Religion

[deepthought]

Religion

I was aware of it, It is alluded to by Gardner in his books.

I am about to order a translation of the dead sea scrolls, something the catholic church have tried to keep hidden in their vaults since they were discovered.

 

[StarLord]

Religion

Better yet, go see if you can find the Book of Moses, read it and let me know why you think the church took it out.

 

[deepthought]

Religion

Did you know Moses was Tutankhamun's Grandson?

 

[deepthought]

Religion

Without reading the book, I suggest it's omission was due to the fact that Moses was a master of the ancient Craft, and knew the real power of Gold, His temple, on Mount Sinai at Serabit el-Khadim, was used to manufacture the monatomic gold powder used by the ancients as a food supplement and as a superconductor.

The Church would not want the public to know that Church religion was a pack of lies written by themselves. It was designed to keep them in power, and in the style to which they had become accustomed.

Ancient knowledge and wisdom had to be suppressed at all costs, hence the destruction of the ancient library of Alexander the Great at Carthage.

Fortuneatly much of the knowledge has survived in ancient stone and clay tablets
unearthed in Iraq and Egypt in the last 200 years.

What a surprise that the good old US of A want so much influence there!

 

[StarLord]

Religion

Sadly not enough of that knowledge deepthought. Destroying the library at Alexandria set medicine back a thousand years. They only other peoples that had that much lore in natural medicine were the Chinese and aborigines in Australia and the indians of the Amazon.

And your right about keeping truth hidden at all costs, for to buck the system of deceit meant instant death. Thus the begining and propagation of the Mystery Schools. You could still find enlightenment, but the price was very high.
Pythagoras was just such a Master. He was forced to couch truth in the midst of mundane seeming knowkedge

Upon reading the book of Moses, at first glance it resembles a Grimoire or something from a black mass missal, chock full of runes, glyphs and seals.
Of course, anything that the church didn't understand was immediately destroyed and branded satanic or evil.

Those jolly boys during the spanish inquisition sure were hospitable werent they?
And all in the name of God. Now isn't that progressive?

 

[deepthought]

Religion

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition"

I think the Church understood the ancient ways only too well, but were not skilled in the ways, so they had to suppress the knowledge.

Speaking of medicine being put back, are you aware of the work of Dr Royal Rife?

Another Political (Pharmaceutical) cover up!

It makes you want to puke!! :angry:

 

[Phoenix]

Religion

http://www.rife.org/

Since the 30's there have been many books, articles and newspapers published concerning Rife's Research on Cancer and other diseases. Most of his lab notes have long been forgotten about, destroyed or kept under lock and key by a few individuals. These people, for their own selfish reasons, are unwilling to share them with the world. We are not here to debate whether or not Rife's many years and long hours of research in his lab reveal the truth or not. We offer this web site only for you to read and view what individuals have located in the last 10 years' of doing research. It is up to you as an individual to look at the facts and decide for yourself if there is any truth here.

Eight years ago, I started collecting everything I could find about Rife. What you see here is the work of about 8 different people from all over the world who have managed to locate and share what you see on this website with the world. If you have any Rife related material and would like to have it shared on this website, please send it to us. We will gladly list your name as a supporter of this website.

 

[StarLord]

Religion

I have mentioned this before in another thread but I will repeat it now that we are dealing with the church. Jesus was a follower of the early judaic path.

He had nothing to do with christanity what so ever as that path came after he checked out of the physical plane. His early history is pretty well documented and not much of it was messed with if you can read through the lines. At about the age of 17 or 18 (not exact) he went on a journey to an ancient monastery in the Tibetan mountains and learned under Masters that taught a spiritual way of life that has been around for thousands of years before Jesus was born. Jesus stayed there learning for about 15 to 16 years and then he went to India to further himself upon the spiritual path and for some reason the Bramans kicked him out of India.

Perhaps challenging folks on their own spiritual mores may not be an effective modus operandi to teaching others, even if your right in your personal viewpoint.

From there Jesus returned to the land of his birth and began teaching. His sole goal was to raise the consciousness of the people he came across but he was hampered by having to use the technique of teaching in parables due to the state of consciousness of those people at that time period.

Much like puppets / puppetry, stories or parables bypass the ego and most times pass right to the heart of the listener as the brain is too engrossed in the visual or mental pictures to realize the import of the information and the automatic censors don't kick in and adulterate or obliterate the actual heart of the information.

The term Christ has but one meaning. Christ refers to a certain type of consciousness, it is not a person, it is a way of thinking, it is a specific mental space much the same way as was typtified in the movie Caddy Shack when Ty is training the young caddie on how to putt... "Be The Ball".

