Why reincarnation was edited out of Christianity?

CubidDave…. you have read The Book of Adam and Eve haven't you?

In this book Adam is said to have died a number of times….. and been resurrected from all but one of those deaths.

In Adam's final death… he is taken up in a chariot with fiery horses.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/eden_1.htm

Death number 1 by suicide…. Adam jumped off a cliff to deliberately kill himself.

I suspect that this fits with the second goat of Yom Kippur…. .the "goat for Azazel?!"

 

I wonder if the spear went into the right side of Adam where the rib had been taken from?

http://reluctant-messenger.com/eden_1.htm

 

Well, yeah.
The Christian "End Times" is actually a continuation of the ancient Jewish apocalypse which John added to.

Even the Jews of today are interested in Revelation, because much of it was already written long before 32AD:

From the Jewish Encyclopedia:


.."the apocalypse, (Revelation), has become especially important to Jewish students since it has been discovered by Vischer (see bibliography) that the main apocalypse actually belongs to Jewish apocalyptic literature."



E. Vischer, Die Offenbarung Johannis, Leipsic, 1886;

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12712-revelation-book-of

 

Check out the meaning of the word "rib" in the Hebrew and see that it actually means "doorway," or an "entrance into," or a "partition or planks," for instance.



I believe Gen 2 and 3 makes sense when we assume those two chapters are describing the differentiation of the psyche into archetypes as a part of that "deep sleep" Adam experienced:


Gen. 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep "sleep," (one of evolutionary duration), to fall upon Adam, and he slept, (as his mind differentiated and defined itself archetypically): and he took one of his "ribs," (Hebrew, meaning a doorway or entrance into the pyche), and closed up the flesh (of the Subconscious mind), instead thereof;

 

Wow!!!!

Brilliant post Cupid Dave!

My apologies for getting The Book of Adam and Eve mixed up somewhat with another somewhat similar writing. The way the book ends is in many ways even more impressive than I had remembered.

 

The idea that from Adam forward, man's psyche evolved and differentiated into the seven often evil acting sources of archetypal thinking is tied into the other insight, that Genesis 4 and 5 lists the 22 species of Modern Homo sapiens line of ascent.

Genesis adds that "Adam" refers to both males and females, and supplies the necessary biblical support for making these observations about evolution:


Gen. 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called THEIR name, (species), Adam, (Sahelanthropus tchadensis, both male and female), in the day when THEY, (the first hominoids), were created (by the Natural Laws governing Evolution).

 

"The Parthian empire occupied all of modern Iran, Iraq and Armenia, parts of Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Tajikistan, and -for brief periods- territories in Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Palestine."

History tells us that these were the same forces, ruled by the same people, (syrians under Greek leadership), mentioned in Daniel 11, when the abomination of Zeus was brought into the Temple, and later, when the abomination of the Dome of the Rock was set where it ought not stand, in 688-690AD.

[The Seleucid Empire or Syria, was a Hellenistic state ruled by the Seleucid dynasty founded by Seleucus I Nicator following the division of the empire created by Alexander the Great.
At the height of its power, it included central Anatolia, Persia, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Kuwait, what is now Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, and northwest parts of India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seleucid_Empire]
The hist

 

Thanks. Studying the Jewish religion and its background I know about the Seleucids and the other three 'kingdoms'.

 

My apologies if I asked you this previously CupidDave… but what do you think of the tradition that some descendants of the lost tribes may have migrated as far as South America as early as the time of King Solomon?


http://moshiach.com/tribes/ns/6.html

……

… In a way…. I think that the powerful case that can be presented that some from the lost tribes migrated into many nations…. is a metaphor for how Jews have reincarnated into all other racial and religious patterns as well. The Barbro Karlen - Anne Frank case is a good example of this principle that will help to bring peace to the world.

 

I have just been thinking….. that if a wound to our body in a past live….. can be passed down to this life as a birthmark or mole…… then to some degree even our DNA is affected by our past lives?!

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/reincarnation01.html#a03

3. Birthmarks and Birth Defects Corresponding to Wounds on Deceased Persons

 

While the question is very interesting, the author worries me. He has a degree in Literature, not in history or religious studies or something more related, which I would think is preferable.

I fear the book may not be to accepting to religious science discoveries. But that is an assumption based on the author's biography. I can't really imagine it being neutral...

 

You may be somewhat encouraged by the results of the IQ test that he was given after his latest brush with death.


https://apps.facebook.com/forumforpages/347674598652896/8999d971-b3e9-429e-902a-53756602d375/0

…. post #6:

 

While it is nice for anybody to have a high IQ, I personally don't consider that the problem. My problem in this case is, that his profession is literature and the fact that he has an obvious opinion due to his experiences.

