born again. Even being born again does not exclude judgment. Jesus being the Begotten of God was not created and became the Son of man by understanding of man but still the Begotten Son of God. There is no man alive today that is under the covenant of Moses or Jacob or Isaac or Abraham.



Are you suggesting that the spirit of Moses and Elijah passed the "High Priest" torch to Jesus through your citation of Mark 9? Moses was not a High Priest, Aaron was. So, that premise falls apart.

Moses was the Law Giver and not Aaron. God made His covenant through Moses and not through Aaron. Aaron was the help meet of Moses if you recall. God appointed Aaron as the priest through authority of Moses only and not as High
Priest. There have been many High Priests but all are under the Moshe covenant. Elias (Elijah) was the prophetic authority of God while Moshe was the authority of Law. This authority of prophets and law were passed from this covenant of Moshe to the covenant of the Christ Yahusha in His glorification.



Thank you. Can you tell me why Christians, then, claim Jesus is God?

Jesus stood trial on that same premise before the Sanhedrin and was acquitted from that very same accusation. There is no truth in that the Christ ever made such a claim. His claim was that He was the Son of God and the Sanhedrin agreed with that claim. If any one cites that Jesus was or is God then that person is wrong regardless of what he or she calls themselves.



No, you misunderstand. According to scripture, it's "The Angel of the LORD" that takes away the sins due to the obedience of Joshus (Jesus). It's Christians who make the claim that Jesus the High Priest takes away sins.

There is no other authority than God and His begotten that can forgive sin. As is all through scripture and in all covenants it is Yahuah and His Begotten Yahusha who have life within them and the authority to forgive.

Acts_4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.



Christianity's premise is greatly flawed.

Yes. I agree.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede




No we are not all sons and daughters of God unless we are born again.


Really.....were the Children of Israel "born again" or just some of them? You do know that when Jesus taught about being "born again" he wasn't teaching a brand new concept. Also, nowhere did he say that in order to be "child of God" you had to be "born again".



Even being born again does not exclude judgment.


That's not what the Bible says that Jesus said.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.




Jesus being the Begotten of God was not created and became the Son of man by understanding of man but still the Begotten Son of God.


Declaring something as a truth doesn't make it so.



Moses was the Law Giver and not Aaron. God made His covenant through Moses and not through Aaron. Aaron was the help meet of Moses if you recall. God appointed Aaron as the priest through authority of Moses only and not as High
Priest. There have been many High Priests but all are under the Moshe covenant. Elias (Elijah) was the prophetic authority of God while Moshe was the authority of Law. This authority of prophets and law were passed from this covenant of Moshe to the covenant of the Christ Yahusha in His glorification.


Jesus didn't come off the mount, suddenly anointed as High Priest, that nobody knew about! That's absurd and is nothing but your personal eisegesis. Moses had no authority to declare Jesus a High Priest, especially from the dead! You're just making stuff up now. Jesus Christ was declared the celestial High Priest through Paul, no other.

The symbolism of the apparition of Moses had everything to do the echo of the Old Testament meme of Moses leading the "Children" out of Egypt, just as the baby Jesus was called out of Egypt after the death of Herod.



There is no other authority than God and His begotten that can forgive sin.


Is Jesus "The Angel of the LORD" then, because the Bible says that's who takes away sin.



Acts_4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.


That's just one of the many lies in the book of Acts.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




That's just one of the many lies in the book of Acts.

If the literature of the Hebrews are lies then who is qualified to sort this matter out? Certainly not me. I am not only not qualified nor intelligent in translation, transliteration or interpretation but also have not the mind to retain such matters.

I believe we have sorted this all out before and came to no agreement then as now. What amazes me is that the NT literature is verified as majority text in over 5,680 manuscripts and fragments. Out of that number the majority text agrees overwhelmingly with one another. If it be as you have said then those thousands of manuscripts plus loads of outside literature which were written at various times and geographical places contain many lies of the same magnitude. Do you realize the odds of impossibility for that claim? It is virtually impossible to even fathom such a thing.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: windword

pretty much comes down to "who do you believe"

John said no.... Jesus said YES


And Paul opened another can of worms (Pandora's box regarding the plagiarism of Jesus's Epistle) to suit his own means.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede




If the literature of the Hebrews are lies then who is qualified to sort this matter out?


The Book of Acts is NOT "literature of the Hebrews"! But, the Book of Zachariah is.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: windword


The Book of Acts is NOT "literature of the Hebrews"! But, the Book of Zachariah is.

Isn't literature any written work and even includes such work as poetry or hymns?

Was Paul a Hebrew of Hebrews? Was not Luke Paul's scribe and were not Luke and Acts united literature at one time? That meets all requirements of being Hebrew literature does it not? Must a scribe be of the same blood as the subject of which he pens? By your standards then most all historians work is of no value. Don't be foolish.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede



Isn't literature any written work and even includes such work as poetry or hymns?


You're being obtuse. The Book of the Acts of the Apostles is not Hebrew literature. It's historically inaccurate Christian, Koine Greek literature. It does nothing, one way or the other, to disprove the hypothesis in the OP.

The 1st century Jews embraced a celestial "High Priest" named Jesus. 1st century Jews DID embrace reincarnation. The Jesus narrative of the Old Testament aligns with the vision of Zachariah.

A Pre-Christian Heavenly Jesus



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join