Pre-existence, Reincarnation & Christianity

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


So all these connections and resemblances are just coincidence in your opinion? Just ignore Rome's track record and connection to the church and paganism along with the stories?

Like I said earlier, when it comes to religious conditioning, the obvious will never be obvious enough.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

So all these connections and resemblances are just coincidence in your opinion? Just ignore Rome's track record and connection to the church and paganism along with the stories?

Like I said earlier, when it comes to religious conditioning, the obvious will never be obvious enough.

edit on 4-7-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

You do realize that there was a canon before the Romans compiled the Bible right?

Muratorian fragment
en.wikipedia.org...

Characteristics

The text of the list itself is traditionally dated to about 170 because its author refers to Pius I, bishop of Rome (142—157), as recent:

But Hermas wrote The Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time.

A few scholars[2] have also dated it as late as the 4th century, but their arguments have not won widespread acceptance in the scholarly community. For more detail, see the article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Bruce Metzger has advocated the traditional dating.[3]

The unidentified author accepts four Gospels, the last two of which are Luke and John, but the names of the first two at the beginning of the list are missing. Also accepted by the author are the "Acts of all Apostles" and 13 of the Pauline Epistles (the Epistle to the Hebrews is not mentioned in the fragment). The author considers spurious the letters claiming to have Paul as author that are ostensibly addressed to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians. Of these he says they are "forged in Paul's name to [further] the heresy of Marcion."

Religious conditioning Lol hahahahahahahaha

Sorry but there is no religious conditioning whatsoever, that is just you calling people names because they don't agree with you no matter how many times you say, "Look it says the word wine right here and there a river, can't you see its all a Roman conspiracy to make you worship a god condemned in the same book?"

As I stated earlier I came to find the Bible the most consistent AFTER pursuing the study of most the other faiths, meaning it was very low on my list.

EDIT
OMG I never once said they were coincidence!

They are references to statements made by the God of the old testament being fulfilled. The miracles of Jesus were showing that he had dominion of the powers and principalities. Those powers and principalities being the gods of the pagans (and their powers were associated with the constellations and planets).

Eating honey in the desert is insinuating manna from heaven. Saying it was because he was Dionysus just doesn't go along with Dionysus actually being the bestial god of breaking rules while John is preaching the law.

In your efforts you have to split your examples between two people and then ignore when they are attributed teachings which are entirely counter to the gods' you are trying to compare them to.

Its not conditioning . . . its logic and not an emotionally driven 'read between the lines' festival.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Does the Muratorian fragment mention any of the miracles at all? If not, that doesn't discount the possibility of the gospels being edited to add in the pagan miracles by the pagan Rome who was known for absorbing others ideas and turning them into their own.

You are totally ignorant and blind to the obvious fact that Rome had a huge part in the construction of the bible. They are the ones who legalized and decided what did and didn't go into it. They are the ones who had over 300 years to edit it any way they liked, and the oldest surviving copy of a gospel is dated around the same time as Nicaea. If you are just ignoring all of these "coincidences" then you are willfully ignorant to it. You are only ignoring all these "coincidences" because it goes against your already held beliefs, your preconceived notions, and your emotional attachment to Jesus supposedly dying for our sins.

Yeah, just ignore logic when it comes to Rome's long history of cultural and religious diffusion and just hang on to your emotional opinions.

I think I'm done here, you are totally blind to the obvious.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Look call me blind and ignorant all you like and ignore the numerous times I have corrected and expanded in detail the actual practices and associations of the gods you are trying to prove worship of.

I actually have experience in the practice of their systems and its results.

I simply disagree with you because I see the correlations between the Old and New Testaments and their relations with the mystery schools. I am not going to argue with you over suppositions of what you're claiming anymore. Though you likely wont stop because as I noticed in "discussion" with you before you are quite determined to unify all thought to align with your own.

Why don't you illuminate me on what the actual process was for your 'past life' life experience as well as what and where (physically and in the mind) it was taking place?

Do you practice lucid dreaming otherwise known as astral travel (though some claim them to be different)?

EDIT
"Deep thought" and "introspection" do not count. There is a process and a visual/physical seeming experience that goes along with it. I know as I have been there.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


It's called religious diffusion, look the term up. Rome did practice it, and their pagan pantheon is a great example of them diffusing Greek mythology into their own version of mythology.

The resemblances are there because of Rome diffusing Jesus' story with their mythology, turning Jesus and John into their new version of Bacchus and Apollo. They were famous for religious diffusion, which is exactly how they created their pantheon.

It is not a coincidence than pagan themes are part of a religion created by a pagan empire who were famous for cultural and religious diffusion. Ignore that all you like, but it doesn't take those facts away.

