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.
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.
I don't know that I'd ridicule someone who wants to take a look at the Bible and leave it open, I've recently said that the one who truly leaves it open is not yet to be judged.
I don't see a failure here, I see a difference of terms. Guy says there is no reincarnation meaning transmigration as in OP. You say there was a concept in Judaism that we now call reincarnation and it has to do with Elijah's transference to Elisha (when they were both contemporary adults). Nobody's contradicting one another there. I think I've affirmed you on the essentials of eternal principles, while pointing out the occasional adjustment, but you might not be receiving what I say as affirmation for some reason that can be explored.
I gave you a quick take on Fideler (spelling) to let you know I'm sincere about looking more into it as you ask. I bring presuppositions to a text so that they can be tested, and here I politely inform you that my presupposition is that it comes from stoicism and impartiality and so is unlikely to communicate a special gnosis to me that you seem to find in it. But I look forward to being pleasantly surprised.
Yes, modern gilgul is a bit rarefied from 1st-century gilgul and was not universal to Judaism at any time. More to your point, gilgul is also Golgotha (a skull being a wheel of the body).
So I will indeed review the book in the time I have and it will come up again. But if there's something specific you think needs debate (Guy has sometimes seen that there is when I haven't), then let me know.
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."