Anti-Islamic Bigotry in Dead Sea Scrolls Research

reply to post by Michael Cecil


Thank you for the in-depth response.

If such a conspiracy did not exist, where would you expect to see Muslim commentary on the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Eric

Originally posted by EricD
Whether you or I agree with him really doesn't enter into the equation.

Agree or not, the fact of the matter is that the thread subject and OP are abject falsehoods. Michael has cited no Islamic scholar whose study of the Dead Sea Scrolls has been censored. I agree that the moderators will most likely ignore this fact, which is refutation of the "deny ignorance" motto that used to mean something around here.

Originally posted by EricD Thank you for the in-depth response. If such a conspiracy did not exist, where would you expect to see Muslim commentary on the Dead Sea Scrolls? Eric

First of all, before answering your question, let me address the "big picture": the context in which this entire argument is occurring in the first place.

And, secondly, the fundamental characteristic of blindness is the abject inability to see something that is right in front of one's eyes; sometimes referred to as 'not being able to see the forest for the trees'.

Differentiating the three dimensions of consciousness one from the other is crucially important to this entire issue because it describes the entire structure of this argument itself.

The three dimensions of consciousness are: 1) the consciousness 'Created by and in the image of God'; 2) the consciousness of the "self" (referred to in the Revelation of John as the "beast of the sea"); and, 3) the consciousness of the 'thinker' (referred to in the Revelation of John as the "beast of the earth").

These dimensions of consciousness are symbolized by the three crosses on Calvary; the cross to the left being the consciousness of the "self", the cross to the right being the consciousness of the 'thinker', the consciousness Created by God being the cross in the middle. (See, also, the caduceus of Greek mythology).

But these dimensions of consciousness are also manifested in the different views on the Doctrine of "resurrection"; the consciousness of the "self" representing the position taken by the Sadducees: that there is no such thing as the "resurrection"; the position taken by the Pharisees: that it is the pagan doctrine of the physical raising of a dead body from the grave; and the position taken by Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, Jesus and Mohammed that the Doctrine of "resurrection" is based upon the Revelation of the Memory of Creation and the revelation of the memories of previous lives. This is the structure of the argument.

Now, the fundamental mechanism of the consciousness of the "self" is manifested by the Sadducees; the Sadduceean consciousness is the consciousness of the "self". It is fundamentally not a rational/intellectual consiousness at all. This is the consciousness that accused Jesus of being "possessed by demons"--an accusation which really has no intellectual content. (Today's equivalent would be accusations of a 'delusional mind', or simply continual repetitions of the assertion that I am "wrong" which have no conceptual or nuanced content.) The Pharisaical consciousness, on the other hand, is the consciousness of the 'thinker'. It is a nuanced consciousnes which at least attempts to provide a rational or intellectual and nuanced explanation of the views that it adopts.

The problem is that both the Sadduceean "beast of the sea" consciousness of the "self" and the Pharisaical "beast of the earth" consciousness of the 'thinker' are dimensions of the 'fallen' consciousness.

It is of their very nature to reject, deny, contradict, distort, pervert, turn upside down and repudiate Revealed Truth wherever it is encountered; and to accuse those who convey that Truth of all manner of evil. The words really are not important.

It is simply not possible for the consciousness of the "self" or the 'thinker' to acknowledge the Truth about the Revelation and Doctrine of "resurrection".

The consciousness Created 'by and in the image of God' is simply not commensurable with the 'fallen' consciousness.

But I find it particularly interesting that there is any talk at all of shutting this thread down because someone disagrees with it. When push comes to shove, the 'fallen' consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker' always resorts to censorship.

(I do not in any way agree with the person who is writing numerous threads attempting to interpret the Revelation of John. He simply does not have the required Knowledge to be able to do such a thing. But I would NEVER request a moderator to shut those threads down because I disagree. I don't argue with him on those threads; I don't even read them since all I would read there is nonsense. And, if there is such vicious disagreement with what I say on the threads I begin, the answer is really simple: don't read my threads. I don't care.)

This is why the Sadducees and Pharisees decided that Jesus had to die.

This is why the Roman church exterminated tens of thousands of Albigensians and destroyed their writings.

And this is why only the Sadduceean and the Pharisaical views on the "resurrection" can be published on Wikipedia.

The 'fallen' consciousness simply cannot tolerate that there is any other view.

But all of this is merely one aspect of the problem; a problem which also exists within what is now referred to as the "science of consciousness".

If you read the research on the "science of consciousness" very carefully, you will see that there are, at most, two dimensions of consciousness which are even being considered at all. Probably 95% of all research in the "science of consciousness" has to do with the consciousness of the 'thinker'. Probably another 2 or 3% of the other writings and research can be loosely categorized as acknowledging the importance of a consciousness of the "self", as is considered by the Jungian and archetypal psychiatrists; while the remainder is sort of amorphous.

