Anyone watch "the Jesus strand"

[ArmyMatt]

The evidence is subtle; cause to understand what i mean, you'd have to compare Paul and Peter with John, Mathew, Marcus and Lucas....
but still something can be deduced from the New Testament which shows that those two men's interests were not similar or close to the other four men. Those two quotes are from an article i found online that hints at the same point we're discussing.

"...The New Testament often portrays Peter as rash and headstrong. One minute, he is a paragon of faith; the next, he has completely misunderstood what Jesus wants. He frequently does not seem to get what is going on, and he even denies Jesus when Jesus is about to be executed..."

This kinda explains why Jesus compared him to 'a rock' contrary to the common understanding that the comparison refers to Peter's works as being the solid ground that Christianity was built on.

"...Scripture introduces Paul as a violent persecutor of the first Christians. In fact, he oversees the execution of the man whom the Acts of the Apostles depicts as the first martyr, St. Stephen (Acts 7:58-8:1). He considers himself a late addition to the Jesus movement, referring to himself as “one untimely born” (1 Cor 15:8)..."

In other words, both displayed clear interest in a political aspect of Christianity as a movement more so than as a universal message of peace and love.

well, that is not a necessary corellation. Peter being headstrong and Paul being a late addition don't mean they have political agendas. plus, Paul is the one who gives us great definitions of what love is. and if your beef is with going against Gnostics, then why not add John? he actually calls out a Gnostic sect in Revelation and is clearly anti-Gnostic?

do you have any hard evidence that actually supports your claim? because this is very vague.

 

[Chadi B. Ghaith]

Well, conventionally a Druze would not reveal anything from the 'Hikma' texts, but I will. As I said, my evidence is Druze-based. In the Hikma text, there is said to be 24 men known as the Letters of Deceit. Those men have come in every day and age (in countless reincarnations and names) since ancient Atlantis and across the Adamic cycle to suppress any spirit of change carried on by a new messenger of God. There names are top secret and i've only ever seen a hint at them in a Masonic book named 'The Book of Truth'. Cain was one of them, and they come in pairs (male and female energies without necessarily in reference to their gender). For example, The Devil is a male energy (his work is directly evil and pronounced). Satanaku (Satan) is a female energy (his work is indirect, more subtle and not pronounced).
Now, if i were to expose the names of those 24 across history, I may put myself in danger, cause many of those names are worshipped by masses from the main religions. All, I can say for now is that knowing those names in across their countless reincarnations has been like a road map for the True Gnostic to understand who's message to absorb and whose to filter out. I will not say anything more with regards to Paul and Peter.
I respect all religions and do not ever see a point in convincing or proving anything to any one. Yet, i reserve the right to believe in what makes sense to me, and reject what doesn't.
A common characteristic of the Letters of Deceit is that they always are concerned with the ritualistic and ceremonial body of any given message as they attempt to camouflage the spiritual core of it and divert attention from it.
Jesus came with a message of Love and Peace to humanity. I don't think if he's alive today as Jesus he would approve of the external body of Christianity. In fact, he may be alienated by it.
One of the main reasons the Doctrine of Reincarnation was rejected by the Nicean council and its traces were removed from the bible is cause if you believe in it, there is no longer any point to pay allegiance to the church or any superior power to reserve you a place in heaven. If you believe in reincarnation, then you know you're going no where up there. You're coming back to pay your wrongs through karma. There is no heaven to reserve a seat in, or hell to avoid. Heaven and Hell are metaphors for a state of existence you will experience here on earth.
From here, there is no logic to a mediator between you and your destiny or afterlife. There is no escape from your actions through any ritualistic act.
Can you see the logic behind removing such a doctrine from the bible?!!
I know i may have diverted bit from the main point, but i hope you could see where its all coming to.
Again, anything in reference to Peter and Paul is strictly Druze-related and there may be no clear evidence of the kind you're asking for outside the Druze teachings.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well, conventionally a Druze would not reveal anything from the 'Hikma' texts, but I will. As I said, my evidence is Druze-based. In the Hikma text, there is said to be 24 men known as the Letters of Deceit. Those men have come in every day and age (in countless reincarnations and names) since ancient Atlantis and across the Adamic cycle to suppress any spirit of change carried on by a new messenger of God. There names are top secret and i've only ever seen a hint at them in a Masonic book named 'The Book of Truth'. Cain was one of them, and they come in pairs (male and female energies without necessarily in reference to their gender). For example, The Devil is a male energy (his work is directly evil and pronounced). Satanaku (Satan) is a female energy (his work is indirect, more subtle and not pronounced).
Now, if i were to expose the names of those 24 across history, I may put myself in danger, cause many of those names are worshipped by masses from the main religions. All, I can say for now is that knowing those names in across their countless reincarnations has been like a road map for the True Gnostic to understand who's message to absorb and whose to filter out. I will not say anything more with regards to Paul and Peter.
I respect all religions and do not ever see a point in convincing or proving anything to any one. Yet, i reserve the right to believe in what makes sense to me, and reject what doesn't.
A common characteristic of the Letters of Deceit is that they always are concerned with the ritualistic and ceremonial body of any given message as they attempt to camouflage the spiritual core of it and divert attention from it.
Jesus came with a message of Love and Peace to humanity. I don't think if he's alive today as Jesus he would approve of the external body of Christianity. In fact, he may be alienated by it.
One of the main reasons the Doctrine of Reincarnation was rejected by the Nicean council and its traces were removed from the bible is cause if you believe in it, there is no longer any point to pay allegiance to the church or any superior power to reserve you a place in heaven. If you believe in reincarnation, then you know you're going no where up there. You're coming back to pay your wrongs through karma. There is no heaven to reserve a seat in, or hell to avoid. Heaven and Hell are metaphors for a state of existence you will experience here on earth.
From here, there is no logic to a mediator between you and your destiny or afterlife. There is no escape from your actions through any ritualistic act.
Can you see the logic behind removing such a doctrine from the bible?!!
I know i may have diverted bit from the main point, but i hope you could see where its all coming to.
Again, anything in reference to Peter and Paul is strictly Druze-related and there may be no clear evidence of the kind you're asking for outside the Druze teachings.