When speaking about the mansion or "My Fathers mansion has many rooms" Jesus was refering to the higher planes of consciousness that we all have the ability to visit while still alive, most of us do from time to time and it is quite possible we are not even aware of it when it happens.

In this specific point the church really pulled a fast one. Rather than be a vehicle for their followers upliftment, as they knew that eventually once enlightenment was gained, and the follower would progress on their own, the church repressed all information and rewrote the collection of books to suit it's own purpose and to insure a steadfast congregation of sheep by the use of Fear. Fear of being: responsible for the death of a "savior" that died to clean all your sins away. Fear of being responsible for the "Origional Sin" that involved the very first people. Fear of the unknown "afterlife" "But hey!! if you follow us we will gaurantee you everlasting life". Boy, talk about a wopper lie there.

The church cornered the market of fear by introducing the concept of SIN. There is no such thing as sin, we either learn from the experience and go on from that point or we do not and life forces oueselves to repeat the experience in hopes that we realize what the particular experience has to offer us and we do not have to repeat it again. We certainly can not be responsible for the actions of others as you cannot pay for the karma of other people, JUST as other people can not pay or work out the karma that we have created. Nobody can die "for you" and aleviate your personal karmic debt to yourself and to others.

Think about it, what would be the sense of having experiences necessary for your personal enfoldment taken away from you. It would be like missing three years of your academic experience in college. Sooner or later that gap in experience, thus knowledge would hinder you in your life and possibly your decision process.

The Soul is eternal. PERIOD. We are going to live forever regardless of what spiritual path we follow and Jesus spoke directly about reincarnation and the fact that real death is pretty much impossible, the church really went all out to cover that info up. The also missed a few places in in those books where it talks about reincarnation. If I am not mistaken John the Baptist was alluded to have reincarnated, can't be sure thought it's been a long time since I have read from there, but I digress.

The more you search about other paths of knowledge or spirutality, you come to recognize their individual 'diamonds' or roots of their teachings and you are able to see parallels among them.

No one has a patent on salvation or enlightment except yourself. Each one of us has our own path that we must follow. Sometimes we can use others experiences as a ruler or guide post to measure by, but chances are we may have to experience something quite differently also. The fact that one places that spiritual foot on the path and keeps on walking. is all that matters. As far as 'organized' religion goes, if it works for you stay with it, all fine and well, if not, then you know what needs to be done.

If we were brutally honest with ourselves and tried to answer the question about what we know of God, the answer would have to be "all I know of God is what I do not know about God"

 

[Phoenix]

Religion

This is an anti-reincarnationist quote. I actually believe in reincarnation, but I also believe in getting facts straight. I look forward to responses to the following.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Reincarnation.asp

Reincarnation


Members of what is commonly called the \"New Age\" movement often claim that early Christians believed in reincarnation. Shirley MacLaine, an avid New Age disciple, recalls being taught: \"The theory of reincarnation is recorded in the Bible. But the proper interpretations were struck from it during an ecumenical council meeting of the Catholic Church in Constantinople sometime around A.D. 553, called the Council of Nicaea [sic]\" (Out on a Limb, 234?35).

Historical facts provide no basis for this claim. In fact, there was no Council of Nicaea in A.D. 553. Further, the two ecumenical councils of Nicaea (A.D. 325 and A.D. 787) took place in the city of Nicaea (hence their names)?and neither dealt with reincarnation. What did take place in A.D. 553 was the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. But records from this Council show that it, too, did not address the subject of reincarnation. None of the early councils did.

The closest the Second Council of Constantinople came to addressing reincarnation was, in one sentence, to condemn Origen, an early Church writer who believed souls exist in heaven before coming to earth to be born. New Agers confuse this belief in the preexistence of the soul with reincarnation and claim that Origen was a reincarnationist. Actually, he was one of the most prolific early writers against reincarnation! Because he is so continually misrepresented by New Agers, we have included a number of his quotes below, along with passages from other sources, all of which date from before A.D. 553, when the doctrine of reincarnation was supposedly \"taken out of the Bible.\"

The origin of Shirley MacLaine?s mistaken notion that Origen taught reincarnation is probably Reincarnation in Christianity, by Geddes MacGregor?a book published by the Theosophical Publishing House in 1978. The author speculates that Origen?s texts written in support of the belief in reincarnation somehow disappeared or were suppressed. Admitting he has no evidence, MacGregor nonetheless asserts: \"I am convinced he taught reincarnation in some form\" (58). You may judge from the passages below whether this seems likely.



