The Bible, Man's book or God's Word?

You ignored the fact that you're 100% wrong about John the Baptist. That it plainly says that he came in the"spirit and power" of Elijah when the angel of the Lord tells Zacharias this, and Malachi 4:5 says Elijah will precede the Lord before "the day of the Lord" which is at the end of the great tribulation, not during the first advent of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Care to comment on those?

reply to post by Michael Cecil


To me the fact that people have such differing interpretations is proof that it's just a book and is not divine. Just look at how your discussion with NOT is going nowhere, both of you are entrenched in what you believe is the correct interpretation.

Doesn't the exact same Bible say that God is not the author of confusion? And yet so many are confused and divided by what is supposedly God's word. We all, in some way, push our own perceptions upon the book and this leads to every individual having a slightly different view on the Bible. If the book were divine there would be only one view, God's view, and it would be apparent to everyone reading the book.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

To me the fact that people have such differing interpretations is proof that it's just a book and is not divine. Just look at how your discussion with NOT is going nowhere, both of you are entrenched in what you believe is the correct interpretation.

Doesn't the exact same Bible say that God is not the author of confusion? And yet so many are confused and divided by what is supposedly God's word. We all, in some way, push our own perceptions upon the book and this leads to every individual having a slightly different view on the Bible. If the book were divine there would be only one view, God's view, and it would be apparent to everyone reading the book.

The entire issue has to do with the origin of human consciousness.

There is a consciousness Created by and in the image of God (Genesis 1:27); and there is the consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker'; which is the 'fallen' consciousness.

What is the origin of the 'fallen' consciousness?

It creates itself.

How does the consciousness of the "self" create itself?

Through the 'movement' of self-reflection.

How does the 'thinker' create itself?

It 'thinks' itself into existence.

Anything that 'self-reflects' itself or 'thinks' itself into existence is self-created.

In other words, not Created by God.

Interpretation exists at the level of thought--either the thoughts of the "self" or the thoughts of the 'thinker'.

Revelation occurs prior in time to both the "self" and the 'thinker'.

This is the same difference that the Buddhists and Eastern esotericists say in relation to the non-dualistic "observing consciousness" and the dualistic "phenomenal" consciousness (or "maya") which is involved in the space-time reality.

Krishnamurti insists that the 'thinker' and thought is the origin of duality, division, conflict and violence; but that is merely the "beast of the earth" 'thinker'. There is also the "beast of the sea" "self", as alluded to in the opening passages of the Second Meditation of Descartes. I suggest you read it for yourself and reference the language of symbols of Jungian and archetypal psychology.

Michael Cecil

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

To me the fact that people have such differing interpretations is proof that it's just a book and is not divine. Just look at how your discussion with NOT is going nowhere, both of you are entrenched in what you believe is the correct interpretation.

Doesn't the exact same Bible say that God is not the author of confusion? And yet so many are confused and divided by what is supposedly God's word. We all, in some way, push our own perceptions upon the book and this leads to every individual having a slightly different view on the Bible. If the book were divine there would be only one view, God's view, and it would be apparent to everyone reading the book.

Your conclusion is based on the assumption that the consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker' is the consciousness Created by God.

It's not.

But don't worry.

This is what the theologians also 'think'.

And that is the problem.

The consciousness which the religious 'authorities' use to interpret the Revelations is the "anti-Christ" consciousness of the "self" and, mostly, the 'thinker'

Michael Cecil

reply to post by Michael Cecil


All of that seems like a confusing pseudo-religious run around devoid of any meaning. Logic and reason are the best tools we have for figuring out reality from fantasy and truth from fiction, they might not be perfect but they will always trump superstitious thinking.

My conclusion about the Bible is based on sound reasoning and the lack of evidence supporting the claim that it is the word of God. You can call that reasoning flawed, fallen or whatever you want but without a sound reasoning as to why I'm not going to change my mind.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

All of that seems like a confusing pseudo-religious run around devoid of any meaning. Logic and reason are the best tools we have for figuring out reality from fantasy and truth from fiction, they might not be perfect but they will always trump superstitious thinking.