and what evidence is there that Christ taught reincarnation?

 

[Chadi B. Ghaith]

and what evidence is there that Christ taught reincarnation?

If the whole council of Nicea was focused on removing such evidence, how much evidence you'd think would survive?!!
However, the following is an excerpt from the bible that is mentioned in el-Hikma texts as a proof of reincarnation that seems to have skipped the council:

'...But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognise him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands..." Matthew 17:12

According to the Druze doctrines Elijah is the reincarnation of John the Baptist; and this quote hints at this truth.
Have done to him everything they wished = severed John's head = in the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.
The Druze visit the shrine of Elijah in Syria regularly and consider it holy due to their knowledge that he is himself John the Baptist (one of the sacred five men symbolised by their star).

 

[ArmyMatt]

If the whole council of Nicea was focused on removing such evidence, how much evidence you'd think would survive?!!
However, the following is an excerpt from the bible that is mentioned in el-Hikma texts as a proof of reincarnation that seems to have skipped the council:

'...But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognise him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands..." Matthew 17:12

According to the Druze doctrines Elijah is the reincarnation of John the Baptist; and this quote hints at this truth.
Have done to him everything they wished = severed John's head = in the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.
The Druze visit the shrine of Elijah in Syria regularly and consider it holy due to their knowledge that he is himself John the Baptist (one of the sacred five men symbolised by their star).

well, Nicaea did not deal with reincarnation, that wasn't even on the radar. plus Elijah never died, you can't be reincarnated if you never died.

 

[Chadi B. Ghaith]

well, Nicaea did not deal with reincarnation, that wasn't even on the radar. plus Elijah never died, you can't be reincarnated if you never died.

What is your proof that Nicea did not deal with reincarnation?!! How could you be so sure about what was removed from the bible if it has been removed?!!

If you're basing your statement on historical accounts, then i sure hope you don't trust the pen of the historian; cz only those who win the battles get to write the history.
I know this from what is written about the Druze. There is not one online site or historical account today that contains authentic information about them.
The only historical fact about The Council of Nicea that can be trusted is that it happened and that it removed important material from the original scriptures and that Constantine's involvement in it hints at a political agenda more so than spiritual.

