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.

 

Pre-existence, Reincarnation & Christianity

page: 26
25
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
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 . . .




posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Oceanborn
 





About the killed Christians not being Christians. Give me the author's sources and we'll take it from there.


Are you implying that at the time of Nero the "Christians" all had a unified religious philosophy, and that the "Christ" concept was brand new with advent of Jesus?



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


They were doing it to keep people happy and since that wasn't working with Christians they started the persecutions.

With Christians it happened because they couldn't mix them. Are you going to tell me that the mix worked after the persecutions? If they became that good doing that then why didn't they do it with pagans too?




The idea of Jesus dying for our sins was the perfect set up to make the masses complacent and uncaring. If someone forgave sins, that means they also forgive future sins as well, it also gave them (TPTB) a scapegoat to justify all their past and future sins because they believe Jesus' "true" message and spread it to the common people.


Forgiveness is for those who truly repent. If it's so empowering for the leaders then why the Romans considered Christians dangerous?
edit on 2-7-2013 by Oceanborn because: Typo



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

Except the Gnostics believed in a salvation through works and knowledge, whereas Jesus said no one comes to the Father except through him . . .


Christians, to this day still argue "Grace or works", "Once saved always saved"?



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


First of all,I bet that you and me have different opinions about who's Christian and who's not.
The Christ concept off course wasn't new. He was mentioned in the Old Testament.

Are you gonna give me the sources that the author of the thread used please?



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Oceanborn
 


"Christ" was NEVER mentioned in the Old Testament. The Jewish tradition was expecting that Yahweh would send a Messiah. Christ was a European concept, and also, a Persian/Asian carry over from Krishna and Brahmanism.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Oceanborn

You know what? I don't think we've had a discussion before today. Therefore:

Greetings, Oceanborn!

I'm an American, so my views are heavily influenced by American junk and stuff. I'm a veteran Christian, veteran US Air Force NCO who was once sent to an Asian country to start a war for no good reason. Luckily, I failed. (insert dancing emoticon here)



They do care because they wouldn't have power over Christians. How would they do that? Not with money,not with entertainment,not with lust,not with power. They can't have Christians under control,that's why they lead people away from it.

There are a few things that I've noticed. Self identified back slidden Christians living self identified evil life styles still retain deep seated belief system, and they vote according to what Christian Sects dictate, and regard their fellow "evil doers" with prejudice and disdain.

The 1960s in the U.S. were fairly liberal secular years as far as Christianity went. The 1970s brought in a movement called "The Jesus Movement" (yeah, I was one of those), which quickly became co-opted by Fundamentalist Dispensationalist Zionist leaders. Zionist Christians might as well be taking their orders from Rabbinical Counsels as far as I'm concerned.

Zionist Christianity is a leading away from Christianity while maintaining all the religious fervor as if it weren't leading away from it. And it's really big in the U.S. and really political in the U.S. The U.S. might as well be called the modern day Cyrus the Great Messiah with its willingness to use military force to further "Christian" agenda.

Much of the vocabulary I use was developed in the thread What Jerusalem? the thesis of which has not been refuted yet.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
On reincarnation and pre-existence of your soul I can say God only knows the mysteries of our being . But I can say Christianity has not phased out nor has it died . There exist a very extensive and determined plan to destroy the credibility of God in the minds of the Gentile .This is to destroy the foundation of peoples beliefs which would resist the NWO . This is stated in the Protocol # 4 .Then in Protocol # 9 their plan is to destroy Christian Youth . In Protocol 12 the News and Media are to be controlled . We always see anti God and Jesus messages on TV and it does affect our children as well as grown people . The Media makes people believing in God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ silly tin hat morons . This also applies to Conspiracy Theorist . Yet when a scientist makes really stupid claims you are supposed to believe it . Protocol 14 says "We shall Forbid Christ . This is the Talmudic inspired Jewish Supremacy Globalist plan forged more than a hundred years ago. And it has been very successful in fooling the Gentile and in fact using them against themselves . Literally putting the noose around their own necks . For examples the Clintons who are well known Bilderbergers have sold out the American people to the Globalist .. And their are many more who think they are riding the wave of Globalism .
The Zionist Jew is a direct enemy of the Christian . I believe this to be why God did bypass the Jew . Because the Zionist Jews would not have shared Jesus with the common Gentile .



