Cheshire Cat

I'm confident because I wasted my life chasing those dreams. It feels safe to think that your experience is beyond anyone's else and that if I don't agree it's because I don't understand. Oink oink No, I claim that eating finger nails prolongs life and creates spiritual bodies. If you disagree, it's just that you don't understand. I'm sure that you'll fail in showing evidence that eating fingernails doesn't extend life.

The conclusion here is that MCO meditation doesn't prolong life.

Mostly statistical evidence Glenn Morris (KAP) died age 62 Wang Xiang Zhai (founder of yiquan/da cheng chuan) died age 78 Yang Chengfu (yang tai chi) died age 53 Swami Vishnudevananda (sivananda yoga) died age 66 Yao Zongxun died 67 etc...

There's not a single soul on this planet who succeeded extending his lifespan using the MCO method. But I guess we could talk of spiritual worlds and inter-stellar magic bodies....

MCO doesn't exist. It's a philosophical idea wrongfully applied to a meditation exercise: people play with tingling sensations and think that they're achieving something. The best result you can get is some physical relaxation and stress reduction.

Why not delve deeper into the figurative meanings of the sword? The sword being clearly a metaphor for the sacred phallus and sexual energy, which is kundalini. When his disciples showed him two swords and he said "That's enough", he was undoubtedly talking about Ida and Pingala, the most important nadis and they're truly enough to raise kundalini fully, as many yogis use to say. In the verse that you quoted, Peter was probably using his inner magical power, developed trough Jesus' meditations to defend himself and his fellows. In fact, how many chances do you have to cut someone's ear without severing the neck? With a physical sword you can easily hit his arms. So, Jesus said "Put your sword back in its place", actually referring to his kundalini energy which shouldn't be used to harm.

It looks to me like christian editing. Why having two swords would be enough to be numbered with the transgressors? Why is the sword more important than the cloak? It's critical to understand that the various prophecies were arranged at a later time and they're often shroud in the veil of mystification. For example: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” is a prophetic passage, quoted in the gospels and allegedly from Isaiah 7:14. The problem is that the original text doesn't talk about a virgin. The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is almah and it means young woman.

Is that your point? The four gospels, the famous group of texts which were written after Paul's epistles and were specifically chosen (amongst a variety of different manuscripts) to explain, support and demonstrate this particular christian view of the world: they are not about some guy who wandered the Galilee telling people to make love and not war. It's about this Jesus who's about to come back a second time to give punishments and rewards, it's about this guy sent on earth by his father so that he could horribly die and thus forgive men's sins. It's about the Eucharistic sacrament. The gospels undoubtedly preach christian doctrines and you will always find a "christian editing" of some sort to smooth the critical passages. It's obvious that the religious authority manipulated the text in various ways and -in my opinion- that was done by adding words and phrases in many instances. Of course the gospels doesn't preach the zealots view of the world, how could they? You can't really be coherent with your own interpretation of this jesus because the only Christ that fits in is the Christian one. Even the gnostic Jesus isn't supported by the four canonical texts. But there are still traces of the real events that inspired the myth and there are many. Even the famous INRI stuff, a clear reference to a zealot Messiah being crucified. First point, you're not quoting the gospels, but Paul's epistles. Second point: that's Pauline theology and it's about joining the christian community, receive baptism, believe that those who reject Christ go to hell and more.

You could either assume that the gospels may contain records of historical events, heavily coloured with mythology here and there ... ...or you could assume that the gospels are the accurate story of Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, that -for us men and for our salvation- came down from heaven and was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. With the first approach, you know that those things which doesn't fit the canonical theology (for example " And whoever doesn’t have a sword should sell his robe and buy one ") are clues of a more down-to-earth and realistic story. The real events behind the myth. With the second approach you know that this guy talked about a spiritual truth that you already possess because you studied some chinese/indian philosophies and that you can interpret his spiritual sayings with the light of your knowledge. If you're affiliated with Iskon, you believe that Krishna is the "heavenly father" or if you studied some daoist alchemy, you may think that the kingdom of God was some sort of dantien or niwan palace. If you studied buddhism, you're 100% sure that Jesus was talking about Pristine Awareness or something along that line. I wonder which one is the theory with more problems... "The spirit of Truth is within you, but he's wrong most of the time"

