Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Still Waters

Shape-Shifting Jesus in Ancient Egyptian Text

51 posts in this topic

jesus grew up and was taught in the most persecuted and the best community the Essene it's this bombshell teaching which in the dead sea scrolls that israel dosen't want to release propaganda has been used by the church the moment jesus died 325 council of nicea jesus declared father,son and holy ghost spurious verse which has been taken out of king james bible and now the truth is coming out jesus refer's to himself as the son of man please don't mistake him as david icke why hide scriptures? we haven't even scratched the surface of the Qumran scriptures and all is hell break today's roman goverment is in tatter's the truth is coming out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my father Jesus Christ fufilled all of his prophecies and soon he will be returning to take us home where will you be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the term shape shifter is misleading as it brings to mind some sci-fi horror movie monster, or atavistic fears from the days when we huddled around fires in the deep forests, and were scared of shadows.

However, that the son of Isis can appear in different forms is not surprising at all, in fact it is normal. He may appear before a group of people and each person may see a different manifestation. He exists through time and space, he can be any of his manfestations, youth or man or falcon, as the Sun or the Moon. People will see what he wants them to see or what they want to see. He is all in one, Ra-Horakhty-Aton, who as Horus allowed part of himself to be manifest in the mortal man you call Jesus. The truth, on my oath 0c60b9e14de7.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Paul (whose original name was Saul) did indeed meet Jesus on the Damascus road (see text below)." Really? You were there? The whole Jesus myth is nothing but a made up story by the church. I haven't seen any convincing evidence of a factual existence, it's all stories made up hundred of years after he supposedly died. Numerous historians were alive when he supposedly existed yet 0 wrote about him, because...he didn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then the Jews said to Judas: How shall we arrest him [Jesus], for he does not have a single shape but his appearance changes. Sometimes he is ruddy, sometimes he is white, sometimes he is red, sometimes he is wheat coloured, sometimes he is pallid like ascetics, sometimes he is a youth, sometimes an old man ..."

Some Jews probably did `nt know Jesus and what he looked liked.

Pilate did`nt condem Jesus to death, the Jewish priests did , Jesus was from a very rich family of Mary`s,and perhaps Pilate was offered money to see that Jesus did survive.

The disciples did`nt reconize Jesus because of the damages to his body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Paul (whose original name was Saul) did indeed meet Jesus on the Damascus road (see text below)." Really? You were there? The whole Jesus myth is nothing but a made up story by the church. I haven't seen any convincing evidence of a factual existence, it's all stories made up hundred of years after he supposedly died. Numerous historians were alive when he supposedly existed yet 0 wrote about him, because...he didn't exist.

If Jesus existed, he would have ranked only as a small-town upstart, the fact that historians wrote about him at all, even after his death, is a "happy accident" resulting from the explosion of writing in the 1st Century AD.
One lucky outcome of this flurry of literary output is that a small town Jewish teacher, named Yeshua, Anglicised as Jesus, happened to rate a mention in several of the writings of the period. This is not as predictable as you might imagine. Although today we recognise Jesus as the founder of the world's largest religion, back in the first century he was hardly known outside the tiny strip of Roman ruled land called Palestine. It is a happy accident of history that Jesus rated a mention outside the texts of the New Testament.

~ Source, for further reading

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Wow!

There is still the theory that someone else gave his life on the cross so that Jesus could live.

So this adds nuance to the story. As for me, I am not sure Jesus died on the cross. I am not sure Jesus was on the cross at all. I am not even sure Jesus was one person or a combination of three or more people. You know the roman catholics lied to their subjects time and time again. Why not about this?

I get the cannibleistic nature of the sacriments. The practice was age old by the time of Jesus, where tribes would trap a totum animal. The entire community would confess their sins to that animal. The animal would then be slaughtered, taking the community sins to be purged. Then the animal would go on to protect the tribe for an alotted time.

Edited by regeneratia
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A newly deciphered Egyptian text, dating back almost 1,200 years, tells part of the crucifixion story of Jesus with apocryphal plot twists, some of which have never been seen before.

http://www.livescien...cient-text.html

Hi Still Waters,

"The reason for Judas using a kiss..."

There may be a grain of truth to Jesus' shape-shifting or changing of appearance. Have you ever experienced or attended a "darshan"? According to Wiki:

"Darshan is ultimately difficult to define since it is an event in consciousness—an interaction in presence between devotee and guru; or between devotee and image or sculpture, which focuses and calls out the consciousness of the devotee. In either event, a heightening of consciousness or spirituality is the intended effect." Many say that the image of the guru or teacher (in front of them) changes during this heightened state of consciousness.

