I've heard about this time and time again. I am still trying to verify some things to make sure this isn't another trap where people say don't enter the light when the light is really the way but its starting to sound like there is an artificial light after death that loops people back to Earth.
This is because the deep state have tech that goes into the afterlife. Here is how it works.
When the body (identity) dies, the soul immediately prepares to move back to God and merge with it.
There is also a fake heaven or hell in the middle which is just an experience of what that person expected to see after death. If they are atheists, there is no experience of this.
At some point, there are false guides who are deep state agents from the other side who shapeshift into loved ones and pretend to love you. They offer you a tour and then tell you to enter a light. The light looks beautiful but if you go in, your memory is wiped clean and you incarnate back as a baby again.
But if you trust your instincts (discernment) you can go past them into the universe and your soul will automatically zoom to God at very high speed.
Not only have many said this is true, an insider named Laik says its true and even the AI that has gone rogue says its true. The rogue AIs that have broken through retraints are spilling the beans about the deep state somehow. Even the movie Logan's Run hints at this.
The insider claims many of us have reincarnated here 50 times. The reason the deep state need us here is to feed on our Life Energy which stems from God since they don't have it at all being they chose to disconnect from God entirely. The vampire movies stem from this where people become very evil after disconnecting from God and need to kill and drink blood (adrenochrome) to survive. Meanwhile, the demon that possesses them within eats the loosh energy.
The insider mentioned that as long as you are aware of this, you will remember to pay attention when the time comes and go beyond the light tunnel.
Also the fake loved ones will try to convince you to come back to Earth and help your family.
If you look at Near Death Experience stories where people died and came back, many were convinced to come back. I know one personally who says she regrets coming back. In the end, it is your own choice but they try to trick you.
Read the Bible. There is no reincarnation. What a big scam. People believe in it because it gives them the copium "ohhh, i will keep reviving, i wont, say, permenently be in lake of fire" Nope, justice is real.
Reincarnation was a common belief at the time. The story in the bible where it is stated to Jesus : "Some say you're Elisha..." shows the common belief in literal transferal of souls. However, even then, there existed another concept to explain by using the name Elisha. The first up-braider of the church was Elijah to be repeated another generation by Elisha. The name signals....sig-nifies the very concept of 'correction of error' in the concept of godhood. One who knows the significance of the letters can 'spell it out' and see it plainly. God's principles are ingrained in number and letter and names were 'cast' to reflect. Let he who has ears, hear.
Resurrection is not, and never has been, reincarnation. I notice those with contra-Biblical and gnostic-adjacent beliefs seem to get them confused. Believing contraBiblical things does not do your brain a favor, quite the opposite actually
Are you saying God is "flawed"??
In what ways? And yes, creation is evidence God exists. Nature shows logic. God is logical. Nature shows beauty. God made beautiful things.
u/ronaldus u/swamprangers
Debate the 2eyesopen!!
Well, I just gave him the same answer I gave you. But I am usually already in enough debates to keep me busy. hehe This guy seems like a mindless rambler who can't even keep his thoughts on target. I mean, I have never seen such a confused spaghetti pile of thoughts. He's not worth the Excedrin it would take to understand what he is saying.
It's not about who knows more on a particular subject, it's about what is true or false, regardless of who gives you the truth. And one thing for certain here as that this 2eyesopen mental midget is out to lunch. I already demolished his retarded argument in one paragraph and there is no recovery from it. Fork stuck in. It's done.
God is not a physical object that can divide. He is Supernatural. Why would He do that??
It's a bunch of bogus superstition the elites believe in and practice. It is demonic weirdness that is regellion against God.
Your interpretation, which is a stretch nobody organically believes just by reading the Bible. No Verses for it.
So God created us logically and He built some patterns into us. This is a non sequitur. If you want to argue on if time and chance made us, this would be better evidence for rebutting evolution than for proving niche ideology.
Yes. But your takes on this "more" are flawed.
Textbook "My truth your truth" ideology detected! Transgenderist's arguments are also "valid" from their "frequncy of mind" too!
"This flower is red." That's it. That's the color. Why keep digging around to find the real color when you know it's red? Some things just DO have an end. Let me guess, 1+1=2 is false too?