What if "poor" was actually referred to Jesus' apostles? Think about those people who abandoned their jobs to follow the Christ in his mission. It would not surprise to discover that the Ebionites (Greek: Ἐβιωναῖοι Ebionaioi, derived from Hebrew אביונים ebyonim, ebionim, meaning "the poor" or "poor ones") could be truly the descendants of Jesus' group. Pretend for a second that when Jesus talks about the "poor" or the "poor ones", he's just talking about himself and his group... and then read the gospels. "While Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper,a woman approached him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume. She poured it on his head as he was reclining at the table. When the disciples saw it, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. “This might have been sold for a great deal and given to the poor.” (Matthew 26:6-9) " While he was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper,[a] as he was reclining at the table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured it on his head. 4 But some were expressing indignation to one another: “Why has this perfume been wasted? 5 For this perfume might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii[b] and given to the poor.” And they began to scold her. " (Mark 14) Why such strong reactions? And even more, you can read Jesus that confirms that the apostles were the "poor ones": "Then looking up at his disciples, he said: Blessed are you who are poor, because the kingdom of God is yours." Now, think for a minute about the possibility that Jesus could be an historically accurate jewish Messiah who thought that his mission was to turn Israel into the real Kingdom of God, defeating the romans and establishing an everlasting peace. Precisely the mission that all of the self-proclaimed Messiahs had and that the prophets foretold. Think about the disciples as "his army", think about his sayings: "Don’t assume that I came to bring peace on the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."Matthew 10:34 Did you know that Zealots were hated in the jewish community because they used to kill in their own families those who had a different opinion? "Then he said to them, “But now, whoever has a money-bag should take it, and also a traveling bag. And whoever doesn’t have a sword should sell his robe and buy one. " (Luke 22) In this light, Blessed are the poor; for yours is the kingdom of heaven sounds very much like Proletariat of the world, unite! (Пролетарии всех стран, соединяйтесь!) Food for thoughts.

All of Jesus teachings could be traced back to Bet Hillet... except when he talks precisely like a zealot, indeed he was a wannabe Mashiach. I prefer not to translate stuff that can't be translated because NONE has the truth, not even the Jewish traditions. This is a fact. That "name" is already translated "I am what I am" and it sounds more like an upset warlord than some sort of esoteric thing. Yes, it was the jeenna and theologians translate it as Hell.

That's Rav Hillel stuff.

Again, you forget to consider the times and place where Jesus lived which are crucial elements to understand this figure. He was ONE of the MANY messianic preachers of the time that studied (like many of those Messiahs) at the Pharisaic school of Rav Hillel: you could easily find the contents of this jewish school in Jesus' teachings. This idea of Jesus bringing new and higher understanding is a christian fraud : for example, think of that famous phrase “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath" which supposedly brought a new light to the poor idiotic jews who can't save themselves from old customs... Well, all of the Messiahs repeated this very phrase which comes directly from the school of Rav Hillel .

I'm familiar with many of the parallels and interpretations that you've cited: in particular I studied the Apocalypse in depth because of some pseudo-gnostic teachings about chakras and the churches. But my conclusion is that everything must be read in context and that we shouldn't begin our analysis with the stretching of the text, a stretching which is necessary for it to fit our pre-conceived ideas. In other words: if you assume from the beginning that it's a sacred text, inspired by God or some astro-ascended Masters and you immediately try to read in there the "superior" spiritual knowledge that you already possess, you'll go astray 99,99% ot the time. First thing: study the time in which it was written. Then read what it's actually there. You can hardly find instructions on internal yogas in the bible. Did you know for example that the number of the beast changed -at least- a couple times to fit different roman emperors? Those who actually "used" the text on a daily basis (being it for liturgy or teachings) felt the need to "update" it continuously because it became obsolete in a few decades! What are you trying to get about modern days? According to St. Paul (the guy who made up the all thing and whose teachings are present in Acts and epistles and are regarded as extremely important) Jesus came here to save us from original sin. This idea was present in many (if not all) gnostic sects as well. "Don’t think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to abolish but to fulfill (the prophets)" (Matthew 5:17) Jesus' truth was that he was the prophesied Mashiach (not the "spiritual Messiah" invented after his death) ... and the "Law" is Moses' laws, written in the Bible.

