Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
OK...check please. In addition to your inventions and lack of comprehension regarding understanding proper nouns, common nouns, languages, religions, history and such, you claim to be an archangel. I say "good luck with that."
Judaism refers to Sandalphon as an archangel, who acts as a Pillar/Conduit/Messenger between Heaven and Earth for the Source.
We keep discussing elements of how the language is the bit confusing Rabbinic Judaism; for example how El (Source) is not like the Elohim (Divine Beings - Isaiah 46:9), Yah יה being a two letter word meaning Lord (Psalms 89:8), Yeshua our Divine Being in Isaiah 52:10, etc...
Unfortunately, Your explanations in this thread actually make it difficult to understand anything you speak about when it comes to who you truly are.Judaism refers to Sandalphon as an archangel, who acts as a Pillar/Conduit/Messenger between Heaven and Earth for the Source.
Revelation 3:12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar (Sandalphon) in the temple of my God, and he will go out from there no more. I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God (Zion - Psalms 146:10, Psalms 147:12, Isaiah 52:7), the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my own new name (Sananda).
We keep discussing elements of how the language is the bit confusing Rabbinic Judaism; for example how El (Source) is not like the Elohim (Divine Beings - Isaiah 46:9), Yah יה being a two letter word meaning Lord (Psalms 89:8), Yeshua our Divine Being in Isaiah 52:10, etc...
Much of this is fixable, and currently what is prophesied is many will be removed from reality, simply for being stupid - personally find that a bit extreme...
Now fair enough I get I don't speak like an academic, and am far from what is expected of a university professor boffin for a Messiah...
Yet if you tried to understand, rather than try to dismantle everything wrong, it might make more sense.
In my opinion.
One of the sons of Brahma at the beginning of creation was called Sanananda; the New Name of Christ according to theosophy is Sananda, and I'm Zanda.
To become a Bodhisattva you must cultivate within Mahayana Buddhism, and as far as i understand you have not done this. Second of all, you mixing teachings, something a true master would not do.One of the sons of Brahma at the beginning of creation was called Sanananda; the New Name of Christ according to theosophy is Sananda, and I'm Zanda.
From childhood remembered being an Avatar, and one of the Divine Council; then also had a NDE to confirm somethings.
Yeshua was an Elohim (Divine Being/Archangel) as it says in Isaiah 52:10; in Isaiah 52:7 it says our King Archangel Zion.
There are prophecies stating 'out of Zion shall go my laws' (Isaiah 2:3), 'from Zion the Lord will speak' (Isaiah 24:23), 'I've chosen Zion as my habitation' (Psalms 132:13), etc.
In Heaven there are 24 Elders Surrounding the Source in many religions; these are all aspects, and parts of the whole of Oneness; so Buddha (Discernment) is One with Lao Tzu (Ancient Master), is One with Yeshua (Salvation), is One with Zanda (Exegesis)...
We're all individual aspects of the One consciousness working for the greater enlightenment of the whole i.e. 0neness.
The Zand Avesta is an Exegesis on the Avesta, and Ahura Mazda means Lord of Wisdom in Zoroastrian text; so I'm like a Bringer of Truth (Saoshyant) before Frashokereti.
Revelation 3:12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar (Sandalphon) in the temple of my God, and he will go out from there no more. I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God (Zion - Psalms 146:10, Psalms 147:12, Isaiah 52:7), the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my own new name (Sananda).
This verse shows a start to the cross referencing of the names in different religions around the world; my shortened name is Zan, which is also a shortened version of Zeus.
Biblically I'm the return of David & Yeshua & now Zion... The Source of reality is El Elyon, God Most High.
In my understanding all Bodhisattva come from the Source... So I'm like an operative for the Source to interact with mankind.
In my opinion.
To be able to come back, we have to have ascended past the 8th dimension (infinity) at least; it isn't based on some religious understanding.
Revelation 10:11 speaks of many nations, and languages; which means the Source of reality is One, and religion is divided by people not realizing the language boundaries.
The texts justify these ideas, otherwise me personally would have a hard time believing it.
Yeshua was sent from Heaven; humans generally don't turn around to clouds, and ask them to stop, where they listen, as the being asking understands the quantum physics.
There is only One Dharma, with lots of religious orthodoxy that blinds the way to it by dutiful observance; whilst lacking the real connection assurance.