As for Elijah. He was a man (who eats and sleeps and dies) and so was Jesus Christ. Being Adamic doesn't make someone less sacred or less holy. As a matter of fact, the idea that sacred men are angels and imperishable is so Devil-inspired, cause he was the one who originally protested God's choice to place his holy secret in the Adamic mold.
To the Devil, Adam was too frail of a mold (since he eats, sleeps and dies) to be accepted for the greatness that the Devil imagines Godhood as; and thus, the Devil embarked on a Journey to prove God wrong in his choice by targeting the Adamic image through wars, weapons, diseases and you name it.
He inspired all forms of atrocities against the Adamic image (against humanity), made the world seems too harsh and unwelcoming for goodness or good people to exist in (in flesh and bones), inspired a whole philosophy of a heaven up in the skies to divert people's vision and attention from earth while he loots its resources, built huge solid temples in depiction of divinity to make humans feel small and helpless (ignoring the most sacred temple in existence which is the human form - God's Choice) and last but not least mocked any message of divinity expressed through the human form; and this is why Jesus was challenged to perform miracles so that they believe in him, rejected by many and put to the cross (to show the world how weak is the human form for such big claims of divinity).
Did the passion of Christ make him less divine?!! Did his apparent weakness and vulnerability on the cross make him less important?!! So why would death make him less of who he is?!!
Reincarnation is not and was never a doctrine, its a logical necessity. The soul has no way to express any state-of-existence without its vehicle (the body). There is no way a soul can even be punished in 'hell' or rewarded in 'heaven' without the vehicle of sensation that translates the meanings of punishment and reward.
Reincarnation doesn't force one to envision an afterlife which one has no evidence or idea of; it simply asks you to envision an afterlife in the same form of existence (in a body) that you have the most idea and evidence of (in the same way you exist here and now).
Why has this forbidden simplicity been so hard to accept?!! Because of how much artificial historical effort has been put to prove it wrong by presenting and promoting and marketing 1000s of alternative scenarios of the afterlife. Do not think reincarnation has came to be the belief of the minorities in this world by accident.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What is your proof that Nicea did not deal with reincarnation?!! How could you be so sure about what was removed from the bible if it has been removed?!!

If you're basing your statement on historical accounts, then i sure hope you don't trust the pen of the historian; cz only those who win the battles get to write the history.
I know this from what is written about the Druze. There is not one online site or historical account today that contains authentic information about them.
The only historical fact about The Council of Nicea that can be trusted is that it happened and that it removed important material from the original scriptures and that Constantine's involvement in it hints at a political agenda more so than spiritual.

As for Elijah. He was a man (who eats and sleeps and dies) and so was Jesus Christ. Being Adamic doesn't make someone less sacred or less holy. As a matter of fact, the idea that sacred men are angels and imperishable is so Devil-inspired, cause he was the one who originally protested God's choice to place his holy secret in the Adamic mold.
To the Devil, Adam was too frail of a mold (since he eats, sleeps and dies) to be accepted for the greatness that the Devil imagines Godhood as; and thus, the Devil embarked on a Journey to prove God wrong in his choice by targeting the Adamic image through wars, weapons, diseases and you name it.
He inspired all forms of atrocities against the Adamic image (against humanity), made the world seems too harsh and unwelcoming for goodness or good people to exist in (in flesh and bones), inspired a whole philosophy of a heaven up in the skies to divert people's vision and attention from earth while he loots its resources, built huge solid temples in depiction of divinity to make humans feel small and helpless (ignoring the most sacred temple in existence which is the human form - God's Choice) and last but not least mocked any message of divinity expressed through the human form; and this is why Jesus was challenged to perform miracles so that they believe in him, rejected by many and put to the cross (to show the world how weak is the human form for such big claims of divinity).
Did the passion of Christ make him less divine?!! Did his apparent weakness and vulnerability on the cross make him less important?!! So why would death make him less of who he is?!!
Reincarnation is not and was never a doctrine, its a logical necessity. The soul has no way to express any state-of-existence without its vehicle (the body). There is no way a soul can even be punished in 'hell' or rewarded in 'heaven' without the vehicle of sensation that translates the meanings of punishment and reward.
Reincarnation doesn't force one to envision an afterlife which one has no evidence or idea of; it simply asks you to envision an afterlife in the same form of existence (in a body) that you have the most idea and evidence of (in the same way you exist here and now).
Why has this forbidden simplicity been so hard to accept?!! Because of how much artificial historical effort has been put to prove it wrong by presenting and promoting and marketing 1000s of alternative scenarios of the afterlife. Do not think reincarnation has came to be the belief of the minorities in this world by accident.

so, aside from the ending rant that makes no sense, you are basically saying that your ultra secret history is trustworthy, yet ours isn't, and you have not why that is the case. all you have is a conspiracy theory.

and if you think the victors won at Nicaea and rewrote history, you don't know that much about the council.