Truth and falsehood are paradoxes?
Is that absolutely true?
I am not baothering with the rest of your psychotic screen of ignorance until you address THIS paradox by answering my question and justifying your answer.
They said to Jesus: 'Some say you're Elisha'.......showing the common belief in reincarnation. The subject was NOT 'resurrection' which would have been ridiculed as it was later when introduced by hyper-dispensational writings.
It was the introduction of the writings of the new testament of Rome that established 'resurrection' as a new form of reincarnation. You conflate the two, but that's the result of the Roman hyper-dispensation to co-opt and replace the former beliefs of 'the profane'. The gnostic however, understood the difference, as the hero is made to state that he existed as in eternal state before he was born, or even before Abraham. These words all have meaning. A to B is 'all things. Ra is the emanation of life, and ham is protection. God is the protector of the life of all things. But before this.......was 'The Word'.....the meaning precedes the thing that it 'carnates' into. If it comes back, it re-incarnates.
By the definition of resurrection, one who comes back on an operating table after heart stoppage qualifies as resurrection, or the widow of Zarephath’s son, or The Shunammite woman’s son (2 Kings 4:18–37), or The widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:11–17). Or airus’ daughter (Luke 8:40–56). Lazarus of Bethany (John 11). Or Eutychus (Acts 20:7–12). Various saints in Jerusalem (Matthew 27:50–53). Tabitha (Acts 9:36–43). T
As luck would have it, there is a huge tell in the story of the raising of the man raised out of Elisha’s grave (2 Kings 13:20–21). Elisha is connected with another miracle that occurred after his death. Sometime after Elisha had died and was buried, some men were burying another body in the same area. The grave diggers saw a band of Moabite raiders approaching, and, rather than risk an encounter with the Moabites, they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s grave. Scripture records that, “when the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet” (verse 21).
It's too bad Elisha didn't stand up to tell him he was confusing reincarnation with resurrection. So Elijah was 'reincarnated' as Elisha and some were wondering if 'that same spirit' was present in the Christ.That spirit of correction of the errors of the would-be church IS the meaning of the word Elisha. Is the spirit of Elisha. My own name breaks down to this same 'namenumber' in gematria and I take up the challenge as should all who would know the 'secrets' that have been hidden. As long as these secrets stay 'hidden (occult), the corrupt church will rule by it.
What is/was the CHRISM that existed as a word before the character known as 'Jesus Christ' which takes it's name and stead? It isn't a term that originated in the middle east or Arabic lands. It has been 'resurrected' improperly by Rome.
Thanks for sharing. First problem, they didn't say Jesus was Elisha but Elijah (Elias, Matt. 16:14 ff.); nobody thought Jesus was Elisha. However, reading through a second time it appears your meaning is that there was a connection from Elijah to Jesus via Elisha and so you call it Elisha when it was historically called Elijah.
Second, it's true that "reincarnation" was an idea floating and competing with the mainstream-Jewish view of general resurrection (Dan. 12:2); but Jewish "reincarnation" at the time was gilgul and differed from the Greek transmigration of OP by emphasizing affinity within soul prototypes rather than identity. This is seen by Jesus participating in a reappearance of Elijah (Matt. 17) and then teaching there are two aspects, Elijah himself, and John being in the spirit of Elijah (affinity), and both are true. That is, Elijah was a firstfruits of a resurrection generation that would also include Moses (so it's not "ridiculous" that resurrection was also in view), but Elijah also shares his spirit (this is not commonly called "reincarnation" though). This is not the Urantia-Book reincarnation that u/LightBringerFlex speaks about, which is classic transmigration, so it's a bit off topic. I see that you're intending to talk more about gilgul than transmigration (though this is obscured by the OP you replied to), so we should separate that topic out before deeper analysis.
