The Prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 22:14

Strange.

Every time I read something that you write, I have to re-calculate downward my estimate of what you know.

Right now, you appear to be a sixth grader with one bookmark on "google", the other on "wikipedia".

(You could not do original research if your very life depended upon it.)

And that has given you the impression that you are Omniscient.

Originally posted by adjensen 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.

The burdens of Omniscience are many.

Now you claim to have surveyed, also, all of the unpublished research to draw your conclusion.

...because there is no indication that this is NOT a Gnostic text.

Sorry. Maybe a fourth grader now.

This is not the way it works.

Scholars look for evidence for what something is, rather than what something is not.

In any case, such a comment is based upon two things:

1) Your inability to understand the Treatise on the Resurrection; and,

2) Your inability to understand the difference between the metaphysical doctrines of "Gnosticism" and the explanation of the Revelation of the "resurrection" itself; for reasons which, interestingly enough, are actually explained in the text itself; but you would not understand.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
“For many are called, but few are chosen.”

Briefly, then, all of this has already been Prophesied…

Utterly irrespective of the ‘incapacity’ of the “wicked” to “understand” the Truth of the matter.

Mi cha el

Acknowledged: Scipture can and is interrpeted manay differnt ways. Acknowledged: What you suggest this means based on your studies can not then be summarily dismissed based on what we know.

I would offer another interpretation of this, one close to what you might hear in a grad level comparative religion class. Not claiming it is the gospel (so to speak)TRUTH. Only another interpretation. When you look at the context Matthew wrote this in (e.g. writing to the Jews of the diaspora in roughly 70-110 CE) the prophesing and "secret" he has Jesus explaining is why the Jews (especially) and others too are/were rejecting Jesus' message:

Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
“Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’
“But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
“Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
“But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ The man was speechless.
“Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
“For many are called, but few are chosen.”
—Matthew 22:1-14, NIV

So you see on-the-scene Jews and Christian Converts in, say Corinth in 90 CE, don't worry that your friends are laughing at us or that everyone doesn't see our truth -- Jesus saw this coming a mile away 60 years ago and you are "chosen".

reply to post by Michael Cecil


Again. Michael, attempting to insult me is not answering the question. Kindly do so. Your continued failure to answer criticism, and insistence on claiming that your unfounded and deluded beliefs represent truth are tiresome, but telling.

By refusing to answer the question, you demonstrate your ignorance, nothing more. Thank you for making the case against you such an easy one.

Michael - what did you do to get into the good graces of Jesus, to be found worthy enough to get the revelations on the Son of Man and of the first resurrection? And if you have had these revelations then you've had the others. So, now I'm curious. Do you know the revelation of Elijah? And what about the biggie - the revelation of the suffering servant?

Let's see how deep your knowledge really goes.

Originally posted by adjensen You are not a scholar.

Oops.

This statement is certainly one of the most witless things that you have said to date. You are now down to somewhere around the level of a second grader.

Moses did not have a Ph.D. in theology. Neither did Isaiah, Daniel, Jesus, John, or Mohammed.

There is no relationship whatsoever between "scholarship" and Knowledge. Scholarship is a consequence of human thought. Knowledge is a consequence of Revelation.

You can have three Ph.D.s in theology and be a Guggenheim Fellow 10 times over.

If you have not received the Revelation of the "resurrection" and the revelation of the memories of previous lives, you will NOT recognize or understand the meaning of the Treatise on the Resurrection.

Only an idolator, who worships a 'God' created in the image of the 'thinker', will confer any authority at all upon "scholarship" and "advanced degrees" when it comes to Revelation. If you are talking about any other subject--physics, philosophy, psychology--fine. But Revelation and the Knowledge of Truth is a category beyond human thought.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct...to get the revelations on the Son of Man and of the first resurrection? And if you have had these revelations then you've had the others. Do you know the revelation of Elijah? And what about the biggie - the revelation of the suffering servant?

Sorry.

Your use of these terms is unfamiliar to me. You are going to have to clarify precisely what you mean here.