 

[Chadi B. Ghaith]

so, aside from the ending rant that makes no sense, you are basically saying that your ultra secret history is trustworthy, yet ours isn't, and you have not why that is the case. all you have is a conspiracy theory.

and if you think the victors won at Nicaea and rewrote history, you don't know that much about the council.

I never claimed to provide evidence beyond the Druze perspective. So am not really after proving anything to you.
There is a fine line between a dialogue and an argument and am not big on arguments. So, am gonna spare you any further rants and end it here.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I never claimed to provide evidence beyond the Druze perspective. So am not really after proving anything to you.
There is a fine line between a dialogue and an argument and am not big on arguments. So, am gonna spare you any further rants and end it here.

it wasn't an argument, I simply asked for hard evidence. to say that Nicaea dealt with reincarnation is silly. there is no condemnation of it, no support of it from the opponents of Nicaea, there is nothing.

 

[prodromos]

it wasn't an argument, I simply asked for hard evidence. to say that Nicaea dealt with reincarnation is silly. there is no condemnation of it, no support of it from the opponents of Nicaea, there is nothing.

Plus every ancient scrap of New Testament and Old Testament manuscript attests to the trustworthyness of the texts we have today. To suggest that Nicaea removed portions from the Bible is beyond ludicrous. Every bit of archeological evidence demonstrates the complete contrary.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Plus every ancient scrap of New Testament and Old Testament manuscript attests to the trustworthyness of the texts we have today. To suggest that Nicaea removed portions from the Bible is beyond ludicrous. Every bit of archeological evidence demonstrates the complete contrary.

that, and there is no evidence that Nicaea dealt with reincarnation.

 

[Chadi B. Ghaith]

 

[ArmyMatt]

I know I love modern Bible "scholarship." zero evidence of Christ having descendants ever, but now 21st century folks are trying to show He had them.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I know I love modern Bible "scholarship." zero evidence of Christ having descendants ever, but now 21st century folks are trying to show He had them.

Mary would have had lots of relatives/cousins who would also be related to Yeshua. So there would likely be persons alive today that may still be related to Mary's family. They only compared mtDNA, so it would only be from Mary's maternal line. Also, though, just because they share the same haplotype, does not mean they are directly related to Mary, just her general type from that area.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Mary would have had lots of relatives/cousins who would also be related to Yeshua. So there would likely be persons alive today that may still be related to Mary's family. They only compared mtDNA, so it would only be from Mary's maternal line. Also, though, just because they share the same haplotype, does not mean they are directly related to Mary, just her general type from that area.

sure, it's the garbage idea at all that folks could be descended of Christ.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

sure, it's the garbage idea at all that folks could be descended of Christ.

To Yeshua personally...no, just possibly to His mother Miriam's family...

 

[ArmyMatt]

To Yeshua personally...no, just possibly to His mother Miriam's family...

well yeah, that's fine. but the idea that Christ Himself has biological descendants has no support at all

 

[thetruebeliever07]

eeeeeenteresting

I'm new her. Not sure if you got this answered yet. I didn't see this episode, however, lookup: The Hungarian Prayer Codex, it's concrete evidence of the shroud being in Constantinople. The codex includes a picture of The Shroud. Not only does the picture include the shroud, but the burn marks on the shroud, in the exact same spots. The Codex is positively dated to the 11 hundreds, before the Shroud came into France (and the Crusaders who brought it back, stated it had previously been in Byzantium).

 

[thetruebeliever07]

I'm new her. Not sure if you got this answered yet. I didn't see this episode, however, lookup: The Hungarian Prayer Codex, it's concrete evidence of the shroud being in Constantinople. The codex includes a picture of The Shroud. Not only does the picture include the shroud, but the burn marks on the shroud, in the exact same spots. The Codex is positively dated to the 11 hundreds, before the Shroud came into France (and the Crusaders who brought it back, stated it had previously been in Byzantium).

Meant to say "painting" of the shroud, obviously not a picture.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm new her. Not sure if you got this answered yet. I didn't see this episode, however, lookup: The Hungarian Prayer Codex, it's concrete evidence of the shroud being in Constantinople. The codex includes a picture of The Shroud. Not only does the picture include the shroud, but the burn marks on the shroud, in the exact same spots. The Codex is positively dated to the 11 hundreds, before the Shroud came into France (and the Crusaders who brought it back, stated it had previously been in Byzantium).

Hello, and welcome to CF and to TAW. We are glad that you've joined us! I pray you are blessed by being here. Let us know if you need any help with the forums or have questions.

Again, welcome!