The new testament requires -at the very least- two fundamental prerequisites from the old testament: the mandator: the one who sent Jesus Christ; the motive aka the original sin; Known that the Bible doesn't talk about God (the kind of God that theology made up over the centuries), but this YHWH is a violent warlord who commands his people to kill, rape and conquer. Considering that the original sin is not present in the old testament as rabbis candidly state: "The term “original sin” is unknown to the Jewish Scriptures, and the Church’s teachings on this doctrine are antithetical to the core principles of the Torah and its prophets. Moreover, your comment that your Christian denomination teaches that water baptism is essential for the removal of sin may rattle the sensitivities of more Christians than anything I am going to say. " https://outreachjudaism.org/original-sin/ The conclusion is that if you throw the old testament in the garbage, the new testament immediately follows.

He says that the single Truth that we have about the Bible is that it's not the one originally written. Not only there are variations, apocryphal texts, theological translations ... but also the hebrew original that western christians use, the masoretic code is nothing but ONE of the many available ways to put vowels in a text that is originally made of just consonants. An guess how "ancient" is that masoretic code... Given that, he plainly states that he simply pretends that the Bible tells the truth when you read it literally. But if you choose to read it literally, there's nothing to interpret.

Biglino is pointing out that the verb that theologians translate "to create" doesn't mean "creatio ex nihilo" and it never does. The term specifically imply an intervention on something that already exists to create something else. When the Bible says God, the original term is Elohim. When the Bible says Lord, the original term is YHWH. When the Bible says (the) Most Hight, the original term is Elyon. Elohim is a plural and nobody knows what it actually means. YHWH is the name of an individual and we don't even know how to properly pronounce it. Elyon... there are chances (but we're not sure) that it comes from a term which means High. This is what it's written. Now you can interpret as you like or stay literal. It's your choice.

Yes, I can't clear 2000 years of christian brainwashing with a few written lines. It's enough to read the texts themselves to see where's the truth. Paul's churches and the ones established by the other major apostles had no connections and sometimes they were in opposition: it's clear in Paul's epistles. Beware of theologians and preachers.

Theologians feel entitled to express abstruse explanations about the meaning of Jesus' words: they pretend that Jesus used to talk to illiterate people about medieval philosophies in the 1st century. They try to convince us that, even if Jesus was 100% sure that the majority of people, upon hearing "And whoever doesn’t have a sword should sell his robe and buy one" (Luke 22:36) would actually buy one, he still veiled his medieval philosophies and firmly promote them amongst illiterate people. But I'm free to think that when Jesus said something, he actually mean precisely that thing. Here, he talks exactly like zealots used to do: Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And as a man's enemies shall be they of his own household "And whoever doesn’t have a sword should sell his robe and buy one" And we know that zealots were the kind of people that the roman empire would persecute with cohorts... and the gospel tells us precisely that. Actually, on many occasions it's about groups of people. For example, the samaritans were generally considered to be misguided and impure people: when a samaritan appears in the narrative, it's the outcast, the wrongdoer. Jesus instructs his disciples precisely "“Don’t take the road that leads to the Gentiles, and don’t enter any Samaritan town". When he met the samaritan woman, he was alone because his followers don't talk to such people and obviously she's not a respectable woman according to Jewish canon "For you’ve had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband". When reading the parable of the good samaritan, people often miss the simple, direct and straightforward message of the story: Priests and Levites are worse than samaritans! Why? Because from time to time a samaritan became a zealot! The correct term would be anti-pharisaic because even God in the old testament appears to be anti-semite, when he instructs his people to kill other semite groups. The descendants of Sem are semite. But since modern judaism has a strong pharisaic setting, when we talk about anti-semitism we are referring to the same pharisaic culture that Jesus condemns in the gospels. It's not historically proven that the didachè was a common doctrine amongst various christian communities and the apostles were often of different opinions about crucial matters. The vast of majority of communities were founded by Paul and he never met Jesus in person. It was only with the council of Nicea that Christianity became a homogeneous religion. Recent archeological discoveries prove that while christianity was popular for common soldiers, mithraism was the religion of the military elite. Mithraic temples and symbolic cross are often found in ancient roman military encampments.