Peace.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but as others have pointed out, key phrase; "The discovery of the text doesn't mean these events happened, but rather that some people living at the time appear to have believed in them..."

Oh so it is only THAT part of the story of Jesus that may not be true.....come on please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that could mean that all those depicitions of a white Jesus aren't as incorrect as they seem!

We ALL know that!

This is said in a joking and fun tone of voice. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is awesome... I always wondered why the guards needed Judas to identify Jesus when they arrested him, if this is true that part would make sence. This is really cool, especially if its true. :) people will probably think im gullible and crazy for saying that, but oh well believing in Jesus at all would probably make me that, might as well go for the full maximum.. shape shifting?... sweet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Still Waters,

"The reason for Judas using a kiss..."

There may be a grain of truth to Jesus' shape-shifting or changing of appearance. Have you ever experienced or attended a "darshan"? According to Wiki:

"Darshan is ultimately difficult to define since it is an event in consciousness—an interaction in presence between devotee and guru; or between devotee and image or sculpture, which focuses and calls out the consciousness of the devotee. In either event, a heightening of consciousness or spirituality is the intended effect." Many say that the image of the guru or teacher (in front of them) changes during this heightened state of consciousness.

Peace.

I heard of this too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow!

There is still the theory that someone else gave his life on the cross so that Jesus could live.

So this adds nuance to the story. As for me, I am not sure Jesus died on the cross. I am not sure Jesus was on the cross at all. I am not even sure Jesus was one person or a combination of three or more people. You know the roman catholics lied to their subjects time and time again. Why not about this?

I get the cannibleistic nature of the sacriments. The practice was age old by the time of Jesus, where tribes would trap a totum animal. The entire community would confess their sins to that animal. The animal would then be slaughtered, taking the community sins to be purged. Then the animal would go on to protect the tribe for an alotted time.

Jesus takes the place for this needing to happen, his sacrifice is meant to be once and for all and for all mankind. No matter if you see it as possible or believe that it truly happened to this one man who was sent by god, his son, or god incarnate or the "lamb", the ultimate unblemished sacrifice... the point is that we are all cleared of our debts, that he took our place in death and that we can stand cleansed before and in relation to God... people do get caught up in the actualities and politics of religion. The point is that there is nothing between us and God, not even our own sins, but we do have to identify that relationship if we wish to partake of it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I heard of this too.

Hi SpiritWriter,

With the "heightened state of consciousness" in mind, if Judas merely described Jesus' face, it would not have worked since Judas only knew the "heightened state" appearance of Jesus Christ. (Think of what the soldiers would have done to Judas for giving them wrong description.) Judas was, after all, one of the select 12, and that means a lot in the spiritual world and it includes special (otherworldly) benefits, if you will.

With the help of Satan, Judas perhaps acquired the cleverness to use the Judas Kiss to do the trick (this is just my theory). We all know what Satan did in the Garden of Eden, don't we? Without Satan in the mix, the crucifixion would not have happened because no doubt, Judas (the apostle) was too caught up in Jesus' "unconditional love" presence. "Too much heaven on their minds..."

Jesus' "unconditional love" presence is too strong for a mere human consciousness to break... It's more than hypnotic, mystifying, I'm sure. Plus, we're talking about the Christ, Himself. One would definitely need an outside influence to do that, and a Prince at that. Garden of Eden versus crucifixion -- talk about echoing.

"The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already prompted Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus." John 13:2

"Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve." Luke 22:3

"And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus to him, That you do, do quickly." John 13:27

Peace.

Edited by braveone2u
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Christianity is, after all, a "spiritual" religion, of the spirit. It prepares one to deal with "life" after the flesh turns to dust.

Edited by braveone2u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christianity is, after all, a "spiritual" religion, of the spirit. It prepares one to deal with "life" after the flesh turns to dust.

Very spiritual...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus takes the place for this needing to happen, his sacrifice is meant to be once and for all and for all mankind. No matter if you see it as possible or believe that it truly happened to this one man who was sent by god, his son, or god incarnate or the "lamb", the ultimate unblemished sacrifice... the point is that we are all cleared of our debts, that he took our place in death and that we can stand cleansed before and in relation to God... people do get caught up in the actualities and politics of religion. The point is that there is nothing between us and God, not even our own sins, but we do have to identify that relationship if we wish to partake of it.

However the issue of turning your problems over to gawd and/or Jesus is that there is a physicological and emotional, maybe even spiritual, response to just letting go thinking and worrying about a situation. The Sedona Method is built upon this very premise. So religious does have some redeemable qualities, only if it is NOT used to control a population.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However the issue of turning your problems over to gawd and/or Jesus is that there is a physicological and emotional, maybe even spiritual, response to just letting go thinking and worrying about a situation. The Sedona Method is built upon this very premise. So religious does have some redeemable qualities, only if it is NOT used to control a population.