I remember my past life just like you "remember" sleeping. Just because you don't remember dreaming while asleep doesn't mean you didn't have any dreams. I've already explained why I believe in reincarnation. If you want to hear about it again then go back earlier in this thread.

reply to post by windword

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.

What you linked and cited is talking about "χρηστός" unless I missed something. If that's the case then please quote it for me.


reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


You're saying that they were killing even those who didn't resist? I've never read something like that and it doesn't even make sense.

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.

That's what I was talking about in my very first post in this thread,the post that you replied to.
Simply put,they were exchanging cultures with the conquered: Mostly they were exporting but they were also importing. Ok?

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?

...they weren't all born and raised Romans. *sigh*

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.

You would make a horrible emperor.
Romanization wasn't something instant,it required time. Other than that,they weren't asking people to convert,they were asking (or demanding,depending on the situation) to find a common ground. They were adding elements of their culture to the cultures of the conquered (and vice versa when Romans wanted so).

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?

Although the comparison is not correct because you're comparing a modern country to Rome,still,even politicians of today do differ on some some things. If they weren't,Americans wouldn't get into endless debates about democrats and republicans.

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?

I don't but the important thing is that the Romans didn't think so either. Most cultures were polytheistic which made things easier for them,it was monotheism that was making things hard for them.

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?

It's not about what I believe,Gnosticism isn't the same as Christianity. Only asking me this question is quite telling.
How did Gnostics changed Christ's Word? From what I've seen,even today efforts are being made (subtle or not) to change Christianity and they keep failing.

Same here.

You're wasting your time? You seem quite eager to keep this going on,I was about to stop but you kept going.

Reincarnation has only happened to less than 1% of the population. We need to focus on our way out of here this time instead of getting back in line behind every other species coming up through the ranks. Seek Jesus of Nazareth and his path. It's the only way.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


So you are confirming then that your 'past life' experience was in a lucid dream then?

During a stint of Blake inspired copulation ritual I found that when I was the only one aware of the intent of the 'ritual' any of the "gods" would appear except for when my lady was aware there was only the archons of the Gnostics. Further experimentation led to questioning the beings which eventually turn rather hostile when a certain line of questioning ensues.

During a 'past life' test I was able to manipulate the entire environment which just confirmed (for myself at the very least) that it is merely an extension of the astral being presented and does not carry any weight towards truth.

reply to post by Oceanborn

Originally posted by windword

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 windword


If that is correct then that means they found it somewhere. Have they?

Let me save you the trouble and tell you one more time that those two are different and mean different things.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


I have never had a lucid dream. I came to the conclusion that life does not end by observing that life does not stop in this lifetime, so why should it stop after this lifetime?

Like I said earlier in this thread, there are no gaps in life. Even if you were in a coma for 30 years, you would not know it, you would think no time had gone by while in that coma. The same goes for reincarnation, once you die, the next thing you experience is being born again.

There is no evidence of anything other than life, so why should I make the leap of thinking life ends after this incarnation?

reply to post by Oceanborn

You're saying that they were killing even those who didn't resist? I've never read something like that and it doesn't even make sense.

No, they killed those who did resist then forced the remaining people to defect to their side. Of course before they attacked them they would give them a peace offer which demanded them to defect, and if they refused their offer they would conquer them.

That's what I was talking about in my very first post in this thread,the post that you replied to.
Simply put,they were exchanging cultures with the conquered: Mostly they were exporting but they were also importing. Ok?

That's what I'm talking about as well, where is the disconnect here? They did the same with Jesus' message after they killed him them persecuted, a.k.a. "conquered" the real Christians. It's a pretty simple and self-explanatory concept.

...they weren't all born and raised Romans. *sigh*

Did I ever say they were? This is where cultural diffusion comes in, they didn't kill their own people, they only killed those who refused to defect until they force defected them. Again, it's a very simple and self-explanatory concept.

You would make a horrible emperor.
Romanization wasn't something instant,it required time. Other than that,they weren't asking people to convert,they were asking (or demanding,depending on the situation) to find a common ground. They were adding elements of their culture to the cultures of the conquered (and vice versa when Romans wanted so).

Which is exactly what they did with Christianity. They added their own pagan elements to the life story of Jesus, which is why we find pagan themes in his story and resemblances to pagan deities. Again, simple concept.

Although the comparison is not correct because you're comparing a modern country to Rome,still,even politicians of today do differ on some some things. If they weren't,Americans wouldn't get into endless debates about democrats and republicans.

Do you really think all Romans agreed on every single concept? I guess you never heard of Caesar's assassination? It was because the Roman senate disagreed with the direction Caesar was trying to take the empire. Caesar's assassination can be compared to JFK's.

I don't but the important thing is that the Romans didn't think so either. Most cultures were polytheistic which made things easier for them,it was monotheism that was making things hard for them.

