Carlo, it is my belief that men are Angels that got booted out of heaven. Earth is a reform prison school for those Angels. We're trapped in animal bodies, teaching us to overcome selfish instincs, to teach why selfishness is evil. To teach why there can only be one ruler (God) and everyone can't just do their own thing.

I too, believe in reincarnation, and that Jesus was, Moses, Elijah, Jesus, (as shown to the disciples on the mountain) and then to be born again to teach everyone at the end to return to God and his law, just before the last day, judgement day. (Malachi ch 4)

Ultimately, he is the the Arch Angel Michael (Daniel ch 12). And ultimately he is the way, the truth, and the life, that we too have to be to go home. http://www.jahtruth.net/twh.pdf

I don't know where this thread is going, so whatev, contemplate that.

I think the point has already been made that you think carlo's usage is weird. So unless the OP wishes differently, I will delete any further discussion of this point as it is a clear derailment of the OP.

I would still like to know why this is your belief. That website doesnt give any reasons to believe it. Yes, its a coherent story, in that things he says can hang together and make sense. It doesnt make it true though. Harry potter is a coherent story in that things can hang together and make sense. Would also like to know if you think this guy is the born again jesus who is here just before the last day?

Sorry to keep picking you out, I would also like to know why carlo believes what he does, which is just as much of another cool story to me, but he hasnt answered me.

To say it simply, if you follow the true path, you'll run into him.

Small is the gate, and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it.

I mean, if you find a magic wand and Harry Potter resonates with you....we'll it just doesn't. There are no other coherent paths.

You can keep saying stuff like this all you want, but I will keep asking
"How do you know its the true path?"
You have given me nothing.

What "magic wand" have you found that leads you to believe that the guy on that website has it right? Isnt it just that you want it to be right?
How do you know you are one of the human+beings? Maybe you are just one of the animal humans?

From reading stuff on here, and elsewhere, and through stuff that is happening in my own life, I am starting to think that jesus was a pretty cool guy, who had a big realisation, enlightenment even. Then , either his message was twisted by his followers, or by people using it for their own ends, or else he couched his message in the language of the day ( gods, demons, good, evil, devil, etc etc) where he didnt really mean that these were real entities. Whatever, Im sure that noone today has the full meaning of what jesus said.
Now, this could be true, or it could just be that I want it to be true, to affirm things in my own life, maybe theres no real way of knowing. But to add all the extra stuff ( God, hell, heaven, Angels, human+beings,blah blah blah,whatever, I mean , come on, God doesnt give a **** if someone is homosexual or not) to his message is just pointless and making stuff up.

Lol.

Pretty much everyone is a human + being. What your referencing are cases where someone is a total vegetable I think. Perhaps I'd have to look that part over again. I think your making too big a deal about that regardless.

As for homosexuals, its difficult to defend Gods position here, as its basically illegal. I'll just say, think about the balls you'd have to have to actually form the kingdom and carry out its laws.

Ultimately I think your too far away, and our conversations will mostly be about semantics and nit picking b.s.. I really can't give you more insight than that website already provides. If its not your thing, just move on.

Perhaps one day, I'd be able to give better insight, as I haven't mastered "The Way", but thats pretty much all I got for now. Now Carlo, I think he might be close, so I kinda want to hear his take on this.

edit - a couple things I could add. Wouldn't it just be better for the homosexual to die and be a woman again as they wish to be (assuming reincarnation). And really I have no idea where Carlo's at, but I've talked to you a lot and not him, so brang it Carlo

2nd edit - actually I think everyone at this point is pretty much in their last incarnation, so that advice was for prior generations

How is this possible, since there are now many more humans than there were 1000 or 2000 years ago, so they cant all be fallen angels? Im pretty sure that site said that there are also just human animals, not human+beings, and they werent referencing vegtables.

not sure what you mean here, but is god really going to interest himself in the minutia of humans sex lives? Why does he care? Why is it wrong( other than "cos god said so")?


Its not my thing because its just a story, not because I am too far away, or because im nit picking.

Carlo might be closer as in closer to your view, but closer to the truth? dont think so.


Seriously? Homosexuals just want to be women? Just lol is all I have to say on that.

