The Prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 22:14

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
In fact, they do have a physical component, having to do with movement in a 3-dimensional 'curved' space-time reality.

Oh, Michael. The depths of the things that you don't understand...

I guess that, if you can't convince the world, convincing yourself will just have to do.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
reply to post by adjensen

First of all, a question: If you came across someone on ATS who had no knowledge whatsoever of even advanced algebra, and he were to start a thread entitled: “The Mathematical Derivation of E=mc^2”, would you even so much as go the trouble of reading what he had written?

Of course not.

It would be ludicrous and a complete waste of your time to do so.

(And would it not, in fact, also be the height of arrogance for a person with no knowledge of advanced algebra to claim to be able to derive E=mc^2 in the first place?)

Well, Michael...
Suppose a person claimed to be so full of himself that he was "wed" to the Book of Revelation, and was so offended by anyone else trying to discern meaning from it that he posted in threads warning said person to "stop" touching his "wife".

Not to mention all the other hate filled tripe you spew unceasingly.

Should we then believe that person to be mentally unbalanced or psychologically disturbed?
I believe Almighty God would not endow anyone such as this with any kinds of gifts. Satan certainly would.
Humility is the greatest gift prized by God, and if you were as "learned" as you claim to be, you would have learned this fundamental truth by now.

However, you seem full of the fruits of the Seven Deadly Sins.
Ponder those for a while.

First of all, the original poster did not receive any revelation, by his own admission.

Secondly, you don't understand.

The Revelation of John has been my constant companion for almost 36 years.

I have easily spent hundreds or probably thousands of hours going over the Revelation of John word by word...by itself; that is, not for any purpose of understanding it in context with other Revelations.

It is almost as if the Revelation of John is my wife.

And Disraeli is touching my wife.

Not because he loves her.

But because he has ambitions to convince others that he 'understands' her. He is motivated by the desire for pleasure.

My goal here is not merely to destroy this thread.

My goal here is to stop Disraeli from touching my wife.

I don't want to read ONE MORE WORD of Disraeli's assertions that he 'understands' the Revelation of John.

You probably will not understand what I mean by this unless you are married.

Of course, this is not something that is within my control.

He may very well continue to do this until the Prophecies I have received are fulfilled.

THEN HE WILL STOP.

Michael Cecil

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by adjensenThey are not real.

This appears to be the gist of the argument:

If there is NO such thing as memories of previous lives, then EVERYTHING that I say about the Teaching of Jesus and the Knowledge Revealed through the Vision of the "Son of man" and the Revelation of the "resurrection" is in error.

If, on the other hand, there IS such a thing as the revelation of the memories of previous lives, then EVERYTHING that you say about the Teaching of Jesus is in error.

So, how does one go about determining the reality of such memories?

Are you willing to investigate this issue at all objectively?

Are you willing to read books of case studies about people who have received memories of previous lives in an effort to determine whether they are real or not?

Or are you already so absolutely CERTAIN of what you merely believe that no information whatsoever will ever be able to change your thoughts (not your 'mind', but your thoughts)?

Or are you not really that interested in discoverying the Truth of the matter?

And, just to make things 'interesting', I hope you understand that this is not merely a theoretical issue; in fact, millions of lives are involved in the answer to the question of whether memories of previous lives are real.

Mi cha el

reply to post by thegoodearth

This is the issue, Sir.

Tens of thousands of Albigensians were slaughtered because of people denying that there is any such thing as memories of previous lives.

The blasphemous, idolatrous doctrines of Christianity were concocted by Paul, who denied that there is any such thing as the memories of previous lives; resulting in an anti-Semitic Christian theology and the slaughter of millions of Jews during the Holocaust.

And, at this very moment, horrific acts of violence are being contemplated by Jews, Christians and Muslims (with regards to certain political conflicts throughout the Middle East) who also deny that there is any such thing as memories of previous lives.

But, to you, all of this is of much less importance than pursuing some trivial personal vendetta against someone who has received such memories and who has spent more than 30 years attempting to convey such a Truth in an attempt to reduce the lives which will be lost in the coming conflagration.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Sort of comes under the category of "leave no good deed unpunished".

Mi cha el

reply to post by Michael Cecil


Not to worry, good sir.

I prepare daily, actually, live my life, according to the doctrine of the fact that I
will have to stand before the Most High and give an account for every word I utter.