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Oceanborn
 





Are you gonna give me the sources that the author of the thread used please?


What thread? The one I linked, "All Roads Lead to Rome", that I didn't author?



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Oceanborn
 


"Christ" was NEVER mentioned in the Old Testament. The Jewish tradition was expecting that Yahweh would send a Messiah. Christ was a European concept, and also, a Persian/Asian carry over from Krishna and Brahmanism.


From wikipedia:


In the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) a messiah (or mashiach) is a king or High Priest traditionally anointed with holy anointing oil.




The translation of the Hebrew word Mašíaḥ as Χριστός (Khristós) in the Greek Septuagint[5] became the accepted Christian designation and title of Jesus of Nazareth.


From other page of wikipedia


Christ (/kraɪst/) (ancient Greek: Χριστός, Christós, meaning 'anointed') is a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ), the Messiah, and is used as a title for Jesus in the New Testament.


These by themselves debunk the "Krishna" claim btw.


I'm not seeing any sources so I'm done with you.

Edit:



What thread? The one I linked, "All Roads Lead to Rome", that I didn't author?


His sources. You're not expecting me to just take his word for it,are you?
You just sent me to his thread. Quote here what you want and then add the sources of it (the actual sources). It's your claim,not mine.
edit on 2-7-2013 by Oceanborn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 




I'm an American, so my views are heavily influenced by American junk and stuff.


Those "junk and stuff" are the ones that make you go all fancy with your vocabulary without caring if it's harming the discussion that you want to start?

Keep your thread handy and whenever I feel like it I might give it a look. Maybe.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Oceanborn
 


You have not read the Old Testament my friend or you didn't understand what you were reading . He was not named but the content described him to the letter .



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oceanborn

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Oceanborn
 


"Christ" was NEVER mentioned in the Old Testament. The Jewish tradition was expecting that Yahweh would send a Messiah. Christ was a European concept, and also, a Persian/Asian carry over from Krishna and Brahmanism.


From wikipedia:


In the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) a messiah (or mashiach) is a king or High Priest traditionally anointed with holy anointing oil.




The translation of the Hebrew word Mašíaḥ as Χριστός (Khristós) in the Greek Septuagint[5] became the accepted Christian designation and title of Jesus of Nazareth.


From other page of wikipedia


Christ (/kraɪst/) (ancient Greek: Χριστός, Christós, meaning 'anointed') is a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ), the Messiah, and is used as a title for Jesus in the New Testament.


These by themselves debunk the "Krishna" claim btw.


I'm not seeing any sources so I'm done with you.

Edit:



What thread? The one I linked, "All Roads Lead to Rome", that I didn't author?


His sources. You're not expecting me to just take his word for it,are you?
You just sent me to his thread. Quote here what you want and then add the sources of it (the actual sources). It's your claim,not mine.
edit on 2-7-2013 by Oceanborn because: (no reason given)


Do you realize that the name "Christ" was co-opted and the Jewish Messiah and the Christ concept were two different things? "Christ" was the adopted title given Jesus way after his death. Caesar fancied himself as the "Christ."



The name "Christ" means "annointed one". This is take from the Greek word "Christos". Some language historians trace the Greek language to the oldest Indo-European language, Sanskrit, which is 3,500 to 6,000 years old, perhaps older. By finding a Sanskrit equivilant, it is reasonable that we may be able to ascertain the probable origin of the word "Christ". The Greek "Christos" is almost identical in sound and spelling to the Sanskrit word "Krista", meaning all-attractive. Sometimes we meet a girl named Krista or Crystal.These are common American names.

The Sanskrit word "Krista" is a variation of the word KRISHNA, one of the countless and ancient names for God Almighty in that language. The name "Krishna" also means "all attractive". Who is the most attractive person? GOD, of course. Why is God a Person? It is written, "MAN IS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD." If we are persons, then logically, as our creator, God is the Supreme Person. Why is God called "All-attractive"? Because He has everything in full.... including power, fame, renunciation, wealth, personal beauty, and intelligence. www.hknet.org.nz...