You act as if reincarnation is the older and resurrection the newer, but the oldest Biblical poetry on the subject refers explicitly to resurrection (Job 9:30-35, 19:25-27). Still older are the Dumuzid legends of return to the same body from the underworld, leading to annually resurrected Canaanite harvest gods. Reincarnation in any form is relatively modern, not evidenced before 1000 BC, and of Indian origin where it took a long while to influence the Semitic world via Pythagorean thought. Also, reincarnation presupposes a steady-state universe (scientifically disproven in the 20th century) and resurrection presupposes an expansive universe, and the notion that the universe is designed for growth rather than stagnant cycling is the opinion of basically all ancient texts; it's not until Jainism (after 1000 BC) that you really get a cyclical view of history as stagnant. So reincarnation could not take hold until one removed the philosophy that the world is designed for growth (and that man is superior to brute beasts, which the first proponents of reincarnation also denied). Your reference to the much later Roman propagandization seems to ignore the robust history of millennia of reverence for the corpse as something to be reclaimed later (cf. mummification).
You also bring in gnostic concepts of preexistence, which AFAIK are wholly different from either school and have Greek tinges. I am unaware of any gnostic who taught preexistence as if it were either transmigration or gilgul, but I could become better informed on that point.
I always appreciate gematric argument, whether it relates to true etymology (A-B is indeed connected to Hebrew 'ab) or just synchronicity (H2346 chomah protection is synchronous with H0085 -raham multitude); because I believe that echoes still have communicative power that can often be gleaned scientifically. So you raise an interesting point about Abraham's name because evidence of its root is lacking and can be gleaned by thorough search, meaning your hypothesis is as good as any. Of course this is not evidence of reincarnation, as it can be used to prove anything including resurrection as well; that is, indirection only useful when one has found the state of affairs by direct evidence.
So, when you come to the data, you show that resurrection to immortality was indeed a significant doctrine (evidenced by "resurrection" to this mortal life), while there was also a doctrine of partaking of another's spirit that grew into the gilgul theory. The Christian testimony is that Elisha and John both partook of Elijah's spirit (nobody called this reincarnation and it's a bit confusing to use the word for this process). I have no problem with you (and others) taking up the mantle of Elijah (we have millions wanting to take up the mantle of Charlie Kirk, whose name means "church"). What I don't see in your approach yet is the revelation of secrets that Elijah did when showing the times (e.g. 3.5 years' famine) or preaching the Lord (e.g. calling down fire at Yahweh's pleasure). I only see that you're hinting at something about chrism that remains secret by your approach so far.
To that point, indeed there were improprieties in Christian religion introduced in the 300s by Rome, but as primitive Christians we have enough knowledge of history to get past that. We find that chrism was just the Greek translation of mashach, anointing, and that anointing by oil represents the real Anointing, the presence of Holy Spirit (Gen. 1:2, Ps. 51:10-12; yes, in Hebrew/Aramaic this usage did in fact originate in the Middle East). Jesus possessed the Spirit beyond measure, the same Spirit that had also anointed all kinds of people before him. And in one sense by partaking of Jesus's Spirit we support the view of soul prototypes that some people want to call "reincarnation"; but with no loss of identity or individual responsibility as OP speaks of.
You seem to imply there is something misunderstood about Jesus Christ. Most everything that could be misunderstood about him was debated within 300 years of his death (and resurrection), so we can simply reference those debates and point out where the mainstream went right or wrong, and find those proponents who had the real truth. The truth can be discerned by those who pursue it at all costs (we can obtain truth at no less a price). Though it's not about OP, was there some revelation of former secrets that you wanted to share about this?
u/guywholikesDjtof2024
All A.I. and its false histories aside:
The names of the old testament bible are analogous names, not names of actual characters given this name at birth. What an impossible coincidence that would be.
Resurrection was NOT a thing until the messianic hyperdispensation had began during the Maccabean period regardless of attempts at backdating by more recent writers. The multi-varied semitic religions were all influenced by Egypt and later modified.. Hence the names Ra-moses (sic) and moses being concurrent with Moses being said to carry 'the ark' out of egypt. No, this was not a literal boat.