Not really worrying too much about this. Guess it's on me if I am in error.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
If there is NO such thing as memories of previous lives, then EVERYTHING that I say about the Teaching of Jesus and the Knowledge Revealed through the Vision of the "Son of man" and the Revelation of the "resurrection" is in error.

If, on the other hand, there IS such a thing as the revelation of the memories of previous lives, then EVERYTHING that you say about the Teaching of Jesus is in error.

I see that logic is not your strong suit, either -- your two statements are incorrect. The truth or non-truth of past life memories has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ. The validity of your claims does not hang on memories of past lives, they are two unrelated things.

Christ did not teach reincarnation, in reality he taught exactly the opposite. Apart from an incredibly skewed reading of the Bible to fulfill your bias, there is no evidence that he did, so the existence of claims of such memories has no bearing on that matter.

I have, in fact, previously read into such matters as claims of past life memories, and never found much credibility in it. As I said, your clueless claim that demonstrates a lack of understanding of physics not withstanding, such things are not real, so their validity cannot be ascertained beyond the testimony of the person who is certain that they are right.

So, shall we blindly accept subjective testimony of random people who think that they were Charlemagne, Joan of Arc or Noah? Which of the hundreds of people who claim to be Jesus should we accept as the true him? David Koresh and Marshall Applewhite both said that they were Christ before they died, which of them was?

In other words, for everyone but yourself, Applewhite's claim has every bit as much validity as your does, and nothing you do or say will ever change that.

Originally posted by adjensen I see that logic is not your strong suit...

As a matter of Knowledge and fact (in other words, speaking from experience)—rather than merely the ‘foundation of sand’ conjectures of the ‘thinker’ originating in nothing more than the desire for pleasure and the fear of death; and consisting of thought, time and logic—the Revelation of the “resurrection” (of which the revelation of the memories of previous lives is one aspect) Reveals the Knowledge previously Revealed through the Vision of the “Son of man” or the “Vision of Knowledge”. (In other words, speaking from experience, the Third Phase of the War of the Sons of Light precedes the Second Phase of the War of the Sons of Light by means of a time-reversal.)

Neither the Knowledge Revealed through the Revelation of the “resurrection”, nor the Knowledge Revealed through the “Vision of Knowledge” consists of logical knowledge; which is why neither Genesis, nor the Book of Daniel, nor the Gospels, nor the Revelation of John, nor the Quran consists of a series of logical arguments explaining or ‘proving’ the Truth of those respective Revelations.

That is, those Revelations have a meaning all of their own which is not dependent upon either human thought, logical argumentation and ‘proof’, or time going only in one direction—as is made quite clear by both the Revelation of the Memory of Creation, as well as the receiving of Prophecies about the future—but is much more effectively communicated through metaphor, symbolism, parable and poetry (logic being completely appropriate, however, if sharply restricted to the frame of reference of the scientific method).

As was stated by Isaiah: “As high as the heavens are above the earth are My thoughts above your thoughts.”

Or, more specifically, the Knowledge Revealed through Revelation is both ‘prior to’ and ‘higher’ than the logic which has been created by the ‘thinker’.

Thus, worshipping logic as the ultimate judge of absolute Truth is not to worship the God of Revelation. Rather, such worship consists of the idolatrous (and blood-thirsty) worship of a ‘God’ that has, instead, been created in the image of the ‘thinker’; as was quite clearly alluded to in the Prophecy of August, 1979 as the proximate cause of the coming “time of trouble”.

And, of course, were this ‘God’ created in the image of the ‘thinker’ not being universally worshipped by the ‘thinker’-Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious ‘authorities’; then their would be no Truth and no reality at all to the Prophecy of Hosea (4:6): “My people perish for lack of Knowledge.”

Mi cha el

Because the "beast of the earth" consciousness of the 'thinker' can neither receive the revelation of the memories of previous lives, nor understand the Revelations in the Book of Daniel, the Book of Isaiah, the Gospels, the Treatise On the Resurrection, nor the Quran about the Revelation and Doctrine of the "resurrection", the 'thinker'-theologians of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have created, and worship, a 'God' in the image of the 'thinker': a 'God' who is utterly incapable of raising the dead to life. And they are, of course, followed by millions, tens of millions, or hundreds of millions of gullible, unquestioning and catatonic followers; fully prepared to employ, on a genocidal scale, the tools of human sacrifice for no other reason at all than to protect the pride, the wealth and the power of their religious leaders.