There are two fundamental Revelations: the "Tree of Life", the Vision of the "Son of man", the "Vision of Knowledge" or the "Night Journey" of Mohammed; and the Revelation of the "resurrection". All of the other Revelations emerge, one way or another, from these two fundamental Revelations.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Landru Acknowledged: Scipture can and is interrpeted manay differnt ways.

Interpretation occurs at the level of thought.

Knowledge is not interpretation; it originates in Revelation.

Acknowledged: What you suggest this means based on your studies can not then be summarily dismissed based on what we know.

This is not 'based on my studies'.

It is based upon the Revelations I have received, as those Revelations have been variously described by others.

So you see on-the-scene Jews and Christian Converts in, say Corinth in 90 CE, don't worry that your friends are laughing at us or that everyone doesn't see our truth -- Jesus saw this coming a mile away 60 years ago and you are "chosen".

This perspective also continues in The Apocalypse of Peter, found at Nag Hammadi.

Mi cha el.

reply to post by Michael Cecil


"In other words, the reason why the “wicked” [his term, not mine] have not been “found worthy”"


If they are still wicked, they failed to see the truth and act by it. So no,they are not being chosen by another power to not see something,they are choosing themselves to not see it.

Originally posted by whipsandchainsamerica If they are still wicked, they failed to see the truth and act by it. So no,they are not being chosen by another power to not see something,they are choosing themselves to not see it.

Not precisely, as I see it.

All of this occurs prior to conscious choice and at the level of reflex since it originates in the dimension of consciousness that a person relies upon to understand Revelations. Initially, that must be either the 'fallen' consciousness of the "self" or the 'thinker'--which originates in reflex; or the consciousness Created by and in the image of God--which is the realm of conscious choice.

Those who are blind to the Truth about the Revelation and Doctrine of "resurrection", relying exclusively upon the thoughts of the 'thinker' rather than an understanding of those Revelations from the perspective of the consciousness of a poet, really cannot help themselves. They have no control whatsoever over their reflexes. All they can do is be offended, or get angry, or ignore the Truth, or deny or contradict the Truth.

All of this depends upon maintaining the continuity of time for the consciousness of the 'thinker'; and, thus, maintaining the consciousness of the "self".

And these people are fully prepared to sacrifice human civilization itself to maintain that continuity of their consciousness.

Many hundreds of years ago, the term for this was "possession".

They are doing this for no other reason than their own self-preservation.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by adjensen Your continued failure to answer criticism...

Go back to the note where I perform the same kind of 'critique' on a few lines of a poem by Alfred Noyes that you perform, with the consciousness of the 'thinker', on the Revelations with regards to the "resurrection".

That is an explanation of why I do not answer your "pertinent" questions.

But it probably explains nothing to you at all since you don't have "the ears to hear" in the first place.

To your ears, it must sound like "nonsense" or "gibberish" or "psycho-babble".

But not everyone 'thinks' that.

And those are the people I am talking to.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by adjensen You are not a scholar.

Oops.

This statement is certainly one of the most witless things that you have said to date. You are now down to somewhere around the level of a second grader.

Moses did not have a Ph.D. in theology. Neither did Isaiah, Daniel, Jesus, John, or Mohammed.

And you are not Moses, Isaiah or anyone else of note. You are a nobody who posts nonsense in an Internet forum and wonders why no one listens to him. Moses led a nation, you struggle to not lose your temper when you are ignored by those around you.

The world will take the word of a scholar over the word of a babbler, such as yourself, because the scholars are so often right, and the babblers are so often wrong. Historians have concluded that you are wrong, based on evidence. You have concluded that you are right, based on your imagination.

It is likely that you stumbled across the text of The Treatise on Resurrection without knowing anything about the Gnostics, so your biased reading resulting in your misinterpretation, and now that you realize that the text cannot possibly say what you think it does, your "if reality and I conflict, reality is wrong" mindset determines that any historian, including the one I cited (who if you read his vitae, was a member of the committee that originally published the Nag Hammadi Codices,) must be wrong.

Who are we to believe? People who know what they are talking about? Or you, who pulls things like "Wikileaks is funded by blackmailing the church with my visions" out of thin air and randomly invents facts when they suit him?