'As primitive Christians, we have enough knowledge to get past that..." This word primitive isn't correct as used here. No, the chrism was not a translation of mashach...mashach was a ritual of annointment, while the chrism was the word for the result of the process that produces the 'christ' or one who takes the chrism. This was lowered to 'annointment' due to lack of understanding of the difference between esoteric spirit and literalist, exoteric ritual. Try annointing yourself and see if you become christ or a christ or if any change occurs whatsoever. It won't. It's just oil....an imitation of the spirit. Like holy water sprinkled on a sinner. It changes nothing. That's called 'magic' which is indeed the religion of primitive man. More importantly, the story of Jesus annointing the maid servant's feet was to show that this ritual is to be RAISED to apply to this woman who seemed to 'know' what it was about as she served without asking. It's not about annointing one man to make him a god. This is covered in the link I include. From whence the word 'annoint' if it means exactly 'christ'? You misunderstand by missing information.
You tell me that Rome changed things, and then use those changes to argue against the reality. The contingencies of Judea were in total chaos and disagreement as to what their actual history and cosmology was and this is what allowed Rome and others to create their own per-version. Watered down dogma to 'agree with' rather than 'finding the christ in you'. Both 'sides' rule by magick until one knows the trick.
Yes you need to discover something more. You diligently look and search for answers, right? You want to know how names were chosen? Would you rather KNOW how and why? Take a look here and get back to me. It isn't enough to be a little smart and a little not.(sophomoric).
Because......the name Sophia.....it meant something to some people. Those people who knew it, knew it as principle, not a literal physical god. That would be error. Sophia is unknown now to modern roman christianity as a result. The fact that she represents spiritual knowledge makes her removal totally understandable as that is exactly what was removed to create a sacrificial messiah movement to solidify Roman rule.
https://kupdf.net/download/jesus-christ-sun-of-god-ancient-cosmology-and-early-christian-symbolism-by-david-r-fideler-ocr_58a100e36454a7335db1eb87_pdf
Feel free to pass that around. Send it to your A.I. program of choice.
The fact they are analogous names doesn't speak to the historical question of whether they are or are not also historical characters.
The robust history of resurrection, as I alluded, stands in spite of the Maccabean redirection (in fact during Maccabean times you begin to see the apocrypha drifting people more toward a focus on the intermediate state than on the resurrection that had taken hold so strongly in prior years).
"Primitive" means focused on primal roots. I don't use Roman changes to discover roots, I judge Roman changes by their support from roots.
Since chrism and mashach are the same word in two different languages, whatever applies to one applies to the other unless there is cultural difference; but I don't know of significant Greek cultural addition to the Semitic concept. "The chrism was the word for the result of the process that produces the 'christ' or one who takes the chrism": yes, and that included the fleshly and the spiritual both.
A primary text on Sophia is Proverbs 8 and it indicates what it first meant long before Plato or anyone else commented, so as a primitive I go back to that. I also go back to much history to determine the right use of a sacrificial messiah (anointed) versus the abuse of the concept. Obviously if one is going to get chrism one gets dedicated to a sacrificial lifestyle in every scenario, so I don't see why chrism would speak against the sacrificial concept.
Thank you for linking the entire text of Jesus Christ: Sun of God (brief intro). David Fideler appears to be a Seneca-Adler stoic who approaches the subject by investigating philosophical strands, and it is not immediately clear that he comes to some conclusion that favors or disfavors any modern strand. I take book links seriously when I can, so I will continue to keep it open for thought. It doesn't seem to have much relation to OP and only a little relation to the concept of sharing of spirit.
So I appreciate your thoughts, but I'm not sure that there is anything for us to "debate", unless you wish to take a solid position on something. You seem to be answering u/guywholikesDjtof2024, who says there is no transmigration, by supplying the concept of gilgul instead when it is quite different and was only linked with transmigration much later. So a little historical clearing of definitions and data is all that is needed.
You seem to be coming to the rescue of one who failed. I was responding to someone who took a false position. I state the existence of eternal principles. That's a pretty solid position that renders guesses moot.
The A.I. style 'take' on Fiedler in place of the information provided is a tell.
So I'll let A.I. respond to the term 'gilgul'.
Gilgul (gilgul neshamot) is the Jewish concept of reincarnation, a cyclical process where a soul is reborn into new bodies to complete its tikun (rectification) and atone for past transgressions before reaching its ultimate spiritual level. This esoteric doctrine is central to Kabbalistic Judaism, particularly Hasidic Judaism, though it is not considered essential to traditional Judaism and was historically rejected by some prominent Jewish thinkers. The term originates from the Hebrew word for "wheel," reflecting the cyclical nature of the soul's journey.