My conclusion about the Bible is based on sound reasoning and the lack of evidence supporting the claim that it is the word of God. You can call that reasoning flawed, fallen or whatever you want but without a sound reasoning as to why I'm not going to change my mind.

First of all, what I am saying has nothing to do with "religion". "Religion" is human thought. "Religion" is the problem.

Both the "religionists" and the "secularists" operate from precisely the same perspective: that the thoughts of the 'thinker' are the ultimate determiner of Truth. Neither the evolutionists nor the religionists, for example, want to seriously consider in any way whatsoever the origin of consciousness itself.

If the terminology I use about the consciousness "Created by God" and the 'fallen' consciousness offends you, simply turn to the Buddhist definition of the problem: that division, conflict and violence originate in the dualistic consciousness, whereas the non-dualistic consciousness exists as the absence of division, conflict and violence. Buddhism, after all, is not really even a religion, since it does not depend upon the belief in God. And neither is what I am saying a "religion" because it depends not upon belief--which is thought--but upon the direct observation of these dimensions of consciousness. This is also the perspective of at least some of what Krishnamurti says. So, I suggest you investigate both Buddhist esotericism and the writings of J. Krishnamurti.

By the way, "Trinity" in The Matrix is a double symbol, referring to the three dimensions of consciousness: 1) non-dualistic ("Created by God"); 2) "self" (dualistic); and, 3) 'thinker' (dualistic).

But it also points to the "3 agents" signifying the aspects of the "phenomenal" ('fallen') consciousness: 1) the 'movement' of self-reflection (Agent Smith and the "dragon"); 2) the "self" ("beast of the sea" with syringe); and, 3) the 'thinker' ("beast of the earth" who Trinity shoots in the head); which signifies that the 3 dimensions of consciousness are Revealed through the Revelation of the Memory of Creation and the revelation of the memories of previous lives; or, in Buddhism, merely the memories of previous lives.

Disregard the terminology of the Revelations in Genesis and the Revelation of John if you must; but precisely the same observations occur in the Eastern esoteric traditions with regards to the origin of consciousness.

There is both no escape from this reality; and no excuse for disregarding this reality.

The origin of the problem of violence and warfare and genocide on this planet is an issue of consciousness.

Unless there is a serious and massive effort to address the entire subject of consciousness itself, the problems of violence and torture and warfare will never be resolved.

Michael Cecil

reply to post by Michael Cecil

Both the "religionists" and the "secularists" operate from precisely the same perspective: that the thoughts of the 'thinker' are the ultimate determiner of Truth.

Really? I would consider myself a secularist but I would also say that truth is that which exists outside the mind. Truth is everything that is, lies exist in the mind as do the reflections of truth.

Neither the evolutionists nor the religionists, for example, want to seriously consider in any way whatsoever the origin of consciousness itself.

You couldn't be farther from the truth. There are scientists studying the brain trying to learn how it creates consciousness. We've also learned that other animals, such as chimps, have a consciousness nearly as complex as ours, this points to the fact that our brains evolved to form what we term consciousness. There is no evidence that it exists beyond the brain.

that division, conflict and violence originate in the dualistic consciousness, whereas the non-dualistic consciousness exists as the absence of division, conflict and violence.

Is this a statement about the unity of the Universe, how its all one and we are caught in a false dualism? If so its a quaint philosophical idea, one I've pondered myself on occasion. I understand that the Universe is interconnected, not divided but what does that have to do with the Bible?

There is both no escape from this reality; and no excuse for disregarding this reality.

So you are saying the Bible contains talk of a 3 dimensional consciousness. That is merely your interpretation of it, I hope you are aware. I have heard this interpretation before, have heard talk that Adam and Eve had this non-dual consciousness until they ate the "fruit". But again this is a very non-literal interpretation that causes us to read into the text that which might not be there.

And what bearing does this interpretation have on the question in my OP? If this is all esoteric talk of past lives and consciousness than what do we make of it in the end? Is it divine or merely a work of philosophy hidden beneath stories that make no sense?