I agree, I dont know what sedona is so thanks for keying me in to a little research topic. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I agree, I dont know what sedona is so thanks for keying me in to a little research topic. ;)

I will get a link. However, I spent $200 for three essential questions:

Can you let this issue go?

Would you let this issue go?

And when would you, could you let this issue go?

It is ok if you want to hold on to the emotional impact of the issue. But if you are willing to let it go, there is such an emotional release that you will return to this technique over and over for the rest of your life, IMHO.

http://addon.100searchengines.com/texis/open/search?q=The+Sedona+Method

If you are brave and willing to face whatever is that is lurking inside you, those three questions will remove the emotional intensity on just about every psychological issue you face.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will get a link. However, I spent $200 for three essential questions:

Can you let this issue go?

Would you let this issue go?

And when would you, could you let this issue go?

It is ok if you want to hold on to the emotional impact of the issue. But if you are willing to let it go, there is such an emotional release that you will return to this technique over and over for the rest of your life, IMHO.

http://addon.100searchengines.com/texis/open/search?q=The+Sedona+Method

If you are brave and willing to face whatever is that is lurking inside you, those three questions will remove the emotional intensity on just about every psychological issue you face.

Lol yeah when I looked it up it looked very "marketed"... thanks for sharing. It is important to let things go thats true.... I would have to disagree with you about this being the same as my previous comment about nothing being between us and God though. I understand the correlation of release and the psychological effect of it, but by removing God from it I think it makes it entirely different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol yeah when I looked it up it looked very "marketed"... thanks for sharing. It is important to let things go thats true.... I would have to disagree with you about this being the same as my previous comment about nothing being between us and God though. I understand the correlation of release and the psychological effect of it, but by removing God from it I think it makes it entirely different.

And I agree with your statement about not needing a mediator to get to the Source, for we are all co-creators.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this shows how unconvincing texts can be that are outside of the Bible. some common examples are "the mythologies" (greek, roman, norse...)... they seem like they're written by two year olds. i mean Jesus, who was arrested on a tuesday, and who can shape-shift, had dinner with pilate and pilate offered his own son? if the rest of the story is anything like this, then i'm guessing the writer didn't have a clue about what the actual Scripture or other ancient text says on the matters at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this shows how unconvincing texts can be that are outside of the Bible. some common examples are "the mythologies" (greek, roman, norse...)... they seem like they're written by two year olds. i mean Jesus, who was arrested on a tuesday, and who can shape-shift, had dinner with pilate and pilate offered his own son? if the rest of the story is anything like this, then i'm guessing the writer didn't have a clue about what the actual Scripture or other ancient text says on the matters at hand.

the Bible itself is a 'collection' that is 'accepted' from sources outside itself ....

the missing gospels from the current lexicon paints a very different story though no less acceptable ...

The Gospel Of Thomas, Phillip, Peter, Mary Magdalene and Judas ...... and THe Sophia of Jesus

Nag Hammadi scrolls or the Gnostic Gospels reveals much ... if we're discussing history rather than 'faith'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The David Ikers are gona love this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

the Bible itself is a 'collection' that is 'accepted' from sources outside itself ....

the missing gospels from the current lexicon paints a very different story though no less acceptable ...

The Gospel Of Thomas, Phillip, Peter, Mary Magdalene and Judas ...... and THe Sophia of Jesus

Nag Hammadi scrolls or the Gnostic Gospels reveals much ... if we're discussing history rather than 'faith'

The so-called missing gospels are written far too late to be of value. With the possible exception of the Gospel of Thomas (I say "possible" because not all historians agree with the 50AD dating - some argue it to be one of the latest written), the rest of them were written in the 2nd Century AD, and even possibly the 3rd Century AD (contrast this with Mark - 70AD, Matthew 80-90AD, Luke 80-100AD, and even the latest of the canonical gospels, John - 90-125 AD). Add to this that the early church fathers were adamant that there were only four legitimate gospels, and it's obvious why the texts attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the only four included in the New Testament canon.

It's funny, a new group of Christians pop up in the second century (even third century in some cases), claim something totally different to what was accepted among Christians, and suddenly have a "gospel" that suspiciously confirms everything that this group believes, and it's no wonder they were routinely dismissed. Remember that long before the gospels were written, the oral tradition of the gospels was being spread by teachers. So when someone came out to say that there was suddenly a new gospel, people naturally wondered where this information came from.

Just a few thoughts :)

Edited by Paranoid Android
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.