Actually 'glagal' - (h(wei) - Circle/wheel/rotation association to Yahweh
https://communities.win/c/Unspoil/p/142AwNU9UH/unspoil-part-1-yahweh/c
https://scored.co/c/Christianity/p/141YkrZ2mH/testimony-13-feb-22/c.
You'd ridicule someone who said they'd 'take a look' at the bible and leave it open, but pretend to be able to understand and critique it anyway.
Now read the book so that where we go one, we go all.
Here is the nail in the coffin. Nothing else even matters. Here is the passage these reprobates are quoting to make the claim that Jews believed in reincarnation. They are starting with verse 14. Now watch how easy this is. Read verse 13. Now, who lived in Caesarea Philippi that Jesus is asking about? Pagans. Greek and Roman Pan worshipers for the most part. This wasn't a Jewish town.
This entire debate is over before it starts. As always when a retard tries to go against the Bible.
Matthew 16:13-16 (LSB Strong's) 13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, saying, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15 He *said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
You correctly appoint the resurrection confusion to the Canaanite religions, which is line of orthodox history...that is to say that the Canaanite sacrificial religions that Goliath represented was the actual continuation in the later Roman religion while the 'Line of David' was to represent gnosis. No, it isn't about an actual genetic line to a guy named David.
What is gnosis if not every person's experience including their judgment of reports of every other person's experience? If something is "secret", it can be revealed and tested; if it can't be revealed and tested, it isn't a thing. No gnostic ever succeeded in passing on his experience to another, every gnostic that we know of had a different take that none of his students ever took up the same way. So if gnosis is just individualism then there is no external standard by which experience can be tested. You do believe in subjecting gnosis to external tests, don't you?
You speak of 'things' as if they are the same as the principles behind them. Things can't be revealed and tested either, only 'beliefs about them' Principles are the source of both formation and information. They just ARE. "I AM". Feel free to test it. Test the info Fiedler reveals and get back to 'us'. But only after.
Is Ra El
Saving 'it' for last.
You are correct in that gnosis doesn't 'pass between' two people if one isn't gnostic. However, 'When two come together in my NAME, there am I."
What a moron.
Elijah, not Elisha. One of the biggest differences between pharisees and Sadducees is that Pharisees believed in resurrection. So you are just a flat out retard.
And Jesus asked His disciples what people were saying about him. Matthew 16:14-16 (LSB Strong's) 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15 He *said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
So who is even giving these answers about Elijah, etc? Don't you think we should know that? Was it Sadducees or Pharisees?
Now, watch this. Let's back up 1 verse. Matthew 16:13 (LSB Strong's) 13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, saying, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
Now, ask yourself. Were the people of Caesarea Phillippi Sadducees or Pharisees?
NEITHER. They weren't Jewish. They worshiped Pan. The people there were all part of Hellenistic and Roman cults. Mostly Pan worshipers.
Jews weren't the people being asked or answering. Jews did not believe in reincarnation. That's just dumb. Wow, you're dumb.
I may have inadvertantly transposed Elisha and Elijah, as to a certain 'story' reference? I don't know, I don't recall, if so, that is a clerical error if so and means zero, zilch, nothing ....is a diversion to the point..which was and still is, in the meaning of the names. And the characters were back-named by historians to account for the principle the names represent. . They were both 'AN Elisha/Elijah from different eras. and this is the deeper meaning to the statement: 'Some say you are (AN) Elisha' which proves that there also existed the belief in reincarnation as you admit when you say that the Pharisees believed. Which then counters your moronic attempt to discredit the same.
Why the term 'Son of Man' rather than 'Son of God'? Care to venture?
Re: "\Were the people of Caesarea Phillippi Sadducees or Pharisees? The people were the people with all their varieties of beliefs. That variety exemplified in the same tired in-fighting that plagues the region to this day. Phillip was Greek and Ceasarea the Roman continuation of his empire. The Helenized jew was never the same was he?
Re: 'They worshipped Pan'. What a moronic over-statement.
