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

reply to post by Michael Cecil


I'm confused, why do you refer to the koran? (accepted neither by jews, nor christians as having any validity in their lives and beliefs?

And even more so, why do you use the koran to disprove the bible?

They really don't have anything in common? Well, no more than say, the book of mormon? Joseph Smith and Mohammed will have plenty to talk about ... write your own bible in 60 days or less!

Any old demon will tell you that Jesus lived, and was "a great man".

But only those filled with the spirit can say "Jesus is Lord".

Originally posted by harryhaller
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

I'm confused,

At least we agree on something.

why do you refer to the koran? (accepted neither by jews, nor christians as having any validity in their lives and beliefs?

Because Mohammed received the Vision of the "Son of man", just like Daniel and Jesus did. It's referred to as the "Night Journey".

Any old demon will tell you that Jesus lived, and was "a great man".

Maybe you should actually read the Koran one time.

You know, just for kicks.

Mohammed stated very clearly that Jesus the son of Mary was the messiah. He also said that Jesus was to have been understood as a "sign" to the Jewish people about Judgement Day.

But only those filled with the spirit can say "Jesus is Lord".

What Mohammed specifically denied as a "monstrous blasphemy" is that Jesus was 'God'.

And, had the Christians accepted that Truth; and understood that the "resurrection" is a Doctrine of 'Rebirth', there would have been no theological 'justification' for the Holocaust.

Mohammed also said: "Idolatry is worse than bloodshed."

Because idolatry results in bloodshed--whether it be Jewish (the Zionist state of the Israel), Christian (Jesus as 'God') or Muslim (Mohammed as the 'last prophet') idolatry.

Michael Cecil

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Originally posted by harryhaller
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

Because Mohammed received the Vision of the "Son of man", just like Daniel and Jesus did. It's referred to as the "Night Journey".

What Mohammed specifically denied as a "monstrous blasphemy" is that Jesus was 'God'.

Did he deny the statement or the blasphemy? You're not being clear.

Your "Night Journey" ... i find no reference to it in any bible at my disposal. Please explain it's relevance to biblical discussions?
Or is it like that dream i had last night? (an angel told me i'm the new saviour!! First though, i need to fix this forum, AND THEN THE WORLD)

No thank you, i have no desire to read the koran. Or Joseph Smith's rubbish either. (both claim to have been angelically inspired to promote themselves as prophets)

You can prove none of your claims. Yet you steadfastly refuse to accept ANY wrong on ANY level of ANY discussion you enter into?


[edit on 19-7-2010 by harryhaller]

Oh, and defining Jesus as an idol .... ???

I have no words ...

Originally posted by harryhaller

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Originally posted by harryhaller
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

Because Mohammed received the Vision of the "Son of man", just like Daniel and Jesus did. It's referred to as the "Night Journey".

What Mohammed specifically denied as a "monstrous blasphemy" is that Jesus was 'God'.

Did he deny the statement or the blasphemy? You're not being clear.

Mohammed denied that Jesus was 'God'. The assertion that Jesus is 'God', which is necessary for Paul's Satanic doctrine of "vicarious atonement" is the blood-thirsty idolatry that resulted in the Holocaust.

Your "Night Journey" ... i find no reference to it in any bible at my disposal. Please explain it's relevance to biblical discussions?

Don't know how many times I have to say this.

The Vision of the "Son of man" is precisely the same Vision as the Koran refers to as the "Night Journey".

This is the same Vision which was received by Daniel, and the apostles Mary and John (although the Roman church only allowed the Gospel of John to be widely published; and for reasons which should be obvious.)

Or is it like that dream i had last night? (an angel told me i'm the new saviour!! First though, i need to fix this forum, AND THEN THE WORLD)

Well, previously you admitted to being confused.

And I agreed with you.

What more do you want?

Yet you steadfastly refuse to accept ANY wrong on ANY level of ANY discussion you enter into?

Bingo.

The Knowledge I have was Revealed through both the Vision of the "Son of man" and the Revelation of the "resurrection".

Michael Cecil

So you deny that Jesus is God.

You claim that large sections of the bible are satanic.

You claim that Daniel, Mohammed and Jesus share a vision, that you also had, oh i see Mary and John now too?

You claim that the koran is utterly valid and trustworthy, but the bible isn't.

You also claim you are smarter / better informed / more worthy than any of us ....

You are also claiming ... divine right ... or somesuch?



Please, continue, you are providing an unexpected source of mirth for me.

reply to post by harryhaller


You forgot to add he places his "faith" in "gospels" written in the 2nd and 3rd centuries over THE Gospels written in the first century by the Lord's apostles themselves. (Peter, James, John, Luke)

He says the doctrine of the dead being raised by God is 'satanic' and 'birthed by Paul'. Yet Jesus raised Lazarus from the grave, and his sister specifically says that Lazarus is in the grave, and it's been several days and that by that time "he stinketh"., as well as the girl Jesus raises from the dead in the upper room.