Maybe if you think of it that way: If a communist writes a book about communism, its harder for them to see the faults and remain neutral at times when scientific practice would dictate that. Or it is hard to get credibility if you a historian like myself when it comes to subjects which are not related. I don't have nor do I get credit in subjects which are not related to my profession.

My concern in this case is not that he is stupid or unqualified, but that his views on the matter make the book agenda driven and not neutral. I fear he may actively or subconsciously avoid facts which might disprove his views. This is the problem often times with historians as well. If you have a theory and then try to prove it, you often dismiss information contradicting the theory. That's why I tend to look at the author first, before reading their book. The better practice is to have a question and then trying to find all the facts possible and draw your conclusions based on that.

I hope you understand my concern better now...

________________


Edit:

Just as a funny anecdote I thought I'd add this:

Source: http://mostextreme.org/highest_iq.php

 

you mean more nonsense

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/07/reincarnation_a.html

 

But can any of us be entirely neutral?

I read "My Descent Into Death" by Howard Storm several years ago and I really liked the part where Howard…… who has a Ph.D. in art……. looked at his own experience and attempted to come up with other logical explanations for what he had experienced while flatlined. He did try his best…… but like most of the other people who have seen what sure appears to be fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth dimensional space - time (or even higher)…… they come back convinced?!

It is like they "know" about as much as any eye witness to a crime…… can know????!

In our time it is theoretically possible for a witness to see a crime…..that may have been a bunch of artistically inclined kids shooting a scene for YouTube or some project………. that that would be another detail that the witness might not be able to discern humanly.

I just got an intriguing story that you may enjoy:

(Janice Wiggins)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Metaphysics-Spiritual-Truths/1408213682774326
Metaphysics Spiritual Truths

 

I actually haven't watched the James Linegar Case video in a long time and rather forget what the film was about…… but….. here is a film that I have watched over and over and over again……. over the last couple of years. I saw this again just a week or so ago…….. if this is nonsense….. I know that I personally am too ignorant to discern where the nonsense is?!?!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxsC-TGAwsQ
Anne Frank | Barbro Karlen Full

(Walter Semkiw M. D.)

Even Dr. Ian Stevenson was impressed by cases like this or why would he have dedicated so much of his time over forty years to researching such cases?

It is actually rather amazing the percentage of people who have an eating disorder…… who may recover after being regressed in time to what sure looks to them like a past life in which they perhaps starve to death. Some hypnotherapists can use those images…… whatever the source…….. to set in motion a therapy that works in at least a significant percentage of cases…… thus Dr. Ian Stevenson's interest in the topic.

 

While 100% objectivity is really impossible, it is the job of any scientist to come as close as possible. The reason why we don't accept "eyewitness testimonies" anymore, is because it is too easy to fool the human mind, or lie. While I don't think that this individual is lying about his experiences I am afraid, he overestimates his own testimony. Anybody who would look for illusions on the internet can see what I mean. While illusions are easy to manufacture, there is an added inconvenience when it comes to personal experiences.

I am a historian, and as a part of my studies I did interviews with witnesses of an event in World War 2. To use the testimonies I had to write a 25 page introduction into what is called commemorative culture. I wouldn't be surprised if you've never heard of it, (because neither had I prior to working with witnesses) but basically it is the study of memories, and how distorted they can be and for what reason.

I'll give you a practical example to what usually happens. Say a group of people witnessed a very important event. For arguments sake, 9/11 and the planes which crashed in New York into the World Trade Center. Emotional experiences tend to be remembered in greater detail. Because this was such an important event people feeling scared, shocked or what ever the case may be, people remember it more than events without the (in this case) shock value. Therefore the memory after the planes hit are more detailed than those two hours prior.
On top of that, the same event witnessed by multiple people is usually different for each individual. While they might have seen the same thing, individually they consider something specific more important than someone else. Therefore if you interview people on the same event right after something happened, usually their memories and therefore their stories differ quite a bit.
If you now witness an event like 9/11, subconsciously you start seeking approval. Meaning, you tell others what you saw and how you felt and in return listen to their stories. During this process your mind adjusts the story you witnessed with the stories you heard. Subconsciously you adapt your story with memories which are not your's. Enough time passes and your mind fools you into thinking that this is something you personally saw, while its someone else's memory.
The third step is usually that your story gets filled with something you didn't witness, but actually was impossible for you to have seen. For example because you've seen it on TV so many times, your mind actually starts believing that you were present at an event where you couldn't have been.

Basically that's the problem: any testimony you hear, can be unique like the individual who saw it, the story might be full of adjustments to others, can be full of memories of others, and added with completely random events the person could not have seen. And that would be of course only then, if the human mind and eye wouldn't be so easy to fool in the first place, and considering that the person just simply isn't lying.