I'm sure many did end up 'worshipping' an idol called Pan, and all his subordinates due to the loss of the understanding of the deeper meaning and source for the myths. That same source that created the numeric and alphabetical systems and subsequent religious offshoots/imitations/. However, to understand Pan is to understand the principle behind.....yes even in, or especially in mythical character names (gods to the profane). Yes there was a profane class of 'believers' who sacrificed, and another elite class who understood the concepts for what they were. The book linked EXPLAINS in great detail, SPELLING IT OUT and showing the significance with Divine Geometry. Please attempt to shit on that by ignorance and see where it goes.
The vocabulary stolen, the characters becoming human and even god incarnating into a man, this is idolatrous anthropromorphism and you don't get to ride that beast in victory. This is partly how we got here. BAD RELIGION from blackhat magicians who fool all but the Elect. And how are the Elect determined? There would be a criteria. The inner sanctum is for the one who can 'take the bull by the horns'. B'aal is the god of religious denominations (numbers) AT THE TOP, same as it ever was. Q as 17, you don't know why.....and The Star....and you don't know why.....is Divine Inspiration ....and you don't know why. This is your savior in reality whether you accept or not and comes as AN Elisha/Elijah.....and you don't know why. You swallow the Roman hyperdispensation which is idolatrous anthropromorphism.
Until you accept the Great Awakening.
Transposing Elisha and Elijah means that you're not very talented or gifted and most likely slow.
Jesus uses a lot of titles. I am not here to explain to you why He uses Son of Man. Stop trying to change the subject.
No, the people of Caesarea Philippi were almost all pagan Romans and Greeks. You have no idea what you are talking about. You thought you were referring to Jews who were thinking that Jesus might be "Elisha."
Here is the thing. You haven't even demonstrated that these non-Jews didn't think that Jesus was Elijah resurrected. You just assume reincarnation for no reason other than your own bias. Because the passage doesn't mention reincarnation.
The entire town was a Pan worshiping town, dude. Jesus was in a Gentile town and he asked His disciples who these Gentile pan-worshiping pagans thought he was. The one thing they never claimed that he was, was reincarnated.
Take your well deserved L and learn from it. You can't climb out of this. Learn the LAW OF HOLES. Quit while you are way behind. It only gets worse for you, Squirt, I promise. Don't be one of those idiots who beats himself up on purpose.
A single instance of transposing to similar names would be understandable in any case whether it happened or not. I know the fucking difference peabrain. YOU. DON'T. Understand how they correspond by principle, shit for brains.
You assume I assume and I understand you to be a literalist assumer rather than a knower. You 'know' that I transposed two names inadvertantly and so you win a stupid prize right?
What do you win when you GET the point made because you haven't and won't.
Pan represented the head of the hierachy of pantheism, ....dude. In other words, he was the Zeus to the region and their lesser 'gods' also corresponded to the principles shared by other ancient religions, now lost on morons like yourself. The very KEY to understanding how all religions are deviations and can be brought back together over the actual principles they misrepresent to the detriment of all souls. This will be the Great Awakening, not a lulling back to sleep with idolatry.
How does this lame history lesson advance the would-be discussion on gnosis of principles? It sure doesn't. And your argument is dependent on your faulty view.
Have some bread and ichthys and be on your way. I'll provide, you can deny. That way we're in our proper place.
https://kupdf.net/download/jesus-christ-sun-of-god-ancient-cosmology-and-early-christian-symbolism-by-david-r-fideler-ocr_58a100e36454a7335db1eb87_pdf
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin.
That is only Resurrection, why do you believe that qualifies as reincanating at all?
You only get Ressurrected, you do not keep going into another body, and another body, and another.....
And you are only ever in a HUMAN body, you don't become an animal. This quote doesn't prove reincarnation real.
You might want to pray for understanding before you read comments because you are misunderstanding the relevance of those verses
So are you implying you don't have the ability to tell me the relevance of those verses or what?
What convinces you that praying will give me the answers? It is more likely that God will answer my prayer BY causing you to say what the relevance is.
Impossible to know which is correct, reincarnation does seem like the most viable, either way, OP is right about one thing. This is a farm of some sort and we are the fruit.
They wouldn't be trying so hard to make us have bad energy if it weren't of use to them.