Oh yeah, doing my scripture reading last night I was led by the spirit for some reason to study 1 Peter. And lo and behold i noticed that Peter himself taught the physical raising of the dead as well. Dangit, now Peter is propagating this 'satanic' doctrine too!!!!

"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,"

1 Peter 1:3

"Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God."

1 Peter 1:21

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:"

1 Peter 3:18

"The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

1 Peter 3:21

reply to post by Michael Cecil

This is the same Vision which was received by Daniel, and the apostles Mary and John (although the Roman church only allowed the Gospel of John to be widely published; and for reasons which should be obvious.)

Quite obvious indeed, because they have been shown to be written in the SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES. Mary, John, Peter and Thomas were long DEAD by then.

reply to post by Michael Cecil


you still have not answered to the Bolshevik holocaust and who was behind it, which was at minimum ten times larger, and who it was directed towards, I've asked three times now-why do you avoid that one?

In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth.-Rev18.24

And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God.-Rev20.4

Daniel, Revelations-Jesus the Son of God= One with the Father-

He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.-Dan7.14

And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.-Rev12.5

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

I could probably spend several hours typing point by point refutations of every single argument you have already 'thought' up and dozens more that you haven't even heard of yet. (After all, I've been doing this for 34 years, and you have just scratched the surface of the varieties of nonsensical arguments that I have heard.) But that would not do any good. Even after another ten thousand words of arguing with you, you would still say "no"--which is not even a conceptual statement at all so much as it comes down to the "self"'s desire for self-preservation; denial for the sake of denial itself.

What you don't understand is that the conflict here does not occur on a merely horizontal level--that is, as a conflict between mere thoughts. Rather, it is a vertical conflict between someone who has experience and someone who has no experience at all, but merely thoughts or theories concocted by a 'thinker'.

In other words, before I actually received either memories of a previous life or the revelation of the memories of previous lives--they are, in fact, two separate things; the complexity of which you would neither believe nor understand--I would probably have believed your arguments. Those arguments are, in fact, quite seductive. But so are prostitutes. It is the job of prostitutes to be seductive. In other words, just because the arguments you present are seductive does not mean that they are the Truth.

And, at the same time, I will readily admit that my arguments are not seductive at all. They are, however, the Truth. And Truth does not even attempt to seduce. It presents itself; requiring people to either accept that Truth or reject it. And you have chosen to reject it.

The simple fact here is that I have memories of previous lives and you don't.

Can I prove that those memories are authentic?

Of course not.

They exist at the level of knowledge rather than belief.

But this also applies to the Gnostics--who had knowledge--as opposed to the Christians who have only thoughts and beliefs of a 'thinker' about the "resurrection".

You can talk about some doctrine you read in some book about "resurrection" and you can say that you believe in that doctrine; but you have no direct, personal, tangible experience of the "resurrection" itself as anything other than something that exists exclusively at the level of thought.

Similarly, for the belief that you were Created by God.

That is something that you read in a book somewhere or that someone told you. But how do you know that is true at all? Maybe the book, maybe the people are lying to you. Which, of course, means that both the evolutionists and the Creationists are approaching that issue on the basis of thought alone as well.

In other words, you have no real Knowledge of that yourself.

But the Revelation of the Memory of Creation is Knowledge rather than belief.

If Genesis had never been written I would still have the Knowledge that I have been Created by God. In other words, Genesis was written in the first place by someone who had an experience similar to mine. And that is not something in any way unique to me. Anyone who receives the Revelation of the "resurrection" could make such a statement.

And, by the language you use, it is clear that you have no such Knowledge.

All you have is thoughts and theories about that as well as about previous lives.

And it is your "self" that will absolutely deny any and all arguments whose ultimate purpose is to demonstrate that previous lives are real.

That is a fundamental goal of your "self": to absolutely deny that previous lives are even possible.

And it is that "self" which, for reasons which you would also not understand or ever believe, is threatening the very existence of this civilization.

Michael Cecil

reply to post by Michael Cecil


"I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.-Luke10.21

Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.-1Cor2.8

and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin-Heb9.28

Originally posted by No King but Jesus
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

"I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.-Luke10.21

Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.-1Cor2.8

and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin-Heb9.28

You have to understand the extremely unenviable position that someone who receives Revelations from God puts any official of a religious establishment.

Here those religious officials may very well have been studying for decades the writings of other theologians; all of which are based upon the assumptions and the thoughts of the 'thinker' originating in the 'fallen' consciousness.