Therefore a witness testimony is nice, but in science is it not adequate enough to be proof of anything. While NDEs can be entertaining to read, it is very likely that the person just had an experience where their mind showed its capacity to be imaginative. And because it's a "witnessed" experience it is impossible to prove, however, it is possible to disprove.

But I want to clarify: I am not saying that the author is wrong, I'm just saying based on the circumstances, it is quite possible that they got fooled by their own mind, are not qualified to do research in that field and possibly they started writing about their experiences without being objective due to their experiences. So back to my original post:

 

Truly excellent questions mihapiha.

Yes……. a witness can be fooled by their own emotions far more easily than we might imagine.

I read both of Helen Wambach Ph. D.'s books back in the '90's……. it seemed to me that she was as aware of the phenomena you mentioned as anybody could be back in 1965 when she began her research. I got the impression that tried to the very best of her ability to not lead her subject while they were in the trance state that she put them into.

http://www.carolmoore.net/articles/helenwambach.html

 

Thanks, but I didn't realize I posed questions... I thought I mentioned only my concerns.

This is obviously far away from my field of history. I went to study history because I was curious about human evolution. I adore that process, and I especially am happy when I find rational reasons for something, rather than the NDE type scenarios mentioned here. I am an atheist, so I don't take the NDEs seriously. But I cannot change that. You just cant force yourself to stop believing in something you don't, or vice-versa. If you've read a number of my posts you will see that I'm not here to confront. I really would like to know what makes people believe... But I digress.

While believing in reincarnation is admirable, I cannot say that I believe in that. My mom does though. To me it just doesn't make sense. If memory serves me right the Roman Empire had about 33 million inhabitants, now nearly 400 million people live on the same territory. You see my problem. But that is me. I see the human as an interesting organism, but I don't think this organism has a soul either. I think that the humans evolve slowly. I don't think our species evolved fast enough in the past thousands of years, for someone in ancient times to think differently than someone does today. The beliefs differ because of a different upbringing and education, not because we are different. So I assume someone who lived i.e. 2000 years ago make rational decisions as we do today, but they would have a different upbringing and education. It is up to historians to know enough about the past, to understand the rational decisions people made 2000 years ago, at least in my opinion.

I mention that because I truly think most people act rationally, but based on their surroundings and education, they might have a different "rational" than we do today. People who don't understand, usually just choose to call people in the past "primitive" or "stupid". Nothing could be further from the truth. This is important in terms of reincarnations because society evolved very quickly. Even a century ago things were so different that it is hard for anybody to adjust, and that goes both ways. Historians look at the past, but the same thing would be true moving forward. You can see the vast difference in beliefs if you look at policies between people who are 30 or 40 years apart in terms of age. Young people have different political beliefs than people close to retirement. And they can talk to each other. I can't talk to people who lived more than 150 years ago, therefore people during the civil war in the US would have such a different "rational" that it is hard for us to understand today. Human society changes are so quick and radical. Never mind the linguistic differences. But I digress again.

If you keep this in mind, you may understand my concern better. The human mind is driven by feelings and it can be deceived so easily. I am worried that often people don't realize that or ignore that when they should actively try to control their feelings. You should try to not be emotionally driven when you analyze for example.

Personally I therefore see feelings as the biggest opposition to rationality. Whether the feeling is positive (love) or negative (hate) doesn't matter. That doesn't mean I disapprove of love or hate, or feelings in general. It means that I think feelings may be the enemy when you are trying to do scientific research. Memories of any kind are driven by feelings. It is essential to be cautious when reading memories of any kind. Whether it's NDEs, or reincarnations, or reports of any kind. It shouldn't be exclusive to spiritual topics.

If you do that, the results you encounter are often pretty cool. Something simple would be the soldiers salute, which comes from the middle ages when knights would open the visor with a similar gesture. Now pretty much all armies try to find a new gesture to be unique. In reality it was just rational to open the visor at times. This I hope is one of the more well known little things which are today "respectful" and used to be "practical" and have a rational reason. It is harder I think to find those reasons when you focus on NDEs or reincarnation stories because they are driven by emotions and feelings...

 

What do you personally think of the open mind that Richard Dawkins Ph. D. seems to have to the possibility that a superior culture to our own may have evolved previous to the time when we humans began to develop technologically...… and that perhaps that superior culture may perhaps have played a role in our evolution........ and perhaps even in our history?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL7CCyuXAS4
Richard Dawkins: Aliens Seeded Earth?



http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...richard-dawkins-ph-d-aliens-seeded-earth.html

Richard Dawkins: Aliens Seeded Earth?

 

I know some of Dawkins' work well. I read it and watched many youtube clips. I think he is a very good scientist but lacks the understanding of different beliefs. I think he sees things far too contemporary and misses the contribution of religions over the centuries. As I stated before, religion is both positive and negative and I think he chooses to ignore some of the contributions of religion, which undoubtedly someone had to have pointed out to him by now, and which he might have read somewhere already .