This blood-thirsty idolatry was the foundation of several hundreds of years of Christian anti-Semitism culminating in the Holocaust; was the cause of the slaughter of tens of thousands of Albigensians during the Albigensian Crusade; and is the source of the Satanic Jewish, Christian and Muslim 'theologies of terror'--and 'justifications' for genocidal horrors--which are, at this very moment, pushing this civilization into the fulfillment of the Prophecies of the Book of Daniel 12:1.

As stated in the Quran, "Idolatry is worse than bloodshed."

Why?

Because idolatry--whether it is the worship of the 'thinker' as 'God' or the "self" as 'God'--ultimately results in bloodshed.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by adjensen I see that logic is not your strong suit...

I am not at all certain, Sir, that you really have any comprehension whatsoever of precisely how utterly ridiculous it is to assume that “logic” pertains to the Revelation of the “resurrection”, or that the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ is fully capable of accurately interpreting the passages from the Revelations which describe the “resurrection”.

So, in an effort to explain what I am talking about—not that it will do you any good whatsoever—I will perform the same kind of ‘critique’ on the following passages from The Highwayman by Alfred Noyes:

“The moon was a ghostly galleon, tossed upon cloudy seas.”

“The road was a ribbon of moonlight…”

“The wind was a torrent of darkness among the gusty trees.”

First of all, how does a “galleon” even get into the sky? You are going to have to explain yourself.

Secondly, do you know how far away the moon is, or how big such a galleon would have to be in order that you could even see it?

Thirdly, have you ever really looked at a galleon?

A galleon has masts and sails and a helm and stern; and there is really nothing on a galleon which is, in any way, round like the moon.

Fourthly, what do you mean by “tossed”?

Do you have any idea at all about how much a galleon would weigh that is large enough for you to be able to see it from the distance of the moon? And now you are saying that such a galleon has been “tossed” upon cloudy seas? Who or what would have the strength to do that, and for what reason? (And you continue to refuse to answer all of my “pertinent” questions about these things.)

So, the conclusion is both logical and inescapable: The moon was NOT any “ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas”. And it never will be.

And, to ‘think’ that it was is nothing more than “delusional ‘thinking’".

Furthermore:

A road consists of dirt and mud and sand and gravel and stones; whereas a ribbon is a piece of cloth. And there is NO—repeat NO—logical connection whatsoever between a “road” and a “ribbon”.

And to suggest that a “ribbon” can be composed of “moonlight” is a flagrant disregard of the meaning of the words “ribbon” and “moonlight” and merely another instance of “delusional ‘thinking’”.

But finally, and most importantly, there is no such word as “gusty”.

This is an attempt to make an adjective out of a noun.

This is what is referred to in the psychiatric profession as a “neologism”—which, since immediately after the creation of the word “neologism” itself—has been widely considered as positive proof of psychosis. (Merely for writing such words, the author should be thrown into a psychiatric hospital and declared criminally insane.)

Thus, the only logical conclusion is that not only was the moon not “a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas”; but neither was the road “a ribbon of moonlight…”

That is, both of these statements are bald-faced lies.

Furthermore, I am so absolutely CERTAIN of these logical conclusions, that, as one of thousands of religious ‘authorities’ and hundreds of media officials who have been told the Truth about the Revelation and Doctrine of “resurrection”, I am fully prepared to sacrifice millions, tens of millions, or hundreds of millions of human lives on the basis of the certainty of my logic.

In other words, if I were to have to explain in 25 words or less why millions upon millions of people must die with the fulfillment of the Prophecies of the Book of Daniel 12:1, it would be: “because the theologians refused to read the Revelations about the “resurrection” with the consciousness of a poet rather than the consciousness of a ‘thinker’.”

Mi cha el

Originally posted by adjensen I see that logic is not your strong suit...

Oh, by the way, Sir....

Since the 'God' that you worship has been created in the image of the 'thinker'; and you are, for that reason, quite impressed with logic, I was wondering whether you might be able to help me out here.

In all that I have read about the Doctrine of "resurrection" over the past 35 years, I have never seen presented either the evidence in support of that doctrine, the logical premises of that argument, or the logical conclusion to that argument.