Changing to monotheism was much more efficient than worshiping 12 core gods plus a whole bunch of other sub-gods. They saw that monotheism was growing, which is why they changed to a monotheistic religion in the end, but not before carrying over some of their pagan traits into the new religion.

It's not about what I believe,Gnosticism isn't the same as Christianity. Only asking me this question is quite telling.
How did Gnostics changed Christ's Word? From what I've seen,even today efforts are being made (subtle or not) to change Christianity and they keep failing.

What's telling is the fact that you state Christianity cannot be changed yet can't give me a reason why.

I guess the 40,000 denominations that have sprung up since the RCC isn't considered "change" to you?

You're wasting your time? You seem quite eager to keep this going on,I was about to stop but you kept going.

As do you.

reply to post by Oceanborn


Go back and read the conversation again. I'm tired of re-posting your post to show you what you said, and how I found links of the word you said was relevant that date back to 500 BC.

The "Christ" concept is older that advent of Jesus. FACT!

Originally posted by Seede
........................................................
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.

I apologize for jumping in out of turn and not knowing the complete context you are saying this in.
I just want to point out two flaws you seem to be emphasizing that will lead to an incorrect assumption.Man does not "have " a soul we are a soul.Spirit animates a physical body and that produces a living soul.The soul is not immortal it dies when the body dies.It is then in hades(in Hebrew called sheol) .They mean the grave..the realm of the dead the realm of imperception.
Lazarus and the richman is a parable.It is in the series of 5 parables. Just because the latter organizers of the scriptures call it "additional" teachings doesn't make it so.It is clearly a continuance of the previous 4 parables.The use of what seems to be a proper name Lazarus which it means Yahweh has helped.. does not disqualify it as a parable.
The scripture extrapolations to make it fit the agenda of the eternal punishment of hell doctrine of men that does not exist anywhere in the scriptures are numerous and faulty.It is fodder for many doctrines of men like universal re-incarnation,the Lake of Fire is hell, heaven as "somewhere OUT there " over the abyss instead of the Kingdom of God is IN your midst..the invoking of the Law of Moses produces righteousness....etc

Bottom line.It is a parable.Yahoshua clearly said I ONLY teach in parables.if you start from a faulty premise everything after it will be incorrect.From what little I've read of this thread it is all over the map.The fact is the bible is not going to enlighten anyone by studying it and certainly not from arguing from faulty premises and certainly isn't how anyone can "know" God.Billions have proved that .It only leads to more confusion (babel ..babylon).

God is not a book of words.The scriptures are not a manual of life to be applied.. the only way anyone can know God is if God reveals himself to them.That is common sense not mysticism or intellectualism.The "scriptures" are a witness not the other way around.
The bible is severely corrupted.Anyone who understands anything about history knows that.To try to justify an inerrant bible is futility... the evidence is insurmountable against it.When Yahoshua asked the disciples who they said he was Peter did not pullout the scriptures and quote the prophets.Yahoshua said the Father revealed it to him and THAT was the foundation and keys to the Kingdom of God....not Peter..a few verse later he called him Satan...Babylon is alive and sick.

reply to post by windword


Yes the offering of Jesus went all the way back before there was even Jews . The first Jew if you will check was Jacob and the foundation of Gods offering of Christ was at the altar where Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac , Jacobs father . The context of Genesis chapter 22 verse16 does not say anything about Jesus or God making a sacrifice but ,one only has to read and you will see that God was leading up to the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of sin . Abraham did not withhold his only son and God would not with hold his Son as the one and only acceptable sacrifice for sin .And again there were no Jews at that time .

reply to post by SimonPeter


That's all well and fine, and the two cultures may have merged. But, while the Jews were awaiting their messiah, as defined by prophecy, the Europeans were already using the term "Christ" to embody an ethereal spirit that was believed to have been bestowed on many. Caesar being one of them at the time of the advent of Jesus. Remember Jesus saying, "Give what is Caesar's to Caesar"?

The title Christ wasn't a term Jesus would have accepted nor would he have been called "Christ" by his Jewish disciples. They called him Rabbi, Master, Righteous Teacher, etc. "Christ" was a title "bestowed" on him by Greek scribes much later, after his death.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

I have never had a lucid dream. I came to the conclusion that life does not end by observing that life does not stop in this lifetime, so why should it stop after this lifetime?

Like I said earlier in this thread, there are no gaps in life. Even if you were in a coma for 30 years, you would not know it, you would think no time had gone by while in that coma. The same goes for reincarnation, once you die, the next thing you experience is being born again.

There is no evidence of anything other than life, so why should I make the leap of thinking life ends after this incarnation?

edit on 4-7-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

Okkkkaaaayyy so your belief in reincarnation is based on you not remembering your dreams, got it.