The video is funny. They try so hard to make it seem that he approves and believes of a God like creature. But I think the video shows very blatantly a human desire to know everything. And as soon as the answer is "I" or "We don't know" it will not be accepted.

But coming back to the question you posed:

There is a book back from the 90s or early 2000s I believe where somebody took the Sumerian stories they heard into a belief system for themselves. The "Anunnaki" as Sumerians called their Gods, supposedly came from heaven in order to mine for Gold to protect their atmosphere or something like that. In their belief-system the people were created to work for the Anunnaki, which now the UFO-enthusiasts interpret as Aliens visiting and that they gene manipulated and that's why we haven't found the missing link between the great apes and humans. Possible, but unlikely I'd say.

Personally I believe that there is life on many other planets, but I think that intelligent life (if it exists) is too far apart for it to meet. I believe if intelligent life would have come here, they would have destroyed humans by now, just like humans would if we went somewhere. Remember we destroyed even our own species throughout history, and the first to die were usually the natives of whatever area some discoverer would find. Another issue I have is the fact that there were total throughout history (I think) around 60 million species on planet earth, yet only one (as far as we know) evolved to being able to communicate with words. Therefore being "intelligent" must not be an important criteria for survival. Sharks are one of the oldest species on earth, in terms of survival they must be therefore superior.

I also would agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson's assessment that it is questionable if we are "intelligent" on a bigger scale. The chimpanzee is genetically 98.5% identical to a human. If you keep that in mind, on a bigger scale the difference of being able to use branch to eat ants and building the Hubble telescope could be only a difference in intelligence of 1.5%, since the rest is the same. Using that scale, what if other beings now were intelligent, but on this scale 3% more intelligent than us, why on earth would you want to interact with a species as "stupid" as we are.

 

Excellent questions!

My own view of this topic has been greatly influenced by The Book of Enoch that was a part of the Christian canon for five centuries.

In this book "sons of G-d" intermarried with the daughters of men.... had children who were giants..... the giants had voracious appetites and began to use humans as a source of meat.

The angels appealed to the Most High on behalf of humans.......... and the Watchers and their children were dealt with. The apocryphal writings indicate that there is a power capable of scaring........... the aliens who have astonishing technology!

I really like the way that near death experiencer Christian Andreason addressed this topic. He did so in such a way that a religious person would be tempted to take another look at thos apocryphal writings that are an important part of our history.

http://www.allaboutchristian.com/spirituality/

 

I know Anderson's work well to a degree, I think I read only 2 books of his. But that was in my teens when I was big time into the Alien conspiracy. I dismissed that as a likely possibility though in the course of my college years, as questions posed by people who call themselves "ufologists" were answered very straight forward with logic. Two of the questions come to mind:

1. They keep inferring to gold and how it could be that throughout history every society independently from each other valued that element that much. Alien conspiracy believers found the answer by claiming extraterrestrials visited us thousands of years ago. In reality the answer is much more straight forward. Humans evolved to value water. It was the source of life and extremely important to us. Locking at water from the distance (the sea, lakes or rivers) it glimmers and sparkles. For thousands of years our eyes therefore evolved and understood that something which sparkles is good. Hence human desires even today to have shiny cars, desires for chrome etc. Things which sparkle basically.

Gold had a distinct advantage over other elements. It had the shiny sparkle effect we crave and din't loose the shiny sparkle effect like silver for example. Easy to find refers to the fact that it could be found in rivers for example. So you wouldn't have to mine to reach that shiny element.

2. Alien conspiracy believers also tend to claim that it is impossible for people to build what they build 5000 years ago. Famously the pyramids are mentioned, and to top it off, all civilizations from ancient Japan over Egypt to Aztecs build pyramids, hence making Alien conspiracy buffs try to find a specific meaning in something. The truth of the matter is, that there is no object which could be build, easier to manufacture and at the same time structurally as sturdy as a pyramid. So if you want to build something simple which definitely won't collapse, you start with the pyramid. Therefore, the pyramid is usually the first bigger object cultures throughout history and the world build first...

 

I think I know who you might be mixing him up with because I also read a couple of books by George Anderson back during the '90's.

http://www.amazon.ca/We-Dont-Die-Andersons-Conversations/dp/0425114511

Christian Andreason's NDE book has actually not been published yet but he made it free to everybody to read until a possible publisher perhaps forces him to take it down.

Christian Andreason's NDE account is my number two all time favorite surpassed only by that of Bruce F. MacDonald Ph. D.

www.thomastwin.com/

 

You're absolutely right! I completely mixed up the authors. I don't know why really, because the author I thought about is named Erich von Däniken. And that's not even similar sounding or something like that to get confused... I guess I just read a Scandinavian sounding name and for some reason just messed up. I'm sorry.