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.
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.