Yeah this discussion really breaks down at this point as you don't have any experience that you are willing to present for inspection to test the theory. My own studies and engagement in the area have shown results quite counter to yours so its best to just let you believe what you want and welcome you to the club when you're ready.

Ciao

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


I'm guessing you've witnessed first hand a man rising from the dead after 3 days of being dead?

If not, then what makes my belief any more ridiculous or less validated than yours?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

I'm guessing you've witnessed first hand a man rising from the dead after 3 days of being dead?

If not, then what makes my belief any more ridiculous or less validated than yours?

edit on 4-7-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

Nope, never witnessed a man who was dead for three days be resurrected.

Its okay that you rely on mocking the history of the faith, it means very little to me. I came to it from experiencing much of the other faiths which you have been supporting and the actual results of their practices.

Like I stated earlier they all break down when certain authority is invoked.

You will witness eventually if you ever proceed to actually test your little theory.

Text I apologize for jumping in out of turn and not knowing the complete context you are saying this in. I just want to point out two flaws you seem to be emphasizing that will lead to an incorrect assumption.Man does not "have " a soul we are a soul.Spirit animates a physical body and that produces a living soul.The soul is not immortal it dies when the body dies.It is then in hades(in Hebrew called sheol) .They mean the grave..the realm of the dead the realm of imperception. Lazarus and the richman is a parable.It is in the series of 5 parables. Just because the latter organizers of the scriptures call it "additional" teachings doesn't make it so.It is clearly a continuance of the previous 4 parables.The use of what seems to be a proper name Lazarus which it means Yahweh has helped.. does not disqualify it as a parable.

reply to post by Rex282



I am well aware that the Genesis account calls a soul the body and that is always how I refer to the physical terrestrial body. If you re read my premise I do not believe I referred to the soul as a spirit. Even though the Greek manuscript translators loosely translate the word soul as a spirit in some cases and a body in others.

I do not agree as to the Luke account or Abraham's Bosom as being a parable. I am also aware of the fact that some people are taught it is a parable, I was taught by a Christian Jewish rabbi that it is not a parable but a factual story of a specific man named Lazarus (Elazar) and a specific location which is in Sheol with specific named people who are also in Sheol. If it were a parable it would not have specifics but analogies instead. The Luke account cannot be used as an analogy because it is told with specifics and does not teach other cultures with analogies. I have read many accounts of many church opinions and it will vary from one congregation to another. Also you must consider that Luke's account also is in agreement with the Sanhedrin authority and Jesus' doctrine both. That would be totally out of order for this to be a coincidence and would disqualify it as being a parable in just that alone. Also the rich man is named in Christian Jewish literature as well as other outside sources which escapes my memory at this time.

The word parable is used in the NT at least 33 times and all of those 33 times they are called parables before they are expounded.. In every case the parables are told without specifics simply because a parable will fit into every culture, time, and untold events. That is not the case with Luke's account of Sheol. You have a rich man named, also the beggar named, also Father Abraham named, also the place called Shol or Sheol named, also Moshe or Moses named, also prophets named in description.

But set that aside for now because that is not the Lazarus that I was discussing.at the onset of this discussion. The Lazarus that I was discussing was the brother of Mary who was the disciple of Jesus. This Lazarus had died and had been dead on to four days and was the man who Jesus restored. This Lazarus was not resurrected from the dead because the scriptures that were presented verified that Jesus was the first to be resurrected and not Lazarus.

The question still remains as to where was this Lazarus' spirit as his soul was in the tomb and rotted. He could not have been in Abraham's Bosom which is the Doctrine of the Jews and of Jesus while Jesus was alive. If he had been in Sheol he would have had to be judged and placed into Sheol as either righteous or unrighteous. Then he would have had to have a spirit and soul resurrection to once again appear whole. This is impossible according to scripture as Jesus was the first to resurrect.

In Jewish Christianity the Apostles and disciples first preached and taught in the Jerusalem Church. That Church existed till about 135 AD and had a long and prosperous existence. The Apostle John is thought to have written his book in about 80's or 90's AD and it was also taught by preaching long before that time. So in all reality we do not really know how and when this was taught in the Jerusalem church but tradition teaches that it was taught long before it was written. All tradition follows this premise. My point? My point is that as John is expounding this story of Lazarus, he is telling the story as a Jew who is aware that at this time of his story the Jewish doctrine of Abraham's Bosom was still the doctrine of the Judaic structure. After Jesus died and established the kingdom of heaven this doctrine of Abraham's Bosom changed into a Christian doctrine of kingdom of heaven which John was well aware of. This is why Jewish Christianity will not accept any of this as a parable. There are too many facts associated with this story to be considered parabolic.