The entire narrative of the gospel has a definite, clear and coherent anti-pharisaic narrative: Jesus himself (who generally appears forgiving and caring) insults Pharisees on many occasions. Directly: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of the bones of the dead and every kind of impurity." (---> sacks of shit) And trough parables like in the story of the good samaritan. Knowing this and assuming that Jesus, who said to forgive seventy times seven (Matthew 18:22) would not be so sectarian to condemn people based solely on the sect they belong to, we should conclude that either Jesus created the foundation for anti-semitism ... or the anti-pharisaic narrative is an artificial expedient to clear the roman empire from the crime of being God's murderer. It's historically inaccurate to think that a priest could take 500 hundred roman soldiers to arrest 13 hippie men that used to say "love each other" and "if anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also". There was something more that the gospels mention only briefly here and there. "Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.…" (Matthew 10:34) There wasn't a single unified christian sect, but hundreds of them. And there are those who proselytized amongst romans (becoming really popular amongst roman soldiers). When christianity became the empire's religion, it was the empire that won over the religion. Just think about the Council of Nicea when Constantine forced christian authorities to create a unified form of religion. As I said before, each gospel generally try to be coherent in delivering a specific message... but on many occasions they made mistakes and left hints and clues of the real story behind the myth. And you find them where coherence falls apart.

Whatever "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would contend with (the jewish leaders?) to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.” Again, in this passage Jesus doesn't mention the roman soldiers that were present in the garden and he explicitly says that he was arrested by the perfidious jews. Antisemitism + Pilate (roman authority) washes his hands of any responsibilities+ incoherence + gospel transcribed by roman writers ---> I think that this story is made-up to make the gospel more appealing to the roman audience..

I'm prone to think that 1st century writers that talk about cohorts in relation to roman soldiers, they actually mean cohorts in the majority of cases. In addition, in the gospel of John, σπεῖραν appears in conjunction with χιλίαρχος (which was the greek for tribunus, the commander of a cohort) (John 18:12; Acts 21:31). John says explicitly that there was a σπεῖραν (cohort) and if you're in doubt because there's a chance that you've studied Polybius, he adds that the χιλίαρχος (tribunus, commander of the cohort) was also present.

Naivety at its peak? I'm not referring to this thread: I'm talking about Pilate. Context: Jesus arrested. Fake english translation: "So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons" ( John 18:3 ) Original greek gospel: "ὁ οὖν Ἰούδας λαβὼν τὴν σπεῖραν καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων ὑπηρέτας ἔρχεται ἐκεῖ μετὰ φανῶν καὶ λαμπάδων καὶ ὅπλων." ( John 18:3 ) a detachment of soldiers --> σπεῖραν ---> cohort This is a very specific term which tells us precisely how many soldiers there. Please, check the translation here (http://biblehub.com/text/john/18-3.htm) According to the gospels and to historians, the Romans were facing serious problems in the land of the Jews: Pontius Pilate had to face hundreds of rebellions, Zealots and Messiahs. He had to manage soldiers with care because they were needed almost everywhere. Now, how many roman soldiers arrest Jesus? a Cohort: roughly 500 soldiers. 500 soldiers! A fact that was hidden in the other gospels which were written specifically for the roman world because... roman audience knew that when a cohort happened to arrest someone, that guy was surely a sort of Osama Bin Laden. Guess who gives order to roman cohorts and send them around the regions? Pontius Pilate. Do you really think that romans used to borrow 500 soldiers to jewish priests to help them arrest blasphemers? Romans send soldiers only when soldiers are needed according to roman laws. Yet, when the cohort returns and they bring Jesus in front of him, he's so surprised and naive. He asked to the Pharisees “What charges are you bringing against this man?”... and he concluded like this “I find no basis for a charge against him". It's like capturing Saddam Hussein, deploying resources and soldiers and then say: "Nah...he's innocent". This is a strong indication that Jesus' interrogation is probably fake. And BTW, who could report the event apart from the romans themselves? In addition, Jesus said “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.” But we know that Peter fight to prevent the arrest of Jesus: "Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear." We should conclude that Peter is not one of Jesus' servants.

Why would a Buddhist monk want to learn a martial art that doesn't work?