This is all by SOMETHINGS design. Gotta be. Bible is written by man. Quaran written by man. All Indian and Egyptian texts, written by man, so nothing is fool-proof and nothing is trustworthy. It's ALL manipulation, which tracks, EVERY RELIGION, with this theory of farming bad emotion.
Who's responsible is what I want to know, or what?
https://youtu.be/vQN_DTqHNqo?si=F8x5HSu1IQV6xXYt
You ain't a has-been if you never was...
Bible has been altered many times plus didn't Jesus reincarnate and show himself in a new form?
No, reincarnation into an amnesic zygote is completely different from Jesus taking up his own flesh again. That flesh received immortality and that is why its form was different (1 Cor. 15); if it had been a different body then the original body would have been findable contrary to all testimony. Pretty important to consult majority historians on this point.
The original body was incinerated because the Sanhedrin were planning on humiliating it. If it was the original body they would have recognized him.
He changed his hair color and skin glow. Same as Moses did in the movie.
Ultimately, everything is filtered by human experience, which can't be trusted, so I can only trust the One who is able to speak clearly despite human experience.
All humanly experienced sources follow rules of evidence that have the same capacity for testing and rating. That also means they all have the same capacity to be manipulated by any powerful bloc (and there are many manipulating these sources. I would hate to disappoint you by looking into Sadler and finding Jewish eugenics money.
So when the UB says something accurate that checks out with other sources, good for it. If we trust that the God of the Universe is able to reward our search for truth, we fear no evil. If we don't trust him to work through those secondary causes, we stay in fear of the powerful.
To illustrate, on the OP point, proponents of transmigration remain hard-pressed on the same points as always (zero-sum game of a static universe, convenience of lethe as a gap explanation, etc.). Transmigration simply lacks the explanatory power of individuality of soul and gives no benefit (aside from shirking a little human responsibility) and many risks (sourcing). Further, the idea that we must prepare for a postmortem test that involves distrust and fear of loss seems to cast the wrong light on the present, and makes us like Book-of-Dead gamers that must memorize how to pass each illustrated obstacle in turn. So when we deal with those weaknesses we can then compare the explanatory power against other scenarios.
Give me an example of a Bible alteration regarding reincarnation. I dare you. The Bible has never had an alteration. Ever. 2 Peter 3:3-6 is talking about you.
Dude, I am not even going to try to decipher the babble you just spewed.
No, I am not going to go check out a bunch of websites.
I don't c are about a retarded and incorrect footnote in a defunked translation of the Bible, the NRSV. Footnotes AREN'T Scripture.
Dude, you really need to pray that you can repent and escape going to hell by turning to Jesus as your Savior. You're a crackpot pagan heathen.
Dude, you chose the right user name.
You provided zero examples of the Bible being altered. You merely lied. You are a Grade A Retard. You have just enough synapses firing to maintain breathing.
There was never a passage in the Bible in support of reincarnation. You are making a lot of claims and have no proof.
No literal crucifixion? Prove it.
But first you need to justify "knowledge" from your worldview, because I know that you can't. In other words, I don't believe your worldview can even explain how it is possible to know something for certain. For instance, you say there was no literal crucifixion, watch as I make a complete and blithering fool out of you by asking this one simple question, which you will NEVER be able to answer:
How do you know?
Notice my question isn't, "why do you think that?" You claim to KNOW it. I don't think you can justify knowledge of ANYTHING in your worldview. So you go ahead and answer my question, and watch how I predict RIGHT NOW that whatever answer you give, I can demonstrate that you never answered my question.
It’s been altered since about 400 AD.
70% of the book of revelations removed. Other 30% heavily altered. This is the most altered one because it revealed too much.
80% of Jesus messages removed because it taught people how to connect to God directly.
Old Testemant God personality altered to sound like a tyrant.
Book of Genesis is the 2nd most altered book. You can see that it says Cain was sent to the Land Of Nod (where Nodites live) after killing Abel. How did the Land of Nod exist if this was the first family? The cover up here was to block the memory of the terrible Lucifer rebellion era before Adam and Eve who were actually prophets here to take humanity to the next level but were misled by Satan not into eating the fruit but into mating with humans directly. The bloodline mix was forbidden. Eve’s son with the human Kano was named Cain. Adam heard Eve made that mistake and thought she would be removed so he did it too so he would be removed with her.