Irenaeus


\"We may undermine [the Hellenists?] doctrine as to transmigration from body to body by this fact?that souls remember nothing whatever of the events which took place in their previous states of existence. For if they were sent forth with this object, that they should have experience of every kind of action, they must of necessity retain a remembrance of those things which have been previously accomplished, that they might fill up those in which they were still deficient, and not by always hovering, without intermission, through the same pursuits, spend their labor wretchedly in vain. . . . With reference to these objections, Plato . . . attempted no kind of proof, but simply replied dogmatically that when souls enter into this life they are caused to drink of oblivion by that demon who watches their entrance, before they effect an entrance into the bodies. It escaped him that he fell into another, greater perplexity. For if the cup of oblivion, after it has been drunk, can obliterate the memory of all the deeds that have been done, how, O Plato, do you obtain the knowledge of this fact . . . ?\" (Against Heresies 2:33:1?2 [A.D. 189]).



Tertullian


\"Come now, if some philosopher affirms, as Laberius holds, following an opinion of Pythagoras, that a man may have his origin from a mule, a serpent from a woman, and with skill of speech twists every argument to prove his view, will he not gain an acceptance for it [among the pagans], and work in some conviction that on account of this, they should abstain from eating animal food? May anyone have the persuasion that he should abstain, lest, by chance, in his beef he eats some ancestor of his? But if a Christian promises the return of a man from a man, and the very actual Gaius [resurrected] from Gaius . . . they will not . . . grant him a hearing. If there is any ground for the moving to and fro of human souls into different bodies, why may they not return to the very matter they have left . . . ?\" (Apology 48 [A.D. 197]).



Origen


\"[Scripture says] ?And they asked him, \"What then? Are you Elijah?\" and he said, \"I am not\"? [John 1:21]. No one can fail to remember in this connection what Jesus says of John: ?If you will receive it, this is Elijah, who is to come? [Matt. 11:14]. How then does John come to say to those who ask him, ?Are you Elijah????I am not?? . . . One might say that John did not know that he was Elijah. This will be the explanation of those who find in our passage a support for their doctrine of reincarnation, as if the soul clothed itself in a fresh body and did not quite remember its former lives. . . . [H]owever, a churchman, who repudiates the doctrine of reincarnation as a false one and does not admit that the soul of John was ever Elijah, may appeal to the above-quoted words of the angel, and point out that it is not the soul of Elijah that is spoken of at John?s birth, but the spirit and power of Elijah\" (Commentary on John 6:7 [A.D. 229]).

\"As for the spirits of the prophets, these are given to them by God and are spoken of as being in a manner their property [slaves], as ?The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets? [1 Cor. 14:32] and ?The spirit of Elijah rested upon Elisha? [2 Kgs. 2:15]. Thus, it is said, there is nothing absurd in supposing that John, ?in the spirit and power of Elijah,? turned the hearts of the fathers to the children and that it was on account of this spirit that he was called ?Elijah who is to come?\" (ibid.).

\"If the doctrine [of reincarnation] was widely current, ought not John to have hesitated to pronounce upon it, lest his soul had actually been in Elijah? And here our churchman will appeal to history, and will bid his antagonists [to] ask experts of the secret doctrines of the Hebrews if they do really entertain such a belief. For if it should appear that they do not, then the argument based on that supposition is shown to be quite baseless\" (ibid.).

\"Someone might say, however, that Herod and some of those of the people held the false dogma of the transmigration of souls into bodies, in consequence of which they thought that the former John had appeared again by a fresh birth, and had come from the dead into life as Jesus. But the time between the birth of John and the birth of Jesus, which was not more than six months, does not permit this false opinion to be considered credible. And perhaps rather some such idea as this was in the mind of Herod, that the powers which worked in John had passed over to Jesus, in consequence of which he was thought by the people to be John the Baptist. And one might use the following line of argument: Just as because the spirit and the power of Elijah, and not because of his soul, it is said about John, ?This is Elijah who is to come? [Matt. 11:14] . . . so Herod thought that the powers in John?s case worked in him works of baptism and teaching?for John did not do one miracle [John 10:41]?but in Jesus [they worked] miraculous portents\" (Commentary on Matthew 10:20 [A.D. 248]).

\"Now the Canaanite woman, having come, worshipped Jesus as God, saying, ?Lord, help me,? but he answered and said, ?It is not possible to take the children?s bread and cast it to the little dogs.? . . . [O]thers, then, who are strangers to the doctrine of the Church, assume that souls pass from the bodies of men into the bodies of dogs, according to their varying degree of wickedness; but we . . . do not find this at all in the divine Scripture\" (ibid., 11:17).

\"In this place [when Jesus said Elijah was come and referred to John the Baptist] it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I fall into the doctrine of transmigration, which is foreign to the Church of God, and not handed down by the apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the scriptures\" (ibid., 13:1).

...

\"But if . . . the Greeks, who introduce the doctrine of transmigration, laying down things in harmony with it, do not acknowledge that the world is coming to corruption, it is fitting that when they have looked the scriptures straight in the face which plainly declare that the world will perish, they should either disbelieve them or invent a series of arguments in regard to the interpretation of things concerning the consummation; which even if they wish they will not be able to do\" (ibid.).