Other than the Treatise On the Resurrection, found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, all that I have been able to find is statements by people saying that other people believe that it is a physical raising of a dead body from the grave; and that, for some unannounced reason, those people should simply be believed.

But this is something that is ALWAYS simply taken for granted.

I have NEVER read the specific argument or what EVIDENCE has been used to arrive at such a logical conclusion.

So, if you don't 'mind', what exactly does that logical argument look like?

And don't go trying to use the Resurrection of Jesus to explain the Pharisaical doctrine of "resurrection".

They believed their doctrine probably hundreds of years before the crucifixion.

What I want to know is what their evidence was for the physical raising of a dead body from the grave.

Go ahead, pray to the logic-'God' that you worship.

He ought to be able to answer such a simple question.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
And don't go trying to use the Resurrection of Jesus to explain the Pharisaical doctrine of "resurrection".

They believed their doctrine probably hundreds of years before the crucifixion.

What I want to know is what their evidence was for the physical raising of a dead body from the grave.

How should I know their evidence was? I am neither Jewish nor a Pharisee, though I would suspect that if you'd ever read the Epistle to the Hebrews, you'd have the basics that you need. Start with Abraham and his belief that God would raise Isaac from the dead and work it out from there.

Which you won't, of course. It's that nasty old reality again.

Your other posts are absolute nonsense. Apart from desperately craving attention, I have no idea why you bother posting such gibberish.

Originally posted by adjensen How should I know their evidence was?

Look, Sir.

This is not at all complicated.

And millions of human lives are at stake here.

Just try to keep up:

If you are already absolutely certain that I--or, for that matter, anyone else in all of recorded history; including the Buddha--have NOT received any memories of previous lives...

What that means is that you are OMNISCIENT.

That is, you do not merely 'think' that you are Omnscient. You actually ARE Omniscient.

Get it?

And someone who is Omniscient should be able to answer ANY question.

So, what evidence did the Pharisees have in support of a physical raising of a dead body from the grave?

(And your preliminary attempt--some nonsense about Abraham and Isaac--did not even begin to scratch the surface of the problem.)

To paraphrase the "Soup Nazi" from Seinfeld:

"No Truth for you. NEXT."

Mi cha el

reply to post by Michael Cecil


Why on Earth do you think you deserve anyone answering your questions when you never respond to anything asked of you? Go back through this thread and answer some of the things you've ignored before you ply further nonsense.

Let's start with why the author of your beloved Treatise on the Resurrection wouldn't be disgusted by the very notion of yours that he would be reincarnated into another material prison? Hint: try learning what the Gnostics believed before you start babbling, because your "reinterpretation" of the document in question is one that you, and only you, could come to, though through ignorance and wishful thinking, rather than any actual insight.

Originally posted by adjensen Your other posts are absolute nonsense. Apart from desperately craving attention, I have no idea why you bother posting such gibberish.

Know something, Sir?

I used to 'think' that you were using the terms "nonsense" and "gibberish" and "psycho-babble" as criticisms of what I have written.

But it now appears that you are really being quite honest.

You have absolutely no idea whatsoever what I am talking about.

Which can only mean, of course, that you do not have "the ears to hear" the Truth about the Doctrine of "resurrection".

And another thing.

What evidence do you have for "desperately" craving attention?

I am merely pursuing your blasphemies, your lies and your errors with some diligence.

If I were desperately craving attention, I would be over on DISRAELI'S 'their-name-is-legion' threads of nonsense about the Revelation of John pointing out the seriousness of his errors.

But I do not even read them; much less respond.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by adjensen Let's start with why the author of your beloved Treatise on the Resurrection wouldn't be disgusted by the very notion of yours that he would be reincarnated into another material prison? Hint: try learning what the Gnostics believed...

Question: Is the word "communism" to be found anywhere in the writings of Karl Marx? The answer is "Yes".

Question: Is the word "Gnostic" or "Gnosticism" or "Gnosis" to be found anywhere in The Treatise on the Resurrection. The answer is "No".

So, what evidence can you provide that the author of TOR was, in any way, a believer in what you refer to as "Gnosticism"?

You can't.

It is a monstrous leap of 'faith' (it is certainly not logical)...

By someone who does not have a clue in the WORLD about what he is reading.

What specific doctrines are to be found in TOR; doctrines which are specifically defined within that document as the doctrines held to by the "Gnostics"?