So, when someone suggests that there is a third dimension of consciousness which exists outside of the consciousness of both the "self" and the 'thinker'--the scientific method being a creation of the consciousness of the 'thinker'--that dimension of consciousness is categorically denied in the same way that the Sadducees and Pharisees denied the "resurrection". But there is quite a lot of evidence of this third dimension of consciousness in the writings of the Buddhists and the Eastern esotericists, where it is referred to as the non-dualistic "observing consciousness".

In other words, what is at stake here is the ENTIRE paradigm of the scientific method itself, which asserts that the consciousness of the 'thinker' is all that is necessary to understand the truth.

Not only do the Buddhists challenge that narrow perspective; so do the Revelations--but not the theologies--of the monotheistic religions.

Now the typical response of the consciousness of the "self" to all of the above is that it is nothing more than "babbling"--a word which I genuinely appreciate.

Because it clearly demonstrates the conceptually undifferentiated structure of the Sadduceean "beast of the sea" consciousness of the "self".

Now, with regards to your question, the answer is not any "where".

The answer is a "when".

And that "when" will be after the fulfillment of the Prophecies I have received.

Never in a billion lifetimes will the "self" or the 'thinker' acknowledge the Truth about either the Doctrine of "resurrection" or the existence of a third dimension of consciousness.

So that 'fallen' consciousness will be granted EVERY freedom to inflict itself upon this civilization to the fullness of its desires.

All you have to do is read the news from the Middle East--particularly with regards to the threats of a war against Iran--to see a manifestation of what I am talking about.

In any case, it was once thought that the world was flat.

Now that is looked upon as a universal--even a comical--error.

The days are coming--in fact they have been Prophesied (the Book of Habbakuk 2:14: "For the earth will be full with the Knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea...")--when the Truth about the Doctrine of "resurrection" will be just as common as the knowledge that the sun exists at the center of this solar system rather than revolving around the earth.

Notice that the word in the Prophecy is Knowledge rather than belief.

But trying to explain the differences between Knowledge and belief would be referred to by the consciousness of the "self" as "babbling".

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
(I do not in any way agree with the person who is writing numerous threads attempting to interpret the Revelation of John. He simply does not have the required Knowledge to be able to do such a thing. But I would NEVER request a moderator to shut those threads down because I disagree. I don't argue with him on those threads; I don't even read them since all I would read there is nonsense.)

As the author of the above-mentioned numerous threads on Revelation, I can confirm that no moderators have been involved.
(Although you did once declare, explicitly, that your goal in posting on my thread was to destroy the thread, in the hope that this would induce me to end the series.)
However, the only time you made an appeal to the Mods was on that occasion when I responded to an edited version of one of your posts and accidentally left your name underneath my comments.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
(I do not in any way agree with the person who is writing numerous threads attempting to interpret the Revelation of John. He simply does not have the required Knowledge to be able to do such a thing. But I would NEVER request a moderator to shut those threads down because I disagree. I don't argue with him on those threads; I don't even read them since all I would read there is nonsense.)

As the author of the above-mentioned numerous threads on Revelation, I can confirm that no moderators have been involved.
(Although you did once declare, explicitly, that your goal in posting on my thread was to destroy the thread, in the hope that this would induce me to end the series.)

Absolutely.

I would always prefer that people repent of their errors all on their own. It's better that way.

I would much prefer that you recognize that you don't have the Knowledge to say word ONE about the Revelation of John because you have never received either of the two Revelations received by John in order to write Revelations in the first place. But, obviously, you don't see it that way. You actually 'think' that the consciousness of the 'thinker' can attain to a Knowledge of Revelation.

In one life or another you will learn in SPADES that that is not the case.

Nor have I harrassed you since then, nor even so much as READ one of the messages on any of your threads; at least not that I can remember.

As is stated in Revelations 22:11: "Meanwhile let the sinner go on sinning, and the unclean continue to be unclean; let those who do good go on doing good, and those who are holy continue to be holy."

And, as is stated in Revelations 21:8: "But the legacy for...any other sort of liars, is the second death in the burning lack of sulphur."

And because you have no Knowledge, anything you say about the Revelation of John is, in comparison to the Revealed meaning, a lie.

Mi cha el

Oops.

The word should have been burning "lake" of sulphur.

Sometimes I simply eliminate the expropriated phonetic tones.

The short a phonetic tone would, in fact, be much more appropriate in this particular context than the expropriated Long A phonetic tone.

After all, the Long A phonetic tone has to do with the Revelation of the "resurrection".

For a musical demonstration of the use of the Long A phonetic tone, received in the heart, which pertains to the Revelation of the "resurrection":

www.youtube.com...

Typically, the visual masking of phonetic tones and the use of expropriated phonetic tones are two of the indications I use for choosing which translation of the Revelation of John is the most accurate; the Knowledge of such having been Revealed through the Vision of the "Son of man", Revealed through the Revelation of the "resurrection".

Mi cha el

ROFl. It would seem that there would be a time discrepancy on the creation of islam if it did mention Qran. LOL you cannot possibly believe that bnecause the timeline of koran is post christ. you know scholars cannot be wrong. What are you thinking? obviously the DSS cannot be used unless you start questioning that islam start pre christian.