Arnobius


\"[M]an?s real death [is] when souls which know not God shall be consumed in long-protracted torment with raging fire, into which certain fiercely cruel beings shall cast them. . . . Wherefore, there is no reason that [one] should mislead us, should hold our vain hopes to us, which some men say is unheard of till now, and carried away by an extravagant opinion of themselves, that souls are immortal, next in point of rank to the God and ruler of the world, descended from that Parent and Sire. . . . [And] while we are moving swiftly down toward our mortal bodies, causes pursue us from the world?s circles, through the working of which we become bad?aye, most wicked . . . [and] that the souls of wicked men, on leaving their human bodies, pass into cattle and other creatures\" (Against the Pagans 2:14?15 [A.D. 305]).



Lactantius


\"What of Pythagoras, who was first called a philosopher, who judged that souls were indeed immortal, but that they passed into other bodies, either of cattle or of birds or of beasts? Would it not have been better that they should be destroyed, together with their bodies, than thus to be condemned to pass into the bodies of other animals? Would it not be better not to exist at all than, after having had the form of a man, to live as a swine or a dog? And the foolish man, to gain credit for his saying, said that he himself had been Euphorbus in the Trojan war, and that when he had been slain he passed into other figures of animals, and at last became Pythagoras. O happy man!?to whom alone so great a memory was given! Or rather unhappy, who when changed into a sheep was not permitted to be ignorant of what he was! And would to heaven that he [Pythagoras] alone had been thus senseless!\" (Epitome of the Divine Institutes 36 [A.D. 317]).



Gregory of Nyssa


\"f one should search carefully, he will find that their doctrine is of necessity brought down to this. They tell us that one of their sages said that he, being one and the same person, was born a man, and afterward assumed the form of a woman, and flew about with the birds, and grew as a bush, and obtained the life of an aquatic creature?and he who said these things of himself did not, so far as I can judge, go far from the truth, for such doctrines as this?of saying that one should pass through many changes?are really fitting for the chatter of frogs or jackdaws or the stupidity of fishes or the insensibility of trees\" (The Making of Man 28:3 [A.D. 379]).



Ambrose of Milan


\"It is a cause for wonder that though they [the heathen] . . . say that souls pass and migrate into other bodies. . . . But let those who have not been taught doubt [the resurrection]. For us who have read the law, the prophets, the apostles, and the gospel, it is not lawful to doubt\" (Belief in the Resurrection 65?66 [A.D. 380]).

\"But is their opinion preferable who say that our souls, when they have passed out of these bodies, migrate into the bodies of beasts or of various other living creatures? . . . For what is so like a marvel as to believe that men could have been changed into the forms of beasts? How much greater a marvel, however, would it be that the soul which rules man should take on itself the nature of a beast so opposed to that of man, and being capable of reason should be able to pass over to an irrational animal, than that the form of the body should have been changed?\" (ibid., 127).



John Chrysostom


\"As for doctrines on the soul, there is nothing excessively shameful that they [the disciples of Plato and Pythagoras] have left unsaid, asserting that the souls of men become flies and gnats and bushes and that God himself is a [similar] soul, with some other the like indecencies. . . . At one time he says that the soul is of the substance of God; at another, after having exalted it thus immoderately and impiously, he exceeds again in a different way, and treats it with insult, making it pass into swine and asses and other animals of yet less esteem than these\" (Homilies on John 2:3, 6 [A.D. 391]).



Basil the Great


\"[A]void the nonsense of those arrogant philosophers who do not blush to liken their soul to that of a dog, who say that they have themselves formerly been women, shrubs, or fish. Have they ever been fish? I do not know, but I do not fear to affirm that in their writings they show less sense than fish\" (The Six Days? Work 8:2 [A.D. 393]).

 

[StarLord]

Religion

Please don't take this the wrong way Phoenix, but when you barrage a thread with all those quotes regardless of how you feel or think it strikes me as being disconcerting. We all know there are both sides to a coin, and it makes no sense having to lug all those "proofs" from the other side of the coin.

Point is, What Do You Believe And Why??

I would much prefer to hear / read what comes from your brain not what you can repeat from others. Just my Humble Opinion.

Playing the devils advocate has it's place and time and can be useful, at other times it can be down right distracting to a train of thought. Parroting others thoughts and viewpoints, while on one hand as a point of validity has its place, it can also be destructive as it can obfuscate the underlying theme of discussion and cause a tremendous waste of time and effort in useless diatribe.

What you have presented are other peoples historical OPINIONS, not Facts.

Bottom line, What do YOU think Phoenix?