There aren't any.

To say that the TOR is a writing of "Gnosticism" is something like saying that, because the Thanksgiving Hymns of the Dead Sea Scrolls were found among a collection of Sadduceean writings, that they were written by the Sadduceean faction of the Dead Sea Scrolls community.

That is about as witless as it gets.

Mi cha el

reply to post by Michael Cecil


Criticizing me is not answering the question, Michael, as we have discussed many times before. You have been asked a simple question of clarification -- please stop deflecting and answer it.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by adjensen Let's start with why the author of your beloved Treatise on the Resurrection wouldn't be disgusted by the very notion of yours that he would be reincarnated into another material prison? Hint: try learning what the Gnostics believed...

So, what evidence can you provide that the author of TOR was, in any way, a believer in what you refer to as "Gnosticism"?

Well, here's a fellow who is an actual scholar (know what a "Guggenheim Fellow" is, Michael?) who sure seems to think that it is. He's published books and articles to that end, in fact. His 1978 PhD dissertation is titled "The Gnostic Treatise on Resurrection from Nag Hammadi" which would certainly indicate that an impartial researcher came to a different conclusion than good old "I see things the way I want to see them" Michael.

Bentley Layton

I realize, of course, that you find no credibility in a Professor at Yale University, and many other scholars, disagreeing with your conclusions that are based in fantasy, but most anyone else who reads this will.

Take from this what you will.....

With regards to the op's post, when I was young and had no fathom of religion and/or a 'God', the bible was just a book in which I had no real understanding of what I was reading. It was just a senceless, meaningless, hard to read, book. And all I could focus on was the accounts of unrealistic(to my understandings) accounts, and seemingly hypocritical passages....

Fast forward to the time when I was fortunate enough to have fallen in to life expierences that dictated truths, fundimental truths with regards to religion/God, and now when I read the Bible all I see is stories of inspiration, messages of tolerance, and overwhelming love. It all makes sence now.

I like to think the time I lived without understanding and/or a belief in God was on purpose so I could see that side of things, from that perspective. Because it has provided me with a well rounded view of what is real to me. I dont believe the bible is a literal, factual account of God and his doings throughout the eons like most spoon fed followers. I understand it to be what it is. A hand selected, and manipulated, compulation of ancient text's that highlight mans evolution and understanding of life and love, fear and hate.

Was it made as a propaganda tool? Probablly. Is there a distinct theme found within? No, not really. But what it dose offer(for what it's worth) is a glimpse of relationships man and God have had over the recorded course of humanity. It offers metaphorical, literal, and spiritual accounts of humanity. And only when I began to accept the relevence of God in my life(which should be read as 'given to me' actually), I was able to distinguish what was what to a point of clairity that I could never have seen before.

I'm not the one to push my beliefs on anyone, and respect everyones truths that there life has produced. However, I seek truth through my own eyes, my own life lessons, and my own beliefs. And despite resistance, these 3 things led God and I together and I am thankful!

Originally posted by adjensen Well, here's a fellow who is an actual scholar (know what a "Guggenheim Fellow" is, Michael?) who sure seems to think that it is. He's published books and articles to that end, in fact.

So what?

For those books etc. to be published at all, it would have been determined before hand that nothing he says in those books is in any way a threat to the current religious establishment.

The only things which are published are those things which preserve the economic interests of that religious establishment.

His 1978 PhD dissertation is titled "The Gnostic Treatise on Resurrection from Nag Hammadi" which would certainly indicate that an impartial researcher

(This is almost as good as "argument by Wikipedia".)

Why "impartial"?

He is a member of a religious-academic community which relies upon the continued existence of the current religious establishment, which depends upon people continuing to give money...

Just so long as they continue to be told things which do not OFFEND them.

As Jesus said, "Blessed is he who is not offended in me."

Try again.

What evidence can YOU provide that the TOR is a "Gnostic" work?

YOU.

Not some scholar.

YOU.

Mi cha el

reply to post by Michael Cecil


Michael, you appear to be the only person in the world who claims to have studied this text and come to the conclusion that it was not written by a Gnostic. You are not a scholar. You do not have an unbiased viewpoint. You have demonstrated delusional thinking. So there is no burden of proof on me to refute your claims, which are made without basis, because there is no indication that this is NOT a Gnostic text.

A very simple question was asked. Please stop stalling and answer it.