Any God or Buddha can come back to the physical realm to teach again, but according to nature law (dharma) they must be born as a child and cultivate up to enlightenment within an already existing cultivation path. In the time we are now they would not be allowed to come from nowhere fully enlighten into this world, They must cultivate body and mind first to realize their teaching. Also Yeshua or Jesus had to cultivate mind and body before he enlightens to the teaching he was to give in his life.To be able to come back, we have to have ascended past the 8th dimension (infinity) at least; it isn't based on some religious understanding.
Revelation 10:11 speaks of many nations, and languages; which means the Source of reality is One, and religion is divided by people not realizing the language boundaries.
The texts justify these ideas, otherwise me personally would have a hard time believing it.
Yeshua was sent from Heaven; humans generally don't turn around to clouds, and ask them to stop, where they listen, as the being asking understands the quantum physics.
Buddha on reaching enlightenment also made the bowl float upstream, as he had realized his divine potential.
Yeshua taught similar to Buddha in lots of places; Pharisaic Judaism hijacked his character, and made a religion around it.
There is only One Dharma, with lots of religious orthodoxy that blinds the way to it by dutiful observance; whilst lacking the real connection assurance.
In my opinion.
In the Knights of the Round Table, each person is speaking to the middle; they all have a point of view, yet there is a central focus.
Sorry but your answers no longer give a meaning.In the Knights of the Round Table, each person is speaking to the middle; they all have a point of view, yet there is a central focus.
Religions are all different perspectives of the whole; when we understand the whole, it makes more sense...
Whereas when we are only looking at a part, the limitation of our view obscures us from seeing the whole.
Sorry that didn't answer the question on being different people, there are not different people, it is all the same one being in different forms.
In my opinion.
The modern state of Israel owes its existence to the political connections of the Zionists against a background of longstanding Christian antisemitism.
The thread is to decide if people just argue, and if humanity can ever question fully...
There is always wisdom to be learned, especially in the most dire or undire circumstances.
However once one begins to read something that feels contrived, many things could be attributed to that. So, I'm quite reserved about saying something is contrived.
Gods exist only as concepts in human mentation. They have no objective existence, they're not real. That's why neither you nor anyone else can tell me what real thing you intend to denote when you say 'God'. You can't tell me the test that will determine whether any real thing or being or phenomenon is God or not, You can't even tell me what 'godness' is, the real quality a real god would have and a real superscientist would lack. That's to say, the idea of a real god is incoherent.
Obviously there are serious thousands of gods. It's just that none of them is real, has objective existence.
It also says plants existed before the sun did. Very hit and miss, that book.
I certainly make no claim in those terms. My most coherent guess is that mass-energy pre-existed the universe, that accordingly the contents of the Big Bang were mass-energy (or perhaps there were second or third &c ingredients, but Occam would have us keep it monist until there's evidence otherwise). It would follow that the universe and its contents are composed of forms of mass-energy and that the regularities of behavior and interaction we call the rules of physics are properties of mass-energy. On this view, time exists because mass-energy exists, not vice versa; hence there was no particular 'beginning'.
Is there any evidence for that? If so, is there any evidence that the amendments were not improvements?
It's the heavens and the earth, Jim, but not as we know them. I think I've mentioned biblical cosmology to you before ─ lacking all the concepts of the modern sky, eg satellites, planets, the sun as a star, stars, galaxies, colossal distances, the moon orbiting the earth, the earth orbiting the sun, nothing. Instead there was no sky till after the earth existed, Day 2, and it (the firmament) is a solid dome over the earth that you can walk on. Not till day 4 do we get (their concept of) the sun, moon and stars. They're attached to the firmament such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth.
No, the waters receded (Day 3). The writers had no concept of tectonics. (Neither did anyone else till last century.) Presumably they receded in the same way the waters after the Flood receded, by flowing over the edges of the earth and falling to the waters below the earth.
No. In the bible the first life appears on Day 3, with fruiting plants on the dry land. This is a good trick because the temperature would only be a smidge above zero degrees Kelvin, since the sun doesn't exist till Day 4.
That's Day 5, at the same time as we have birds before there are land animals. And as I mentioned, that was only ocean life ─ life already existed on the dry land.
They simply followed the beliefs of their day. They drew conclusions from what they could see. And they got it very wrong, but you can see what the storytellers was trying to get across.