And along comes someone who does not even have a B.S. in theology; who has never taken even so much as one college course in theology; who doesn't really care about theology at all; someone who was not studying theology, but Quantum Physics and Ordinary Language, Character Analysis, The Evolution of Physics, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, Synchronicity--An Acausal Connecting Principal, the writings of J. Krishnamurti...

And the Thanksgiving Hymns of the Dead Sea Scrolls when he received the Vision of the "Son of man".

And he presents an argument which demolishes the most cherished doctrines of that religious establishment.

And then he claims that that Knowledge has been received through Revelation.

You almost have to feel sorry for such people.

Almost.

Michael Cecil

reply to post by Michael Cecil


you seemed to have skipped the previous post again about Bolshevik and Daniel along with Revelation about the Son of God-

Who will not fear you, O Lord, and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy.-Rev15.4

Originally posted by No King but Jesus
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

you seemed to have skipped the previous post again about Bolshevik and Daniel along with Revelation about the Son of God-

Who will not fear you, O Lord, and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy.-Rev15.4

For more than 34 years I warned the religious 'authorities' and the media officials in the United States and the Israel of the Prophecies I had received of the coming "time of trouble" Prophesied by Daniel.

They were uninterested; and worse.

More than 10,000 of them.

It is now too late.

The last thing I want to do now is to go over those Prophecies again and my understanding of those Prophecies again for the benefit of the people on this forum.

The decision has already been made by The Powers That Be that millions of people should not be informed of those Prophecies at all; and that decision was made over so many years that, merely mentioning these Prophecies now would be equivalent to shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Merely for repeating those Prophecies, there are those religious 'authorities' who would insist that I be prosecuted for "terrorism".

Read the Prophecies yourselves.

Read the news yourselves.

Figure it out for yourselves.

This is not my responsibility.

Michael Cecil

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by harryhaller

 

You forgot to add he places his "faith" in "gospels" written in the 2nd and 3rd centuries over THE Gospels written in the first century by the Lord's apostles themselves. (Peter, James, John, Luke)

Oh, by the way, Sir, I notice that you and "laughing so much he can't stand it" harryhaller don't have a whole heckuva lot to say on the thread about Michelangelo's Creation of Adam, which is an artistic representation of precisely the Revelation of the "resurrection" that is the subject of our disagreement.

And there is a reason for that.

Your interpretation of the "resurrection" rests on the thoughts of the dualistic consciousness. That is your only source of information.

Everything that you 'think' you know about the "resurrection" comes within the frame of reference of the "beast of the earth" consciousness of the 'thinker' which speaks "with the voice of the dragon"; that is, the consciousness of the 'thinker' that speaks with the voice of duality and "Satan".

That is the significance of the two-fingered claw hand of 'God' which is at the end of the left arm around Eve, echoing the two-fingered claw hand in the left bottom corner of the picture. The right arm, on the other hand, ends in one finger pointing at Adam. And, if you know anything about archetypal psychology, you will realize that the right side is masculine and the left side is feminine; the interpretation being that only the masculine dimension of consciousness is non-dualistic, whereas the feminine dimension of consciousness is dualistic and, for that reason, the source of evil; which is why the Gospel of Mary was not considered to be authentic and the male apostles referred to the Knowledge Mary was talking about as "strange teachings".

Michelangelo's Creation of Adam is then capable of representing both Revelation and the repudiation of Revelation in the same picture.

First, it represents the Revelation of the "resurrection" which conveys the Knowledge that "male and female He created them"; while, at the same time, representing that, when man creates his image of God based upon the "beast of the earth" consciousness of the 'thinker', that results in the perversion and demonization of the feminine.

Another version of that male chauvinism is to blame Eve for 'the Fall', when, in fact (you would not understand) the 'movement' of self-reflection is both a feminine and a masculine 'movement'.

And, were I to say what that means, you would instantly have ten thousand psychology and philosophy books at your fingers demonstrating that I am "wrong".

But, even worse, it sticks in the craw of a celibate (purportedly) male priesthood that Jesus would enjoy kissing Mary on her mouth.

Often.

A 'celibate' male priesthood preferring, apparently, little boys, and equating the ordination of women as being an evil equivalent to raping little boys.

What more perfect demonstration of the Satanic can there be?

Oh, that's right, the Holocaust; which resulted from precisely the same kind of mentality.

Michael Cecil

[edit on 20-7-2010 by Michael Cecil]

reply to post by Michael Cecil


Michaelangelo was cute, but irrelevant to any biblical discussion.

You are correct with one thing Michael Cecil, It is the doctrine of self that led to the fall. It is the doctrine of self that led to the deception. It was the doctrine of self that murdered our Lord.

And it is the doctrine of self which you so perniciously express here that is the true evil of our day.