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Michael Cecil

I'll discuss your points in sequence:

1) the word 'mind' is similar to the "ether" of classical physics. The belief in a two-dimensional consciousness depends upon that concept, just like classical physics rested on the belief in the "ether". My challenging of the validity of this concept is one of the reasons why I cannot get my research into consciousness published in the official journals.

2) the scientists who study the brain and consciousness do so within the framework of the scientific method; which is based upon the metaphysical duality and will never escape the framework of the metaphysical duality. Any assertion of 3 dimensions of consciousness are said to be "unscientific" and, for that reason, illegitimate. I have had dozens of notes and replies censored by the online Journal of Consciousness Studied (JCS) 'discussion' group for this reason.

3) the dualism is real; it is just not all that there is. The Revelations originate from that third dimension of consciousness outside of the consciousness of the "self", the 'thinker' and the scientific method.

4) when you talk about the "literal" interpretation of the Revelations, you are talking about the consciousness of the 'thinker'; or, in the Buddhist esoteric traditions, the "phenomenal consciousness" which is the origin of conflict and violence. The symbols in Genesis 3 mean something as do the symbols in the Revelation of John; what they mean is beyond the categories of meaning of the consciousness of the 'thinker'. But it seems fairly clear to me that, to you, the consciousness of the 'thinker' is, for all practical purposes, God. So, yes, Genesis and the Revelation of Johncontain information about the 3 dimensions of consciousness; to which the theologians respond by accusations of "heresy" and other things much worse.

5) Don't know what an OP is; so I can't address that.

In any case, the fundamental reason why the monotheistic religious 'authorities' will not allow the discussion or publication of the Truth about the Doctrine of "resurrection" is that the consciousness which receives the memories of previous lives, the consciousness which conveys the Revelation of the Memory of the Creation is completely outside of the framework of the consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker'. Their interpretations and theological doctrines are merely the 'clothing' worn by Adam and Eve. Their ultimate goal is to preserve their dualistic doctrines and consciousness; even in the face of the fact that they are thereby pushing this civilization towards annihilation. They don't care about that.

It seems clear to me that all of these assertions about what the Revelations mean are irritating you. Just like the theologians, you would rather that the allegory in Genesis 3 mean absolutely nothing than that it refer to the 3 dimensions of consciousness. So I would shift the entire discussion to the terminology of the Buddhists and the considerations of Krishnamurti.

Not too motivated to spend too much more time on this; I've already been arguing along these lines for more than 30 years. Every argument you raise I have heard at least a thousand times before. It never changes. "Their name is legion."

Ultimately, it makes no difference whether you agree or not.

Millions have already died because of these lies and many, many millions more will soon die for the very same reason.

Michael Cecil

reply to post by Michael Cecil

In other words, not Created by God.

It 'thinks' itself into existence.

I think therefore i am?

Do you honestly mean to come debate morality and truth with that?

You deny God as creator yet claim to deliver His message?

WRT this thread: So far as i am aware, there has been no empirical evidence contradicting many biblical claims, some of which are highly dubious to start with.
Archeologial findings back up events like Sodom and Gomorrah, the fall of Jericho, and other bits and pieces.

IMHO it's just too wierd a collections of writing to be written off, even if you accept that the fingers of man have muddied the waters on occasion. Many prophecies have been fulfilled, most notably the person of the Christ, in all manners of his life.

Originally posted by harryhaller

I think therefore i am?

Do you honestly mean to come debate morality and truth with that?

You deny God as creator yet claim to deliver His message?

Where you get the impression that I "deny God as the Creator" is utterly beyond my comprehension.

I specifically state that the 2 dimensional 'flat' space "observing consciousness" was Created "by and in the image of God" (Genesis 1:27).

It is the "self", which has self-reflected itself into existence, and the 'thinker' which has 'thought' itself into existence as the 'fallen' consciousness which have created themselves.

How you can twist that into a denial of God as Creator is incomprehensible to me.

By the way, it is not my intention to insult people by saying that they are similar to eighth graders.

That is my assessment of their level of understanding.

Not sure how much time I can spend 'edumicating' such people.