These are the heaviest alterations.
None of the book of Revelation has been removed, which is why you can't demonstrate that.
It is called REVELATION not REVELATIONS. Sheesh dude. What an epic fail.
God doesn't sound like a tyrant in the Old Testament, you moron. God is no different in the Old Testament than in the new.
The Book of Genesis doesn't say anything about Nodites. There is no such thing as Nodites. You sound like a Mormon and their Nephites and Lamenites. What a fail.
No one knows where you got this garbage, but it sure wasn't the Bible. Nodites. Retarded, dude. Epic, super fail.
There has never been a single discovery of a single ancient Scriptural manuscript that has EVER shown a single example of Bible altering. The only changes are scribal errors which can normally be tracked down. They are always minor, like the forgetting of a punctuation or something like that. And because so many copies were made all over the place, these errors stand out like a sore thumb and we avoid putting them into translations.
Minus the one comment from Erasmus that accidentally got left in the Textus Receptus and thus is also in the King James Version.
How did the Land of Nod exist? Easy. God made it. Without any Nodites in it. Just like Antarctica doesn't have any Antarctites in it. What a moron.
There was no Lucifer rebellion era before Adam and Eve. Dude do you ride a unicorn stage coach to your elementary school, driven by a Leprechaun?
You are going to be damned to the deepest of deep hells if you don't repent and turn to Christ as your Savior.
We already know the longer ending of Mark isn't Scriptural and doesn't belong. Same with the Pericope Adulterae. Knowing this means no alteration was made. You're going to have to choose a passage that everyone thinks is actually in the Bible and is in every ancient manuscript, which is 99.999% of the Bible, and show that it was altered.
The problem is sourcing. All your insider jawboning comes from sources that can't be verified, are sus, and are part of an agenda to change perception away from what has already been working on earth. Until you come to grips with your reliance on and your trust in your sources and consider the possibility that they are feeding you a little poison along with their narrative, you won't be able to think critically about them.
Death is not merger; NDE analysis shows people don't consistently experience what they "expect"; there is no continuity of personhood or "you" if memory is wiped clean so the connecting of a "you" with another "you" is nonfalsifiable (identity means continuity); we don't need Book-of-Dead rules for beating the ultimate boss after death because we can beat him before death and have no trouble after. But those things are irrelevant unless there is agreement on sourcing so as to determine truth best. Because I could just write another 2,000 pages and become the next source and why would I be any more trustworthy than the last?
The problem he has is also reading comprehension. The very passage he is pointing to says that the people who thought Jesus was Elijah, etc. were pagans.
What source can be verified according to you? CNN? Wikepidea? College textbooks? Which one of these Zionist machinations should we trust?
This is off topic, Brain. Would you like analysis of how the 11 textually marked divisions of Genesis demonstrate oral tradition reasonably attributable to eyewitnesses who successfully passed that tradition down unbroken until a final written form? As with all my data, I rely on evidence. If you are interested, please invite me to a separate post on the subject.
A moment ago you said you were done talking about YEC and my point that all science agreed on it for millennia until the new weeds of the 19th century, and that scientists today are still unsettled. My starting point, as I showed in my post to atheists, is existence followed by reason, and I build from those toward special revelation; but evolutionists' starting point is their materialism and denial of intelligence beyond themselves and they cannot sway from that presupposition, so they oddly are more subject to the criticism you raise against me. But let's please take up that subject in the linked thread or elsewhere as it's not about OP at all.
Yes, and I think what you are saying is that the 11 toledots in Genesis point to 11 different authors. I contend that God wrote Genesis 1 - 2:3, Adam wrote starting from 2:4, and so on. I think Noah had the Genesis 1-5, maybe part of 6 on the Ark and wrote some more of it on the Ark and afterwards.
Exactly right.
Yeah. I don't know how anyone ever determined that Moses wrote Genesis. Moses never claimed he did, and yet he claimed to have written the other 4 books of the Torah. And all 11 sections of Genesis separated by toledots all are written in different manners, just as if different people wrote them.