The Treatise on Resurrection is a Gnostic text. Get over it, and explain why the author chose to hide your message, which is completely contrary to Gnostic teachings, within the text of what are clearly Gnostic teachings.

reply to post by adjensen

You are making this situation out to be much more complicated than it is in reality.

The problem, quite simply, is that you are an idolator.

You worship an idol created out of human thought.

And everything you say, in one way or another, is evidence of the 'God' that you worship.

And these scholars that you worship as being "so often right" led directly to the Holocaust. (Ever read what was going on in the German schools of Christian theology in the early 20th century?)

Confronted with the Revelation of Truth--and of the Knowledge Revealed by the Creator God through the Vision of the "Son of man" and the Revelation of the "resurrection"--the only conclusion you can come to is that such Knowledge is of the essence of either the demonic or the insane.

But the Holocaust was not a SUFFICIENT blood-sacrifice to this 'thinker'-'God' (referred to cryptically in the Book of Daniel 11:36-38).

Not at all.

At this very moment, the leaders of these millions and tens of millions and hundreds of millions of worshippers of the 'thinker'-'God' are preparing to bring about the annihilation or near-annihilation of the human race itself.

And you are standing on the side-lines...

Like a cheer-leader from Hellcats.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by adjensen The world will take the word of a scholar over the word of a babbler...

Thanks, I needed that.

It reminds of Chapter 28:9-13 in the Book of Isaiah:

"Who does he think he is lecturing?
Who does he think his message is for?
Babies just weaned?
Babies taken from the breast?
With his
sav lasav, sav lasav,
kav lakav, kav lakav,
zeer sham, zeer sham?

Yes, certainly with stammering lips
and in a foreign language,
he will talk to this nation,
he who once told them: Here is rest;
let the weary rest.
Here is repose.
--but they would not listen.
This is why YHWH now says:
kav lakav, kav lakav,
sav lasav, sav lasav,
zeer sham, zeer sham*


So that when they walk they may fall over backwards
and be broken and snared and made captive."

Mi cha el

*"For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept,
Line upon line, line upon line.
Here a little and there a little."

reply to post by Michael Cecil


Michael, attacking me or trying to turn the thread to another, unrelated issue, does not answer the question. Please do so.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Strange.

Every time I read something that you write, I have to re-calculate downward my estimate of what you know.

The burdens of Omniscience are many.

Mi cha el

Michael...
I have to ask, as I laughed aloud after reading this...

Do you think that you are God Almighty?

I am beginning to truly believe that you are suffering delusions of grandeur so powerful inside yourself that perhaps you may be in an institution somewhere, posting these threads during your free time.

May the Lord help us all if you are out walking around in society.

Originally posted by adjensen..you struggle to not lose your temper when you are ignored by those around you.

You've got to be kidding me, Sir.

I'm not even breaking a sweat here.

In fact, I am discussing these things with you with two dimensions of consciousness 'tied behind my back'.

Never mind.

You wouldn't understand.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by thegoodearth I have to ask, as I laughed aloud after reading this...

You, Sir, are a bald-faced liar.

You did not read that.

Because I did not write that. Not without a number of intervening comments.

'Conveniently', you simply eliminated a number of statements indicating who my response was directed at and for what reason.

Do you think that you are God Almighty?

Let me explain something to you, although it will do no good.

The consciousness of the "self" creates itself through the 'movement' of self-reflection; the consciousness of the 'thinker' creates itself through the postulation of the thought of the 'thinker'.

These are the two dimensions of the 'fallen' consciousness; the consciousness which has NOT been Created by God.

This is why the heads of the "beast of the sea" are marked with "blasphemous titles": The "self" considers itself 'God' because it has created itself. And the 'thinker' cannot help but 'think' that it is 'God' either, and for the same reason.

On the other hand, the consciousness which has been Created 'by and in the image of God' has the Knowledge that it has been Created by God and is not God; a Knowledge which neither the consciousness of the "self" nor the consciousness of the 'thinker' can ever receive.

Thus, when either the consciousness of the "self" or the 'thinker' hears the words of Revealed Truth, it projects the structure of the self-created dimensions of the 'fallen' consciousness upon the person who has received the Revelation of the Memory of Creation.