Thank you for making that clear.

Originally posted by harryhaller
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

Michaelangelo was cute, but irrelevant to any biblical discussion.

So says the "beast of the earth" consciousness of the 'thinker', vomiting up such a comment from the bowels of hell.

You are correct with one thing Michael Cecil, It is the doctrine of self that led to the fall.

No it is not.

The word "doctrine" is a reference to thought.

Thought did not lead to 'the Fall'; thought is a consequence of 'the Fall'. You have the cause and effect precisely reversed.

And why is that?

Because the thought of the 'thinker' depends upon time going only in a forward direction; when, in fact, reverse speech analysis demonstrates that language also includes time going in a backwards direction, bringing information from the future into the present.

It is the doctrine of self that led to the deception. It was the doctrine of self that murdered our Lord.

Nonononononono.

The 'movement' of self-reflection (the "serpent", the "dragon" and "Satan") resulted in the creation of the "self"/"not self" and all dependent dualities (see the Eastern esoteric tradition to understand what that term means). That is the original deception; the duality. That creation of the duality of "self"/"not self" is then the basis for the deceptions conveyed by the "beast of the earth" consciousness of the 'thinker'.

How little you know about either Revelation or consciousness.

And it is the doctrine of self which you so perniciously express here that is the true evil of our day.

You would not know any doctrine of a "self" if it slapped you in the face.

In fact, it has slapped you in the face--it's called the doctrine of the physical raising of a dead body from the grave--and you 'think', just like Paul, that God Himself has spoken this 'Truth' to you.

Thank you for making that clear.

Thanks for playing.

Michael Cecil

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by harryhaller
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

Michaelangelo was cute, but irrelevant to any biblical discussion.

So says the "beast of the earth" consciousness of the 'thinker', vomiting up such a comment from the bowels of hell.

You are correct with one thing Michael Cecil, It is the doctrine of self that led to the fall.

No it is not.

The word "doctrine" is a reference to thought.

Thought did not lead to 'the Fall'; thought is a consequence of 'the Fall'. You have the cause and effect precisely reversed.

Wow, you're really fluffy and warm inside huh? "Vomit" "bowels" and "hell" in one confounding AND insulting sentence, i see where you're coming from!!!

Isaiah 14:12
"How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.' Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit."

Sounds like he was thinking quite a lot about this one.

Reminds me of an old saying:

"clever catches the monkey"

[edit on 20-7-2010 by harryhaller]

[edit on 20-7-2010 by harryhaller]

a more accurate title for this thread might be: the bible, man's book for putting words in god's mouth.

Originally posted by harryhaller

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Originally posted by harryhaller
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

Michaelangelo was cute, but irrelevant to any biblical discussion.

So says the "beast of the earth" consciousness of the 'thinker', vomiting up such a comment from the bowels of hell.

You are correct with one thing Michael Cecil, It is the doctrine of self that led to the fall.

No it is not.

The word "doctrine" is a reference to thought.

Thought did not lead to 'the Fall'; thought is a consequence of 'the Fall'. You have the cause and effect precisely reversed.

Wow, you're really fluffy and warm inside huh? "Vomit" "bowels" and "hell" in one confounding AND insulting sentence, i see where you're coming from!!!

Isaiah 14:12
"How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.' Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit."


Sounds like he was thinking quite a lot about this one.

Reminds me of an old saying:

"clever catches the monkey"



My reply to the above:

I have already said this numerous times, but it appears you forget this.

The word "heart" is a code word reference to the Revelation of the "resurrection", which is received in the heart.

Isaiah understood this. He was the first one to use that term.

So did David, who wrote: "The fool said in his heart: 'There is no God'."

The word is "heart" not "head".

Do you know the difference between the "heart" and the "head"?

The head is where thoughts are 'thought' to reside; whereas the heart is said to be the origin of the emotions.

Meanwhile, in the Thanksgiving Hymns of the Dead Sea Scrolls--something of which you also have no Knowledge--there is a statement something to the effect: "They pursue you with a double heart." And there are also references to hardness of heart.

What Isaiah is doing here is translating what the "self" says in its heart into the words of a 'thinker'--the function of which is to preserve that "self".

Let me repeat.

You are far outside of your area of any expertise here. These subjects are far above your pay grade.

But you would make a brilliant theologian.

You have never received any Revelations; you can't even understand the difference between "heart" and "head".

And neither are you aware that the fool who says "in his heart" that 'there is no God' almost always says in his head that there is a God.

That is the meaning of the phrase: "They pursue you with a double heart."

But you didn't know that, did you?

And you still won't even after I tell you.

Because you are a "self" and a 'thinker'.

What Isaiah was talking about in the first place.

Michael Cecil