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Oceanborn


that make you go all fancy with your vocabulary without caring if it's harming the discussion that you want to start?

I'm sorry if my vocabulary is off putting. It's my vocabulary, it's not a put on vocabulary, it's my actual vocabulary. The reason I put the link was so you could see how I developed the Messiah Cyrus the Great terminology.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by Oceanborn
 


You have not read the Old Testament my friend or you didn't understand what you were reading . He was not named but the content described him to the letter .


I've only read a few parts. I'm still new someone could say.
I know about the description but I also thought "massiach" (messiah) was clearly written. Even if it's not,still,there's a reason this has been used but it's 1:12 a.m. so I'm not up for it right now.




Do you realize that the name "Christ" was co-opted and the Jewish Messiah and the Christ concept were two different things? "Christ" was the adopted title given Jesus way after his death. Caesar fancied himself as the "Christ."


The author of what you've posted is trying to pull a rabbit out of his hat. "some language historians" "it is reasonable that we may be able to ascertain the probable origin..." "The Sanskrit word "Krista" is a variation of the word KRISHNA" I gotta give it to him,he's trying hard.
Have it your way.

I definitely wont argue with you for an eternity,I made my point in my first post in this thread.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 


Fair enough.

I'll take a look at your thread tomorrow but it depends if I'll actually take part in it. I'm not active in ATS anymore and I have good reasons for it.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Oceanborn
 


More of pagan Chrestos:


Chrestos in Pagan Antiquity

In reality, the term "Chrestos" or χρηστὸς has been used in association with a plethora of people and gods, beginning centuries before the common era. Chrestos and its plural chrestoi were utilized to describe deities, oracles, philosophers, priests, oligarchs, "valuable citizens," slaves, heroes, the deceased and others. Importantly, chrestos appears to have been the title of "perfected saints" in various mystery schools or brotherhoods, associated with oracular activity in particular.

This word χρηστός or chrestos appears in ancient Greek sources such as those of playwright Sophocles (497/6-406/5 BCE), who discusses ὁ χρηστὸς, "the good man," in Antigone (520). Also composed during the fifth century BCE and containing numerous instances of chrestos are playwright Euripides's works Heraclidae, Hecuba, Troiades and Iphigenia. Other ancient writers such as Herodotus, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Xenophon, Pseudo-Xenophon, Plato, Isocrates, Aeschines, Demosthenes, Plutarch and Appian likewise use this term chrestos or "good," sometimes quite often. In an anonymous tract discovered among the possessions of historian Xenophon (c. 430–354), the "Old Oligarch," modernly styled Pseudo-Xenophon (fl. c. 425), contrasts "the good man" (chrestos) with "the wicked man" (poneros), a common juxtaposition through



Socrates the Chrestos

The fact that Plato (424/423-348/347 BCE) frequently mentions "the good" (χρηστὸς) when discussing various figures (e.g., Plat. Rep. 5.479a) serves as an indication of the word's importance among philosophers and religionists. This association is especially germane considering the exalted place afforded Plato among spiritual seekers for centuries into the common era, including many Christians and assorted "Neoplatonists." Indeed, Plato (Theaetetus 166.a.2) uses the word to describe famed philosopher Socrates: ὁ Σωκράτης ὁ χρηστός - "Socrates the Good."



"In the fifth century BCE, Plato referred to the famous Greek philosopher of Athens as 'Socrates the Chrest.'"

The term continued to be used throughout classical antiquity, into the common era. Indeed, the Greek historian Plutarch (c. 46-120 AD/CE), writing precisely at the time when the Christian effort begins to become noticeable, uses the word χρηστός chrestos numerous times, including to describe Alexander the Great (Alex. 30.3), illustrating the term's ongoing or increased currency at this time. There are also many uses of the plural word χρηστοί or chrestoi in ancient writings, such as in Euripides, Aristophanes, Thucydides, Isocrates, Plato and numerous times in Xenophon. What we discover, then, is a slew of chrests in ancient, pre-Christian literature, including as concerns the biblical god, as we will see below. We also find repeated references to chrests in the writings of early Church fathers, such as Clement Alexandrinus (Strom. 2), Gregorius Nazianzenus, Athanasius, and especially Cyrillus Alexandrinus and Joannes Chrysostomus.