Everything you write is just such a distortion, is like your not reading the same thing I am. I really don't have time to correct your intentional (?) mistakes.

Carlo obviously doesn't want none, but to be fair, his posts probably take about 3 hours. Yet, still barely intelligible despite using every religious word ever recorded.

what part of what I have written is a distortion?

I have never heard this but it makes a lot of sense.

Op if you really want people to take you seriously you should take a lesson from Jesus. You know why he spoke in parables? So morons could understand him. The way you speak makes you sound like an elitist. That's rather strange coming from a religious man and even more strange at least to me coming from someone preaching some kind of what I assume to be non sanctioned catholic mystacism.

That being said how wide spread is this belief? Do you routinely worship with people who share these ideas? When is the movie coming out?(seriously you want people to get into this it needs a movie)

The bolded is the exact opposite of why Jesus spoke in parables--at least according to the Bible. For instance, here is Matthew 13:11-15:

I see how there is a distinction between a man named jesus and a concept of the christ. What i dont understand is the difference between "jesus christ" and "christ jesus" when the former is used overwhelmingly in our culture.

7 years of chatholic school here and thats what we were all told constantly. That's why simple metaphors and analogies were used.

So does this mean there existed people in the time of Jesus he did not want to save?

Hmm, after looking at this post, I think I was a little out of line. In my mind I was mixing your (Carlo) post style with Rudolf Steiners.

On parables (proverbs, depending on version):

John 16:25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time comes, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of the Father.

(allusion to the book I linked IMO,........... and beyond(don't ask))

Sure, this is something that is commonly taught in Sunday School, I think I might have even been told this when I was growing up. It just isn't true. For what it's worth, I have a Jewish friend who gave up on reading the Gospels because she got frustrated reading all of those parables because they didn't make sense to her.

First, I'll note that the idea of being "saved" comes more from Paul's writings than from Jesus. Jesus was more concerned with the the imminent kingdom of GOd, which he seemed to assume was going to be at least initially Jewish in nature. I'll also note that, especially in Mark, we see Jesus often acting so as to disguise his message or meaning in odd ways, such as commanding those he healed to keep silent about it or commanding his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.

Yea, not everybody is everything. You have the distinction between the man, Jesus and the Christ and that was the point. Most , if not all of the posters on this forum only refer to Jesus. As I said previously the nature of our times and its strong intellectual abstractive bias have referred to and only consider the person who walked the earth 2100 years ago a man and therefore the consequence is "Jesus". When I speak of our times I am referring to at least a 200 year progression.

Whether realized or not, the thought processes involved have negated any consideration of the spiritual world and this use of "Jesus" is consequential and germane to the modern difficulty in incomprehension of "Christ Jesus" or in essence the "Christ" himself. I personally have no problem with the reversal, as you stated.

Also just using the term as"Christ" who walked the earth for three years is used and I would also do the same.

This turns out to be a pedantic escapade based upon being called a "dork" who speaks this way. I tried to keep it serious, not to tell others how to speak but more to come to a small, ever so small, approach to Christ comprehension. Its not about the abstractive words without meaning but one little nudge in the direction of spiritual knowledge.

What parables are particularly hard to understand?

And as I said, the problem is that if it takes 20 minutes to explain it, use of ideosyncratic language isn't going to change anyone's mind.

To really know why Jesus "spoke in parables", you'd have to answer unanswerable questions about the authorship of the Gospels and the extent that they, as opposed to other writings which were declared heretical and suppressed by the brutal and tyrannical Church dictatorship in Rome in the first several centuries, accurately reflected Jesus' teachings.

There are definitely some surviving writings reflecting alleged sayings of Jesus, for instance from the gnostic tradition, that are not presented in parable form, and certain important teachings of Jesus as reflected in the Gospels themselves, such as the Sermon on the Mount, are not presented as parables.

So who knows if Jesus really spoke in parables, or whether Jesus really said the things attributed to him at all. The only thing we can really try to answer is whether the anonymous authors of the Gospels, who had agendas and were likely part of a power struggle taking place in early Christianity, as well as the Gospels' promoters, favored parables for any particular reason.