Michael Cecil

reply to post by harryhaller


He believes in God, however he's a Gnostic Christian. Meaning his trust for salvation is in his own knowledge rather than faith in what Jesus has already accomplished on the cross. He also hates the teachings of Paul, claiming they are doctrines of devils, yet on the other hand he also refuses to show verses from the other NT apostles that refute Paul's epistles.

He also loves to tell folks to read rejected and heretical books from the second and third centuries, but refuses to show any writings from the disciples of the apostles themselves such as Polycarp. (John's disciple) He is a Gnostic.

He does believe in God, that much it very true, he may even believe in Jesus. But that's not saving faith, even devils believe in God, even devils know who Christ is and also know what Christ did. Michael rejects the shed blood of Christ for payment for his sins. That's what he rejects. He also rejects that God the father raised Jesus from the dead.

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,"




Gnosticism




[edit on 14-7-2010 by NOTurTypical]

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by harryhaller

 

He believes in God, however he's a Gnostic Christian.

A "Gnostic Christian" you say?

There is no such thing.

Gnostics believed the Revelations received by Jesus: the Revelation of the "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth' and the Knowledge Revealed through the Vision of the "Son of man".

Christians believe the Satanic-pagan Egyptian-Pharisaic-Pauline doctrine of the physical raising of a dead body from the grave.

Jesus said that you cannot serve two masters.

You cannot serve both God and Satan.

Either you believe the Revelations taught by Jesus or you believe the pagan idolatry and pagan metaphysical philosophy taught by Paul which resulted directly in the slaughter of tens of thousands of Albigensians and the Holocaust of millions of Jews.

And the continued belief in those Satanic lies is pushing this civilization into the horrors of the "time of trouble" Prophesied by Daniel.

You, Sir, have just been sent from the eighth grad back to the second grade.

Michael Cecil

reply to post by Michael Cecil
Only Paul believed Jesus raised from the dead? Interesting. Peter says Jesus raised from the dead. Thomas, Matthew and John witnessed it AND testified to it. Luke likewise states that the Lord was resurrected. James too verifies this as fact.

I'll ask now for a FOURTH time. Show me VERSES from these apostles that refute Christ's resurrection from the dead. And no, don't direct me to the "Apocalypse of Peter" which was written over 100 years after the death of Peter. (150 AD)

Right now this '2nd grader' is schooling your arbitrary opinions. Be mad.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil


Christians believe the Satanic-pagan Egyptian-Pharisaic-Pauline doctrine of the physical raising of a dead body from the grave.

Jesus 'believed' in it too. I'm fairly sure He was present when He raised Lazarus from the dead.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

Only Paul believed Jesus raised from the dead? Interesting. Peter says Jesus raised from the dead. Thomas, Matthew and John witnessed it AND testified to it. Luke likewise states that the Lord was resurrected. James too verifies this as fact.

I'll ask now for a FOURTH time. Show me VERSES from these apostles that refute Christ's resurrection from the dead. And no, don't direct me to the "Apocalypse of Peter" which was written over 100 years after the death of Peter. (150 AD)

Right now this '2nd grader' is schooling your arbitrary opinions. Be mad.

When I talk about second grade, Sir, it is not meant to offend or insult you.

I say this quite seriously.

You are jumping to several conclusions that are simply not warranted on the basis of not understanding what I am saying in the first place.

I have not yet said anything in specific reference to the Resurrection of Jesus.

What I am focusing on is the Doctrine of "resurrection" that Jesus taught; which goes back to the argument between Jesus and the Sadducees.

Nor am I in any way "mad" at you.

No more than 'irritated', I would say.

I am not going to show you any verses denying that Jesus was 'raised on the third day' because that is not even the focus of my argument in the first place. In fact, that is not even immediately relevant.

I am talking about the Doctrine that Jesus taught.

That is what I am talking about.

Michael Cecil

Well, send me a U2U when you decide to stop posting arbitrary opinions. For 2 pages now that's all you've done in this thread. For all intents and purposes of debate, arbitrary opinions are useless.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Christians believe the Satanic-pagan Egyptian-Pharisaic-Pauline doctrine of the physical raising of a dead body from the grave.