The Gods Must Be Chrestoi

In addition, it is claimed that this title chrestos/chreste was conferred upon the Greek god and goddess Hades and Persephone, divinities of the underworld. "Chrestos" was also bestowed upon the "ubiquitous mystic" or Greek god Hermes, the "Psychopomp" or guide to the afterlife, also an important figure in underworld mythology and in mystery schools. So too is the title claimed of the Greek sun god Apollo, god of oracles. In the Saturnalia (3.4.8) of ancient Latin author Macrobius (c. 400 AD/CE), we read that, "according to Cassius Hemina, the Gods of the Samothracian mysteries were styled Θεοὶ Χρηστοὶ [Theoi Chrestoi]." (Mitchell, 18)


www.truthbeknown.com...

The Chi-Rho Symbol, Chrestos and the Cross

Chrestes as Oracle




edit on 2-7-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

Except the Gnostics believed in a salvation through works and knowledge, whereas Jesus said no one comes to the Father except through him . . .


Christians, to this day still argue "Grace or works", "Once saved always saved"?


The reason why Jesus said no one comes to the Father except through him is because he taught about a completely different Father-God than what was traditionally taught in the Jewish traditions (the OT)

Jesus exposed the God of the OT to be Yaltabaoth, an ignorant and jealous God; I explain all of this in my book... but suffice to say that the Biblical stories we know and defend today are completely different than what was taught in the very early church.

There are a few instances I can recall where Jesus talked about reincarnation; I can't find the one in particular I'm thinking of but I do recall this from the Gospel of St. Thomas.



(87) Jesus said, "Wretched is the body that is dependent upon a body, and wretched is the soul that is dependent on these two."


I do recall Jesus talking about how sexual intercourse reproduced or rather made copies of the original bodies



"And when Yaltabaoth noticed that they withdrew from him, he cursed his earth. He found the woman as she was preparing herself for her husband. He was lord over her, though he did not know the mystery which had come to pass through the holy decree. And they were afraid to blame him. And he showed his angels his ignorance which is in him. And he cast them out of paradise and he clothed them in gloomy darkness. And the chief archon saw the virgin who stood by Adam, and that the luminous Epinoia of life had appeared in her. And Yaltabaoth was full of ignorance. And when the foreknowledge of the All noticed (it), she sent some and they snatched life out of Eve.

"And the chief archon seduced her and he begot in her two sons; the first and the second (are) Eloim and Yave. Eloim has a bear-face and Yave has a cat-face. The one is righteous but the other is unrighteous. (Yave is righteous but Eloim is unrighteous.) Yave he set over the fire and the wind, and Eloim he set over the water and the earth. And these he called with the names Cain and Abel with a view to deceive.

"Now up to the present day, sexual intercourse continued due to the chief archon. And he planted sexual desire in her who belongs to Adam. And he produced through intercourse the copies of the bodies, and he inspired them with his counterfeit spirit.

Source: gnosis.org...

As far as "Bible Stories" go.. the Gnostic authors could have been Blockbuster Hollywood movie writers.. (or are they?) *cue spooky music* BOM BOM BOM!

I actually wish they would have taught more of it when I was younger because now that I'm older I really find it all very fascinating, because it isn't a concept or teaching I've ever encountered before and I study world religions.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by PuRe EnErGy
 





The reason why Jesus said no one comes to the Father except through him is because he taught about a completely different Father-God than what was traditionally taught in the Jewish traditions (the OT)


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



As far as "Bible Stories" go.. the Gnostic authors could have been Blockbuster Hollywood movie writers.. (or are they?) *cue spooky music* BOM BOM BOM!


That's for sure! Is you book fiction or non-fiction?

Thanks for that lovely segment from the Book of Thomas.




I do recall Jesus talking about how sexual intercourse reproduced or rather made copies of the original bodies


Interesting! So according to this, Jesus taught that bodies are mere reproductions with counterfeit spirits. Ego, I would suppose.

Food for thought!


I found the link to your book in your signature, DUH! lol. Looking at it now!

edit on 2-7-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join