So, if you 'perceive' that I am claiming to be 'the Creator', what you are really 'perceiving' is the projected structure of the 'fallen' consciousness; the consciousness which has created itself rather than being Created by God.

Mi cha el

reply to post by Michael Cecil


That's all I needed to know, thank you for your time and have a great day!

reply to post by Michael Cecil


Hi Michael,

I have some questions about prophecy, although more in a general sort of way.

Of what use is prophecy, if it is never believed?
Is the revelation a curse or a blessing?
Is it not the stuff of nightmares, to relive past lives?
Are future lives remembered?
Even if it were confirmed long after the prophesied event, what has really changed in the world?
Can prophesied events be avoided, and if they can, does this make the prophecy invalid?
Why is prophecy always about horrifying events? Is it because such events give rise to prophecy in the first place?
What does the ‘end of times’ mean, is it on a personal level a reference to the ‘two dimensional’ underlying reality of consciousness or, the end of humanity, or both at the same time?
Lastly, for the moment, could you please elaborate on the fractal nature of prophecy? Does this mean that somehow this drama is constantly unfolding and being played out all around us, just now and over time? Is it all a question of scale?

Thanks in advance Midicon.

Ps, The idea of the 'two becoming one' is this really the thinker and the self cancelling each other out, so to speak?

Originally posted by adjensenYou have concluded that you are right, based on your imagination.

That you have used the words “concluded” and “imagination” in describing the Knowledge that I have received, is evidence that you have not been introduced to my ‘thought experiment’ about “frames of reference” and the dimensions of consciousness.

Very briefly:

The path of a ball that is dropped on a moving train is observed as being different by the observers on the train as compared to an observer in a train station.

Because the ball, the train, and the observers on the train are all moving at the same speed, the path of the falling ball is observed as being along a line perpendicular to the floor of the train. But, because the observer in the train station is not moving, that path is observed as being a very long curved line; because, in the interval of time that it takes the ball to hit the floor of the train, the forward momentum of that ball carries it several feet along the “x” axis.

In other words, there is no “true” path of the falling ball; merely two different “frames of reference” for describing that path.

Now, the observers on the train cannot observe the path of the ball as being a curved line. And, it is for this reason that they accuse the observer in the train station as ‘imagining’ the path of the ball that he observes or as ‘concluding’ his description about the path of the ball. But this is neither a conclusion nor any imagination. It is an actual observation.

The observers on the train correspond to the consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’; whereas the observer in the train station corresponds to the “observing consciousness” Created ‘by and in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:27).

But it gets worse.

The consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’ on the moving train must ultimately conclude not only that the descriptions of the observer in the train station are a “conclusion” and an “imagination”; they are also “evil”, and evidence of “demon possession” or “delusional ‘thinking’” or “psychosis”. In other words, the consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’ is not only fundamentally incapable of acknowledging the observations of the observer in the train station; there is also a very serious resistance to acknowledging those observations since they threaten the fundamental assumption of the consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’ in the first place: that there is NO other frame of reference for the description of reality at all. In other words, it is simply not POSSIBLE for there to be any observer in the train station in the first place.

Furthermore, while the observer in the train station has once been on the moving train and has observed for himself that, from that frame of reference, the path of the falling ball is along a line perpendicular to the floor of the train, the observers on the train have never been in the train station. In other words, this is an instance of asymmetric warfare: the observer in the train station knows that there are two different frames of reference for describing the path of the falling ball; whereas the observers on the train must categorically deny that there is any other frame of reference at all.

In summary, my observations of the Knowledge I have received through the Vision of the “Son of man” and the Revelation of the “resurrection” are neither any “conclusion” nor are they my “imagination”. They are actual observations from a third dimension of consciousness completely unknown to either the consciousness of the “self” or the consciousness of the ‘thinker’.

Of course, I am well-aware that, to your ears, all of this sounds like “nonsense” and “gibberish” and “psycho-babble”; but that is only because you are on the moving train; which is why Jesus said “he who has ears, let him listen.”

But, that you are on the moving train and are not capable of standing in the train station is not my problem.

Mi cha el