I am being sarcastic too.

reply to post by kimish
this is in responce to the Christians who dont beleive Jesus is God. You need to read bible again. Jesus said (I and the father are one). And God said he came as Jeus in the Flesh.

reply to post by TopsecCin616


Ever heard god speak?

Ever heard of anyone that heard god speak?

Didn't think so. I've come to learn, through life experience, that those who claim to know what god has said because it is written by man are following a false belief. Those who choose to believe rather than to know will never understand the difference between a lie or the truth.

reply to post by adjensen



You know what they say, it's better to have people think you're an ass rather than to open your mouth(flex your fingers) and prove it.

By the way, did you just claim that Wikipedia was a filter for FACTS? REALLY? Guess I learn a new thing every day.

Originally posted by Zamini By the way, did you just claim that Wikipedia was a filter for FACTS? REALLY?

Well, there is something that I refer to as "argument by Wikipedia".

What it means is that, essentially, every thought that could ever be thought has already been thought.

There will never be any new thought for the rest of eternity.

We already know everything that there is to know. And what we know is the Absolute Truth.

And what is the "Absolute Truth" propagated by Wikipedia?

The lowest common denominator truth, the truth that no one disagrees with, the truth that is least contentious.

But, most importantly, the only truth which will be tolerated by the simple-minded who are fundamentally incapable of making sharp distinctions at the level of thought. They only see seven different colors; although there are hundreds and thousands of different wave lengths of light between these seven colors. Or they play music on a stringed instrument of only 2 strings; their ears being unable to differeniate any more than the notes of just those two strings.

As Hamlet says, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy" (or your science of consciousness or your theology).

To which the "argument by Wikipedia" says:

NO THERE ISN'T.

Mi ch ael

reply to post by Michael Cecil

And what is the "Absolute Truth" propagated by Wikipedia?

The lowest common denominator truth, the truth that no one disagrees with, the truth that is least contentious.

Well put.

That doesn't make it any less annyoing or restricted to just Wikipedia. I've had discussions where people paraphrase opinionated newspaper articles and columns, as if their lives depended on it(surprisingly about subjects I had been reading up on months in advance)! Of course it wasn't hard to pull the metaphorical rug from underneath their argumental feet(though usually I choose not to bother - they won't listen anyways).

Islam incepted around 500AD. It was the product of the Archangel Gabriel visiting Mohammed who was illiterate, in a set of caves outside of Medina. The lessons given were called the Qu'ran.

Like any religion, when corrupt interpretation is removed, Islam is actually a beautiful religion, it includes precepts for alms, as in you have to give to charity, or else. It also says to honour 'people of the book', which means others who study the word of God are to be considered brothers & sisters, not enemies, and as far as I've seen, the idea of subjugating women, is not in the Holy Qu'ran, that's simply a misinterpretation of the lessons in order to retain power, which has happened in almost every religion I've seen.

Originally posted by Zamini
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

And what is the "Absolute Truth" propagated by Wikipedia?

The lowest common denominator truth, the truth that no one disagrees with, the truth that is least contentious.

Well put.

That doesn't make it any less annyoing or restricted to just Wikipedia. I've had discussions where people paraphrase opinionated newspaper articles and columns, as if their lives depended on it(surprisingly about subjects I had been reading up on months in advance)! Of course it wasn't hard to pull the metaphorical rug from underneath their argumental feet(though usually I choose not to bother - they won't listen anyways).

Not only that.

The "argument by Wikipedia" is, essentially, the argument of EVERY theologian; Jewish, Christian or Muslim.

What they are saying is that they already know EVERYTHING that there is to know.

Each one claims that its prophet or prophets are the "last prophet"; that there will NEVER AGAIN be any Revelation of new Truth; and that they FULLY understand EVERYTHING that has already been Revealed.

Never mind that these thoughts are RIDICULED in the Quran as being the assertions of the "unbelievers".

Never mind that there are Prophecies in the Book of Isaiah and the Book of Daniel about the SECRECY of the Revelation.

The religious 'authorities' are, for all practical purposes, Omniscient.

And they are even willing to annihilate human civilization itself to PROVE that they are Omniscient.

Mi cha el

originally posted by: Michael Cecil


First of all, before answering your question, let me address the "big picture": the context in which this entire argument is occurring in the first place.

It is humorous that the question wasn't even answered in the mist of all that rambling.

It was suggested, for all good reason, that the thread means nothing because the scrolls were written in Hebrew - the majority in Hebrew - although copies of those things in Greek and Arabic. Hundreds of years before the 'warrior' religion of Islam. A woman dressed in all black from head to toe walking on the boardwalk. Come on, really? Women dressed from head to toe in black? You have to be kidding me!! That is the most obviously trademark of darkness and control within society - people are fooled by thinking it is holy. They even tried to fool me more in my religion so I am not blaming anybody.