Jesus 'believed' in it too. I'm fairly sure He was present when He raised Lazarus from the dead.

Maybe you should have 'thought' just a little longer before making such a second grade comment?

What is Lazarus's phone number? Where does he live?

And the same goes for the woman that Elijah raised from the dead.

And the daughter of Jairus that Jesus raised from the dead.

Where do all of these people now live?

The fact of the matter is that they all died again.

So what was the point?

In other words, the raising of those people from the dead is not what the Doctrine of "resurrection" is about; even what Paul was referring to.

But your implication that Jesus believed in the Satanic doctrine of the physical raising of a dead body from the grave is a calumny. And it also demonstrates your fundamental lack of awareness of the differences between the Gnostics and the Christians.

First of all, did Moses believe that he was Created by God?

The answer is "no".

Did Isaiah or Jesus believe that they were Created by God?

The answer is "no".

A person who has received the Revelation of the "resurrection" receives the Memory that they were Created by God (Genesis 2:7). That is not merely a figure of speech or a belief or a thought but a very specific Memory.

The difference here is between Knowledge and belief.

The Gnostics did not want to believe in the "resurrection". They wanted to receive the "resurrection" as a spiritual experience; that is, they wanted to receive the same Revelation that Jesus had received and as he explained to the Sadducees in his reply to their witless question.

Until you understand the fundamental differences between Knowledge and belief, you cannot appreciate the significance of the conflict between the Gnostics and the Christians.

Christians believe the nonsensical Satanism of the Pharisee Paul.

Gnostics and Albigensians pursued not the belief in "resurrection" but the experience of the "resurrection".

Michael Cecil

Still arbitrary opinions huh? K.

So if Paul had a perverted doctrine, why do you still refuse to offer any verses from Jesus's apostles that refute Paul's teachings? It should be simple for you to do, so why are you still refusing to do so after 2 pages of this thread?

Be my guest, prove your heresy with scripture verses from the other apostles.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I was just wondering if you were ever going to answer the vast number of questions you have avoided throughout this thread? I thought the point was to prove the bible is the word of God? Am I wrong? You seem to be picking and choosing which arguments you are willing to attempt and which you will ignore. If you know God's perfect wisdom enough to defend his book, I am still curious about that 18,000 species of land animals number as well as some other things.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Still arbitrary opinions huh? K.

So if Paul had a perverted doctrine, why do you still refuse to offer any verses from Jesus's apostles that refute Paul's teachings? It should be simple for you to do, so why are you still refusing to do so after 2 pages of this thread?

Be my guest, prove your heresy with scripture verses from the other apostles.

(sigh)

"Jesus's apostles"?

Who cares about them?

Jesus himself specifically denies, contradicts, ridicules and laughs at the doctrine of a physical raising of a dead body from the grave in his reply to the Sadducees.

Which is why you want to shift the attention to any number of other extraneous issues.

You just don't get it.

The Revelation of John was written by someone who had received the Revelation of the Memory of Creation and the revelation of the memories of previous lives.

You simply have no understanding whatsoever of the issues involved here.

But let me ask you a question:

If Moses and Isaiah and Jesus had never lived at all, would you have any Knowledge at all that you had been Created by God?

And the answer to that question is an emphatic "no".

You, Sir, believe that you have been Created by God on the basis of what someone else has told you.

That is nothing more than a religious belief; something that is based upon a "foundation of sand"

But I have received that Revelation; which is a foundation of rock.

If the book of Genesis and the books of the prophets and the Gospels and the Koran had never been written at all...

I would still have the Knowledge that I have been Created by God.

And this is the way it is with anyone who receives that Revelation; which is what Jesus meant in his reply to the Sadducees, and what was meant by John when he wrote "...he gave them the power to become sons of God."

In other words, the Teaching of Jesus was merely a preliminary phase for those followers to actually receive that Revelation.

That was the whole point.

And that is what is signified by the Gospel of Matthew 27:52.

Michael Cecil